The Gender Non-binary debate.

Author
Discussion

Clockwork Cupcake

57,831 posts

208 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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. thumbup

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. smile

Clockwork Cupcake

57,831 posts

208 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.
It's not an analogy. It's a statement of fact. It happens. The words exist. I've been called a "sissy" and other derogatory terms throughout my life. I've been told to "man up" and "grow a pair" and not to be "such a woolly woofter" many, many times.

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.

gregs656

1,864 posts

117 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.

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'.

esxste

1,360 posts

42 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.

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 smile

Edited by esxste on Thursday 6th December 16:53

Clockwork Cupcake

57,831 posts

208 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.


Advertisement

LaurasOtherHalf

14,080 posts

132 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.





xjay1337

11,082 posts

54 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.
It's not an analogy. It's a statement of fact. It happens. The words exist. I've been called a "sissy" and other derogatory terms throughout my life. I've been told to "man up" and "grow a pair" and not to be "such a woolly woofter" many, many times.

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.
Right, I've had those things said to me as well. I am a full blooded male proud of my shaft who likes bobs and vegene.

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.



Clockwork Cupcake

57,831 posts

208 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.

Justayellowbadge

36,930 posts

178 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

57,831 posts

208 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

11,082 posts

54 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

1,864 posts

117 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

14,080 posts

132 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

57,831 posts

208 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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. thumbup

andy_s

13,760 posts

195 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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]. confused

Edited by andy_s on Thursday 6th December 19:15

gregs656

1,864 posts

117 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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]. confused

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

13,760 posts

195 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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]. confused

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

719 posts

42 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

1,864 posts

117 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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

13,760 posts

195 months

Thursday 6th December
quotequote all
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.