NationStates Jolt Archive

I've thought for some time now that gender is something that is not purely defined by two terms, masculine and feminine, and that it is more of a scale with one extreme being ultra-masculine and one extreme being ultra-feminine. However, I've had a hard time reconciling that belief with my opposition to gender-ism, where we attribute traits to someone based on what gender they identify as. I think I've come to believe that gender is something that is inherent within you, somewhat like sexuality, but unlike sexuality, where you know can know where on the homo-hetero scale you lie on based on who you're attracted too, it's much harder to tell where on the gender scale you lie on.

So I was wondering on how people define gender for themselves as well as for society. How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you? How do you place yourself on a hypothetical gender scale, and do you base that off of gender roles or something within you?

Do you think that the idea of a gender scale is moronic, and why?

I'd be particularly interested if there were people who considered themselves transgendered or genderqueer, or had amusing and/or anecdotal evidence about those who did. :D

Basically, I'm too lazy to think this through, so I want NSG to do it for me. >.>

I have an X and a Y chromosome... despite whatever behaviors I hold and what I may be attracted too, and even if I get my plumbing redone (which I won't) I'll still genetically be male.

I have an X and a Y chromosome... despite whatever behaviors I hold and what I may be attracted too, and even if I get my plumbing redone (which I won't) I'll still genetically be male.

Sex does not equal gender.

Sex does not equal gender.

A lot of people will argue that point...

I'm a man, I determined this by checking my pants for a penis. My tendencies toward cookery, cowardice and Jason Statham (yes, in that way) prevents me from being very "manly" in a social context.
As you may guess from that statement, I find both gender scales and transgendered persons to be inherently ridiculous.

A lot of people will argue that point...

Fair enough.

What gender are intersex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality) people?

Fair enough.

What gender are intersex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality) people?

I'd have to say thier gender is called Intergendered?

I'd have to say thier gender is called Intergendered?

mmmkay. How about people with XY chromosomes with female secondary sex characteristics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome

Or people who have XX chromosomes with male secondary sex characteristics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

Is it chromosomes or secondary sex characteristics which define gender or sex, in your view? It'd be cool if Fiddles can answer too.

A lot of people will argue that point...

Gender is a cultural term, typically defining social roles and suchlike. Sex refers to what organs or chromosomes you happen to possess.

I used to go out with someone who had two X and one Y chromosomes. Would you consider this person male or female?

If gender roles are valid, it would probably be better for people to not correlate them with sex at all.

The problem with defining a gender scale is that it still assumes there are certain specific character traits, habits, etc etc that belong to males and females. I'm not just talking about basic aggressiveness and the like which ARE biologically based to a small extent, but things like what kind of clothes you'd be interested in, what sort of movies, shows, stuff like that...

None of that is biologically based. All of that is cultural, especially since it feeds into the whole idea of gender roles.

So personally I'd say a gender scale would be meaningless.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that you can resolve the social ramifications of gender labeling by adding more labels. I think we'd be better off subtracting a couple instead.

If gender roles are valid, it would probably be better for people to not correlate them with sex at all.

Can gender roles be separated from gender itself?

If gender roles are valid, it would probably be better for people to not correlate them with sex at all.

Lots of tribal cultures dont. I can't remember the exact name, but I believe it was a South American tribal culture who had no issues at all with a man being the 'mother' in a family (or a woman being the father) if the other spouse died.

Can gender roles be separated from gender itself?

See above.

Take an Anthropology class. Even if you dont plan on specializing in it, its a very interesting subject and looks nice on your resume.

I used to go out with someone who had two X and one Y chromosomes. Would you consider this person male or female?

lol, you tell us. :p

mmmkay. How about people with XY chromosomes with female secondary sex characteristics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome

Or people who have XX chromosomes with male secondary sex characteristics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

Is it chromosomes or secondary sex characteristics which define gender or sex, in your view? It'd be cool if Fiddles can answer too.

Eh can I answer next weekend when I have had more than 2 hours of sleep in the last 4 days?

I used to go out with someone who had two X and one Y chromosomes. Would you consider this person male or female?

Well.. where you interesed in the X parts or the Y parts?

The problem with defining a gender scale is that it still assumes there are certain specific character traits, habits, etc etc that belong to males and females. I'm not just talking about basic aggressiveness and the like which ARE biologically based to a small extent, but things like what kind of clothes you'd be interested in, what sort of movies, shows, stuff like that...

None of that is biologically based. All of that is cultural, especially since it feeds into the whole idea of gender roles.

So personally I'd say a gender scale would be meaningless.

Again, I think what you said would be what the external views of what gender means. I'm talking about self-identity. Is it possible to take away gender roles from a discussion about what you consider your own gender to be?

Take an Anthropology class. Even if you dont plan on specializing in it, its a very interesting subject and looks nice on your resume.

I'm taking two, and am seriously considering specializing in it. :P

Eh can I answer next weekend when I have had more than 2 hours of sleep in the last 4 days?

xD
Go ahead, I'm in no rush to figure things out.

I'm taking two, and am seriously considering specializing in it. :P

Your professor hasn't mentioned that yet, then? Strange. But I guess they're all different. :p

Your professor hasn't mentioned that yet, then? Strange. But I guess they're all different. :p

I've had three days of class so far. :p Professors have been concerned with cutting class sizes down to the appropriate size and whatnot. *nodnod*

1) men are icky ergo I am straight no :confused:

2) I am a rough and tumble guy really so I guess I can't really be effeminate (fabulous fashion sense aside) however I would call myself cultured if that means anything

3) yes its stupid because it seems to place straight men as some sort of barbarous savage with homosexual men being easily subdued by playing the goo goo dolls (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsK90GWBVLY) (which could subdue me I guess with sheer tacky)

Jason Statham

eww

Well.. where you interesed in the X parts or the Y parts?

I wasn't interested in his chromosomes.

Despite having two Xs, he only had male genitalia. However he produced almost no testosterone and had other issues. He grew up in the '50s unaware of this. He joined the army, got married, etc as was expected of a male of his generation. But when he was finally diagnosed with Klinefelter's syndrome (one out of every 500 males has it) and was put on testosterone therapy, he discovered much to his surprise that he was gay. Gender, sexuality, hormones, and genetics are much more complicated than most people realize. It's not all black and white.

Lots of tribal cultures dont. I can't remember the exact name, but I believe it was a South American tribal culture who had no issues at all with a man being the 'mother' in a family (or a woman being the father) if the other spouse died.



See above.

Take an Anthropology class. Even if you dont plan on specializing in it, its a very interesting subject and looks nice on your resume.Surely that would be separating gender roles from sex, not gender though?

I've had three days of class so far. :p Professors have been concerned with cutting class sizes down to the appropriate size and whatnot. *nodnod*

Ah, well, here's hoping you get a good prof. They vary quite a bit. I had one who was absolutely brilliant, but had health issues and left about 3/4 of the way through the semester. The guy who replaced her spent most of the class either talking about how evil America was, or how great being an anthropologist was. He also said "Hey there, handsome" to me once. That was kind of creepy.

Surely that would be separating gender roles from sex, not gender though?

Its hard to determine when the term 'gender' is being used interchangeably for both in this thread ._.

EDIT:
So, its perfectly possible to seperate 'sex' from 'gender', however, separating gender from gender roles might be more difficult, because 'gender roles' pretty much define 'gender'.

Its hard to determine when the term 'gender' is being used interchangeably for both in this thread ._.

EDIT:
So, its perfectly possible to seperate 'sex' from 'gender', however, separating gender from gender roles might be more difficult, because 'gender roles' pretty much define 'gender'.I'd agree with that.

...

Yeah, sorry, I can't really think of anything pertinent to add.

I am biologically female, with no extra bells or whistles or chromosomes, though like many at the front row of a concert who really have to pee I have fantasized at times about what ti would be like to have a penis. I identify with the female gender; for me it is a very positive, important part of who I am, probably more important than being white and middle class, less important than being a writer.

I feel like I was raised in a time and place and family where I had a lot of freedom to be who and what I wanted to be. I'm really glad I had and have that opportunity; it's one place where I feel that biological men are more discriminated against than biological women. Scene kids aside, society seems to take a much harsher approach with men who stray outside of their "roles". Although there are still huge steps to be taken in breaking down gender stereotypes, it does make me happy that for the most part I can live my life in the way that I want--dress in the clothes I want, work at the jobs I want, date the people I want--and my community more or less shrugs and says, "Yeah, so?" or if they disapprove, they keep their grumbling to themselves.

I know that I live in a special place, and that this isn't the case everywhere. In some parts of the country (or hell, even the state) I could not wear gender-neutral clothes, I couldn't have worked in sports and gone into men's locker rooms for interviews, and I certainly could not have taken a girl out on a date. Where I live, these things are every day occurrences, and people who think that you shouldn't be free to live your life on your own terms can keep it to themselves or go somewhere else.

It isn't perfect--in high school a transgendered teenager in a nearby city was murdered by a group of boys, a horrifying event that shook the community--but it's getting there, and I like to think that I do my part as a teacher to make the classroom a fair and respectful place, where my students can explore and express themselves without fear.

Sorry I wrote an essay.

I refuse to characterize my gender. I don't think it helps me any to list out my masculine or feminine qualities because I don't believe qualities or preferences have a gender.

I am a straight woman with penis envy, so take what you will.

My husband is not "stereotypically" feminine or masculine either though, so my bias could be from coming from a mixed bag household. My children are pretty much split down the middle too if you assign gender to personality traits.

For example my 5 year old this evening was wearing her princess dress, completely bedecked in costume jewelry and feather boas and tiara and the like and writing her own "Bible" in which God is very angry and destroys America.......blood pooling in the streets and all. Pretty violent story for a "girly" girl. Yet she sees no disconnect.


*God destroys America because they are far away from his values.......of which she won't define other than "if he has to tell you, you are too stupid to know".

For example my 5 year old this evening was wearing her princess dress, completely bedecked in costume jewelry and feather boas and tiara and the like and writing her own "Bible" in which God is very angry and destroys America.......blood pooling in the streets and all. Pretty violent story for a "girly" girl. Yet she sees no disconnect.


*God destroys America because they are far away from his values.......of which she won't define other than "if he has to tell you, you are too stupid to know".

I wish your daughter had been 5 when I was 5, we could have totally hung out and traded jellies and written/acted out scenes for slasher movies.

I'd be particularly interested if there were people who considered themselves transgendered or genderqueer, or had amusing and/or anecdotal evidence about those who did. :D

*Parachutes in to save the day* Never fear, a real-life transgender (mtf) person is here and...well...actually totally clueless on this issue. I've done some reading up on this in the past, and its sorta come up in conversations with several other transpeople and genderqueers I know, but its a very complex topic, and one I don't feel I'm even close to fully understanding.

I've thought for some time now that gender is something that is not purely defined by two terms, masculine and feminine, and that it is more of a scale with one extreme being ultra-masculine and one extreme being ultra-feminine. However, I've had a hard time reconciling that belief with my opposition to gender-ism, where we attribute traits to someone based on what gender they identify as. I think I've come to believe that gender is something that is inherent within you, somewhat like sexuality, but unlike sexuality, where you know can know where on the homo-hetero scale you lie on based on who you're attracted too, it's much harder to tell where on the gender scale you lie on.

This idea of a gender spectrum rather than a binary is one that is quite popular amongst members of the trans/genderqueer community and in some queer theory type books I've read. I find it a more accurate reflection than the binary from observation, given the number of people I know either whose gender identity is in conflict with their birth sex, or who see themselves as "somewhere in the middle" between masculine and feminine. There's things about the spectrum that confuse me a little, though. If there's a broad spectrum of gender identity rather than two poles of masculinity and femininity closely linked to sex, it starts getting very tricky to understand why some people feel the need to transition from one to the other, because the whole mentality of the "spectrum" idea is that there isn't such thing as a stereotypical "masculine" and "feminine" identity.


So I was wondering on how people define gender for themselves as well as for society. How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you? How do you place yourself on a hypothetical gender scale, and do you base that off of gender roles or something within you?

Well, I strongly define my gender identity as female. Am I stereotypically female, though? I doubt it...I listen to death metal, have no interest whatsoever in fashion, and like watching sport. Yet despite this, I have always somehow come across to other people as quite feminine, and never felt I "fit in" with boys, though this didn't turn into a certain female self-identification until about 13/14. On a masculine/feminine spectrum, I'd probably be somewhere in the middle. So I'm inclined to think gender identity must be a deeper thing, related to the masculine/feminine gender spectrum, but not quite the same thing.

Basically, I'm too lazy to think this through, so I want NSG to do it for me. >.>

Well, there's my thoughts. I don't claim to understand all this stuff, but in matters of identity I think its always going to be fairly difficult to find certain answers. Woo, that was some hard thinking for 4:30 in the morning :p

Again, I think what you said would be what the external views of what gender means. I'm talking about self-identity. Is it possible to take away gender roles from a discussion about what you consider your own gender to be?

But self-identity in a case like this is no different from external identity. If one does not believe in social gender roles for others, why would one feel any different for themselves?

I, for example, believing that gender roles are naught but worthless concepts to cast aside, do not really identify with any sort of stereotypical gender identity. I am biologically male. Beyond that my gender is irrelevant. What matters is who I am as a person.

If there's a broad spectrum of gender identity rather than two poles of masculinity and femininity closely linked to sex, it starts getting very tricky to understand why some people feel the need to transition from one to the other, because the whole mentality of the "spectrum" idea is that there isn't such thing as a stereotypical "masculine" and "feminine" identity.
My understanding or guess would be that the people who feel the need to transition either are far on the gender spectrum on the opposite side, or extremely self aware of their place on the spectrum and how it conflicts with their body? *shrug*

I know that if I had to place whether I felt more female or male internally, I would come up with a giant question mark, while others seem to "know" exactly where they would fall. I know a ftm person who still acts on the traditionally "feminine" side for societal expectations of a man but he said that he always self identified as a male, even though he acts fairly "feminine". He just always felt like a man.

His experience would also strongly relate with your next quote, I suppose. :tongue:

Well, I strongly define my gender identity as female. Am I stereotypically female, though? I doubt it...I listen to death metal, have no interest whatsoever in fashion, and like watching sport. Yet despite this, I have always somehow come across to other people as quite feminine, and never felt I "fit in" with boys, though this didn't turn into a certain female self-identification until about 13/14. On a masculine/feminine spectrum, I'd probably be somewhere in the middle. So I'm inclined to think gender identity must be a deeper thing, related to the masculine/feminine gender spectrum, but not quite the same thing.

That was very interesting. Thanks : )

But self-identity in a case like this is no different from external identity. If one does not believe in social gender roles for others, why would one feel any different for themselves?

Because it's not social gender roles that defines gender identity for many people. The person I know, for example, acts extremely effeminate, yet, went through surgery to become a male because he always felt like he belonged in a male body, and never felt comfortable in his own skin. The point I am making is that self-identity doesn't always seem to come from societal gender roles.

Because it's not social gender roles that defines gender identity for many people. The person I know, for example, acts extremely effeminate, yet, went through surgery to become a male because he always felt like he belonged in a male body, and never felt comfortable in his own skin. The point I am making is that self-identity doesn't always seem to come from societal gender roles.

Ah, I see where you're going.

Then I would say simply we should try to find a slightly different term other than gender scale, because as you can see, it can be misinterpreted.

(Although I have no idea what would be better...)

Ah, I see where you're going.

Then I would say simply we should try to find a slightly different term other than gender scale, because as you can see, it can be misinterpreted.

(Although I have no idea what would be better...)

The gender identity scaled? *shrug*

But self-identity in a case like this is no different from external identity. If one does not believe in social gender roles for others, why would one feel any different for themselves?

I, for example, believing that gender roles are naught but worthless concepts to cast aside, do not really identify with any sort of stereotypical gender identity. I am biologically male. Beyond that my gender is irrelevant. What matters is who I am as a person.

As Kiryu pointed out, this does not seem to accurately reflect the experience of transgendered people, though. It's harder to approach this issue from the perspective of someone lucky enough to be born into a body that matched her brain, because I just can't understand what it's like to look in the mirror and think, "That is NOT ME. That is NOT MY BODY" - but I've been told some things about it. I used to volunteer at a suicide support group, and one member was a teenage FTM whom I'll call John. John was born female but could not remember a time when he was not telling his parents that he was a boy. His parents were fairly liberal, reasonable folks and were happy to buy him toy trucks instead of dolls and let him dress like a tomboy, but that made very little difference to John's constant unhappiness - he was still being addressed as "she," still being told he was a girl, and without even entirely knowing what that meant he knew that it was WRONG. John had nightmares about menstruation for years before his first period, and attempted suicide for the first time shortly thereafter. At age 16, John - still an utter tomboy, allowed by his parents to cut his hair boyishly short, buy boy's clothes, engage in "masculine" activities, and so on and so forth - became so desperate to get out of his incorrect body that he actually tried to cut off his breasts with a kitchen knife and ended up in the hospital. A year later, he told our support group quite bitterly that he didn't regret it at all, but was still furious with the doctors for sewing up the wounds rather than finishing the job and taking his breasts - which he never referred to as "my breasts," but rather as "the breasts" or more often "those things" away.

(Can you tell his story really affected me? I sincerely hope he's gotten reassignment surgery by now, poor kid.)

The point, though, is that John was brought up by parents who were perfectly happy to have a "masculine" daughter. He was never actively discouraged from ignoring traditional gender roles, and while society's influence certainly was bound to be a factor, I am hard-pressed to believe that the level of utter revulsion John clearly felt at the idea of being seen as female can be so simply accounted for. Gender does seem to be intrinsic in ways that can be separate both from our anatomical structure and societal gender roles, but how exactly that works is still pretty mysterious.

There are in fact quite a few societies where more than 2 genders are recognised. Some even go as far as 11 ;)

Look up the Hijra, the Kathoeys, "Two spirit" and so on. It is fascinating reading, and quite a significant cultural difference.

I'm a male, and I act like a male because I'm a male.

Look in your pants. Got a dick and balls? Act like a man. Got a vagina? Act like a woman.

Simple enough to figure out.

So I was wondering on how people define gender for themselves as well as for society. How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you? How do you place yourself on a hypothetical gender scale, and do you base that off of gender roles or something within you?

Do you think that the idea of a gender scale is moronic, and why?


It's clear gender identity exists, because some people feel very strongly that they belong in one specific part of it. This is completely separate to both sexual orientation and physical and genetic sexual characteristics, such as chromosomes, genitalia etc. Ones psychological gender identification can contradict these, as in transgendered people, whilst the physical traits can also contradict, as in the case of the variety of inter-sexed conditions.

In addition the "scale" often uses cultural traditions rather than individual sensation to determine what is "male" and "female", making it of interest to a study of cultural perceptions of gender role stereotypes, but of little use to understanding an individual's gender identity.

A lot of people will argue that point...

And those people must have lived very insulated, isolated lives....

Personally, I find it hard to believe that you can resolve the social ramifications of gender labeling by adding more labels. I think we'd be better off subtracting a couple instead.

Subtracting the labels however, would leave a large number of people who use those other labels to try and identify, sometimes for their own personal security, with a great deal of difficulty in identifying themselves. I don't like the labels, I don't use them. I'm not male, I'm not female, and to me the whole idea of having a gender seems a tad silly, but I know to some people (male, female, FTM, MTF, inter-sexed etc) it is fundamentally important, so who am i to take their attempt to identify where they stand, in terms of gender, away from them?

Can gender roles be separated from gender itself?

Yes. Gender roles are cultural constructs, internal gender identity is distinctly separate. Modern cultures tend to be much more pedantic about saying "A warrior is male", "A nurse is female", "A manicurist is female" etc. than many past cultures, and a few existing ones. These cultures accepted that "gender" was a fluid thing, separate from physical characteristics, and that both men and women would engage in what modern western culture considers stereotypical "male" or "female" behaviour.

Again, I think what you said would be what the external views of what gender means. I'm talking about self-identity. Is it possible to take away gender roles from a discussion about what you consider your own gender to be?

For me, it's hard to say. I'm an androgyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgyny). I don't tend to pay any attention to the gender roles of particular things, and personally, find it strange that people attach certain roles to "male" or "female" in terms of what they do. I don't feel that liking computers made me more "manly" than having an eye for interior design made me more "womanly". I am me. I am whole. I am a god. Worship me! :hail:

Hmmm, usually i Just that last bit in private :p

Gender, sexuality, hormones, and genetics are much more complicated than most people realize. It's not all black and white.

Oh yes... Just a bit!

The guy who replaced her spent most of the class either talking about how evil America was, or how great being an anthropologist was.

He may have had a point, his job sounds pretty relaxing... Bitch about other countries and say how fun a job you have doing it... I could live with that :) Though one day, when I'm through with being the student, I fully intend to utterly indoctrinate my students, then set them loose on the Assyriology students... The blood must flow!

But self-identity in a case like this is no different from external identity. If one does not believe in social gender roles for others, why would one feel any different for themselves?

Some people do, purely as a frame of reference for self identity, even if they feel such things don't have a place in wider society. What they reject is the idea that society or culture should use them to "judge" others, and regard them as a tool for self analysis and identification.

I'm a male, and I act like a male because I'm a male.

Look in your pants. Got a dick and balls? Act like a man. Got a vagina? Act like a woman.

Simple enough to figure out.

Clearly you didn't read the thread before hitting "reply"

I don't think I've taken on any gender roles yet. So I guess I don't have a gender. Maybe once I stop being unsocial.

How did you determine what gender you are, or

*Looks down pants*

Yep I'm male I didn't determine it, I was born that way.

I don't think that the binary definition of gender is ridiculous. After all, one is usually either genetically female or male. However, I think the social connotations of gender are flawed. If we see a man as having to be 'manly' (i.e. someone who builds stuff, has muscles etc) and a woman as being 'womanly' (i.e. someone who cooks, sews etc), there would obviously have to be other options on the scale from 'male' to 'female'. Perhaps society should define those two terms in a more lose, accepting and open fashion.

It's complicated, though, especially when you consider homosexuality, bisexuality and feeling as though you're not the 'right sex'. The notion of gender becomes confused in situations like: If someone feels they are a woman trapped inside a man's body but they are also a lesbian. However, how open should be really be? Should all of society have to reframe it's ideas based on a very small population people who believe that their gender is not male, nor female but "other"?

I've confused myself, to be honest.

I used to go out with someone who had two X and one Y chromosomes. Would you consider this person male or female?

I have some questions:
1. So, did this person have a penis or a vagina?
2. Was this person heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual?
3. What gender did you feel they were?
4. What gender did the person feel they were?

---

In the end, if someone looks, feels and acts like a female - for example - I believe we should call them a 'she'. However, if they are scientifically male, what gender should they put on their passport etc?

My masculine gender isn't something I feel particular affinity for, but it's not something I overly query either. What's more important to me than whether I'm a guy or girl is that other people aren't distracted or offended by my outward characteristics. So, since I'm physically male (and definitely so; tall, broad shoulders, lots of fur etc.), I identify as male for the sake of coherence and convenience, I guess.

I've thought for some time now that gender is something that is not purely defined by two terms, masculine and feminine, and that it is more of a scale with one extreme being ultra-masculine and one extreme being ultra-feminine. However, I've had a hard time reconciling that belief with my opposition to gender-ism, where we attribute traits to someone based on what gender they identify as. I think I've come to believe that gender is something that is inherent within you, somewhat like sexuality, but unlike sexuality, where you know can know where on the homo-hetero scale you lie on based on who you're attracted too, it's much harder to tell where on the gender scale you lie on.

So I was wondering on how people define gender for themselves as well as for society. How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you? How do you place yourself on a hypothetical gender scale, and do you base that off of gender roles or something within you?

Do you think that the idea of a gender scale is moronic, and why?

I'd be particularly interested if there were people who considered themselves transgendered or genderqueer, or had amusing and/or anecdotal evidence about those who did. :D

Basically, I'm too lazy to think this through, so I want NSG to do it for me. >.>

Well really there are two genders, male and female. What gender you are depends on your chromosones and sexual organs.

It seems clear cut to me. Now I have a transgendered friend and she has a small penis and a vigina, she also has had to have breats enlargmens to help define herself as female.

She calles herself a she, and if that is what she tells me her gender is, then that's good enough for me. Honeslty though I would she is transgendered.

However, I've had a hard time reconciling that belief with my opposition to gender-ism, where we attribute traits to someone based on what gender they identify as.

I'd tentatively suggest that you might be conflating two different senses of "gender." In casual use, "gender" and "sex" are used more or less synonymously, and we resist using sex stereotypes for good reason. But under a sense of "gender" that's non-binarist and that is separate from physical sex, there's no reason not to admit behavior into consideration.

I think I've come to believe that gender is something that is inherent within you, somewhat like sexuality, but unlike sexuality, where you know can know where on the homo-hetero scale you lie on based on who you're attracted too, it's much harder to tell where on the gender scale you lie on.

I don't agree. Certainly there's a large element of inherence, but there's also real choice when it comes to gender in a way there isn't for sexual orientation. Gay, straight, bisexual--these are all matters of attraction, not of behavior, and as sexual orientations, anyway, they're narrowly focused on that attraction and don't address anything else. If you have the right attraction, you belong to the sexual orientation, and that's the end of it.

But gender is prescriptive in a way sexual orientation isn't. If I identify with the cultural concept of "being a man", the concept of a "man" isn't something I simply am, it's something I pursue. I see myself as someone who should engage in certain behaviors, who should approach things in certain ways. I can choose to reject this pursuit. I can choose to identify with a different gender concept of "man", or a gender concept that has nothing to do with "man", or with no gender concept at all.

Gender, at least as it is conceived of culturally, is not narrowly synonymous with any particular physical trait. We don't talk about "people with penises", we talk about "men." And while on average "people with penises" may have certain psychological tendencies that "people with vaginas" do not have, averages do not speak to universality.

How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you?

I don't really worry about it.

Do you think that the idea of a gender scale is moronic, and why?

Not at all. Preferably, I'd like to see a gender system that goes far beyond a mere "scale"... and that doesn't insist that people with certain physical traits identify with certain gender concepts.

I'm a male, and I act like a male because I'm a male.

What kind of causation are you pointing to here? Clearly it's not a necessary one... unless you think that everyone with a penis necessarily "acts like a male"? But that would delegitimize the accusations of effeminacy upon which traditional masculinity thrives, and since you so love to engage in them, I don't think you're inclined to do that.

Or is it that you think "being a male" is a good reason to "act like a male"? I think this argument is missing some parts. If I have a penis and don't want to act in line with your notion of "maleness"... what's wrong with me?

Look in your pants. Got a dick and balls? Act like a man. Got a vagina? Act like a woman.

How simplistic and thoughtless.

He may have had a point, his job sounds pretty relaxing... Bitch about other countries and say how fun a job you have doing it... I could live with that :) Though one day, when I'm through with being the student, I fully intend to utterly indoctrinate my students, then set them loose on the Assyriology students... The blood must flow!

Well, in THEORY we were supposed to be learning about the Inca, then reviewing for the final.
Instead we got 1 hour 45 minute lectures on the evils of the West (since he couldn't well blame the USA for exterminating the Inca), followed by the remaining class time looking at answers from last semesters final, which he 'interpreted' for us, whenever possible so as to cast a negative light on all things Western (except Anthropology.)
He was sort of like an evangelical preacher. The West is nothing but a bunch of ravening barbarians, and Anthropology is the Messiah, come to cleanse them of their barbarous ways.

Rather amusingly, a key point of his rants is that tribal people frequently have more free time and are healthier (provided they dont catch pneumonia or something) than any other sort of people (pastoralists, agrarian, horticultural, civilized, etc.)
Nevermind that everything we have set up today is what makes anthropology possible in the first place :P

Well, in THEORY we were supposed to be learning about the Inca, then reviewing for the final.
Instead we got 1 hour 45 minute lectures on the evils of the West (since he couldn't well blame the USA for exterminating the Inca)

We'll have no more of those puny Americentric justifications! It should be quite obvious to anyone that several southwestern and mid-western states were once a part of Mexico, which in turn once once a part of Nueva Espana, and as such obviously shows that the US is directly responcible for the systematic destruction of the Pre-Columbian civlizations. :rolleyes:

*jk*

There is only man and woman. If you get a sex change and have your penis cut off, you're still a man. No amount of surgey will ever change that.

There is only man and woman. If you get a sex change and have your penis cut off, you're still a man. No amount of surgey will ever change that.

What if you had a penis and vagina to begin with ?
And why are those organs the sole defining factor in your eyes ? If we look deeper into the body, or even go as far to look at genetics, the case is more complex.

There is only man and woman. If you get a sex change and have your penis cut off, you're still a man. No amount of surgey will ever change that.

And those who have neither (or both)?

We'll have no more of those puny Americentric justifications! It should be quite obvious to anyone that several southwestern and mid-western states were once a part of Mexico, which in turn once once a part of Nueva Espana, and as such obviously shows that the US is directly responcible for the systematic destruction of the Pre-Columbian civlizations. :rolleyes:

*jk*

You forgot to work the Elders of Zion in there somewhere. I believe something about them planning to build New Israel in the middle of the Sonora would be accepable. :P

There is only man and woman. If you get a sex change and have your penis cut off, you're still a man. No amount of surgey will ever change that.

In terms of sex, you're roughly correct.

In terms of gender, however, you are quite wrong. Gender is a purely cultural construct whose only links to sex are what the culture in question makes.

There is only man and woman. If you get a sex change and have your penis cut off, you're still a man. No amount of surgey will ever change that.

FAAAAAAAAIL. Oh well, most people here seem not to be narrow-minded bigots. I retain the conviction that not even a few manky, festering bad apples can spoil the general wholesome goodness of the NSG pie. Mmmmm...pie. Sorry, what was I talking about before?:p

Ah yeeess, the odd people who are obsessed with chromosones and the bits people are born with rather than respecting people's conception of their own identity, and recognising the tough struggle many people have to go through over many years to make their body reflect their true self. Shows a pitiful lack of empathy and lack of a caring soul. A sad folk, the intolerant and narrow-minded. People are a lot more than their chromosones and body parts. Sucks to be that shallow and bigoted.

You forgot to work the Elders of Zion in there somewhere. I believe something about them planning to build New Israel in the middle of the Sonora would be acceptable. :P


We'll have no more of those puny Americentric justifications! It should be quite obvious to anyone that several southwestern and mid-western states have long been infiltrated by the international Jewry, and that these state were once a part of Mexico, which in turn once once a part of Nueva Espana. As such this obviously shows that teh eb1l j00z are directly responsible for the systematic destruction of Maya civilization, and hide the secret knowledge of the approaching apocalypse of 2012 from people of the world, and created the US to hide their evil Zionist plot. :eek:


Fixed :wink:

So what's the current fashionable definition? Sex is whether you're physically male or female, but gender is the sex you feel you are?

So what's the current fashionable definition? Sex is whether you're physically male or female, but gender is the sex you feel you are?

"Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture" sounds more dictonary-ish.
But the use of the word "gender" to refer to things actually relating to sex instead of a genus is quite modern. A feminist invention IIRC ;)

So what's the current fashionable definition? Sex is whether you're physically male or female, but gender is the sex you feel you are?

Gender refers to masculinity/femininity i.e. behaviour, self-identification and suchlike, while sex refers just to chromosones and body parts. How you've outlined it is broadly correct. I don't see where "fashionableness" comes into the definition. The word has been created to describe something that was already there. Clearly all men are not stereotypically masculine, and have never been, and not all women always stereotypically feminine. Unless there's some sort of nightmareish fascistic government in the future, I doubt there's going to be a resurgence of imposing strict adherence to outdated masculine and feminine ideals anytime soon. Hopefully the stereotypes of "men have to act this way and women this completely different way" will continue to be eroded over time, a process thats been going along at a quite substantial pace over the last century.

But the use of the word "gender" to refer to things actually relating to sex instead of a genus is quite modern. A feminist invention IIRC ;)

Heh, wasn't the word once broad enough to define what class you identify as?

I don't see where "fashionableness" comes into the definition.

The word is seemingly constantly redefined. Regardless, I don't think you should be calling anyone bigoted simply for not agreeing with your definition.

A lot of people will argue that point...

Yes, and unfortunately those people are not educated as to what those words mean. That they are not equal is a truism.

Now, one might argue that they are inextricably related, but that would be a totally different argument. The first is based on ignorance, the second could very well be based on evidence.

I'm a male, and I act like a male because I'm a male.

Look in your pants. Got a dick and balls? Act like a man. Got a vagina? Act like a woman.

Simple enough to figure out.

What does a man act like? Makeup and wigs? Visiting clubs filled with young boys who will have sex with you for money? Raping men in the laundry? Roping cattle and shooting at each other from 20 paces?

Well really there are two genders, male and female. What gender you are depends on your chromosones and sexual organs.

It seems clear cut to me. Now I have a transgendered friend and she has a small penis and a vigina, she also has had to have breats enlargmens to help define herself as female.

She calles herself a she, and if that is what she tells me her gender is, then that's good enough for me. Honeslty though I would she is transgendered.

Uh, you just said there are two genders and defined a third. You want to reword?

Yes, and unfortunately those people are not educated as to what those words mean. That they are not equal is a truism.

Now, one might argue that they are inextricably related, but that would be a totally different argument. The first is based on ignorance, the second could very well be based on evidence.

Languages aren't static, however. Even though this might have been its original meaning its now been used to be more or less synonymous with sex.

Languages aren't static, however. Even though this might have been its original meaning its now been used to be more or less synonymous with sex.

What you're not getting is that comes from your misunderstanding of the word. It's meaning hasn't changed; if anything, seperating if from "sex" is a relatively modern innovation.

As for my own feelings on the personal perception of gender...well, I don't know. I know that when I was younger, and didn't know any better, I regularly told people I was a girl, that I continually insisted to my parents that I was a girl, when I was younger I hung around almost exclusively with girls, and that I have never, to my knowledge, thought of myself as anything other than female.

Why? Who knows. That's just the way I am.

I'm a male, and I act like a male because I'm a male.

Look in your pants. Got a dick and balls? Act like a man. Got a vagina? Act like a woman.

Simple enough to figure out.

Okay. I have a dick and balls.

How am I supposed to act?

If it means I'll have to post that same kind of poorly-thought-out crap, i'm not interested. Ta.

What you're not getting is that comes from your misunderstanding of the word. It's meaning hasn't changed; if anything, seperating if from "sex" is a relatively modern innovation.

I know. I looked up its etymology after I posted.

I'm a male, and I act like a male because I'm a male.

Look in your pants. Got a dick and balls? Act like a man. Got a vagina? Act like a woman.

Simple enough to figure out.

By this logic, of course, if a mad scientist broke into your house tomorrow, tied you down, and forcibly removed your penis and testicles and installed a vagina, you would thereafter magically think of yourself as female, and "act like a woman." Somehow, your entire way of thought, your mode of dress, your preferred hobbies, maybe even your sexual orientation would be instantly transformed by the mere presence of pussy.

While I admit to finding that idea pretty hilarious, I somehow suspect even you don't actually believe that would happen, and therefore that you know rationally that your gender identity isn't actually inextricably tied to your external genitalia.

By this logic, of course, if a mad scientist broke into your house tomorrow, tied you down, and forcibly removed your penis and testicles and installed a vagina, you would thereafter magically think of yourself as female, and "act like a woman." Somehow, your entire way of thought, your mode of dress, your preferred hobbies, maybe even your sexual orientation would be instantly transformed by the mere presence of pussy.


I hate to point out, for most guys, "your entire way of thought" is "instantly transformed by the mere presence of pussy".

The word is seemingly constantly redefined. Regardless, I don't think you should be calling anyone bigoted simply for not agreeing with your definition.

Ah, but that isn't quite what I was getting at. What I said was that there have always been men who weren't stereotypically masculine, and women who are not stereotypically feminine. Traditionally, these people have been forced into a role they are not comfortable with. The reason I argued that talk of "fashionable definitions" isn't good to use is because it implies that what gender describes has just been invented out of thin air. There have always been people who diverged from prevailing gender roles, there just wasn't the vocabulary to describe it. Well, actually, in early modern discourse I've come across some use of the term "enacted hermaphroditism" i.e. divergence from behaviour expected from one's sex rather than physical hermaphroditism. This might be an early allusion to similar things.

The only thing in this thread I've suggested would be bigoted is to reintroduce the old strict binary, discount all notions of "gender" as distinct from "sex" and pressurise people into gender roles that they are not comfortable with. The talk of "fashionable definitions" made me think you were being dismissive towards the whole idea of some people not fitting these traditional roles, and that you were advocating a return to such a repressive scenario in which men were forced to act in stereotypically masculine ways and women in feminine ways. I apologise if I read what you were saying incorrectly:)

The only thing in this thread I've suggested would be bigoted is to reintroduce the old strict binary, discount all notions of "gender" as distinct from "sex" and pressurise people into gender roles that they are not comfortable with.

Just because 1010102 was indicating that he doesn't believe in a distinction between sex and gender does not mean he wanted to pressurise people into gender roles.

I apologise if I read what you were saying incorrectly:)

Apology accepted.

i think that sex is (essentially) a binary, but gender is not.

of course, there are people who are born intersexed, but the percentage of such people is low enough, in itself, to suggest the anomalous nature of that phenomenon; also, an investigation of the genetic/chemical processes that are responsible for this phenomenon are not substantially different from what are otherwise widely accepted as "birth defects". yes, i realize that it's not very "nice" to point that out, but---that's the truth as i see it; it does not mean that i think that intersexed people are not lovable or capable or worthy of gendered life or sexualized happiness. however, i don't think that such people can be called truly "male" or "female"---since those words connote sex, rather than gender, to me. they can, however, be "masculine" or "feminine"---words which connote gender to me---to the degree that they are EFFECTIVELY "male" or "female", for social and cultural purposes---and also sexual ones, in the "right" relational context.

i think that gender, however, is not a binary, but a spectrum. i think that "masuline" tends to correlate with "male" in very large percentage; however, i also think that those who are either "androgynous" (gender neutral) or "transgendered" (gendered in a manner opposite to most members of their own sex) is significant enough---in both cases---to make the case for the existence of a spectrum, rather than binary, and in both sexes. i do believe that "secondary sexual characteristics" can certainly play into gender identification; but, i think that gender is principally a psychological, rather than physiological, reality.

to be bluntly honest, i deeply regret the decision of many transgendered individuals to alter their bodies surgically (although i support their right to do so). i personally believe that the desire to do this stems less from "gender dymorphism" than from the presently immature ability of our society to accept and understand and value the presence of individuals who are "masculine females/butch girls" or "feminine males/femme boys"---that is, i think it is our culture that is propagandizing people that their feelings should "match" their bodies, until the transgendered person reaches the impasse where it becomes easier to change their body than their feelings. i personally think that it is not necessary to change either one for someone to be happy. i believe that if our culture is to grow, we must evolve in a manner that honors these psychosexual realities to the degree that no one feels compelled to surgically mutilate their own body so that they can live the lie of "passing" to the public as something as which they were not born. i know that this will be offensive to some, but it is my blunt opinion.

there are a couple of other spectrums, though, that also exist within this matter of "sexual character"---at least as i am aware. one is sexual orientation, and the other is what i like to call "number orientation".

sexual orientation seems to me to be a spectrum---since it contains hetero-, bi-, and homo- sexualities quite fluidly, and each in significant numbers. having said that?---i believe that sexual orientation is tending to be more of a binary among the male sex, and more of a spectrum among the female. this means to me, primarily, that true bisexuals are extremely rare among the male sex while extremely common among the female sex. in fact, i would guess that the number of truly homosexual men far exceeds the number of truly bisexual men, while i would also guess that the opposite is true among females---in fact, i suspect that the number of true (if not practicing) bisexuals among females may even exceed the number of truly heterosexually oriented females.

"number orientation" is what i call the manner in which someone identifies relative to the possibilities of monogamy/mono-amory, polygamy/polyamory, and celibacy. interestingly enough, i think that this dynamic functions in a manner that is directly the inverse of sexual orientation, among the sexes; that is, i think that it functions in a more binary manner among females and as more of a spectrum among males. i think that the number of truly celibate women (not only in practice or default, but by character and inclination), exceeds the number of truly polyamorous women (particularly women involved with more than one male partner at a time---although i acknowledge that they do genuinely exist), although the number of truly monogamous women probably exceeds both. likewise, i think that the number of truly polyamorous males far exceeds those naturally inclined to celibacy, and may even rival or surpass the number of those who are truly monogamous (by character and inclination).

i look at these last three as a kind of x/y/z axis
---gender/orientation/number---that exists semi-independently of sex. everyone has sex (or a variation or intersex), and everyone (including the intersexed) also has a location on this 3-D grid.

for instance:
i am male in sex.
i am masculine in gender, but "soft" masculine---closer to the androgyny part of the spectrum than the hard "butch" end, while still decidedly in the masculine range.
i am 100% straight in orientation.
and, i am polygamous in "number orientation"---i have two female partners with whom i live, as a family.

both are feminine in gender, though one tends more toward the androgyne than the other. she is also bisexual---while the other is not! they are also both fundamentally "monogamous" in their orientation---i am the primary and only sexual partner to both---while they both embrace the polygamous structure of our relationships as a family circumstance---as do i! :wink:


hope this helps.

best, and

peace.

to be bluntly honest, i deeply regret the decision of many transgendered individuals to alter their bodies surgically (although i support their right to do so). i personally believe that the desire to do this stems less from "gender dymorphism" than from the presently immature ability of our society to accept and understand and value the presence of individuals who are "masculine females/butch girls" or "feminine males/femme boys"---that is, i think it is our culture that is propagandizing people that their feelings should "match" their bodies, until the transgendered person reaches the impasse where it becomes easier to change their body than their feelings. i personally think that it is not necessary to change either one for someone to be happy.

See post #66.

I hate to point out, for most guys, "your entire way of thought" is "instantly transformed by the mere presence of pussy".

Ha. Touche. :tongue:

Personally, I find it hard to believe that you can resolve the social ramifications of gender labeling by adding more labels. I think we'd be better off subtracting a couple instead.
Exactly. Men would become "males," and women, "unmales." Particularly manly men would be "plusmales" or even "doubleplusmales."

Exactly. Men would become "males," and women, "unmales." Particularly manly men would be "plusmales" or even "doubleplusmales."

But how will one refer to males of the nation we have always been at war with ?

As Kiryu pointed out, this does not seem to accurately reflect the experience of transgendered people, though. It's harder to approach this issue from the perspective of someone lucky enough to be born into a body that matched her brain, because I just can't understand what it's like to look in the mirror and think, "That is NOT ME. That is NOT MY BODY" - but I've been told some things about it. I used to volunteer at a suicide support group, and one member was a teenage FTM whom I'll call John. John was born female but could not remember a time when he was not telling his parents that he was a boy. His parents were fairly liberal, reasonable folks and were happy to buy him toy trucks instead of dolls and let him dress like a tomboy, but that made very little difference to John's constant unhappiness - he was still being addressed as "she," still being told he was a girl, and without even entirely knowing what that meant he knew that it was WRONG. John had nightmares about menstruation for years before his first period, and attempted suicide for the first time shortly thereafter. At age 16, John - still an utter tomboy, allowed by his parents to cut his hair boyishly short, buy boy's clothes, engage in "masculine" activities, and so on and so forth - became so desperate to get out of his incorrect body that he actually tried to cut off his breasts with a kitchen knife and ended up in the hospital. A year later, he told our support group quite bitterly that he didn't regret it at all, but was still furious with the doctors for sewing up the wounds rather than finishing the job and taking his breasts - which he never referred to as "my breasts," but rather as "the breasts" or more often "those things" away.

(Can you tell his story really affected me? I sincerely hope he's gotten reassignment surgery by now, poor kid.)

The point, though, is that John was brought up by parents who were perfectly happy to have a "masculine" daughter. He was never actively discouraged from ignoring traditional gender roles, and while society's influence certainly was bound to be a factor, I am hard-pressed to believe that the level of utter revulsion John clearly felt at the idea of being seen as female can be so simply accounted for. Gender does seem to be intrinsic in ways that can be separate both from our anatomical structure and societal gender roles, but how exactly that works is still pretty mysterious.

Hence why I see I was approaching this from the wrong direction.

As a society we need to help people like this more than we do. It's sickening how little most people would care about someone who's like this, or how they wouldn't even try to understand.

But how will one refer to males of the nation we have always been at war with ?

Doubleplusungoodmales, obviously.

But how will one refer to males of the nation we have always been at war with ?

They are not human, so it is irrelevant.

Doubleplusungoodmales, obviously.
...or this.

Just because 1010102 was indicating that he doesn't believe in a distinction between sex and gender does not mean he wanted to pressurise people into gender roles.

I don't understand that. Here's how I'm thinking it...

1. Person A doesn't believe in a distinction between sex and gender

So...

2. Person A cannot accept that a man can have a gender identity leaning more towards the feminine, or a woman a gender identity leaning more towards the male

(Reasoning: In these cases someone's sex and expected gender role clash, and if you don't believe that the distinction between sex and gender exists you can't recognise this and accept this difference.)

So...

3. Person A believes "men should act like men" and "women should behave like women" i.e. rigid roles, and sees anyone who does not act according to these stereotypes is viewed as abnormal.

So...

4. Those who diverge from their assigned gender role are mocked by those who hold the belief that how they act is somehow unnatural, pressurising them to confom to what they have defined as the "norm".

As far as I see it, recognising that sex and gender are different (i.e. the distinction between them) is essential if people are going to stop people who differ from traditional gender stereotypes are abnormal, unnatural and wrong, beliefs that inevitably lead to mocking and bullying, pressurising people into an assigned gender role.

Whereabouts in this train of thought are we diverging? I'm not trying to be confrontational or hostile or anything, I just can't work out where you're coming from here.

We have never been at war with any males.

This is a most heinous thoughtcrime.

I don't understand that. Here's how I'm thinking it...

1. Person A doesn't believe in a distinction between sex and gender

So...

2. Person A cannot accept that a man can have a gender identity leaning more towards the feminine, or a woman a gender identity leaning more towards the male


No, you misunderstood. Person A doesn't believe in a distinction between sex and gender by definition, as in sex and gender have the same definition. This doesn't mean that he cannot accept the concept of gender identity (as we call it), he just doesn't accept that the actual word 'gender' describes that.

Languages aren't static, however. Even though this might have been its original meaning its now been used to be more or less synonymous with sex.

Not always and not in the way we're discussing it. That would be equivocation. Look it up. When discussing an issue with someone not all definitions of a word apply. Much like if you and I were discussing American football, suddenly inserting rules about soccer and say, "well you said football" wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I know. I looked up its etymology after I posted.

You might reverse the order for future posts.

No, you misunderstood. Person A doesn't believe in a distinction between sex and gender by definition, as in sex and gender have the same definition. This doesn't mean that he cannot accept the concept of gender identity (as we call it), he just doesn't accept that the actual word 'gender' describes that.

Ah, ok. No problem there, I don't take issue with that. But the person I initially called bigoted didn't make any indication that he was questioning only the use of the word "gender" to describe the concept of gender identity. The absence of this combined with the tone of his post leads me to believe what he and others were trying to do was more an argument for a rigid binary gender and that people should act according to stereotypical roles, which is what I am arguing against! If someone wants to use a different word for things, I'm not going to call that bigoted. That would be silly.

