Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[kellyb]

I think the go-to is that you dress like, act like, and say you are a woman.

I actually don't do any of those things.

So, no.

 

[mumblethrax]

I actually don't do any of those things.

Sure.

 

[kellyb]

Sure.

Ha!
I wear gender-neutral clothing and no makeup, I never get asked my sex or gender, and wtf does "act like a woman" even mean?

 

[mumblethrax]

Ha!
I wear gender-neutral clothing and no makeup, I never get asked my sex or gender, and wtf does "act like a woman" even mean?

That was the impersonal you.

I think "act like a woman" is pretty self-explanatory. Men and women carry themselves differently in just about any culture, which is why we have coinages like "manspreading".

 

[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').

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.

I think the go-to is that you dress like, act like, and say you are a woman.

I actually don't do any of those things.

Sure.

There's an interesting irony in here somewhere.

 

[mumblethrax]

There's an interesting irony in here somewhere.

Not really. In what world does having a go-to (that is, a rule of thumb) amount to insistence?

I make assumptions about gender based on how people look, act, dress, their names, etc. That doesn't mean I'm above correction.

What I don't do is inquire about genitals. Neither, I'm guessing, do you.

 

[kellyb]

I think "act like a woman" is pretty self-explanatory. Men and women carry themselves differently in just about any culture, which is why we have coinages like "manspreading".

Manspreading is a joke more than anything in places without subways, women sit all kinds of ways, too, and I'm not sure how real this "carry themselves" thing is, either.

 

[kellyb]

What I don't do is inquire about genitals. Neither, I'm guessing, do you.

Well I don't think you actually think people relate "femaleness" in humans to ova, but you sure brought it up!

 

[mumblethrax]

Manspreading is a joke more than anything in places without subways,women sit all kinds of ways, too, and I'm not sure how real this "carry themselves" thing is, either.

Manspreading is real enough for the MTA to have public awareness campaigns to get men to cut it out. It's not a joke in places without cramped public spaces, it's just not an issue.

Men and women have different gaits, for another not-even-slightly-controversial example.

I mean, I think you're just playing dumb here. We all have pretty well developed gen-dar, which is why people find it kind of incongruous when someone looks very much like a man but says she's a woman.

But...sure. You can go ahead and stick with the insistence that the best way to distinguish women from men is to check under the hood. I'll write you in prison.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well I don't think you actually think people relate "femaleness" in humans to ova, but you sure brought it up!

I didn't "relate femaleness in humans to ova". I responded to your claim about what "female is supposed to mean."

You aren't even keeping track of your own bad arguments.

 

[kellyb]

I didn't "relate femaleness in humans to ova". I responded to your claim about what "female is supposed to mean."

You aren't even keeping track of your own bad arguments.

You knew I was not referring to the criteria for determining the female sex in biology. I used the word gender 3 times in that post and sex 0 and the sentence was "I'm not really sure what "female" and "woman" are supposed to mean..."

 

[caveman1917]

Manspreading is a joke more than anything in places without subways, women sit all kinds of ways, too, and I'm not sure how real this "carry themselves" thing is, either.

It's not very real. A good case in point is the Native American societies, since they have a wide variation from some being strictly sex-egalitarian to some being strictly sex-hierarchical. In the sex-egalitarian ones there is barely any gender differentiation while in the sex-hierarchical ones there are strictly policed gender roles.

The interesting thing is that the sex-hierarchical ones also tended to have a so-called "third gender" (two-spirit people). Given the strict gender roles they needed to have a category for males who failed to live up to masculinity. As is usual in sex-hierarchical societies, gender roles are explained by invoking a magical "gender essence" that is said to exist inside people (today in our society this is called "gender identity"), so males who failed to live up to masculinity were said to have a feminine "gender essence" inside them and they were categorized alongside females (today in our society this is called a "trans-woman") and put in the lower tier of the sex-hierarchy with them.

In the sex-egalitarian societies this didn't exist, since there was no need for policing gender roles in order to maintain a hierarchy there was also no need for a special category for males who fail to live up to masculinity, and those societies did not have two-spirits/trans-women.

Gender identity and the concept of trans-genderism are essentially the old lady-brains vs man-brains theory, and the explanation of males of who fail to live up to masculinity as having lady-brains inside them. Basically patriarchy in a nice shiny packaging, with a good load of gay eugenics being thrown in lately as well.

ETA: for clarity of terminology: male/man and female/woman are sex categorizations (ie biological) whereas masculine and feminine are gender roles (socially constructed/policed behavioural templates).

 

[kellyb]

Basically patriarchy in a nice shiny packaging, with a good load of gay eugenics being thrown in lately as well.

Gay eugenics?

 

[mumblethrax]

You knew I was not referring to the criteria for determining the female sex in biology.

If your looking at genitalia, you aren’t gendering someone. You’re sexing them.

If you’re talking about gender, you’re just mistaken if you think that genitalia are how we distinguish between people in our day-to-day.

Either way, this idea is just wrong.

 

[caveman1917]

Gay eugenics?

See my earlier post:

The new gay eugenics. Find the group of children likely to grow up gay (those who display gender non-conformity in childhood) and push them to medical procedures sterilizing them.

Childhood gender non-conformity is a predictor of adulthood homosexuality. The recent push has been to identify children with gender non-conformity and push them towards "transition", a medical procedure which results in sterilization.

The net result of this entire thing is basically searching for the group of children likely to grow up to be homosexual and sterilize them, aka gay eugenics.

 

[cullennz]

If your looking at genitalia, you aren’t gendering someone. You’re sexing them.

If you’re talking about gender, you’re just mistaken if you think that genitalia are how we distinguish between people in our day-to-day.

Either way, this idea is just wrong.

By the sounds of it some people say there is no way to know some ones gender.

And even if the person tells you this doesn't matter as apparently it can be fluid

 

[kellyb]

If your looking at genitalia, you aren’t gendering someone. You’re sexing them.

If you’re talking about gender, you’re just mistaken if you think that genitalia are how we distinguish between people in our day-to-day.

Either way, this idea is just wrong.

Let me explain this to you as simply as I can.

I am not aware of what my "gender identity" is supposed to be for me. I do not have a clue what "being a woman" is supposed to even mean in a gendery sort of way. I'm fortunate in that I've never even had a job where I was pressured or forced to wear a skirt or dress or makeup.

Outside of the basic cultural understanding of gender/sex, gender is mostly meaningless when I think about myself.

 

[kellyb]

See my earlier post:


Childhood gender non-conformity is a predictor of adulthood homosexuality. The recent push has been to identify children with gender non-conformity and push them towards "transition", a medical procedure which results in sterilization.

The net result of this entire thing is basically searching for the group of children likely to grow up to be homosexual and sterilize them, aka gay eugenics.

Oh, wow.

I think it has to be intentional in a different way to count as eugenics, but yeah...I see what you mean. That's creepy and awful.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is what I mean when I think of it being a bad decision to write policy based on 1% of the population. Policies should deal with what works for 99%, we deal with the exceptions on a case by case basis.

What about 2% or 3%?

As jews are 1.4% of america do they deserve any policy written for them or can their existence be safely ignored?

 

[ponderingturtle]

See my earlier post:


Childhood gender non-conformity is a predictor of adulthood homosexuality. The recent push has been to identify children with gender non-conformity and push them towards "transition", a medical procedure which results in sterilization.

The net result of this entire thing is basically searching for the group of children likely to grow up to be homosexual and sterilize them, aka gay eugenics.

Is it a push though? A lot of the cases seem to be about children not just being gender nonconforming but gender conforming. Got any research or statistics to back this up?