The Gender Unicorn
Discussion
ehonda said:
I honestly don't care how someone refers to themselves or how they refer to me, the thing that I don't understand is that it seems to me that people who define themselves outside of hetero/cis etc seem to be aiming for more pigeon holes. To my mind more pigeon holes = more exclusion and I can't see how that is in any way progressive or positive.
What's wrong with Person, surely that should be the goal?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by more pigeon holes?What's wrong with Person, surely that should be the goal?
I'm not quite following - isn't a pigeon hole the slot that your post is sorted into at work/college etc?
Certainly most trans folk I know would like, in no particular order: a) to be able to access needed medical treatment in a timely manner, b) go for a pee without being frightened of being yelled at/threatened/turfed out by security guards etc, c) have our names and pronouns and, well, gender, accepted and acknowledged by the people we come into contact with, and d) just get on with life. That includes some very little kids, young adults, middle-aged adults and those in later life.
There are always a few, mostly young, people in any group you care to name who actively want attention from the wider world more than anything else - just look at the putrid contents of Big Brother - but that's got nothing specifically to do with gender or sexual identity.
FlyingMeeces said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by more pigeon holes?
More definitions of gender. eg LBGTQ1.I just don't see how fighting to be separately identified helps anyone.
I have young kids and I'd rather they felt included in a homogenous group of Everyone than forced to define themselves under some ever shifting categories that only about a dozen people at a time agree on.
I realise this is idealistic, but why the need to be classified as other? Whether that be L, T or CIS?
Art0ir said:
This is such a bizarre subject to me.
I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
The only people 'rewriting science' are the denialists who cannot see beyond their religiously influenced binary absolutism. I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
'Conversion therapy' aka torture is comprehensively disproven as an intervention.
ehonda said:
FlyingMeeces said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by more pigeon holes?
More definitions of gender. eg LBGTQ1.I just don't see how fighting to be separately identified helps anyone.
I have young kids and I'd rather they felt included in a homogenous group of Everyone than forced to define themselves under some ever shifting categories that only about a dozen people at a time agree on.
I realise this is idealistic, but why the need to be classified as other? Whether that be L, T or CIS?
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
People who actually transition are transitioning, it's all but permanent, and are rather easily distinguished from people who are making up scenarios in order to prove a point of the "well I could just say I'm a woman and walk right into the changing room, how about that?" variety of b
ks. Womanhood as a state of being rather than as a Halloween costume. "Hi, it's Rachel now" as opposed to Little Britain. Which is what I should have said yesterday, as it would have been much clearer. There are women with square jaws, big hands. Women (trans and otherwise) who are bothered by the shape of their jaw or a prominent larynx - I gather women with thyroid problems may quite often have that too - can have plastic surgery if it really bothers them. But it sounds like it's bothering you more than it's probably bothering her, to be honest. She needs to live her life, everyone else needs to let her get on with it, which includes respecting the fact that she's a she, and not reducing her to whichever stereotyped physical attributes of masculinity, real or imagined, she might be lumbered with as the result of not having transitioned before puberty.
Art0ir said:
This is such a bizarre subject to me.
I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
Who's re-writing science? I think it's pretty well accepted by the medical and scientific community that gender isn't decided based solely on what's in your pants, and that sometimes you can be born with the wrong bits.I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
Blue Oval84 said:
Art0ir said:
This is such a bizarre subject to me.
I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
Who's re-writing science? I think it's pretty well accepted by the medical and scientific community that gender isn't decided based solely on what's in your pants, and that sometimes you can be born with the wrong bits.I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
mph1977 said:
Art0ir said:
This is such a bizarre subject to me.
I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
The only people 'rewriting science' are the denialists who cannot see beyond their religiously influenced binary absolutism. I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
'Conversion therapy' aka torture is comprehensively disproven as an intervention.
2. Who mentioned conversion therapy? Conversion from what exactly? If someone wants to wear a dress that's fine with me. As for "torture", maybe you should take a look at the number of post op transsexuals that are devastated by their choice and regret it.
I'm for open and sensible conversations about everything and anything, it's a shame there is a small but growing section of so called progressives that have no interest in intellectual pluralism or any ideas or thoughts outside of their own bubble.
