More than one gender?
Poll: More than one gender?
Total Members Polled: 111
Discussion
When I was at university late eighties, early nineties I came across the idea of gender. Back then we only spoke of two genders, both linked to biological sex.
I don’t recall any debate about biological sex. There were just two. Men had a penis and balls and impregnated women, women had vaginas, wombs and ovaries and gave birth to children. Intersex people existed but were seen as having genetic or developmental problems and could exhibit some elements of either sex but I am not aware anyone who has existed that has been sexless or truly both sexes ie fully functioning penis/balls and fathered a child as well as a womb/ovary and given birth to a child.
Gender seemed a pretty sensible idea ie the differences between men and women in any given society (their rights, roles, expectations, opportunities etc) are not determined by the biological differences between men and women. Back in the 70s/80s there were very few female surgeons yet women are mentally just as capable of becoming surgeons as men so the lack wasn’t linked to any biological difference.
I think a good analogy is to look at black people in the US. There is hardly any functional difference between black and white skin or any small differences in physiology of white and black populations in the US yet there are still huge sociological differences.
Back in the 80s gender wasn’t something you could choose. It was done to you by society. People (mainly women) were trying to change gender by removing social differences between men and women.
Perhaps that is why I find it difficult to accept current ideas that there are more than two genders or that you can change genders. To me changing from male to female gender would be a bit like a white person undergoing to surgery to make themselves look black. That would certainly be possible. Yet would they be accepted as black afterwards, even if they were (say) subject to racial abuse and discrimination?
The biological differences between men and women are far greater and deeper than skin colour of course. Although being a woman isn’t restricted to those differences, there are key experiences only women can have eg female orgasm, periods, having children, breast feeding, menopause (to name a few).
I don’t recall any debate about biological sex. There were just two. Men had a penis and balls and impregnated women, women had vaginas, wombs and ovaries and gave birth to children. Intersex people existed but were seen as having genetic or developmental problems and could exhibit some elements of either sex but I am not aware anyone who has existed that has been sexless or truly both sexes ie fully functioning penis/balls and fathered a child as well as a womb/ovary and given birth to a child.
Gender seemed a pretty sensible idea ie the differences between men and women in any given society (their rights, roles, expectations, opportunities etc) are not determined by the biological differences between men and women. Back in the 70s/80s there were very few female surgeons yet women are mentally just as capable of becoming surgeons as men so the lack wasn’t linked to any biological difference.
I think a good analogy is to look at black people in the US. There is hardly any functional difference between black and white skin or any small differences in physiology of white and black populations in the US yet there are still huge sociological differences.
Back in the 80s gender wasn’t something you could choose. It was done to you by society. People (mainly women) were trying to change gender by removing social differences between men and women.
Perhaps that is why I find it difficult to accept current ideas that there are more than two genders or that you can change genders. To me changing from male to female gender would be a bit like a white person undergoing to surgery to make themselves look black. That would certainly be possible. Yet would they be accepted as black afterwards, even if they were (say) subject to racial abuse and discrimination?
The biological differences between men and women are far greater and deeper than skin colour of course. Although being a woman isn’t restricted to those differences, there are key experiences only women can have eg female orgasm, periods, having children, breast feeding, menopause (to name a few).
Esceptico said:
When I was at university late eighties, early nineties I came across the idea of gender. Back then we only spoke of two genders, both linked to biological sex.
I don’t recall any debate about biological sex. There were just two. Men had a penis and balls and impregnated women, women had vaginas, wombs and ovaries and gave birth to children. Intersex people existed but were seen as having genetic or developmental problems and could exhibit some elements of either sex but I am not aware anyone who has existed that has been sexless or truly both sexes ie fully functioning penis/balls and fathered a child as well as a womb/ovary and given birth to a child.
Gender seemed a pretty sensible idea ie the differences between men and women in any given society (their rights, roles, expectations, opportunities etc) are not determined by the biological differences between men and women. Back in the 70s/80s there were very few female surgeons yet women are mentally just as capable of becoming surgeons as men so the lack wasn’t linked to any biological difference.
I think a good analogy is to look at black people in the US. There is hardly any functional difference between black and white skin or any small differences in physiology of white and black populations in the US yet there are still huge sociological differences.
Back in the 80s gender wasn’t something you could choose. It was done to you by society. People (mainly women) were trying to change gender by removing social differences between men and women.
Perhaps that is why I find it difficult to accept current ideas that there are more than two genders or that you can change genders. To me changing from male to female gender would be a bit like a white person undergoing to surgery to make themselves look black. That would certainly be possible. Yet would they be accepted as black afterwards, even if they were (say) subject to racial abuse and discrimination?
The biological differences between men and women are far greater and deeper than skin colour of course. Although being a woman isn’t restricted to those differences, there are key experiences only women can have eg female orgasm, periods, having children, breast feeding, menopause (to name a few).
FFS…..I don’t recall any debate about biological sex. There were just two. Men had a penis and balls and impregnated women, women had vaginas, wombs and ovaries and gave birth to children. Intersex people existed but were seen as having genetic or developmental problems and could exhibit some elements of either sex but I am not aware anyone who has existed that has been sexless or truly both sexes ie fully functioning penis/balls and fathered a child as well as a womb/ovary and given birth to a child.
Gender seemed a pretty sensible idea ie the differences between men and women in any given society (their rights, roles, expectations, opportunities etc) are not determined by the biological differences between men and women. Back in the 70s/80s there were very few female surgeons yet women are mentally just as capable of becoming surgeons as men so the lack wasn’t linked to any biological difference.
I think a good analogy is to look at black people in the US. There is hardly any functional difference between black and white skin or any small differences in physiology of white and black populations in the US yet there are still huge sociological differences.
Back in the 80s gender wasn’t something you could choose. It was done to you by society. People (mainly women) were trying to change gender by removing social differences between men and women.
Perhaps that is why I find it difficult to accept current ideas that there are more than two genders or that you can change genders. To me changing from male to female gender would be a bit like a white person undergoing to surgery to make themselves look black. That would certainly be possible. Yet would they be accepted as black afterwards, even if they were (say) subject to racial abuse and discrimination?
The biological differences between men and women are far greater and deeper than skin colour of course. Although being a woman isn’t restricted to those differences, there are key experiences only women can have eg female orgasm, periods, having children, breast feeding, menopause (to name a few).
Esceptico said:
When I was at university late eighties, early nineties I came across the idea of gender. Back then we only spoke of two genders, both linked to biological sex.
This is progress. Isn't is marvellous? Now there's more genders and the lines are blurred as to what actually make a "gender". Meanwhile, people are basing their livelihoods on various elements of the concept of gender and setting what they think should be the state of the art/science on their little piece of the puzzle. If their piece of the puzzle doesn't fit, their level of investment into it means they will resort to hammering that piece of the puzzle in. Which then impacts all the other pieces of that puzzle to varying degrees.Do you have a sneaking feeling that aspects of gender are progressing in a little bit more in an unchecked manner than you think makes sense? Or do you love the agitation, winning battles, getting your own way and making people pay for their opposition?
There are 67 genders
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-gender...
And if you don't believe it you are guilty of transgender genocide, apparently,..
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-gender...
And if you don't believe it you are guilty of transgender genocide, apparently,..
williamp said:
There are 67 genders
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-gender...
And if you don't believe it you are guilty of transgender genocide, apparently,..
Pretty sure most of those are just stereotypes. Still it gives the 1% of people at either extreme something to get outraged about. The remaining 98% just get on with life and ignore the nonsense.https://www.healthline.com/health/different-gender...
And if you don't believe it you are guilty of transgender genocide, apparently,..
Edited by survivalist on Saturday 30th October 23:50
bigandclever said:
Esceptico said:
When I was at university late eighties, early nineties I came across the idea of gender. Back then we only spoke of two genders, both linked to biological sex.
Was it the 1880’s?It seems to me that the US Christian Right, having lost the fight to demonise the gays and unable to promote the idea of a war on Christmas had to find something else to frighten the flock with, so suddenly male to female transvestism was a big issue. Female to male seems to largely escaped notice. For some reason radical feminists seem to have latched onto this as well.
williamp said:
There are 67 genders
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-gender...
And if you don't believe it you are guilty of transgender genocide, apparently,..
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-gender...
And if you don't believe it you are guilty of transgender genocide, apparently,..
No, there aren’t. That’s just a list picking 64 of hundreds of terms used to express gender identity or alignment.
If you read it almost all of them are variations on a mixture of the male and female genders or a lack of either.
So as hard as people try, they can’t really make up any new ones. Genders are a bit like religions in this case, they’re unique to each individual, but we love to belong to clubs don’t we?
I’ve learned from that article that I’m gender apathetic. I couldn’t care less about my own or others perceived genders. I don’t want to offend anybody or make them feel bad, but I also won’t beat myself up if I accidentally do through my own lack of awareness of their particular nuanced gender identity.
The Bugis in Indonesia have 5 genders - and have had so for hundreds of years, male/ female/ transmale/ transfemale/ neuter. So it isn't a new thing
Plus I was at university at the same time as you - and we knew that it wasn't as simple as male/ female.
Plus I was at university at the same time as you - and we knew that it wasn't as simple as male/ female.
Edited by wisbech on Sunday 31st October 00:20
Count Dankula did an amusing video on this subject a while back.
He calculated (IIRC), that by the lunatics own reckonings, there were more genders than there are people who have ever existed on this planet, and he only got as far as the letter ‘A’ in the list of recognised genders.
https://youtu.be/yO5Hdidlh2g
If the feeble minded want to self identify as a disabled multi-spirit lamp post, or that women have a dick and that men can have babies, let them crack on. Just don’t expect me to pander to their mental illness or give this insanity the recognition of normalcy that they seemingly crave.
He calculated (IIRC), that by the lunatics own reckonings, there were more genders than there are people who have ever existed on this planet, and he only got as far as the letter ‘A’ in the list of recognised genders.
https://youtu.be/yO5Hdidlh2g
If the feeble minded want to self identify as a disabled multi-spirit lamp post, or that women have a dick and that men can have babies, let them crack on. Just don’t expect me to pander to their mental illness or give this insanity the recognition of normalcy that they seemingly crave.
Intersex is a gender, it is extremely rare but no the less exists.
For the very vast majority there are two genders, as in male or female, what you were born as. Obviously you can change to suit a gender you want later, but what you were born as never changes. It does get complicated really, but i think we have to stick to biology for the rules.
Actually thinking about we always used sex, gender was more for French, using masculine or feminine . So i think gender and sex should be the same thing.
For the very vast majority there are two genders, as in male or female, what you were born as. Obviously you can change to suit a gender you want later, but what you were born as never changes. It does get complicated really, but i think we have to stick to biology for the rules.
Actually thinking about we always used sex, gender was more for French, using masculine or feminine . So i think gender and sex should be the same thing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 31st October 01:00
wisbech said:
The Bugis in Indonesia have 5 genders - and have had so for hundreds of years, male/ female/ transmale/ transfemale/ neuter. So it isn't a new thing
Plus I was at university at the same time as you - and we knew that it wasn't as simple as male/ female.
When are the genders in Bugis culture assigned to the individual? From what I've been able to find, gender in Bugis society was assigned at birth. Maybe you could relate to how it works in Iran? Plenty of transgender people there.... and the government pays for the operations....!Plus I was at university at the same time as you - and we knew that it wasn't as simple as male/ female.
Edited by wisbech on Sunday 31st October 00:20
Esceptico said:
Drumroll said:
You lost any credibility with me, with that statement.
People weren't trying to change a gender, they were seeking equality.
Achieving equality would change (or perhaps get rid of gender) by eliminating differences between men and women. If you think equality wouldn’t change gender can you perhaps explain what you think gender means.People weren't trying to change a gender, they were seeking equality.
How would ensuring women have the same opportunities as men do likewise?
Can you give an example?
105.4 said:
Count Dankula did an amusing video on this subject a while back.
He calculated (IIRC), that by the lunatics own reckonings, there were more genders than there are people who have ever existed on this planet, and he only got as far as the letter ‘A’ in the list of recognised genders.
https://youtu.be/yO5Hdidlh2g
If the feeble minded want to self identify as a disabled multi-spirit lamp post, or that women have a dick and that men can have babies, let them crack on. Just don’t expect me to pander to their mental illness or give this insanity the recognition of normalcy that they seemingly crave.
I love Dank, he's solid on sHe calculated (IIRC), that by the lunatics own reckonings, there were more genders than there are people who have ever existed on this planet, and he only got as far as the letter ‘A’ in the list of recognised genders.
https://youtu.be/yO5Hdidlh2g
If the feeble minded want to self identify as a disabled multi-spirit lamp post, or that women have a dick and that men can have babies, let them crack on. Just don’t expect me to pander to their mental illness or give this insanity the recognition of normalcy that they seemingly crave.
te like this! Drumroll said:
You lost any credibility with me, with that statement.
People weren't trying to change a gender, they were seeking equality.
Achieving equality would change (or perhaps get rid of gender) by eliminating differences between men and women. If you think equality wouldn’t change gender can you perhaps explain what you think gender means.People weren't trying to change a gender, they were seeking equality.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff