The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
andy_s said:
'Ladies and gentleman' has historical antecedent, we drew a line between ladies and gentlemen to some degree out of chivalrous intentions [it's not 'gentlemen and ladies' for a reason].
Ladies and gentlemen also seems to be the first obvious split amongst a varied population, [if indeed splits are to be made]. It's the fundamental grouping of humans [although it is anachronistic perhaps] barring outliers.
As I said a while back, splitting people into 'good' and 'idiots' is for me the only valuable distinction.
For the chap not wanting to use preferred pronouns [and I agree with some of what he said hitherto] I would agree that compelled speech (ie Govt. makes it mandatory) is wholly wrong, however for daily use, a bit of politeness works magic and to spool up a beef about what someone prefers to identify as seems disproportionate and rude.
Agree entirely with this - I get the reasons historically we use ladies and gentlemen, just pointing out it's unnecessary, outdated and a little problematic (or at least represents a wider problematic attitude). Ladies and gentlemen also seems to be the first obvious split amongst a varied population, [if indeed splits are to be made]. It's the fundamental grouping of humans [although it is anachronistic perhaps] barring outliers.
As I said a while back, splitting people into 'good' and 'idiots' is for me the only valuable distinction.
For the chap not wanting to use preferred pronouns [and I agree with some of what he said hitherto] I would agree that compelled speech (ie Govt. makes it mandatory) is wholly wrong, however for daily use, a bit of politeness works magic and to spool up a beef about what someone prefers to identify as seems disproportionate and rude.
Compelled language is definitely wrong but if you refuse to use the pronouns that make someone feel comfortable you're being a
. Who cares if they're right or wrong?Atomic12C said:
I accept that, but equally it must be accepted that the term 'gender' for many still refers to the traditional science terminology referring to classification of between the two sexes.
It may take time for the re-definition to settle in to society, and there must be acknowledgement from the 'offended' on that issue.
Straying away from the term 'gender, there is another aspect to this topic that may not sit well with society, in that if it is such that identifying as something that one is biologically/socially not, and is not seen as a mental health issue, then society may have a lot of problems ahead of it.
I think there needs to be some clear boundaries set within society so that everyone knows the 'game' so to speak.
Sure. It may take time for the re-definition to settle in to society, and there must be acknowledgement from the 'offended' on that issue.
Straying away from the term 'gender, there is another aspect to this topic that may not sit well with society, in that if it is such that identifying as something that one is biologically/socially not, and is not seen as a mental health issue, then society may have a lot of problems ahead of it.
I think there needs to be some clear boundaries set within society so that everyone knows the 'game' so to speak.
The rest is a bit of a slippery slope and ignores, I think, the medically recognised aspect of being transgender.
Though I think that is why Self ID is a bad idea, and unlikely to get off the ground in the UK.
Atomic12C said:
I accept that, but equally it must be accepted that the term 'gender' for many still refers to the traditional science terminology referring to classification of between the two sexes.
It may take time for the re-definition to settle in to society, and there must be acknowledgement from the 'offended' on that issue.
Straying away from the term 'gender, there is another aspect to this topic that may not sit well with society, in that if it is such that identifying as something that one is biologically/socially not, and is not seen as a mental health issue, then society may have a lot of problems ahead of it.
I think there needs to be some clear boundaries set within society so that everyone knows the 'game' so to speak.
If it is to be acceptable (without cause for concern over mental health) that a male identifies as a female, is it also acceptable that an old man can identify as a young girl? Or that a man can identify as the Queen with full expectation that society should treat them as such? Or that a white man identifies as a black girl?
Going further down the extreme, should society accept a person who identifies as an animal or a plant or even as a fabricated object - with full expectation that society should address and treat them as such (and again without concern over mental health) ?
It all quickly becomes very absurd.
Many would say that in order to accept a person who is identifying as something else, and deem there not to be a mental health issue, is a problem for society, and a missed opportunity to help out people with issues.
I don't think you can convincingly claim to be 'trans-race'. There's nothing that really separates different races that isn't cultural, biological racial differences are pretty insignificant when you compare them to sex organs and endocrine systems. Anyone that tries that on deserves to be ridiculed.It may take time for the re-definition to settle in to society, and there must be acknowledgement from the 'offended' on that issue.
Straying away from the term 'gender, there is another aspect to this topic that may not sit well with society, in that if it is such that identifying as something that one is biologically/socially not, and is not seen as a mental health issue, then society may have a lot of problems ahead of it.
I think there needs to be some clear boundaries set within society so that everyone knows the 'game' so to speak.
If it is to be acceptable (without cause for concern over mental health) that a male identifies as a female, is it also acceptable that an old man can identify as a young girl? Or that a man can identify as the Queen with full expectation that society should treat them as such? Or that a white man identifies as a black girl?
Going further down the extreme, should society accept a person who identifies as an animal or a plant or even as a fabricated object - with full expectation that society should address and treat them as such (and again without concern over mental health) ?
It all quickly becomes very absurd.
Many would say that in order to accept a person who is identifying as something else, and deem there not to be a mental health issue, is a problem for society, and a missed opportunity to help out people with issues.
As for people 'identifying' as animals or furniture (they're out there...), that's just role-playing.
desolate said:
Another thing I misunderstood from earlier in the thread.
A short summary of the current process:The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) provides a procedure for a person to apply for a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Most applicants must provide two medical reports, evidencing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and outlining details of any treatment received
The consequence of receiving a GRC is that the applicant is treated in the eyes of the law as being of their acquired gender.
From here - https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBr...
neil1jnr said:
For someone that feels strongly about the subject you do come up with some ridiculous analogies. If someone decided to call me Dave because they think I looked like one then I'd assume they have mental health problem, or maybe just having a laugh. What exactly were you trying to get at with that one..?
Why? They've just decided that their opinion of your name is more important than yours, that's all. Just like you have decided that your opinion of the correct gender pronoun to use for them is more important than theirs, Dave. neil1jnr said:
If I thought that they were in fact male; in a social situation I'd ask them politely if they were biologically male or female and if male I'd from then on refer to him as a he.
You'd ask them politely? How by any stretch of the imagination could that kind of question be considered polite? 
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 17th January 16:36
gregs656 said:
neil1jnr said:
I don't, I assume, like everybody else does every single day .Although jaw line, shoulder width, hip width, neck/throat, elbows, facial hair, muscle mass, deepness of voice, (and I could go on) give it away most of the time.
So, you are telling me you never assume, you ask everyone when speaking to them what if they are biologically male or female, or worst still, you ask everyone what pronoun they wish to be referred to as? Give me a break you hypocrite.
In regard to any debate or topic, you can come out with the weak argument of 'how many studies have you read', 'what are your credentials' etc. This sort of response makes you look a bit of an idiot. Are you unable to rationalise your point of view or provide some counter argument to what I said.
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
Many of those things are heavily influenced by hormones.So, you are telling me you never assume, you ask everyone when speaking to them what if they are biologically male or female, or worst still, you ask everyone what pronoun they wish to be referred to as? Give me a break you hypocrite.
In regard to any debate or topic, you can come out with the weak argument of 'how many studies have you read', 'what are your credentials' etc. This sort of response makes you look a bit of an idiot. Are you unable to rationalise your point of view or provide some counter argument to what I said.
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
I assume all the time, I am not sure how you can assume though, I assume if someone is presenting as female they are female, or if they introduce them selves as so and sos boyfriend or girlfriend etc that is a useful indicator also. If you are going off sex organs alone that seems like a higher standard - how can you be sure you aren't doing something you 'won't' do?
You haven't said anything that is an argument; there is no structure to it. Your opinions are not arguments. My question about what you have read wasn't an argument either, it was a question. Arguments have premises and conclusions.
You say it is a delusion, but the science and medicine disagree with you, and there is some quite fascinating research.
And, as I have pointed out, the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.
Start here, maybe? https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
or here: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-line...
Thus, I assume if someone is male or female the same way you do. I don't need to know if they literally have a male or female genitals. If someone presents themselves as a female, and to me they clearly are a female then that's enough for me. If someone appears to be a man but presents themselves as a female, then based on the reasons from my previous post, I'd politely ask if they were a man or a woman, biologically, and refer to them as he or she correctly based on their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man.
Don't get pedantic over this being an argument or discussion or question, you are drawing away form the debate again.
There is also plenty science that agrees and backs up my point of view. Fascinating isn't it.
What do you mean by 'the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.' Genuinely interested.
I mentioned on previous posts I understand there are anomalies in chromosomes and hormones, I am not completely dismissing the other side of the argument.
From what I can gather from the links you sent, essentially, there can be an infinite number of genders across the spectrum. This is not practical in day to day life for communication, and when people want to label themselves something they are clearly not and expects everyone else to play along with that, it causes friction. For day to purposes, I'd agree with another poster that you really don't need to differentiate between male or female, sex/gender, however you view it. Like in other languages, it might just be easier to refer to everyone as 'they'... Until then, I will continue to call a person by the pronoun that is correct for their sex, based on what I have already discussed in this post and earlier posts.
mattmurdock said:
neil1jnr said:
Good for you. You have done the same as I have to an extent; weighed up evidence, formed an opinion on the matter, but the difference between us is that you refuse to debate the topic of discussion. Typical liberal attitude, you simply can't rationalise your own views and opinions. I'll happily change and alter my points of view if I see fit during discussion, you may actually have some argument or point of view that I have missed or have a point of view I agree on.
But no, on you go mate, be a child and let me know that even in reality, not just on a forum, you would refuse to discuss this matter with me.
God you are a self-righteously smug tBut no, on you go mate, be a child and let me know that even in reality, not just on a forum, you would refuse to discuss this matter with me.
t. The only 'evidence' you have weighed up is your own opinion, and no amount of rational argument will cause you to change your mind, so do us a favour and stop presenting your prejudice and bias as something that is a) rational and b) open for discussion.Frankly everything you wrote above is a lie, and you call them the delusional ones.
Too predictable.I expected a response of sorts like this an here we have it. Thanks for cementing what I had said in my post you quoted with that hilarious reply.
neil1jnr said:
Hormones, correct. Hormones are linked with what sex you are biologically. This is fact and is something that science agrees with me, even if you want to think otherwise. I have said previously that I see no need to differentiate between sex and gender. I have said that although that is my opinion, that people can have different ideas with terms/language and I accept my idea of gender and sex being the same thing may or may not be correct, however I stand by it.
Thus, I assume if someone is male or female the same way you do. I don't need to know if they literally have a male or female genitals. If someone presents themselves as a female, and to me they clearly are a female then that's enough for me. If someone appears to be a man but presents themselves as a female, then based on the reasons from my previous post, I'd politely ask if they were a man or a woman, biologically, and refer to them as he or she correctly based on their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man.
Don't get pedantic over this being an argument or discussion or question, you are drawing away form the debate again.
There is also plenty science that agrees and backs up my point of view. Fascinating isn't it.
What do you mean by 'the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.' Genuinely interested.
I mentioned on previous posts I understand there are anomalies in chromosomes and hormones, I am not completely dismissing the other side of the argument.
From what I can gather from the links you sent, essentially, there can be an infinite number of genders across the spectrum. This is not practical in day to day life for communication, and when people want to label themselves something they are clearly not and expects everyone else to play along with that, it causes friction. For day to purposes, I'd agree with another poster that you really don't need to differentiate between male or female, sex/gender, however you view it. Like in other languages, it might just be easier to refer to everyone as 'they'... Until then, I will continue to call a person by the pronoun that is correct for their sex, based on what I have already discussed in this post and earlier posts.
You understand that transgender people who are transitioning or have transitioned take hormone replacement, yes?Thus, I assume if someone is male or female the same way you do. I don't need to know if they literally have a male or female genitals. If someone presents themselves as a female, and to me they clearly are a female then that's enough for me. If someone appears to be a man but presents themselves as a female, then based on the reasons from my previous post, I'd politely ask if they were a man or a woman, biologically, and refer to them as he or she correctly based on their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man.
Don't get pedantic over this being an argument or discussion or question, you are drawing away form the debate again.
There is also plenty science that agrees and backs up my point of view. Fascinating isn't it.
What do you mean by 'the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.' Genuinely interested.
I mentioned on previous posts I understand there are anomalies in chromosomes and hormones, I am not completely dismissing the other side of the argument.
From what I can gather from the links you sent, essentially, there can be an infinite number of genders across the spectrum. This is not practical in day to day life for communication, and when people want to label themselves something they are clearly not and expects everyone else to play along with that, it causes friction. For day to purposes, I'd agree with another poster that you really don't need to differentiate between male or female, sex/gender, however you view it. Like in other languages, it might just be easier to refer to everyone as 'they'... Until then, I will continue to call a person by the pronoun that is correct for their sex, based on what I have already discussed in this post and earlier posts.
Your earlier comment that you 'won't' refer to someone as female if they are 'biologically male' means that you do need to know their sex organs as this is how you defined the difference between them. What you are now saying is that if a trans person is convincing enough, you'd break your own standard (which answers your later question).
This seems like quite a superficial way of deciding whether someone deserves to be treated decently by you.
Now I am confused as to your position, because your next paragraph is the exact opposite - that it doesn't matter how they present, it's all about their sex organs.
I'd be genuinely interested in reading it - please share some links to the studies you have read.
You just have this image of a man in a dress (or vice versa) which is entirely your own fabrication.
I am *guessing* you have not had much exposure to trans people in day to day life?
desolate said:
Having seen his hilarious posts on a couple of other threads I shouldn't have engage with him, so sorry about that.
There's been some excellent posts anyway, pretty educational.
Can you point me in the direction of what posts of mines on other threads you find hilarious? There's been some excellent posts anyway, pretty educational.
It's interesting that your only input has been a refusal to discuss with me the topic of conversation and an inability to rationale your views, whatever they may be. Now you lower yourself to attacking other posts of mines without rhyme nor reason. Yet I am the one that shouldn't be engaged with.
Apologies if you have a mental disability, it's entirely understandable based on your posts that I've seen. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of your book and go ahead and fish out your posts from other threads to add to my replies.
neil1jnr said:
No, in that instance I wouldn't. If I believe they are female based on the above scenario then yes I'd refer to that person as female. If I thought that they were in fact male; in a social situation I'd ask them politely if they were biologically male or female and if male I'd from then on refer to him as a he. In a professional work situation it would depend, if it was someone I wouldn't be in contact regularly I wouldn't really care less if they identified as male or female, I am not jeopardising my job over it. However, if they were going to end up being a close work colleague, if they were biologically male, I'd refer to them as 'he', because that would be correct.
Why would you go out of your way to do that to another person?It beggars belief.
_dobbo_ said:
xjay1337 said:
How is it anti trans??? I am not against anyone. I just don't agree with it and don't believe I should have to either.
If I claimed I was a polar bear people would call me insane.
You're dismissing it out of hand - you don't see how to a trans person that would put you pretty much completely against them? If I claimed I was a polar bear people would call me insane.
Nobody is claiming to be a polar bear, that's a silly hypothetical. This thread is about gender.
But the crux is, people have to support anything that makes anyone feel better - where as I don't.
Difference is I don't mind as such, I will just ignore it, but doesn't mean I approve and genuinely think people who suffer need mental help not coddoling.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
andy_s said:
As I said a while back, splitting people into 'good' and 'idiots' is for me the only valuable distinction, albeit rather clumsy for after-dinner speaking.
And like Bilbo, let them place themselves in which ever camp they wish.
gregs656 said:
neil1jnr said:
Hormones, correct. Hormones are linked with what sex you are biologically. This is fact and is something that science agrees with me, even if you want to think otherwise. I have said previously that I see no need to differentiate between sex and gender. I have said that although that is my opinion, that people can have different ideas with terms/language and I accept my idea of gender and sex being the same thing may or may not be correct, however I stand by it.
Thus, I assume if someone is male or female the same way you do. I don't need to know if they literally have a male or female genitals. If someone presents themselves as a female, and to me they clearly are a female then that's enough for me. If someone appears to be a man but presents themselves as a female, then based on the reasons from my previous post, I'd politely ask if they were a man or a woman, biologically, and refer to them as he or she correctly based on their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man.
Don't get pedantic over this being an argument or discussion or question, you are drawing away form the debate again.
There is also plenty science that agrees and backs up my point of view. Fascinating isn't it.
What do you mean by 'the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.' Genuinely interested.
I mentioned on previous posts I understand there are anomalies in chromosomes and hormones, I am not completely dismissing the other side of the argument.
From what I can gather from the links you sent, essentially, there can be an infinite number of genders across the spectrum. This is not practical in day to day life for communication, and when people want to label themselves something they are clearly not and expects everyone else to play along with that, it causes friction. For day to purposes, I'd agree with another poster that you really don't need to differentiate between male or female, sex/gender, however you view it. Like in other languages, it might just be easier to refer to everyone as 'they'... Until then, I will continue to call a person by the pronoun that is correct for their sex, based on what I have already discussed in this post and earlier posts.
You understand that transgender people who are transitioning or have transitioned take hormone replacement, yes?Thus, I assume if someone is male or female the same way you do. I don't need to know if they literally have a male or female genitals. If someone presents themselves as a female, and to me they clearly are a female then that's enough for me. If someone appears to be a man but presents themselves as a female, then based on the reasons from my previous post, I'd politely ask if they were a man or a woman, biologically, and refer to them as he or she correctly based on their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man.
Don't get pedantic over this being an argument or discussion or question, you are drawing away form the debate again.
There is also plenty science that agrees and backs up my point of view. Fascinating isn't it.
What do you mean by 'the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.' Genuinely interested.
I mentioned on previous posts I understand there are anomalies in chromosomes and hormones, I am not completely dismissing the other side of the argument.
From what I can gather from the links you sent, essentially, there can be an infinite number of genders across the spectrum. This is not practical in day to day life for communication, and when people want to label themselves something they are clearly not and expects everyone else to play along with that, it causes friction. For day to purposes, I'd agree with another poster that you really don't need to differentiate between male or female, sex/gender, however you view it. Like in other languages, it might just be easier to refer to everyone as 'they'... Until then, I will continue to call a person by the pronoun that is correct for their sex, based on what I have already discussed in this post and earlier posts.
Your earlier comment that you 'won't' refer to someone as female if they are 'biologically male' means that you do need to know their sex organs as this is how you defined the difference between them. What you are now saying is that if a trans person is convincing enough, you'd break your own standard (which answers your later question).
This seems like quite a superficial way of deciding whether someone deserves to be treated decently by you.
Now I am confused as to your position, because your next paragraph is the exact opposite - that it doesn't matter how they present, it's all about their sex organs.
I'd be genuinely interested in reading it - please share some links to the studies you have read.
You just have this image of a man in a dress (or vice versa) which is entirely your own fabrication.
I am *guessing* you have not had much exposure to trans people in day to day life?
To clarify my point, in day to day life, the majority of people assume the sex of other people, it's practical and generally if someone appears to be male or female then they likely are. So if going about my business I have no reason to assume otherwise, I will refer to someone by what I perceive to be their sex. Yes, if a transgender person appears to be a female by my own assumptions then I will refer to them as such. I have met many trangenders and I have yet to meet one that I didn't automatically know what sex they were at birth. So, if doubt crosses my mind, I can either ask them directly what sex they are, depending on situation/circumstance or I can refer to them as what I perceive to be the correct why for their sex.
To have expanded slightly on a paragraph from my last post below to clarify what I mean.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man if it was obvious to me they were not, based on assumption.
I am not trying to be difficult and I understand and respect the points of view of others. I feel I have tried to be open as I can with my point of view.
For the record I am not as naïve as you may think I am on the topic, I didn't begin the belittling and frankly it ads nothing to the conversation apart from diluting your points of view from mat perspective.
I have nothing at hand for you to read in regard to links to the sources of material I have read online, or books I have read at home, I don't save them for situations like this (or remember books title or author as I read very often), nor am I going to just pull any random link off Google to try and back up my point of view for now.
However, I will add this:
XX- Female, XY - Male
Biological science proves that humans are born either male or female based on the chromosomes (I appreciate there are anomalies). Every male or female person is different, in respect to how they feel, how masculine or feminine they feel, in respect to what their individual personalities are. This does not change the fact that they can only be male or female. A man for example, that feels like he is female, wants to be referred to as female and identifies as female is still male. It's a fallacy for them to say otherwise.
Now, why should I refer to a biological male as a 'she', just because he want to be a woman, or feel like a woman? If biological man tells me he is non-binary and wants to be referred to by *insert made up pronoun here*, should I have to play along with what he believes he is, regardless if I believe that it is nonsensical? Someone whom identifies neither as male or female are delusional, regardless of what they feel, they are still male or female.
I find it quite astounding that my point of view, based on science and personal principle, is being mocked.
If anyone wants to reply like an adult and rationalise their point of view then that would be appreciated.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff