The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

George Smiley said:

It put to bed your male privilege bullst though

It didn't even do that.

[George Smiley]

Did it not?

It proved male privilege doesn’t apply to all men

Here’s a video of why the world is fked up

https://youtu.be/rOj0a2NPIpI

Back in the 00s loads of folk came out as bi as it was cool...

[Algarve]

Come on man, Cupcakes a woman now. You're never going to win an argument by trying to wear her down. Every bloke knows that.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Algarve said:

Come on man, Cupcakes a woman now. You're never going to win an argument by trying to wear her down. Every bloke knows that.

[gregs656]

George Smiley said:

Did it not?

It proved male privilege doesn’t apply to all men

No one sensible would ever claim that.

Maybe they were just reading Kinsey in the 00s.

[Davos123]

George Smiley said:

It put to bed your male privilege bullst though

No, no it didn't. No man was denied the vote because of their sex, women were. Poor people also being discriminated against doesn't mean that all other things being equal, being a man isn't an advantage.

Look at it this way - you had to be a landowner and a man to vote. A woman and a man both currently own no land so they can't vote, both end up owning land. Now the man can vote but the woman can't, because the man always had male privilege.

[George Smiley]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Algarve said:

Come on man, Cupcakes a woman now. You're never going to win an argument by trying to wear her down. Every bloke knows that.

fk! You’re right - point we’ll made

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Algarve said:

Come on man, Cupcakes a woman now. You're never going to win an argument by trying to wear her down. Every bloke knows that.

Indeed. Every straight man alive knows that. When she wants your opinion she'll tell it you

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

George Smiley said:

Did it not?

It proved male privilege doesn’t apply to all men

Here’s a video of why the world is fked up

https://youtu.be/rOj0a2NPIpI

Back in the 00s loads of folk came out as bi as it was cool...

I've not watched the video, but that is a huge over simplification. In the noughties tolerance of gays was making huge leaps, but still, it wasn't easy for many coming out. I have two gay friends, both 'came out' as bi. both were/are full blown gay. I guess it softened the transition in their eyes.

[andy_s]

Davos123 said:

the man always had male privilege.

...and the female always had female privilege, both were different privileges, in different times and applied unequally throughout the population. Then you had rich privilege, of course, even if you'd worked for it, then you had attractive privilege because they always get a better looking partner [snot fair], intelligence privilege [why do more of them end up at Uni - although this could be female privilege as more females attend uni than men, although it's male privilege as regards STEM subjects - bloody confusing privileges]...anyway, I suppose the upshot is that we're now sitting on arguably the most comfortable, equitable, liberal and wealthy period we've ever experienced - hazaah for male privilege...er...I mean boo to male privilege....oh I give up

I know I know, women were a bit down-trodden second class (well, 4th class, men 3rd class, wealthy 2nd class, aristocracy 1st class...) citizen for a period, but it was no bloody bed of roses for men either, what with all that dying, dangerous working, drinking poor ale and living below the breadline while the missus pumps out more mouths to feed an' all.

This historic 'male privilege' thing is a pretty strange way to look at life though, just get out and do your thing, if you're feeling constrained by things that happened 'back in the day' or even now (after 40 odd years of anti-discrimination legislation...) you may as well just stay in bed as you'll never be happy I reckon - become the person you are, the rest is pseudo-intellectual fog serving no good purpose.

[George Smiley]

andy_s said:

Davos123 said:

the man always had male privilege.

...and the female always had female privilege, both were different privileges, in different times and applied unequally throughout the population. Then you had rich privilege, of course, even if you'd worked for it, then you had attractive privilege because they always get a better looking partner [snot fair], intelligence privilege [why do more of them end up at Uni - although this could be female privilege as more females attend uni than men, although it's male privilege as regards STEM subjects - bloody confusing privileges]...anyway, I suppose the upshot is that we're now sitting on arguably the most comfortable, equitable, liberal and wealthy period we've ever experienced - hazaah for male privilege...er...I mean boo to male privilege....oh I give up

I know I know, women were a bit down-trodden second class (well, 4th class, men 3rd class, wealthy 2nd class, aristocracy 1st class...) citizen for a period, but it was no bloody bed of roses for men either, what with all that dying, dangerous working, drinking poor ale and living below the breadline while the missus pumps out more mouths to feed an' all.

This historic 'male privilege' thing is a pretty strange way to look at life though, just get out and do your thing, if you're feeling constrained by things that happened 'back in the day' or even now (after 40 odd years of anti-discrimination legislation...) you may as well just stay in bed as you'll never be happy I reckon - become the person you are, the rest is pseudo-intellectual fog serving no good purpose.

This is the argument room, if you want the logic room its down the right.

No it isn't...

[Rivenink]

jfire said:

And we seem hysterical for wondering why we've been given a name to distinguish and divide us from another community.

It seems hysterical because you're making it seem hysterical.

You're seeking to find offense in a scientific label that is used to define those that are not trans-. The Cis- and trans- prefixes are used in conjunction elsewhere in science, and its literally has no negative connotations to it.

[jfire]

Rivenink said:

It seems hysterical because you're making it seem hysterical.

You're seeking to find offense in a scientific label that is used to define those that are not trans-. The Cis- and trans- prefixes are used in conjunction elsewhere in science, and its literally has no negative connotations to it.

Ironic use of scientific terms with such little regard to biology then.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Rivenink said:

You're seeking to find offense in a scientific label that is used to define those that are not trans-. The Cis- and trans- prefixes are used in conjunction elsewhere in science, and its literally has no negative connotations to it.

True, but unfortunately the prefixes can, and do, develop a negative connotation.

Take TERF for example. It started out as a simple acronym for "Trans-Excluding Radical Feminist" - a simple descriptive acronym to refer to feminists who exclude trans women and deny that trans women are women. However, it has become a pejorative term to some.

I don't believe that cis- is pejorative but I can kind of see why some might view it as such.

[andy_s]

Rivenink said:

jfire said:

And we seem hysterical for wondering why we've been given a name to distinguish and divide us from another community.

It seems hysterical because you're making it seem hysterical.

You're seeking to find offense in a scientific label that is used to define those that are not trans-. The Cis- and trans- prefixes are used in conjunction elsewhere in science, and its literally has no negative connotations to it.

It doesn't particularly need a negative connotation, it's just not a label I want appended to my gender by someone who hasn't bothered asking, particularly when it isn't necessary to differentiate specifically in the context of what's being talked about. I'd imagine anyone from any persuasion, self-identified gender or birth-gender would feel the same way about their particular 'label', and I'd certainly respect that, quid pro quo?

It's not hysteria, it's politeness and empathy more than anything, something we're familiar with in this subject hopefully, although I do feel uncomfortable with the 'labelling/projection' aspects if I'm honest - we know how glossary can be subverted/perverted to suit doctrine sometimes.

[Rivenink]

jfire said:

Ironic use of scientific terms with such little regard to biology then.

Ironic how?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

andy_s said:

It doesn't particularly need a negative connotation, it's just not a label I want appended to my gender by someone who hasn't bothered asking, particularly when it isn't necessary to differentiate specifically in the context of what's being talked about. I'd imagine anyone from any persuasion, self-identified gender or birth-gender would feel the same way about their particular 'label', and I'd certainly respect that, quid pro quo?

It's not hysteria, it's politeness and empathy more than anything, something we're familiar with in this subject hopefully, although I do feel uncomfortable with the 'labelling/projection' aspects if I'm honest - we know how glossary can be subverted/perverted to suit doctrine sometimes.

I think you misunderstand.

If a discussion is about sexuality, you might refer to a gay person and a straight person. Or a bisexual person.
If a discussion is about racial issues, you might refer to a black person and a white person.
If about age issues, an old person and a young person.
If the discussion is about transgender issues, you would refer to a trans person and a cis person.
In all cases, the differentiation is only needed if needed for the discussion. Otherwise it's just person.

[Rivenink]

andy_s said:

It doesn't particularly need a negative connotation, it's just not a label I want appended to my gender by someone who hasn't bothered asking, particularly when it isn't necessary to differentiate specifically in the context of what's being talked about. I'd imagine anyone from any persuasion, self-identified gender or birth-gender would feel the same way about their particular 'label', and I'd certainly respect that, quid pro quo?

It's not hysteria, it's politeness and empathy more than anything, something we're familiar with in this subject hopefully, although I do feel uncomfortable with the 'labelling/projection' aspects if I'm honest - we know how glossary can be subverted/perverted to suit doctrine sometimes.

You're grabbing at victimhood that isn't there.

Trans-men are men. Cis-Men are men. When I use the term "men", I'm describing both; and in other discussions I simply use the term "men". In discussion on gender and trans- issues, its appropriate to make definitions between those who are trans- and those that are not. Scientifically, Cis- is used in opposition to trans-. Therefore its appropriate to use that terminology.

[andy_s]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

andy_s said:

It doesn't particularly need a negative connotation, it's just not a label I want appended to my gender by someone who hasn't bothered asking, particularly when it isn't necessary to differentiate specifically in the context of what's being talked about. I'd imagine anyone from any persuasion, self-identified gender or birth-gender would feel the same way about their particular 'label', and I'd certainly respect that, quid pro quo?

It's not hysteria, it's politeness and empathy more than anything, something we're familiar with in this subject hopefully, although I do feel uncomfortable with the 'labelling/projection' aspects if I'm honest - we know how glossary can be subverted/perverted to suit doctrine sometimes.

I think you misunderstand.

If a discussion is about sexuality, you might refer to a gay person and a straight person. Or a bisexual person.
If a discussion is about racial issues, you might refer to a black person and a white person.
If about age issues, an old person and a young person.
If the discussion is about transgender issues, you would refer to a trans person and a cis person.
In all cases, the differentiation is only needed if needed for the discussion. Otherwise it's just person.

Oh yeah CC, that's what I meant by 'when it isn't necessary to differentiate specifically in the context of what's being talked about'; if we're talking specifically about 'advanced bathroom operation conditional access provisionment across a spectrum of gender-types, mixes, classical and modern' [] then yes - a 'cis' thrown in for clarification is entirely appropriate.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

andy_s said:

Oh yeah CC, that's what I meant by 'when it isn't necessary to differentiate specifically in the context of what's being talked about'; if we're talking specifically about 'advanced bathroom operation conditional access provisionment across a spectrum of gender-types, mixes, classical and modern' [] then yes - a 'cis' thrown in for clarification is entirely appropriate.