So, yeh. We don't seem to actually have a major point of disagreement, its others I've got a problem with. So I'll shut up now:p

Not always and not in the way we're discussing it. That would be equivocation. Look it up. When discussing an issue with someone not all definitions of a word apply. Much like if you and I were discussing American football, suddenly inserting rules about soccer and say, "well you said football" wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I was looking at SaintB's argument in the possible sense that he didn't mean sex and gender, in the social science definition, were inextricably linked. If so the people who would arguing that sex and gender are synonymous are using different definitions and can't be judged by standards/rules/definitions that they didn't agree to.

So in sense sex and gender are synonymous, and another, they aren't.

You might reverse the order for future posts.

What for? Would it have changed my argument?

Let's see...

Your sex is what you see when you look into your pants. Usually easy enough to determine.

Your gender role is the way you want others to treat you based on what assumptions those others make about people having one sex or another. Not everyone wants such a role assigned to them.

Your sexual preference is what sex and/or gender role you want your partner to have. Not everyone has precise preferences, but it's usually easy enough to determine from your feelings.

Your sexual identity is what sex you are happy to have or would like to have. For most people this is either a no-brainer or not very important, but some of those who would like to change can have difficulty figuring things out.

I hope I made no mistakes in these definitions, anyway these are the four separate things I see. Having them nicely separate like this should answer most questions, right?

I was looking at SaintB's argument in the possible sense that he didn't mean sex and gender, in the social science definition, were inextricably linked. If so the people who would arguing that sex and gender are synonymous are using different definitions and can't be judged by standards/rules/definitions that they didn't agree to.

So in sense sex and gender are synonymous, and another, they aren't.



What for? Would it have changed my argument?

It would if you actually read and understood the definitions and applied them to the context.

Gender in the usage being discussed is talking about sexual identity. One has to ignore not just the evidence, but the very definition of the term to not recognize they are not equal.

Meanwhile, if you don't understand why educating yourself BEFORE you put up a post disagreeing is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to be able to explain it to you.

Shut up, bitch tits.

Your sexual identity is what sex you are happy to have or would like to have. For most people this is either a no-brainer or not very important, but some of those who would like to change can have difficulty figuring things out.

Do you separate sexual identity from gender identity? Do you even separate gender identity from gender role?

It would if you actually read and understood the definitions and applied them to the context.

Gender in the usage being discussed is talking about sexual identity. One has to ignore not just the evidence, but the very definition of the term to not recognize they are not equal.

I did read and understand. I am wondering at your ability to understand definitions within the proper context.

Gender in the usage of the people in SaintB's post, in one interpretation, is talking about is talking about one's biological sex. They aren't wrong because they are talking about a definition where gender equals one biological sex. Its in the very definition. So I find that you are applying 'american football' rules when the other side thought they agreed to play 'soccer'. Think of as if you asked me to play football which to me means soccer and too you means a game that has some resemblance to rugby.

If this interpretation is the correct one it doesn't absolve SaintB's misuse of the terms, merely the people who'd disagree because they are using a different definition.

Meanwhile, if you don't understand why educating yourself BEFORE you put up a post disagreeing is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to be able to explain it to you.

Ummm... knowing the word gender's etymology would not have substantially of changed my argument. The meaning of words often change. People's definitions differ. If you can describe how it would have significantly changed my argument please tell me.

Gender has two modes: Possession and lack of a Y sexual chromosome in a sexual chromosomal pair. All else is a matter of psychology, or a genetic anomaly, as in the case of XO and XXY.

I did read and understand. I am wondering at your ability to understand definitions within the proper context.

Gender in the usage of the people in SaintB's post, in one interpretation, is talking about is talking about one's biological sex. They aren't wrong because they are talking about a definition where gender equals one biological sex. Its in the very definition. So I find that you are applying 'american football' rules when the other side thought they agreed to play 'soccer'. Think of as if you asked me to play football which to me means soccer and too you means a game that has some resemblance to rugby.

If this interpretation is the correct one it doesn't absolve SaintB's misuse of the terms, merely the people who'd disagree because they are using a different definition.

I know you don't understand, but I'll try anyway. Do you know what equivocation is? See, he's entering a discussion that's been going on for decades. In the context of that discussion, his usage is irrelevant. The only relevant definition pits them as distinctly different.

SaintB entered a discussion about whether Walter Payton is the best football player that ever lived and argued that it's Pele. It doesn't matter that under SOME definition, he has a point. What does matter that in the context of the discussion being had, he's wrong. It's that simple.

Ummm... knowing the word gender's etymology would not have substantially of changed my argument. The meaning of words often change. People's definitions differ. If you can describe how it would have significantly changed my argument please tell me.

Since your argument was predicated on the etymology, yes, I would hope it would have been altered.

However, continue telling us how being educated on something like etymology wouldn't have changed your post that discussed the origin of a word. That doesn't make anyone giggle. I promise, there's absolutely nothing stupid about it.

Do you separate sexual identity from gender identity? Do you even separate gender identity from gender role?

Well, what do you mean by "gender identity"? I do separate sexual identity from gender role (I have the first but prefer not to be assigned the latter), gender identity may be either of those or perhaps something else...

Gender has two modes: Possession and lack of a Y sexual chromosome in a sexual chromosomal pair. All else is a matter of psychology, or a genetic anomaly, as in the case of XO and XXY.

Some might prefer the term "rarity" instead of "anomaly" - since it is slightly more correct. And also makes the duality aspect moot ;)

I know you don't understand, but I'll try anyway. Do you know what equivocation is? See, he's entering a discussion that's been going on for decades. In the context of that discussion, his usage is irrelevant. The only relevant definition pits them as distinctly different.

SaintB entered a discussion about whether Walter Payton is the best football player that ever lived and argued that it's Pele. It doesn't matter that under SOME definition, he has a point. What does matter that in the context of the discussion being had, he's wrong. It's that simple.

You don't seem to be understanding what I have been trying to tell you so I'll try to put it as simply as possible. I have not been talking about SaintB's (possible) usage of the word gender. I have been talking about the people in SaintB's post's usage. The people who have not agreed to enter a discussion where gender is being used to describe behavioral roles. These people aren't wrong since they have agreed to 'soccer', not 'football'.

Since your argument was predicated on the etymology, yes, I would hope it would have been altered.

However, continue telling us how being educated on something like etymology wouldn't have changed your post that discussed the origin of a word. That doesn't make anyone giggle. I promise, there's absolutely nothing stupid about it.

My argument was not predicated on the history of gender's definitions beyond the popular usage in contemporary times. Which definition came first is/was irrelevant to my argument. Looking up gender's etymology would have changed the detail where I said that the definition used in the OP may have been the original meaning of the word, but it would not have changed my essential argument.

Since I asked you to demonstrate how looking up gender's etymology would have changed my argument twice now and you have not done so I can only assume you can not.

You don't seem to be understanding what I have been trying to tell you so I'll try to put it as simply as possible. I have not been talking about SaintB's (possible) usage of the word gender. I have been talking about the people in SaintB's post's usage. The people who have not agreed to enter a discussion where gender is being used to describe behavioral roles. These people aren't wrong since they have agreed to 'soccer', not 'football'.

But he did agree to enter that discussion when he posted on it. Again, it's called equivocation and you should look it up. I know you're trying to pretend that he can switch usages and, by the mere fact that he did, he shows he's not in the discussion, but were that true, equivocation wouldn't exist.

You can pretend all day I don't know what you're talking about, but this isn't about my lack of understanding. This is about that you made a mistake and rather than simply admit that mistake, you're compounding it. In the context of the discussion that SaintB entered, THIS DISCUSSION, the words are not synonyms. You know how I know he entered THIS DISCUSSION? I'll give you a hint... there are these links on the page that contains the NSG list of topics...


My argument was not predicated on the history of gender's definitions beyond the popular usage in contemporary times. Which definition came first is/was irrelevant to my argument. Looking up gender's etymology would have changed the detail where I said that the definition used in the OP may have been the original meaning of the word, but it would not have changed my essential argument.

Since I asked you to demonstrate how looking up gender's etymology would have changed my argument twice now and you have not done so I can only assume you can not.

Oh, I agree it might not have changed your argument. I agreed the first time you asked. I totally agree with you that though more than half of the post you started with was about etymology, that information would not have changed what you posted. If information actually changed your conclusions, we wouldn't still be arguing. So continue to proudly claim that educating yourself before making claims is a waste of time. I won't stop you. Don't expect me not to laugh, however.

But he did agree to enter that discussion when he posted on it. Again, it's called equivocation and you should look it up. I know you're trying to pretend that he can switch usages and, by the mere fact that he did, he shows he's not in the discussion, but were that true, equivocation wouldn't exist.

You can pretend all day I don't know what you're talking about, but this isn't about my lack of understanding. This is about that you made a mistake and rather than simply admit that mistake, you're compounding it. In the context of the discussion that SaintB entered, THIS DISCUSSION, the words are not synonyms. You know how I know he entered THIS DISCUSSION? I'll give you a hint... there are these links on the page that contains the NSG list of topics...

Oh, I agree it might not have changed your argument. I agreed the first time you asked. I totally agree with you that though more than half of the post you started with was about etymology, that information would not have changed what you posted. If information actually changed your conclusions, we wouldn't still be arguing. So continue to proudly claim that educating yourself before making claims is a waste of time. I won't stop you. Don't expect me not to laugh, however.

*Sigh*

I'm am sorry you seem unable to understand what I have been trying to say. I'm not sure if its because you lack the capacity to or if its some willful self-delusion on your part but trying to enlighten you further is like trying demolish a brick wall by smashing my head against it, it isn't going to happen.

Gender is a social construct. I can't claim that I ignore it, because that's simply not possible to do in this world, but I do consider it to be silly and cruel and something our world would be better off without.

'Course, I'm biased, because my own conception of my gender does not remotely fit in anywhere in my society. I'm lucky enough to be able to pass for cisgendered, however, which means I'm a whole lot better off than many in the trans community.

'Course, I'm biased, because my own conception of my gender does not remotely fit in anywhere in my society. I'm lucky enough to be able to pass for cisgendered, however, which means I'm a whole lot better off than many in the trans community.

What does cisgendered mean?

*Sigh*

I'm am sorry you seem unable to understand what I have been trying to say. I'm not sure if its because you lack the capacity to or if its some willful self-delusion on your part but trying to enlighten you further is like trying demolish a brick wall by smashing my head against it, it isn't going to happen.

I keep bringing it up, but, honestly, do you know what equivocation is? If what you were saying were true, equivocation would not exist. There is a whole name for the fallacy you're relying on. Somehow you seem to think I made this up. Maybe this is another of those times, you should look something up BEFORE you make claims about it, huh?

The "people" in SaintB's post usage would be in the same topic SaintB is in. If SaintB was talking about them having another usage, he would be equivocating, since no one is denying that gender and sex can be synonyms. The only thing that anyone has ever been denying is that they aren't synonyms in this context. So either SaintB came her to equivocate, or SaintB isn't aware that there is another definition. Either way, he'd be wrong.

What does cisgendered mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

It's more or less the opposite of transgendered.

What does cisgendered mean?

Cisgender is the contrast to transgender on the gender spectrum. Somebody who is transgendered is one whose biological sex does not match up with their gender identity, while somebody who is cisgendered is a person whose biological sex matches up with their gender identity.

"Cisgendered" may be the cutest geeky chemistry-cum-sociology term I've ever encountered. I love it already. :)

I keep bringing it up, but, honestly, do you know what equivocation is? If what you were saying were true, equivocation would not exist. There is a whole name for the fallacy you're relying on. Somehow you seem to think I made this up. Maybe this is another of those times, you should look something up BEFORE you make claims about it, huh?

I do. SaintB might be guilty of equivocation if he used different definitions than that in the OP . The possibly ignorant people have not agreed such a discussion.

My argument has always centered around the ignorant people. I tried to make this clear in the post after the one where I said languages aren't static and more forcibly in next one. See, that's why I said that SaintB wasn't absolved but the people were.

I didn't research gender's etymology because I knew and you implicitly conceded that the and sex are synonymous was the current popular definition.

The "people" in SaintB's post usage would be in the same topic SaintB is in. If SaintB was talking about them having another usage, he would be equivocating, since no one is denying that gender and sex can be synonyms. The only thing that anyone has ever been denying is that they aren't synonyms in this context. So either SaintB came her to equivocate, or SaintB isn't aware that there is another definition. Either way, he'd be wrong.

I conceded that SainB was guilty of equivocation posts ago, but the people are not since they are talking about 'soccer'.

I do. SaintB might be guilty of equivocation if he used different definitions than that in the OP . The possibly ignorant people have not agreed such a discussion.

My argument has always centered around the ignorant people. I tried to make this clear in the post after the one where I said languages aren't static and more forcibly in next one. See, that's why I said that SaintB wasn't absolved but the people were.

I didn't research gender's etymology because I knew and you implicitly conceded that the and sex are synonymous was the current popular definition.

Okay, this is going to go nowhere, but the people that he mentioned that might argue otherwise are automatically entering the same discussion or its irrelevant. So either he was equivocating or they would be.

That they are synonymous ISN'T the current popular definition. It's A definition. The current popular definition is that they AREN'T equal. That's the NEW definition. You have it entirely backwards and that was pointed out to you after your first post. You admitted you didn't actually know when you posted and that the person pointing out was right.

I conceded that SainB was guilty of equivocation posts ago, but the people are not since they are talking about 'soccer'.

Again, that would irrelevant to this discussion. He was talking about something that he considered relevant to this discussion.

See, if those people were silly enough to be arguing about synonyms, they wouldn't be arguing "otherwise", they would talking about something else. So in no way, shape or form was SaintB correct. You've slightly shifted your goalposts until you think you're not wrong rather than simply admitting that you made a ludicrous argument and then got caught.

Although a gender scale is moronic, it's sadly the way that we identify ourselves within society (as male or female). Of course, I'm aware that some people do not go by this, there's the case of a man who was born feeling he was really a woman, and vice versa. And I guess this also affects the way we feel attraction towards the opposite or same sex.

It's something hard to explain and, with the fear of opening a debate I don't have the stomach to get involved at the moment, I'll leave it as "my own way" of seeing things. :tongue:

A lot of people will argue that point...

See, what SaintB said. He said a lot of people would argue "that point".

If someone was talking about a different usage, they wouldn't be arguing "that point". They'd be arguing something totally different altogether. You're not longer speaking to what we were discussing and your shifting goalposts are an embarrassment to argument.

Yes, and unfortunately those people are not educated as to what those words mean. That they are not equal is a truism.

Now, one might argue that they are inextricably related, but that would be a totally different argument. The first is based on ignorance, the second could very well be based on evidence.
Languages aren't static, however. Even though this might have been its original meaning its now been used to be more or less synonymous with sex.

This was your original post. It didn't say anything about the people in the SaintB's argument or anything about how they aren't involved in this discussion. Your original argument is that the gender IS NOW synonymous with sex.

And every part of that point is wrong. First, it's not newly synonymous. The newer definition is the one that isn't synonymous. Second, that's not the usage that's relevant here, but you not only pretended it was, but pretended it was the only possible relevant usage.

I'm just a dude.

Okay, this is going to go nowhere, but the people that he mentioned that might argue otherwise are automatically entering the same discussion or its irrelevant. So either he was equivocating or they would be.

The people would be entering a discussion where the rules haven't been agreed to by all parties. They aren't equivocating because the definition for the discussion hasn't been agreed to by all parties. If they did agree then they wouldn't be ignorant.

That they are synonymous ISN'T the current popular definition. It's A definition. The current popular definition is that they AREN'T equal. That's the NEW definition. You have it entirely backwards and that was pointed out to you after your first post. You admitted you didn't actually know when you posted and that the person pointing out was right.

That its the more recent definition I conceded in my reply to Nadkor. That its the current popular definition I didn't and don't concede. Everyday usage by most people is sex and gendered are synonymous. I ask what gender someone is they'll most think I asking what sex they are biologically. If I looked at the the driver's license of a transgendered person and looked under sex I would probably find what their gender, using the OP definition, is rather than biological sex is, state law permitting.

I'm just a dude.

And I guess that's the way we like you.:D

This was your original post. It didn't say anything about the people in the SaintB's argument or anything about how they aren't involved in this discussion. Your original argument is that the gender IS NOW synonymous with sex.

And every part of that point is wrong. First, it's not newly synonymous. The newer definition is the one that isn't synonymous. Second, that's not the usage that's relevant here, but you not only pretended it was, but pretended it was the only possible relevant usage.


Umm as far as I know 'gender' is used(when not discussing language) predominantly to refer to the sex of a person. There is of course the usage which takes into account social or cultural ideas, but the most common usage of teh word IS synonamous with the word sex, meaning male or female.

It is then quite correct to ask 'What gender is Sam?' and mean 'Is Sam a man or a woman?'

See, if those people were silly enough to be arguing about synonyms, they wouldn't be arguing "otherwise", they would talking about something else.

Agreed. They are talking about something else.


See, what SaintB said. He said a lot of people would argue "that point".

If someone was talking about a different usage, they wouldn't be arguing "that point". They'd be arguing something totally different altogether. You're not longer speaking to what we were discussing and your shifting goalposts are an embarrassment to argument.

There are two possible interpretations of SaintB's. They are either mean that sex and gender inextricable or they are talking about a 'soccer' since they didn't think 'football' meant 'american football'.


This was your original post. It didn't say anything about the people in the SaintB's argument or anything about how they aren't involved in this discussion. Your original argument is that the gender IS NOW synonymous with sex.

And every part of that point is wrong. First, it's not newly synonymous. The newer definition is the one that isn't synonymous. Second, that's not the usage that's relevant here, but you not only pretended it was, but pretended it was the only possible relevant usage.

It is synonymous with sex in current popular usage. See below for a quote that supports. I added the bolding

In casual use, "gender" and "sex" are used more or less synonymously

Umm as far as I know 'gender' is used(when not discussing language) predominantly to refer to the sex of a person. There is of course the usage which takes into account social or cultural ideas, but the most common usage of teh word IS synonamous with the word sex, meaning male or female.

It is then quite correct to ask 'What gender is Sam?' and mean 'Is Sam a man or a woman?'

I never argued that it isn't a usage. It's just not the only usage and that usage is irrelevant to this discussion as much as the usage of "football" to mean "soccer" is irrelevant to a discussion of Brett Favre.

Agreed. They are talking about something else.

Not according to SaintB's post. According to SaintB, they are arguing "that point". You shifted the goal posts.



There are two possible interpretations of SaintB's. They are either mean that sex and gender inextricable or they are talking about a 'soccer' since they didn't think 'football' meant 'american football'.

Again, "that point" referenced by SaintB was a point about the usage in this thread. According to SaintB, whose post we're discussing, they ARE arguing "that point". Your claims that they aren't are irrelevant and silly.




It is synonymous with sex in current popular usage. See below for a quote that supports. I added the bolding

You keep saying current. It's always been synonymous with sex. The newer, and thus more current usage, is the usage in this thread.

The people would be entering a discussion where the rules haven't been agreed to by all parties. They aren't equivocating because the definition for the discussion hasn't been agreed to by all parties. If they did agree then they wouldn't be ignorant.

If they are discussing "that point" as suggested by SaintB, the only way to do so would be to actually speaking to the point. You're claiming they aren't, and thus would not be the people SaintB posted about.


That its the more recent definition I conceded in my reply to Nadkor. That its the current popular definition I didn't and don't concede. Everyday usage by most people is sex and gendered are synonymous. I ask what gender someone is they'll most think I asking what sex they are biologically. If I looked at the the driver's license of a transgendered person and looked under sex I would probably find what their gender, using the OP definition, is rather than biological sex is, state law permitting.

Um, you really go around saying "what gender is Kara?" I doubt it. Generally, when people make an effort to say "gender" it's because sex doesn't cut it.

Though, that's a hijack of this discussion. Which usage is more popular is irrelevant. The usage you seem to want to discuss isn't the usage in this discussion or any discussion addressing "that point".

For the record, the most popular usage according to nearly every dictionary you can find is referring to grammar. So even if you claim you're just suggesting people would be using the most common usage, you'd still be wrong. Interestingly enough, it's precisely that usage that spawned the usage we're discussing.

None of this becomes relevant at any time. The point we're discussing has a certain usage. A correct usage. It's popularity is irrelevant.

Continuing my earlier example, football is more popularly used to reference soccer if you're talking about globally. That doesn't change it's usage or what's appropriate in a discussion of Tony Romo.

Not according to SaintB's post. According to SaintB, they are arguing "that point". You shifted the goal posts.

You're rationalizing your misunderstandings. Stop. Its just sad. I tried to ignore them before out of basic courtesy just like I would not remark to someone after a loud burst of flatulence that that was a nasty one and they should change their diet.

Again, "that point" referenced by SaintB was a point about the usage in this thread. According to SaintB, whose post we're discussing, they ARE arguing "that point". Your claims that they aren't are irrelevant and silly.

If so then they are saying that sex and gender are inextricable. Biology and behavior are linked. If they're ignorant then they are arguing 'soccer' rules.

You keep saying current. It's always been synonymous with sex. The newer, and thus more current usage, is the usage in this thread.

Popular current usage. Its generally used currently as a synonym for biological sex except in we talk about the social sciences.

Um, you really go around saying "what gender is Kara?" I doubt it. Generally, when people make an effort to say "gender" it's because sex doesn't cut it.

Generally people do so when they wish to enquire about someone whose biological sex is ambiguous and whose name is unisex. Think of the heterosexual couple of Pat and Chris in old SNL skits.

For the record, the most popular usage according to nearly every dictionary you can find is referring to grammar. So even if you claim you're just suggesting people would be using the most common usage, you'd still be wrong. Interestingly enough, it's precisely that usage that spawned the usage we're discussing.

The most popular usage is the usage that is most commonly used. When new definitions are widely used, even if they are the most widely used definition, they are generally added.


Continuing my earlier example, football is more popularly used to reference soccer if you're talking about globally. That doesn't change it's usage or what's appropriate in a discussion of Tony Romo.

It doesn't change its usage but if you said Tony Romo was a great football player and he didn't player and he didn't know of 'american football' when he told his brother that Tim Brono is great football player, meaning soccer player, he would not be lying since he didn't know that to some people football meant the game the rugby-like game.

You're rationalizing your misunderstandings. Stop. Its just sad. I tried to ignore them before out of basic courtesy just like I would not remark to someone after a loud burst of flatulence that that was a nasty one and they should change their diet.

Hehe. I love the personal attacks. They particularly tend to make you look silly when you're wrong.

See, first you claimed that the usage today is newly synonymous. You were wrong.

Then you claimed your first post was talking about the people who would be discussing in SaintB's post. Your first post didn't. You were wrong.

Then you claimed that SaintB was talking about people who would be discussing a different usage. Unfortunately, SaintB specifically said they would be arguing a point made in THIS THREAD. As such, you can't change what they're arguing about just because you're desperate to be right on, well, anything you can find. You were again wrong.

I'm curious... what have you been right about since this who fiasco of an argument was started by you?


If so then they are saying that sex and gender are inextricable. Biology and behavior are linked. If they're ignorant then they are arguing 'soccer' rules.

You forgot how this started, didn't you?

Yes, and unfortunately those people are not educated as to what those words mean. That they are not equal is a truism.

Now, one might argue that they are inextricably related, but that would be a totally different argument. The first is based on ignorance, the second could very well be based on evidence.

But "that point" wasn't that they were or were not inextricable. "That point" was whether or not the usage relevant to this discussion is synonymous. As such, it's a truism that there can be no argument. By definition, they aren't synonymous. If they were, the discussion that spawned "that point" wouldn't be possible.


Popular current usage. Its generally used currently as a synonym for biological sex except in we talk about the social sciences.

Again, irrelevant, but it's still not the popular usage. The popular usage references grammar. So either, you're referencing pop culture, where they aren't synonymous, or you're wrong for another reason that the usage isn't most popular. Which is it?

Generally people do so when they wish to enquire about someone whose biological sex is ambiguous and whose name is unisex. Think of the heterosexual couple of Pat and Chris in old SNL skits.

Generally, what people say is "what sex is Kara" or "Is Kara a girl?" This is also why hiring documents say "Sex: M or F". Some newer documents use "Gender" and they do so with the explicit intent to change the question being asked (thus using the other definition).

And this still remains irrelevant to the discussion. We're discussing the use of gender as the expression of identity. That another more popular usage exists doesn't change the argument at all. In fact, it was pointed out several times that there is another usage.


The most popular usage is the usage that is most commonly used. When new definitions are widely used, even if they are the most widely used definition, they are generally added.

It's not the most popular usage. The most popular usage refers to grammar, actually. That's why that definition comes first in most dictionsars.

It doesn't change its usage but if you said Tony Romo was a great football player and he didn't player and he didn't know of 'american football' when he told his brother that Tim Brono is great football player, meaning soccer player, he would not be lying since he didn't know that to some people football meant the game the rugby-like game.

And he wouldn't be arguing "that point". He could also tell his brother that "Ham Sandwich" was a candidate for VP of the US and it would be equally relevant.

No one accused him of lying. There you go shifting those goalposts again. What I said was, anyone arguing "that point" would being incorrect or ignorant. That's a fact.

You long since conceded that point and then tried to pretend that somehow one could argue a different point and it would be relevant to SaintB's post. It wouldn't be.

If so then they are saying that sex and gender are inextricable. Biology and behavior are linked. If they're ignorant then they are arguing 'soccer' rules.
Yes, and unfortunately those people are not educated as to what those words mean. That they are not equal is a truism.

Now, one might argue that they are inextricably related, but that would be a totally different argument. The first is based on ignorance, the second could very well be based on evidence.

Look at my post you disagreed with again. I said they either wouldn't know the meaning of the words or they would be having a different argument about whether they were inextricably related. You've now come down to making the argument that they could be ignorant of the meaning of the words or they would be having a different argument. I approve. The surest way to land on right is to slowly morph your argument until it matches mine. (You see the three refs standing over you. They're signaling KO.)

Hehe. I love the personal attacks. They particularly tend to make you look silly when you're wrong.

The ironic thing isis that you do not seem to realize that you personally attacked me

See, first you claimed that the usage today is newly synonymous. You were wrong.

Incorrect. I claimed it may be newly synonymous. Whether it was or not was irrelevant.

Then you claimed your first post was talking about the people who would be discussing in SaintB's post. Your first post didn't. You were wrong.

Incorrect. I clarified afterward since I overestimated your reading comprehension skills .

Then you claimed that SaintB was talking about people who would be discussing a different usage. Unfortunately, SaintB specifically said they would be arguing a point made in THIS THREAD. As such, you can't change what they're arguing about just because you're desperate to be right on, well, anything you can find. You were again wrong.

He said that people would argue the point. If they are arguing a point in the very definition and they are "ignorant" then they don't realize what discussion they are actually in and they think

I'm curious... what have you been right about since this who fiasco of an argument was started by you?

Pretty much all of them.

But "that point" wasn't that they were or were not inextricable. "That point" was whether or not the usage relevant to this discussion is synonymous. As such, it's a truism that there can be no argument. By definition, they aren't synonymous. If they were, there would be no discussion.

Ignorant people who arguing against a truism would probably generally for a different truism.

Again, irrelevant, but it's still not the popular usage. The popular usage references grammar. So either, you're referencing pop culture, where they aren't synonymous, or you're wrong for another reason that the usage isn't most popular. Which is it?

Popular usage in the context of words is how words are most commonly used. So basically the pop culture use of words and popular usage are the same thing. :D

The ironic thing isis that you do not seem to realize that you personally attacked me

Oh, I realize that I addressed you don't understand. You don't. You're still claiming that someone having a completely different conversation is relevant.

Incorrect. I claimed it may be newly synonymous. Whether it was or not was irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Tech-gnosis;13975369]Languages aren't static, however. Even though this might have been its original meaning its now been used to be more or less synonymous with sex.

The only thing you said "might" about was the original meaning. You still said plainly that you believed this to be the new meaning. See, it has to do with your placement of might. But there I go again using reading comprehension and proper grammar to analyze your posts. If you'd like I can just start guessing at your meanings. Or, you know, you could learn how to express yourself.

You entirely discounted the usage in this thread in that post. Unfortunately, you compounded that error when you found yourself looking silly.




Incorrect. I clarified afterward since I overestimated your reading comprehension skills .

Hmm... let's check my "reading comprehension", shall we?

My argument has always centered around the ignorant people. I tried to make this clear in the post after the one where I said languages aren't static and more forcibly in next one. See, that's why I said that SaintB wasn't absolved but the people were.

Let's see what the post after the one where you said languages aren't static.

I know. I looked up its etymology after I posted.

Yeah, you sure did clarify. Like I said, you were wrong.

You did eventually explain that you believed they could use different meanings and not be guilty of equivocation, but that was later. This points to level of care you've taken in this discussion. It's a minor point, but demonstrates how sloppy your argumentation is.


He said that people would argue the point. If they are arguing a point in the very definition and they are "ignorant" then they don't realize what discussion they are actually in and they think

You're squirming so hard now that it's just sad. He said they are arguing "that point", you are talking about people who are arguing different point. By your own admission, it's a different point. As such, it's not what he said, nor relevant to what he said.

Pretty much all of them.

Wow, very clear. Nothing vauge about that at all.

I notice you don't actually list what it is you think you've been correct about. You're not quite sure how to make a real argument, are you?

Be careful. You wouldn't want to list the points you still hold to be true. That would allow me to specifically address them. Or, you know, you could pretend this is a debate.


Ignorant people who arguing against a truism would probably generally for a different truism.

Which would be a different point, and not relevant to people who are discussing the point SaintB was reference, huh?


Popular usage in the context of words is how words are most commonly used. So basically the pop culture use of words and popular usage are the same thing. :D

Again, the most popular usage is related to grammar. Pop culture doesn't necessarily reference what is most popular. Pop culture refers to a social context. I'm quite certain you don't want to get into this, but if you do, please start a thread. I'm sure it would be entertaining.

There is no meaning of popular where you're statement is correct. It is not the most popular usage, nor is it the one that is relevant to the social context.

I'm going to post this again because it makes me giggle.

If so then they are saying that sex and gender are inextricable. Biology and behavior are linked. If they're ignorant then they are arguing 'soccer' rules.
Yes, and unfortunately those people are not educated as to what those words mean. That they are not equal is a truism.

Now, one might argue that they are inextricably related, but that would be a totally different argument. The first is based on ignorance, the second could very well be based on evidence.

Nothing like waiting a couple of pages and hoping no one notices that you're now agreeing with me. You did the reverse the order. I'm sure that adequately hides that you're just restating what you originally disagreed with.

Generally, what people say is "what sex is Kara" or "Is Kara a girl?" This is also why hiring documents say "Sex: M or F". Some newer documents use "Gender" and they do so with the explicit intent to change the question being asked (thus using the other definition).

And they probably think of sex and gender as synonymous and since the

And this still remains irrelevant to the discussion. We're discussing the use of gender as the expression of identity. That another more popular usage exists doesn't change the argument at all. In fact, it was pointed out several times that there is another usage.

Agreed, but people who are ignorant of a less popular are not actually part of the discussion since they don't know what we are talking about.

It's not the most popular usage. The most popular usage refers to grammar, actually. That's why that definition comes first in most dictionsars.

Really? Can you tell me what methodology they use to discover what the most popular usage is?

No one accused him of lying. There you go shifting those goalposts again.
Equivocation is a deception. Lying is a deception.

What I said was, anyone arguing "that point" would being incorrect or ignorant. That's a fact.


Look at my post you disagreed with again. I said they either wouldn't know the meaning of the words or they would be having a different argument about whether they were inextricably related. You've now come down to making the argument that they could be ignorant of the meaning of the words or they would be having a different argument. I approve. The surest way to land on right is to slowly morph your argument until it matches mine. (You see the three refs standing over you. They're signaling KO.)

No. I said that ignorance and having a different discussion came down to the same thing. A 'football' game could mean a 'Soccer' or an 'American football'

My disagreement with was not so much of a disagreement as a supplement. I was tired of people fostering definitions on words that I found silly. This includes Objectivists who balk when I don't use sacrifice to mean exchanging some of greater value for something of lesser value or others who say America can't be capitalist. Ignorant people haven't agreed to the rules, and I felt sympathy for them, amusing since they are so abstract.. Did you think I disagreed with your initial post more than that?

Really? Can you tell me what methodology they use to discover what the most popular usage is?

Are you kidding? You seriously don't know how (most English/American) dictionaries work? Wow.

You want me to lexicography to you and that's probably going to require another thread. Start one at your leisure.

Equivocation is a deception. Lying is a deception.

Equivocation is a fallacy. It doesn't require you to do it on purpose.

In debate, you generally can't speak to intent and fallacies don't bother. It can be a deception. It can be a mistake. It's still a fallacy, either way.

No. I said that ignorance and having a different discussion came down to the same thing. A 'football' game could mean a 'Soccer' or an 'American football'

My disagreement with was not so much of a disagreement as a supplement. I was tired of people fostering definitions on words that I found silly. This includes Objectivists who balk when I don't use sacrifice to mean exchanging some of greater value for something of lesser value or others who say America can't be capitalist. Ignorant people haven't agreed to the rules, and I felt sympathy for them, amusing since they are so abstract.. Did you think I disagreed with your initial post more than that?

If they aren't part of the discussion, then they aren't arguing "that point". As such, your statements aren't addressing SaintB's post at all. He is specifically speaking about people who would be equivocating, who would discussing "that point". That they are ignorant that the meaning relevant to "that point" makes it a truism doesn't change that.

Oh, I realize that I addressed you don't understand. You don't. You're still claiming that someone having a completely different conversation is relevant.

It is relevant to them.

The only thing you said "might" about was the original meaning. You still said plainly that you believed this to be the new meaning. See, it has to do with your placement of might. But there I go again using reading comprehension and proper grammar to analyze your posts. If you'd like I can just start guessing at your meanings. Or, you know, you could learn how to express yourself.

You entirely discounted the usage in this thread in that post. Unfortunately, you compounded that error when you found yourself looking silly.

I only claimed that its now used by most people in a way that makes it synonymous with sex.

You're squirming so hard now that it's just sad. He said they are arguing "that point", you are talking about people who are arguing different point. By your own admission, it's a different point. As such, it's not what he said, nor relevant to what he said.

They are arguing whether or not the words sex and the word gender are synonyms.

Wow, very clear. Nothing vauge about that at all.

I notice you don't actually list what it is you think you've been correct about. You're not quite sure how to make a real argument, are you?

Be careful. You wouldn't want to list the points you still hold to be true. That would allow me to specifically address them. Or, you know, you could pretend this is a debate.

So when you asks me in an insulting manner which of my arguments I think I'm correct about you expect me to answer in a serious way?

We've been pretending to have a debate for some time.

Which would be a different point, and not relevant to people who are discussing the point SaintB was reference, huh?

They are arguing a truism where the words sex and gender are synonymous. They do not know they are in a discussion that differs. Its like asking an European to describe the rules of american football when. I never meant that in this discussion they are correct. Just that within the context they are using they are correct. Its not the context this thread is about.

Again, the most popular usage is related to grammar. Pop culture doesn't necessarily reference what is most popular. Pop culture refers to a social context. I'm quite certain you don't want to get into this, but if you do, please start a thread. I'm sure it would be entertaining.

There is no meaning of popular where you're statement is correct. It is not the most popular usage, nor is it the one that is relevant to the social context.

We're arguing over different definitions. I'm using popular in the sense of most/majority and usage as in used. So popular usage of a word means how words are used by most people most of the time.

man, you guys have really killed this thread.

I've thought for some time now that gender is something that is not purely defined by two terms, masculine and feminine, and that it is more of a scale with one extreme being ultra-masculine and one extreme being ultra-feminine. However, I've had a hard time reconciling that belief with my opposition to gender-ism, where we attribute traits to someone based on what gender they identify as. I think I've come to believe that gender is something that is inherent within you, somewhat like sexuality, but unlike sexuality, where you know can know where on the homo-hetero scale you lie on based on who you're attracted too, it's much harder to tell where on the gender scale you lie on.

So I was wondering on how people define gender for themselves as well as for society. How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you? How do you place yourself on a hypothetical gender scale, and do you base that off of gender roles or something within you?

Do you think that the idea of a gender scale is moronic, and why?

I'd be particularly interested if there were people who considered themselves transgendered or genderqueer, or had amusing and/or anecdotal evidence about those who did. :D

Basically, I'm too lazy to think this through, so I want NSG to do it for me. >.>

Yeah I don't know. I feel a bit masculine and a bit feminine. I'm a woman in my dreams sometimes too. I'm bigendered.

It is relevant to them.

Which has what to do with SaintB's post or this discussion?

I only claimed that its now used by most people in a way that makes it synonymous with sex.

But it isn't. The most common usage is grammatical. So even that point was wrong. It also denies what you actually said, but, hey, you aren't required to be honest.

They are arguing whether or not the words sex and the word gender are synonyms.

Which is only arguing "that point" if they are entering the discussion. Any other arguments about different points would not be relevant to what SaintB said.


So when you asks me in an insulting manner which of my arguments I think I'm correct about you expect me to answer in a serious way?

We've been pretending to have a debate for some time.

I expect you to debate. If you don't know how or aren't interested, say so, and I'll ignore you. I'm assuming you're capable of it.


They are arguing a truism where the words sex and gender are synonymous. They do not know they are in a discussion that differs. Its like asking an European to describe the rules of american football when. I never meant that in this discussion they are correct. Just that within the context they are using they are correct. Its not the context this thread is about.

Again, you might as well be arguing that they could be discussing the type of sandwiches they like, for all the relevance to what SaintB said. As soon as they are discussing a different usage, it's not the same point. That's what a truism is.

We're arguing over different definitions. I'm using popular in the sense of most/majority and usage as in used. So popular usage of a word means how words are used by most people most of the time.

Yes, and you're wrong about that as well. The most popular usage is the grammatic usage. You keep ignoring this fact.

Yeah I don't know. I feel a bit masculine and a bit feminine. I'm a woman in my dreams sometimes too. I'm bigendered.

Is it weird that sometimes in my dreams I lust after the dream SB?

Is it weird that sometimes in my dreams I lust after the dream SB?

Which one, the male dream SB or the feman dream SB?

man, you guys have really killed this thread.

Yeah, well, the problem is that the only argument offered was "if you have a pussy, act like a girl".

There was some discussion, but topics where everyone but a couple of trolls agree usually end up dying or with people arguing of something as silly as Tech claiming that they could be arguing about something else based on a game of telephone.

I say, that gender and sex ARE equal, if you're talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, Gender, and the one BK just put out called Sex.

Which one, the male dream SB or the feman dream SB?

Sometimes, he has a penis, sometimes a vagina and sometimes both. Always balding though. Sometimes I spend hours rubbing oil on your shiny pate.

Sometimes, he has a penis, sometimes a vagina and sometimes both. Always balding though. Sometimes I spend hours rubbing oil on your shiny pate.

then your answer is 'no, it isn't weird'.
:D

then your answer is 'no, it isn't weird'.
:D

In that case, time for a nap.

Yeah, well, the problem is that the only argument offered was "if you have a pussy, act like a girl".

Which (as mentioned) should be a new topic - what IS acting like a man/woman ?

My body is female, and to be fair, its not bad with no particular allergies or illnesses. I dislike the periods and would prefer to be a little bigger and stronger, but it does the job of carrying me around. I see that as just luck - I had a roughly 50/50 chance and got a female one.

I have no idea what to answer to the "how do you self-identify" thing - I have no concept of myself as male or female or anything other than "the collection of traits and experiences known as bewilder". I've been thinking about it since the thread popped up, and can't get my head round the idea that "the collection... etc" should/could have a gender. Pratchett describes an eighth colour as being orangey-purple since its impossible for us to imagine a new colour not composed of those we know. This concept is a bit like that - I'm reading the words, I can see that its important to other people, but I can't get my head round it. :confused:

I'm so very, very disappointed in this thread.

And, to be honest, there are two people largely reponsible for that, and most others barely responsible for that.

I'm a male and I act like a traditional Jewish male in an ethnic and cultural sense (religiously, I'm actually a Christian, although my family and I still observe many Jewish holidays as well as Kosher Laws for the sake of tradition).

I'm so very, very disappointed in this thread.

And, to be honest, there are two people largely reponsible for that, and most others barely responsible for that.Hey, gender and identity are very complex issues. It's not the sort of topic I can just glance at and come with some bullshit immediately. It needs lots of thought put into it. So needless to say, whilst everyone is thinking about the topic it gets lots of posts about people ranting on about the technical details and minutiae.

That said, I was speaking with a girl on biology. Well actually I was listening in the conversation whilst failing at guitar hero, but that's not the point. She said that there's part of the brain that is essential to sexual behaviour. The area is larger in men and FTMs than in females and MTFs. This would appear to be a deep challenge to the idea that gender is nurture rather than nature. What I'd like to know is what this brain area is like for people with no strong affiliation with either gender. I'd guess a medium sized area, but that's just a guess.

That said, I was speaking with a girl on biology. Well actually I was listening in the conversation whilst failing at guitar hero, but that's not the point. She said that there's part of the brain that is essential to sexual behaviour. The area is larger in men and FTMs than in females and MTFs. This would appear to be a deep challenge to the idea that gender is nurture rather than nature. What I'd like to know is what this brain area is like for people with no strong affiliation with either gender. I'd guess a medium sized area, but that's just a guess.

Someone needs to find some linkage of this.

Also, I'm sorry, I don't have time to properly respond to some of the more interesting posts in this thread tonight, but I'll try to get to it soon. *nod*

Someone needs to find some linkage of this.

Also, I'm sorry, I don't have time to properly respond to some of the more interesting posts in this thread tonight, but I'll try to get to it soon. *nod**mutters* Why do I have to do the linkage? I was just being anecdotal.

Oh, that was easy enough. Googling 'gender identity brain' reveals http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm. At least I believe that is the part of the brain she was talking about.

Also, the wiki is a bit pathetic, but it does mention many parts of the brain that differ between females and males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#Sexual_differentiation_and_neurobiology

Hey, gender and identity are very complex issues. It's not the sort of topic I can just glance at and come with some bullshit immediately. It needs lots of thought put into it. So needless to say, whilst everyone is thinking about the topic it gets lots of posts about people ranting on about the technical details and minutiae.

That said, I was speaking with a girl on biology. Well actually I was listening in the conversation whilst failing at guitar hero, but that's not the point. She said that there's part of the brain that is essential to sexual behaviour. The area is larger in men and FTMs than in females and MTFs. This would appear to be a deep challenge to the idea that gender is nurture rather than nature. What I'd like to know is what this brain area is like for people with no strong affiliation with either gender. I'd guess a medium sized area, but that's just a guess.

I read a book on this. I could see if I could find it. It's in some box from the last time I moved.

As far as I remember, essentially, the hormones delivered during pregnancy at different times form the brain v the body. So you can have a very feminine brain in a very masculine body and vice versa. (Feminine and masculine here applies to that which is found most in women and men, respectively.)

It makes sense when you look at it. There discussions of such things like the ability to focus on one point versus a lesser focus on a group of things. It's also looks at the relevance to how we evolved. As we've moved away from the caveman needs, the line became less defined. So while only women would need to hear the variance in a child's cry in a time when men were sent to hunt, it would entirely different when men aren't disappearing for days, for example.

I'm so very, very disappointed in this thread.

And, to be honest, there are two people largely reponsible for that, and most others barely responsible for that.

Sorry, I got bored and nothing was going on. Kiryu actually posted asking for some activity, and that was the activity I found.

I've thought for some time now that gender is something that is not purely defined by two terms, masculine and feminine, and that it is more of a scale with one extreme being ultra-masculine and one extreme being ultra-feminine. However, I've had a hard time reconciling that belief with my opposition to gender-ism, where we attribute traits to someone based on what gender they identify as. I think I've come to believe that gender is something that is inherent within you, somewhat like sexuality, but unlike sexuality, where you know can know where on the homo-hetero scale you lie on based on who you're attracted too, it's much harder to tell where on the gender scale you lie on.

So I was wondering on how people define gender for themselves as well as for society. How did you determine what gender you are, or did it just come naturally to you? How do you place yourself on a hypothetical gender scale, and do you base that off of gender roles or something within you?

Do you think that the idea of a gender scale is moronic, and why?

I'd be particularly interested if there were people who considered themselves transgendered or genderqueer, or had amusing and/or anecdotal evidence about those who did. :D

Basically, I'm too lazy to think this through, so I want NSG to do it for me. >.>

I have limited free time lately, so I'm going to skip reading the 10 pages of posts in which someone has already said what I'm about to say, and repeat it. Because I can.

It seems to me that 95% of "gender" is socially constructed. I took a course on anthropology and when talking about "races" (in quotes because it is not a scientifically valid way of grouping people and is also almost totally socially constructed) scientists who look at the human genome have said that there is more variation among "races" than between them. 3% or so genetic variation occurs between races, while 97% occurs within races.

So it seems to me that "girly" or "feminine" traits (like daintiness, I guess? Or maybe cleanliness?) are in truth no more girly or feminine that "Black" traits (like athleticism, I guess?) is Black.

Why boys shouldn't wear skirts or girls shouldn't do manual labor or any other type of restriction based on social norms is somewhat confusing to me.

And even if there are some things that are "girly," who cares? The most important trait are universal. You know, like compassion, intelligence, humor, or patience?


On a side note, I have a dear friend who thinks that no one is truly restricted in who they can love. She believes that while some people may prefer sex with a man or a woman, the ability to love romantically and whole heartedly is no more (or at least, shouldn't be more) restricted by the sex of the person you love than it is by the person's height, weight, race, or any other superficial trait. I'm not sure if I agree with her, but it is interesting to think about.

Hey, gender and identity are very complex issues. It's not the sort of topic I can just glance at and come with some bullshit immediately. It needs lots of thought put into it. So needless to say, whilst everyone is thinking about the topic it gets lots of posts about people ranting on about the technical details and minutiae.

That said, I was speaking with a girl on biology. Well actually I was listening in the conversation whilst failing at guitar hero, but that's not the point. She said that there's part of the brain that is essential to sexual behaviour. The area is larger in men and FTMs than in females and MTFs. This would appear to be a deep challenge to the idea that gender is nurture rather than nature. What I'd like to know is what this brain area is like for people with no strong affiliation with either gender. I'd guess a medium sized area, but that's just a guess.

there's also an excellent book out there called "the moral animal"---i think the author's name is robert wright, or something.

it is about "evolutionary psychology", which tries to explain generalizable behavioral differences between the sexes (regardless of orientation) in terms of naturally selected instincts.

quite a different point than above, but it made me think of it.

really an excellent book.

well u were born into the world the way u were..

n how do u decide what gender u are or where on the gender scale u r ??

well through long years of observation normally till young adulthood where u compare urself with the general population n c where u fit in ...

i knew where i was ..when i was in my late teens ... for sure that is ..i always knew that i was male ..certainly ...but as in relation to the the general population ...

well u were born into the world the way u were..

n how do u decide what gender u are or where on the gender scale u r ??

well through long years of observation normally till young adulthood where u compare urself with the general population n c where u fit in ...

i knew where i was ..when i was in my late teens ... for sure that is ..i always knew that i was male ..certainly ...but as in relation to the the general population ...

I think someone took white-out to the screen.... it looks like only half the words are there...