The Gender Non-binary debate.

[_dobbo_]

xjay1337 said:

How else should your comment be taken other than you spouting some anti-trans sentiment?

If you think posting a load of emojis gains you some moral high ground you are sorely mistaken.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

neil1jnr said:

I think history proves it is not a social construct.

Oh come on. The way that men are expected to behave and that women are expected to behave is entirely a social construct, and varies enormously across cultures and throughout history.

Some people find that they behave and react in ways more commensurate with how society expects the opposite gender to do, than their birth-assigned one, and wish to be treated by society as that gender rather than their birth-assigned one.

[otolith]

xjay1337 said:

Because you can't change DNA.

What sex is someone who has Swyer syndrome?

[descentia]

'

Edited by descentia on Sunday 31st March 21:28

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

xjay1337 said:

Because you can't change DNA.

What sex is someone who has Swyer syndrome?

The question was about gender not sex.

[otolith]

desolate said:

otolith said:

xjay1337 said:

Because you can't change DNA.

What sex is someone who has Swyer syndrome?

The question was about gender not sex.

Most of them will be raised as and identify as women, because they have normal female genital characteristics, but their genotype is XY. If we accept that testosterone masculinises the brain in utero, being completely insensitive to it, they also have a normal female brain.

[Halb]

j_4m said:

Because sexual preference still exists in a binary context, necessary because biological sex is dimorphic.

if that was true, there'd be no experimentation

[Androgynous]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

neil1jnr said:

I think history proves it is not a social construct.

Oh come on. The way that men are expected to behave and that women are expected to behave is entirely a social construct, and varies enormously across cultures and throughout history.

Some people find that they behave and react in ways more commensurate with how society expects the opposite gender to do, than their birth-assigned one, and wish to be treated by society as that gender rather than their birth-assigned one.

Gender doesn't exist in a physical form, you can't point to the gender on a diagram of the body, it isn't an organ it's just a feeling. You might feel like that now but over time your thoughts may change.

[j_4m]

desolate said:

j_4m said:

Because sexual preference still exists in a binary context, necessary because biological sex is dimorphic.

That's a cracker. What does it mean?

I mean that even a bisexual is attracted to specifically male and female sex. I'll defer to people actually dealing with transgenderism on this, but am I right in assuming that the ideal is for your physical body to reflect your internal self?

You need a sexual binary for concepts like hetero and homosexuality and transgenderism to exist, you need that framework of 'this is female, this is male' to define these things.

desolate said:

As a follow up to this as yet unanswered question am I correct in the thought that it's generally accepted that gender is social/cultural and that sex is biological.

Edited by desolate on Thursday 17th January 13:28

I personally feel it's a combination thereof and that one feeds the other. Some things are undeniably social, like colour preferences and wearing skirts or trousers, other things not so much. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that hormones have an effect on our behaviour and that our sex determines our hormonal responses, that there are differences in brain structure that affect its function.

Here's a thought; men are physically larger and stronger than women and this is going to dictate the way we interact with the world. For a start things are less threatening to us and we'll take confidence from that and the way in which we interact with society will be to an extent influenced by this. Society being society will react to this, and push back. Bit of biology, bit of society.

[alock]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

It still confuses me that people can accept the concept of homosexuality and bisexuality, but then struggle to accept the idea that gender is not similarly non-binary.

We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.

Generally I just try to read people's opinions on this thread and not get involved, but this is a poor analogy.

Accepting homosexuality is about accepting desires. Accepting transgender is about accepting self identity.

As a white man, saying "I fancy black men" is an entirely different claim to saying "I identify as a black man".

[neil1jnr]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

neil1jnr said:

I think history proves it is not a social construct.

Oh come on. The way that men are expected to behave and that women are expected to behave is entirely a social construct, and varies enormously across cultures and throughout history.

Some people find that they behave and react in ways more commensurate with how society expects the opposite gender to do, than their birth-assigned one, and wish to be treated by society as that gender rather than their birth-assigned one.

Of course it varies across cultures and throughout history, but what is more telling is the similarities rather than the minor variances. Men and women are biologically different, have different hormones. To say gender is a social construct is ludicrous.

Yes, some men are more feminine and some women more masculine. They would likely have these personality traits regardless of what you think society expects. People can wish to be treated as a different gender than they are from birth but many will refuse to accept that and I can understand why. That being said, I can sympathise with those that have anomalies with their chromosomes or hormones from birth and are genuinely the wrong gender for their body.

However, I think the debate above is separate from the 'non binary' debate of this thread. Those that identify as neither male or female then chose to label themselves accordingly (gender fluid, non-binary etc) is a different matter, and my stance won't shift from viewing this as ridiculous. They can label themselves anything they like, but don't try to dictate my speech and expect me to address you by your preferred pronoun and play along with your own delusions.

[_dobbo_]

neil1jnr said:

but don't try to dictate my speech and expect me to address you by your preferred pronoun and play along with your own delusions.

If someone said they preferred to be address as "she" instead of "he", in any social or professional situation, you're saying you'd refuse to do so and in doing so be deliberately combative or hurtful? Why?

[gregs656]

Atomic12C said:

And that is of course their absolute right - in a free society.

The root problem is that the term 'gender' is being attempted to be re-defined. Historically it simply meant "a classification" of the two sexes. So the term was inherently linked to 'sex'.

People are free to believe what ever they like, no complaints about that from me, but if you are going to discuss it you should do your reading - something the vast majority of people do not do.

In the 1300s it could be used as 'things sharing certain traits'.

To frame this as a problem around language is to ignore why our language has changed around this area. If you accept trans people exist, and have the same rights as you and I, then it makes sense to accommodate them within our language. Changing how we use the word gender is a convenient way of doing it as any. The terminology is not the problem, it is the reasons people either chose to ignore the change in use that is the problem.

[anonymous-user]

It would helpful if we all knew the difference between sex, gender and sexuality.

[neil1jnr]

_dobbo_ said:

neil1jnr said:

but don't try to dictate my speech and expect me to address you by your preferred pronoun and play along with your own delusions.

If someone said they preferred to be address as "she" instead of "he", in any social or professional situation, you're saying you'd refuse to do so and in doing so be deliberately combative or hurtful? Why?

I was talking about people that identify as neither male or female and use alternative pronouns, apologies I should have made that clearer.

In a social or professional situation, if I thought I was talking to a person that was genuine a male or female but asked to be addressed using the pronoun of the opposite gender then yes I would refuse. If we are talking about a transsexual then it may be a different story. Like I've said previous, I do have sympathy for anyone that has a genuine defect at birth in regard to chromosomes/hormones, but I won't refer to someone biologically male as a female because as a matter of fact they aren't.

It isn't being deliberately hurtful or difficult at all, it's standing by what I believe in. I think trying to force others to address you as you see fit is what is combative, it causes tension. If a man biological man started working at your office and demanded you referred to him as a 'she', you are saying you would do so without question?

Edited by neil1jnr on Thursday 17th January 15:31

[neil1jnr]

desolate said:

It would helpful if we all knew the difference between sex, gender and sexuality.

I'd assume that most commenting would, but people have a different idea as to what 'gender' is. Personally I won't differentiate gender from sex. However, I accept that my opinion won't be shared by others, and the way language works, I am not saying my view on that is absolutely correct.

[otolith]

neil1jnr said:

I was talking about people that identify as neither male or female and use alternative pronouns, apologies I should have made that clearer.

In a social or professional situation, if I thought I was talking to a person that was genuine a male or female but asked to be addressed using the pronoun of the opposite gender then yes I would refuse. If we are talking about a transsexual then it may be a different story. Like I've said previous, I do have sympathy for anyone that has a genuine defect at birth in regard to chromosomes/hormones, but I won't refer to someone biologically male as a female because as a matter of fact they aren't.

Would you refuse to address a group as "Ladies and Gentlemen" on the grounds that some of them were scoundrels?

[anonymous-user]

neil1jnr said:

I'd assume that most commenting would, but people have a different idea as to what 'gender' is. Personally I won't differentiate gender from sex. However, I accept that my opinion won't be shared by others, and the way language works, I am not saying my view on that is absolutely correct.

It's pretty evident that in your world yours is the only opinion that matters so crack on girlfriend.

[gregs656]

neil1jnr said:

but I won't refer to someone biologically male as a female because as a matter of fact they aren't.

How do you know their biology? Do you ask to see every ones sexual organs?

Indeed, how on earth would you know their medical history?

How well do you understand the studies around this topic? What have you taken away from them? How did they impact your understanding of sex?

[j_4m]

neil1jnr said:

desolate said:

It would helpful if we all knew the difference between sex, gender and sexuality.

I'd assume that most commenting would, but people have a different idea as to what 'gender' is. Personally I won't differentiate gender from sex. However, I accept that my opinion won't be shared by others, and the way language works, I am not saying my view on that is absolutely correct.

MRI scans have empirically proven that a person of a given sex exhibits brain activity more aligned with the opposite sex. That's as close as proof that gender and sex can be different as you're going to get.

Edited by j_4m on Thursday 17th January 15:35