The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
Milnero said:
I believe from what I have seen, read and listened to that gender and sex are the same thing male is male and female is female like I always believed it to be.
The more I think and read about it the more I question this, I don't think you can be as absolute as that. I don't think you can change your sex, that's something that is encoded right down to your DNA, and to a certain extent this will affect your gender. There's a bit of research that recently found X chromosomes can produce more sociable behaviour, explaining some of the differences between male and female social interaction. Klinefelters was mentioned earlier in this thread; a man with Klinefelters has an extra X chromosome as well as his standard XY, he also has the penis and endocrine system of a male. However, he generally has lower sex drive, he is infertile, he doesn't quite function in the same way as a regular XY male. This is just one example of genetic variation that has an effect both physically and behaviourally on sex and gender characteristics, there are definitely shades of grey in our biology.Clockwork Cupcake said:
Milnero said:
let kids be kids don't brain wash them with your own ideals! children are innocent to the worlds bulls
t and the longer they stay like that the happier their lives will be.
Ok. So that includes not imposing rigid gender roles on your kids ("No, you can't play with that! That toy is for girls") and not imposing religious views on them either for that matter. t and the longer they stay like that the happier their lives will be.
desolate said:
Milnero said:
children are innocent to the worlds bullst and the longer they stay like that the happier their lives will be.
When I read comments like this I always think what they actually mean is that they want kids to be fed the bullst and the longer they stay like that the happier their lives will be.t that they are comfortable with.Clockwork Cupcake said:
Milnero said:
let kids be kids don't brain wash them with your own ideals! children are innocent to the worlds bullst and the longer they stay like that the happier their lives will be.
Ok. So that includes not imposing rigid gender roles on your kids ("No, you can't play with that! That toy is for girls") and not imposing religious views on them either for that matter.t and the longer they stay like that the happier their lives will be.desolate said:
When I read comments like this I always think what they actually mean is that they want kids to be fed the bullst that they are comfortable with.
Indeed. t that they are comfortable with.
being a child is all about discovery, discovering the world around them, smells, tastes and identity, I come back to the age old saying "boys will be boys and girls will be girls" if they choose later in life to be something else, that's fine but that wont be change the fact that they are boy and girl just they prefer to be seen differently.
Milnero said:
I haven't assigned my kids gender roles the sex they were born assigned that, my daughter has a play kitchen and play tool kit, its down to her which toy she enjoys playing with, i'm just happy seeing her happy.
That's very commendable and I wholeheartedly agree. 
Milnero said:
I come back to the age old saying "boys will be boys and girls will be girls"
Well, no. Boys will be taught to be boys, and girls will be taught to be girls. And, once that is done, then boys will be boys and girls will be girls. It's a circular self-fulfilling argument.
(Edited for typo)
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Friday 8th March 11:38
I did have one animated post deleted by Bill which was where I called someone a bellend for not realising that it should be considered fair that a TS woman should inform a prospective partner of their previous gender assignment/genitalia but I accept that calling someone a bellend to make a point isn't productive (but it was an emotional/frustrated response)
Sticks. said:
AshVX220 said:
......for those people who are very religious, then church (or other place of worship) attendance will be a regular thing and the children will go along and be indoctrinated.
Tosh. Very many of them will be put off it for life. AshVX220 said:
Very true, I accept what I wrote was a very sweeping statement. But I think you're more likely to maintain a religion if you are born into a very religious family. I think (and I appreciate I have no figures to back it up) that more people "maintain" their religion than "find" religion.
welllllllll would a child raised by gay parents be more likely to be gay? and is it a problem or not a problem? and the same thing applies if the parents are straight. I saw a programme where a child was adopted by a gay couple and at a very young age the tv crew asked "do you think you will be gay?" to which the child replied "yes I want to be gay when I grow up". Im not necessarily trying to make a point here but possibly something that should be looked at.
Though I think the way I look at it is that it becomes kind of a non problem if the child is happy. That goes for happy being gay, happy being straight, happy playing with male/female (if there is such a thing) toys, happy with your religion etc. My parents raised me with tractor toys and loving cars and my sister with dolls. Im straight shes lesbian, both happy. I feel a lot of the pedantics are kind of irrelevant. Morale is just be happy and don't force anything. I don't think any parent really does that and if they do its frowned upon. (pushy parents are definitely made out to be bad parents socially from what ive observed)
Ive said a lot there and feel a lot of my views aren't portrayed particularly well so feel free to pick me up on any of them.
SWoll said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
[
Not sure I agree on that one. 8.4L 154 said:
I'm concerned though that an anything goes approach legitimises hate speech and emboldens others while making positive engagement difficult for minority contributors.
That's a fair point. Surely we're going back to the question of who defines what speech is classed as hate or not, which is of course affected by the personal biasof the moderator? Also I'm not sure why some someone sharing an opinion on a public forum (however ridiculous) either legitimizes it or makes engagement for others difficult?
I do feel sometimes holding up examples of what trans people have to put up with day in day out might garner some sympathy and positive action occasionally, and a few posters do step in an call it out when its really bad, but generally in society I just see it get worse and more often than not the conversation just shifts slightly to complaints about snowflakes and free speech. Its not always ideal to silence hate, suppressing it on racism has not made racist people go away entirely, but it has made life a fair bit easier for people of other races to participate in society on more equal terms if they are not being abused everywhere and everyday.
AshVX220 said:
Very true, I accept what I wrote was a very sweeping statement. But I think you're more likely to maintain a religion if you are born into a very religious family. I think (and I appreciate I have no figures to back it up) that more people "maintain" their religion than "find" religion.
Fair enough. It's an interesting question and yes, I doubt there's data. I suspect it will vary by generation and religion.Although we grow up very much moulded by our parents, let's not underestimate even quite young children's ability to come to their own conclusions. I think herd-thinking come in a bit later.
Michaelbailey said:
Ive said a lot there and feel a lot of my views aren't portrayed particularly well so feel free to pick me up on any of them.
I think that, on the whole, what you have said is reasonable. I certainly agree that raising a child without prejudice is a laudable goal, although of course prejudice comes in many forms both conscious and unconscious.
The thing that I have found most interesting in the "Man vs Pink" blog is him pointing out how his daughter is bombarded with how girls "ought" to be, from school, friends, and society in general, and he feels he walks a tightrope between trying to guide her along the path that will allow her to find herself, without imposing his views on her. In other words, trying to balance the bombardment without undue influence, whilst being acutely aware of his ability to unduly influence.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I think that, on the whole, what you have said is reasonable.
I certainly agree that raising a child without prejudice is a laudable goal, although of course prejudice comes in many forms both conscious and unconscious.
The thing that I have found most interesting in the "Man vs Pink" blog is him pointing out how his daughter is bombarded with how girls "ought" to be, from school, friends, and society in general, and he feels he walks a tightrope between trying to guide her along the path that will allow her to find herself, without imposing his views on her. In other words, trying to balance the bombardment without undue influence, whilst being acutely aware of his ability to unduly influence.
The most ironic bit in all of this is the amount of women that tell me they would love to be a house wife and not have to work which is the biggest thing the feminists hate at the minute. Its all about getting women into top jobs which is largely exactly where they don't want to be. (this is a generalisation) This is why things like the gender pay gap are laughable. The gap is there precisely because of people having the option! We find in places like Scandinavia as things become more equal the gap increases! Fundamentally I feel the rigid position people have on these views are counterproductive and we should start focussing on the individual and not the groups and trying to achieve equality over groups is a bad plan. This is why on the point you mentioned of trying so hard to not impose views on the child are so sad because hes fighting the media (on both sides) and people with these rigid views to try and keep his childs views open. We are obsessed by it now and that's the problem. Let kids be what they want to be without the need to further a political point.I certainly agree that raising a child without prejudice is a laudable goal, although of course prejudice comes in many forms both conscious and unconscious.
The thing that I have found most interesting in the "Man vs Pink" blog is him pointing out how his daughter is bombarded with how girls "ought" to be, from school, friends, and society in general, and he feels he walks a tightrope between trying to guide her along the path that will allow her to find herself, without imposing his views on her. In other words, trying to balance the bombardment without undue influence, whilst being acutely aware of his ability to unduly influence.
Michaelbailey said:
Let kids be what they want to be without the need to further a political point.
But that's exactly what he is trying to do - by trying to balance the societal bombardment. His goals and yours don't seem that far apart to me. He just seems more aware of how much society influences children, though.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
But that's exactly what he is trying to do - by trying to balance the societal bombardment.
His goals and yours don't seem that far apart to me. He just seems more aware of how much society influences children, though.
I think you've misunderstood me. Im sad he has to do it and hes in that scenario and the amount of people out there trying to tell people how to be. Im pretty confident that's what we are both aggrieved about. Its on all the time with piers morgan on gmb or whatever and its pushing both sides of the extreme rather than the middle ground where people get on with their own livesHis goals and yours don't seem that far apart to me. He just seems more aware of how much society influences children, though.
Milnero said:
I watched a few videos online yesterday about this whole subject, the title of the video was "There are only 2 genders change my mind" it's worth a watch by a youtuber called Steven Crowder.
I just started watching this and his first argument is a nonsense - I am not sure if he will get picked up on it but I will - He asks a trans woman how she 'knew' she was a trans woman
She asks him how he 'knows' he is (she assumes) a heterosexual cis male.
His explanation is that 'everything about me is male' his sex, his bone density, his hormonal profile, his brain etc
This is, in my opinion, retrospective evidentialism; does he seriously want me to believe he waited until he understood what the male hormonal profile was before he knew him self to be male? I just don't think that is credible.
He subsequently rephrases her question, which she either doesn't catch or ignores, as to 'why do I know I'm a male'
He is now using a very basic, flawed, understanding of darwinism - that it makes biological sense to be straight to procreate and that is why he can know he is straight, the implication is that gay people cannot make the same claim - ignoring the complex societal mechanisms in groups and, given the extent to which homosexuality is seen in nature generally, the strong possibility that homosexuality is also advantageous from the point of view of Darwinian evolution.
So, basically, not great so far, and I think I am less than 10 minutes in.
Edit: in the next point they bring up the brain chemistry studies, and he jumps on this as evidence that there is 0 sociological factors, which is far beyond what the study claims.
Edited by gregs656 on Friday 8th March 14:39
Edited by gregs656 on Friday 8th March 14:41
Ok, the pushing for the 'how many genders are there' is a strawman, he is really making a point about pronouns, that it is some slippery slope. He is not old enough to have ever had a problem using Ms, I imagine, but is supposing there is going to be some sort of pronoun apocalypse - which I think is unlikely because people just don't have time for it.
He is now making a point about the American Family, man woman and 2.4 kids is the best for everyone type argument. Which is dangerous, I think.
He is now making a point about the American Family, man woman and 2.4 kids is the best for everyone type argument. Which is dangerous, I think.
I'm old enough to remember the ststorm that "Ms" created in the 80's, with people openly mocking it and calling it pretentious twaddle. But these days it is perfectly acceptable and people understand it to mean "my marital status is of no relevance to you in this context".
I'd further say that my gender is of no relevance in many contexts. Do any of my Utilities Suppliers really need to know, or care, what my gender is so long as I pay my bills? Does it matter one jot if the bill is addressed to "Mr. Berry", "Miss. Berry", "Mrs. Berry", "Ms. Berry", or "Mx. Berry"? Nope. Not one bit.
(For those not familiar with "Mx" it is one on from "Ms", as in "neither my marital status nor my gender is of any relevance to you in this context". With "x" meaning "whatever" or "wildcard" or "any letter")
tstorm that "Ms" created in the 80's, with people openly mocking it and calling it pretentious twaddle. But these days it is perfectly acceptable and people understand it to mean "my marital status is of no relevance to you in this context".I'd further say that my gender is of no relevance in many contexts. Do any of my Utilities Suppliers really need to know, or care, what my gender is so long as I pay my bills? Does it matter one jot if the bill is addressed to "Mr. Berry", "Miss. Berry", "Mrs. Berry", "Ms. Berry", or "Mx. Berry"? Nope. Not one bit.
(For those not familiar with "Mx" it is one on from "Ms", as in "neither my marital status nor my gender is of any relevance to you in this context". With "x" meaning "whatever" or "wildcard" or "any letter")
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff