Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[Thermal]

It's an interesting problem: If someone with all the primary and secondary male physical sexual characteristics - functional penis, facial hair, etc - says "I identify as a woman", what do they mean? Obviously they don't mean they literally have a physical vagina in place of a penis, or physical ovaries in place of testes.

Instead, their self-identification is psychological, or social, or some combination of the two. The psychological identification is a pretty big topic itself; maybe we can come back to it later. For now, I'm intrigued by the social self-identification.

There seems to be an inherent conflict in the idea of social self-identification. You can't on the one hand reject social constructs of identity as being properly descriptive, and then on the other hand insist that a particular social construct properly identifies you.

"I don't really match society's idea of gendered expression, but I want society to treat me as if I did match that idea." I mean, self-identification is nice, but isn't it up to society to decide whether the construct matches or not?

If you can think of yourself however you want - if you can think of gender in general however you want - then so can I. There's no reason other than personal preference, why my social construct of gender has to match yours. And if yours doesn't match mine, why is it important to you that I pretend it does? Or perhaps, if your idea of "woman" doesn't match mine, but we agree to call you a woman anyway, what does the term even mean? If it means whatever you want it to mean, then the importance of having it mean something vanishes, and you have no reason to want it to mean anything at all.

Well put. Otherwise known as the 'I identify as an attack helicopter' paradox

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well put. Otherwise known as the 'I identify as an attack helicopter' paradox

And why Harnaam Kaur is not allowed in any bathrooms.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mgyj4n/model-harnaam-kaur-on-how-her-beard-is-a-blessing

 

[JoeMorgue]

There seems to be an inherent conflict in the idea of social self-identification. You can't on the one hand reject social constructs of identity as being properly descriptive, and then on the other hand insist that a particular social construct properly identifies you.

And this is what I keep coming back and coming back and coming back to, this paradox of the "roles" only being valid when they are being subverted and are at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous when they are applied straight (no pun intended.)

If a woman being expected or even forced to wear a dress and makeup and take on domestic roles is wrong, as I thought was an idea that was rapidly being accepted and the Progressive party line not all that long ago, then a man who likes to wear dresses and makeup asking to be thought of as a woman because of that... we've reached a contradiction we do sort of have to unpack.

If a man taking on the roles of a woman defines him as a woman, then women are defined by those roles. You can't make that not true. Women can't not be defined by roles except when a man who assumes those roles wants to be a woman.

Feet to the fire honest I'm actually sort of surprised that given how "Appropriation" is such a hot topic for progressives they aren't more bothered by this. Assuming the literal identity of another demographic strikes me as much more inherently problematic than just wearing dreads or taking a belly dancing class.

 

[tyr_13]

Feet to the fire honest I'm actually sort of surprised that given how "Appropriation" is such a hot topic for progressives they aren't more bothered by this. Assuming the literal identity of another demographic strikes me as much more inherently problematic than just wearing dreads or taking a belly dancing class.

I'm not at all surprised that those who usually argue the inherent differences between men and women are very substantial and justify wide ranging differences in treatment don't fall on the side that stance would rationally indicate.

It's easy to see hypocrisy when you straw man and cherry pick extremes in an opposing argument, rather than using a working knowledge of the more common and less extreme positions.

 

[cullennz]

And whites didn't want blacks in their bathrooms and straight people didn't want gays. Who's biases should I listen to?

I wondered when this stupid one would come up.

If you think it's the same as standard sexually divided toilets good on you.

Picket for turning all the world's toilets into uni-sex

 

[d4m10n]

Picket for turning all the world's toilets into uni-sex

Not a bad idea, if you ask Mary Anne Case.

ETA: PDF

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wondered when this stupid one would come up.

If you think it's the same as standard sexually divided toilets good on you.

Picket for turning all the world's toilets into uni-sex

So what bathroom should women with beards use? Are women who demand Harnaam Kaur use the mens room right or not? She has a beard after all and so this is going to be upsetting to her. So what bathroom should she use?

As for gays look they clearly fail at the biological requirements of their supposed gender. Biology says men have sex with women, so which one is the woman?

 

[cullennz]

So what bathroom should women with beards use? Are women who demand Harnaam Kaur use the mens room right or not? She has a beard after all and so this is going to be upsetting to her. So what bathroom should she use?

As for gays look they clearly fail at the biological requirements of their supposed gender. Biology says men have sex with women, so which one is the woman?

Standard toilets (before uni-sex started coming in, which I have no problem with) are divided by biological sex not gender.

Biological women with beards are women

 

[JoeMorgue]

"So is a man with X a man or woman?"
"Is X a defining trait of being a woman?"
"No."
"Then he's still a man."

If you don't feel comfortable telling a woman she's not really a woman unless she has "X" you shouldn't be comfortable agree with a man saying he's a woman because he has it.

 

[d4m10n]

 

[Meadmaker]

I identify as women people who self-identify as women, and I can't think of any good reason to use any other criteria.

Because it means teenage girls have to take their clothes off in front of someone who has a dick, and they can't ask the dick-possessing person to use a private facility, because that would hurt her feelings.

 

[tyr_13]

It's an interesting problem: If someone with all the primary and secondary male physical sexual characteristics - functional penis, facial hair, etc - says "I identify as a woman", what do they mean? Obviously they don't mean they literally have a physical vagina in place of a penis, or physical ovaries in place of testes.

Instead, their self-identification is psychological, or social, or some combination of the two. The psychological identification is a pretty big topic itself; maybe we can come back to it later. For now, I'm intrigued by the social self-identification.

There seems to be an inherent conflict in the idea of social self-identification. You can't on the one hand reject social constructs of identity as being properly descriptive, and then on the other hand insist that a particular social construct properly identifies you.

"I don't really match society's idea of gendered expression, but I want society to treat me as if I did match that idea." I mean, self-identification is nice, but isn't it up to society to decide whether the construct matches or not?

If you can think of yourself however you want - if you can think of gender in general however you want - then so can I. There's no reason other than personal preference, why my social construct of gender has to match yours. And if yours doesn't match mine, why is it important to you that I pretend it does? Or perhaps, if your idea of "woman" doesn't match mine, but we agree to call you a woman anyway, what does the term even mean? If it means whatever you want it to mean, then the importance of having it mean something vanishes, and you have no reason to want it to mean anything at all.

Debated responding to this as it's already been said even in this thread so there is zero reason to believe saying it will change any posters views...

But yes, if you remove the biological and psychological elements that cause transgender people to identify as the gender they do, it is simple. Removing the complex and not fully understood aspects of any topic tends to do that. This is also the reason the little cartoon above shows little understanding of the topic, or of advocates arguments. There are many aspects of gender that are arbitrary social constructs. There are some that are abjectly stupid. There are some that are neither. There are some that have biological components. There is no rational obligation to have agree with every gender component or none of them. There is no rational reason to believe that all views of gender are equally valid. At the most basic level, insisting that your view of someone else gender is as or more valid than their own view of their own gender is not equivalent. Feel free to disagree about what makes a woman a woman, but others are free to believe you're not worth associating with or calling you an ******* for it (general 'you'). This works for a wide range of things, from hair length, makeup usage, to pants wearing. Honestly theprestige, do you believe that someone's view of womanhood including being subservient to their husband and never wearing pants is just as valid as every other view of womanhood? Each of those views should be argued on their own merits, not the merits of 'sides'.

It isn't as simple as 'does have dick?' and it never really was (not your argument, but one that it eventually always returns to at some point).

 

[kellyb]

[qimg]https://i.imgflip.com/28ykfd.jpg[/qimg]

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I think I'm basically a-ok with gender being whatever the heck people want it to be for themselves and writing this whole current mess off as a mass post-Puritanical/Victorian era hangover.

Women have had the (limited, but significant compared to men) freedom for a while to wear whatever clothes and shoes and hairstyles or whatever we want. When dudes wearing skirts becomes just as "non-crazy" as women wearing pants, and the actual sexual fetish aspect of "autogynephilia" becomes destigmatized, I think we'll all be able to think more rationally about this stuff.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There are many aspects of gender that are arbitrary social constructs. There are some that are abjectly stupid. There are some that are neither. There are some that have biological components. There is no rational obligation to have agree with every gender component or none of them. There is no rational reason to believe that all views of gender are equally valid.

This is functionally "I get to use gender roles on myself, but nobody can use them on me."

 

[tyr_13]

This is functionally "I get to use gender roles on myself, but nobody can use them on me."

No, but thanks for illustrating why I shouldn't have bothered.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, but thanks for illustrating why I shouldn't have bothered.

There's plenty of people here with a wide range of nuanced opinions and stances that somehow manage to talk to each other.

 

[kellyb]

At the most basic level, insisting that your view of someone else gender is as or more valid than their own view of their own gender is not equivalent. Feel free to disagree about what makes a woman a woman, but others are free to believe you're not worth associating with or calling you an ******* for it (general 'you'). This works for a wide range of things, from hair length, makeup usage, to pants wearing.

But a gender definition applied to yourself is a gender definition applied to everyone else, too.

I mean, personally, I feel like my female gender begins and ends with the whole "has a vagina" aspect of me. That means that transwomen are a different category in my mind, intersex women without vaginas are a different category, etc.

I'm not really sure what "female" and "woman" are supposed to mean for and to me outside of the vagina thing.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm not really sure what "female" and "woman" are supposed to mean for and to me outside of the vagina thing.

Female means a member of the sex that produces ova, not having a vagina. As an example, there are lots of species where the female does not have a vagina at all. Hell, there are some species where the male has a vagina and the female has a penis. But it still means something (and in fact means the same thing) to call those organisms female.

Occasionally, women are born without vaginas (but with ovaries). Occasionally women are born without ovaries (but with a vagina, a uterus, etc). I think it's not just impolite to refer to these woman as anything other than women, it's just plain incorrect. They are women, unless they say otherwise. Sometimes with biology you're throwing a handful of darts at a dartboard, and we just have to decide what counts as close enough.

 

[kellyb]

Female means a member of the sex that produces ova, not having a vagina.

For the non-zoologists referring to humans, the vagina thing is usually the go-to criteria, not "ova".

Occasionally women are born without ovaries (but with a vagina, a uterus, etc). I think it's not just impolite to refer to these woman as anything other than women, it's just plain incorrect.

Right, and nobody ultrasounds babies for ova verification before girlhood is entered into.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Standard toilets (before uni-sex started coming in, which I have no problem with) are divided by biological sex not gender.

Biological women with beards are women

But how do you know she is a woman with out inspecting her genitals before entrance? She could be once of those perverts who get off on invading womens spaces the Rolfe was talking about.