The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
Atomic12C said:
What does the science say?
XXY disease which often places individuals in a trans-sex status.
There is therefore reasonable logic in those rare cases that the individual would 'feel' somewhere between like a man or like a woman depending on their physical 'deformities'.
From that, it would also be reasonable that such an individual would choose which gener to associate with based on what they feel most 'closest' to under the typical behaviours of men and women in society.
XXY disease which often places individuals in a trans-sex status.
There is therefore reasonable logic in those rare cases that the individual would 'feel' somewhere between like a man or like a woman depending on their physical 'deformities'.
From that, it would also be reasonable that such an individual would choose which gener to associate with based on what they feel most 'closest' to under the typical behaviours of men and women in society.
OK, so we've established that where there is a defined genetic component for you; you agree that a persons gender is whatever they think it is.
So a few questions on this:
Should such a person be forced to identify as either female or as male?
Would you accept such a person saying "well I don't feel a strong association with either gender?"
Finally; what if the X and Y chromosomes are not the only defining factor in gender? What if there were other genetic and epigenetic factors at play which would cause a person to have a gender different to what their chromosomes would indicate?
Atomic12C said:
This is very much different to 'normal' people with no medical condition(1) deciding to identify as the opposite sex or as the opposite gender, or whatever else they wish to identify as.
I think I need to know what the (1) qualifier is before I comment further on this.Atomic12C said:
The concept of gender fluidity is nothing more than a statement to say that the concept of gender does not exist. If a person can be one, either or both, depending on how they feel when they wake up in the morning, then they are basically stating that concept of gender is something that society should drop. Which then makes a mockery of wanting to identify as one or the other in the first place.
Gender fluidity as a a concept does not include a notion gender does not exist. The concept is that gender is not binary; that it is a spectrum. Would you think that varying levels of say testosterone and a persons sensitivity to this hormones could leave them feeling more or less male over differing days?Atomic12C said:
At the same time I fully respect people's ability to believe in whatever they wish to believe in, and this is a right I would happily fight with them on,....but the issue of gender fluidity is a minority belief concept that should not be forced on to others if they do not wish to view society in that way.
Rejecting scientific evidence in order to maintain a hypothesis is a belief. You've already accepted above that there is genetic causes for someone to not be born where they may not fit in to the concept of only two genders. There is much more evidence that similarly challenges the hypothesis of binary gender.
Atomic12C said:
Many still view the original use of the word 'gender' to mean a 'sorting', which basically means the sorting of the two sexes, male or female. I presume the majority of society still wish this terminology to be a simple binary sorting - no matter how loud groups pushing for change will shout.
For many people I guess they are comfortable with what they know and are familiar with - this is not something that should be shouted down, but something that people should accept....just as much in the same manner that people are free to believe in what they choose to believe.
Society on the whole adapts and changes with new knowledge. To not do so is to stagnate and die. People get to know new concepts and become familiar with them. A prime example recent such concept is that of the internet. Before the late 90's the vast majority of people had no concept of what the internet was; and now they're buying their groceries using it. For many people I guess they are comfortable with what they know and are familiar with - this is not something that should be shouted down, but something that people should accept....just as much in the same manner that people are free to believe in what they choose to believe.
Atomic12C said:
But there should always be a boundary that means believers should not be in an authoritative position to force their beliefs on to others.
I would quite agree. And assume you would agree that is applies to people who can't let go of the belief in binary genders despite much evidence to contrary.Clockwork Cupcake said:
Oh, and I took it as such. I apologise if my reply suggested otherwise.
I just meant that things that don't affect us are less obvious. It's like when you decide to buy a certain type of car, and suddenly the roads seem full of them.
For example, I don't see much racism in the workplace. Yet I know, intellectually, that it must happen and I probably don't notice it.
And as another example, many wouldn't have seen LaurasOtherHalf deliberately and maliciously mis-gendering me by the use of "he" and "him" as transphobic.
I noticed that and thought it was just a bit of a sI just meant that things that don't affect us are less obvious. It's like when you decide to buy a certain type of car, and suddenly the roads seem full of them.
For example, I don't see much racism in the workplace. Yet I know, intellectually, that it must happen and I probably don't notice it.
And as another example, many wouldn't have seen LaurasOtherHalf deliberately and maliciously mis-gendering me by the use of "he" and "him" as transphobic.
t thing to do/say to be honest, it's not like none of us know you're trans! However, I can understand some of the concerns that LaurasOtherHalf has raised. No, not all men are rapists etc, but I worry that some laws may have un-intended consequences. Such as a peado identifying as a trans woman in order to spend weekends camping with young girls for example. In some (very rare) circumstances it may make their ability to commit their crimes easier.
As you've already alluded to CC, there's nothing to truly stop a determined rapist from just entering the ladies to rape someone anyway, so the laws won't change that. But it's the more subtle things that may manipulated by a determined criminal.
Fortunately for me, I'll never have to worry about such things, because they don't and won't affect me directly in any way. Live and let live etc. Be whoever you want to be, in order to be happy.
Atomic12C said:
I think this is where society may not agree.
Because society as a whole may not accept your definition; rather its only those with a belief that 'gender' is fluid and that there is an acceptance that one can identify with any particular aspect of it, would accept it.
If there is a judge in the UK that has pinned down the restrictions of use for the term 'gender' within society....and it follows your claim...then I'll happily stand to be corrected.
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
I spend a lot of time at work dealing with people from the US, mostly via e-mail. The majority of them see my name and then refer to me as Ma'am in their replies as my name is entirely female in the states. I tend not to correct them, as I had great fun when I get to meet them in person and see their reaction. Though to be fair, we're all mostly ex or serving military and have a pretty warped sense of humour anyway, so the comments I get and give are quite amusing.Because society as a whole may not accept your definition; rather its only those with a belief that 'gender' is fluid and that there is an acceptance that one can identify with any particular aspect of it, would accept it.
If there is a judge in the UK that has pinned down the restrictions of use for the term 'gender' within society....and it follows your claim...then I'll happily stand to be corrected.
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
In a different way, for the last two years I lived in Orlando (back here now
). As such I had an annual Disney pass, which was linked to my Disney account under my first name. When ever I went to Disney the light would flash blue (requiring the staff to check my pass/ID etc) as they saw my name, saw me and assumed I was using a girls pass. When I went on to my account and changed to my more common shortened version of Ash, that problem immediately went away.But, it's a different country where my name is very well known (around the world) as a girls name, so I just laugh it off. It's not in any way malicious.
AshVX220 said:
I noticed that and thought it was just a bit of a st thing to do/say to be honest, it's not like none of us know you're trans!
Well, quite. I've maintained all along that I'm not the kind of person to take offence when none is intended. But I feel justified in being upset when it is very clearly intended. If you see what I mean. t thing to do/say to be honest, it's not like none of us know you're trans! This question was discussed at length a while back in the thread. I think this serves as a good example of where I consider the line to be.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Once more, for those who still[ don't get it, we are not talking about allowing trans women into female toilets, we are talking about banning them. I already go into female toilets. And guess what? I have never assaulted anyone. I just take a st or/and a piss, then wash my hands, maybe adjust my hair and makeup, and then leave. Just like every other woman does.
That's not a very ladylike expression.t or/and a piss, then wash my hands, maybe adjust my hair and makeup, and then leave. Just like every other woman does. 
LaurasOtherHalf said:
The man who likes to think he’s a woman but is sexually attracted to women still being allowed access unfettered to women’s and girls changing rooms and toilets.
And this is only two-there are a million other imaginary scenarios.
This part of this post makes absolutely no sense. For a start, it is just as possible that the opposite attraction is true and by denying them access to their presented changing room you are keeping them in the same space as the sex they are attracted to.And this is only two-there are a million other imaginary scenarios.
Secondly, it is equally problematic to put trans women in mens changing rooms, or trans men in womens changing rooms as how they're presenting will make everyone uncomfortable.
Thirdly - gay and bisexual men and women share spaces with the sex they are attracted to all the time.
Fourthly 'likes to think' - given the prejudice, the complexity, the cost (emotionally and monetary) you genuinely think there are a great deal of men and women who 'like to think' they are trans? Really?
Atomic12C said:
On this point, I would disagree.
LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
How about you consider it not from a POV of who has what right, and what is simply the polite thing to do.LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
It is an odd situation where the same group of people who are apparently concerned about the mental health of trans people are the same group of people perpetuating attitudes and behaviors that place the greatest stress on that mental health.
It would be interesting to know how many people on here have, or have had, regular contact with trans individuals; it might explain the lack of human element. The stuff that pops up on here is the stuff that makes the news, and often not for great reasons.
TED Talk from Paula Stone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrYx7HaUlMY
Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 6th December 15:10
Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 6th December 15:11
esxste said:
OK, so we've established that where there is a defined genetic component for you; you agree that a persons gender is whatever they think it is.
So a few questions on this:
Should such a person be forced to identify as either female or as male?
Would you accept such a person saying "well I don't feel a strong association with either gender?"
Finally; what if the X and Y chromosomes are not the only defining factor in gender? What if there were other genetic and epigenetic factors at play which would cause a person to have a gender different to what their chromosomes would indicate?
Apologies but I'm not going to do a full point by point multi-quoted reply...I think it would become extremely tedious.... so to answer the first points you mentioned....So a few questions on this:
Should such a person be forced to identify as either female or as male?
Would you accept such a person saying "well I don't feel a strong association with either gender?"
Finally; what if the X and Y chromosomes are not the only defining factor in gender? What if there were other genetic and epigenetic factors at play which would cause a person to have a gender different to what their chromosomes would indicate?
Should somebody be forced? - no, ...I think everyone would agree on that.
Regarding 'gender', I 'agree' that when there is a medical condition such as XXY where the 'victim' is trans-sex, that the individual may struggle to associate with male or female. So they would choose to suit. As mentioned previously I think this is perfectly reasonable.
In individuals where by there is a clear biological sex, then I would say I would struggle to accept that the person is anything other than what their biology is. This whole notion of "identifying" as something else is not something that has any validity with me....albeit if it does make sense to others.
And although I will always think its absurd, I accept that others may think its fine.
Finally - I'm not involved in the medical sciences, so at the moment my understanding of sex is based upon XX and XY. But what I may say is that by widening the criteria for classification, it may only go to blurring the classification between other groupings/classes. And as such may reduce the effectiveness of using that as a classification. (Assuming you are using the word "gender" in the traditional terminology, which basically means "grouping/sorting" "of sex").
So I guess my position overall is that until science demonstrates that a significant number of humans (as a significant percentage of global population) are biologically neither male nor female and are therefore a new category of 'gender', then I'll continue to treat gender as binary.
So you're using science, but you don't know what you don't know, and have made no obvious effort to check?
This article is fairly interesting and mentions a number of studies - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
This article is fairly interesting and mentions a number of studies - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
Atomic12C said:
So I guess my position overall is that until science demonstrates that a significant number of humans (as a significant percentage of global population) are biologically neither male nor female and are therefore a new category of 'gender', then I'll continue to treat gender as binary.
And yet we have words like "sissy" and "tomboy". So society already acknowledges than it's not a hard & fast rule that men are masculine and women are feminine. gregs656 said:
So you're using science, but you don't know what you don't know, and have made no obvious effort to check?
This article is fairly interesting and mentions a number of studies - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
Cheers, I'll try to find some time to read in to that over the coming days.This article is fairly interesting and mentions a number of studies - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Atomic12C said:
So I guess my position overall is that until science demonstrates that a significant number of humans (as a significant percentage of global population) are biologically neither male nor female and are therefore a new category of 'gender', then I'll continue to treat gender as binary.
And yet we have words like "sissy" and "tomboy". So society already acknowledges than it's not a hard & fast rule that men are masculine and women are feminine. That is a very poor analogy.
Atomic12C said:
Cheers, I'll try to find some time to read in to that over the coming days.
Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
I have a great deal of respect for this attitude. Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
I try very had not to be confrontational in these threads (I know that I sometimes fail), and I'd like to hope that my contributions go in some way towards people questioning their currently-held opinions. If nothing else, I hope that I show that trans people are real people and not an abstract concept.
xjay1337 said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
And yet we have words like "sissy" and "tomboy". So society already acknowledges than it's not a hard & fast rule that men are masculine and women are feminine.
But they are not trying to change the gender of the person!That is a very poor analogy.
We have a supposed gender binary, yet words like sissy ("not manly enough") and tomboy ("not feminine enough") show that there is variance. There may even be an overlap. I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to say that there is therefore a spectrum.
Atomic12C said:
Cheers, I'll try to find some time to read in to that over the coming days.
Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
Please do, it is not a long article and is referenced. One study mentioned is over 20 years old.Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
I commend your openness to having your opinions challenged. Perhaps, though, it would be more inline with your philosophy of following the scientific method if you had done even cursory research before posting such strident opinions. The article I posted is the top google hit if you search 'trans biological differences'.
Atomic12C said:
Cheers, I'll try to find some time to read in to that over the coming days.
Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
The thing is, your viewpoint doesn't really need to change much at all. Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.
The gender categories you already know and love don't really need to change; the vast majority of people are cis-gender.
If you're familiar with physics, consider them the two ends of a spectrum, say infrared for cis females, and ultraviolet for the cis males. The transgendered folk might be red, blue, green, yellow or any other colour in the spectrum.
Edit: correcting my terminology
Edited by esxste on Thursday 6th December 16:53
esxste said:
Consider them the two ends of a spectrum, say infrared for ladies, and ultraviolet for the men. The transgendered folk might be red, blue, green, yellow or any other colour in the spectrum.
There are good parallels with sexuality too. At one end you have "totally straight" and at the other end you have "totally homosexual". Then in between you have bisexual. Only the thing is, many bisexual people have a preference. You regularly get woman who predominantly go for boyfriends but aren't averse to a girlfriend. Likewise you get men who predominantly fancy women but would have their head turned by just the right guy. You very rarely get someone who fancies men and women equally. In the same way, I consider gender to be a spectrum. Even if people won't accept a crossover between male and female, we still have the spectrum of "manly man" at one end, and "sissy" at the other end for men, and "girly girl" at one end and "butch tomboy" at the other end for women.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
In the same way, I consider gender to be a spectrum. Even if people won't accept a crossover between male and female, we still have the spectrum of "manly man" at one end, and "sissy" at the other end for men, and "girly girl" at one end and "butch tomboy" at the other end for women.
Im really trying not to antagonise you (lest we get your usual selective quoting type of argument) but this is again where I fail with the argument.It’s all made up.
Under your theory (based on what scientific research?) you suggest that the mild mannered office clerk is less “male” than the big bearded lumberjack?
C’mon, it’s laughable!
I do wonder at times (considering your inconsistencies) whether due to this being an anonymous website that you’re not secretly trolling and aren’t who you make out you are. Wasn’t it Nolar who went through a similar charade?
I will say this CC, if you truly do believe most of what you say on here and it’s all true, and if this is all what makes you comfortable and happy-fair play to you.
Just don’t expect a large proportion of the population to want to go along with this charade.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
xjay1337 said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
And yet we have words like "sissy" and "tomboy". So society already acknowledges than it's not a hard & fast rule that men are masculine and women are feminine.
But they are not trying to change the gender of the person!That is a very poor analogy.
We have a supposed gender binary, yet words like sissy ("not manly enough") and tomboy ("not feminine enough") show that there is variance. There may even be an overlap. I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to say that there is therefore a spectrum.
There is variance to your acting, but a tomboy (IE a relatively masculine female) doesn't usually claim to be male.
IE if you are a female builder, you may be called a tomboy, but you're still a female.
If that female builder then identifies as a male, that is a completely different kettle of fish.
Gender is binary, male or female
You can choose to identify as whatever you want.
I personally will not stop you
But don't expect me to either learn or adapt and start using stupid pronouns like cis and ze and their for fear of offending someone.
xjay1337 said:
There is variance to your acting, but a tomboy (IE a relatively masculine female) doesn't usually claim to be male.
I know. I was just saying that there appears to be a spectrum of "maleness" and "femaleness", that's all. Or, rather, how well a person fits into the society-defined opinion on how a man or woman "should" act. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff