The Gender Unicorn

[WinstonWolf]

mph1977 said:

voyds9 said:

mph1977 said:

4. claim to be 'insulted' and 'oppressed' by the use of correct terms for the 'normals' ( i.e. cisgender and heterosexual)

How dare you define what I should be termed.

Normal has been my groups nomenclature for centuries, leave it that way.

yet they deny the privilege of the aforementioned group ...

amazing how people are so quick to prove their bigotry when it comes to asserting their virility ...

Sorry Voyds, you've just joined the virile bigot list by virtue of not agreeing

[Art0ir]

Can we have Mattnun back? He was a bit mental but at least he had a good sense of humour.

Sorry for contributing to the thread derail, I'm totally up for a sensible discussion on the topic but I have zero time for new wave feminist, gender studies born non-words and rhetoric.

[p2c]

ehonda said:

Did I claim to be an expert? No, I offered my opinion. If you don't like it that's fine by me.
If you had a basic level of comprehension you will have noticed that my point was that by creating classifications (and they are created by people not biology) we create division and separation, and more classifications = more division = bad. It doesn't matter whether these divisions are gender, sexual preference or skin or hair colour.

The other side of labels is that I gives people with like attributes a language to a common identify and rather than creating division can also create unity. Most human rights achievements would have been much harder to achieve if there wasn't a means for the affective group to identify themselves, whether they were woman, coloured, disabled or LGBT. The classification in itself is not inherently bad as you imply. what is bad is the way the classification is used, There is nothing wrong with being Indian for example, but it is wrong to treat people from India a specific way purely because they are Indian.

You can also look at your other point from a different direction also. You say the classifications are created by people not biology. Yes the particular names are but the differences they represent are biological for the most part and wont go away because the label is eliminated, and there is a certain level of offensiveness when the majority group who's label is so privileged to be un-necessary in the majority off communications is advocating the abolishment of all other groupings, and don't think for a minute that abolishing the language abolishes the ability to discriminate.

Bottom line is, let people have their kinships, just don't treat them like st because of it or because they are different, or better still just don't treat people like st.

[voyds9]

mph1977 said:

yet they deny the privilege of the aforementioned group ...

amazing how people are so quick to prove their bigotry when it comes to asserting their virility ...

Well I didn't name them LGBT....

But it seems they have labelled me, bit hypocritical that.

As 70%+ of the UK is heteronormal, perhaps, the term normal is the appropriate one, rather than the made up cis.



Straight white working male and proud.

[Penelope Stopit]

I am all for help being there for those that need it and for people being educated so as to understand that we are all unique
People will always be that to me and I am confused about all this labelling depending on sexuality or sexual preferences etc
A step in the wrong direction is the way I feel about this

[WinstonWolf]

Art0ir said:

Can we have Mattnun back? He was a bit mental but at least he had a good sense of humour.

Sorry for contributing to the thread derail, I'm totally up for a sensible discussion on the topic but I have zero time for new wave feminist, gender studies born non-words and rhetoric.

Has he finally got himself banned?

[p2c]

Penelope Stopit said:

I am all for help being there for those that need it and for people being educated so as to understand that we are all unique
People will always be that to me and I am confused about all this labelling depending on sexuality or sexual preferences etc
A step in the wrong direction is the way I feel about this

Should we therefore abolish the following list?

African, African Scottish or African British
Any other African, Caribbean or Black ethnic group
Any other Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British ethnic group
Any other ethnic group (please specify below)
Any other White ethnic group (please specify below)
Arab
Bangladeshi, Bangladeshi Scottish or Bangladeshi British
Black, Black Scottish or Black British
Caribbean, Caribbean Scottish or Caribbean British
Chinese, Chinese Scottish or Chinese British
Indian, Indian Scottish or Indian British
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups (please specify below)
Pakistani, Pakistani Scottish or Pakistani British
White British/English/Northern Irish/Welsh
White Irish
White Polish
White Scottish

And if your answer is yes in every an all circumstances then please also assume its whatever you identify as that is the first for the chop and the default assumption would not be anything you remotely associate with. And can you not see there being a bit of an issue if a white person is the one telling all the others the list is no more.

On the other hand if racial identities can stay then why are they different to gender identities which are not allowed and in the wrong direction?

[Don1]

	Yes	No
I am angry
I am amused
I am confused
I am bemused
I am a non-gender aligned attack helicopter
When people get ranty I can't take things seriously

(Apologies, but wouldn't this make the whole debate a bit simpler?)

[p2c]

Don1 said:

Yes||No||

I am angry
I am amused
I am confused
I am bemused
I am a non-gender aligned attack helicopter
When people get ranty I can't take things seriously

(Apologies, but wouldn't this make the whole debate a bit simpler?)

Could you make it more inclusive as I don't feel any of the options apply to how I feel

[WinstonWolf]

p2c said:

Don1 said:

	Yes	No
I am angry
I am amused
I am confused
I am bemused
I am a non-gender aligned attack helicopter
When people get ranty I can't take things seriously

(Apologies, but wouldn't this make the whole debate a bit simpler?)

Could you make it more inclusive as I don't feel any of the options apply to how I feel

	Yes	No
I am a person

[p2c]

WinstonWolf said:

	Yes	No
I am a person

And now we have no useful information with which to base decisions on if we are inadvertently excluding a demographic we can no longer name

[WinstonWolf]

p2c said:

WinstonWolf said:

	Yes	No
I am a person

And now we have no useful information with which to base decisions on if we are inadvertently excluding a demographic we can no longer name

That is all the information you need if you truly wish to be inclusive.

[daddy cool]

Respect my anonymity!

	Yes	No	Prefer not to say
I am a person

[FlyingMeeces]

WinstonWolf said:

That is all the information you need if you truly wish to be inclusive.

Winston - this possibly doesn't even really belong on this thread at this point - but how on EARTH do you check whether eg black kids are doing very badly at school, or young women are overwhelmingly having serious abdominal pain ignored leading to poor medical outcomes, or oh god I dunno wheelchair users have employment rates of less than a quarter of what they should be (that's a guess, it's probably wrong), or old people with dementia are less likely to get proper painkillers with a broken hip than those without dementia, if you do not identify who is black, or a young woman, or a wheelie, or elderly with dementia?

Making sure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed/be cared for/whatever means having some way to know if you're failing to extend that equality to everybody.

[WinstonWolf]

FlyingMeeces said:

WinstonWolf said:

That is all the information you need if you truly wish to be inclusive.

Winston - this possibly doesn't even really belong on this thread at this point - but how on EARTH do you check whether eg black kids are doing very badly at school, or young women are overwhelmingly having serious abdominal pain ignored leading to poor medical outcomes, or oh god I dunno wheelchair users have employment rates of less than a quarter of what they should be (that's a guess, it's probably wrong), or old people with dementia are less likely to get proper painkillers with a broken hip than those without dementia, if you do not identify who is black, or a young woman, or a wheelie, or elderly with dementia?

Making sure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed/be cared for/whatever means having some way to know if you're failing to extend that equality to everybody.

People will be allowed to succeed on their merit, not whether they meet the criteria on a tick sheet.

It raises an interesting point, white male working class boys are now least likely to go to university. Has the tick box culture failed them?

[p2c]

WinstonWolf said:

p2c said:

WinstonWolf said:

	Yes	No
I am a person

And now we have no useful information with which to base decisions on if we are inadvertently excluding a demographic we can no longer name

That is all the information you need if you truly wish to be inclusive.

If your inclusive you don't need ANY information. But importantly if your inclusive it equally wont matter if people can identify with like people, as you wont treat them differently. However when a majority refuse and eliminate the language of minorities it is not being inclusive, it is oppression.

[WinstonWolf]

p2c said:

WinstonWolf said:

p2c said:

WinstonWolf said:

	Yes	No
I am a person

And now we have no useful information with which to base decisions on if we are inadvertently excluding a demographic we can no longer name

That is all the information you need if you truly wish to be inclusive.

If your inclusive you don't need ANY information. But importantly if your inclusive it equally wont matter if people can identify with like people, as you wont treat them differently. However when a majority refuse and eliminate the language of minorities it is not being inclusive, it is oppression.

So calling you a person is oppression? Scheesh, it sucks to be you.

[p2c]

WinstonWolf said:

People will be allowed to succeed on their merit, not whether they meet the criteria on a tick sheet.

It raises an interesting point, white male working class boys are now least likely to go to university. Has the tick box culture failed them?

We wouldn't know if we hadn't counted them as white working class boys somewhere. But maybe they just don't pay attention in school because they are always being told they will get paid more than mothers anyway.

Female working class boys on the other hand have an even harder time of it as shown on here, just making a point as you seem to ensure you were only referring to white male working class boys

[FlyingMeeces]

WinstonWolf said:

People will be allowed to succeed on their merit, not whether they meet the criteria on a tick sheet.

It raises an interesting point, white male working class boys are now least likely to go to university. Has the tick box culture failed them?

Well, clearly something's not quite right, I couldn't say if it's the tick box culture (in fact, I'm not actually quite sure what one is, although I could make an educated guess) but we wouldn't even know that if we didn't let people identify themselves. Why are they doing badly, what is anyone doing about it? (Genuine question, not rhetoric - I'm not firing on enough cylinders to go and read up on it today.) Clearly something is not as it should be if a whole group including perfectly bright kids are almost unanimously underachieving academically.

We could: work out how to spot that group young, maybe by looking at things like whether they have a parent who went to university, live in an area of high unemployment etc.
Put some extra funding in place to make sure that schools in economically depressed areas can attract good teachers if that's a problem.
Get mentoring and other one-to-one schemes to raise aspiration in place (I volunteered for one such while I was at university first time round, the school used us as extra teaching assistants and I never got anywhere near a kid who could have gone to uni if only they'd had the encouragement… )
Sort out the extraordinary, disastrous levels of school problems in kids in foster care, which seem to happen totally independently of whether the kid's actually been traumatised or anything specific.

But I think all those things involve some sort of monitoring or labelling to work out who is where, which areas have problems (maybe more importantly, which similar areas DON'T have problems, and what is happening there that isn't happening in the underachieving places)… I dunno, I can't see a way round that, and I'm not convinced we need or should be looking for a way round either, although that's it's own conversation.

Gonna kip now, later all.

[p2c]

WinstonWolf said:

So calling you a person is oppression? Scheesh, it sucks to be you.

That's not what I said. The elimination of all other additional descriptors by the dominant one is the oppression.