Art0ir said:
mph1977 said:
Art0ir said:
This is such a bizarre subject to me.
I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
The only people 'rewriting science' are the denialists who cannot see beyond their religiously influenced binary absolutism. I'm a libertarian so power to anyone that wants to wear a dress or draw stubble on with a pen. But to rewrite science and deny fundamental biology to make them feel better about the whole thing is a step too far.
'Conversion therapy' aka torture is comprehensively disproven as an intervention.
2. Who mentioned conversion therapy? Conversion from what exactly? If someone wants to wear a dress that's fine with me. As for "torture", maybe you should take a look at the number of post op transsexuals that are devastated by their choice and regret it.
I'm for open and sensible conversations about everything and anything, it's a shame there is a small but growing section of so called progressives that have no interest in intellectual pluralism or any ideas or thoughts outside of their own bubble.
2. If you are unaware of what 'Conversion Therapy' is , i would suggest you are insufficiently informed to hold an opinion on trans issues
3. care to provide a citation beyond a very very few cases where transition and being the centre of attention for a short period has not been the panacea the person though it was ... actual research that is rather than TERF and Conversion therapist propaganda ... from actual peer reviewed journals not the religious right or TERF websites
ehonda said:
FlyingMeeces said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by more pigeon holes?
More definitions of gender. eg LBGTQ1.I just don't see how fighting to be separately identified helps anyone.
I have young kids and I'd rather they felt included in a homogenous group of Everyone than forced to define themselves under some ever shifting categories that only about a dozen people at a time agree on.
I realise this is idealistic, but why the need to be classified as other? Whether that be L, T or CIS?
L, B and G stand for lesbian, gay and bisexual. They are terms which describe the gender of the person's preferred partner, in the context of their own gender. None of those are 'shifting' categories, and the people who fit into them number in the high hundreds of millions.
T stands for - well potentially a few things but let's go with Transgender, which is the umbrella term for someone whose gender identity is not a consistent and close fit with what is expected based on their (biological) sex. It's a really wide umbrella, deliberately so, and a lot of people on the fringes (eg very effeminate men or very butch women) may or may not perceive themselves or be perceived as transgender. Transgender also includes transsexual people, which is those whose gender is a straightforward mismatch with what was expected when they were born (eg the midwife who called out "it's a girl!" was mistaken). When transsexual people transition it means we move to living and presenting ourselves as the 'right' gender, which may include changes of name, pronouns obviously, things like clothing choice, and may involve medication and surgery for many although that isn't an option for everyone. Being transgender obviously has nothing to do with your sexuality (who you are attracted to/want to sleep with), just your gender.
I stands for intersex, which is people whose anatomy or other observable biological markers of sex are in some way ambiguous, in between, or carry features typical of the male and female sex. Historically baby boys born with a very small penis would have had it removed as tiny babies and their parents told to bring them up as a girl. This has resulted in some very unhappy dudes discovering the truth at some later point, and having a world of trouble sorting everything out, in essence. Those people come under the "LGBTI (etc!)" umbrella because if your bits don't conform to what society thinks are normal then you can't exactly be performing a gender that corresponds to a binary state of genitalia you don't have! Intersex men who have been brought up as women, or vice versa, may share a lot of experiences with trans folk, for obvious reasons.
Actual point though: none of these categories are new ideas, almost none of the terminology is really new either, the only thing that's changed is that people who fit into these minority groups have a much greater chance of learning the language at an earlier age, which is all to the good in terms of medical care, mental health care, safe sex education and so on. Nobody should ever be telling anybody they *should* be categorising themself, at any age or stage of life, but do you not see how important it is that those of us who DO fit in those groups, know they exist, and can stand up and be counted when it matters?
There's historically been a terrible problem with young gay men and women not understanding the mechanics of safe homosexual sex, for instance, resulting in a variety of unpleasantness. Nobody needs those people to stand up and declare themselves in order to teach teenagers things like "for the love of all that is holy, always use actual proper lube" or "seriously, keep your fingernails short, we really mean it", but we do need to acknowledge that they may be there, that they should learn those things. And before that, so long before anyone should be talking about sex, they need to know that boys can love other boys and girls can love other girls, and you can love both, or neither, and that's okay. Because otherwise kids grow up thinking there's something wrong with them, and that can do real damage.
ehonda said:
I honestly don't care how someone refers to themselves or how they refer to me, the thing that I don't understand is that it seems to me that people who define themselves outside of hetero/cis etc seem to be aiming for more pigeon holes. To my mind more pigeon holes = more exclusion and I can't see how that is in any way progressive or positive.
What's wrong with Person, surely that should be the goal?
I can't see that. I'm a man, sex male, gender masculine. It's fun. I do stereotypical man stuff like failing to light barbecues (where did I put the petrol can?), and electrocuting myself (sure I can fix this broken fusebox, just watch me). If I was born a woman and had made the effort to become a man (and by all accounts its a pretty epic effort) I would probably feel even more strongly about my gender identity. So being androgynous, neuter, "it", that doesn't really appeal. What's wrong with Person, surely that should be the goal?
230TE said:
I can't see that. I'm a man, sex male, gender masculine. It's fun. I do stereotypical man stuff like failing to light barbecues (where did I put the petrol can?), and electrocuting myself (sure I can fix this broken fusebox, just watch me). If I was born a woman and had made the effort to become a man (and by all accounts its a pretty epic effort) I would probably feel even more strongly about my gender identity. So being androgynous, neuter, "it", that doesn't really appeal.
I'm seeing a mate this weekend, he has done that change. Just had another surgery, and is on drugs, steroids I guess. He's more manly than most blokes I know (probably than most on here.) 
Halb said:
I'm seeing a mate this weekend, he has done that change. Just had another surgery, and is on drugs, steroids I guess. He's more manly than most blokes I know (probably than most on here.)
not Steroids, just testosterone and if he's had 'bottom' surgery even without a phalloplasty a hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries all but eliminating the production of endogenous F hormones Halb said:
230TE said:
I can't see that. I'm a man, sex male, gender masculine. It's fun. I do stereotypical man stuff like failing to light barbecues (where did I put the petrol can?), and electrocuting myself (sure I can fix this broken fusebox, just watch me). If I was born a woman and had made the effort to become a man (and by all accounts its a pretty epic effort) I would probably feel even more strongly about my gender identity. So being androgynous, neuter, "it", that doesn't really appeal.
I'm seeing a mate this weekend, he has done that change. Just had another surgery, and is on drugs, steroids I guess. He's more manly than most blokes I know (probably than most on here.) 
I'm wondering if I know him - it's not like we literally all know each other but it is a fairly small world, there are only a handful of places to get referred for the healthcare side of things, and various organisations/support group type stuff brings people together a bit, especially within age groups. And I know two very blokey dudes who live in South Manchester and have recently had surgery.
mph1977 said:
Nanook said:
A man is an adult male.
The very first definition I found on the internet of male is that 'a male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm'
So, your mate might be 'manly', but are they a man?
ah the 'gender critical' definition ... the one that excludes a proprtion of cisgender people of either sex due to the faulty assumptions made...The very first definition I found on the internet of male is that 'a male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm'
So, your mate might be 'manly', but are they a man?
WinstonWolf said:
mph1977 said:
Nanook said:
A man is an adult male.
The very first definition I found on the internet of male is that 'a male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm'
So, your mate might be 'manly', but are they a man?
ah the 'gender critical' definition ... the one that excludes a proprtion of cisgender people of either sex due to the faulty assumptions made...The very first definition I found on the internet of male is that 'a male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm'
So, your mate might be 'manly', but are they a man?
as many people would call you 'abnormal' despite your constant assertions of normality
mph1977 said:
WinstonWolf said:
mph1977 said:
Nanook said:
A man is an adult male.
The very first definition I found on the internet of male is that 'a male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm'
So, your mate might be 'manly', but are they a man?
ah the 'gender critical' definition ... the one that excludes a proprtion of cisgender people of either sex due to the faulty assumptions made...The very first definition I found on the internet of male is that 'a male organism is the physiological sex that produces sperm'
So, your mate might be 'manly', but are they a man?
as many people would call you 'abnormal' despite your constant assertions of normality
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff