• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Non-binary identities are valid

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm no sociologist.
That's something of a dodge, though. I'm asking whether the ongoing social construction of gender is a process you're content to watch unfold or whether you feel like we should direct it towards specific (more ethically desirable) outcomes.
 
All males have lower pitch voices, and all females have higher pitch ones? If not then it's not objective.

My recollection here is shaky... but I think there are substantial differences that make it very near objective.

Some females have lower pitched voices for a female... but that pitch is not low for a male. When singing, noises get produced through the chest, throat, and head, with higher pitches produced through the head and lower ones through the chest. So a female with very low pitch for a female would be singing with a lot of chest, but the range she produces would not be comparable at all to the range of notes produced by a male singing baritone or basso profundo. Similarly, a male that sings in high registers would be singing very high in the head, and probably falsetto, whereas a female soprano is singing those same notes without falsetto and lower in her head.
 
Yes, but when you look at the distribution of winners, Grammies are also THE prime example for why you would want to keep such categories in other awards: https://www.statista.com/statistics/801259/gender-grammy-awards-nominees-category/

The CLOSEST it ever gets for the male vs female distribution is in the New Artist category, where it's 58% male vs 42% female (still a very high difference), dropping down to 75.3% male vs 24.7% female in the second most 'equal' category, namely Song Of The Year. That's nuts. It's the second most 'even', and it's already more than 3 male nominees for each 1 female. And then it goes all the way down to 92.4% male to 7.6% female in Album Of The Year, meaning more than 12 TIMES more males than females.

Just dropping the gender categories in all awards, just because some trolls play "offended" by their existence, means pretty much just pushing the females out. If every contest or awards becomes a case of odds being stacked against you more than 12 to 1 if you're female -- and actually more like 13 to 1 when you also consider the difference in population size -- is quite frankly neither fair, nor particularly encouraging for girls considering that career path.

At some point I'll have to say, basically, "screw you" to those trolls. What you identify as is entirely your own business, but that's the key word: YOUR business. Alone. Not everyone else's. Trying to use it as the newest excuse to try to squeeze women out of some domain is quite a different thing.

Thank you for that.
 
I do believe that. But I don't necessarily see why that means that I should insist on having separate categories for Male Singer and Female Singer. Why not just have Best Singer?
 
The point is, society can and does accept changes to its social constructs over time. Social acceptance of trans and non-binary identities, in my opinion, appear to be moving along the same lines as acceptance of homosexual relationships. More quickly than that, even.

It is, and it's moving very, very quickly. Which is great... except that it's moving so quickly by pushing women out of society, by infringing on women's rights and safety, and by negating and erasing the effects of biological sex that have been the source of discrimination and abuse of females throughout history.
 
Which ones are the extremely narcisisstic generation and which ones have no problem with the traditional use of the English language? (hint: Every generation has changed the meaning of English words. You dig? I mean, some of it was aces, boss, and bad, but others, with others were, like, as if!)

Sure, sure. I mean, there's clearly no problem at all with appropriating the term "woman" to have a new and undefined meaning, and then insisting that the group of people of the female sex who used to be called "women' now get called uterus havers, menstruators, birthing parents who chest-feed their infants, people with cervixes, and other constellations of dehumanized body parts primary focused on their reproductive organs. I can't imagine why the people-previously-known-as-women might have a bit of objection to being deconstructed in such a way.
 
...I don't necessarily see why that means that I should insist on having separate categories for Male Singer and Female Singer. Why not just have Best Singer?

Wasn't this question effectively answered by the relevant Grammy stats?

That person's gender identity might be nonbinary, but... that person is still actually male from a biological perspective. So... would still qualify for the Solo Male category.
I'm okay with this solution if they are. [emoji3]
 
Last edited:
Empathy, kindness, making life a little nicer, and it costs you nothing.

Politely attempting to use a person's preferred pronouns costs nothing more than some brain cells.

Being berated as a bigot if you get them wrong, or when they're just plain ridiculous... that costs a bit more.

And pushing this self-identification paradigm into sports, rape shelters, domestic violence refuges, prisons, and political representation... well, turns out that's costing women quite a bit. I understand that it doesn't cost you personally anything at all... but just because it doesn't have an effect on you doesn't mean that it has no effect and no cost.
 
Okay, but (IMO) this topic is even harder since the only proposed solution is to abolish gendered and/or sexed categories (e.g. female vocalist, best actress) so as to create inclusion for those who do not identify as either men or women. This solution sounds very progressive on its face, but will likely result in even less representation for the underrepresented half of humanity, as pointed out at #623.

The millennia have taught us that half the population is unimportant, and if they suffer, well that's just collateral damage.
 
I do believe that. But I don't necessarily see why that means that I should insist on having separate categories for Male Singer and Female Singer. Why not just have Best Singer?

Because males and females have different vocal ranges, different lung capacity, and different vocal chords... which results in different experiences both as a singer and as a listener. If you want to have an overall Best Singer category, fine. But having a best female and a best male category recognizes the intrinsic differences conferred by anatomy, and grants accolades for the best performer with that biological instrument set.

We could have an overall Best Instrument Player category... but there is value in having Best Cello and Best Violin as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom