TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.
Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan
- Thread starter caveman1917
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.
Because I'm asking what the context is.
There's been a lot of people asking me to define the the thing they are arguing for in this discussion.
So that's where we are at. I don't think men and women should have purely non-biological rules, roles, and expectations placed on them. So I can't conceptualize "A man who identifies as an X" or a "A woman who identifies as a Y" the way I'm supposed to.
Problem I do this and I've got "Rape enabler!" screamed in one ear and "Transphobe!" screamed in the other and my best solution is to pick one of those two sides and I ain't doing that.
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Then there is the aggressively not gay male x male sex of the bro job.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Then it would be observable by which sex they attempt to have sex with, or what kind of porn they watch while masturbating, or any similar behaviours which can be observed.
A soul is phenomenal?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I'm not familiar with that term. There is a phenomenon called "helping a buddy out" which has a long history, but it is never referred to by any terms so concrete. It'd be a breach of etiquette to discuss the matter at all, before or afterward. There is a charming mixture of naivete and subtlety in such matters, which has afforded a great many gentlemen a good deal of quiet fun over the centuries. Some traditions are worth preservation.
I haven't caught up with the thread, so maybe someone has cleared this up for you. But...
In math terms:
X represent biological sex such that
X(0) is biologically male and X(1) is Biologically female
Y represents gender such that
Y(0) is Masculine gender and Y(1) is feminine
X=Y is a false statement although moist of the time this appears to be true.
because...
X and Y are strongly correlated, but it's not a 1:1 correlation.
A plot of X will show very high peaks at X(0) and X(1) such that the sum of X(0) and X(1) is very nearly, but not quite 100%, depending on how you plot those with intersex conditions. These are very steep peaks with slopes approaching infinity.
A plot of Y will also show high peaks near Y(0) and Y(1), but these peaks will be broader and flatter. This is because gender (defined by behaviors and expectations) is less polar. The affinity to the poles (Y(0) and Y(1) is weaker. There are feminine males and masculine females. (Also, we are simplifying a complex set of behaviors down to a single variable....)
If you graph X vs Y, you will see a strong correlation, but you will also see significant noise around the 1:1 line.
In short: Sex and gender, when defined as biological morpholigy and behavior patterns, while strongly correlated are not the same thing.
One of the difficulties here is that we are talking about the intersection between a biological trait that can be directly measured, and a psychological trait that can't. If that bothers you, you are likely to have a hard time with psychology/sociology as well. (To be fair, that's one of the reasons I'm a biologist rather than a psychologist.)
The highlighted is where you go wrong.
In math terms:
X represent biological sex such that
X(0) is biologically male and X(1) is Biologically female
Y represents gender such that
Y(0) is Masculine gender and Y(1) is feminine
X=Y is a false statement although moist of the time this appears to be true.
because...
X and Y are strongly correlated, but it's not a 1:1 correlation.
A plot of X will show very high peaks at X(0) and X(1) such that the sum of X(0) and X(1) is very nearly, but not quite 100%, depending on how you plot those with intersex conditions. These are very steep peaks with slopes approaching infinity.
A plot of Y will also show high peaks near Y(0) and Y(1), but these peaks will be broader and flatter. This is because gender (defined by behaviors and expectations) is less polar. The affinity to the poles (Y(0) and Y(1) is weaker. There are feminine males and masculine females. (Also, we are simplifying a complex set of behaviors down to a single variable....)
If you graph X vs Y, you will see a strong correlation, but you will also see significant noise around the 1:1 line.
In short: Sex and gender, when defined as biological morpholigy and behavior patterns, while strongly correlated are not the same thing.
One of the difficulties here is that we are talking about the intersection between a biological trait that can be directly measured, and a psychological trait that can't. If that bothers you, you are likely to have a hard time with psychology/sociology as well. (To be fair, that's one of the reasons I'm a biologist rather than a psychologist.)
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
If someone claims to have a certain sexual orientation yet displays no observable behaviours then this sexual orientation isn't phenomenal either. Because that's the definition of phenomenal, that it is observable through the senses.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not sure which sort of current social expectations you'd tolerate.
Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs? Can I still shave my head or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none? Separate sports leagues?
Last edited:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Why is it required to have such expectations to begin with? Anybody of any sex or gender can shave anything they like (so long as it's their own), and dress how they please (although there are some places with particular gendered rules for clothing, which rules ought to be abolished).
Bloody hell of course not! What kind of sexist B.S. is that?
Do you think any of those things? Because that's some goddamn Handmaiden crap right there.
Screw... all of that.
Oh pisstake. You went right into "Will I be forced to" without even pausing for breath. Sod that.
If you don't see the difference between "Everyone is free to choose" and "everyone is forced into identicalness" I can't even begin to help you.
You know what... I don't care. I don't care. It's sports. Society is not gonna rise and fall on it.
Since we're talking entertainment the answer is "Whatever people want to pay to watch."
Last edited:
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,017
An outcome where those boys were raised as girls and given adequate medical support yet nevertheless ended up identifying as boys at much higher rates would entail the conclusion that gender is not merely a matter of social programming.
You think it would be inappropriate to generalize? Why?
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Not necessarily. At what age did those boys start identifying as boys? If it is at puberty or post-puberty then it would suggest that social cues are responsible, for example the other girls developing breasts but not him, or the other girls developing periods but not him, or the increased focus on genitals cuing him in that he is not "like the other girls." If your conclusion is correct, that gender is neuroanatomical then he should also identify as a boy in pre-pubescent childhood.
Several possibilities. For example it could be that the intersex condition itself is responsible for the psychological result so that you're not so much seeing an example of a general psychological phenomenon but a specific result linked to the intersex condition itself. Another possibility might be underestimating the base rate of the intersex condition, not every person with an intersex condition ends up being identified as having such condition, so it's possible that the higher rate you're seeing is a result of underestimation of the base rate of the condition.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Apparently they are getting more comfortable talking about it. There was/is even a hook up site for straight dudes looking for straight dudes.
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the_bro_job_why_straight_men_secretly_have_sex_with_each_other_partner/
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Wait, what? By invoking the spectre of sexismWP, you seem to be saying that men shaving their faces somehow makes them superior to women.
I'm not really seeing the harm in any of those social norms, especially when compared against Atwood’s dystopian vision of forced sexual and reproductive servitude.
Care to explain?
We are talking about social norms and the usual social enforcement mechanisms here, we are not talking about criminal law, arrests, and jail cells. My question was which of the existing gendered social norms you find acceptable, and (as best as I can discern) your answer is basically just sports.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,684
You have this backwards. If it's neuroanatomical, then puberty should have a huge effect, since that's when testosterone levels shoot up.
What? What are even talking about?
I don't know if you're being serious or setting up some argumentative trap for a gotcha, but I literally what you are trying to say here.
"Men hot having to shave their beds is sexist to women" is nonsensical. It's a Lewis Carrol poem.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
There exists a fairly pervasive social norm in western society that men (especially professional career-minded men) should shave their faces. You said of that norm, "What kind of sexist B.S. is that?" Sexism is when you discriminate against people on the basis of sex, typically in a way that favors men, as you can see on the relevant wiki page. Not sure what you're really driving at, though.
Last edited:
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Nope, gender identity is claimed to be fixed by age 3. If it is neuroanatomical then the group under consideration should also have identified as boys in pre-pubescent childhood. Them identifying as girls before puberty but as boys during and post puberty suggests a social basis for gender identity and not a neuroanatomical one.
If testosterone levels determined gender identity then everyone should identify as girls before puberty. You seem to have this weird idea that somehow testosterone levels are explanatory for, well, pretty much anything.
Yes. Expecting (even when hiding behind a weasel concept like "What? It's not like I can make them!") men to shave their faces or women to shave their legs is... problematic. I don't care to get into one of your dictionary fetishist "Well what does the dictionary say?" debates with you about whether it's Sexism or Sparkling Sexual Discrimination.
Putting unnecessary rules on the sexist is sexism by any workable definition. Why am I arguing this point?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Pretty incredible that, in this day and age, we have to remind some people of something we've been aware of since, like, ever.
- Status