Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
kellyb said:
Sort of, but not exactly.
There's a whole swath of the population that feels ambiguous about their gender. If you see gender as a spectrum, they're somewhere in the middle.

I'm not genderqueer, myself. So, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to speak on their behalf. If you really want to understand it further, you can just ask some of them what's up. I can say a couple of things with some certainty, tho:

1) some of these folks are totally ok with their bodies and have no intentions of ever becoming more male or female. They're fine with always being gender ambiguous with the plumbing/body they were born with.
2) some are in the process of becoming the "other" gender, and will eventually probably self-identify as strongly male or female, he/she.

According to some definitions, at least 1% of the population is literally, physically intersex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

I don't know what % of the genderqueer folks are intersex. I'd guess some are and some aren't. And I don't think it matters. If someone has, say, outdoor male plumbing but just feels kind of female, who am I to argue? What does it matter how they dress?
Click to expand...

Cheers kellyb

I guess the problems I having are reconciling the idea that there's any real spectrum of gender with the whole idea of "being born in the wrong body" I'd try to see genderqueer as a sort of pre-transsexual holding pattern rather than simply enjoying the trappings stereotypically associated with the opposite gender.

I haven't seen too many people pull off gender ambiguous, successfully. Usually the person in question comes off looking like a girly guy or a butch girl. Sure, "the look" is there however quite often there's no mistaking the gender of the person.

Why wouldn't an intersex person identify as that seeing how it's a real physical condition rather than taking on some strange sounding label that most likely doesn't apply to them or their identity ?
 
Stout said:
Cheers kellyb

I guess the problems I having are reconciling the idea that there's any real spectrum of gender with the whole idea of "being born in the wrong body" I'd try to see genderqueer as a sort of pre-transsexual holding pattern rather than simply enjoying the trappings stereotypically associated with the opposite gender.

I haven't seen too many people pull off gender ambiguous, successfully. Usually the person in question comes off looking like a girly guy or a butch girl. Sure, "the look" is there however quite often there's no mistaking the gender of the person.

Why wouldn't an intersex person identify as that seeing how it's a real physical condition rather than taking on some strange sounding label that most likely doesn't apply to them or their identity ?
Click to expand...

Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other?
Click to expand...

Because it ends up mixing a physical condition ( intersex ) with a psychological identity that flys in the face of what we've been told about transsexualism, by transsexuals, for years.
 
Stout said:
Because it ends up mixing a physical condition ( intersex ) with a psychological identity that flys in the face of what we've been told about transsexualism, by transsexuals, for years.
Click to expand...

Yep, just like bisexuals invalidate everything homosexuals have said for years. One persons reality does not invalidate someone else's.

People not fully associating with either gender does not invalidate those who identify as a gender at odds with their birth gender assignment.

People defy neat categorization.
 
I think there is confusion here between gender expression and stereotype fitting vs gender identity going on here. But to be fair, the connection between them is confusing at the best of times.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep, just like bisexuals invalidate everything homosexuals have said for years. One persons reality does not invalidate someone else's.

People not fully associating with either gender does not invalidate those who identify as a gender at odds with their birth gender assignment.

People defy neat categorization.
Click to expand...

Hummm...good point.

I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.
 
Stout said:
Hummm...good point.

I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.
Click to expand...

Sure, though there could be overlap. Though I guess it also depends on the fetish and how you define fetish.

The distinction I would make is this, is the person doing it for sexual gratification or because it is an expression of social identity.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Is anyone else reminded when they read crap like this:

Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing​

from A+, FtB, Skepchic, etc, of Sarah Palin and her "hopey changie" inanity?
Click to expand...

I still can't look away from this ongoing train wreck of A+.

It doesn't take much thinky work to just not believe in any god. But, there's not a complete overlap between atheism and skepticism. What takes all the thinky work is critical thinking, because we have to combat our instinctive impulse for cognitive dissonance, and feeling we have to win, rather than feeling we have to be correct.

The A+ loonies are in have-to-win mode, not find-the-truth mode. That's where they fall short in the thinky work.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Sure, though there could be overlap. Though I guess it also depends on the fetish and how you define fetish.

The distinction I would make is this, is the person doing it for sexual gratification or because it is an expression of social identity.
Click to expand...

That's the same distinction I'm having trouble with. Also, trying to fit genderqueer into the marginalized groups category when it seems to be something you can slip into, or out of at will.

A full on social identity I can see but if it's something that turns you on, something you only do in private or in a select group and then abandon that identity for something that's not so marginalized, is genderqueer something you want to enter into the oppression olympics ?
 
kellyb said:
Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I'm not going to start using absurd terminology. I'll use the indeterminate singular "them" or "they" but "xe" is as deserving of mockery as anything I can think of. I roll my eyes every time I read it.

Others are entitled to judge my refusal to kowtow to their idiocy, but I won't let them dictate to me the language I can use.

ETA: I don't expect to ever post on an "our dogma or the highway" site, but if I did I might use "X" as a personal pronoun just because I respect our shared chromosomes.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
The A+ loonies are in have-to-win mode, not find-the-truth mode. That's where they fall short in the thinky work.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is the lengths that they'll go to to "win", these moral and ethical "superiors" of ours.

That's all part of the safe space thing. If they can't will, then they'll just take their ball and go home.

Why only last night, on one of their Connecticut shooting threads, one of their mods made a comment about "Angry white men, losing their privilege ? " while, in the same post, linking to an article that stated that the ratio between white and PoC shooters reflected the ratio between white/PoC in the general American population.

Thread

There's a word for that......
 
Stout said:
That's the same distinction I'm having trouble with. Also, trying to fit genderqueer into the marginalized groups category when it seems to be something you can slip into, or out of at will.

A full on social identity I can see but if it's something that turns you on, something you only do in private or in a select group and then abandon that identity for something that's not so marginalized, is genderqueer something you want to enter into the oppression olympics ?
Click to expand...

So how about gay people who don't always make sure everyone knows they are gay to avoid the hassle when say going shopping? How different is that from not making an issue over ones gender?

Or commingle full circle I am not out as an atheist at work. So clearly as I can slip in or out of it, atheism is not an identity and not something to be protected. This applies to most any thing really.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how about gay people who don't always make sure everyone knows they are gay to avoid the hassle when say going shopping? How different is that from not making an issue over ones gender?

Or commingle full circle I am not out as an atheist at work. So clearly as I can slip in or out of it, atheism is not an identity and not something to be protected. This applies to most any thing really.
Click to expand...

OK, I see where you're going like this and I get it. It makes sense when you put it that way with being afraid to come out of "the closet" due to possible social ramifications.

I do, however, fail to see how atheist could not be an identity, if one were to choose to make it one.

For the record, I don't own an atheist t-shirt.
 
Stout said:
OK, I see where you're going like this and I get it. It makes sense when you put it that way with being afraid to come out of "the closet" due to possible social ramifications.

I do, however, fail to see how atheist could not be an identity, if one were to choose to make it one.

For the record, I don't own an atheist t-shirt.
Click to expand...

I am not claiming it isn't. I was saying that people do not bring up potentially problematic identities they have when worried about the bigotry they will face. So they don't mention or mitigate the traits that can cause this to be focused on them.

Given the rates of violence against gender non conforming individuals is that terribly surprising?
 
Stout said:
Hummm...good point.

I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.
Click to expand...

I've known a few genderqueer folks irl, and it was not a fetish thing with any of them. I mean, I never had sex with them, so who knows what they were/are like in the bedroom. But it's fundamentally a personal identity issue much, much more than a kink thing. Whatever sex/fetish thing that might or might not be happening is a side issue compared to their gender self-identity. (And as we all know, one need not be genderqueer to be kinky.)
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am not claiming it isn't. I was saying that people do not bring up potentially problematic identities they have when worried about the bigotry they will face. So they don't mention or mitigate the traits that can cause this to be focused on them.

Given the rates of violence against gender non conforming individuals is that terribly surprising?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't quibble with any of that.

damn......;)
 
kellyb said:
I've known a few genderqueer folks irl, and it was not a fetish thing with any of them. I mean, I never had sex with them, so who knows what they were/are like in the bedroom. But it's fundamentally a personal identity issue much, much more than a kink thing. Whatever sex/fetish thing that might or might not be happening is a side issue compared to their gender self-identity. (And as we all know, one need not be genderqueer to be kinky.)
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I've never met any myself, other than in passing. The one I did know, this gay guy who was so stereotypically gay that his gay roommates referred to him as "too faggy" ended up becoming a full meal deal transsexual.

So scratch the fetishization of the trappings thing and rethink it as just another one of those ideas I'll just have to take on faith as being serious enough to warrant having an identity around.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom