The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
p2c said:
Ok maybe we should take the horse scenario more seriously as you did say you has opposable thumbs and speak English. So fine by me, pop to your gp and get yourself referred to the equine identity clinic, oh what's that you say there isn't one. Ok so lets apply the gender clinic practices. Step 1 go home and wait 12 to 24 months, maybe 5 years then we may see you. But we wont do anything this is just a get to know you session. Come back in 6 months and my colleague will give a second opinion. In the meantime here is the number for a blacksmith, be sure to be wearing horse shoes next time. If you get through the intense pain of red hot iron on your feet. Its probably like having high power lasers shot in your face 30 mins at a time like trans woman do. Then your off to a good start. Live in the stable for another 2 years and we may fit you a saddle, another 2 years if all your paperwork is in order you may get your ERC and then you can enter the grand national.
If you survive any of that I'll respect you and will put a bet on you in the 4.15 at ascot.
OTOH. Trans people have been studied by the medical profession for a long time, it is a thing, its real its no longer up for debate among those who are educated on it and not wilfully ignorant or influenced by some arcane belief system., people that go through transition go through a worse version than what I described above for horses and they still come out the other side better for it. Everything else they tried killed people.
So at what point would you acknowledge them as a horse? Is it at the first expression of belief, after the belief has been maintained for a certain period of time, after a certain level of hardship has been endured to prove the sincerity of the belief or after the best medical procedure that science has devised has been undertaken to achieve the closest physical approximation of a horse possible? For me it would be physical, if science comes up with a way to truly transmogrify a human into a horse then I would acknowledge the result as no longer human and closer to being horse than anything else thus due the title of horse. Before that I would regard them as a mentally ill human, as I suspect would the medical establishment.If you survive any of that I'll respect you and will put a bet on you in the 4.15 at ascot.
OTOH. Trans people have been studied by the medical profession for a long time, it is a thing, its real its no longer up for debate among those who are educated on it and not wilfully ignorant or influenced by some arcane belief system., people that go through transition go through a worse version than what I described above for horses and they still come out the other side better for it. Everything else they tried killed people.
The example can be modified for all sorts of scenarios be it doing a Michael Jackson, 'identifying' as the terminator and being made into a cyborg or 'identifying' as short when you're tall. The fundamental question is should people be expected to suspend the very concept of physical description and identification in case people don't like the way they are described or identified? I don't think that's realistic or even possible. Humans perceive physical reality not mental state, we identify and remember people based on a descriptive profile. Mental state is useless as an identifier as it can't be externally quantified and is changeable therefore is meaningless to anyone but the individual.
To extend the thought process, if you do believe that mental state should override physical reality then where do you draw the line? There must a point at which everyone concedes that sanity has gone out the window (if someone starts identifying as a planet in the outer solar system and demanding to be plotted in planetariums for example). How do you set that line?
TurboHatchback said:
One of the defintions of agenda: The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.
The intentions and motives of you or 'your group' is to mandate that everyone interact with you in a manner prescribed by yourself, not as they see fit.
You have quoted a definition and then given an example which doesn't fit it, and is also a misrepresentation of what raising awareness (generally) is about.The intentions and motives of you or 'your group' is to mandate that everyone interact with you in a manner prescribed by yourself, not as they see fit.
Your examples are diversionary - you still seem hung up on physiology which is odd, as it has been pointed out to you many times that gender is not physiological.
Edited by gregs656 on Wednesday 19th July 18:13
ClockworkCupcake said:
xjay1337 said:
Really? So what about size 12 adult shoes, do they need to be advertised neutrally? Or condoms? Or tampax? Or any countless numbers of products aimed solely at a certain gender?
Condoms - suitable for people with a penis. Tampax - suitable for people who menstruate
Size 12 adults shoes - suitable for people with size 12 adult feet.
p2c said:
Another IT girl by profession, its pretty much the go to industry for trans people not working in other sciences or the military, in some circles it almost an expectation. I think those in the arts are in the minority, we tend to shy away from public scrutiny which the arts tend to attract
I used to work at a company. One of the customers was this ex man now lady.
http://www.msknight.com/index.php?page=32
TurboHatchback said:
p2c said:
Ok maybe we should take the horse scenario more seriously as you did say you has opposable thumbs and speak English. So fine by me, pop to your gp and get yourself referred to the equine identity clinic, oh what's that you say there isn't one. Ok so lets apply the gender clinic practices. Step 1 go home and wait 12 to 24 months, maybe 5 years then we may see you. But we wont do anything this is just a get to know you session. Come back in 6 months and my colleague will give a second opinion. In the meantime here is the number for a blacksmith, be sure to be wearing horse shoes next time. If you get through the intense pain of red hot iron on your feet. Its probably like having high power lasers shot in your face 30 mins at a time like trans woman do. Then your off to a good start. Live in the stable for another 2 years and we may fit you a saddle, another 2 years if all your paperwork is in order you may get your ERC and then you can enter the grand national.
If you survive any of that I'll respect you and will put a bet on you in the 4.15 at ascot.
OTOH. Trans people have been studied by the medical profession for a long time, it is a thing, its real its no longer up for debate among those who are educated on it and not wilfully ignorant or influenced by some arcane belief system., people that go through transition go through a worse version than what I described above for horses and they still come out the other side better for it. Everything else they tried killed people.
So at what point would you acknowledge them as a horse? Is it at the first expression of belief, after the belief has been maintained for a certain period of time, after a certain level of hardship has been endured to prove the sincerity of the belief or after the best medical procedure that science has devised has been undertaken to achieve the closest physical approximation of a horse possible? For me it would be physical, if science comes up with a way to truly transmogrify a human into a horse then I would acknowledge the result as no longer human and closer to being horse than anything else thus due the title of horse. Before that I would regard them as a mentally ill human, as I suspect would the medical establishment.If you survive any of that I'll respect you and will put a bet on you in the 4.15 at ascot.
OTOH. Trans people have been studied by the medical profession for a long time, it is a thing, its real its no longer up for debate among those who are educated on it and not wilfully ignorant or influenced by some arcane belief system., people that go through transition go through a worse version than what I described above for horses and they still come out the other side better for it. Everything else they tried killed people.
The example can be modified for all sorts of scenarios be it doing a Michael Jackson, 'identifying' as the terminator and being made into a cyborg or 'identifying' as short when you're tall. The fundamental question is should people be expected to suspend the very concept of physical description and identification in case people don't like the way they are described or identified? I don't think that's realistic or even possible. Humans perceive physical reality not mental state, we identify and remember people based on a descriptive profile. Mental state is useless as an identifier as it can't be externally quantified and is changeable therefore is meaningless to anyone but the individual.
To extend the thought process, if you do believe that mental state should override physical reality then where do you draw the line? There must a point at which everyone concedes that sanity has gone out the window (if someone starts identifying as a planet in the outer solar system and demanding to be plotted in planetariums for example). How do you set that line?
I will pick up on your point though of Michael Jackson. Whilst I don't particularly know the inner details of his identity and I suspect few did, and I pretty much missed any of his Jackson 5 material so by the time he came to my attention he was pretty much assimilated into the white pop music scene and culture with some controversial history gossip around him about how he was a black man with a white plastic nose. To be honest as a child I thought very little about if he was black or white, how he identified etc, he was just Michael Jackson,
What I do believe though is there is a difference between identity and mental illness, and medical science seems to agree with me particularly on the transgender issue, much like being gay was once a mental disorder along with many others throughout history which ultimately just turned out to be part of the human condition.
I look at a human and realise no two are the same. Every argument you can present to define the genders has flaws which would exclude some people who traditionally would not have to defend their identify as being in question. I look at what it takes to make a human, what the dramatically different outcomes you can expect from the same genetic source before it is even exposed to hormones in the womb, or any other factors. Or I can turn to nature, reptiles for instance, for some their sex is determined by the temperature of the egg at certain times, many fish will change sex depending on their environment.
Back to humans we have a tiny understanding of the brain, and less still of the mind and identity. I can look at my body and see the power of hormones and I know that any treatment that was to change my brain would be to change who I am and to destroy me. In effect it would be identity suicide and I know many trans people feel the same way. Few when presented with the hypothetical button that would make them cisgender from birth of the sex they were assigned at birth and not know anything of the trans life they lived would not push the button to start over, but would preserve their identity and transition as they do now because to do anything else would be to become somebody else, and even if you tempt them further with being born CIS in their identified gender, as tempting as it is, many would still not actually push that button either.
So where does that leave us, I don't know, I'm no scholar on gender identity, I can see there are many different views within the trans community, On the one hand there needs to be some form of control on transition to prevent abuse by predatory males, but the very idea that someone else holds the keys to my identity is abhorrent to me and any measure of "are you trans enough" is equally loathsome. If that means we have pop starts saying they are non binary then so what. If people try and abuse it for nefarious reasons, then deal with society's deficiencies in those areas and prosecute people for those crimes and for example deal with the rape culture and not blame the victim and persecute the innocent groups.
Do I screw up pronouns, occasionally yes I do, so far never when it matters and if I eventually do I will be falling over myself to apologise and make amends. I am tolerant of people screwing up with me, I don't bite my neighbours and families head off if they get it wrong. I will respect your identity as you present it to me. As soon as you make it clear I have made a mistake and you actually identify as an asshole I will respect that too, its not me being intolerant, its quite the opposite, I'm just responding to who you are, I'm still respecting your identity which is more than you would be for me judging by your comments. I pretty much don't go out looking to pick fights like an intolerant person, its too dangerous for me.
I realise I have provided you and a few others with pages of quote's and dissection's to keep you occupied for the rest of the night, but I also realise you are not the only one reading this.
Edited by p2c on Wednesday 19th July 20:05
xjay1337 said:
ClockworkCupcake said:
xjay1337 said:
Really? So what about size 12 adult shoes, do they need to be advertised neutrally? Or condoms? Or tampax? Or any countless numbers of products aimed solely at a certain gender?
Condoms - suitable for people with a penis. Tampax - suitable for people who menstruate
Size 12 adults shoes - suitable for people with size 12 adult feet.
What about those who have lost their penis for what ever reason, perhaps an accident or a surgery - do they cease to be men? I have to say I don't think I would stop being a man if I lost mine for some reason, would you? Demonstrating how straight forward it is to conceptualise identifying as a gender even if you don't have the matching sex organs.
gregs656 said:
Are you saying those who don't menstruate because they are too young, old, on the pill, on other medication with similar side effects to the pill, or simply don't menstruate because of a condition (medical or otherwise) are not women?
What about those who have lost their penis for what ever reason, perhaps an accident or a surgery - do they cease to be men? I have to say I don't think I would stop being a man if I lost mine for some reason, would you? Demonstrating how straight forward it is to conceptualise identifying as a gender even if you don't have the matching sex organs.
No, I'm saying if you are selling tampax then your target market is women.What about those who have lost their penis for what ever reason, perhaps an accident or a surgery - do they cease to be men? I have to say I don't think I would stop being a man if I lost mine for some reason, would you? Demonstrating how straight forward it is to conceptualise identifying as a gender even if you don't have the matching sex organs.
Likewise condoms are for men. To catch the milk of pamela.
xjay1337 said:
No, I'm saying if you are selling tampax then your target market is women.
Likewise condoms are for men. To catch the milk of pamela.
Perhaps, but then again, if you're selling condoms you are actually targeting people who want to buy condoms. Granted, the majority of the end users of those will have penises. But are all the people buying them male? Women buy them too - granted to mainly to ultimately put on penises. Likewise condoms are for men. To catch the milk of pamela.
However, your original question was should condom sales be targeted only at men? I would say not, as women buy them too. Smart advertising would be multi target advertising.
Likewise, how many husbands and boyfriends are sent out to buy tampons and don't have a bloody clue (no pun intended) which to buy? Marketing opportunity there.
ClockworkCupcake said:
xjay1337 said:
No, I'm saying if you are selling tampax then your target market is women.
Likewise condoms are for men. To catch the milk of pamela.
Perhaps, but then again, if you're selling condoms you are actually targeting people who want to buy condoms. Granted, the majority of the end users of those will have penises. But are all the people buying them male? Women buy them too - granted to mainly to ultimately put on penises. Likewise condoms are for men. To catch the milk of pamela.
However, your original question was should condom sales be targeted only at men? I would say not, as women buy them too. Smart advertising would be multi target advertising.
Likewise, how many husbands and boyfriends are sent out to buy tampons and don't have a bloody clue (no pun intended) which to buy? Marketing opportunity there.
Most people are straight men assigned male at birth and straight women assigned female at birth. But all the rest of us - not straight, not cisgender, not of a binary gender, whatever - add up to a significant chunk of the population. Dunno how many exactly, there are various estimates each with their own flaws, but it's still millions of Brits alone.
It's a mistake to overlook all those people, in all sorts of ways. Not least just how phenomenally rude and unpleasant it is to insist that a 'she' is in the speaker's eyes a 'he' and whathaveyou. Basic manners.
FlyingMeeces said:
I know a LOT of lesbians who buy condoms to put on sex toys - if someone isn't fluid bonded with her partner, or is doing kinky multi-person things (ooer), or is using toys in different orifices, then condoms are absolutely necessary. Plus, of course, those lesbians who are transwomen, who have all of the above concerns plus a few extra ones.
Most people are straight men assigned male at birth and straight women assigned female at birth. But all the rest of us - not straight, not cisgender, not of a binary gender, whatever - add up to a significant chunk of the population. Dunno how many exactly, there are various estimates each with their own flaws, but it's still millions of Brits alone.
There you go then, xjay. Not such a 1337 h4x0r after all, eh? Most people are straight men assigned male at birth and straight women assigned female at birth. But all the rest of us - not straight, not cisgender, not of a binary gender, whatever - add up to a significant chunk of the population. Dunno how many exactly, there are various estimates each with their own flaws, but it's still millions of Brits alone.
As I said, the major buyers of condoms are people who buy condoms.
FlyingMeeces said:
Not least just how phenomenally rude and unpleasant it is to insist that a 'she' is in the speaker's eyes a 'he' and whathaveyou. Basic manners.
Well, quite. 
gregs656 said:
Right so women menstruate. Except the ones that don't. Not all men have penises.
You dodged my question.
Ummm. You didn't really ask a question. You made a silly statement to try and weave the topic.You dodged my question.
People born female menstruate.
You cannot menstruate via a sex change. A male to female trans does not have a womb.
Just because both male and female may BUY Tampax (for example) doesn't mean that it's target market is not significantly shifted towards females. As it should be.
Likewise the primary reason for a condom is to prevent pregnancy by stopping sperm. Something which female to male trans don't have.
I don't understand why you are trying to suggest they should be gender neutral when they are clearly aimed at certain genders
xjay1337 said:
I don't understand why you are trying to suggest they should be gender neutral when they are clearly aimed at certain genders
It's almost as if I didn't write what I wrote that addressed exactly that. Surely all that matters when you sell something is that people buy it? I'm sure that condom manufacturers aren't going to say "I'm sorry, but you have to have a penis to buy our product. Oh, and if you do buy our product then that makes you a man".
They'll sell them to whoever wants to buy them. Why should they care?
xjay1337 said:
gregs656 said:
Right so women menstruate. Except the ones that don't. Not all men have penises.
You dodged my question.
Ummm. You didn't really ask a question. You made a silly statement to try and weave the topic.You dodged my question.
People born female menstruate.
You cannot menstruate via a sex change. A male to female trans does not have a womb.
Just because both male and female may BUY Tampax (for example) doesn't mean that it's target market is not significantly shifted towards females. As it should be.
Likewise the primary reason for a condom is to prevent pregnancy by stopping sperm. Something which female to male trans don't have.
I don't understand why you are trying to suggest they should be gender neutral when they are clearly aimed at certain genders
So the statement that "people born female menstruate" is not strictly true.
xjay1337 said:
Ummm. You didn't really ask a question. You made a silly statement to try and weave the topic.
People born female menstruate.
I asked two. What was the silly statement? You have twice now said that by definition females menstruate - which is incorrect given all the examples of people who are correctly considered to be female but don't menstruate.People born female menstruate.
ClockworkCupcake said:
xjay1337 said:
I don't understand why you are trying to suggest they should be gender neutral when they are clearly aimed at certain genders
It's almost as if I didn't write what I wrote that addressed exactly that. Surely all that matters when you sell something is that people buy it? I'm sure that condom manufacturers aren't going to say "I'm sorry, but you have to have a penis to buy our product. Oh, and if you do buy our product then that makes you a man".
They'll sell them to whoever wants to buy them. Why should they care?
Given that condoms are sold to people who want to have sex, regardless of gender it's not beyond the wit of man to expect to see condom machines in the ladies loo as well, but I think you would agree it would be an utter waste to put a sanitary towel machine on the wall of a gents loo.
If you're stepping into marketing and advertising, when you have Yorkie bars being sold as 'Not for Girls' and Vauxhall cars being sold specifically for school-run Mums wearing pyjamas, you know that it's an industry which makes absolutely no sense at all
The Surveyor said:
Given that condoms are sold to people who want to have sex, regardless of gender it's not beyond the wit of man to expect to see condom machines in the ladies loo as well, but I think you would agree it would be an utter waste to put a sanitary towel machine on the wall of a gents loo.
True. You may get the occasional pre-op F2M transsexual going into the men's loo but chances are he would have a pad with him anyway, so I agree it's a vanishingly small market and not worth putting a machine in the men's loos. The Surveyor said:
If you're stepping into marketing and advertising, when you have Yorkie bars being sold as 'Not for Girls' and Vauxhall cars being sold specifically for school-run Mums wearing pyjamas, you know that it's an industry which makes absolutely no sense at all
LOL. Very true. So, returning to xjay1337 asserting that condoms should only be sold to men, and tampons should only be sold to women, and gender-neutral advertising is not needed... I think we've conclusively shown that not to be the case. Mainly because advertising is all b
ks* but also because FlyingMeeces has pointed out that lesbians use condoms too. * - even if subsequently removed by surgery.
FlyingMeeces said:
Plus, of course, those lesbians who are transwomen
Or to rephrase that slightly, straight men. How 'special' do you have to be to believe that, despite having a male body and a prediliction for pussy you are in fact a lesbian in disguise . Surely that must lead to catastrophic disappointment when they discover that real lesbians aren't actually interested in men?Interestingly the (real) lesbians I have known have been some of the less tolerant people to this whole trans agenda I have met. They also had little patience for LGBT societies and the like because (and I quote) "the people there base their entire existence and identity around gayness, they can't just get on with being a person who happens to be gay". One I knew particularly well lived the most stereotypically male existence you could imagine, beer, computer games, baggy jeans and old t-shirts every day, objectifying women in bars, zero personal grooming but it didn't occur to them to invent a meaningless 'gender identity', they just got on with living life how they wanted in the body they were born with. Funnily enough they were accepted and quite popular with everyone and practically had 'honoroury bro' status.
In fact there isn't a single thing about my life either that has any bearing on sex or made up 'gender identity', I just get on with living as a person in the body I was born with. If I woke up tomorrow as a woman (or with a genuinely held belief that I was one) nothing whatsoever would have to change, ergo the whole concept of 'living as a woman' or 'living as a man' is irrelevant outdated nonsense. A radical concept no doubt but perhaps worth considering.
Triumph Man said:
Dare I ask what that is?
You could just quietly google it. That's what I did. https://www.verywell.com/fluid-bonding-3132610
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff