The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Justayellowbadge]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

Having known CC and met since before being CC I can assure entirely genuine.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

Ok, I'll quote your whole post if it makes you happy. However, I won't explicitly respond to points I've already addressed since this doesn't feel very efficient to me.

It's not my theory; it's just an observation of society. Why else would we have people talking about "manly men", or calling an office worker a "wimp" and a "sissy" if there wasn't some ideal definition of masculinity that some men fail to live up to? I didn't think this was a particularly controversial observation to make.

I didn't realise that I was being inconsistent. I thought I was pretty consistent in what I say. I'm happy to discuss any inconsistencies that you wish to raise though.

With regards to being anonymous, I've been a member of PH for over 17 years now and many members have met me. I was at the wedding of two long-standing PH members only a year or so ago, along with a lot of members (many now ex-members, as people drift away from the site but we still stay in touch). For sure, I haven't met every member of the site but a lot of people have met me, either back in the days that I presented as male or, more recently, with me presenting as female. So, no, no trolling here from me.

[xjay1337]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

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.

But that's a very different thing to a male claiming to be a female, or vice versa.

[gregs656]

xjay1337 said:

But that's a very different thing to a male claiming to be a female, or vice versa.

There was never a claim otherwise.

There is no doubt that some behaviours, professions even, are associated more with one gender than another.

It is completely uncontroversial to say that men who engage things typically associated with women are seen as less masculine. Wearing makeup, for example, until fairly recently being a nurse.

Likewise, women who engage in typically male things are seen as less feminine - not so long ago wearing trousers, or having short hair, or weightlifting.

The point is that society has never seen gender as truly binary; there have always been degrees of masculine, or feminine and this has been expressed in our language.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

Ok, I'll quote your whole post if it makes you happy. However, I won't explicitly respond to points I've already addressed since this doesn't feel very efficient to me.

It's not my theory; it's just an observation of society. Why else would we have people talking about "manly men", or calling an office worker a "wimp" and a "sissy" if there wasn't some ideal definition of masculinity that some men fail to live up to? I didn't think this was a particularly controversial observation to make.

I didn't realise that I was being inconsistent. I thought I was pretty consistent in what I say. I'm happy to discuss any inconsistencies that you wish to raise though.

With regards to being anonymous, I've been a member of PH for over 17 years now and many members have met me. I was at the wedding of two long-standing PH members only a year or so ago, along with a lot of members (many now ex-members, as people drift away from the site but we still stay in touch). For sure, I haven't met every member of the site but a lot of people have met me, either back in the days that I presented as male or, more recently, with me presenting as female. So, no, no trolling here from me.

That's fair enough then, I did wonder however...

My bold however, as I said before is not scientific at all. You could argue it's behavioural studies but to state it as a spectrum of gender is nonsense. It might help you rationalise your own thoughts on peoples behaviour but it means nothing other than that.

As I said, if you believe in crazy theories and it helps you then that's great-for you. But to try and persuade the world into this way of thinking....

A whole lot tougher (and not just from me!).

[Clockwork Cupcake]

gregs656 said:

There was never a claim otherwise.

There is no doubt that some behaviours, professions even, are associated more with one gender than another.

It is completely uncontroversial to say that men who engage things typically associated with women are seen as less masculine. Wearing makeup, for example, until fairly recently being a nurse.

Likewise, women who engage in typically male things are seen as less feminine - not so long ago wearing trousers, or having short hair, or weightlifting.

The point is that society has never seen gender as truly binary; there have always been degrees of masculine, or feminine and this has been expressed in our language.

Thank you. You've put it far more eloquently than I could.

[andy_s]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Under your theory (based on what scientific research?) you suggest that the mild mannered office clerk is less “male” than the big bearded lumberjack?

Ok, I'll quote your whole post if it makes you happy. However, I won't explicitly respond to points I've already addressed since this doesn't feel very efficient to me.

It's not my theory; it's just an observation of society. Why else would we have people talking about "manly men", or calling an office worker a "wimp" and a "sissy" if there wasn't some ideal definition of masculinity that some men fail to live up to? I didn't think this was a particularly controversial observation to make.

My bold however, as I said before is not scientific at all. You could argue it's behavioural studies but to state it as a spectrum of gender is nonsense. It might help you rationalise your own thoughts on peoples behaviour but it means nothing other than that.
.

Yeah I'm confused on this one; being a hyper aggressive* woman doesn't make her a man, nor does a 'man' in a woman's body mean he/she's hyper-aggressive*, nor necessarily to want to be a man if they're a woman, [*Insert any other differentiating metric].

As I think about it, it's a little like saying if a boy likes ballet then he's homosexual, something anathema today (thank goodness)

I don't see this as a spectrum of gender, but more a spectrum of character traits that may be associated with gender by society [and by statistics].

Edited by andy_s on Thursday 6th December 19:15

[gregs656]

andy_s said:

Yeah I'm confused on this one; being a hyper aggressive* woman doesn't make her a man, nor does a 'man' in a woman's body mean he/she's hyper-aggressive*, nor necessarily to want to be a man if they're a woman, [*Insert any other differentiating metric].

As I think about it, it's a little like saying if a boy likes ballet then he's homosexual, something anathema today (thank goodness)

I don't see this as a spectrum of gender, but more a spectrum of character traits that may be associated with gender by society [and by statistics].

Edited by andy_s on Thursday 6th December 19:15

No one is claiming that.

What you're describing is a spectrum of gender, you're just using more words.

[andy_s]

gregs656 said:

andy_s said:

Yeah I'm confused on this one; being a hyper aggressive* woman doesn't make her a man, nor does a 'man' in a woman's body mean he/she's hyper-aggressive*, nor necessarily to want to be a man if they're a woman, [*Insert any other differentiating metric].

As I think about it, it's a little like saying if a boy likes ballet then he's homosexual, something anathema today (thank goodness)

I don't see this as a spectrum of gender, but more a spectrum of character traits that may be associated with gender by society [and by statistics].

Edited by andy_s on Thursday 6th December 19:15

No one is claiming that.

What you're describing is a spectrum of gender, you're just using more words.

I'm still confused, it seems a logical fallacy; do you mean if you are a woman who is hyper-aggressive than you are more a man than a woman? [These are genuine questions].

[Noodle1982]

Apparently the term vagina isn't gender inclusive so what better term to use than 'front hole'

http://caldronpool.com/healthline-says-using-the-m...

[gregs656]

andy_s said:

I'm still confused, it seems a logical fallacy; do you mean if you are a woman who is hyper-aggressive than you are more a man than a woman? [These are genuine questions].

No I don't mean that, no one means that.

I'm saying that it is typical in society for some men to be be perceived as more masculine than other men, some men to be perceived as more feminine than other men.

Some women to be perceived as more feminine than other women, and some women to be perceived as more masculine than other women.

Indeed there will be men who are perceived as more feminine than some women, and some women who are perceived as more masculine than some men.

So the ideals of masculinity and femininity are on a spectrum, there is cross over. Society is comfortable with this and there are a great many words that cover the various permutations.

Have a conversation about trans though and there is a tendency from some quarters to shut it down because men and women are totally binary and that's all there is to it.

[andy_s]

gregs656 said:

andy_s said:

I'm still confused, it seems a logical fallacy; do you mean if you are a woman who is hyper-aggressive than you are more a man than a woman? [These are genuine questions].

No I don't mean that, no one means that.

I'm saying that it is typical in society for some men to be be perceived as more masculine than other men, some men to be perceived as more feminine than other men.

Some women to be perceived as more feminine than other women, and some women to be perceived as more masculine than other women.

Indeed there will be men who are perceived as more feminine than some women, and some women who are perceived as more masculine than some men.

So the ideals of masculinity and femininity are on a spectrum, there is cross over. Society is comfortable with this and there are a great many words that cover the various permutations.

Have a conversation about trans though and there is a tendency from some quarters to shut it down because men and women are totally binary and that's all there is to it.

Yeah.....maybe I'm being hard of thinking - I get all you've said, it's pretty much what I said, but I had the impression that somewhere someone said that gender isn't binary and it's on a scale; I understand that the sliding scale of multivariate traditionally associated characteristics are, but that - to me - doesn't mean the gender alters from male/female to some indeterminate point in between [if that's what you mean in your last sentence].

---

OK, maybe got it - you mean 'men can only be men and women can only be women because of common perception' and that common perception isn't right [ie a man can think he's a woman]? I get that.

[anonymous-user]

Noodle1982 said:

Apparently the term vagina isn't gender inclusive so what better term to use than 'front hole'

http://caldronpool.com/healthline-says-using-the-m...

ffs

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Noodle1982 said:

Apparently the term vagina isn't gender inclusive so what better term to use than 'front hole'

http://caldronpool.com/healthline-says-using-the-m...

Even I think that's stupid.

[bradders]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

A transgender person is someone who identifies as the opposite gender, regardless of the clothes they are wearing. If they wear clothes that more closely match their gender identity then they are doing so because it is consistent with their gender identity. Not because they are dressing up.

A transsexual person is someone who wishes to transition to the opposite gender.

Hi CC. Hope you're well? What you've said here raises a few questions and I hope you don't mind sharing your perspective.

Is transsexual a subset of transgender? If a transsexual actually transitions (rather than wishing to transition), do they lose the trans label, from both transsexual and also transgender (if it is a subset)?

If gender is indeed non-binary, what does a transgender person believe is the opposite to which they identify? For example, if gender was a scale from 0 to 10, then would it be fair to assume a 0 identifies as a 10?

If so, what would a transgender 3 identify as, a 7? If a transgender person does identify as the opposite gender, how does that fit in a non-binary world?

[g3org3y]

bulldong said:

Noodle1982 said:

Apparently the term vagina isn't gender inclusive so what better term to use than 'front hole'

http://caldronpool.com/healthline-says-using-the-m...

ffs

And just when you didn't think it could get better, a gem from the comments:

Janet Cannon said:

"Hole" Makes it sound like its just.. a hole.. rather than an actual, legitimate body part with a purpose. This is blatant misogyny.

[Johnnytheboy]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

I was trying to find a way to phrase this yesterday on here but the above says this very well.

I am 100% relaxed about men dressing up as women or even having surgery to resemble women (and vice versa). I am 100% fine if they then want to call themselves women (and vice versa). After all, it doesn't affect me in the least.

What I am extremely uncomfortable about is feeling compelled by legal or societal pressure to pretend I think this means they have genuinely swapped sex when I don't believe it to be true.

Not because I any way want to prevent people living in a manner that makes them feel happier about themselves, but because I have this (perhaps irrational) dislike of being compelled to pretend to think something, just on principle. It has curiously totalitarian overtones, if that isn't an overly histrionic phrase.

If that makes me "transphobic" I'm "transphobic".

Quotation marks, as I faintly resent the depiction of not buying into someone else's agenda as a phobia.

If I'm scared of anything it's living in a society where my thoughts can be wrong.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Johnnytheboy said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

I was trying to find a way to phrase this yesterday on here but the above says this very well.

I am 100% relaxed about men dressing up as women or even having surgery to resemble women (and vice versa). I am 100% fine if they then want to call themselves women (and vice versa). After all, it doesn't affect me in the least.

What I am extremely uncomfortable about is feeling compelled by legal or societal pressure to pretend I think this means they have genuinely swapped sex when I don't believe it to be true.

Not because I any way want to prevent people living in a manner that makes them feel happier about themselves, but because I have this (perhaps irrational) dislike of being compelled to pretend to think something, just on principle. It has curiously totalitarian overtones, if that isn't an overly histrionic phrase.

If that makes me "transphobic" I'm "transphobic".

Quotation marks, as I faintly resent the depiction of not buying into someone else's agenda as a phobia.

If I'm scared of anything it's living in a society where my thoughts can be wrong.

I kind of get where you are coming from, and I certainly value the sentiment of "live and let live". So, thanks on that.

Just as an aside though, on the subject of "phobia" you can thank the word "homophobia" for the word "transphobia". They're generally taken as meaning "aversion to" rather than specifically "fear of", though (edit: although it seems that hasn't always been the case). Really they ought to have "-ism" like "racism" and "sexism" but I guess that "homoism" didn't look right. And I guess "transphobia" kind of grew from "homophobia" (as a word, I mean) although one could certainly argue that "transism" might make more sense.

But I digress.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 6th December 22:01

[anonymous-user]

g3org3y said:

bulldong said:

Noodle1982 said:

Apparently the term vagina isn't gender inclusive so what better term to use than 'front hole'

http://caldronpool.com/healthline-says-using-the-m...

ffs

And just when you didn't think it could get better, a gem from the comments:

Janet Cannon said:

"Hole" Makes it sound like its just.. a hole.. rather than an actual, legitimate body part with a purpose. This is blatant misogyny.

Following further research, I’m pretty sure it’s fake news.

[Halb]

andy_s said:

Yeah I'm confused on this one; being a hyper aggressive* woman doesn't make her a man, nor does a 'man' in a woman's body mean he/she's hyper-aggressive*, nor necessarily to want to be a man if they're a woman, [*Insert any other differentiating metric].

As I think about it, it's a little like saying if a boy likes ballet then he's homosexual, something anathema today (thank goodness)

I don't see this as a spectrum of gender, but more a spectrum of character traits that may be associated with gender by society [and by statistics].

Edited by andy_s on Thursday 6th December 19:15

LIke stud/slut, the same thing, but some people think one is worse than the other.