Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 27, 2016, 12:35:00 pm
Quotes
From Outside This Forum
Quote from: Lee Luxion
When I get negative responses or people telling me that my gender is invalid or wrong, it's frustrating and it's hurtful, but really it's making me sad that people still aren't willing to take a step back. It's not doing anyone harm. So I don't understand why they would be so opposed to it.
Quote from: skullvomit, tumblr.com, 2014
I have to choose between what makes me feel whole and what is safe all the fucking time
Rules
The forum guidelines (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=38442.0) apply here, of course. I will list the guidelines that most apply:
- Do not pick a fight or insult another poster. Do not continue a fight if you feel you have been insulted. Report it to the moderator. If you instead respond in kind, you run the risk of being considered part of the problem. Point-by-point debates and calm disagreements are acceptable, but keep it civil. Absolutely no insults. That has been bad before.
- Despite its prevalence on the internet, bigoted language is frowned upon here. Do not go there. This means no using the word f*g, just so you know. Also, please don't come here if you think that "teh gays" or "teh feminists" are a bad influence on society, those discussions are never productive. If you are especially calm, you can try it, but don't blame me if it explodes in your face.
- If you post links to illegal material (files that are being illegally distributed, ie unsanctioned commercial game/music torrents/downloads, etc.) or post illegal images (or images that would have been behind 18+ warnings, etc.), you will be banned. Don't ask for links or otherwise ask to be directed to places where you can download/obtain things like that either, even if the situation is somewhat more lax in your locality. As always, no porn etc., or links to such.
- Do not discuss sexually oriented material. There are exceptions to this rule, such as passing discussions of sexual content in movies, books, computer games, etc. in topics not directed specifically at the sexual material in question, but no sexually themed topics are allowed. Sharing erotic images and erotic roleplaying are not permitted. If you want to turn each other on, there are plenty of outlets for that. This is not one of them. Please refrain from sharing your sex life. This will be a tricky rule, as we will be discussing sexuality. However, if we stay away from discussing fetishes and erotic stuff, we should be fine.
If Toady One deletes posts about a particular topic, drop it. He will ban you if you continue.
If I say to drop a particular conversation, please do so. Don't make me lock this thread. I can and will do so if the conversation starts getting flamey, bigoted, or erotic.
Spoiler: old OP, for posterity (click to show/hide)
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on August 27, 2016, 01:47:35 pm
The last time we had something like this, it flamed up immediately, and people got banned.
Just my
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Leisure/876/493/twocents640.jpg?ve=1&tl=1).
Post by: BFEL on August 27, 2016, 02:11:18 pm
Butts are sexy.
That is all.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 27, 2016, 02:30:04 pm
But on the other hand, it distracts from the Toad working on his artifact game.
The dilemma.
Post by: Tawa on August 27, 2016, 03:02:14 pm
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2016, 03:11:41 pm
You wouldn't believe how quickly people descend to ad-hominems and flaming on this particular topic of discussion.
You are only saying that because your butt doesn't look as good as mine in a sequin covered leotard.
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 03:16:10 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 27, 2016, 03:51:35 pm
like, yesterday
when i talked about it
and then gunner-chan said "get out"
Post by: Antioch on August 27, 2016, 04:02:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2016, 04:05:28 pm
If we want to discuss something, there is that nice article I read a while back: "The Idea That Gender Is A Spectrum Is A New Gender Prison" (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison?utm_content=bufferc9e26&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Basically, it doesn't make more sense to say that gender is a social construct, and then say that people fall on a gender spectrum or that they can choose their gender. Gender is the society's idea of how a given sex should act. No one fits in there 100% anyway. Rather than recognizing 200 different genders, we should recognize that every individual is different and attack the idea of gender as an ideal itself.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 27, 2016, 04:06:36 pm
I think gender (male/female) should be used as an easier way to say "one with XX chromosomes" and "one with XY chromosomes" In other words, I think that male and female should be a definition. I know that there are transgenders with genetic defects, and I am fine with creating genders for them, but I am not okay with people just deciding that for one day, they are a different gender.
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2016, 04:09:50 pm
Post by: nenjin on August 27, 2016, 04:13:03 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2016, 04:14:46 pm
There is already a word for that, which is sex (and intersex people for those that have rarer mix like XXY). Gender usually refers to the social implication and expectations of the stuff, although they do get mixed up sometime.
Sort of. Except people do believe you can change your Sex and thus differentiating Sex and Gender becomes pointless. They become the same thing, in the end.
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2016, 04:16:38 pm
Quote
Do not discuss sexually oriented material. There are exceptions to this rule, such as passing discussions of sexual content in movies, books, computer games, etc. in topics not directed specifically at the sexual material in question, but no sexually themed topics are allowed.
Best not to go down this path.
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2016, 04:17:41 pm
but I am not okay with people just deciding that for one day, they are a different gender.
You are very cavalier with other people's mental health.
From the Forum Guidelines:QuoteDo not discuss sexually oriented material. There are exceptions to this rule, such as passing discussions of sexual content in movies, books, computer games, etc. in topics not directed specifically at the sexual material in question, but no sexually themed topics are allowed.
Best not to go down this path.
I'm pretty sure this is not the content that rule is talking about.
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2016, 04:19:29 pm
Post by: Shook on August 27, 2016, 04:38:11 pm
There is already a word for that, which is sex (and intersex people for those that have rarer mix like XXY). Gender usually refers to the social implication and expectations of the stuff, although they do get mixed up sometime.See this confuses me, because in Danish, we only have one word for both, and that's only really referring to the chromosomes (... or maybe that's just me). I mean sure, if you're legitimately trans, i'll respect your wishes, but i just plain fail to see why dudes can't be highly feminine and vice versa, or why a dude(tte) can't be squarely in between the two. I don't mind either way. ¯\(°_o)/¯
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2016, 04:40:41 pm
I don't mind either way. ¯\(°_o)/¯
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg)
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2016, 04:41:32 pm
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2016, 04:44:23 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 04:45:15 pm
i dunnoDid you actually have something to discuss, or were you just "poking the ice" to figure out which things are "problematic" to discuss?
like, yesterday
when i talked about it
and then gunner-chan said "get out"
Just asking because I can't bother digging through your post history.
"The Idea That Gender Is A Spectrum Is A New Gender Prison" (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison)Yeaaaarrghh!
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2016, 04:46:15 pm
Well, the idea behind the distinction is to highlight that a lot of the things we consider masculine or feminine are really social expectations. To recognize that a dude can wear dresses and still be a dude, you kinda need to make a distinction between gender and sex.
Though at the same time... Sex isn't meaningless (outside of sex). It does have a rather sizable impact on how you will act outside of social expectations and childrearing... and surprisingly even beyond just hormones.
Though the main reason why Sex also doesn't mean everything is because well... As people have mentioned Males are just offshoots of females... and men psychologically have everything that makes a female (even parts they do not need. A man's body knows how to be pregnant)
Sex is somehow between being meaningless and being everything... yet somehow being both at the same time :P
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2016, 04:47:31 pm
There is something in that makes me uncomfortable about the idea of just ditching the idea of gender entirely but I can't quite put my finger on it.
I can't actually tell if its sarcasm or not.
Yeaaaarrghh!
(https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison?utm_content=bufferc9e26&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Yes?
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 04:49:05 pm
Just expressing my general agreement... ???There is something in that makes me uncomfortable about the idea of just ditching the idea of gender entirely but I can't quite put my finger on it.
I can't actually tell if its sarcasm or not."The Idea That Gender Is A Spectrum Is A New Gender Prison" (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison)Yeaaaarrghh!
Yes?
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2016, 04:50:54 pm
What is happening right now is people are trying to intentionally derail the thread so hopelessly that it gets closed down.
It is frankly one of the more obnoxious things that can happen on Bay12 whenever anything remotely uncomfortable comes up.
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2016, 04:53:12 pm
Just expressing my general agreement... ???There is something in that makes me uncomfortable about the idea of just ditching the idea of gender entirely but I can't quite put my finger on it.
I can't actually tell if its sarcasm or not."The Idea That Gender Is A Spectrum Is A New Gender Prison" (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison)Yeaaaarrghh!
Yes?
Oh ok, I couldn't tell if it was agreement or puking sounds of extreme disagreement. It's late here, I should go to bed.
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2016, 04:57:46 pm
I can't actually tell if its sarcasm or not.
It was not. While I wouldn't want to enforce the binary on everyone I think the fact that we can conjure up the image of male gendered person in a dress indicates there is some sort of value to the binary.
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2016, 05:04:31 pm
Also, if serious discussion is intended, the title should be changed.
Post by: misko27 on August 27, 2016, 05:07:57 pm
It is frankly one of the more obnoxious things that can happen on Bay12 whenever anything remotely uncomfortable comes up.And yet people seem to like spamming DEMILITARIZED ZONE in Ameripol whenever the thread gets too heated and the German Occupation Peacekeeping Force codenamed HELGOLAND isn't around to yell at us. Shitposting > Flaming. Regular conversation is preferable to both but given how OP has decided to phrase the thread... I have my doubts. OP if you want to be serious this is not how you do it. Not that I know better, but still.
Post by: hops on August 27, 2016, 05:14:42 pm
TBH, I'm not even sure how a male-gendered person that would take a majority of traits associated with the female gender would make sense, at least by the definition of gender I've been using. I'd love it if Vector could pop in and join the discussion, they've been great on the subject before.I think that's the main issue. Gender kind of depend on people's definitions. I have been guilty of this. I have met people with different views and we too were both stubborn in our ways.
Also, if serious discussion is intended, the title should be changed.
I met an agendered person that was offended when I talked about sex as a separate, concrete thing that you're born with, while gender is more cultural and personal. They said that some people don't identify with a sex they were assigned, which to me is kind of contradictory as in my set of definitions, a gender is a combination of what you choose and what your peers allow you to be, while sex is your biology. Of course, it's not clean cut since people with Down's Syndrome for example have different chromosomes from normal humans, but at that point you're just being a Socradick.
And the issue I have with gender roles, or rather "sex roles" except nobody except me use that because I did literally just invent my own axiom, is not that it's conformist or whatever people say. It's that it's, what shall I say. "Ableist"? People justify sexism with the fact that there is indeed physiological difference between the two sexes (and intersexes and other sort of people, get off my back) and that is true, but as a society we should ignore it. If it is insensitive to make someone feel less of a human because they're msising a few limbs, won't it be even more insensitive to make someone feel less of a human even though they have the same amount of limbs as the normal people?
Post by: Flying Dice on August 27, 2016, 06:05:56 pm
I've used this example before, because it's a good one: A group of people are trying to become firefighters. On average, a lower percentage of the women will be able to meet the physical requirements. Does that mean that women shouldn't be allowed to become firefighters? Fuck, no; it means that hiring should be based solely on the competence of candidates and their ability to perform the labor required by the job.
You'll find that the "biological-dimorphism therefore sexism = okay" types very quickly retreat into discussing gender while claiming to be talking about sex, mostly because the actual differences between the sexes are relatively minor, not entirely understood (because a lot of them are more neurochemistry and less physical composition), and subject to a fairly wide degree of individual variation. In other words, it's difficult to make meaningful generalizations based on them, so they're largely worthless. Ultimately it's circular reasoning, "Gender roles exist because of significant differences in the sexes, which we know exist because of gender roles."
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 06:06:51 pm
I personally think that the terms "male" and "female" should be (eventually) abolished altogether if we want to get rid of all gender/sex-trouble. If you want to talk about "man-ness" and "woman-ness," then you're already lost in an endless maze of cultural gender roles that morph and mutate into each other just to stay the same. If you really want to talk about "raw reproductionary biology" as the evopsych guys put it, just say "people who produce sperm" or "people who produce eggs"---it's that simple.
I don't particularly care about the sex/gender/identity/whatever of my sex partners---I'm not currently interested in producing offspring, and even if I were, it would mostly be a matter of finding some eggs for my sperm, regardless of who produces them.
The discoupling of reproduction from sexuality is simply an inevitable consequence of modern medicine. We should just deal with it, or alternatively do away with all the medical advances.
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2016, 06:14:11 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2016, 06:20:03 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on August 27, 2016, 06:30:47 pm
To add my two cents to this pile:...Those are the definitions of the sexes. Males are individuals which produce mobile gametes (sperm); females are individuals which produce immobile gametes (eggs). That is literally what "male" and "female" mean in the biological sense. Any argument otherwise is some flavor of soft-headed social/psych nonsense.
I personally think that the terms "male" and "female" should be (eventually) abolished altogether if we want to get rid of all gender/sex-trouble. If you want to talk about "man-ness" and "woman-ness," then you're already lost in an endless maze of cultural gender roles that morph and mutate into each other just to stay the same. If you really want to talk about "raw reproductionary biology" as the evopsych guys put it, just say "people who produce sperm" or "people who produce eggs"---it's that simple.
I don't particularly care about the sex/gender/identity/whatever of my sex partners---I'm not currently interested in producing offspring, and even if I were, it would mostly be a matter of finding some eggs for my sperm, regardless of who produces them.
The discoupling of reproduction from sexuality is simply an inevitable consequence of modern medicine. We should just deal with it, or alternatively do away with all the medical advances.
Post by: hops on August 27, 2016, 06:57:04 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2016, 06:58:52 pm
So sterile people are sexless, got it.
You counter argued yourself when you said "Sterile".
Post by: Flying Dice on August 27, 2016, 07:28:14 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2016, 07:29:35 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on August 27, 2016, 07:34:04 pm
A blind person isn't eyeless, either. You don't describe someone as headless because they got an ear lopped off.
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 07:59:09 pm
No, people who don't produce any gametes at all are not "sexless" as per the current definition of "sex." That's not what I meant.
I'm just saying that if sex/gender/sexuality were completely decoupled from reproduction, then there would be no need for a binary category called "sex" at all.
I'm also saying that the abovementioned decoupling would be desirable, if possible.
Post by: spümpkin on August 27, 2016, 08:12:07 pm
This thread is a good idea, albeit also a terrible one.
If I've anything to say about it, it's that I just find it easier, and less harmful to individuals to judge case-by-case, and judge people as people. As, I personally think people are made by what they do, not what parts they're born with. Although, this is probably hypocritical coming from a trans person, but I'm not going to go into my reasoning for that. I also just think that if someone is doing something that doesn't harm anything or anyone, including themselves, and it makes them happy, it should be fine. But, as my personal text says, I can't tell people how to think. Only they can convince themselves to change.
Really, gender binary can be useful for those who align with it (such as i do, or at least, some aspects of me do. Other parts i can classify on my own.) It can be hell for those who don't align with it. I just call gender and sexuality a cloud of options, really. It's always changing, and it's fuckin all over the place. People will be people, after all.
Post by: Reelya on August 27, 2016, 08:24:45 pm
While we're on the topic of gender (thus making this not quite as much of a derail):
Would it make any sense at all to construct a Kinsey-like gender scale? Something likeCode: [Select]4
3 5
2 6
1 7
Where the left is female, the right is male? 7 is hypermasculine (MANLY MAN WHO IS SO TOTALLY MANLY HE HAS TO REMIND YOU EVERY MINUTE), 6 is definitely not agender or trans, but not SUPERMASCULINE, 1 and 2 are similar, 4 is entirely agender, and 3 and 5 are "slightly" gendered but without a way of measuring precisely, pretty much identical to 4 for most intents and purposes?
Or is this just a bunch of nonsense?
About #7, i disagree that the hyper-masculine person would be "reminding you all the time". Someone who does that is compensating for something, so it's a projection of insecurities, meaning they're probably around a 4.5 in real life.
Someone who was really #7 just is masculine, but that doesn't mean "macho man", it means their brain is wired up in some way we associate with being male. It's also multi-dimensional. High exposure to testosterone in the womb doesn't give people (male or female) "macho" personalities. Being male doesn't mean extrovert. High fetal testosterone is actually much more correlated with geeky interests. The hyper-male brain therefore has a strong things focus rather than a people focus. Some of that personality variation in women as well as men seems to be correlated to fetal testosterone.
Fetal testosterone is a slider, and extroverted "macho man" types are actually closer to the center of the slider, with "girly" types on one side and "geeky" types on the other end. So that really complicates our attempt to have a single slider of "masculine/feminine".
Sexuality as well. Look up finger length in lesbians. Tesosterone exposure in uterine seems to shape sexuality (though we have an incomplete picture, but there are definite pre-natal effects). Males have a different ratio of ring finger to middle finger than females do. Lesbians have a ratio that's slightly towards the male end, and self-identified "butch" lesbians have a ratio that's markedly different to "femme" lesbians, in the masculine direction. So, "penis or no penis" might be one dimension of dating which could be partly social, or partly biological, but even the roles we choose play in a relationship seem to be shape by fetal hormones.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11910785
It's also related to male homosexuality and the older-brother effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm
Controversial stuff, but it's raw data-based observation rather than opinion
Post by: flame99 on August 27, 2016, 08:45:11 pm
I think the idea of gender is a bit outdated. It essentially defines cultural roles and perceptions of males and females, which could maybe be argued as sensible in a time when those differences were prominent enough to be important, but definitely really isn't today. For example, I am a transvestite, but I would much rather just be 'a male who likes {x} style of clothes.' Distinguishing that as masculine or effeminate seems like a very arbitrary thing, and a waste of time. Though, naturally, long-held ideas like that aren't going to disappear one day, so we're probably stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
EDIT: Actually I guess finding people you're interested in touching the butt of is a reason for gender in the modern day, as far as appearance and the like go. Still, attaching behavioral baggage to it seems questionable.
Post by: spümpkin on August 27, 2016, 09:02:11 pm
If someone wants to change someone elses lifestyle decisions, they need a very good reason.
And I think gender can be helpful for people, as in, it can be useful for those who want a sense of 'belonging'. Because, let's face it, humanity is almost never going to belong all as one kinship. That's a hypothetical, and nigh-impossible situation. Gender can help individuals, and it only really becomes a hindrance to wider society when people try to tell each other what it means, and what gender people should be. Basically, when people tell each other what to do.
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 09:26:58 pm
...Those are the definitions of the sexes. Males are individuals which produce mobile gametes (sperm); females are individuals which produce immobile gametes (eggs). That is literally what "male" and "female" mean in the biological sense. Any argument otherwise is some flavor of soft-headed social/psych nonsense.You're talking about things from the biological perspective, i.e. that abstract organisms that produce sperm/eggs fit neatly into two categories etc. etc., but it's not that simple with the social beings called humans. Would you say that women with AIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome) are "biologically male" or "neuter" because they do not fit into the binary classification of "fertile man/woman" vs. "infertile man/woman"? I don't think that "sex" as it applies to humans is really related to any fine-grained biological details such as gonads---a few centuries ago they had no idea about gametes or chromosomes, but very clear-cut ideas about the two sexes. "Sex" is simply an arbitrary categorization of human bodies according to physiological features, whereas "gender" is an arbitrary categorization of human beings according to social roles and identities---often tightly coupled to the categories defined by "sex." Both are equally artificial as enforced binary constructs, and if we somehow did away with both, we'd be left with nothing but the raw medical details that you'd only share with your doctor---which would hardly serve as a basis for any rigid social gender/sex identities whatsoever, which was the point of my previous post.
People should be free to construct their own identities from what they're given, or from scratch, or from something, or whatever, yeah.
Post by: Reelya on August 27, 2016, 09:41:40 pm
If we abolish the "two-box system" of traditional gender, the most likely thing is that a number of new boxes would emerge to replace them. Probably more than 2. "And that's a good thing!" a lot of people might say. Because more boxes means more choice in which box you identify yourself as being in. We use categories to convey information, there will always be categories.
But is more choice always good? If you look at research into complex choices, adding more options rapidly causes people to become more dissatisfied - even if the choice they ended up with is significantly better than what they could have had in the less-choice system.
If we end up with many micro-genders, Tumblr-style, that's many more "choices" compared to now. But the thing is, having exactly two boxes makes it easy to choose, and since the current boxes are so vague, you are basically free to self-define inside the boxes, whereas if we go towards a library catalogue of micro-genders then people will have a very complex choice to make about their "identity" (on paper), and the micro-genders will be so narrowly-defined that they will be even more constraining than the current loose categories.
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2016, 09:57:13 pm
Quote
If we end up with many micro-genders, Tumblr-style, that's many more "choices" compared to now
Sort of... One of the appeal of Tumblr is you get to invent your own gender and prescribe characteristics to it.
Post by: Reelya on August 27, 2016, 10:10:08 pm
Also, Tumblr genders are niche enough for now for it to basically be a game. Consider the early days of Punk, and how quickly the spirit of experimentation gave way to fashion nazis. If the micro-gender thing becomes some sort of orthodoxy, then it will rapidly morph from a "make up your own shit" game, into a complex rules-based system.
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 27, 2016, 10:53:22 pm
We can also apply different thinking to the question of whether it's a positive thing to move towards a "no genders" future. e.g. choice theory. Because if we micro-gender everything, we push that decision onto the individual.I think this issue was sufficiently addressed in the link posted by Sheb. (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison)
Let me quote a bit:
Quote
The solution is not to reify gender by insisting on ever more gender categories that define the complexity of human personality in rigid and essentialist ways. The solution is to abolish gender altogether. We do not need gender. We would be better off without it. Gender as a hierarchy with two positions operates to naturalise and perpetuate the subordination of female people to male people, and constrains the development of individuals of both sexes. Reconceiving of gender as an identity spectrum represents no improvement.Iä! Iä! Judith Butler fhtagn!
You do not need to have a deep, internal, essential experience of gender to be free to dress how you like, behave how you like, work how you like, love who you like. You do not need to show that your personality is feminine for it to be acceptable for you to enjoy cosmetics, cookery and crafting. You do not need to be genderqueer to queer gender. The solution to an oppressive system that puts people into pink and blue boxes is not to create more and more boxes that are any colour but blue or pink. The solution is to tear down the boxes altogether.
Post by: Reelya on August 27, 2016, 11:23:01 pm
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice
if you watch the video above on the paradox of choice, as the number of choices increases, the "blame" for bad decisions shifts from the universal to the personal. e.g. if there are only a few choices and you don't make a good one, people blame external forces such as fate, the universe, or society. But as choices become fine-grained, blame shifts inwards. e.g. if you're not happy with your identity in the current system, it's quite easy to blame the system, which reduces feelings of guilt by externalizing the blame for that decision. Whereas if we go to a "be whoever you want to be" system that maximizes choice to the very limits of your imagination - then if you still don't like your identity, then it's only possible to internalize guilt. After all, you made that identity from scratch, nobody made it for you. Who's fault is that if it's not your own?
We need to be careful with the psychological ramifications of what we create. If people are unhappy with the boxes, and going to "sliders" isn't the answer, then deleting the labels altogether isn't going to be some magical panacea for the issue of people being unhappy with their identities. Perhaps like in the choice examples above, people are externalizing the blame to "the system" for their underlying identity issues. If that's the case, then removing the system only removes the scapegoat not the problem itself - now people have to take 100% responsibility for the identity they carve out.
The idea that maximizing choice of identity will maximize happiness or well-being is not backed by any empirical data.
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 12:50:45 am
A person knows what gender is as soon as they are born, even if they aren't aware of it.
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 28, 2016, 12:58:18 am
Quoth the Digital Demon:
Really, gender binary can be useful for those who align with it (such as i do, or at least, some aspects of me do. Other parts i can classify on my own.) It can be hell for those who don't align with it. I just call gender and sexuality a cloud of options, really. It's always changing, and it's fuckin all over the place. People will be people, after all.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 01:09:35 am
Quote
if the set is infinite, then the choice cannot be made/has always already been made, so there is no choice.
That logic doesn't hold true for other things. "Infinite choice of different types of food" doesn't equate to "there is no choice". That logic is faulty, unless you can literally be everything at once.
But people still need to define who they are - you haven't prevented people from having identity issues by deleting genders, any more than deleting all the road signs means people aren't lost any more.
This idea of genderless future freeing people from having to think about identity, it's basically a utopian fantasy land that wants to find a simple thing to blame for all the problems - so it blames gender. People are still going to have gender dysmorphia related to their bodies after we "eliminate gender". People say they were born "in the wrong bodies" not "in the wrong clothes". To me it's sort of a stretch to blame all of that on socialization.
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2016, 01:26:03 am
We can also apply different thinking to the question of whether it's a positive thing to move towards a "no genders" future. e.g. choice theory. Because if we micro-gender everything, we push that decision onto the individual. There is already evidence that the sheer number of decisions that we've basically fobbed off on individuals in the pursuit of "free choice" has become a source of depression. This has got to the point that doctors refuse to recommend any one treatment, but they make the patient pick because of "patient autonomy", but obviously because if things go wrong it's now your fault instead of the doctor. Anyway, if we abrogate the entire idea of identity and make that individual choice as well, it's yet another decision about something major that people are forced to make, and there's no good reason to expect it will automatically make people happier.
If we abolish the "two-box system" of traditional gender, the most likely thing is that a number of new boxes would emerge to replace them. Probably more than 2. "And that's a good thing!" a lot of people might say. Because more boxes means more choice in which box you identify yourself as being in. We use categories to convey information, there will always be categories.
But is more choice always good? If you look at research into complex choices, adding more options rapidly causes people to become more dissatisfied - even if the choice they ended up with is significantly better than what they could have had in the less-choice system.
If we end up with many micro-genders, Tumblr-style, that's many more "choices" compared to now. But the thing is, having exactly two boxes makes it easy to choose, and since the current boxes are so vague, you are basically free to self-define inside the boxes, whereas if we go towards a library catalogue of micro-genders then people will have a very complex choice to make about their "identity" (on paper), and the micro-genders will be so narrowly-defined that they will be even more constraining than the current loose categories.
A lot of the points made in the article I posted earlier (read it, it's good!)
I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 02:26:21 am
I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.
And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.
Post by: Grimlocke on August 28, 2016, 02:33:59 am
Quote from: That article Sheb posted...
The solution is not to reify gender by insisting on ever more gender categories that define the complexity of human personality in rigid and essentialist ways. The solution is to abolish gender altogether. We do not need gender. We would be better off without it. Gender as a hierarchy with two positions operates to naturalise and perpetuate the subordination of female people to male people, and constrains the development of individuals of both sexes. Reconceiving of gender as an identity spectrum represents no improvement.
You do not need to have a deep, internal, essential experience of gender to be free to dress how you like, behave how you like, work how you like, love who you like. You do not need to show that your personality is feminine for it to be acceptable for you to enjoy cosmetics, cookery and crafting. You do not need to be genderqueer to queer gender. The solution to an oppressive system that puts people into pink and blue boxes is not to create more and more boxes that are any colour but blue or pink. The solution is to tear down the boxes altogether.
This kind of sounds like a feminist who slipped and fell into some Marxism. Actually, I think that's what I will call this genderedless society philosophy: Gender Marxism!
The constant references to gender being some sort of evil hierarchical oppression mechanism really add to the revolutionary manifest tone.
I very much doubt the agitators will get very far though, gender is a pretty important thing to the vast majority of people. And we have also already figured out that gender being any kind of hierarchy is a bad idea, just like we figured out that ethnicity should not every be used as a hierarchy.
The solution to any kind of harmful discrimination is not to just pretend really hard that humans have no factors they could discriminated by, but to realize said factors are not worth discriminating over.
Not tying gender to a bunch of arbitrary, unrelated properties like 'Man cannot like frilly pink stuff' or 'Woman should not enjoy zombie shooters' would go a long way too.
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2016, 02:40:48 am
I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.
And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.
I am not sure what you're referring to.
Grimlocke: Indeed, I find it a weakness of the article that she doesn't discuss the possibility of equal treatment of genders, keeping the boxes while treating them equally.
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 02:53:37 am
I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.
And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.
I am not sure what you're referring to.
Well who are the worst kind of people in the universe?
Post by: Grimlocke on August 28, 2016, 03:14:07 am
I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.
And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.
I am not sure what you're referring to.
Well who are the worst kind of people in the universe?
Boyband managers?
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 03:23:55 am
But there's also another issue, say we do away with gender then we might delude ourselves into thinking that we're being non-discriminatory, when in fact our "gender neutral" wonderland is even more discriminatory by not taking biological differences into account.
e.g. a lot of data suggests that it's when women have kids that their earnings are really impacted. Data that only includes single no-kids women doesn't show much of any "wage gap" (and they actually out-earn equivalent-aged men in 147/150 of the biggest cities in the USA). And of course that means the wage gap is twice as concentrated among women with kids as the "raw" wage gap. The real wage gap isn't 77 cents to the dollar, it's women-with-kids earning around 60 cents to the dollar, as compared to all other men and women included.
By focusing only on the social-gender aspect of the wage gap (which only directly explains maybe 1% of the gap), and demanding that a complete breakdown of the gender system is the answer to everything, we might be turning a blind eye to the women who are really in need, who actually have a much higher wage gap than the usually-cited data suggests. And what to articles normally say to those women as the solution? Don't spend so much time with your kids (one way or another).
Post by: Grimlocke on August 28, 2016, 03:42:28 am
Also, obscure reference gets answered with obscure acronym. I'm sure there are plenty of loonies Neovinek could be referring to, though I certainly hope its not any kind of widespread sentiment.
Post by: Antioch on August 28, 2016, 03:44:37 am
Maybe refering to TERFs, Neo?
But there's also another issue, say we do away with gender then we might delude ourselves into thinking that we're being non-discriminatory, when in fact our "gender neutral" wonderland is even more discriminatory by not taking biological difference into account.
e.g. a lot of data suggests that it's when women have kids that their earnings are really impacted. Data that only includes single no-kids women doesn't show much of any "wage gap". Being completely gender neutral and pretending this isn't a difference isn't going to help those women, in fact it will probably hurt them.
This is the reason why both fathers and mothers should get parental leave and in the same amount.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 03:49:23 am
In fact, there's a strong correlation between generous family leave packages and a rising wage gap. Countries with a "screw you" attitude to new mothers actually tend to have the lowest wage gaps. Because women literally can't afford to take time off in those countries, so they foist babby off to grandma and keep working! This makes that woman a more cost-effective employee for the employer, and that makes all women more cost-effective to hire on average, driving up wages.
In fact, look at Sweden in this PDF (https://www.oecd.org/sweden/Closing%20the%20Gender%20Gap%20-%20Sweden%20FINAL.pdf). Note that Sweden tops the OECD for wage gap, and this is "despite" their massive parental leave scheme that's tax-payer funded (which should mean it doesn't affect company bottom-lines). Note that the "no-children" women in Sweden have a particularly high wage gap, almost twice what similar women in the USA face. The paid parental scheme therefore incentives mothers, but at a cost to single women more so than men.
So what's the mechanism here? There's the fact that women taking time off costs their employer's money. Through lost productivity, replacement labor, and/or direct payments. That means the total costs-per-employee is higher for a woman who takes time off to have a kid, compared to other workers. The company can be non-discriminatory, and just eat the costs but act like they didn't. The problem is that those costs have to be paid for somewhere: they drive up costs in that company, which drives up prices, drives down demand, and means less pay rises. A company that's 2/3rds women is going to be offsetting a lot more of those childcare/parental-leave costs than a company that's only 1/3rd women, which would cause a pay gap between both companies, all else being equal. So you can see a way in which companies trying to be non-discriminatory to parents-vs-nonparents can actually feed the wage gap.
Parental leave is like free Ferraris for men. If the law said every man had to be offered a free Ferrari by his employer, it might be fucking great for dudes who get their free Ferrari, but it also means it now costs a lot more to hire men. So we pass a law that says you can't discriminate against men - especially not asking them about their views on Ferraris - you need to pretend they're not likely to ask for a free Ferrari, and you pay them the same as you pay any woman (on non-Ferrari driving man) who works in the same company. What do you think would happen to men's wages in that scenario? Imagine if you were a man, the only guy in the company who didn't want the free Ferrari, now your wages are cut along with everyone else to pay for the Ferraris. Forcing employers to pay "extra" for one gender to "help them out" actually means lower wages down the line for any industry that employs them.
In other words, we have different things we'd like to incentivize, that are all good for women, and we might be deluding ourselves that they can all be had at the same time. You can find articles by middle-age feminists who say the "you can have it all" feminist mantra that arose in the 1980s is bullshit, that not only is unachievable, but it dips into the quality of each of the things you do have, while also making women feel like they failed because they couldn't juggle all the things they're meant to be. Fashion model + mother + career women + concerned citizen. Whereas if a guy nails just one bit of his life we usually applaud. Yeah, you can "have it all" as long as you're happy for each component to be crap, or a mere hollow facade.
Post by: Reudh on August 28, 2016, 05:08:55 am
There is already a word for that, which is sex (and intersex people for those that have rarer mix like XXY). Gender usually refers to the social implication and expectations of the stuff, although they do get mixed up sometime.
Klinefelter males are not "intersex". They are still male, they do not possess any characteristics of females, besides reduced (compared to XY males) testosterone production.
Post by: hops on August 28, 2016, 05:34:26 am
Honestly abolishing Gender is kind of more of a fantasy then a realistic solution.How would you prove this? One could argue it's social conditioning. If we conditioned a child to ignore gender, they would ignore gender.
A person knows what gender is as soon as they are born, even if they aren't aware of it.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 05:41:48 am
Honestly abolishing Gender is kind of more of a fantasy then a realistic solution.How would you prove this? One could argue it's social conditioning. If we conditioned a child to ignore gender, they would ignore gender.
A person knows what gender is as soon as they are born, even if they aren't aware of it.
That's a lot of certainty for a social program that's never worked even once despite many attempts. how does your "we can condition any gender you like" thing fit with transgender people? if we accept that transgender is a born-thing then we also need to accept cisgender is a born-thing. If this magic conditioning works so well then we should use it on transgender people more, right, rather than less, since we could avoid them needing sex reassignment surgery later. See the potentially troublesome conclusions when we don't think through the big picture?
Every article I've ever read about the history of gender-neutral parenting / conditioning was an abject failure. I've never read about a real success in my life. There were thousands of experiments in gender-neutral parenting especially in the 1970s. For all the vast amount of talk about it, where are the success stories that could be used to set an example? Even one example plz of this ever working?
But of course any time it fails, it's never the concept which was faulty, they blame the people. "The program doesn't fail, you failed the program ... don’t ever speak ill of the program! The program is rock solid. The program is sound". Seriously, though, that sort of thing is the way cults talk about their methods.
Post by: Jimmy on August 28, 2016, 05:43:31 am
Opposition party set to block asking everyone if they are okay with gay marriage (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-28/labor-plan-to-block-same-sex-plebiscite-laws/7792132)
Still not a great time to be gay in Australia, folks. Still a step up from Saudi Arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia), but not much.
Post by: hops on August 28, 2016, 06:04:32 am
Huh, I didn't know about that.Honestly abolishing Gender is kind of more of a fantasy then a realistic solution.How would you prove this? One could argue it's social conditioning. If we conditioned a child to ignore gender, they would ignore gender.
A person knows what gender is as soon as they are born, even if they aren't aware of it.
That's a lot of certainty for a social program that's never worked even once despite many attempts. how does your "we can condition any gender you like" thing fit with transgender people? if we accept that transgender is a born-thing then we also need to accept cisgender is a born-thing. If this magic conditioning works so well then we should use it on transgender people more, right, rather than less, since we could avoid them needing sex reassignment surgery later. See the potentially troublesome conclusions when we don't think through the big picture?
Every article I've ever read about the history of gender-neutral parenting / conditioning was an abject failure. I've never read about a real success in my life. There were thousands of experiments in gender-neutral parenting especially in the 1970s. For all the vast amount of talk about it, where are the success stories that could be used to set an example? Even one example plz of this ever working?
But of course any time it fails, it's never the concept which was faulty, they blame the people. "The program doesn't fail, you failed the program ... don’t ever speak ill of the program! The program is rock solid. The program is sound". Seriously, though, that sort of thing is the way cults talk about their methods.
Though on unrelated matter, is it just me or people who are dicks to transgendered individuals always the ones who benefit from the status quo?
Post by: spümpkin on August 28, 2016, 06:13:42 am
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 06:31:36 am
Behaviorism was the dominant ideology in first half of the 20th century psychology. It proposed that everything is social conditioning, and that the mind is a "blank slate" at birth. That informed the post-feminist androgyny movement of the 1970's when many parents tried to raise kids with gender-neutral everything. i.e. all clothing in gender-neutral yellows and greens rather than blue and pink. That was a big, colossal failure, and I haven't heard a single success story from that.
It contrasts heavily with modern gender-neutral parenting, which is all about "let the kids do what they want and don't try and mold them one way or the other". So you see the modern version of gender-neutral parenting has almost nothing to do with the "blank slate" concept that informed the 1970's version. And it does less to actually overthrow gender than the old version did, really.
And yup, on the anti-trans people. It's straight-forward on the Christian Right side, but it would be more enlightening to untangle why so many (mainly 2nd wave) feminist academics are anti-trans.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 07:03:02 am
And yup, on the anti-trans people. It's straight-forward on the Christian Right side, but it would be more enlightening to untangle why so many (mainly 2nd wave) feminist academics are anti-trans.
I think the article already linked (this one) (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison) untangles it just fine in its own way. There are different understandings of gender involved.
From what I understand, certain feminists don't like trans people because they further two of the things they ideologically despise.
First of all, the idea that your gender is something you are beholden to (which gender that would be and whether it's the one society expects of you is irrelevant) and, in fact, extremely relevant to your continued mental health. In terms of "gender is a social construct" thought it frames a transgender individual as the purest victim of the artificial divide between men and women. Hating one is like an intellectual hating a blue-collar voter acting persistently against their interests - they seem like victims of a system they themselves do their best to perpetuate. Blaming the victim is also very convenient in that you don't need to actually address their grievances.
Secondly, it might be that in their eyes being transgender perpetuates the idea that the female is "the other", and being a transwoman is to them difficult to distinguish from an obsessive pursuit of the other to make themselves appear beautiful and special, and is mistaken for mere xenophilia (the stereotypical transvestite man who feels empowered by dressing as a woman, for instance) taken to its logical conclusion in a way that damages the cause of feminism, which is ultimately the abolition of gender and equality between the sexes.
It's a matter of framing. For instance, the article linked paints the non-binary crowd (with decent arguments) as ultimately wrong-headed because they're damagingly misapplying the concept of gender. Extend this train of thought to its logical conclusion, and you may just wind up with trans-exclusionary feminism.
Post by: Grimlocke on August 28, 2016, 07:04:02 am
Seems pretty stupid to think of your gender in the same terms as a political faction, but 'pretty stupid' is not a huge stretch for some of the more extreme feminists.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 07:38:46 am
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 07:52:09 am
And yup, on the anti-trans people. It's straight-forward on the Christian Right side, but it would be more enlightening to untangle why so many (mainly 2nd wave) feminist academics are anti-trans.
I think the article already linked (this one) (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison) untangles it just fine in its own way. There are different understandings of gender involved.
That article was interesting and it's good to have a range of views explored in one article, but I think the article makes some whopping big logical fallacies in it's attack on genderqueer non-binary thinking.
Quote
Many proponents of the queer view of gender describe their own gender identity as ‘non-binary’, and present this in opposition to the vast majority of people whose gender identity is presumed to be binary. On the face of it, there seems to be an immediate tension between the claim that gender is not a binary but a spectrum, and the claim that only a small proportion of individuals can be described as having a non-binary gender identity ... If gender really is a spectrum, doesn’t this mean that every individual alive is non-binary, by definition?Not at all. The male-female system evolved to reproduce. Therefore things cluster in two zones - male and female. Because that is the purpose of having the system. Evolution also relies on excess children being born, to allow natural selection to happen. So some that develop in non-binary ways is quite possible, while evolution still maintains two main "clusters".
People who are far from the two stable clusters don't tend to have many kiddies, right? A few might, but evolution amplifies fractional differences in reproduction rates to take over the entire gene pool. So "cis" wins the Evolution Wars, even though a few genderqueer types will always be born.
Quote
Further, when we observe the analogy with height we can see that, when observing the entire population, only a small minority of people would be accurately described as Tall or Short.Yeah, complete bullshit argument. In the case of "tall or short" you don't have EVOLUTION specifically working to exclude the middle, because the middle doesn't breed. The article is making retarded arguments that basically any "spectrum" must be normally-distributed. It's just a dumb argument.
Basically, cisgender is the winner of "evolution wars" because it outbreeds the other possible ways of being. But a few non-binary types can be born because there is leeway (excess reproduction) for the purposes of selection. And those non-binary types are just more likely to have some mix of existing cisgender traits from the two existing stable population clusters, because the gene pathways already exist for them. Theoretically, a small proportion of people could be born with completely alien psychology that works, but that's just orders of magnitude less likely than a genderqueer person who has mixes of male and female evolutionary traits. So we get a spectrum, between two dominant behavior clusters.
From a science point of view, it's not really hard to understand.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 08:09:56 am
For that matter, it's not necessarily the case that non-binary gender is hereditary at all, and even if it is, like pretty much any complex trait it is probably sufficiently multifactorial that even if a measurable reproductive disadvantage exists, it would still be barely possible to regulate by mere natural selection.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 08:16:25 am
That's Darwin 101 basically.
EDIT: So natural selection made humans from dirt, but regulating sexuality is "too complex"? Seems kinda like a weak argument if you're pro-evolution. I'd say that evolution has given us some pretty damn amazing regulatory systems, given that we are this complex already and don't just drop dead.
Basically, if we looked at any other species and noticed distinct male and female behavior, it wouldn't be a problem that evolution explains that. We act like humans are special, and our behavior is so fucking special snowflake that it's above evolution's influence? Sorry man, that doesn't make a lick of sense, scientifically.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 08:26:24 am
Evolution, dude. Tiny differences over multiple generations = dominance. Genderqueer people could breed at 99% of the rate of cisgender. That would be enough that any genes that encouraged that would die out.
That's Darwin 101 basically.
Multifactorial inheritance, which is Genetics 201. Neutral evolution, also not quite Darwin 101. Mostly neutral evolution, where alleles may wander and mix without significant selective pressure. Evolution! It's a complex thing.
Green-eyed redheads, for instance. They breed at 99% of the rate of non-green eyed redheads because the color green is better perceived by the human eye than all others, and thus 1 out of a 100 green-eyed redheads has a really creepy and intense stare that drives away sexual partners. Because of this very few have made it to this day. Meanwhile, OCD makes mothers extremely attentive (and schizophrenia also probably, let's just throw that in there), increasing the reproductive fitness of their children because of good parenting, and so their prevalence is increasing to this very day as evolution does its work.
Point is, that's a just-so story you're pushing. It's trivial to phrase something in a way that makes it seem like evolution favors it, which is why evopsych is derided as a field.
EDIT: So natural selection made humans from dirt, but regulating sexuality is "too complex"? Seems kinda like a weak argument if you're pro-evolution. I'd say that evolution has given us some pretty damn amazing regulatory systems, given that we are this complex already and don't just drop dead.
Basically, if we looked at any other species and noticed distinct male and female behavior, it wouldn't be a problem that evolution explains that. We act like humans are special, and our behavior is so fucking special snowflake that it's above evolution's influence? Gimme a break while I barf.
Also not a very good argument. Evolution is a free-running, iterative, cobbled-together thing in a great many ways. Just ask the vast number of transposons in your genome. As long as one doesn't jump into the 2% of exons or 10% of introns you'll probably be fine. And if it does, even then it won't have any bearing on your heredity because they're so deeply entrenched in the genome that getting rid of them is actually impossible (and perhaps even harmful because they may be vital to maintaining the superstructure of your DNA).
In short, evolution does anything it can get away with. Evolution might not even regulate non-binary genders. And even if it does, there's no conclusive evidence that non-binary genders are significantly detrimental to reproductive fitness across actual history. Your liver shutting off suddenly due to missing enzymes is a clear detrimental influence. Your gender preferences are not.
Post by: hops on August 28, 2016, 08:26:42 am
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 08:35:00 am
Also not a very good argument. Evolution is a free-running, iterative, cobbled-together thing in a great many ways. Just ask the vast number of transposons in your genome. As long as one doesn't jump into the 2% of exons or 10% of introns you'll probably be fine. And if it does, even then it won't have any bearing on your heredity because they're so deeply entrenched in the genome that getting rid of them is actually impossible (and perhaps even harmful because they may be vital to maintaining the superstructure of your DNA).
In short, evolution does anything it can get away with. Evolution might not even regulate non-binary genders. And even if it does, there's no conclusive evidence that non-binary genders are significantly detrimental to reproductive fitness across actual history.
The amount of genes that differ between individuals is very small, due to natural selection. Only traits with little effect on reproduction will have high variance. Anything that affects reproduction suffers STRONG selection pressures. So they're just the sorts of traits which shouldn't vary very much, in evolutionary terms.
both sexes interest in breeding with the other sex should be the #1 evolution pressure, you'd think. That's what it's all about actually. And the mother nurturing her young. Universal trait in all mother animals. No reason to think it's different with us. Sure, a "counter example" might be penguins, where the male watches the egg. But that's not really a good counter-example, because it's just another example of gender dimorphism in complex behavior related to reproduction that has arisen via evolution, and is pretty much universal to those species.
Also the traits we are talking about that differ, are also well within the range of behavior traits we see in non-humans, which vary by gender. Occam's razor comes into play here. Why say "it's too hard for evolution to do that" in our species, when it's clearly not too hard for evolution to make male and female chimps have similar behavior differences?
And your argument that non-binary genders have no connection to reproduction? It's a logical fallacy, for the main reason that what we label "inherent gender" are exactly those behavioral traits which increase the reproductive "fitness" of their associated biological sex, while being worse for the Darwinian "fitness" for the other sex, than some other option. If a trait had no particular reason to be associated with either gender, it would either die out (if it was less good than some rival gene) or become universal to both sexes (because it's beneficial to have for both genders), therefore it wouldn't be part of "gender" at all.
Actually, the argument that "any trait could be associated with either gender" is the clincher. Sure, I totally buy that. But look at chimps again. We see universal gender dimorphism in behavior. The non-binary theory should say that any chimp, by definition could get any behavior. But that's not what we see. Any behavior could be associated with male or female, with equal probability. But the process of natural selection ensures that that never happens.
Post by: kilakan on August 28, 2016, 09:05:21 am
I wonder what will happen when we reach the generation of children produced from arbitrary sexes? I mean, it is possible already, isn't it?What do you mean, like two men's dna mixed to produce a viable offspring? Because no I do not believe that is currently within our medical scope, though I'd love to read an article about whether or not it is possible. As far as I am aware there is certain parts of the genetic code that comes purely from the female partner, and it would take a lot of careful manipulation to make it accept a male genome in place of that (without causing health issues for the offspring). Though surrogate mothers for male couples is common practice already where I live, and those just take samples from both men, mix them together and go so you don't know which is definitely the father.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 09:09:22 am
The amount of genes that differ between individuals is very small, due to natural selection. Only traits with little effect on reproduction will have high variance. Anything that affects reproduction suffers STRONG selection pressures. So they're just the sorts of traits which shouldn't vary very much, in evolutionary terms.
Also the traits we are talking about that differ, are also behavior traits we see in non-humans, which vary by gender. Occam's razor comes into play here. Why say "it's too hard for evolution to do that" in our species, when it's clearly not too hard for evolution to make male and female chimps have similar behavior differences?
And what I'm saying is that you don't have any evidence that non-binary gender is a trait that affects reproduction or is indeed a trait strongly influenced by genetics at all. It could be much more strongly influenced by developmental factors that reinforce certain patterns in the nervous system. In the not-too-distant example of homosexuality, compare the effect that having an older brother does on male homosexuality. It's the classic genetics experiment issue - it's very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room, particularly when the cat isn't there. If you want to cite evolutionary pressures for something as subtle and complex as human behavior, you need to have your relevant alleles and the corresponding prevalences of a certain trait discovered or at least evaluated (or do something like with schizophrenia, comparing identical and non-identical twins, where identical ones have a 40% correlation of schizophrenia compared to a much smaller one for non-identical ones), otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.
I mean, while you bring up chimps and sexual behavior, there's bonobos. They seem pretty into girls and not at all into monogamy (don't they know that monogamy increases the fitness of their offspring due to the extra care a committed relationship between their parents brings to the children! or have they evaluated the value of group cohesion and found monogamy wanting in comparison? why has monogamy survived in human populations to the point where it is the dominant relationship strategy in that case when the bonobo way is so much better? so many puzzles!), and yet this doesn't seem to be either terribly rare or scourged by the omniscient hand of evolution as you imply altered sexualities (not even non-binary genders, mind, which are significantly subtler) should be. That old chestnut of pedophilia seems potentially pretty damaging to sexual behavior, and yet there's estimates of it being found anywhere in 4% to a whopping 33% (depending likely on how stringently you classify it) of adult men. And yet evolution doesn't seem to have exorcised this aberrant psychological behavior from our genomes. How have pedophiles maintained high reproductive fitness across history while non-binary genders have not? What advice would you have given our non-binary forebears to make our gender spectrum not resemble a double bell curve?
Post by: hops on August 28, 2016, 09:14:21 am
I mean two men and one woman's DNA, or two women and one man's DNA, or anything group where there are both sexes, but it does not necessarily exclude homosexuals from passing down their genes.I wonder what will happen when we reach the generation of children produced from arbitrary sexes? I mean, it is possible already, isn't it?What do you mean, like two men's dna mixed to produce a viable offspring? Because no I do not believe that is currently within our medical scope, though I'd love to read an article about whether or not it is possible. As far as I am aware there is certain parts of the genetic code that comes purely from the female partner, and it would take a lot of careful manipulation to make it accept a male genome in place of that (without causing health issues for the offspring). Though surrogate mothers for male couples is common practice already where I live, and those just take samples from both men, mix them together and go so you don't know which is definitely the father.
Post by: kilakan on August 28, 2016, 09:20:26 am
On the homosexuality/genetics token I'd like to chip in with: Hasn't it been proven multiple times that homosexuality becomes more relevant as population concentration increases both in people and lab test animals (rats come to mind). Thus showing that if it is a genetic trait that can be passed on, it would likely swap off in times of low population density, allowing the individuals to reproduce freely and frequently until population grows too high. At that point it'd turn back on in some of the offspring slowing growth to prevent widespread famine? (In times of antiquity that is.)
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 09:20:37 am
Quote
And what I'm saying is that you don't have any evidence that non-binary gender is a trait that affects reproduction or is indeed a trait strongly influenced by genetics at all.
Well there's a minor thing called an X or Y chromosome, and having or not having it affects both sex and gendered behavior quite heavily in our nearest relatives.
The "bonobos are different" argument isn't very convincing, because male bonobos do actually show signs of following evolutionarily advantageous mating strategies. The fact that they're different to chimps is not really a great argument that sexual dimorphism doesn't arise from genetics. bonobos still have sexual dimorphism. Females are dominant, and promiscuous. Hence males can't be sure which offspring are theirs, and they have even less involvement with the young bonobos than male chimps do - male bonobos neither help nor hinder the young bonobos (since it could be your kid, but probably isn't). So dimorphism in gendered behavior - and it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.
Quote
non-binary forebearsYou have to go back pre-fish to find a non-binary forebear.
As for outliers, what's the historical rate of infant mortality and other deaths? And family size? You can have a lot of outliers, who don't breed or are ineffective breeders. But they don't end up making up much of the germline. That's why we have extra babbies. As for the outliers, they almost exclusively involve borrowing behaviors from the other gender, or grades in between, rather than "way out" behaviors like ... sexual attraction to fish or some such. Which just serves to reinforce the idea of two behavior "poles" to which our options are drawn.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 09:59:37 am
Well there's a minor thing called an X or Y chromosome, and having or not having it affects both sex and gendered behavior quite heavily in our nearest relatives.
Non-binary gender is determined by sex chromosomes? What karyotype characterizes a demigirl, then? XX with one arm curlier than average?
Once again, being genderqueer (as opposed to having Klinefelter syndrome, cystic fibrosis or being at-risk for schizophrenia) is in no way backed up by genetics, at least not as far as you have demonstrated, and evolution does not apply to it if this is the case. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
The "bonobos are different" argument isn't very convincing, because male bonobos do actually show signs of following evolutionarily advantageous mating strategies. The fact that they're different to chimps is not really a great argument that sexual dimorphism doesn't arise from genetics. bonobos still have sexual dimorphism. Females are dominant, and promiscuous. Hence males can't be sure which offspring are theirs, and they have even less involvement with childcare than male chimps. So dimorphism in gendered behavior - and it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.
The argument isn't that bonobos aren't following a good strategy, because they are. It's more that they're a counterexample to alternative sexualities negatively impacting reproductive fitness. Evopsych is, among other things, very limited by preconceived notions.
Quotenon-binary forebearsYou have to go back pre-fish to find a non-binary forebear.
As for outliers, what's the historical rate of infant mortality and other deaths? And family size? You can have a lot of outliers, who don't breed or are ineffective breeders. But they don't end up making up much of the germline. That's why we have extra babbies.
I mean, earthworms do have a lot to teach us about hermaphrodite living. But that's not relevant to being genderqueer same as being XYY isn't, near as I can tell, relevant to being genderqueer.
If pedophiles don't breed, wouldn't their prevalence be significantly lower than it appears to be? Darwin 101, as you've mentioned before. And homosexuals, for that matter, shouldn't breed by definition. And yet up to 20% of respondents in modern anonymous polls report some level of homosexual tendencies these days.
Could it be that the traits we are examining are sufficiently multifactorial, complex and with little enough clear and consistent implication on reproductive fitness that their underlying hereditary component is latent in a considerable portion of the populace, and thus not very well-regulated by the simplified form of "good-bad" selection that was the model of choice in the first half of the 20th century while the science of genetics was in its infancy? And could a lot of evopsych be rendered dubious at best by groundbreaking research from as recently as 1969 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution)?
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 10:04:45 am
Well there's a minor thing called an X or Y chromosome, and having or not having it affects both sex and gendered behavior quite heavily in our nearest relatives.
Non-binary gender is determined by sex chromosomes? What karyotype characterizes a demigirl, then? XX with one arm curlier than average?
What are you even? I got confused because your core argument makes so little sense.
Outliers don't disprove genetic convergence due to natural selection. So we can have "male-bits" members of the species converging on one set of behavior, while "female-bits" members of the species converging on another set of behavior.
That in no way implies there must be "genes" that explain non-binary people. Are you one of those people who believes in "gay genes" by any chance?
Your argument is basically "what genes explain non-binaries?" and that's basically a completely idiotic question. Different chemical exposure in the womb is one reason. Genes getting expressed at the wrong time. That happens. But note that when things go wrong, they tend to pull traits from the other gender, rather than thin air. Pre-programmed traits in other words.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 10:21:17 am
I really don't get what you're talking about now. Gender is driven by pre-natal development.
Non-binary stuff is driven by variations in that, but the system tends to try and stick to the pattern.
Your argument is pretty incoherent, that's like saying birth defects disprove that genes control limb development.
Pre-natal development, yes. Genetics, however, is where my question comes in. Evolution comes in when genetics do. It's easy enough to point to an XXY karyotype as a cause of Klinefelter syndrome, but Klinefelter syndrome is not being genderqueer, the origins of which you have explained at best by conflating it with sexuality (and if it is conflated with sexuality in terminology, then the article still has a point in that untangling the confusion and applying the idea of gender more cautiously holds water in a sense).
And even in the case of prenatal development, it's not enough to point to prenatal testosterone, you need to point to their underlying cause. If you can't find a way to transmit these testosterone levels genetically, the idea that there can be selection pressure to begin with kind of falls apart. It's an argument that needs evidence, and can't be lightly made with a ballpark evolutionary estimate. I mostly take umbrage here with the liberal application of evopsych to things that it really shouldn't be.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 10:42:08 am
Quote
it's not enough to point to prenatal testosterone, you need to point to their underlying cause.
The underlying cause of the big difference in testosterone between men and women is pretty well established by science, I believe. We happen to know that female babies are exposed to a lot less in the womb. It also correlates to stereotypical boy/girl behavior in both male and female babies.
Here's some research on the brain differences correlated with testosterone:
http://www.eje-online.org/content/155/suppl_1/S115.full.pdf
Known stuff that pre-natal testosterone correlates with, according to the paper's summary:
- sexual orientation
- core gender identify
- sex-typical play behavior
- sex-typed toy preferences
Not mentioned there is the butch/femme lesbian research that correlates that to pre-natal testosterone as well. It's actually a much stronger correlation than the lesbianism itself. So in other words "gender typical roles" seems more strongly correlated with testosterone than the sexual orientation thingy, rather than the other way around.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 10:53:25 am
Once again, it's the immediate leap to genetics (and the usage of simplified genetics thereof) without evidence that I have a problem with to begin with. Hormone levels are strongly reactive, after all - this is why they're useful to begin with. So what lets you claim that genetics (beyond the drastic differences in XX and XY type fetuses, where one does have an edge over the other which is neutralized by infant mortality) are involved to a significant degree to the point where selection pressure may appear?
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 11:40:05 am
The most likely answer is that testosterone is just a signal, and the things it turns on and off are the evolved traits. e.g. penises and vaginas are fairly arbitrary and complex organs. Testosterone does a good job of signaling which set to create (the vast majority of the time). Clearly genitals are complex and evolved systems, and there's nothing inherent in testosterone that makes them that way.
So we have other things that are evolved traits too, and some of those have different settings for different testosterone levels as well. Evolution can and would change how much those traits are receptive to testosterone. I mean, sexual attraction is a pretty arbitrary and complex trait, that is clearly evolved (otherwise how would you recognize a mate), and which one you are attracted to seems to correlate to testosterone exposure, which is a fairly arbitrary chemical. So the evolution happens in the systems which interact with testosterone. Basically there's nothing inherently special about the molecule that makes it do all those different things we know about: they're things for which testosterone receptors were evolved. And evolution has pretty free reign for what "low testosterone" means compared to "high testosterone": e.g. the dolls vs trucks thing. It's a completely arbitrary choice that low-T means liking dolls/babies.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 11:57:26 am
But even if all that is arbitrary on a broader level, what determines the expression of the receptors they bind to? Is it a change that's reactive to the environment and caused by a different signal (which is possibly near-ubiquitous and thus not subject to evolution on a meaningful level), or a different level of expression affected by genetic differences? Probably both, I would say. But how much of it is one or the other? And how relevant are masculine or feminine traits to reproductive fitness? I have no proof either way, and neither do you.
So your argument based on evolution that the article is being fallacious is compromised because it's a judgment you're making based on the vague, unfounded intuition that A) specifically non-binary gender identities are genetically determined as opposed to being social constructs under the article's model and B) they are also detrimental to reproductive fitness, both of which need to be true for the counterargument to stand.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 28, 2016, 11:58:33 am
I am incredibly geeky, and don't particularly value social interaction. But plenty of girls are like that too. Plenty of cisgender girls. So how does geekiness correlate with gender?
You're probably right about the "manly man" overcompensating. I meant "reminding" in the sense of constantly doing stereotypically manly man things, not by talking, but your response probably does apply. There's just one problem, though: most manly men would not like being female. I wouldn't care either way, if not for nonidentity reasons. (Such as !!science!! and the way that manly men torment me for not being manly.)
Come to think of it, what is gender anyway? Gender roles are those made by society that are associated with a sex. Sex is whether or not you have a penis (usually; this is a gross oversimplification when no binary XXY and such are involved). But where does gender fit in?
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 12:08:04 pm
Quote
And how relevant are masculine or feminine traits to reproductive fitness? I have no proof either way, and neither do you.
Well we have the example of thousands of other species which have similar behavior differences that clearly evolved. Occam's Razor here. Either we decide that our traits that are identical came out of the same process as identical traits in similar species, or we assume that completely different processes gave rise to the exact same traits. That's one, much bigger, assumption right there.
Hmm. As a response to Reelya's testosterone and geekiness post:It's to do with the link between pre-natal testosterone, autism-spectrum disorders, and engineering. Basically men or women who have an autistic child are much more likely to have an engineer in the family tree. Autism is also highly gender-correlated.
I am incredibly geeky, and don't particularly value social interaction. But plenty of girls are like that too. Plenty of cisgender girls. So how does geekiness correlate with gender?
http://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/03/boys-with-autism-likely-exposed-to-more-hormones-in-the-womb
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/autism-experiment-reveals-people-in-technical-professions-are-more-likely-to-have-autistic-traits-a6719956.html
Come to think of it, what is gender anyway? Gender roles are those made by society that are associated with a sex. Sex is whether or not you have a penis (usually; this is a gross oversimplification when no binary XXY and such are involved). But where does gender fit in?It really depends exactly what you mean. Gender roles are social constructs, since they only exist as ideas. Gender identity is another issue - how one feel's about oneself. Gender traits just means any traits which are associated with a sex or gender, and can have a mix of biological and social causes in their exact expression.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 12:19:09 pm
Hmm. As a response to Reelya's testosterone and geekiness post:
I am incredibly geeky, and don't particularly value social interaction. But plenty of girls are like that too. Plenty of cisgender girls. So how does geekiness correlate with gender?
You're probably right about the "manly man" overcompensating. I meant "reminding" in the sense of constantly doing stereotypically manly man things, not by talking, but your response probably does apply. There's just one problem, though: most manly men would not like being female. I wouldn't care either way, if not for nonidentity reasons. (Such as !!science!! and the way that manly men torment me for not being manly.)
Where there's gender, there's always room for unrealistic gender-based expectations. This seems to be a strong case of those.
Come to think of it, what is gender anyway? Gender roles are those made by society that are associated with a sex. Sex is whether or not you have a penis (usually; this is a gross oversimplification when no binary XXY and such are involved). But where does gender fit in?
Gender seems like a label, just as the back-to-basics feminists such as the writer of that gender spectrum article say, but one with a great deal of weight and importance both to individual people (particularly transgender folks, who are very strongly invested in transitioning from one gender to the other) and society as a whole (the idea of gender roles being at the core of misogyny, misandry, homophobia and many other things).
Well we have the example of thousands of other species which have similar behavior differences that clearly evolved. Occam's Razor here. Either we decide that our traits that are identical came out of the same process as identical traits in similar species, or we assume that completely different processes gave rise to the exact same traits. That's one, much bigger, assumption right there.
I mean more in the context of having more or fewer of them. Is a woman displaying more masculine traits less reproductively fit than a more feminine one? It's not such a simple matter to equate a slight preference for different toys or a tendency to take up different hobbies or do better on certain tests to, say, a larger plume of 'fuck-me' feathers on a bird during mating season.
That these traits evolved to begin with is undeniably true, but our basic ability to text 'XD' to our mates also undeniably evolved by the same measure. Its prerequisites probably did present an advantage in fitness, such as manual dexterity, the presence of thumbs and the ability to use language. But our proficiency with the act itself is learned and thus safely assumed to not at all be affected by evolution until you get some really sound proof in here. Which means that the nightmare scenario of a monstrous race of humans with hypertrophied thumbs addicted to their phones wondered about by people not educated in genetics is probably an unlikely thing to happen in the near or even distant future.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 12:36:02 pm
In fact, there's a strong correlation between generous family leave packages and a rising wage gap. Countries with a "screw you" attitude to new mothers actually tend to have the lowest wage gaps.
Sorry to backtrack, but I haven't had time for more then phone access for a bit and I wanted to ask you about this. If we grab the data from the OECD: http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm we can see these numbers.
You are looking at this and saying you think there is something significant between how much women are paid for maternal leave and the gender wage gap?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3q-mcAHT1tsIZIgGCdky4H4oLmdsRQ2V-gkphYhbIiFmZzqAVpKWi4TwLZ8V0KID9evLZtjkqFqsSWShWO_yIA6icQBV1H7X2KeBzDS2vhtXNE8DdgJR94iP4cl3vFuc9gNBpBjm6-Q4ZHjUDV4_thaalnoi0J-eMtQe0-uAb8Mla5G9pH9Svoq5kUuHkPGv2gNSuddUOWk-lDeclxzOZKwxiQ_RFtI7nCD_Xy8kaldagItIGyYyCK8AibJgyJw-kNwMGXa0oYzDK-EKGwvby6AoH6qMIODzDZRktTBtMRI0w3yYSztlG4IhwGycEi5ABzpMcOf-mmgUaqaRf9LL-QDkI_AONEgnq6YwEFAXplOaG0mhvUdfD7xyWpC1AWMmEwqzzwY9h36TFaCda5jxOInRhpW830zhUfVZFlXfmZCbGlJmGu-Zkh64jRGUtkH9XsbG2L9CPSIUzAymq0Remzlhf401482wy-V1jNe5g5T46z1RvShZte-QhFFB1rAzuFSj_Wtkt3RntRIz45O2L0ljh7c4eQXLoAqBQvCYY5hiRF5lCaFKRuTR3N5nWzavLz_-uIdU-I4bB3JA_SibPem7HFyRMBshEvy28UUlpIGXveVO=w600-h371-no)
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 12:41:37 pm
But this is the link I was refering to:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/20/the-link-between-parental-leave-and-the-gender-pay-gap/
(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/12/FT_gender1223.png)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 28, 2016, 12:51:27 pm
Unless you're agreeing with him...
And I do agree that if you remove the outliers, some correlation is noted. But what should be done? Should the government itself increase taxes for everybody and then distribute to new mothers? Because "screw you" isn't going to cut it.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 01:01:02 pm
I think the pew research one shows a much higher correlation than the one Mainiac shows. If you look at the countries with 0 weeks of paid leave vs those with 6 months or more.
Also, if we excluded confounding variables then I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the direct correlation between the amount of parental leave women actually take and the pay gap is going to be more evident. Norway on the right is an outlier, with high leave but a low wage-gap. My bet is that Norway offers quite a bit of paternal leave for dad's, but they don't actually take much of it, which skews Norway far to the right.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 01:11:52 pm
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 01:19:08 pm
Back on phone so I can't run those numbers but it sounds like you want me to cherrypick.
And when I follow the link it turns out that it's just talking about a tiny sub sample. So when you said strong correlation you meant strong for a tiny subsample.
Post by: kilakan on August 28, 2016, 01:22:26 pm
Long bouts of leave probably (certainly) factor into women advancing more slowly in careers. So it's another part of the same issue. Sure they might hold your job open while you're off for 6 months, but they're not required to give you a promotion.Why should they though? I think the entire concept of 'I worked for you for 4 years, give me a promotion' is absolute trash no matter who or what you are.
*Ugh sorry in advance normally this is a post of mine I'd delete but bugger it. I've worked in corporate offices before where no matter what your individual skill or ability is, promotions are 100% based on tenure. I personally got passed up for a promotion by a woman who came off maternity leave because she had worked for a year longer than me. At that point she had actually been at the job for a year and on maternity leave for a year. I had worked for them for a year and a half straight. She then ended up becoming pregnant again, and I was put into the job with zero pay raise or status change but expected to do her work and mine. This was all told to me as 'equal rights initive' so I ended up working double for zero raise, and would never get promoted over someone who had clocked less hours than me but was 'on the books' longer.
I quit after that.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 01:29:12 pm
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 01:30:05 pm
I gave source already.Well which part of the OECD page did you pull that from? The image is sources to googleusercontent.com, and it's not apparent where on the OECD website you cited that data is even from.
Post by: chaoticag on August 28, 2016, 01:32:51 pm
Train is heading off the rails at this point. Prolly a good idea to spin this off into a separate topic. And if you expect that the thread it would get spun into would get purged, prolly not a good idea to talk about it anyway.
Not that it's something we shouldn't be talking about, but the thread title does mention that we ought to keep focused here, and this kinda discussion tends to have a habit of eating a thread whole.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 01:33:11 pm
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 01:34:41 pm
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 01:35:50 pm
I just didn't chuck inconvenient data to make a sub sample to exaggerate. If you want to actually talk about the importance of paid leave by this metric (not my favorite btw) then you can only say it explains 2.7% of the difference between countries. Do you want to say that?
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 02:01:34 pm
why should I trust your analysis vs one done by economists at the OECD themselves?
Well let's look at what the PEW / OECD graph actually says. For 42 weeks of paid leave, the increase in the wage gap averages 12.5% (10% - ~22.5%) - for women aged 30-34. About a 7% increase in the wage gap if you add 6 months of paid leave. You can downplay that if you want, but it might be something to think about, even if that's ideologically inconvenient for you.
Look up those articles about paid leave in Sweden, 75% of it is taken by women, even with strong kick-in-the-pants incentives for dudes to take it. In the USA, they're adding the leave but it is being specifically messaged as a thing for women. So women are going to take more leave and they will do nothing to try and balance that between the genders, meaning it will have a worse outcome that in Sweden on the wage gap. Note I cited a link showing Sweden has a whopping huge wage gap. Apparently all those policies to help women in Sweden ... didn't actually help the wage gap whatsoever. So no reason to believe they'll help in America either, is there?
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 02:11:07 pm
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 02:16:36 pm
For older women, the pay gap they experience is less likely to correlate with current family policies. For younger women, they usually haven't thought about having kids yet. Adding both of those to the data merely swamps any correlation with fairly irrelevant data. What matters is how the policies that exist affect any single woman over their career, and the 30-34 data is a better indicator of that than just cramming all the data together.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 02:20:30 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 02:25:29 pm
Lack of Child Care services!
No really :P
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 02:27:30 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 02:30:25 pm
No one knows what the heck is actually going on or what to do.
One person says that the majority of women work in lower pay jobs and thus we should focus on the wage gap there.
Another person says that we need more women in top level positions like to be CEOs
And they do not work together.
Like really... What do those statistics tell you? "Men and women get paid differently" but why? What are the reasons?
Is it entirely Maternity Leave?
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 02:30:38 pm
But age differences exist between countries! And anyway you slice it the data is not showing the specific words you were talking about. It is a subsample.
The age range of first child in OECD countries is only a few years. And definitely before 30.
Quote
But it also turns out that some countries that offer more liberal parental leave policies have higher pay gaps among men and women ages 30 to 34, according to analyses of 16 countries conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD theorizes that this link may be driven by the fact that women are more likely than men to actually use their parental leave, and that time out of the workforce is associated with lower wages.
Yeah, it's a subsample of 30-34 year old women's wage gap. Which is after the age at which all OECD country's women tend to start families. Sure you can add data from younger women in, but those age-brackets would not have been affected by this stuff, yet. Meaning it's only sweeping the relevant data under the carpet by swamping it with unrelated info.
I'm really not sure here what you even mean by "the data is not showing the specific words you were talking about".
Sure, the site doesn't actually say that 30-34 age is after women start having kids. But that's just a known fact, whether or not the site mentions it.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 02:41:56 pm
Allow me to metaphor. Imagine you have an average baseball team that happens to have a fantastic player at second base. You wouldn't just talk about that baseball team by talking about the second baseman. Sure he is in there. Sure if you want to talk about what is good about that baseball team you talk about him. But that team also has a bad player somewhere. Because the team is average which means that the good and the bad average out.
The relationship at 30-34 is above average. But I know for a fact that there is a negative correlation in at least one other cohort. That is because I swapped the axis on my graph last page. There is actually a negative correlation between the size of the gender pay gap and weeks of paid leave. Countries with more pay leave have smaller gender pay gaps.
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 02:45:45 pm
Countries with more pay leave have smaller gender pay gaps.
Ok... but why?
That goes against the conventional wisdom of why pay leave is important.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 02:50:52 pm
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 28, 2016, 02:57:55 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 28, 2016, 03:03:36 pm
I for one would expect women to on average have a lower pay, because they tend to get pregnant more often then males. Several months with lower pay, and missed promotions and whatnot. I have no idea how big of a difference that would make, but it makes sense to me that there is some kind of difference.
That accounts for some of it. However they had checked the pay gap between women who haven't gotten pregnant and men and saw there is still a wage gap.
Originally the idea was that MAYBE women are getting paid less because the company is paying them less BECAUSE they might get pregnant...
Yet what they discovered later on is that men and women act differently in a work setting and that men in the typical workplace environment will seek out wage increases far more then women will.
Which some people concluded that it is because "Men are more aggressive" So thus the solution muuust be that we shouldn't allow any negotiation right?
Which later we also found out that isn't true. Women will in fact seek pay increases and promotions more aggressively then men IF they are told they are able to and actually start to do better than men.
---
In otherwords... everytime people make an assumption about men or women we have to go through an annoying period of assumptions until we actually hunker down and actually do work.
It is why Gender Studies is a outright toxic environment because you get people who just sort of throw their assumptions at the wall and point to a statistic as proof even though statistics are rarely proof. "Ohh this group has a 20% female participation rate! MUST be because of sexism!"... and then later on they find out it is because that job in that town is favored by highschool dropouts and that women tended to get their education more often.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 03:08:29 pm
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 03:11:14 pm
The relationship at 30-34 is above average. But I know for a fact that there is a negative correlation in at least one other cohort. That is because I swapped the axis on my graph last page. There is actually a negative correlation between the size of the gender pay gap and weeks of paid leave. Countries with more pay leave have smaller gender pay gaps.
IDK, i just did my own regression analysis. Data was:
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.xls "Total Paid Leave Available To Mothers" (data from 2015)
vs
http://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF_1_5_Gender_pay_gaps_for_full_time_workers.xlsx (2012 data)
I got a positive relationship from that, for all countries that had both data.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 03:13:09 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 28, 2016, 03:14:36 pm
*proceeds to leap into the discussion*
So back on the "testosterone is geek-chem" topic, I never did get a response. Would "not caring about whether penis or no" mean agender, or is it more than just the mental part of sex (male/female, not the act)?
Loving the graphs. Science farm yeah.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 03:16:19 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 28, 2016, 03:17:10 pm
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 03:21:57 pm
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 03:34:20 pm
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jnXBa7Nmk33o--XMrfwIlQ4kvNS9VLKFCLvKhkzni64/pubchart?oid=258592707&format=image)
plotted total weeks of paid parental leave available to women vs the wage gap. When factoring in all types of paid leave available to each country, there is a positive correlation. But if you only factor in column 1 from the maternity leave chart, there is a negative correlation. That excludes much of the actual paid leave entitlements however.
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 03:39:34 pm
Naturally, the obligatory xkcd on the subject:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/linear_regression.png)
I have an idea for a game. We try to guess purely from eyeballing what the p-value is. I am guessing 32%.
I will give it this. The homoscedasticity does mean I trust it to be consistent in showing no correlation.
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2016, 03:49:28 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 28, 2016, 03:57:20 pm
What is gender? My question was "what is the absence of gender", which is functionally identical.
Post by: Reelya on August 28, 2016, 03:58:20 pm
Just showing that the claim that more leave = lower wage gap doesn't seem to have much basis.
For that last graph, there is a very weak positive correlation. But that's not the point. When OECD sampled just 30-34 year old women, the correlation was pretty strong. That's relevant because that's just past the age where women in those countries start having kids, so they're more likely to have been affected by recent rules on maternity leave.
Mixing up the data between people likely to have been affected by something and people unlikely to have been affected by something would definitely tend to hide whatever connection there is.
Post by: crazyabe on August 28, 2016, 03:58:48 pm
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2016, 04:34:12 pm
Im game. I say p-value of 0.45 what are we betting?
An inch of e-peen
Post by: spümpkin on August 28, 2016, 08:40:37 pm
You define gender as gender identity. Nice tautology, but doesn't actually answer my question.It depends. There's gender in society, and personal gender. Gender roles and Gender identity.
What is gender? My question was "what is the absence of gender", which is functionally identical.
I cannot be bothered to go researching right now, but from my memory I can say that there is a certain part of the brain which formulates your identity, including gender identity. I'd probably say that's more gender than anything. I've also read that transwomen have more feminine brain structure, and vice versa. So, I'd presume agender just falls somewhere smack-bang in the middle.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 28, 2016, 10:16:26 pm
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 28, 2016, 11:16:49 pm
If transgender would mean that your identity matches up only with the sex that you were not born with, and cisgender... that you were born with, then wouldn't agender mean that your identity wouldn't "match" at all? That one would not have dysphoria in either sex?
I think it might be more that you experience dissatisfaction being perceived as either (I hesitate to say dysphoria because dysphoria is a pretty heavy thing to throw around). If your sex is male and you don't really feel too bad about that, your gender is probably also male. There's no real way to test whether you'd be dissatisfied about transitioning except to try it, and since transitioning is also kind of a serious thing I'd assume most people wouldn't want to try it if they aren't deeply dissatisfied with it or can at least hopefully reconcile their differences with the gender they've been assigned.
If you want to transition into agender, I guess you become very committed to being androgynous? Choose a unisex name? Choose a slightly feminine-looking wardrobe? Wear a reasonable amount of makeup? I think the secret to success there is to not tell anyone you're agender, because that's only going to fly without question with a very specific crowd, and accept that you'll be stereotyped as metrosexual instead.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 29, 2016, 01:16:44 am
What you're describing sounds like something in between female and male. Is there something that's not /on/ the spectrum at all?
Of course, if it turns out that my studies were incorrect (due to either small sample sizes or an obscuring social effect), then I will reconsider my results.
Is there a gender for "doesn't care, none of this matters to me at all," or would that just be a variant of cis? I just want a way to say "literally no shits given about gender".
Of course, none of this would even be in question if I understood exactly what falls under "gender".
Post by: Reelya on August 29, 2016, 10:19:47 am
My reasoning for that is because evolution created two sexes, and the traits that are linked to each one are completely arbitrary products of evolution. Because the wiring for all those traits already exists, then when things don't go to "plan", the most likely outcome is a mix of the pre-programmed traits for each gender.
But since the system is a completely artificial construct of evolution, there's no scientific reason someone couldn't be a trans-cat or something. You could theoretically end up with brain wiring of a cat in part of your head that does identity. Cat neurons aren't any different from human ones, and human neurons have even been made to work properly in other species. It's just extremely unlikely to happen because the brain wiring would have to construct that out of nothing, whereas a male having female traits or a female having male traits is building off existing systems.
Post by: DeKaFu on August 29, 2016, 10:39:18 am
No idea if this is normal so it might sound weird, but I've always constantly invented stories and daydreams that I dip into whenever I'm bored or trying to sleep. Generally in these daydreams I'll have a character that stands in for me, even if they aren't particularly like me.
I had a weird moment a few years ago when I suddenly realized that...probably at least 80% of the different characters I'd created over the years as vehicles for myself were both a) physically sexless and b) outwardly either neither or both genders.
So... apparently that's essentially how I see myself. Not terribly interested in labeling myself in any way, though.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 29, 2016, 01:42:42 pm
But in this situation, I suppose I am fine without a label after all. It would be useful to understand gender, though.
I understand that sex is the physical part, and gender roles are the social expectations, etc., for a particular gender. Is gender just feeling that you are a girl/boy (identify as, etc.) or is there something more?
I suppose I'm confused because I haven't really understood what identity means. If my gender is, relative to other people, insignificant to my identity, would that affect my gender, or would I just be cis, with the "unusual" part being a part of my identity, related but not falling under gender?
Post by: Aedel on August 29, 2016, 02:28:13 pm
Not to be rude, but what on earth is a Demi girl? Isn't that one of those genders 4chan made up to make fun of tumblr on those Pokemon as gender images?Well there's a minor thing called an X or Y chromosome, and having or not having it affects both sex and gendered behavior quite heavily in our nearest relatives.
Non-binary gender is determined by sex chromosomes? What karyotype characterizes a demigirl, then? XX with one arm curlier than average?
Once again, being genderqueer (as opposed to having Klinefelter syndrome, cystic fibrosis or being at-risk for schizophrenia) is in no way backed up by genetics, at least not as far as you have demonstrated, and evolution does not apply to it if this is the case. It is up to you to prove otherwise
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 29, 2016, 03:12:19 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 29, 2016, 03:17:04 pm
Here's hoping that this thread doesn't get set on !!FIRE!! or atom-smashed.
That typically only occurs if one or two people get particularly outraged at one person's opinion.
And a LOT of those people have either been banned or stay off the lower boards now...
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 29, 2016, 04:55:22 pm
Not to be rude, but what on earth is a Demi girl? Isn't that one of those genders 4chan made up to make fun of tumblr on those Pokemon as gender images?
According to this (http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Demigender), it's being a girl, but not entirely. It's somewhere in the middle in terms of credibility between agender and frostgender, since it does sound at least somewhat plausible that you could in good faith arrive at that gender identity (whether it's actually worth splitting hairs between demigirl and female is another question). It is a pretty cool-sounding gender name, though, regardless of the usefulness of its conception.
Post by: Baffler on August 29, 2016, 04:58:28 pm
Not to be rude, but what on earth is a Demi girl? Isn't that one of those genders 4chan made up to make fun of tumblr on those Pokemon as gender images?
According to this (http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Demigender), it's being a girl, but not entirely. It's somewhere in the middle in terms of credibility between agender and frostgender, since it does sound at least somewhat plausible that you could in good faith arrive at that gender identity (whether it's actually worth splitting hairs between demigirl and female is another question).
So... they'd say they're a girl, but not a "girly" girl? I'm not really sure I understand the distinction.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 29, 2016, 05:10:04 pm
So... they'd say they're a girl, but not a "girly" girl? I'm not really sure I understand the distinction.
I have no earthly idea. Maybe? Seems like an 'on-the-fence' descriptor. For instance, there's deminonbinary as well, which means that you partly identify with the idea that you identify with an unusual gender or with a specific gender in an unusual way.
You can see how you might start to feel that all of this is perhaps a less than rigorous or even vaguely beneficial approach, to say nothing of the very real possibility that some of these gender identities could very well be made up entirely by somebody attempting satire and it either failing to exceed the threshold of incredulity or spiraling dreadfully out of control.
That's the criticism, in essence, which is that these labels aren't terribly meaningful or useful for any purpose beyond finding a label to describe what is commonly thought to be a personality trait instead.
But consistent, meaningful labels can be used as symbols! The sounds "aie Jen dur" are understood to mean something that cannot be perceived, only described. Labels can be bad, but they are not automatically bad.
But in this situation, I suppose I am fine without a label after all. It would be useful to understand gender, though.
I understand that sex is the physical part, and gender roles are the social expectations, etc., for a particular gender. Is gender just feeling that you are a girl/boy (identify as, etc.) or is there something more?
I suppose I'm confused because I haven't really understood what identity means. If my gender is, relative to other people, insignificant to my identity, would that affect my gender, or would I just be cis, with the "unusual" part being a part of my identity, related but not falling under gender?
Well, there seem to be two types of gender. First is social expectations, but due to weight of tradition that means there's only two, male and female. And the second is internalized expectations extrapolated from social expectations, which is the gender roles that you feel comfortable and happy fulfilling, which can be male, female, kinda male, kinda female, neither, both, some unusual variation, gonna do your own thing, and it's under this second definition that non-binary gender starts to make sense.
Trouble is, once you start dealing with internalized expectations beyond the scope of male and female (which are easily understood and grasped concepts in most cases and for most people), it's unclear whether gender is even applicable in that case (and if it is applicable, to what degree).
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 29, 2016, 05:41:25 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 29, 2016, 06:34:46 pm
Post by: Jimmy on August 30, 2016, 02:18:11 am
Australia still doesn't know whether we're going to get to see gay marriage laws passed. The fact that the majority of parliament attended church before getting sworn in doesn't bode well of course.
Still, it's gotta happen eventually.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 02:25:27 am
Post by: Sheb on August 30, 2016, 02:30:26 am
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 02:33:20 am
Post by: Sheb on August 30, 2016, 02:35:14 am
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 02:39:45 am
But this is what I was talking about with the "overchoice" thing, linking back to research that excessive numbers of choices make people depressed, but also less satisfied with good choices, since the good features of choices you didn't choose get amplified, as well as any poor aspects of the choice you did choose.
With so many "XXXXgender" and "XXXXsexual" labels. That's just many more boxes than before. It's the opposite of tearing down the boxes. There are new boxes, and while it can be argued that they're not completely constraining, that they are vague and can be adapted to fit yourself, or you can find another label that fits better, well that's kind of a bullshit argument because broad categories like "male" and "female" do that already.
Just being devil's advocate here, but young people already have so many choices to make about their future, and there's empirical evidence that over abundance of choice in other areas reduces happiness, that I'm not 100% convinced that completely free-forming identity at a critical stage in people's development, then presenting them with dictionaries-worth of different possible identity labels is necessarily going to lead to an increase in people's well-being.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 30, 2016, 03:01:08 am
I don't actually know if all these choices are actually excessive. We are talking about human sexuality here, not a brand of laundry detergent. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there would be more than a few types of genders.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 03:05:27 am
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 03:10:01 am
It's not just being unhappy, it turns into self-blame, which is not so great. Hurts how people see themselves. And nobody has really got down and looked into things enough that we can separate out the causes of self-blame and other self-harming thoughts, to decide which factors play into those. And an over-atomized society in which we float in a sea of choices, which nobody is willing to help us navigates. That's basically the modern reality. What percentage of Americans are getting therapy? It's gone beyond a joke.
If a transgender person is unsure of their identity and unhappy, it's perhaps too easy to just blame society for 100% of their unhappiness. Society didn't cause someone to have a female brain but be born with a penis after all. if they're unhappy having a wiener, then they're lucky society exists in the first place, and has created science which can change that. Maybe society is to blame for the whole problem, but I doubt it.
"Society sucks" is just an easy excuse for the more difficult problems of the human condition. And blaming everything on a vague concept like "society" perhaps prevents us looking at things any deeper. e.g. those specific feminists who claim the transgender issue will "disappear" when we overthrow the patriarchy. It's an easy answer to a complex problem, and it just sweeps real people's problems under the carpet while refusing to give it any deeper thought. Doing that is as bad as religion.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 03:28:47 am
The problem is that you're saying "as a cis person" there, which means you've never actually had to make the type of choice we're talking about.
Well that isn't... exactly accurate.
It just telegraphs some of the choices.
Post by: Phmcw on August 30, 2016, 03:39:47 am
Gender is obviously a social construct, since it's different across cultures. Just as obviously, men and women are different and similar.
If you don't get assigned strong gender-rôles and don't get them assignated to yourself, your sex won't be all that relevant.
At the same time, peoples crave identity and it's only logical that part of it would be build on something as obvious as sex.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 03:47:49 am
If you don't get assigned strong gender-rôles and don't get them assignated to yourself, your sex won't be all that relevant.
Yeah... you see... That was the assumption for quite some time and what they generally found out is.. No, sex matters.
At least that is what they found out from the "send all children to sensitivity training" that schools did... Which was either to give children a healthy well rounded ability to think about their feelings and recognize them... Or a way to try to de-masculinize them... (It was both surprisingly)
Which is kind of the big problem with trying to be "Super Gender-Neutral" is that... It isn't Neutral it is anti-gender.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 03:52:18 am
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 03:55:38 am
Quote
"we can't meaningfully change someone's sex yet",
I am so INCREDIBLY perplexed that this here is a political issue.
I've been considered sexist because I 100% do not believe sex change actually alters your sex except one exception... Something entirely based around an understanding of what a sex change is.
Yet... Why is it so important that I believe a sex change does this? Whenever I get people very passionate about this I can't help but feel like I am listening to someone who just so desperately wants something to work but is completely delusional to the extent that they have to make everyone take part in their fantasies because the reality of it all is too harsh.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 30, 2016, 04:12:12 am
Yet... Why is it so important that I believe a sex change does this? Whenever I get people very passionate about this I can't help but feel like I am listening to someone who just so desperately wants something to work but is completely delusional to the extent that they have to make everyone take part in their fantasies because the reality of it all is too harsh.
If I had to guess, it's because you're undermining a treatment strategy for a serious psychological issue because of an insistence on technicality.
Sure, you can't actually change chromosomal sex entirely without genome-wide alteration, and no, uterus transplants don't actually work yet. But there's a whole lot of people to whom perceived sex matters a great deal, and I've always operated under the idea that if for anybody else beside them it doesn't matter all that much (beyond compulsive pedantry), let the people have the necessary distinction for their peace of mind.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 04:15:45 am
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 04:19:21 am
If I had to guess, it's because you're undermining a treatment strategy for a serious psychological issue because of an insistence on technicality.
It is kind of a big technicality... and on the other hand one that completely doesn't matter and it doesn't affect anything because a sex change isn't even remotely required to change ones gender.
Why is it so important that I believe that someone who goes through a sex change actually alters their sex?
I could even go as far as to say to lie and say that it does... does more harm as it creates a unrealistic fantasy as to what actually occurs. (and as people find out... Sex changes quite often do not fix gender dysphoria. But lets pretend it always does!)
Yeah, that is it exactly. I wouldn't see myself as female even if I got boobs, but it doesn't mean I won't have the respect to treat someone as their preferred gender.
There is a HUUUUGE difference in not believing Sex changes, change sex... And not respecting someone's gender.
And NO I am not going up to people and going "Ohh so your still a man", that isn't the situation... I'd be a total jerk.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 04:22:58 am
Post by: Phmcw on August 30, 2016, 04:25:13 am
Yeah... you see... That was the assumption for quite some time and what they generally found out is.. No, sex matters.I said "all that relevant" not "not relevant at all".
Peoples need to be told what they are, and it need to be validated constantly since identity is a social thing. We still don't understand these phenomenon too well, and lot of it is either taboo or too uncomfortable to be really mainstream.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 04:26:49 am
Well that might be one of the reason why you're a miserable person with no friends.
Because I don't believe doctors are actually wizards?
Or because I believe that Sex isn't just appearance?
Or because I have an opinion that isn't your opinion?
(Psst: It is the third one)
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 30, 2016, 04:26:56 am
It is kind of a big technicality... and on the other hand one that completely doesn't matter and it doesn't affect anything because a sex change isn't even remotely required to change ones gender.
Why is it so important that I believe that someone who goes through a sex change actually alters their sex?
I could even go as far as to say to lie and say that it does... does more harm as it creates a unrealistic fantasy as to what actually occurs. (and as people find out... Sex changes quite often do not fix gender dysphoria. But lets pretend it always does!)
It's a matter of phrasing. By focusing on the idea that one's sex isn't changed, you also undermine the gender transition, because the two by no means are conceptually separated, given that gender primarily arises from sex (after all, they're even named the same, so if you say that sex changes don't really make you female, well, you might see how you could get taken the wrong way...).
As for the documented unsuccessful uses of sex changes to address dysphoria, that's also an interesting thing, much the same as SSRIs might not really fix depression (having the notable potential side effect of more depression), and when they do, we don't necessarily know that it's actually the SSRI mechanism that fixed it to begin with. It's something that more research should definitely be done on, to either refine the process or find the conceptual flaws that prevent it from working - pushing a technicality, however, is neither of these things. It's deconstructive, the point is.
Well that might be one of the reason why you're a miserable person with no friends.
Now now, the idea is to be less horrible to your fellow man and woman.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 04:32:03 am
And NO I am not going up to people and going "Ohh so your still a man", that isn't the situation... I'd be a total jerk.So I didn't see this edit, and I was kind of assuming you went up to people and nitpick people's flaws the same way you do with everything else.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 04:34:09 am
Quote
It's a matter of phrasing. By focusing on the idea that one's sex isn't changed, you also undermine the gender transition, because the two by no means are conceptually separated, given that gender primarily arises from sex.
I have no qualms over the importance of sex change surgery. There is a good reason why they are covered and why people need them.
It is entirely that I have no idea why the entire issue boils down to that one fact.
So I didn't see this edit, and I was kind of assuming you went up to people and nitpick people's flaws the same way you do with everything else.
Wow, your being a total jerk to me... and attempting so in a very personal way... Trying to effect my self-esteem in ways that typically cause people to falter.
In a topic you find personal... after I voiced an opinion that contradicts one of your own.
Post by: Phmcw on August 30, 2016, 04:35:00 am
The best proof that there is a reality behind it is that peoples did try to change gender (mostly by dressing like the other gender) in Catholic Europe or in today's Islamic countries.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 04:36:24 am
Neonivek, you're being insensitive to an issue that is documented as causing a lot of mental suffering, persisted across all ages even when you could be killed for it.
Gender Dysphoria? Sex changes? Which issue?
Wait a minute...
Cinder personally attacks me... Phmcw calls me out but leaves it vague so that any part of what I said can be used as the topic.
This topic is being policed UGH!
---
Also "Victimizing" people is another form of objectification that depowers people who are going through these issues.
These aren't "people" anymore... They are "victims"
Why don't you go talk to some people who actually went through a sex change, or vocal training, or hormone therapy.
Anyhow I am leaving the thread for a bit... I don't feel like being insulted for not being someone else's mouth piece.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 04:50:26 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 30, 2016, 04:55:02 am
I have no qualms over the importance of sex change surgery. There is a good reason why they are covered and why people need them.
It is entirely that I have no idea why the entire issue boils down to that one fact.
Language and phrasing, as I said. And it really doesn't boil down to that one fact, it's just that by pushing down on that one point, the whole web is disturbed. By essentially saying "sex change doesn't really change your sex", you have to remember that people don't share your terms. They may think sex and gender are equivalent. Even if you define your terms beforehand. Especially if you define your terms beforehand. And particularly especially if you define yourself as the harsh realist who sees all the real truths that these very sensitive people do not. Essentially you're projecting the image of the soft anti-trans advocate, even if you're really not one at all.
For instance, consider Cinder getting bent out of shape by your remarks before you clarified in an edit what you really meant there - it's very easy to read malice and nitpicking of the sort typically found in harsh realists who see all the real truths on the internet that are enlightened in their euphoria of not pandering to the SJW agenda. These arguments are so wildly recycled and repeated that by even resembling one you essentially invoke a volume of shit-tier discussion and attacks on both sides. Implication is a powerful thing.
Also "Victimizing" people is another form of objectification that depowers people who are going through these issues.
These aren't "people" anymore... They are "victims"
Why don't you go talk to some people who actually went through a sex change, or vocal training, or hormone therapy.
I'm not really sure where calling people victims comes into this, aside from perhaps talking about dysphoria as a clinical issue for which transitioning is a potential treatment much like depression is a clinical issue for which electroconvulsive therapy is a potential (surprisingly more humane than you'd think) treatment. Lacking proper contact with trans people (although I do think a very distant acquaintance of mine transitioned a while ago) aside from following certain stories on the internet, it's really the best I can do.
Anyhow I am leaving the thread for a bit... I don't feel like being insulted for not being someone else's mouth piece.
Apologies if I've been inadvertently insulting, I really didn't mean to.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 05:01:50 am
So, um, change of topic?
I personally feel that any sexuality except bisexuality is a bit artificial. You don't have to be exclusively heterosexual to be reproducing. Like, I enjoy males but I don't see whybI would wilt and die if I expressed affections to a female.
I'm just saying this because I just feel heterosexual people tend to be very paranoid about appearing gay.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 05:02:15 am
This whole situation... de-escalated rather... oddly
Quote
I'm not really sure where calling people victims comes into this
Wasn't from anything you said, don't worry about it.
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 30, 2016, 05:13:37 am
I personally feel that any sexuality except bisexuality is a bit artificial. You don't have to be exclusively heterosexual to be reproducing. Like, I enjoy males but I don't see whybI would wilt and die if I expressed affections to a female.
I'm just saying this because I just feel heterosexual people tend to be very paranoid about appearing gay.
The reason heterosexual people tend to be very paranoid about appearing gay is that there used to be a much stronger stigma against being gay than there is now (and even now you'd likely be laughed out for suggesting that we've solved the issue of homophobia). Appearing gay when you're not (or worse, when you actually are a little bit or maybe even a lot) is associated with the possibility of being rejected from your group, and that is the deepest fear of a lot of people. Remove this stigma or qualify it with something (such as a hearty game of gay chicken) and the fear is very much alleviated.
Being really into one sex but not the other is still very much a thing, though, even if you can break out the argument that very few people are into exclusively just one sex (even if a whole lot of people are only into one sex overwhelmingly enough that the other one doesn't really do it for them mostly). Part of it is a matter of identification, of course. There's certain gay circles that decry bisexuality as not really a thing, and here it might be that the fear is reversed into appearing straight, because this would exclude them from the group designated 'gay', and the ability to exclude other people from their group is as much appreciated on this end as it is on the other. Of course, if you're a bisexual, the sensible response is to reject such attitudes - I mean, like, whatever, their group was totally gay anyway.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 05:18:47 am
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 05:28:29 am
Post by: Jimmy on August 30, 2016, 05:29:04 am
Given that I currently assist in helping a transgender person undergo gender reassignment therapy, I definitely value my own lot in life.
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 05:35:40 am
CAH sufferers have XY chromosomes but appear female their whole lives. They grow in the womb as females. The only thing they lack is working ovaries (or working testes for males), so they can't give birth. Other than that, they're physically and brain-wiring of the gender they appear as. Salamanders change gender without changing chromosomes. We do the same thing via technology. Does that fact that we evolved enough to create the sex-change technology through science make it less "real" than when salamanders do it? So "chromosomes" is a poor argument for sex.
We could argue that to be truly one gender you need to be able to reproduce. But where does that leave infertile people? Are they non-sexed? Seems a bit ridiculous, and we don't make that sort of claim, scientifically of any other species.
So the "chromosomes" argument doesn't work, and neither does the "reproduction" argument.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 05:39:23 am
Though to admit Gene-Therapy would be a great boon to the procedure if we could ever perfect it... and I am of the opinion, albeit a unpopular one, that if we ever get the technology to allow men to become pregnant that men (even Cis men) would volunteer for it.
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 05:40:07 am
Does it really boil down to you just can't view them as a woman?
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 05:49:19 am
All I can say as a white, male, heterosexual, educated, middle class english speaker is hooray for winning the genetic lottery!As an upper class, honk.
Given that I currently assist in helping a transgender person undergo gender reassignment therapy, I definitely value my own lot in life.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 05:53:02 am
Well what is the basis of your claim then if it's not chromosomes or reproductive?
Does it really boil down to you just can't view them as a woman?
It isn't that either.
It isn't reproductive, genetic, or based on appearances.
The person was a woman before they even got the surgery (well, unless they weren't until they did but that is just technicalities at this point).
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 05:55:36 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on August 30, 2016, 05:56:26 am
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 06:02:59 am
Would you classify sex as the christian name equivalent of gender? So it's the gender you're born with, and even when your gender change, your sex is still what you were born with.
I do believe sexes can be changed... But I believe more must be done then cosmetics and hormone balancing. (which in some situations... Ok yeah they did change their sex)
Organ transplants, gene therapy, stem cells, "advanced flesh molding", something. Whether or not they are capable of reproduction and whether or not they are lost afterward. That is my requirement where I'd give it to sex change.
If they are already doing those... Then yeah I am completely mistaken and yeah you totally can have sex change operations now without the exception I vaguely allude to.
I know it isn't something we are far away from. We can already do most of it, I just wonder if it is widely available as it is as some of those procedures can cost upwards of $100,000 dollars.
I think elaborating on what exactly you mean would be more productive than playing 20 questions, Neon.
I don't want to be trampled and killed. I am hesitating.
Post by: Phmcw on August 30, 2016, 06:35:44 am
You can define "sex" as the chromosomal arrangement, as the current look of the body (body type and sexual organs),...
For identification purpose, the second one makes sense, for instance. If you're doing something that has to do with genetics the first one would makes sense.
Post by: Reelya on August 30, 2016, 06:37:47 am
"I don't believe sex changes change your sex" with no explanation. What else could that be interpreted as other than "I am a bigot!".
Then after everyone justly piles on to criticize you, and ask for clarification, you say "they were a woman all along! j/k!" except you don't "j/k" you act like a martyr.
Seriously, if you say something that's quite clearly in line with what bigots say then refuse to elaborate on it, and just do a 180 later and say you meant something completely different, and do a little sob story about how people misinterpreted you, nobody has the responsibility to take you seriously after that.
Post by: TempAcc on August 30, 2016, 08:38:04 am
Post by: Jimmy on August 30, 2016, 09:07:43 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 30, 2016, 09:25:00 am
(note:I am not one of those people and cannot speak to their internal motives)
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 10:05:48 am
Post by: Skyrunner on August 30, 2016, 11:10:32 am
(post to watch)
Post by: spümpkin on August 30, 2016, 01:56:17 pm
I restate my earlier point:
y-y-y-y-y-yikessss
Now, I can't talk from the P.O.V. of someone who's transitioned, as I haven't yet, but as far as I've been learning about the process (starting hormone blockers soon ((only $5 every 10-12 months. Cheap af))), it seems to me like it'd work to counter act the great big problem that is my gender dysphoria. I think that statistic that people pull our when they say "transgender people have the same rate of suicide post-op", is because when a lot of people transition, they're going throu gh other things. Gender dysphoria has been linked to depression, anxiety, etc. And, I think what the transgender community needs to know, is that no, it won't magically make all your problems go away, getting hormone therapy or a sex change. But it can help, with that big problem, so you can work on the other things more often.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 02:11:08 pm
Man Neo, it's a lot like you're trolling for attention:
"I don't believe sex changes change your sex" with no explanation. What else could that be interpreted as other than "I am a bigot!".
Then after everyone justly piles on to criticize you, and ask for clarification, you say "they were a woman all along! j/k!" except you don't "j/k" you act like a martyr.
Seriously, if you say something that's quite clearly in line with what bigots say then refuse to elaborate on it, and just do a 180 later and say you meant something completely different, and do a little sob story about how people misinterpreted you, nobody has the responsibility to take you seriously after that.
Isn't that kind of exactly what victim blaming is?
Someone does something that doesn't warrant the treatment they receive. Yet because they somehow "invited it" it is their fault?
Like... even if I was bigoted, highly bigoted, Hitler 2.0... It still shouldn't have lead to the same situation.
So in this case. No, in this case I am not the one at fault here for what occurred. Also why you dig it up after the entire situation defused is beyond me.
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 30, 2016, 02:23:24 pm
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 02:30:20 pm
Though, what about genetic eunuchs? What sex are they?
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 02:35:34 pm
Though, what about genetic eunuchs? What sex are they?
Don't they still have a sex anyhow even without those parts?
To my very limited knowledge you cannot be born truly genderless.
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 02:43:08 pm
1. Given a grey area, such as a person being born an eunuch, this would disqualify them from fitting within the model of reproduction in sexual classification.
2. It could be argued that the eunuch could have the chromosomes for that sex. But what if the eunuch has atypical chromosomes?
3. Would this eunuch be treated as sexless by default? No, they would be treated as an arbitrary gender depending on their secondary sexual characteristics, of which can be changed as they are cosmetic.
4. Thus, while sex cannot be changed, it does not need to necessarily be the ultimate guideline to gender. And as gender is cosmetic, it can be changed.
And it's really hard not to just say "Will it really KILL you to acknowledge transgendered people as their preferred gender?"
(Not directed at anyone in particular)
Post by: TempAcc on August 30, 2016, 02:44:28 pm
Eh, I dont know really. I really do think gender and sex are two different things, and that gender (not sex, except under very special genetic circumstances) is a flexible thing, and that people can legitimaly identify as a gender that is different from what society ascribed to him-her, however, I am very, VERY skeptic overall of how much of a common occurrence modern media seems to make it seem, and how often it gets conflated with sexual orientation, which is a whole 'nother can of worms. Anyway, I believe that gender dysphoria is a very serious thing that people should take a fair bit more seriously, and that just being OMGAH SUPAH POSITIVE about it with little to not regard as to its actual existence in one person or another is actualy a really dangerous trend that can and often hurts a lot of people. Again, I dont think anybody can deny that gender reassignment patients, after they undergo the procedure, regret about doing it, and thats not a rare occurence either.
Considering its still quite a path of no return, I think people should take such things a lot more seriously. One thing is people who are confused, another is people with gender dysphoria, and while I can't say much for myself (since I'm about as cisgender as a person can be WITH MUH MIGHTY beardless and body hair impaired MASCULINITY ARRRGH), I do know two people that actualy have gender dysphoria and are currently undergoing hormone treatment, and they all find this almost fetishistic aproach general media tends to have in regards to gender dysphoria as absolutely sketchy and very dangerous. This is NOT a meal ticket to jump on the special snowflake bandwagon, its a very real thing that has dire effects on the lives of many people.
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 30, 2016, 02:44:35 pm
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 02:47:35 pm
And I have to admit I was nearly on the snowflake bandwagon just out of the desire to look female. Though I feel people have no business in whether or not I want hormones inside me whether or not I identify as another gender. I mean, people are injecting botox in their face. Last I checked, botox poisoning is more lethal than a hypothetical suicide from regret.
Though in the end I guess I'm just sexually male. People can judge me for that. People can choose not to sleep with me because of that. It's their business.
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 30, 2016, 02:54:53 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TempAcc on August 30, 2016, 02:55:38 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 30, 2016, 02:57:03 pm
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 03:02:33 pm
I think you just need to drink yourself senseless with aspirations of Valhalla, valor, glory. Then you will say a resounding "I AM A MAN!! A-UUH! A-UUH! A-UUH!"Hey, you know what's better than a warrior with a great log? A valkyrie with a great log.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well ye, you can still identify as female while not undergoing gender reassignment (specially considering there's much progress to be done on that field still), though its still pretty jarring just how people use and abuse of those notions because of random reasons. I specially don't trust people who arbitrarily change their gender identity on a whim, too. I mean, people can claim whatever they want about themselves, but I think its kind of a dick move to grab onto something that actualy affects people in the core of their being just because they want another layer of snowflakeyness on their social media profile.
I know you're referring to Tumblr in particular and as someone who stick to the mature side of Tumblr now and only occasionally see remnants of their past, I have to admit that it was very toxic. Not toxic in the popular meaning as "they're dicks" but more in that the people there are very unhappy and pull everyone down as we go on our search for happiness and self-fulfillment when we actually make ourselves feel worse about our value as a person. Teenblr capitalize a bit too much on the outcast thing, and it's very hard to meaningfully discuss someone's identity because you will definitely hurt their feelings, because for them it's the only thing they have for themselves when everyone else doesn't work. But it's not healthy. It's not healthy. Having a unique gender will only satisfy you for a little while, and then it'll just be common, and you'll be boxed in to your own role because you don't want to come across as fake.
And I guess that's very stream-of-consciousness but I feel like I'm the only active Tumblr user here who won't explode into salt if anyone criticized my cozy, warm, shitty, beautiful, ridiculous home.
Post by: Neonivek on August 30, 2016, 03:08:07 pm
On the plus side he/she can totally rock a dress.
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 30, 2016, 03:13:41 pm
I think you should look for a new place to rent. Wanna join up with me? Mate rates, guaranteed!
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 03:18:25 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Gee, I'm sure drowning in radfems. What shall I do? It's not like I can block them!
Saying Tumblr is entirely cancer is like saying Bay12forum is entirely virgin neckbeard hipsters.
I guess if I think about it, gender-wise I'd say I'm genderfluid, at the risk of, you know, incurring the annoyance of certain persons in this thread. I don't think it's an arbitrary choice because I strongly disagree against the idea that gender is anything except perceptions, ergo I can be whoever the ___ I want so long as I can match it cosmetically. But with that said, I'm not quite there yet so I kind of sit on the "androgynous" fence on virtue of occasionally being seen as an attractive female, and often seen as an attractive male.
I sometimes like to joke that my gender is "attractive" and as sad and conceited as that sounds I honestly kind of identify with that. I personally feel that physical appearance is only skin deep if you put no effort in it. If you actually took the time to take care of yourself, to have good taste in fashion, you should be lauded as much as an artist who make quality art.
Of course, art is subjective and so is attraction, but I'm confident in the fact that on average I am viewed as attractive.
And that might be a self-indulgent rant but I just really wanted to get that out because I know a lot of people just think I'm desperate and insecure. Which I am, but this is not one of its symptoms.
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 30, 2016, 03:52:01 pm
I refuse to think you are destined for anything less. These things cannot be meaningless to you, so why not pursue them?
Post by: chaoticag on August 30, 2016, 04:21:06 pm
Post by: hops on August 30, 2016, 04:27:53 pm
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 30, 2016, 04:45:43 pm
yeah, it's all a big dumb box.
Post by: Reudh on August 30, 2016, 04:52:24 pm
Saying Tumblr is entirely cancer is like saying Bay12forum is entirely virgin neckbeard hipsters.
The best lines always have a grain of truth to them.
Me personally, I've always considered myself male and nothing but, apparently even very young I had a very very strong sense of gender.
That being said, in kinder apparently my parents were told "I've never seen such a boyish boy play so happily with the girls," though perhaps it was because my parents tried to be kinda "gender neutral" with the toys I had age 2-4 or so.
Then came my little brother, who despite me being quite masculine, makes me look less masculine by contrast.
Post by: Jimmy on August 30, 2016, 05:37:35 pm
I've never really understood where to stand on sex vs. gender for describing a person's self-identified preference. Is sex more appropriate for genetic gender, i.e. XX or XY? Is gender better for use when describing your own chosen label? I dunno.
Post by: chaoticag on August 30, 2016, 05:47:45 pm
Me personally, I've always considered myself male and nothing but, apparently even very young I had a very very strong sense of gender.
That being said, in kinder apparently my parents were told "I've never seen such a boyish boy play so happily with the girls," though perhaps it was because my parents tried to be kinda "gender neutral" with the toys I had age 2-4 or so.
Then came my little brother, who despite me being quite masculine, makes me look less masculine by contrast.
Well, kids apparently can have very strong senses of gender when quite young, even when raised gender neutral or gender affirming. I'd still prefer kids be raised gender neutral since they can hopefully figure out what their identity means to them with little pressure. Plus it helps out if a kid is showing signs of dysphoria at an early age.
Personally? Took me until about the last year of highschool before I started realizing that gender roles sucked royally, and I've been happier ever since. Would have loved the chance to grow up where people stopped you from doing anything they felt that didn't fit in the box they placed you in.
I've never really understood where to stand on sex vs. gender for describing a person's self-identified preference. Is sex more appropriate for genetic gender, i.e. XX or XY? Is gender better for use when describing your own chosen label? I dunno.If it's confusing it's because it is a bit. Some people use one over the other, use both, and some find using one way of identification to be preferred and the other to be insulting. The best rule of thumb is ask how someone wants to be addressed and use that. Covers all the basics in terms of functionally dealing with things and you can treat the rest as a matter of philosophy so far as you're concerned.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 30, 2016, 06:10:42 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on August 30, 2016, 06:58:07 pm
http://www.doctorshrugs.com/foxhound/comic.php?id=249
Now to actually read this thread, I thought it'd be dead by now. Good job, bay12! Looks pretty good so far!
Oh also I'm still pretty fluid. Mostly because I have to be male for family, but I'm feminine in love. And by myself or with my real friends, it really is up to my mood... I don't identify as either. So a mix of pretending, and resenting the supposed binary. I guess that makes me "fluid".
I'm probably going to permanently remove my facial hair sometime soon because it causes me real emotional distress, not to mention constant tedium and aggravation to shave. It grows horribly fast.
Post by: spümpkin on August 30, 2016, 08:21:37 pm
But, I do want to support the statement that a lot of people jump in without fully understanding their own condition, and having that both analysed by a professional and themselves. I have been through a lot of years of therapy, and while I know it isn't that easy for everyone, it helped me come to a decision, along with a lot of introspection. I'm not a particulalry masculine person, nor am I a particularly feminine person normally. My mood can sometimes be very feminine, but it is never very masculine.
And, the thing is, while it may not help a lot of people, I'm confident that it'll assist me in removing a large load off my life, and removing a huge weight off my mind. Because, yes, I'll still have to deal with societys response, and obviously, some will just see me as a male with breasts, feminine fat distribution, feminine body hair growth and body odors, and a (albeit infertile) vagina. But hey, people will be people, and at the end of the day, all we have is ourselves who we have to sleep with at night. Whether or not I upset someone by doing this shouldn't cause them ti lose sleep, as it won't bother me when it's all said and done. I am who I am, and others are who they are. That is both the crux of humanity, and the beauty of it all.
Post by: BlackHeartKabal on August 30, 2016, 08:45:50 pm
"BlackHeartKabal Just Wants A Quiet Life". If it makes you happy and you aren't hurting yourself or anyone else? Splendid, want a cup of coffee?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 12:18:29 am
So some testosterone-poisoned idiotic youth by me were talking loudly about "fucking." This goes on and on. So I ask them to stop. This is at camp, and the topic isn't really appropriate. "Don't you like to fuck?" they asked. I shouldn't have responded. But I thought that asexuality was a mostly accepted thing.
They couldn't even wrap their minds around somebody who didn't want to shove a part of themselves into other people's holes. And so they ridicule me. Didn't think people like that were prevalent anymore. I mean, come on. Even after I tell them that I'm agender (best explanation I've got for a brief summary of me), they keep insulting my masculinity. Yeah, that's about as effective as trying it on the girls.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 31, 2016, 12:25:20 am
>masculinity insults
They're stupid and they should probably feel stupid.
Note to the future:Posted at 1:30 in the morning, higher brain processes are about conked out. All I have left is dumb jokes.
Post by: Jimmy on August 31, 2016, 01:45:18 am
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 31, 2016, 01:51:56 am
Caroline, I'll talk to you later, I hate writing on mobile, but I want to say gender roles MUST exist, to make familys and relationships work properly.
Post by: Neonivek on August 31, 2016, 02:22:06 am
Post by: hops on August 31, 2016, 02:26:17 am
Hey, loudly talking about fucking next to uninvolved bystanders is always a provocation. That's what a bunch of teens that discovered logtube for the first time do, usually to bully and disrespect someone. That's not masculinity, that's not manly at all. I consider these people cowards, unworthy of being called a man, or masculine.What? There's no reason for family roles to be gendered. Having two dads can work, having two moms can work, so long as they take the appropriate roles required to raise a child.
Caroline, I'll talk to you later, I hate writing on mobile, but I want to say gender roles MUST exist, to make familys and relationships work properly.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 31, 2016, 04:48:30 am
I would be interested in seeing any evidence that families and relationships don't work with other gender roles. I think plenty of less-typically-gendered people can attest to the fact they can still form and maintain relationships.
I doubt that "male" and "female" gender roles even mean the same thing to different people...
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 31, 2016, 08:10:31 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 31, 2016, 10:49:33 am
Now, I can't talk from the P.O.V. of someone who's transitioned, as I haven't yet, but as far as I've been learning about the process (starting hormone blockers soon ((only $5 every 10-12 months. Cheap af))), it seems to me like it'd work to counter act the great big problem that is my gender dysphoria. I think that statistic that people pull our when they say "transgender people have the same rate of suicide post-op", is because when a lot of people transition, they're going throu gh other things. Gender dysphoria has been linked to depression, anxiety, etc. And, I think what the transgender community needs to know, is that no, it won't magically make all your problems go away, getting hormone therapy or a sex change. But it can help, with that big problem, so you can work on the other things more often.
I am a bit further into the transition (Male to Female), genderdysphoria is one of the causes for depressions and yes it gets better with hormones. Transdermal patches (similiar to Nicotine-patches) work better then gels and creams in my experience.
The other side is society where you have a few distinct problems. The active bullying - say the BS about toilet usage - sure is one but there are some sometimes very subtle things.
For example "expected behaviour", even if its subconciously expected, can be very big stressor - atleast for me. Having to behave in a certain "manly" or "womanly" way so you get taken seriously is always a fight. Discussing with someone nets different responses whatever i am seen as man or woman. My behaviour, say in dealing with Agencies and Departments, gets interpreted as bitchy and hysteric when i a appear as woman but the very same behavior was fine when i was there as male a few months prior.
Looking at womans clothing at first was very problematic since there is always the chance to be called out on it by someone less supportive ("That perv is looking at panties yuk!") and this can become a fear that persist to later states.
Luckely i didnt had to experience this at all but the the reaction to the coming out can be very harmfull. My family and friends accepted me as i am but i also know cases where families disowned their children up to death-threat and orphanage.
On the other hand you sometimes have far to eager Family/friends that just relabel you, telling you what a "proper" Man/Woman does, intruding your personal space with say making BS name-suggestions (no i dont want the Female version of my firstname because i hate that firstname!) or generally assuming that you dont know the first thing about being your gender (like knowing your sizes for clothing)!.
Similarly the work environment could be very toxic. Starting with school it can be very hard, by outing yourself you offer another oppining for bullies to strike. The outing also squarely places you between the genders (since you are transitioning) so finding friends on either side can become quiet a task.
Later being in a job dominated by one gender or another can lead to problems. You are sometimes seen as intruding into the domain of a gender. Conversely sometimes you are seen as questioning the sexuality of your coworkers by your mere existence as if transsexuality would be contagious.
Phonecalls get annoying for MTF since we cant change our voices that easily leading to being permanently labelled "Sir" or "Mister". Speaking to someone in person will often out you if you couldnt train/operativly change your voice yet. For FTM its a little less of a problem since the testosterone helps with the voice a great deal.
And the most annoying thing for me was the legal aspects of being transgender. Here in Germany i had to PROOF that i feel wrong in my birth-gender for atleast 3 years. Then i had to do atleast 6 moths of Therapist assisted life in my Gender.
Only after that i could apply for a legal change of sex which further requires two reports by 2 separate but specialized Psychiatrists and then a f*ing court-hearing which also can cost up to 5000 Euro.
All in all it can take 6 months to a year and tons of money to get your legal gender and name changed.
Even after that my Health-insurance expected me to jump further hoops to grant me the right to get Hormone-therapy and subsequently a Genderreasignment Operation. The first badge of Meds i had to pay by myself which was around 160 bucks.
Genderdysphoria, depression and anxieties related to it could be easily reduced or treated if society and the Legal apparatus would pull the sticks out of their arses.
Post by: hops on August 31, 2016, 11:12:15 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 31, 2016, 11:18:11 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 11:24:06 am
=======
I didn't explicitly say that I was asexual.
Code: (conversation) [Select]
Boys: blahblahblah fuck blah
Me: Stop that. It's not camp appropriate.
Boys: blah blah fuck blah
Me: Seriously, don't talk about that here.
Boys: We're just talking about fucking. Don't you like fucking?
Me: No, I don't. Now stop or I'll report you to the counselor.
Boys: What do you mean you don't want to fuck? That's the dumbest thing ever!
...and more of that
I joked to myself that it might be hard to distinguish between "asexual" and "not an awful person" at my age. I mean, you might not be talking about fucking because that's not what you like to do, or you just might be a good person who doesn't discuss things like that in front of small children.
=========
Also, more pondering and reflection has led me to come up with this:
Whatever gender I may be, I don't really care. My gender is not important to me. When I do things, I neither try to do "masculine" nor "feminine" things. I don't divide the world into gender. I'm me, and if some of myself falls into a particular gender, I really don't care. This way of thinking is not a gender per se, but my brain doesn't divide itself to correspond with people's models. It's related to gender, which is what was confusing me, because I thought that "gender" would include all gender-related things.
Because of this, I wouldn't mind being female, but I wouldn't particularly want it either. That's why I was thinking I was agender - without previous knowledge, the word appears to mean "without gender," which would be an approximation of my way of thinking. But the word has a subtler meaning than that, and so does not apply to me.
I don't know if there's a word for my way of thinking, but I don't really care. If someone wants to know, I can explain. If not - well, I appear cis, and that's what I probably technically am.
I think that I have finally figured out my gender and gender-related things. That feels good. (No, I did not create this thread for the purpose of having a place to write this. Nor did I do it because I wanted to see a traincrash. Because of my explorations in gender, I'm interested in gender. That's why I made this thread. (I titled it "let's get this traincrash started" as a wry response to everyone who said this would crash and burn. "Well, then, I'll get the train going then," was what I was thinking.))
=======
If you are a baby and got big wood, you are a boy. If you are a baby and you don't, you're not. And until science finally transcends the pesky ethical boundaries of human lands, and allows people that are switching branches with their sexuality, to give birth or make babies in their modified body, they are still the sex they were born as. Those changes are just aesthetics, and to me you are just a man without wood, or a woman carrying a conspicuous log. Yall agree?
You are a man to me, doesn't matter if you wear a pretty dress or your hair looks really lofty. I don't know why you would attribute that to be a negative thing. It's what your body has been shaped like since you were born, but I get the feeling you interpretate that as being called ugly, violent and above all stupid, am I correct? In advance, I want to clarify, a man to me is far from these, quite often spread by feminists, negative stereotypes. To me, it is someone that carries passion with him, and hardship. It is someone that treads a path of learning and growth in character. Someone that learns sacrifice, comradeship, to stand up for others, and ultimately, stand up for himself. Someone that knows the weight of tears and smiles.
I refuse to think you are destined for anything less. These things cannot be meaningless to you, so why not pursue them?
Hey, loudly talking about fucking next to uninvolved bystanders is always a provocation. That's what a bunch of teens that discovered logtube for the first time do, usually to bully and disrespect someone. That's not masculinity, that's not manly at all. I consider these people cowards, unworthy of being called a man, or masculine.
Caroline, I'll talk to you later, I hate writing on mobile, but I want to say gender roles MUST exist, to make familys and relationships work properly.
BillyTheKid, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that you're saying that transgender people aren't actually transgender. There is actual scientific evidence that transgender people have brains more like the gender they say they are (as opposed to the assigned gender).
In addition, you're being inconsistent. First, you're saying that gender is whether or not you have a penis. (That's sex.) Then you're saying that it's "someone that carries passion with him, and hardship. It is someone that treads a path of learning and growth in character. Someone that learns sacrifice, comradeship, to stand up for others, and ultimately, stand up for himself. Someone that knows the weight of tears and smiles." That's gender roles. In addition, you say that in the case of genetic eunuchs, whichever gender they more closely resemble would be their gender.
Now you surely will admit that women eventually lose the ability to have babies. Does this make them any less of a woman? No. If I was injured and could no longer produce sperm, that would not mean that I was any less of a man. Combined with the knowledge that transgender brains are qualitatively different from cisgender brains, I can confidently state that "sperm or uterus" will not cut it for gender. (Also, that's sex. Gender is identity.)
But then you state that masculinity is [a bunch of traits commonly associated with men, quoted above twice]. But surely women can do those too, right? Women can be passionate. Women can withstand hardship. Women can learn, and grow in character. Women can sacrifice. Women can be comrades, and stand up for others and theirselves. Women have known both tears and smiles. Anything a man can do, a woman can also do. Except make sperm.
So if someone resembles a woman's gender role in every way, except the ability to carry a fetus in their belly, according to your "eunuch rule", they should be assigned to the gender that they most closely resemble. And you yourself stated that masculine traits matter quite a bit. So either you're saying that penises are more important than everything you said up there about men, or your own argument, when taken to its logical extent, supports transgender people.
And besides, what does it matter? No matter what you think, you should respect other people's identities. It's not affecting anybody else but themselves.
=======
Just found this post:
The lot that try to justify sexism with biological differences between the sexes are full of shit, frankly.
I've used this example before, because it's a good one: A group of people are trying to become firefighters. On average, a lower percentage of the women will be able to meet the physical requirements. Does that mean that women shouldn't be allowed to become firefighters? Fuck, no; it means that hiring should be based solely on the competence of candidates and their ability to perform the labor required by the job.
You'll find that the "biological-dimorphism therefore sexism = okay" types very quickly retreat into discussing gender while claiming to be talking about sex, mostly because the actual differences between the sexes are relatively minor, not entirely understood (because a lot of them are more neurochemistry and less physical composition), and subject to a fairly wide degree of individual variation. In other words, it's difficult to make meaningful generalizations based on them, so they're largely worthless. Ultimately it's circular reasoning, "Gender roles exist because of significant differences in the sexes, which we know exist because of gender roles."
Are you me? Because that's seriously the same argument I use against sexists who say "women are weaker than men, ergo they shouldn't be allowed to do X." Like in sports - just put the strong women and the strong men on one highschool team, and the weak men and the weak women on the other. The upper team will have more men. That's fine. But don't keep the strong women out of the higher team.
=====
Hey, only some bits of the States are transphobic :x
Depends. The general aura of disapproval? Varies from region to region. But I'm fairly sure it's present almost everywhere. Maybe deep blue states escape the brunt of it.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 31, 2016, 11:41:09 am
Maybe genderless, instead of agender?
And yeah, Flying Dice is right.
I'm pretty sure that at least some places aren't transphobic.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 31, 2016, 11:47:32 am
Wait, what? From my experience here, German is very open-minded. I could understand transphobia in shitty countries like the States.
Like the states we have some very shitty states and places. Anywhere where the new Rightwing parties have people for example. In Stuttgart there are regular ANTI-LGBTQI demos, Christian pastors and Bishops preaching the hate and such.
90% percent of the people i meet are nice and supportive or atleast indifferent. Its those 10% of idiots that make life hard. That and laws made 30 years ago by our two "Christian" parties that though "teh Gays" might use the "Transsexuellengesetz"/Transgender law to marry each other.
Using that argument they put so many unnecessary stops into the law that your head starts spinning. Not a decade back you needed to be sterilised and divorced before even applying for a legal sex/name change. Thankfully our constituional court cut down the BS time and time again.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 12:35:23 pm
Thanks for the word. It isn't perfect, but it's better than any I've seen.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 31, 2016, 01:30:02 pm
You'd think that agender means genderless. a- = without. But meh.I do my best.
Thanks for the word. It isn't perfect, but it's better than any I've seen.
Post by: spümpkin on August 31, 2016, 02:28:39 pm
Dang. That must be tough.
Now, I can't talk from the P.O.V. of someone who's transitioned, as I haven't yet, but as far as I've been learning about the process (starting hormone blockers soon ((only $5 every 10-12 months. Cheap af))), it seems to me like it'd work to counter act the great big problem that is my gender dysphoria. I think that statistic that people pull our when they say "transgender people have the same rate of suicide post-op", is because when a lot of people transition, they're going throu gh other things. Gender dysphoria has been linked to depression, anxiety, etc. And, I think what the transgender community needs to know, is that no, it won't magically make all your problems go away, getting hormone therapy or a sex change. But it can help, with that big problem, so you can work on the other things more often.
I am a bit further into the transition (Male to Female), genderdysphoria is one of the causes for depressions and yes it gets better with hormones. Transdermal patches (similiar to Nicotine-patches) work better then gels and creams in my experience.
The other side is society where you have a few distinct problems. The active bullying - say the BS about toilet usage - sure is one but there are some sometimes very subtle things.
For example "expected behaviour", even if its subconciously expected, can be very big stressor - atleast for me. Having to behave in a certain "manly" or "womanly" way so you get taken seriously is always a fight. Discussing with someone nets different responses whatever i am seen as man or woman. My behaviour, say in dealing with Agencies and Departments, gets interpreted as bitchy and hysteric when i a appear as woman but the very same behavior was fine when i was there as male a few months prior.
Looking at womans clothing at first was very problematic since there is always the chance to be called out on it by someone less supportive ("That perv is looking at panties yuk!") and this can become a fear that persist to later states.
Luckely i didnt had to experience this at all but the the reaction to the coming out can be very harmfull. My family and friends accepted me as i am but i also know cases where families disowned their children up to death-threat and orphanage.
On the other hand you sometimes have far to eager Family/friends that just relabel you, telling you what a "proper" Man/Woman does, intruding your personal space with say making BS name-suggestions (no i dont want the Female version of my firstname because i hate that firstname!) or generally assuming that you dont know the first thing about being your gender (like knowing your sizes for clothing)!.
Similarly the work environment could be very toxic. Starting with school it can be very hard, by outing yourself you offer another oppining for bullies to strike. The outing also squarely places you between the genders (since you are transitioning) so finding friends on either side can become quiet a task.
Later being in a job dominated by one gender or another can lead to problems. You are sometimes seen as intruding into the domain of a gender. Conversely sometimes you are seen as questioning the sexuality of your coworkers by your mere existence as if transsexuality would be contagious.
Phonecalls get annoying for MTF since we cant change our voices that easily leading to being permanently labelled "Sir" or "Mister". Speaking to someone in person will often out you if you couldnt train/operativly change your voice yet. For FTM its a little less of a problem since the testosterone helps with the voice a great deal.
And the most annoying thing for me was the legal aspects of being transgender. Here in Germany i had to PROOF that i feel wrong in my birth-gender for atleast 3 years. Then i had to do atleast 6 moths of Therapist assisted life in my Gender.
Only after that i could apply for a legal change of sex which further requires two reports by 2 separate but specialized Psychiatrists and then a f*ing court-hearing which also can cost up to 5000 Euro.
All in all it can take 6 months to a year and tons of money to get your legal gender and name changed.
Even after that my Health-insurance expected me to jump further hoops to grant me the right to get Hormone-therapy and subsequently a Genderreasignment Operation. The first badge of Meds i had to pay by myself which was around 160 bucks.
Genderdysphoria, depression and anxieties related to it could be easily reduced or treated if society and the Legal apparatus would pull the sticks out of their arses.
While my friends, and even most of my teachers have been cool with it (my maths teacher is actually really passionate about helping me, which is neat), my parents... notsomuch.
They are extremely in denial, and while they do want me to be happy (they're letting me do hormone blockers), but they are reluctant to let me start hrt.
I'm probably just gonna do what I normally do, behaviour wise? Because, honestly, I follow no specific gender rules when acting in public :v I'm just a huge nerd. And yeah, for clothes, I have quite a few friends who are willing to let me borrow some of their clothes if I need to, and go out and buy them with me. Heck, I went crossdressing, and nobody said a thing in the girl's bathroom, so I'm obviously somewhat believable :P. Albeit, I'm pretty androgynous looking anyway.
I have a gender neutral name, so I'm just using that.
And so far, none of my friends have ever tried to tell me what to do or anything. If anything, I tell myself that I'm 'not being trans right', and they are the ones who tell me it's fine. But my family would probably do that once sex change, I'd imagine.
I have goodo friends anyway, so that's thankfully not a huge problem. But yeah, bullies are gonna bully me anyway? People insult me and stuff already, so it's just giving them another reason.
Considering I'm planning on getting a career in either journalism, photojournalism or ((gonna do this at some point)) independent game design, I'd like to think the gender stigma wouldn't be a huge thing.
I get the voice thing, but apparently I sound feminine enough that I could talk to the bus driver while crossdressing and he didn't really seem confused. Likewise, in a bowling alley, trying to get people out of the way.
And I don't know about New Zealand, but so far there hasn'tbeen any legalities. I have to pay for hrt, but if the therapist deems it extremely harmful to not do it, the therapist can do it without parental consent. There's also the thing that, if hrt develops no breasts at all (which has happened once), you get free breast surgery. Hooray, for semi-decent governmental LGBT youth services :D
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 31, 2016, 03:05:51 pm
Here we get free breast and gender-re-assignemt and HRT if deemed necessary by the therapist and the paperworks are done. The later wasnt the case with me so i had to pay my first batch of hormones.
Post by: Reelya on August 31, 2016, 03:06:55 pm
If a female to male transgender is only "male" when they can father children, then by what basis is a post-op male to female transgender still "male"? They cannot be considered male according to Billy's own definition, because they cannot father children. The same with female to male transition. They can't be considered female anymore if they cannot give birth, right?
There's also the problem of infertile cisgender people. We don't normally hold up that as a gender-classification problem, so we've basically created an additional hurdle here that isn't even used as a normal part of the definition of which gender an individual person is.
So that leads to a huge mess in defining gender. "Male" means "born male, with or without working sperm", or "MtF, despite lack of working sperm", or "FtM, but only if they have working sperm". Which as anyone can see is a complete mess as a system.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 31, 2016, 03:17:24 pm
Post by: spümpkin on August 31, 2016, 03:52:49 pm
If you start the HRT early its quite easy to develop very normalish compared to born girls. The Testoblockers will keep your body androgynous for now and the hormones later kickstart your development including wider hips if you are lucky. You shouldnt expect anything above a B-cup though yet again an early strt gives you far better chances.Ah, I meant as in, I still have to pay for it if the therapist thinks its harmful, but parents arent involved. Gender reassignment surgery also isnt an option in new zealand, so i'm gonna have to go overseas for that. There's not too much paperwork though, fortunately.
Here we get free breast and gender-re-assignemt and HRT if deemed necessary by the therapist and the paperworks are done. The later wasnt the case with me so i had to pay my first batch of hormones.
I'm starting fairly early, but I'm a fair bit through puberty, so my voice is a bit low and I have a kindof masculine bone structure.
Post by: BillyTheKid on August 31, 2016, 05:18:34 pm
You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply engrained in our nature, and trying to tamper with them has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/) All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever. Now we got women competeting with men in the job market, no one to look for after the kids, taking care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by. And you want to tell me "haHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter!!! And gender roles only hurt people!!!!!!!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY !!!!!!!!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappyness and fighting amongst ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 31, 2016, 05:26:57 pm
Ah, I meant as in, I still have to pay for it if the therapist thinks its harmful, but parents arent involved. Gender reassignment surgery also isnt an option in new zealand, so i'm gonna have to go overseas for that. There's not too much paperwork though, fortunately.
I'm starting fairly early, but I'm a fair bit through puberty, so my voice is a bit low and I have a kindof masculine bone structure.
Its all in flux and a good therapist will listen to your wishes and give you hormones sooner then later. Having a little lower voice works fine with a bit of logopedic training. Regarding bonestructure: big girls are sexy too ;) and the hips can still grow in.
Even with the face its less an issue if you arent extremely male because the tissue above the bones will give you a nice female face eventualy.
What you will need (i consider this general advice to young MTF transgender) is new pants because even without growth of your hips you will develop some more butt. And if you go with silicon-breasts "falsies" take A-cups cause you can use the bras later when the real things grow out. .
Do you get lasering of beards paid as well?
Post by: Rolan7 on August 31, 2016, 05:43:24 pm
Those differences between the sexes are statistical at best. I've met lots of biological women stronger than me, and many who were less caring. Lots of women are scary-proactive and dominant. Those are only tendencies, especially the non-physical differences.
As for gender... Personally I don't care whether people consider me a man or woman. I just want to be accepted as passive, strong-built, long-haired and smooth-skinned, lacking fashion sense, and nurturing. People have always given me shit for half of that because I'm a man, and I dislike that (yet have largely internalized it).
People ideally should just be who they are. Fine with me if most XY people grow up somewhat macho and don't wanna do each other. That's their business, I'm mine.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 31, 2016, 05:51:09 pm
I have my clear definition of a man and woman
[sarcasm]And damnit they can vote now too![/sarcasm]
Naturally there are some difference due to the way our biology acts but our bilogy doesnt decide everything. Much less things then mariage. Human evolution has geared us towards polyarmouros relationships, eating primarely vegies and walking long distances every day.
Nothing of that applies today for good or worse. And largely religious motivated genderroles dont apply either. I dont care what some idiot said 6k to 7k years ago. Heck even formal mariage wasnt invented by christians but was a legal contract to regulate inheritance at first.
The thing is though you can adhere to your ideas of Gender on your own. That is freedom. Telling other people that they have to adhere to your ideas of Gender - that is oppression.
We dont fight for special rights or some such, eventualy it all comes down that we fight to be treated equaly in all regards before the law and in society. It doesnt mean that girls get lower standarts and such but a opportunity to compete at the same standart as everyone else.
I do believe in Feminism when it fights for equality, i believe in mans rights if its for equality. I believe in anyones rights as long they are grounded in equality and fairness.
What i refuse to believe is that this powerfull notion, that everyone on this beautiful planet is equal in rights and value, can be hindered by people that claim the priviledge to dicate what is "normal", "Acceptable" based on race, sex, gender, age, place of birth and so on.
Post by: chaoticag on August 31, 2016, 06:32:28 pm
Anyway, for something more direct, I guess I can go ahead and pull this out[url].
Some choice quotes
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Ickes/publication/227614660_Traditional_gender_roles_Do_they_make_and_then_break_our_relationships/links/00b7d5201204903a61000000.pdf)
Quote
The dissatisfaction of these women was further evidenced in their ratings of the quality of their relationships. Feminine women with partners whom they perceived to be masculine men were significantly less likely than women in the total sample to rate either their love relationships or their sex lives as satisfactory. These women were also the most likely to report feeling "underloved"—that is, to say that they loved their male partners more than they were loved in retun. Only the women's suffering in these relationships is documented, however, since ratings of the male partners' happiness and satisfaction were not obtained.
Quote
In contrast to the per\'asive dissatisfaction expressed by the women in the masculine man/feminine woman dyads, the women in dyads in which one or both partners were rated as androgynous tended to be quite satisfied with the quality of their lives and their intimate relationships. In particular, androgynous women paired with androgynous men reported considerable success in communicating and solving problems with their partners. In addition, they reported high levels of (1) satisfaction with their lives as a whole, (2) responsibility for their outcomes, (3) control over important life events, and (4) optimism for the future. Of more specific relevance for the theme of this article, their ratings of satisfaction with their sex lives and intimate relationships were also quite high.It's worth going over the whole thing since it does examine multiple papers, so this is more of a meta study than a singular research data point.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 07:00:14 pm
Also, Billy? Do you have a problem with men who have feminine traits, and the opposite of masculine traits? Because either you don't, and you are being inconsistent and weird talk-stuff, or feces just got personal.
(Note to self: personal feces does not excuse flamewars. Make sure to lock thread if flames occur. Do NOT continue fighting if fights develop.
That means you, Doz. I'm looking at you. No fighting. It's your thread, you have to be responsible. Don't come crying to me when you get banned.
Maybe I haven't been to Iceland because I'm too busy dealing with YOUR crummy code.)
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on August 31, 2016, 07:11:56 pm
Bullsplint!If you intend to use foul language, please do so instead of bowdlerizing yourself. I don't think anybody would be offended in this instance, and it isn't against this forum's policy.
Just in case you think I'm just trying to make you feel bad, you should know I am not. I mean this seriously.
Post by: spümpkin on August 31, 2016, 07:16:07 pm
I don't think I get free laser hair removal, no.Ah, I meant as in, I still have to pay for it if the therapist thinks its harmful, but parents arent involved. Gender reassignment surgery also isnt an option in new zealand, so i'm gonna have to go overseas for that. There's not too much paperwork though, fortunately.
I'm starting fairly early, but I'm a fair bit through puberty, so my voice is a bit low and I have a kindof masculine bone structure.
Its all in flux and a good therapist will listen to your wishes and give you hormones sooner then later. Having a little lower voice works fine with a bit of logopedic training. Regarding bonestructure: big girls are sexy too ;) and the hips can still grow in.
Even with the face its less an issue if you arent extremely male because the tissue above the bones will give you a nice female face eventualy.
What you will need (i consider this general advice to young MTF transgender) is new pants because even without growth of your hips you will develop some more butt. And if you go with silicon-breasts "falsies" take A-cups cause you can use the bras later when the real things grow out. .
Do you get lasering of beards paid as well?
And yeah, big gurls can be good, and I'm happy with being one.
And I have a fair bit off butt, due to doing quite a bit of squat workouts on a semi-regular basis.
And no, I'm not extremely male, luckily enough.
I do have some pants, and I am planning on getting more at some point, and a friend of mine gave me some small bras, which was nice of her. I dunno if I'll go with silicon, depends on cost.
Post by: Reelya on August 31, 2016, 08:02:15 pm
I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part. Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less manly or gender-neutral because of that. As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
And yet, we all know people of each gender who are the opposite of those things. e.g. not all women are submissive, not all men are dominant. some women are attuned to other people's feelings, yet some women are completely oblivious, worse than any man. As for caring: if you look up the stats for unilateral abuse, many crime surveys say more women do that than men, because women know the man won't hit back. If you've never heard of an abusive woman, you've lived a very sheltered life.
As for "grace", both the times in my life where I've had to don protective gear to clean out a filthy pig stye of a bedroom after a disgusting room-mate moved out, with filthy mouldy plates etc in them - they were both from women. And then you have Sean Connery. I rest my case.
It's as ridiculous as saying "men are naturally taller than women, a woman has no business competing with a man in height". Your problem is your citing averages, then saying that they should apply to ALL women and ALL men.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 08:13:34 pm
Speaking of debates, when I spoke of personal feces, I meant this: "Prepare for a debate of the ages, ye of outdated gender role enforcements! You have challenged the master of argument Dozebom Lolumzalis! Make your responsorial statement!"
But in retrospect, I don't have dibs on refutations, so it's inevitable that somebody might get to it before I do.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 31, 2016, 08:21:35 pm
Quote
And yet, we all know people of each gender who are the opposite of those things
Yes, but those people are only like that because of the evil, culture destroying feminists! Now let me tell you how Tumblr has destroyed our culture.
Quote
the differences don't vanish because you said so
They don't suddenly exist the way you want them to just because you say so either.
Times change, just because things are different doesn't make them worse (No, our culture is not a disaster, it's just not the culture you personally want.).
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 11:34:57 pm
Sex is the biological equipment and dimorphism, etc. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that transsexual describes "someone who has changed their sex," and thus appears female when they were assigned male (or vice versa) - you know, breasts, etc. Sex is not the form of reproduction - it describes the physical aspects, not capability.
Gender is the identity part. It's often parallel to sex, but not always - transgender, demigender, tumblrgender [sorry], etc. are all examples of someone having gender that differs from their assigned gender (from sex). Assigned gender is generally whatever sex one was born with, but actual gender can be different from that. Scientific evidence has shown that MtF brains more closely resemble cis female brains than cis male brains, so this is a thing.
Gender roles are the social expectations and stereotypes surrounding a given gender (mostly just female and male). I think that they are a bad thing, and so do many people on this forum, because they restrict what a given person can do, just because of their sex and gender.
The individual traits that compose gender roles are often, but not always, good. For instance - caring and gentle, good, right? Commonly associated with femininity. Courage and strength? Ditto, for masculinity.
But can't you have a gentle, caring man? Can't you have a courageous, strong woman? I will agree that women, on average, tend to be more caring than men. But this does not mean that men cannot be caring! In fact, this is because of the gender roles. It cannot support them! That would be circular logic.
Constraining people just because of their gender = bad. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to be gentle. I'm saying they should be allowed to be gentle, and also strong.
Post by: BillyTheKid on September 01, 2016, 12:05:40 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 01, 2016, 12:17:22 am
When your point is 'ono freeing people from gender roles is BRINGING DOWN SOCIETY!!!!1!!' and that's demonstrably false, then yes, you were proved wrong.
...Honestly I find your points to be getting steadily more ranty, incoherent/inconsistent, and wrong.
Post by: Skyrunner on September 01, 2016, 12:31:48 am
Quote
Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace
Quote
Now we got women competeting with men in the job market, no one to look for after the kids, taking care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by.
Ah yes, us women are inherently predisposed to sandwich-making, taking care of kids and home, and bowing down to male authority. We are naturally supportive, caring, passive, submissive and hahaha
No, just no. You're confusing gender roles that were constructed (unintentionally) over millennia for various socioeconomical-cultural reasons with what gender is actually about. Women are not predisposed to be "supportive, caring" nor should women be expected to "look[ ]after the kids, taking care of the house" etc. And that's all that feminism is trying to say. It is highly likely that any sweeping generalizations you would want to make of male or female gender roles are not inherent and are learned or are cultural expectations.
You said that you would like to distinguish between the "sex-part" and the "persona-part," but hopelessly mix them up anyways. At first you seem to claim that sex is the ultimate decider of man and woman--"woman may have manly traits , but they don't become less manly[sic] ... because of that"--and then go on to haplessly ramble about how women have such-and-such essential traits and men have such-and-such traits, before somehow concluding that women and dirty feminisnms are to blame for our "disaster of a culture" that we have right now. I suggest you figure out a more logical and possibly less misogynistic argument before posting about this subject.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 01, 2016, 12:36:05 am
All of the above.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 12:42:41 am
Or let me ask you if you are really not just confused??"
I was making sure that I was not misconstruing your words. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Guess I shouldn't have.
(Obligatory "keep it civil" statement)
Post by: alexandertnt on September 01, 2016, 01:17:09 am
that's no fun discussing like that. "OOohoho, let me just compare your averages with an extreme of mine and prove you TOTALLY wrong! Or let me leave out half the post and just heckle you for posting that chart, which now makes nooo sense!! Or let me ask you if you are really not just confused??" That's all bullsplint. And if bullsplint offends you, you got no wood. I'll recede from posting here, and do something that is fun instead, again.
I kind of doubt that even that's the average for people. I have met very few people that fit into any particular stereotype, gender or otherwise. Sure, most people don't identify with one of the many other genders on the internet, but very few people seem to cleanly fit into the male/female stereotypes.
Maybe you could explain your position a bit more rather than just asserting things? In particular, I am curious what your issue is with women competing with men in the job market. Is having a women hired over you any different to, say, having a black person hired over you?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 01:55:46 am
I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part. Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less [womanly] or [become] gender-neutral because of that. As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply ingrained in our nature, and trying to tamper with them has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/) All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever. Now we got women competing with men in the job market, no-one to look after the kids or take care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by. And you want to tell me "Haha, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter! And gender roles only hurt people!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappiness and fighting among ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.
This... this is so much I simply cannot even. But even I must.
Quote
I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part.
Suuure. Clear. A man is a man if they are born a man, or if they are a nonfertile MtF, or if they are a fertile FtM. That seems really intuitive.[/sarcasm]
I've already distinguished between sex, gender, gender roles, and the individual traits that make up gender roles in an above post (after you wrote this, though), so I won't repeat it.
Quote
Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less [womanly] or [become] gender-neutral because of that.
I can hardly believe my eyes. Is he admitting that women can have masculine traits, and that this is okay?
Quote
As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
*facepalm*
Quote
As much as feminists want to make you believe...
Because feminists are the bad guys here, obviously, let's bash them whenever we can[/sarcasm]
Quote
men and women are different, vastly different.
This is partially true. Is there a nonphysical difference between men and women? Yes. Even if it weren't largely due to gender roles themselves, this doesn't mean anything. Sure, men and women are different, but men and men are different. The difference between the average man and the average woman isn't considerably larger than the difference between a man and a man.
Quote
Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences.
I'm beginning to hope that he understands. Does he realize that the main difference between men and women comes from socialization and gender roles, as evidenced by "our... history [is a] major shaper of [the] differences [between men and women]"?
Quote
Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring.
Nope.
He still doesn't get it.
On average, yes, men tend to be more dominant, and women tend to be more caring. But I've seen passive men. I've seen uncaring women. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, it's a tendency. You can't say that all men are X.
Quote
Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
Aaand wrongness intensifies.
Yes, a woman has a fucking business competing with a man in strength! That is, me! I'm that man! I'm the weakest person in basically any group you can make, whether there are male or female people in it. My twelve-year-old sister is more athletic than me in every way. Only babies are weaker than I am. I can't even do one female-modified push-up!
You can't take an average (the average male will beat the average female in an arm-wrestling competition) and then use it as an absolute (all men will beat all women in arm-wrestling competitions). And DCSS players among the readers, this is for you - Dowan has plenty of grace and skill, and Duvessa is very strong and nimble. When Dowan dies, Duvessa flies into a rage. When Duvessa dies, Dowan quickly passes through quiet grief and then returns with a dangerously peaceful look.
That messes up every gender stereotype in your book - and I guarantee you, there are strong women in this world who fly into rages. There are graceful men who deal with grief quietly.
No trait is innate to a gender. There is a slight tendency toward anger for boys compared to girls - I will admit this! But the majority of differences come from society and gender roles, not the gender itself.
Quote
You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply ingrained in our nature...
And you can swear and shout all you want, there isn't a significant innate difference between men and women. The artificial constraints called "gender roles" hurt both men and women.
Quote
...and trying to tamper with [gender roles] has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster (link to WP (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/)). All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever.
First of all, stop bashing feminism. Second, you're seriously trying to blame the marriage and divorce problems on breaking gender roles?
a. The article itself gives many reasons for why this is happening.
b. What connection can you possibly draw between "oh, women are allowed to express traits commonly considered to be masculine now!" and "divorce rates increasing"?
Quote
Now we got women competing with men in the job market, no-one to look after the kids or take care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by.
...
armok help me...
What in the four hells is wrong with you? You seriously want women to stay at home, taking care of the children?!
*a quiet rage develops behind DL's eyes, which you obviously can't see, this is the Internet*
Women are not inferior to men. They have equal innate rights in every way. There is nothing wrong with the freedoms that women have received over the last few centuries, nor is there anything wrong with the freedoms feminists demand today.
Women should be independent if they want to! They should have the freedom to go out on their own, get a job, buy a house, just like a single man. Or even if they're married! Couples have to individually work out who's going to work, who's going to clean, who's going to take care of the children - and frequently, the answer to all of the above is "both".
And damn right men have lost some authority. They're sharing it with women now, because women deserve it just as much.
And I suppose you think women should do whatever men tell them to do, and stay at home tidying up and caring for children. You honestly make me sick.
Quote
And you want to tell me "Haha, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter! And gender roles only hurt people!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappiness and fighting among ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.
You sad, sad man. We never took anything away from women, especially their femininity. All we gave them was a choice. You seem to think that either women like to be restricted to a small slice of life, or that what they care doesn't matter, we need house-slaves, dammit!
If a woman wants to keep herself in the home, just like women have been forced to before, that's fine with me. As long as there's a choice. But as long as women have equal opportunity to men, you'll have a hard time finding a wife who's going to willingly subject herself to that.
Spoiler: old revision, hastily written (click to show/hide)
Post by: saigo on September 01, 2016, 02:18:14 am
Do you realize how far we've come? We can't stop now! Women were second-class citizens - no, not even citizens at all! - a few centuries ago! They couldn't vote, they couldn't hold public office, they couldn't have jobs, they were effectively dependent on their husband for everything, and Armok forbid a woman try to protest against the state of things! And it wasn't men who fixed this. Women stood up for themselves, and men helped a bit.This is very wrong. Women have always been citizens, as long as the concept has existed. Their legal rights have varied over time but not to the extent you imply.
Universal suffrage is a fairly new innovation. Voting has historically been tied to land ownership, not sex. The distinction here is that women were generally not favoured in inheritance, making it difficult for them to obtain land and therefore voting rights.
Women have always worked. Peasant women would work in the fields, and in towns they would work to maintain the household and assist with any business their husband had. Barring women from certain areas of employment become popular post-industrialism, and even then they could work as, for instance, a seamstress.
It was men who passed the laws granting women the same legal rights as men. Saying that women did it and men helped is grossly misrepresenting the social changes last century.
Finally, now that women have the same rights as men, why do you say "we can't stop now"? Surely equality under the law was the final step society needed to make?
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 02:25:01 am
Post by: alexandertnt on September 01, 2016, 02:25:18 am
Quote
why do you say "we can't stop now"?
Dozebôm Lolumzalìs is quite clearly not referring to legal equality. It's not like having the right to vote ends discrimination/sexism/racism (as shown by the poster on here who thinks a women's proper role is in the house, being subservient to male authority :/).
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 02:27:21 am
1. Yes, women have technically been citizens. But citizens without many rights that men enjoyed. That's what I was trying to say.
2. Yes, women and poor alike have not had suffrage for long. That's the "starving children in Africa" fallacy - just because the poor had it bad doesn't mean that women's suffrage wasn't as important.
3. Sure, they've worked. When I said "couldn't work," I was thinking of more recently, like the 18th - 19th century, in which IIRC it was quite hard for women to gain employment that gave them enough money to survive on their own. I meant "couldn't support themselves because nobody would let them" more than I did "was not allowed to do work".
4. Sure, men technically passed the laws that gave women rights. But women were pretty important - I doubt anything would have happened nearly as soon if women hadn't stood up. It is true, though, that men were crucial in the women's rights movement.
5. I wouldn't say that women are entirely equal to men. In the eyes of the law? Maybe. In the eyes of society, though, no. Gender roles are restrictive, just like how non-suffrage was restrictive. Not as bad, maybe, but it still needs to be fixed.
Anyway, I got off-track with that last part (of my previous post), as I tend to do when I get emotional and distracted. I've rewritten it, keeping the old revision so that when posterity (or the next forumite) looks upon your post, they shall not think you a lunatic.
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 02:41:52 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 02:52:46 am
Hmm.
I'm tempted to say "no debating whether transgender people are actually transgender," but that seems hard to enforce (where's the line set?). It also seems like a natural part of this thread. And of course the "teh gay" people would whine about being silenced because of their ideas, where's the free speech? see? the feminists just ignore every argument they can't respond to.
Post by: Skyrunner on September 01, 2016, 02:57:58 am
Quote
the feminists just ignore every argument they can't respond to
Either I read the tone of your post wrong, or I take offense to your statement!
Post by: Phmcw on September 01, 2016, 03:04:00 am
-Men and women do have biological difference, but they vary widely between individuals.
-Men and women do have difference in temperament, on average, but they vary between individual
Can't we just admit that gender play a limited part on who we are and is a concept not all that relevant for the individual?
I I want to be seductive I wear a nice, coloured suit, and my sisters did army stuff learnt to shoot and did parachuting.
I know girls with low sex drive that like to be modest, and I know guys who are their exact carbon copy in term of temperament.
My girlfriend is cute and girly but is doing a phd and isn't interested nor comfortable with kids. I am 2m high, weight more than 100kg, listen to metal but I do the bulk of housekeeping and will probably look after the kids.
In the states especially, and in conservative European familly, I think that peoples try to redefine gender and sexuality all the time because they are surprised that neither their gender nor their sexuality define them 100%.
Post by: Skyrunner on September 01, 2016, 03:11:25 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 03:14:47 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 03:15:27 am
Quotethe feminists just ignore every argument they can't respond to
Either I read the tone of your post wrong, or I take offense to your statement!
Sorry, should've used quotes. I was being sarcastic.
Post by: Jimmy on September 01, 2016, 03:16:11 am
Then Sunday switches and I work late through to Wednesday, with my wife taking over child care duties. There's nothing I see in this arrangement that's emasculating or threatening to my identity as a male. If anything, I think the men who avoid taking part in their children's lives are the ones that are weak. I changed dirty nappies when we had babies. I fed my children bottles at 2AM when they cried. I read them bedtime stories every night. A real man isn't scared of any job, he knuckles down and does what needs to be done.
Post by: saigo on September 01, 2016, 03:19:23 am
4. Sure, men technically passed the laws that gave women rights. But women were pretty important - I doubt anything would have happened nearly as soon if women hadn't stood up. It is true, though, that men were crucial in the women's rights movement.I think we can say it was an achievement made by society as a whole, rather than any one group. Something everyone can be proud of.
Dozebôm Lolumzalìs is quite clearly not referring to legal equality. It's not like having the right to vote ends discrimination/sexism/racism (as shown by the poster on here who thinks a women's proper role is in the house, being subservient to male authority :/).Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of equality of the sexes. Women's legal rights were not granted in a vacuum, they were granted because the public was in favour, much like homosexuality laws more recently. Gender roles are in the same category. Most people understand that they are merely generalisations, and individuals will be individuals.
I don't see any reason to believe BillyTheKid's opinions are widespread. Present, certainly, especially among older generations who tend to be more conservative. I also believe that people holding such beliefs do not pose a significant barrier to women who wish to achieve their goals.
Ending discrimination is a fool's errand. There will always be people with bigoted views. There will always be people who are rude or unpleasant, because this is human nature. The only way to deal with this is to look past them and move on.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 01, 2016, 03:25:15 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLJJc8siyU
Just thought it was funny and somewhat relevant to the thread.
Post by: chaoticag on September 01, 2016, 03:30:50 am
That's what I'm trying to say, sort of. There have been attempts to raise children "without gender." They have failed. I think that's not the right idea, but Billy has used it against me, so I'm admitting that differences do exist between males and females, but only minimal ones.Well,raising someone gender neutral shouldn't be a problem I think? Idea being not that you'll end up with children with no idea of what gender is, but that your kid would be more at ease without having to conform to society's perception of gender.
Ending discrimination is a fool's errand. There will always be people with bigoted views. There will always be people who are rude or unpleasant, because this is human nature. The only way to deal with this is to look past them and move on.I can't help but read this argument as we cannot accomplish goal A 100%, therefore we should not try to do so. Certainly making it harder for hate to win out is always a good thing. Besides that, there's worries about bodily harm, emotional distress or death, not just simply "people being rude or unpleasant".
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 03:41:43 am
4. Sure, men technically passed the laws that gave women rights. But women were pretty important - I doubt anything would have happened nearly as soon if women hadn't stood up. It is true, though, that men were crucial in the women's rights movement.I think we can say it was an achievement made by society as a whole, rather than any one group. Something everyone can be proud of.
Sure, that sounds better. Note to self: you are not infallible.
Quote
Dozebôm Lolumzalìs is quite clearly not referring to legal equality. It's not like having the right to vote ends discrimination/sexism/racism (as shown by the poster on here who thinks a women's proper role is in the house, being subservient to male authority :/).Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of equality of the sexes. Women's legal rights were not granted in a vacuum, they were granted because the public was in favour, much like homosexuality laws more recently. Gender roles are in the same category. Most people understand that they are merely generalisations, and individuals will be individuals.
I don't see any reason to believe BillyTheKid's opinions are widespread. Present, certainly, especially among older generations who tend to be more conservative. I also believe that people holding such beliefs do not pose a significant barrier to women who wish to achieve their goals.
Ending discrimination is a fool's errand. There will always be people with bigoted views. There will always be people who are rude or unpleasant, because this is human nature. The only way to deal with this is to look past them and move on.
But the problem with that is thus: if we stop pushing for equal rights, and the bigots don't stop, progress will decay. Compromise doesn't work with those people.
And, you know, things aren't quite equal yet for everybody. Maybe our work with women is done. We've still got race, disability, sexual orientation, and gender equality left.
That's what I'm trying to say, sort of. There have been attempts to raise children "without gender." They have failed. I think that's not the right idea, but Billy has used it against me, so I'm admitting that differences do exist between males and females, but only minimal ones.Well,raising someone gender neutral shouldn't be a problem I think? Idea being not that you'll end up with children with no idea of what gender is, but that your kid would be more at ease without having to conform to society's perception of gender.
Does a quick search
Dammit, that's what I get for listening to people like Billy. There are these myths, I suppose they are, of attempts to raise children without letting them even touch the "gender-appropriate" toys (trucks, dolls), which inevitably fail when the child finds the "right" toys and loves them.
Goddammit. That is obviously made up.
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 03:52:08 am
(Including me)
Post by: saigo on September 01, 2016, 04:26:26 am
I can't help but read this argument as we cannot accomplish goal A 100%, therefore we should not try to do so. Certainly making it harder for hate to win out is always a good thing. Besides that, there's worries about bodily harm, emotional distress or death, not just simply "people being rude or unpleasant".Sorry, I didn't express that very well. We should stop people from acting on bigoted opinions, but we can't stop them from having those opinions.
But the problem with that is thus: if we stop pushing for equal rights, and the bigots don't stop, progress will decay. Compromise doesn't work with those people.I suppose my concern is that we push for equality so much that we arrive at communism. I don't like communism.
And, you know, things aren't quite equal yet for everybody. Maybe our work with women is done. We've still got race, disability, sexual orientation, and gender equality left.
Dammit, that's what I get for listening to people like Billy. There are these myths, I suppose they are, of attempts to raise children without letting them even touch the "gender-appropriate" toys (trucks, dolls), which inevitably fail when the child finds the "right" toys and loves them.It sounds like something that would be very interesting to study, if it hasn't been already.
Goddammit. That is obviously made up.
Post by: Skyrunner on September 01, 2016, 04:51:17 am
Post by: spümpkin on September 01, 2016, 04:54:12 am
Bullsplint...
It's really funny, reading all the splint/shit swappings. It just seems so silly to replace that word in an already offensive (to most) statement.
Anyway, I don't want to be here for the politics, just kinda wanted to say that I have another appointment with youth workers next friday :D
And I am also going to buy some clothes when I go out with a friend this weekend.
I will get some booty pants to show off my thighs
Post by: Jimmy on September 01, 2016, 05:13:59 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 05:31:06 am
Armok damn it, no, I shouldn't hijack my own thread to discuss communism. (Communism is grea - wrestle shove stop discussing that)
Post by: alexandertnt on September 01, 2016, 05:33:54 am
Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of equality of the sexes. Women's legal rights were not granted in a vacuum, they were granted because the public was in favour, much like homosexuality laws more recently. Gender roles are in the same category. Most people understand that they are merely generalisations, and individuals will be individuals.
I don't see any reason to believe BillyTheKid's opinions are widespread. Present, certainly, especially among older generations who tend to be more conservative. I also believe that people holding such beliefs do not pose a significant barrier to women who wish to achieve their goals.
Ending discrimination is a fool's errand. There will always be people with bigoted views. There will always be people who are rude or unpleasant, because this is human nature. The only way to deal with this is to look past them and move on.
Yeah, but pretty much no one, for example, is a racist if you ask them. Racism is bad, I am not bad, therefore I am not racist is the kind of logic everyone uses. That doesn't stop people from being racist of course, they just either do it unintentionally (which is still harmful), or they just call themselves something else ("I'm not a racist, I'm a race-realist").
Usually, when people try to deal with discrimination, they deal with either singular problems, or perceived systematic problems. "Ending discrimination full stop" is virtually impossible and no one is really trying (though some groups might use the language because it's received positively by people, as you have pointed out above). It's not unreasonable to be suspicious or doubtful of someone/some entity trying to so vaguely "end discrimination".
Billy's view IMO is more common than you think, at least in the context of trans/genderfluid people. One... "advantage" of being a boring white cis male is that you get to hear people shit-talking these people behind their backs. The whole idea that male and female roles are fixed and inflexible seems pretty common, at least in my experience.
The communist countries that do/did exist were not exactly minority havens. Some of these kind of groups may use messages of equality because they are popular, not because they actually care (same with companies, politicians, etc), similar to pinkwashing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkwashing_(LGBT)).
Post by: saigo on September 01, 2016, 05:49:59 am
That doesn't stop people from being racist of course, they just either do it unintentionally (which is still harmful)I don't know if we should concern ourselves with unintentional racism. It makes me think of Thought Police.
Billy's view IMO is more common than you think, at least in the context of trans/genderfluid people. One... "advantage" of being a boring white cis male is that you get to hear people shit-talking these people behind their backs. The whole idea that male and female roles are fixed and inflexible seems pretty common, at least in my experience.Trans issues are less widely accepted than other minority issues, but it has come a long way in just a few years. I think we'll see a lot of improvements as time goes on.
- Oh, I'm a Bay Watcher now. Congratulations to me.
Post by: alexandertnt on September 01, 2016, 06:00:25 am
That doesn't stop people from being racist of course, they just either do it unintentionally (which is still harmful)I don't know if we should concern ourselves with unintentional racism. It makes me think of Thought Police.
Well, you did say we should act on bigoted opinions. Just because someone didn't say they think blacks are intellectually inferior doesn't stop them from perceiving black people as intellectually inferior ("black people aren't stupid, its just that every black person I have met is stupid").
No one is policing thoughts, it is the effect of the actions based on these perceptions, that is of concern to people. Prejudice is a complicated thing, certainly more complicated than "I'm not hiring you because your gay".
Quote
Trans issues are less widely accepted than other minority issues, but it has come a long way in just a few years. I think we'll see a lot of improvements as time goes on.
I do agree, though its important to remember that this only happens because people push for these improvements.
Post by: chaoticag on September 01, 2016, 06:11:47 am
Now, we are talking about social norms here, so you can argue that legal cases and courthouses are a tangent, but I do bring it up to make a point. My point is that in cases where harm is done, whether that is intentional or not, the actor is responsible for his actions and is not exempt from criticism. Demonstrating hate or discrimination unintentionally does not provide a compelling reason to make an exemption, but at best shows that lesser criticism is warranted.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 06:22:07 am
Edit: new pages always mess me up
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 06:24:13 am
Post by: Phmcw on September 01, 2016, 07:10:40 am
Racism is bad, I am not bad, therefore I am not racist is the kind of logic everyone uses.
The fact that "racism" is bad is socially accepted. What it is and why it's bad isn't.
Which also mean that the acceptance is pretty meaningless.
Well,raising someone gender neutral shouldn't be a problem I think? Idea being not that you'll end up with children with no idea of what gender is, but that your kid would be more at ease without having to conform to society's perception of gender.
Peoples crave an identity, if you remove gender it will be something else. I believe that gender neutral isn't the right way to go, and that being more permissive with gender definition will be much more beneficial.
But you have a lot of leeway on how you define gender-roles, roles in society and values in general.
Look what "being a man" was before. Read Duma for instance. Aristocrats wore heels, pretty jewels-adorned coats, make-up, and held culture and refinement in high esteem. They spoke of how their pants hi-lighted the gable of their legs, and made sure they had delicates hands.
They were also ruthless killers that would stab you for looking at them the wrong way.
Post by: Edmus on September 01, 2016, 07:25:37 am
Perhaps in an increasingly individualist society the definitions of gender are becoming increasingly divergent?
I have a couple sorts of male defined for myself.
Post by: alexandertnt on September 01, 2016, 08:06:08 am
Racism is bad, I am not bad, therefore I am not racist is the kind of logic everyone uses.
The fact that "racism" is bad is socially accepted. What it is and why it's bad isn't.
Which also mean that the acceptance is pretty meaningless.
Yep. Many people know its bad, but they don't know much more than that beyond "the n word is racist" or similarly blunt racism.
Post by: TempAcc on September 01, 2016, 08:18:22 am
Again, like Phmcw also stated, people have this dire need for identity. While it may be hard for some people to realize, extremist groups of all sides (even those that claim to be on opposing ends of a spectrum) are often very, very similar in practice, but thats not the point of the thread, anyway. More on topic, people often crave an identity that can make them into something that is a part of something bigger than themselves, and I feel that, nowadays, gender is becoming more popular as an identity option to latch onto, and not just in regards to gender dysphoria and sexuality, either. Feminism has ceased to be only a civil rights movement to become an identity option, which can be good if its used well, since it creates unity in favor of a cause, but really bad when its badly used, since the bad actions of a loud minority do end up dragging the whole group down, and may actualy hijack the entire cause into a direction it was never going for, since our society still often sees groups as homogenous and stereotypical entities (because there's always someone to reinforce the stereotype).
This need for identity, by itself, is not a problem. The problem is when people start to ascribe good and evil to identities, rather than actions. Thus a certain identity group gets a free pass to do pretty much anything because a major chunk of society likes to see them as "the good guys", while identity groups that said group opposes and/or are in start contrast with are relegated to the status of "bad guys", which become the acceptable targets, and eventualy attacking the "bad guys" becomes a free meal ticket to being socially seen as a better person then you actualy are. This creates social division, because not all of society sees "the good guys" in such a nice light, which is a very convenient scenario for politicians and opinion formers to take advantage of.
Moral of the story is: people need to stop judging people for what they think they are, and start judging them for their actions.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 09:34:20 am
50 ppp master race, noobs.
I _am_ on 50 ppp. I read to the end of page 6 and, thinking that was the last post, responded to it.
Post by: chaoticag on September 01, 2016, 10:55:15 am
Peoples crave an identity, if you remove gender it will be something else. I believe that gender neutral isn't the right way to go, and that being more permissive with gender definition will be much more beneficial.I said gender neutral, not gender exclusionary. It's about letting your kid figure it out rather than enforcing norms on them. Want to get them clothes? Pick the ones with their favorite cartoon characters and listen to what they want to wear. Toys? See what catches their fancy at a toy store, whether it's a barbie or an action figure. Don't take things or deny them stuff they want because it's too, I dunno "gendered" or the wrong "gender". Let them be who they want without the parents placing expectations from them, at least for their leisure. Kids spend a lot of time learning, so it's a matter of teaching them how to make themselves happy rather than how to make others happy at their expense.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 12:27:06 pm
Well,raising someone gender neutral shouldn't be a problem I think? Idea being not that you'll end up with children with no idea of what gender is, but that your kid would be more at ease without having to conform to society's perception of gender.
Peoples crave an identity, if you remove gender it will be something else. I believe that gender neutral isn't the right way to go, and that being more permissive with gender definition will be much more beneficial.
But you have a lot of leeway on how you define gender-roles, roles in society and values in general.
Look what "being a man" was before. Read Duma for instance. Aristocrats wore heels, pretty jewels-adorned coats, make-up, and held culture and refinement in high esteem. They spoke of how their pants hi-lighted the gable of their legs, and made sure they had delicates hands.
They were also ruthless killers that would stab you for looking at them the wrong way.
That's just it. People do need identity, I agree. But let's rephrase your sentence:
"If you remove gender, people will make their own identities." Their own, as opposed to whatever gender roles are shoved onto them.
As an example of this: At camp, while I was away canoeing with a small group, we went to a beach. We had the option of going swimming or hanging out and making bracelets. Without thinking much of it, I went to the shoreline - but then noticed something. All of of the boys were swimming. Almost all of the girls were making bracelets. This alerted me to a subconscious choice based on a gender division. But did I want to go swimming? When I thought about it, no. The river was slimy, and I like making things with my hands. So I went and made bracelets and talked with the girls and had a much better time than I would have if I had swam.
Nobody stopped me from going to swim. I had that option at every point, but I didn't go swim. Gender neutral parenting doesn't mean forcing your boy to do girlish things. It means letting your boy do... anything, whether boyish or girlish, and trying to help your boy see that it's okay to play with dolls - if they want to. If they like trucks, nobody's stopping them from playing with trucks.
It's a common misconception that gender neutrality, feminism, etc., takes away choice, when in reality it takes away nothing. It only gives a choice.
Post by: tonnot98 on September 01, 2016, 01:37:18 pm
Nobody stopped me from going to swim. I had that option at every point, but I didn't go swim. Gender neutral parenting doesn't mean forcing your boy to do girlish things.I think we should just call that gender neutering.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 01, 2016, 01:40:35 pm
Ahahaha yessss. I agree.Nobody stopped me from going to swim. I had that option at every point, but I didn't go swim. Gender neutral parenting doesn't mean forcing your boy to do girlish things.I think we should just call that gender neutering.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 02:30:50 pm
Post by: Phmcw on September 02, 2016, 07:39:13 am
Their own, as opposed to whatever gender roles are shoved onto them.
As an example of this: At camp, while I was away canoeing with a small group, we went to a beach. We had the option of going swimming or hanging out and making bracelets. Without thinking much of it, I went to the shoreline - but then noticed something. All of of the boys were swimming. Almost all of the girls were making bracelets. This alerted me to a subconscious choice based on a gender division. But did I want to go swimming? When I thought about it, no. The river was slimy, and I like making things with my hands. So I went and made bracelets and talked with the girls and had a much better time than I would have if I had swam.
Nobody stopped me from going to swim. I had that option at every point, but I didn't go swim. Gender neutral parenting doesn't mean forcing your boy to do girlish things. It means letting your boy do... anything, whether boyish or girlish, and trying to help your boy see that it's okay to play with dolls - if they want to. If they like trucks, nobody's stopping them from playing with trucks.
It's a common misconception that gender neutrality, feminism, etc., takes away choice, when in reality it takes away nothing. It only gives a choice.
You're making the assumption that peoples want choice. So I'm asking you : why are all identities so conformist? Why are gender roles well defined across any culture yet different for each?
Most peoples don't want choice. They want to be given a clear identity, they want to be told what to do, and they want a group to belong to.
You have to take this into account, as identity issues tend to cause quite a lot of violence.
My proposal is to give a default, but to let as much leeway as we can and to praise tolerance within the scope of society's values.
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 02, 2016, 12:17:03 pm
That said, there's also nothing wrong with a default, and providing a basic scaffold for someone to build their identity with if they feel like it is perfectly fine. Whether that's career, place, hobby, goal, or people.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 02, 2016, 03:33:58 pm
Post by: hops on September 02, 2016, 03:48:30 pm
I don't like choosing my ice cream flavour, so nobody else gets to choose either - they all have to get vanilla.Chocolate is the only correct choice you vanillanormative scum.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 02, 2016, 03:52:02 pm
(This is my ice cream opinions, not anything else, if this turns out to be a metaphor.)
Post by: scriver on September 02, 2016, 04:32:28 pm
( :P )
Post by: hops on September 02, 2016, 04:35:37 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 02, 2016, 04:37:03 pm
Post by: scriver on September 02, 2016, 04:54:15 pm
What about just literally ice.
Ice is a temperature, not a flavour!
Post by: Neonivek on September 02, 2016, 05:36:23 pm
What about just literally ice.
Ice is a temperature, not a flavour!
Molecular Gastronomy would like to have a word with you.
Post by: misko27 on September 02, 2016, 05:38:38 pm
There are 17 different types of water-ice, some at wildly different temperatures and pressures.What about just literally ice.
Ice is a temperature, not a flavour!
Ice-1h is the best flavor.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 02, 2016, 06:09:16 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 02, 2016, 06:28:35 pm
I was thinking of the whole "Androgynous couples are happiest together" and I am starting to think that has less to do with gender roles so much that "People with a lot in common and who are willing to work together tend to be the strongest couple"That actually makes a lot of sense.
Post by: Reelya on September 02, 2016, 07:50:03 pm
What about just literally ice.Vanilla Ice is a gender now
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 02, 2016, 09:00:47 pm
I think I'll raise my children as Ice Ice BabiesWhat about just literally ice.Vanilla Ice is a gender now
Post by: BlackHeartKabal on September 02, 2016, 09:33:34 pm
It says something about me that I thought of the JJBA character first instead of the actual man.I think I'll raise my children as Ice Ice BabiesWhat about just literally ice.Vanilla Ice is a gender now
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 02, 2016, 10:27:41 pm
di di di di-di di doo
di di di di-di di doo
di di di di di di - ICE ICE
UNDER (BABY) PRESSURE
glares at each other
Post by: Vector on September 03, 2016, 08:59:53 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 03, 2016, 09:38:21 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 03, 2016, 01:50:57 pm
My statement is that the choice should always be given to deviate from the gender roles and stereotypes. Any other statement implies that, in at least some situations, people should be forced to follow gender roles and stereotypes. Are you, in fact, saying that?
Post by: saigo on September 03, 2016, 02:47:04 pm
Post by: Vector on September 03, 2016, 05:08:22 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 04, 2016, 05:34:28 pm
But do you remember Sartre? He said that one always has a choice, namely the choice of suicide. If society killed everyone who didn't fit the gender roles, there would technically be the choice of deviating, but not a choice that most would consider to be an acceptable choice.
Now, that is of course an extreme analogy, but the same concept can be carried over - it is important for deviation to be accepted. This is what I was arguing. I was never arguing that gender roles themselves should be done away with. Diminished in importance? That'd be nice, but unlikely.
Saying that most people don't want choice doesn't mean that the people who do want choice should be denied it. Sure, most cultures tend toward exclusionary norms. Lots of cultures have participated in slavery. That doesn't mean that it's ethical.
Post by: Vector on September 04, 2016, 09:38:12 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 04, 2016, 09:47:59 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 04, 2016, 10:13:04 pm
wat
That's who I'm trying to convince.
Post by: Vector on September 04, 2016, 10:15:55 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 04, 2016, 10:59:01 pm
It is important for deviation to be accepted.I would say that it is important for deviation to be accomodated. Which is a subtle difference, but...still.
Post by: Vector on September 04, 2016, 11:01:30 pm
Post by: Caz on September 04, 2016, 11:12:01 pm
QuoteJust like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoHlrQScWl0) anyone?
Post by: Neonivek on September 04, 2016, 11:18:20 pm
QuoteJust like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoHlrQScWl0) anyone?
Here is kind of the thing... "Strength" is quantifiable... "Grace" is not only qualitative, but a combination of features and factors.
There are sports that require "grace" that men currently dominate over their female competitors (like shooting, though unlike some sports there are women in the top echelon).
Then there is the whole "Grace is beauty" aspect where it is less that men can't compete so much that the definition of Grace being used is specifically being attributed to women and a man would need to look like a classically feminine woman to compete :P
Post by: Tiruin on September 04, 2016, 11:20:07 pm
Vector's posts are insightful here--they're in no way advocating for an incomplete viewpoint, but for a more wholesome one. Going to forward that with studies on my part, from the historical viewpoint in psychology. I'm pulling these out from my notes, so anyone can look it up. :P
@DL: This thread requires notes :P You're moving with a thread that discusses gender and other related things, the most important point here is that this is also an international forum, so you'll be getting viewpoints from many, different cultures.
It is important for deviation to be accepted.This is a good point, a good contextual point that shouldn't be taken out of what's being discussed right now. :P
In many areas, there's a stricter idea of what gender is in contrast to what tradition or how the 'general norm' seemed to view it--this general norm is mostly a construct, based from observations of our ancestors who worked with the ideas of their time. In historical studies, this gender difference began relatively when societies branched out and developed--beginning as an idea stemming mostly from a biological perspective (ie Males and females were characterized by biological traits as well as observed characteristics, which if I've to reference someone in the thread, BillyTheKid has mentioned. He has a point, but it is an incomplete point), however these ideas were not meant to be the construct of how societies should be run. This period of diversification is also relative towards the society and country, which is also able to be reinforced as a belief. For example the Philippines, in several areas, have upheld the idea of one's idea of the self as well as their gender being personal and internal towards a person's being, and in contrast to some areas which have experienced colonization which hold differing ideas (ie Spanish colonized areas).
A good point here is to take in several key points:
> While there may be a biological difference between males and females; this does not segregate people into gender roles for efficiency--the perceived gap between these areas is not of significant value, that while there are notable differences, these differences do not prove any significant conclusion that this gap should be upheld.
> Deviation as Vector mentions pertains to when certain societal constructs/ideas become too rigid--that they may lose the underlying open-mindedness, wisdom, and critical thinking that creates these ideas: Their application, their context, and their roots in human nature. While the term of human nature may be misplaced at times, like concluding that 'this is inherent to human nature because this happens' (eg when people make sweeping generalizations and make stereotypes, which is but only a basic idea of constructing a concept or idea), it is important to notice that societal ideas stem from observations made in earlier times. In talking about the application of gender
[...]One should also put great notice to the values that's being used. At times, societies have experienced and observed certain happenings that do not fit their current understanding; how they follow up expanding their understanding creates an underlying process of thinking for meeting ideas in the future.
Despite the difficulties of communication across cultures and subgroups, saying "diversity enriches" or "diversity is dangerous" is too simplistic (factually speaking). Passing to a Judith-Butler style argument, we really can't make that kind of statement, because whether diversity enriches or threatens is a matter of individual interactions and individual times. What we can do is teach future generations more skills for managing their differences--assuming, perhaps, a more-or-less homogeneous culture to which one belongs, but a non-homogeneous outside environment that one would do well to learn how to navigate for, if nothing else, commercial and trade purposes.
> The notion of a stereotype, in a cognitive context, is the creation or categorization of ideas to fit a general understanding. From these constructs further ideas are added or modified until it becomes a form of deconstruction--from general to specific. When discussing the whole theme of this thread, stereotypes are not the endpoint, because this covers aspects of one's life from societal, to cultural, to personal, to familial and otherwise.
Edoot: Ohai Caz! :D
I've recalled people thinking about how 'prevalent' BillyTheKid's ideas are. In a wholesome context--it's as prevalent as the culture that promotes it. It isn't a predominating idea in many areas, taking in a worldwide context, and it is predominating in many areas; the general sense of that begins in the culture of the society, community, or family as the smallest part.QuoteJust like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoHlrQScWl0) anyone?
But prevalence does denote the scope of ideas being spread there. It is misleading to say what he's saying, in a holistic sense, because of how rigid it is in hindsight, and in foresight of its non-applicability in reality.
Also I do recall other people speaking about genetic traits. Reudh brings up very good points on these notes.
Especially when descriptions are used like these. :PThere is already a word for that, which is sex (and intersex people for those that have rarer mix like XXY). Gender usually refers to the social implication and expectations of the stuff, although they do get mixed up sometime.
Klinefelter males are not "intersex". They are still male, they do not possess any characteristics of females, besides reduced (compared to XY males) testosterone production.
Post by: Neonivek on September 04, 2016, 11:23:58 pm
Quote
Despite the difficulties of communication across cultures and subgroups, saying "diversity enriches" or "diversity is dangerous" is too simplistic (factually speaking).
Well... Anecdotally without diversity a society stagnates significantly.
It is why Japan murdered the brains out of China in terms of technology and economics even today... and Japan isn't even non-xenophobic.
Diversity harming tended to stem more from a society being unable to adapt to the changing environment OR from the changes highlighting problems that existed previously but couldn't manifest (Alcoholism for example).
It is one of the reasons why people push for diversity so hard... because it are societies that push the hardest against change that are hurt or do hurt the most.
Basically Cultural, social, or technological stagnation is bad yo.
Post by: Caz on September 04, 2016, 11:49:00 pm
Here is kind of the thing... "Strength" is quantifiable... "Grace" is not only qualitative, but a combination of features and factors.
I'd say they're both qualitative. Strength of what? Strength of conviction, strength of character, or are you talking about how much someone can deadlift? :P Yea, yea, we all know and accept that men are usually stronger than women physically. If we're using the word strength in those terms, then you could say strength is more of a male trait.
Then there is the whole "Grace is beauty" aspect where it is less that men can't compete so much that the definition of Grace being used is specifically being attributed to women and a man would need to look like a classically feminine woman to compete :P
Dunno man, have you seen some of those male models? Yowza. But yeah, I don't get the whole 'grace is feminine' thing. Maybe if you're talking about upper class 'ladies', but then there's the same kind of 'social grace' in that class that is expected for men also.
Edoot: Ohai Caz! :D
First time I post on Bay12 in months and you appear on my tail. Really gotta get that tracking device out of my molar.
Post by: Neonivek on September 04, 2016, 11:55:24 pm
Quote
I'd say they're both qualitative. Strength of what? Strength of conviction, strength of character, or are you talking about how much someone can deadlift?
We are definitely talking about how much someone can deadlift... given the context.
Unless you honestly believe that women can't compete with men in terms of strength of character xD
Post by: Caz on September 04, 2016, 11:58:17 pm
Unless you honestly believe that women can't compete with men in terms of strength of character xD
We'd be talking about it, sure, but the original quote was from that other guy. And yeah, there are a *lot* of people out there who do believe that exactly.
Post by: saigo on September 05, 2016, 12:01:14 am
Accepted is a better word than accommodated. We cannot accommodate for every deviation. People who are different from the norm need to accept that they are different from the norm, rather than everyone else changing the norm to suit a minority.It is important for deviation to be accepted.I would say that it is important for deviation to be accomodated. Which is a subtle difference, but...still.
We'd be talking about it, sure, but the original quote was from that other guy. And yeah, there are a *lot* of people out there who do believe that exactly."A lot" is vague, and not helpful to the discussion. Do you have any statistics?
Post by: Skyrunner on September 05, 2016, 12:02:45 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 12:04:16 am
"A lot" is vague, and not helpful to the discussion. Do you have any statistics?
Now THAT is something that would be hard to do even with statistics
Because often we are talking about double standards.
The whole women are chaste and men are satyrs for example. Where it is the woman's job to regulate the sexuality of other men :P
So one might say "well doesn't that mean men have less strength of character?" but remember... In that situation the man cannot be faulted :P Only the woman can have a slight against her character.
And besides, even if you say strength is strength, what kind of strength? Deadlifts, curls, weighted squads, kegels...?
ALL quantifiable :P
The only aspect that wouldn't be is "fighting strength" because it cannot REALLY be measured... only contested.
Post by: misko27 on September 05, 2016, 12:06:07 am
I'm trying to change the discourse from top-down "the culture ought to be built on so-and-so principles" discussions (unless anyone here has the ear of a politician?), because such discussions are ones in which the people talking here have, essentially, no influence or controlling stake. I'd rather talk about things we actually have control over.I'd argue even most politicians don't have that sort of power. The power to remake culture and define cultural norms is one only deeply authoritarian societies have any real hope of achieving (not that you can't try, and I'd say most societies do attempt to do so to various extents, but to be really successful it does basically demand society-wide brainwashing). It's even rarer that they are successful, and as for how often they actually ingratiate the intended norms? Who even knows.
And questions about who has the sort of right to decide in what matter society will be remade (because that is essentially what is necessary) are also icky. There is a reason that the whole point of Plato's Republic is essentially "Here is a system I have designed such that eventually, an extreme minority, consistently showing aptitude and achievement, open-mindedness and thoughtfulness, physical strength and statesmanship, and wisdom and virtue, can be bred and taught and educated all their lives, so as to maybe create individuals who would be wise and virtuous enough to be allowed to redesign society from the bottom up."
Of course no one ever let Plato even get that far. Philosopher-Kings we are not.
But do you remember Sartre? He said that one always has a choice, namely the choice of suicide. If society killed everyone who didn't fit the gender roles, there would technically be the choice of deviating, but not a choice that most would consider to be an acceptable choice.Do you remember Hobbes? He'd argue that the choice between death and another option is no real choice at all. Some people may, given certain circumstances, choose death, but no one can ever be morally expected to give away their life (if someone lined you up on a wall and put a gun to your head demanding you claim women are inferior, no one has a right to hold anything you say against you). To choose death may be deeply virtuous given the context, but to choose your own life is not inversely evil. I'd go further and say that it is precisely because choosing your own life is not evil that sacrifice is noble. But that is off-topic.
Also damn Vector can you write a book? Please? Your wisdom is persuasive, and you discuss these issues in ways that are much more compelling then how it is usually put to me. Given that I am literally drowning in people who want to explain these issues to me (I go to a whole school full of people that focus on these issues), I promise that is no minor compliment
It is why Japan murdered the brains out of China in terms of technology and economics even today... and Japan isn't even non-xenophobic.That may not be the best example, given that both Japan and China have had or continue to have elements of deeply xenophobic cultures. China is actually quite arguably much less xenophobic, given that under the Qing Dynasty they were, after all, being ruled by Manchus, and the ROC was founded as "Five Races Under One Union": The Han, the Manchu, the Mongols, the Hui, and the Tibetans. By contrast Japan... oh Japan. Their relationship with the Ainu, and with Okinawa, speaks volumes. A better argument would be pointing out the 200 years of stagnation (well, 100 years of being pretty ok, 100 years of stagnation and decline) that occurred under Japan's closed period that left it vulnerable to Western Imperialism. These issues are complicated, and a one-off comment doesn't do them justice.
Also I am getting ninja'd into oblivion. I will post, and darn the consequences.
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 12:08:46 am
Quote
ROC was founded as "Five Races Under One Union": The Han, the Manchu, the Mongols, the Hui, and the Tibetans.
Miiiiight not be the best... example... given what happened and how it happened.
Also why do people forget Mongolia is a place that exists?
Post by: saigo on September 05, 2016, 12:11:29 am
And besides, even if you say strength is strength, what kind of strength? Deadlifts, curls, weighted squads, kegels...?Strength of character was specified. It is completely unquantifiable.
The whole women are chaste and men are satyrs for example. Where it is the woman's job to regulate the sexuality of other men :PThat is just a straw man.
So one might say "well doesn't that mean men have less strength of character?" but remember... In that situation the man cannot be faulted :P Only the woman can have a slight against her character.
Also why do people forget Mongolia is a place that exists?It has a population of 3 million and Inner Mongolia is part of China.
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 12:13:40 am
The whole women are chaste and men are satyrs for example. Where it is the woman's job to regulate the sexuality of other men :PThat is just a straw man.
So one might say "well doesn't that mean men have less strength of character?" but remember... In that situation the man cannot be faulted :P Only the woman can have a slight against her character.
[/quote]
I honestly don't see how.
Given the whole: "Women are sluts, men are players" dynamic.
Post by: Caz on September 05, 2016, 12:15:38 am
Also why do people forget Mongolia is a place that exists?
who is forgetting?
"A lot" is vague, and not helpful to the discussion. Do you have any statistics?
I'm not gonna go through and find statistics and all that crap, so let's just say 'some people believe that men have more of a strength of character'. It's one of the basis for their beliefs that men should be the head of the household, that a wife should defer to her husband, that he should have the final say on decisions etc etc. I think it's a cultural/religious thing more than anything else.
Post by: misko27 on September 05, 2016, 12:34:22 am
Hardly. My point is Japan is not exactly beating China in the racial diversity competition. And one of the reasons for this is China actually acknowledges it has minorities, which is a hell of a lot more diverse than Japan simply pretending they don't have minorities, and going very far out their way at times to make that the case. Plus any knowledge of Japan's colonial empire and their wartime goals indicates that you sure as hell could not attribute their strength to "diversity". Thus, claiming diversity is why Japan is ahead of China seems... weird. It would make more sense to argue that a lack of racial diversity is why Japan is ahead: you would be wrong, but at least that incorrect argument would be deduced from accurate facts, as opposed to a wrong argument based on inaccurate facts.QuoteROC was founded as "Five Races Under One Union": The Han, the Manchu, the Mongols, the Hui, and the Tibetans.
Miiiiight not be the best... example... given what happened and how it happened.
Indeed. The country of Mongolia only consists of the region of what was once called "Outer Mongolia", whereas the region of Inner Mongolia (which is still called "Inner Mongolia") is still apart of China today. Under the Qing, all of Mongolia (including what it is today Mongolia) was under Chinese control. So, um, yeah, there are Mongolians in China.Also why do people forget Mongolia is a place that exists?
who is forgetting?
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 12:39:05 am
Quote
Hardly. My point is Japan is not exactly beating China in the racial diversity competition. And one of the reasons for this is China actually acknowledges it has minorities, which is a hell of a lot more diverse than Japan simply pretending they don't have minorities, and going very far out their way at times to make that the case. Plus any knowledge of Japan's colonial empire and their wartime goals indicates that you sure as hell could not attribute their strength to "diversity". Thus, claiming diversity is why Japan is ahead of China seems... weird.
Except you know... China cloistered itself away from the world while Japan (due to "cheating") was forced to embrace what the world had to offer.
Diversity is not JUST "racial diversity" but also diversity of ideas and cultures...
PLUS as I said there is a reason why China has those minorities... and I am not sure I'd praise it as being diverse given that a few of those groups exist due to extreme xenophobic prejudice towards them... Some exist because China was completely conquered by them and had no choice.
It would be like saying Early America was a diverse because they had a lot of Native Americans... Which ignores the whole situation completely.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 12:40:44 am
I'm not asking for "special accomodation." Whoa, guys, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that deviation ought to be accepted universally, unless it violates others' rights. I'm not saying that this is practical, just that it is the most just. I was only responding to the person who said "some people don't like choices => nobody should get choice."
Still, not unhappy to watch my thread get a life of its own. It's like a baby leaving for college - I've done my part, now I don't have to start anything, it'll keep moving without me if I leave.
--oh. Huh, that's funny. The maternalistic evocation is relevant to the thread itself! Meta FTW.
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 12:42:49 am
I'm not asking for "special accomodation." Whoa, guys, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that deviation ought to be accepted universally, unless it violates others' rights. I'm not saying that this is practical, just that it is the most just. I was only responding to the person who said "some people don't like choices => nobody should get choice."
It is because people cannot grasp things easily for the most part... On either side...
Post by: misko27 on September 05, 2016, 02:23:13 am
Cheating?!? 200 years. Japan spent 200 years cloistered up in a way that only islands can achieve. During this period China was ruled by Manchus (which really should make us question what "ruling china" even means) and had trade with the West (trade that would eventually lead to the Opium Wars). During that same period, Japan was a feudal society which had actually gone out of its way to turn back the clock, and did a damn good job of it. Japan AND China were BOTH forced into the "modern" world. Claiming that one doing much better then the other because of "diversity" is absurd.QuoteHardly. My point is Japan is not exactly beating China in the racial diversity competition. And one of the reasons for this is China actually acknowledges it has minorities, which is a hell of a lot more diverse than Japan simply pretending they don't have minorities, and going very far out their way at times to make that the case. Plus any knowledge of Japan's colonial empire and their wartime goals indicates that you sure as hell could not attribute their strength to "diversity". Thus, claiming diversity is why Japan is ahead of China seems... weird.
Except you know... China cloistered itself away from the world while Japan (due to "cheating") was forced to embrace what the world had to offer.
Quote
Diversity is not JUST "racial diversity" but also diversity of ideas and cultures...So does Japan tolerate feminists during that period? Socialists? Christians? Ainu? Anything at all? it tolerates western technology is what it did.
Japan originally starts off with a rigidly western programme (albeit one that manages to skip over any real talk of liberalism or various useful but overly liberal reforms), one that embraces the tradition of colonization just as the rest of the world was being forced to deal with the consequences of colonialism. As the rest of the world turns away from that path, Japan embraces an ultra-nationalist, ultra-racialist amazingly xenophobic, and yes I do say fascist worlview that demands the subjugation of others and the destruction of the foreign in order to safeguard Japanese traditions and ideas. The logical conclusion of this is an outright war against every single major power in the Pacific and ends with their complete destruction as a state. And you are telling me they are advanced because of their diversity. Meanwhile China adopts (although that's a weak word to describe a civil war) a completely foreign ideology during this period. And China isn't diverse? I like diversity as much as the next guy, let me assure you, but this is not a good example.
Quote
PLUS as I said there is a reason why China has those minorities... and I am not sure I'd praise it as being diverse given that a few of those groups exist due to extreme xenophobic prejudice towards them... Some exist because China was completely conquered by them and had no choice.Koreans. Okinawans. Christians. AINU. WHAT ABOUT THE AINU DAMN IT. The entire island of Hokkaido had an entire race living there before the Japanese got there. Japan has nearly wiped them out. Isn't that a point in China's favor vis-a-vis diversity? "We didn't attempt to completely erase all foreign cultures within our borders?" China could probably have engaged in a war of extermination if it really wanted to, but the point was the Manchus legitimized their rule through a unique blend of ethnic-federalism and the traditional Imperial bureacracy that was a hell of a lot more "diverse" than you give them credit.
Quote
It would be like saying Early America was a diverse because they had a lot of Native Americans... Which ignores the whole situation completely.Are you ignoring the situation? It's like saying if you conquer the minorities near you, that counts as diversity, right? No? Because that is what I am hearing here.
No, diversity doesn't work like that. It's a fact, not a mindset or a philosophy. If you have a socialist, fascist, a liberal and a conservative in the same room, that room is by definition diverse. You have a Swede, a Hutu, and a Korean in the same room, and that room is objectively more diverse then a room full of Englishmen. You are thinking of pluralism, or cosmopolitanism, which are attitudes of embracing and/or encouraging diversity. But America is a diverse nation regardless of whether or not those people hate each other or embrace each others positions. You can argue about whether diversity is good or not, but regardless it just IS. And because of that, by any reasonable definition, Japan is not, nor has it ever been, particularly diverse (although it would be a lie to claim it isn't at all diverse, as ultranationalists would). You might argue it was more open-minded regarding the West than China during a very specific period in their histories, but even that is debatable as being the result of government shape (Japan was literally a feudal society for 1850 for fucks sake, while China operated on an Imperial Bureaucracy that lasted until 1911) and other historical factors. Arguing Japan was western is missing the whole point that Japan ultimately rejected the West and the rest of the world in order to operate on a system of Asian Imperialism until the US came in and bombed democracy into them. Japan didn't embrace diversity. it embraced western guns and colonialism.
TL;DR: Japan is not the most diverse country ethnically, and is a hell of a stretch to claim that it embraced diversity as official policy or culturally. And even given one or both of these, arguing that either of them led to Japan's success (in what? China is the world's second biggest economy and world's biggest army. define...) rather then some other, more relevant factor, is the biggest stretch of all. You are highlighting Chinese problems while not acknoledging any of Japan's numerous ones.
Also, I am going to get seriously annoyed if you mention China conquering minorities and calling that a symbol of undiverseness while ignoring that Japan does literally the same thing, and just does a better job of erasing them. You are literally citing the US conquering natives while ignoring [ur=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_peoplel]Japan did almost the exact same thing.[/url] I don't think you are being willfully ignorant, but damn it man. Context is everything.
Post by: saigo on September 05, 2016, 04:22:56 am
I honestly don't see how.You are saying, "this is an argument people make", without pointing to anyone making that argument.
Given the whole: "Women are sluts, men are players" dynamic.
Post by: hops on September 05, 2016, 04:49:10 am
Do we even have Asiapol?
Post by: Arx on September 05, 2016, 05:15:45 am
Post by: hops on September 05, 2016, 05:26:03 am
Post by: Edmus on September 05, 2016, 05:32:17 am
It honestly seems that there's a demand for it.
Post by: hops on September 05, 2016, 05:47:20 am
Thirdworldpol
Historipol
Asiapol
Spacepol
Futurepol
Post by: Reelya on September 05, 2016, 06:05:15 am
The western media version is that there was a whole island completely full of Ainu, and they were annexed in 1869 by Japan, then obliterated. This version is not historical. The fact is, the Ainu were already a minority centuries before this occurred.
Japanese people did move into southern Hokkaido, and this lead to decreasing Ainu population, but this occurred during the 13th to mid 19th centuries. The government then annexed the whole island, and did make attempts to assimilate the natives. But this was 1870-1900 we're talking about, at the same time as America was doing that to the Amerindians, and some of Australia's worst policies to try and assimilate the aboriginals are much more recent than that.
In fact, even by the lowest estimates (which you'd assume would be by racist ethnic nationalists) there are more Ainu around now than when that happened. Can we say the same thing for Amerindians or Australian aboriginals? That there are more of them alive today than 1870? So "Ainu" isn't a good argument for why Japan is not diverse and America and Australia are diverse.
Post by: Vector on September 05, 2016, 08:55:44 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 05, 2016, 09:07:41 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 09:29:34 am
Also, I messed up the paragraph that looks like an appeal to Sartre. I actually mean the opposite - agreeing with Hobbes. People were saying that choice already exists, and I was saying that an intolerant, negative reaction to those who come out as gay, trans, or similar prevents there from being a "completely true" choice - would you blame someone for not coming out? There is a reason for that action, and that reason comes from society. I am saying that there ought not be that reaction from society, that there is a problem. Which I suppose is somewhat obvious. Three paragraphs to say "this is a problem"? I need to be more concise.
Vector book? Where?!
Edit: "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference." That's tolerance. Don't you want to interfere with that which wishes to interfere with that which you believe to be okay?
They want to interfere with the gays. Not picking a side means they do that. Neutrality is impossible. We need to stop those who would stop people.
Oh shit, paradox.
Post by: scriver on September 05, 2016, 09:56:02 am
Post by: Vector on September 05, 2016, 10:06:25 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 10:14:39 am
Did you read the definition of tolerance that I was using? Of course I will maintain the humanity of those who I don't tolerate! That is what makes the "stricter rule." I don't parade around screaming "GOD HATES FAGHATERS." I don't beat up, discriminate against, or lynch intolerant people. But I will not for one second accept intolerance.
I agree that I am kind of standing on the sides here, pointing at the injustice and saying "look, bad stuff!" But I wouldn't have thought that necessary if people hadn't tried to justify the injustice with "not everybody wants a choice" and "there's a reason most societies aren't just - so injustice must be okay!"
Post by: Vector on September 05, 2016, 10:27:51 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 10:39:00 am
I meant "accept" as in "think that it is okay" or "be fine with." I can still talk to bigoted people, I can still treat them as fellow humans, but the bigotness itself is bad, and I will try to stop it. At my age, I can't really do anything about it, but that doesn't mean that I am fine with the bigotness. I accept that it is something that I cannot fix. That does not mean that I accept it as something that is okay.
Oh Armok this sounds so much like "love the sinner hate the sin" ugh. Which is bad because people who say that frequently engage in wholesale hatefests.
Post by: Arx on September 05, 2016, 10:59:59 am
Oh Armok this sounds so much like "love the sinner hate the sin" ugh.
BREAKING: Sometimes people you disagree with have views that align with your own on other things.
Post by: Truean on September 05, 2016, 12:38:30 pm
Illusion of choice: the tyrant's best friend. Stating his victims chose, the tyrant soothes his guilty conscience. A gun to the head is no choice, except to the gunman. He alone may pull the trigger, yet we blame the victim, and say they can chose death. To this I reply, "You first." The illusion doesn't stop there, the extorted price need not be as expensive as death. Severe bodily harm, unwanted sex, taking property, etc, is also extortion. Each example is unfairly taking someone's right for a ransom. Be it murder, battery, rape, or robbery, none are right; none are chosen.
We just gloss over the offender who created and could easily cease the situation and blame the victim. It's easier. Immorality often is.
I'm trans; it shouldn't matter. It does. I'm in danger of having all my rights destroyed, and have had many already destroyed. Honesty may lead to death, beatings, etc. What's the worst to take, is the absolute lie, "Be yourself; be an individual." That is, unless anyone doesn't like you, which is inevitable. Being excluded from our interdependent society is intolerable, because we can't all be self sustaining hunters in the wilderness. Practically, it's a slow death sentence from poverty, and isolation.
As for intolerance, push it and it pushes back hard. Ideally, the idea of my wearing a dress and receiving medical treatment, shouldn't exile me from society. This is the real, not the ideal. I am denied both and granted misery. All the while, groups of individuals have asserted ownership over public spaces and excluded me from them. Transgender access to anything, driver's licenses, housing, jobs, medical care, even bathrooms is seen as us infringing upon others. Our rights are ignored. There's no civilized discussion, and attempts at that have gone badly. God forbid you don't fit in....
I'm actually quite scared to even speak or type of it. It's gotten a little better with some people, but we're still in a world where I could say and do all the right things at exactly the right time, for all the right reasons, for all the right results, and it means nothing and we all know why. I'm foolish enough to post about this topic again, even after such a long time, even in a thread dedicated to it.
At some point I was emotionally destroyed, and am rebuilding myself, painfully slowly. I've learned to speak little. Even that isn't safety.
I find it tragic that what I am is disliked so much by some people (who I've never hurt) that they think I'm what's destroying the country or whatever. A decent enough place in society would be nice. Failing that, meh. I'm just tired.
Please don't quote:
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 12:42:48 pm
But it's also literally unavoidable, because of the way our brains are wired. We need an enemy. If you're progressive, you find it in all those despicable Racists and Sexists and other Evil Peopletm. If you're more 'traditional', you might find it in foreigners or Muslims or colored people or the gays, but you probably find it in all those traitorous Hippies and Communists and damn dirty Tax-n-Spenders who want to Ruin Our Countrytm!
So saying 'you need to accept me and love me for who I am anyway' isn't going to happen. Tolerance means allowing to exist. It doesn't mean liking it. Accomodating deviation, giving leeway for people who want to do that, that's a good thing, and very possible. Accepting deviation? Well, if it was accepted, it wouldn't be deviation.
Furthermore, the vast majority of people whom I'm guessing you would consider bigoted are not actively intolerant, Dozebom. But you can't really try to stop it via 'YOU'RE BAD FOR NOT LIKING THESE PEOPLE', which, if that's not what you're talking about, good, but that's not what I'm getting from you. I feel like it's a common failure mode (in the sense that I consider it a failure to maintain one's values) for progressives, to become/feel justified in holier-than-thou righteous indignation and outrage addiction. Hell, just look at what people can be considered racist for now. Sometimes I think it's justified, but other times...'not having the forethought to realize what it might be construed as' just doesn't have the maliciousness of racism. And putting 'Fuck the gays' and 'Those gays sure are good at parades, aren't they?' on the same level seems fundamentally flawed, to me.
And I see that phrase (Love the sinner hate the sin) used far more by the people who don't hate than the ones who do. As in, most if not all of my friends and the people I've known who disapprove of things like homosexuality but don't actual disapprove of the people themselves. Though that might be selection bias on my part.
Post by: Truean on September 05, 2016, 12:52:34 pm
People are scared, and don't have what they need / expect. They aren't fighting over what to do / how to solve things. They're fighting over who to blame.
As long as "who to blame" isn't the people in power, it's all good. So sayth the people in power....
Whatever you do, don't try to solve anything, because then you'll be blamed, or called controlling, or something. It just won't end well. We aren't talking about what causes people not getting what they need or expect. We're not talking about how to fix it, especially not practically. We're talking about laying it all on one group or another and we're not talking about solutions. That's why things keep getting worse.
Anyone who thinks me wearing a dress is destroying the country is wrong and not seeing the advantage of that if it were true. In that case, I'd be a wrecking ball you'd want to send to enemy nations. Basically if I'm a lightening rod for God's Wrath, then get me to infiltrate some hostile foreign power or something and attract all that divine ire their way. Except of course that's not how it works and deep down people know this.
Please do not quote:
Post by: hops on September 05, 2016, 01:02:28 pm
Post by: TempAcc on September 05, 2016, 01:05:47 pm
This is why every trans person ever is lumped togheter with bug chasers and pedophiles in the minds of one old westboro baptist flat earth enthusiast protester carrying a "god hates fags" sign, and why your average black lives matters protester thinks every person with a light skin colour is out to destroy them or has some sort of inherent hate for anything not white.
Even one's actions aren't important if they don't actualy affect (or create risks to) anyone else. I know a swedish furry bdsm blood fetishist dweeb, but he keeps his stuff to himself and within the circle of people he does it with, so why should I care (I do make jokes about it here and there, but thats because I'm a jerk :U)? Aditionaly, I know my grandma really REALLY disapproves of the fact I like my hair long and that I have stolen more than one boy's manhood in my teenage days, but I still treat her like she's my grandma and talk to her and etc.
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 01:18:06 pm
I'm a patriot in (what I consider, obviously) the finest sense of the word. Patriotism is not about how much you love your country as it is now, it's about how much you're willing to give up to make it better.
But yes, a lot of society's problems are caused by coordination problems and a desire to blame rather than solve. Two-party systems will do that; it's real tempting to blame the other guys to try and get people to vote for you instead.
On an individual level, people are scared of what they don't understand. Though there's always hope, at least. Deep canvassing is much more successful than rebuke or scorn for changing people's thought patterns/minds about transgender subjects. Obviously still doesn't work every time, but combine it with a general cultural trend...I'm sorry that you have to deal with that stuff Truean. There's no excuse for people doing that to you. I do think that it's getting better, though.
@TempAcc: I don't mean to be rude, but how many Black Lives Matter protesters have you met? Do you mean primarily the people who participate in rallies or anyone who supports the movement? Because I see a lot online about BLM being half a black-supremacy movement and half a white-people-suck 'support group', but I don't know how accurate that actually is.
Post by: TempAcc on September 05, 2016, 01:29:18 pm
To be honest she's pretty harmless overall and probably still a nice person in her own way, but its still kinda disconcerting to see her posts in tumblr and facebook and then realize that I was actualy good friends with this person.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 05, 2016, 02:35:17 pm
Can I say your situation sucks and I do not approve of the people making it that way?
@Cinder:If everyone abandons ship, how are we going to fix it?
Post by: misko27 on September 05, 2016, 03:17:03 pm
Not to nitpick, but there are more Ainu-identifying people alive in Hokkaido now than before Hokkaido was annexed by Japan, even by conservative estimates. .80,000 in 18th century, 25,000 is the official total Japan has today. Most Ainu were interbred into Japanese, so the number of "pure" Ainu, or Ainu-speakers, is quite low. And I didn't even mention Australia damn it, and the US example is only extremely tangential and one only mentioned in response to him. This was directed at Neonivek's bizarre China arguments. Lecturing me about not accurately comparing the US and Japan when I'm not even trying to do that is the very definition of nitpicking. But this is deeply off-topic anyway
To be honest I think you people just live in a shitty country for shitty people and should move to somewhere civilized like Germany or Norway.Now see, plenty of people are already trying that, and I'm not sure for how much longer Germany will remain open for immigration, or even refugees. Plus what if I was from someplace like India? Norway has 5 million people. Imagine 150 million Indians or even a low 10%, so only 100 million Indians, or hell just 20 million (presumably most Indians would stay) descending on Norway for a minute here. Norway would cease to exist, it would just be North India at that point. I mean I live in a city that has a greater population than all of Norway. Saying "go somewhere better" is not really a realistic proposition for the world's population. Even if only a slim minority want to go, that's still millions of people that need to come in. Even Germany, which is much bigger than Norway, is still looking at doubling its population size. Presumably, the outrage would stop the process long before that.
It might be a real option for relatively wealthy individuals to decide to try and immigrate, but as soon as more than a few people start doing that, it gets to the point where host countries either suffer serious strain or serious change. Only a few countries have managed to handle such immigration, and even they show strains. But also sort of off-topic. The on-topic point is that even if you are totally right that I live in a shitty country and should leave, it costs a lot more money and energy to move then I have, and there is no guarantee that I will be welcome there anyway.
Post by: hops on September 05, 2016, 03:37:07 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 03:56:07 pm
Intolerance isn't great.
But it's also literally unavoidable, because of the way our brains are wired. We need an enemy. If you're progressive, you find it in all those despicable Racists and Sexists and other Evil Peopletm. If you're more 'traditional', you might find it in foreigners or Muslims or colored people or the gays, but you probably find it in all those traitorous Hippies and Communists and damn dirty Tax-n-Spenders who want to Ruin Our Countrytm!
So saying 'you need to accept me and love me for who I am anyway' isn't going to happen. Tolerance means allowing to exist. It doesn't mean liking it. Accomodating deviation, giving leeway for people who want to do that, that's a good thing, and very possible. Accepting deviation? Well, if it was accepted, it wouldn't be deviation.
Furthermore, the vast majority of people whom I'm guessing you would consider bigoted are not actively intolerant, Dozebom. But you can't really try to stop it via 'YOU'RE BAD FOR NOT LIKING THESE PEOPLE', which, if that's not what you're talking about, good, but that's not what I'm getting from you. I feel like it's a common failure mode (in the sense that I consider it a failure to maintain one's values) for progressives, to become/feel justified in holier-than-thou righteous indignation and outrage addiction. Hell, just look at what people can be considered racist for now. Sometimes I think it's justified, but other times...'not having the forethought to realize what it might be construed as' just doesn't have the maliciousness of racism. And putting 'Fuck the gays' and 'Those gays sure are good at parades, aren't they?' on the same level seems fundamentally flawed, to me.
And I see that phrase (Love the sinner hate the sin) used far more by the people who don't hate than the ones who do. As in, most if not all of my friends and the people I've known who disapprove of things like homosexuality but don't actual disapprove of the people themselves. Though that might be selection bias on my part.
Excuse me? I kind of feel like I wrote something completely different, because I'm getting the response I'd expect if I'd written a much angrier post. I recognize that I am not perfect - look back a few pages, when I wrote a hasty, angry rebuttal of Billy that was also very wrong. I admitted that I was wrong and fixed it. But I don't think I'm that much "holier-than-thou." I haven't discussed how awful I am in this thread, because it's irrelevant, but I have actual self-esteem problem. Fsuuuure, I'm "holier-than-thou."
Is saying "tolerance is better than intolerance, tolerance ought to be, intolerance ought to be done away with" giving off a "holier-than-thou" tone? Because yeah, I think I'm right. I wouldn't be arguing that intolerance was bad if I thought I was wrong. But if that's the case, any sort of disputed statement is "holier-than-thou."
I don't find Racists and Sexists etc. to be evil, I find the racism itself to be awful and deserving of eradication. Is that feasible? Hell no. Ought it happen? If it could, yes.
Also, "our brains are hardwired" is a really good way of saying "this is bad, but we shouldn't fix it."
The whole "parade" thing was a reference to
(https://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2007/01/359560.jpg)
I probably meant protest, parade does evoke gay pride parades. Brainfart.
@LoveTheSinnerHateTheSin: Lucky you, you've tended to hear it said by nonhaters. Maybe that's the most prevalent use, but I've only heard it used to mean "everything I'm doing is because I love you! You evil dirty fag."
Post by: misko27 on September 05, 2016, 04:02:15 pm
Context is a useful thing to have. Real people live in situations that are far worse, and that isn't a trivial "children starving in Africa" comment either. I'd go so far as to say a majority of the world's population has equal or worse issues. Put another way, it's hardly an issue exclusive to freedom-land, as Dozebom's image above illustrates. Leaving is hardly a practical option for most. It's not on the scale of the "You are always free to kill yourself" argument from before, but the "You can always leave" argument is still missing the point a fair bit.
Post by: Truean on September 05, 2016, 04:28:26 pm
People pass bathroom bills cause they're afraid transgender people will rape.... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill)
Then practically nothing is done when actual rape occurs.... (http://www.wcsh6.com/news/jail-term-for-former-stanford-swimmers-rape-attempt-gets-even-shorter/311729261)
People were ... PISSED ... about that transgender bathroom thing, but when this dude does that to an unconscious girl.... That's some grade A BS right there. I can't pee in a public bathroom, but this over-privileged swimmer can pull that? Wow.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 04:52:37 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 05:01:08 pm
I never argued that killing yourself was a choice. I messed up that paragraph by leaving out a sentence - it was supposed to be a cautionary reference, a reductio ad absurdum. Hobbes' rebuttal of Sartre much more closely matches my thoughts. It was saying that sure, there's always technically a choice, but when it's a "lesser of two evils" situation, that's not much of a choice.
Honestly we kind of bow to suicide faaaaaaaar too much and treat it like a reasonable alternative to ill-treatment.
"Did you commit suicide? No? Well it must not be so bad"
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 05:32:35 pm
Who the hell are you talking to? They sound awful.
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 05:32:44 pm
My apologies, perhaps I wasn't clear; I don't think you are being 'holier-than-thou'. I think you were displaying some elements of self-righteousness, which is on the road there. But it is entirely possible to have self-esteem problems and still feel that way. It's quite similar to what many child bullies do. And no, I'm not saying you bully people, I'm saying it's an example of how it's possible. (progressives can bully just as hard as conservatives can when they try; girl getting pushed to brink of suicide for not drawing her fanart in a progressive enough way, for example).
Excuse me? I kind of feel like I wrote something completely different, because I'm getting the response I'd expect if I'd written a much angrier post. I recognize that I am not perfect - look back a few pages, when I wrote a hasty, angry rebuttal of Billy that was also very wrong. I admitted that I was wrong and fixed it. But I don't think I'm that much "holier-than-thou." I haven't discussed how awful I am in this thread, because it's irrelevant, but I have actual self-esteem problem. Fsuuuure, I'm "holier-than-thou."
Is saying "tolerance is better than intolerance, tolerance ought to be, intolerance ought to be done away with" giving off a "holier-than-thou" tone? Because yeah, I think I'm right. I wouldn't be arguing that intolerance was bad if I thought I was wrong. But if that's the case, any sort of disputed statement is "holier-than-thou."
I don't find Racists and Sexists etc. to be evil, I find the racism itself to be awful and deserving of eradication. Is that feasible? Hell no. Ought it happen? If it could, yes.
Also, "our brains are hardwired" is a really good way of saying "this is bad, but we shouldn't fix it."
The whole "parade" thing was a reference to
(https://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2007/01/359560.jpg)
I probably meant protest, parade does evoke gay pride parades. Brainfart.
@LoveTheSinnerHateTheSin: Lucky you, you've tended to hear it said by nonhaters. Maybe that's the most prevalent use, but I've only heard it used to mean "everything I'm doing is because I love you! You evil dirty fag."
And while you might not, many people do think of them as Evil and the enemy. "Well once all the old white men finally die off we'll finally be rid of this!"
And yes, people tend to think that when I say 'this is an intrinsic part of our nature' that I'm saying 'we shouldn't bother trying'. That is not the case whatsoever. What I'm saying is 'this is really goddamned hard to fix, you're going about it wrong, and it'll just turn into something else if we aren't prepared for that'. The reason we can have an overall peaceful society isn't just because 'we're more intelligent and cultured and we understand that war is bad'. It's because we have sports. The Romans had gladiatorial games, we have football. Or Mixed Martial Arts championships. Or Grand Theft Auto. Or politics.
There's a primal need for war. We've ritualized it, diverted it into things we see as productive. Politics serves to allow ideologies to clash with words and money instead of swords and money (there is always money). Sports games are battles made less lethal and more palatable. Violent video games allow catharsis without injury to real people. Availability of porn has been found to reduce sexual assault rates on average. You can't just flail at the problem in the name of doing something.
People are tribal, and people will stereotype, and people will discriminate. We don't have the brainspace/power to function effectively without doing so, and tribalism is inescapable, though again, sports teams and friendly rivalries tend to be the way to bleed off that urge productively. As much as I wish it weren't true, for most people, they have a need to other something. It helps form one's own identity, for one thing, at least if you subscribe to the social identity approach.
It's not an easy thing to solve, as much as we'd like it to be, and it takes more work than you'd think.
I think this is more the point:Because I promise you, it has nothing to do with actually being afraid people will rape. Both are awful, but the first is essentially the collateral damage of wanting to 'stick it to the man' by doing something anti-progressive after the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is legal, period. The second one is privilege and class at work. :/
People pass bathroom bills cause they're afraid transgender people will rape.... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill)
Then practically nothing is done when actual rape occurs.... (http://www.wcsh6.com/news/jail-term-for-former-stanford-swimmers-rape-attempt-gets-even-shorter/311729261)
People were ... PISSED ... about that transgender bathroom thing, but when this dude does that to an unconscious girl.... That's some grade A BS right there. I can't pee in a public bathroom, but this over-privileged swimmer can pull that? Wow.
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 05:37:20 pm
...
Who the hell are you talking to? They sound awful.
Typical people... They tend to be the sort of people who say that any tragedy really destroys your life and you are better off committing suicide.
I won't fill in the examples... as yeah they are tragic...
But I am someone who believes that "Victimizing a victim" hurts them far more then it helps. Giving them the impression that they can never get better and are better off dead... is far worse then being outright delusional and believing that everyone gets through it hunky dory.
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 05:40:55 pm
I've never heard that before in my life from anyone other than strawmen in fictional works. Ever....
Who the hell are you talking to? They sound awful.
Typical people... They tend to be the sort of people who say that any tragedy really destroys your life and you are better off committing suicide.
I won't fill in the examples... as yeah they are tragic...
But I am someone who believes that "Victimizing a victim" hurts them far more then it helps. Giving them the impression that they can never get better and are better off dead... is far worse then being outright delusional and believing that everyone gets through it hunky dory.
That's the thing people tell themselves when they're super depressed which leads to suicide. Those are not typical people talking.
Post by: Neonivek on September 05, 2016, 05:43:00 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 06:41:51 pm
My point is that that is not the average/typical response to suicide/having a tough time.
The biggest reason (afaik) we have a lot of suicide is because we have it so good, but happiness doesn't usually care, so if you're still having a shitty life/time, then you don't have external things to blame it on. You can't figure out why you're unhappy, so obviously there must just be something wrong with you, since why else would be upset? The idea of people's happiness being relative to their status in life, being largely genetic, and suicide being a 'solution' with a very permanent effect on a problem that's often quite temporary usually goes unrealized.
Victimizing people doesn't usually help, but neither does 'oh you can get over it, toughen up', usually. :/
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 07:53:03 pm
1. For the purposes of self-improvement, could you describe the point at which I was appearing self-righteous? (Either I miscommunicated or I actually was self-righteous, both of which should be fixed for enhanced social interaction.)
2. I kind of disagree with your conclusion, though. More on this once I get back to my comp and have the chance to think about it more. That might be tomorrow, I dunno. Better a well-written and -thought reply tomorrow than a hasty, incorrect one today.
Post by: Truean on September 05, 2016, 08:09:44 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 08:24:26 pm
Wow, you're right. This is much bigger than I thought.Basically the bit about being intolerant of intolerance was most of it. It's basically impossible not to be self-righteous in one way or another at some points; I know for a fact I get self-righteous about stuff, I just try not to be...what's the word. I try not to generalize it past myself when I can. :/ Or I try to be dry and technical so it's a discussion of philosophy rather than argument or the like. I dunno. Don't worry about it too much, I guess, just, well. This (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) is where I first learned about tribalism and shit. It specifically talks about tolerating anything but intolerance and that sort of thing. Word of warning though, the comments move along a sin curve on the political spectrum. Lots of armchair philosophers on every side, but overall they're pretty good to look at too on other pages (this is one of the more popular pages so it's gonna be bloated with comments), can give very cool insight on things.
1. For the purposes of self-improvement, could you describe the point at which I was appearing self-righteous? (Either I miscommunicated or I actually was self-righteous, both of which should be fixed for enhanced social interaction.)
2. I kind of disagree with your conclusion, though. More on this once I get back to my comp and have the chance to think about it more. That might be tomorrow, I dunno. Better a well-written and -thought reply tomorrow than a hasty, incorrect one today.
2. Always glad for discussion when I can. You never know what you really believe until you have it genuinely challenged.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 08:42:53 pm
It's interesting how one source says that tolerance is "acceptance without interference," and another "respect and kindness." Is it possible to be respectful and kind while interfering with someone's intolerance? If so, Armokdamn language strikes again - different meanings exist for the same word, but they are similar enough in meaning and use that they are often the source of misunderstandings!
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 05, 2016, 09:02:23 pm
Tolerance is not respect and kindness. That's acceptance. You can tolerate something without accepting it. In fact, if you have no problems with something, then you aren't being tolerant at all; tolerance is about things you don't like but put up with anyway.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 05, 2016, 10:21:10 pm
I finished the article you linked to, and as a result of that article and your posts (and some internal stuff I'll explain later) I have had a fucking epiphany.
I knew I wasn't perfect, but looking at the article and myself? Everybody is incredibly inherently flawed. I am inherently flawed in a fuckton of ways. And I already knew this, and yet I wasn't thinking about that. My mind is opening, thinking, everything is looking more complex. Reality is just shades of gray!
And I knew this! What the fuck, brain?! I've figured this out dozens of times before, and yet I still couldn't apply it to tolerance and outgroups! I still saw myself and my ingroup as tons more right than teh sexists, how awful they are, those evil people who I don't preach overt hate against, look at how great I am! I was kind of pre-holier-than-thou. And it's completely at odds with the philosophy that I developed! How on earth was I able to hold such inconsistent ideas in the same mind?
This doesn't feel right. It's unintuitive, and every part of me wants to abandon the thoughts and continue with the old way of thinking. I feel incredibly uncomfortable thinking about these things. And that is so incredibly perfect! Who knows what lurks in the recesses of my mind?! I can finally own myself, know myself! No longer will my thought processes go unquestioned. I will figure out what makes me tick, no matter how embarrassingly simple and common it is. (Because there's no way my mind wouldn't be special, right? I'm bound to be so different, so much better than those common unthinking sheeple! See?! I'm finding another dark recess!) This feels great and awful AND I LOVE IT!
And the best part? I've never had such a constructive discussion as this with a conservative.* And I don't even know whether that's because conservatives can't think big, important thoughts! (Again, another recess.) It could be that conversations don't work over the outgroup line. It could even be me! The possibilities are endless and complex! Life is interesting again!
*(Explanation b/c fucking English: I do not think that you are conservative [at least, not heavily]. I have talked with conservatives before. Never has a constructive discussion arisen from those talks.)
Of course, this all came about because of weird words - if I had used a synonym for my use of "tolerate," this derailish discussion wouldn't have happened. But I am so glad it did. I feel like I've awoken - but that in itself should be questioned! Am I now feeling better than the "sleeping people"?! I AM ADDICTED TO FINDING FLAWS IN MYSELF
Post by: misko27 on September 05, 2016, 11:41:38 pm
I'm not totally clear on what just happened here, and I don't know what article you are referring to. But it does sound like you've hit upon an important lesson. Many people I respect as wise and knowledgeable (much more than myself) do not make the connection that you have just made. Yay for questioning ourselves, I guess.
I feel like saying something else...
Post by: Starver on September 05, 2016, 11:51:26 pm
"What is between your ears" (gender) is one thing. It's hard to compare between people and social pressures (or personal will) might attempt to polarise the results, and possibly for most people it is clear and binary but I'm not sure that it can't be fluid over time, never mind tied down to one-or-the-other per person. - This may follow, but needn't, your genetic make-up. It can be more complicated than thatmand perhaps the uterine environment plays a part, but neurology is weird.
"What is between your legs" (sex) is another thing. For many people it is clear and binary, but there are definitely occasionally known ambiguities. Surgery can be had to do something about perceived wrongness, especially personal mismatch with the above (or forced upon the infant, to make it binary when it was not, by those who think they know best, despite having been subsequently shown to be wrong about that). - This may follow, but needn't, your genetic make-up. It can be more complicated than that and perhaps the uterine environment plays a part, but biology is weird.
"Who is between your legs" (sexuality) is yet another thing. It's not even a spectrum, but more multidimensional than that with at least two separate 'axes of preference' from not-at-all to definitely-do. It's almost certainly fluid and malleable by circumstance (but not such that any attempt should be made to force it to change to match other people's preconceived/indoctrinated expectations) with no necessary matching to either of the above situations, and natural and mutual happiness ought to be the ideal result, but there's no guarantee of that. - This may follow, but needn't, your genetic make-up. It can be more complicated than that and perhaps the uterine environment plays a part, but psychology is weird.
(Repeat for societal expectations - sociology is weird. Probably also repeat for personal expectations - psychiatry is weird. etc, etc.)
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 06, 2016, 12:08:54 am
...wow. Just wow.WELCOME TO RATIONALITY
I finished the article you linked to, and as a result of that article and your posts (and some internal stuff I'll explain later) I have had a fucking epiphany.
I knew I wasn't perfect, but looking at the article and myself? Everybody is incredibly inherently flawed. I am inherently flawed in a fuckton of ways. And I already knew this, and yet I wasn't thinking about that. My mind is opening, thinking, everything is looking more complex. Reality is just shades of gray!
And I knew this! What the fuck, brain?! I've figured this out dozens of times before, and yet I still couldn't apply it to tolerance and outgroups! I still saw myself and my ingroup as tons more right than teh sexists, how awful they are, those evil people who I don't preach overt hate against, look at how great I am! I was kind of pre-holier-than-thou. And it's completely at odds with the philosophy that I developed! How on earth was I able to hold such inconsistent ideas in the same mind?
This doesn't feel right. It's unintuitive, and every part of me wants to abandon the thoughts and continue with the old way of thinking. I feel incredibly uncomfortable thinking about these things. And that is so incredibly perfect! Who knows what lurks in the recesses of my mind?! I can finally own myself, know myself! No longer will my thought processes go unquestioned. I will figure out what makes me tick, no matter how embarrassingly simple and common it is. (Because there's no way my mind wouldn't be special, right? I'm bound to be so different, so much better than those common unthinking sheeple! See?! I'm finding another dark recess!) This feels great and awful AND I LOVE IT!
And the best part? I've never had such a constructive discussion as this with a conservative.* And I don't even know whether that's because conservatives can't think big, important thoughts! (Again, another recess.) It could be that conversations don't work over the outgroup line. It could even be me! The possibilities are endless and complex! Life is interesting again!
*(Explanation b/c fucking English: I do not think that you are conservative [at least, not heavily]. I have talked with conservatives before. Never has a constructive discussion arisen from those talks.)
Of course, this all came about because of weird words - if I had used a synonym for my use of "tolerate," this derailish discussion wouldn't have happened. But I am so glad it did. I feel like I've awoken - but that in itself should be questioned! Am I now feeling better than the "sleeping people"?! I AM ADDICTED TO FINDING FLAWS IN MYSELF
ALMOST EVERYTHING IS FUCKED
ALMOST NO ONE IS EVIL
Now we try to fix it.
(and no, I'm not conservative, I just think it's important to respect everyone. Full stop.)
Though, if you read his stuff and the related stuff, you'll find that 'Rationality addiction' is also a thing :P where it's all about that feeling of enlightenment, even when false. So tread carefully :P
Anyway, odds are it's because both of you weren't actually talking to each other, you were talking past each other, if you were talking about political stuff. It's fucking hard to actually hear someone out for their side genuinely. Which sounds absurd, but most people don't go into arguments looking to get the other's sides view because they think their own views are incomplete or wrong. It's often done with the intent to 'show them the truth' instead. Which means you just look for ways they're wrong.
But yeah go have fun :P
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 06, 2016, 12:56:43 am
Good point about showing vs discovering truth. (I can't tell whether you think I think you're a conservative or not - just make sure you read the parenthetical explanation.)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 06, 2016, 05:21:47 pm
Also, I didn't mean for this to be the "Dozebom discovers things about himself, becomes a better person" thread. It just sort of happened.
Here's a thought: if this way of thinking implies that I am not better than other people, then either this way of thinking is not good (which I dismiss), or everybody must be able to think this way. Thus, rationality gives me irrational optimism. Or is the optimism rational because it was rationally derived, though it was for an irrational purpose (that of providing hope)?
Shit. This is not the philosophy thread. I made a philosophy thread. Hmm.
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 06, 2016, 05:46:15 pm
Post by: TempAcc on September 06, 2016, 06:13:56 pm
Post by: IronyOwl on September 06, 2016, 09:27:55 pm
This (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) is where I first learned about tribalism and shit. It specifically talks about tolerating anything but intolerance and that sort of thing.Insightfulness and all aside, this article is just plain well written and fun to read. Thanks for the link.
EDIT:
Quote
Some of it is certainly genetic – estimates of the genetic contribution to political association range from 0.4 to 0.6. Heritability of one’s attitudes toward gay rights range from 0.3 to 0.5, which hilariously is a little more heritable than homosexuality itself.Holy shit wait what. This and its branches will require more attention and time than I anticipated. Thank you immensely for the link.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 06, 2016, 09:41:02 pm
Dunno why you think hope is irrational.
Because hope springs eternal, and yet not every situation would seem hopeful to an objective eye. But then of course I guess "nothing is reliable source," so objectivity can't really be done. (Heh, I love stealing sigquotes.) Hope can obscure what logically would seem obvious - but without it, people tend to give up. Which is bad. So I guess it's an acceptible irrationality.
There are times in which things are actualy far simpler than people make it out to be, this has been one of those times for a while now :U
To what does the Prophet refer?
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 06, 2016, 09:56:08 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 06, 2016, 10:20:49 pm
By which I mean I probably have some hidden source of it that I draw on without even knowing it, because as I keep on reminding myself, I'm not better than other people.
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 06, 2016, 10:24:45 pm
Ah, that makes sense. I am not that acquainted with hope myself, not requiring it as much as others would. *spock*Spock-like =/= better. Also doesn't equal false.
By which I mean I probably have some hidden source of it that I draw on without even knowing it, because as I keep on reminding myself, I'm not better than other people.
Post by: Rolan7 on September 07, 2016, 02:30:45 am
WELCOME TO RATIONALITYNO ONE IS LOYAL
ALMOST EVERYTHING IS FUCKED
ALMOST NO ONE IS EVIL
EVERYONE IS HERETIC
AN OPEN MIND IS LIKE A FORTRESS WITH ITS GATES UNBARRED AND UNGUARDED
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 07, 2016, 09:24:01 am
Ah, that makes sense. I am not that acquainted with hope myself, not requiring it as much as others would. *spock*Spock-like =/= better. Also doesn't equal false.
By which I mean I probably have some hidden source of it that I draw on without even knowing it, because as I keep on reminding myself, I'm not better than other people.
No comprendo. Could you elucidate with a full sentence or two?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 07, 2016, 10:06:27 am
Post by: Starver on September 07, 2016, 10:19:45 am
Also. In my mind, Spock does equal better.And smashes scissors/vaporises rock. Just watch out for the poisonous lizard and disproving paper.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 07, 2016, 01:09:43 pm
Post by: Catmeat on October 11, 2016, 11:31:20 pm
It came down to me asking her favourite flower, I bought one and gave it back to her, smiled then quickly ran for my life
Post by: Tiruin on October 12, 2016, 12:00:58 am
-Celebrations question-I...only knew this from the happy thread. I celebrated it in mind :D
Yeah I went into the florists after I saw a very cute girl working there, so I kinda pretended to be buying flowers for a non existant girl I have a fake crush on.This is so awh. I really like this. ^ ^
It came down to me asking her favourite flower, I bought one and gave it back to her, smiled then quickly ran for my life
Reminds me of how I act when I'm all D:
"Pretend you're doing it for someone else \o/" which technically is still correct.
Edit:
All these ideas running in mind makes me want to try animation and animating these little shorts, in silly but nice scenes that I hear from others :I
Post by: Solifuge on October 12, 2016, 05:58:18 am
Yeah I went into the florists after I saw a very cute girl working there, so I kinda pretended to be buying flowers for a non existant girl I have a fake crush on.
It came down to me asking her favourite flower, I bought one and gave it back to her, smiled then quickly ran for my life
Shit. That's smooth as hell.
*Starts taking notes*
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 12, 2016, 08:24:33 am
Yeah I went into the florists after I saw a very cute girl working there, so I kinda pretended to be buying flowers for a non existant girl I have a fake crush on.:o
It came down to me asking her favourite flower, I bought one and gave it back to her, smiled then quickly ran for my life
Smooth.
*also takes notes*
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 10:43:34 am
Post by: Infinityforce on October 12, 2016, 05:01:09 pm
Sex and sexuality should make you more, a better person. Believing in love is just so... right... and somehow so very sexy. Like the tenderness of loving a woman who is bearing your child... somehow, sex is more than touching, but making relationships, and futures.
We shouldn't become less for sexuality, degraded or seeking pleasure. Our experiences should not take away from our hearts, until we feel there is something missing. Our hearts should not protest at the emptiness of our lives, even if our hearts enjoy the pleasure of sex, it will ultimately ache.
Sex is a part of us, how we were all born (how almost every living thing was born) and we shouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed. We should try to understand, accept and become one with our nature, the meaning of life (is to give life) and love (is unconditional).
Having children is a form of life after death, somehow carrying a part of us in them. We become traumatised by contact with sexual partners so badly that we can never forget, and so excited by sex that we wish to die.
When sex is sterile, there is no pleasure. Sex is a performance too, and so is half-sex. Even thoughts and speech about sex is a sexual performance.
On the one hand, sex gives us power: "I'm your partner, look how fertile I am"
on the other, it robs us of power: "I love you, I want you, I need you"
but humans can say what no being has ever said before with understanding: "I want to have children with you" "I want to share everything with you"
Why waste important parts of your life with people who don't care for you?
The show of life is enjoyed by those who love it.
The show of sex is best enjoyed by those who love you, and who you love.
If it is so important, why not treat it as a form of meditation? After all, it does put you in a trance state, and this was even noted by the ancient tantric and taoist sages and even satanic perverts. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroto-comatose_lucidity)
They all understood the power of sex on the psyche: The unconscious male and female, the desire to intimate, reproduce, nurture and grow/create.
It is very telling that humans live with their parents for the longest time out of any animal. Sex means commitment, and child rearing. When a human being chooses a mate, it chooses a mate that will raise children for up to 20 years!
No other species is reared for such a long time until adulthood. We select for a future.
And when we forget that sex is, and has been, our future, we forget our past, our ancestors, and everything that makes us, us.
Tantra is so deep and immersive, and so very beautiful when you are in love. It is the fulfillment of our existence.
In just a moment, you may experience eons, or 6 hours may pass like the blink of an eye.
It is such an intense form of concentration, that left naturally, it is, at best, destructive and wild, but when mastered it is both restrained and powerful.
It is really quite truly moving to be loved by someone who cares SO much, and tells you with every touch, kiss and caress, how they will always be there for you, wants to be there for you, wants to have children with you, and live their life with you, happily until death.
To look in the eyes of one's lover whilst in meditative trance is like looking into the ocean, or a sea of stars in which you see your own self merging for the purpose of which you came together...
Sometimes base and rude- it is always overlooked,
Sometimes pure and good- it is always appreciated
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 06:08:28 pm
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)
Post by: Infinityforce on October 12, 2016, 07:04:33 pm
1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)
Are you referring to me?
1. Humans are unique in that they stay together and rear their children in families for longer, and with infinitely more attention than any other animal. How many animals mate, and stay with their mate to do parenting for 20+ years until the children are fully grown? Humans do.
2. I meant it literally. Aleister Crowley dubbed himself "the wickedest man alive" and "the great beast" and was known to haunt prostitutes. He probably did much more sick, occult shit which can only be termed as perversion. He founded the popularity of "eroto-comatose lucidity" in the western world. It was known for thousands of years by ancient sages prior. Crowley also probably indulged in paedophilia, cannibalism etc. so, is that perverted enough?
Post by: Antioch on October 12, 2016, 07:20:59 pm
At least on the internet.
Post by: Edmus on October 12, 2016, 09:26:02 pm
What social media circles do you observe this in?
Is it direct or reported?
edit: Or online circles in general(rather than just social media, though that definition is pretty blurry.)
Post by: spümpkin on October 13, 2016, 12:14:05 am
Well, that's mainly due to the fact that humans live longer than a lot of other animals :P1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.1. Humans are unique in that they stay together and rear their children in families for longer, and with infinitely more attention than any other animal. How many animals mate, and stay with their mate to do parenting for 20+ years until the children are fully grown? Humans do.
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)
But yeah, plenty of species raise children monogamously.
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 13, 2016, 02:33:37 am
1. How many animals take 20 goddamned years to grow to adulthood? A third or more or their typical lifespan? Infinitely more attention is a whole nother matter which has it's own issues...1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)
Are you referring to me?
1. Humans are unique in that they stay together and rear their children in families for longer, and with infinitely more attention than any other animal. How many animals mate, and stay with their mate to do parenting for 20+ years until the children are fully grown? Humans do.
2. I meant it literally. Aleister Crowley dubbed himself "the wickedest man alive" and "the great beast" and was known to haunt prostitutes. He probably did much more sick, occult shit which can only be termed as perversion. He founded the popularity of "eroto-comatose lucidity" in the western world. It was known for thousands of years by ancient sages prior. Crowley also probably indulged in paedophilia, cannibalism etc. so, is that perverted enough?
2. "Probably did some perverted stuff" "Probably indulged in perverted stuff" Mm-hmm. That....ain't great for evidence, man.
Post by: Catmeat on October 13, 2016, 02:39:45 am
Post by: Cthulhu on October 13, 2016, 03:48:30 am
Well.
Nevermind.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 06:56:16 am
The real factor is that a Human male and female will parent a child with more attention, care and understanding than any other animal, and for relatively longer. Not just spending time together, but performing parenting tasks. Humans arguably do the most parenting of any other animal.
You learn everything from your parents. Most animals learn the basics only, and learn the rest from the wild. That's because Humans are good at parenting, and have been selected by evolution to be great parents to give their children the best advantage. When two people make love (in nature), ultimately, it's to become great parents and raise a child from ignorance to self-sufficiency (which is more difficult for humans, because they learn SO much more than any animal). Think about it like science: We build on the discoveries of previous scientists. Similarly, we learn and grow based on the tuition of our parents. This is an evolutionary strategy to confer many benefits to human beings. This is how we are able to know so much (compared to animals).
For Humans, parenting is in-depth and a long term commitment (for the species as a whole, not only individuals) and Humans are good at parenting.
Human beings apply infinitely more care (ATTENTION) to their offspring than any animal because:
-humans are more mentally complex than animals. When they look after their offspring, they do it smarter than an animal.
-humans are more emotionally and socially complex than animals. They have a complex social system, they do it with more emotional depth.
-has to teach them language and pretty much everything about the world (animals can't do this because they don't understand the world)
-teaches them specialised skills like writing, numeracy, sports, social etiquette (complex skills can't even be understood by animals)
-feeds, clothes them. worries about their diet, skin, friends, education, finances and love life. (most animals do not stay in contact with their children into old age, for example)
2.
Crowley (http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/xi.htm) was definitely a (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2312632/Introducing-Satanic-sex-cult-thats-snaring-stars-Peaches-Geldof.html) pervert (http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeV/Unleashing_the_Beast.htm) by any definition (https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=pervert&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Mm__V7f7D6jS8Af3i6KABA)
Post by: TempAcc on October 13, 2016, 07:36:56 am
He did what many occultists of his time were doing, IE taking myths and legends (specially egyptian) and mashing it with modern culture to create cults through which he could gain influence and power over others, he just did it better than others. He was certainly good at marketing, as well.
Post by: Starver on October 13, 2016, 08:18:42 am
1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.Not so much as it is often said, or as absolutely as implied...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Varieties_of_monogamy_in_biology
I've seen somewhere that 90% of bird species might be "socially monogamous" (doesn't mean the eggs are his, necessarily, but they're staying together and tending the nest "for the sake of the chicks", and the 'famously monogamous' emperor penguins often break their pair-bonds and remake them with another between broods) and maybe just 3% of mammals, likewise.
Female-only nurturers (and entirely non-nurturing creatures) tend not to have any reproductive loyalty at all, not even taking into account mass spawners who then die from the effort, mothers who allow their own body to be consumed by their young and/or sexual canibalism.
Look to the Anglerfish, though... Inverted sexual dimorphism and enforced parasitism by the male means that lifetime monogamy (where it is not polyandry) is enforced.
The natural world is truly diverse, is it not?
ETA: "cis" tends to be used as an insult by reactionaries, see also the oscillating fortunes and intentions behind "gay" and the battles between the MRAs and the SJWs whose primary combatants proudly declare themselves as one and denigrate everybody not totally with them as being the inglorious other...
Also, same ETA: killer wales have a very human-like/human-scale life-cycle, including care of young by parents and grandparents and aunties (not sure about uncles...)
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 13, 2016, 11:25:16 am
1.So first off, do you mean all animals? Because I'm comparing humans to the smartest non-humans. Like elephants. Or dolphins, or chimps, or orcas, or crows, or what-have-you. Second, mentally complex=/= smarter. Chimps beat humans in terms of being able to figure out optimal game-theoretic strategies and use them. Humans overthink it. We apply biases and prejudices and ideas of how we'll stand socially to everything.
The real factor is that a Human male and female will parent a child with more attention, care and understanding than any other animal, and for relatively longer. Not just spending time together, but performing parenting tasks. Humans arguably do the most parenting of any other animal.
You learn everything from your parents. Most animals learn the basics only, and learn the rest from the wild. That's because Humans are good at parenting, and have been selected by evolution to be great parents to give their children the best advantage. When two people make love (in nature), ultimately, it's to become great parents and raise a child from ignorance to self-sufficiency (which is more difficult for humans, because they learn SO much more than any animal). Think about it like science: We build on the discoveries of previous scientists. Similarly, we learn and grow based on the tuition of our parents. This is an evolutionary strategy to confer many benefits to human beings. This is how we are able to know so much (compared to animals).
For Humans, parenting is in-depth and a long term commitment (for the species as a whole, not only individuals) and Humans are good at parenting.
Human beings apply infinitely more care (ATTENTION) to their offspring than any animal because:
-humans are more mentally complex than animals. When they look after their offspring, they do it smarter than an animal.
-humans are more emotionally and socially complex than animals. They have a complex social system, they do it with more emotional depth.
-has to teach them language and pretty much everything about the world (animals can't do this because they don't understand the world)
-teaches them specialised skills like writing, numeracy, sports, social etiquette (complex skills can't even be understood by animals)
-feeds, clothes them. worries about their diet, skin, friends, education, finances and love life. (most animals do not stay in contact with their children into old age, for example)
Third, while we quite easily have the most complex social behaviors, that's not least because we have the largest groups. That doesn't automatically translate to more emotional depth. How would you measure that, anyway? Expose an elephant to pictures of mutilated elephants and see whether they try and trample you?
Fourth, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry no that's a bad argument strategy (the laughing bit). But seriously, that's false, first off (humans are quite capable of learning without a parent, they just do worse off with most other bits like being able to get enough food 'n shit), saying language automatically makes us more family-oriented is a really odd way to put it, and family orientation (at all) rather than tribal orientation is a really recent thing, like 10,000 years or so at the very most, and still isn't always the case.
Fifth, animals have quite complex skills. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't consider hunting a complex skill? Or pack dynamics? Codifying everything doesn't make us smarter.
Sixth, animals do in fact worry about their offspring when they are animals that care about their offspring, and particularly when they are herd/pack animals like humans. Elephants hold goddamn funerals. Saying that humans are smarter because we have finances is meaningless. This also doesn't apply to all humans, even.
Seventh, it takes a village to raise a child, and before agriculture, the whole tribe helped. Not just family. Everyone helped with the kids. Just like other species. Humans are unique because of tool use+high intelligence, not unique for high intelligence alone. Elephants and dolphins are smart, they just lack hands.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 12:21:37 pm
Post by: TempAcc on October 13, 2016, 12:30:50 pm
Not by much though.
Post by: Flying Dice on October 13, 2016, 01:32:25 pm
(http://imgur.com/3OfFON4.png)"if you're not part of [group] you don't know what real prejudice or pain is."tbh the problem is that this is actually true if you look at the amount of people saying that women should be "flattered" because of catcalling and that sexual harassment "doesn't happen that often" etc.
a lot of people will just dismiss or minimalise racism or sexism because it never happens to them, and there's a big difference from "a few people are mean to me sometimes :c" and "random strangers call me a slut on a busy street regularly"
also it's just naive to pretend that cis white middle-class dudes experience prejudice to the same extent as basically any other group
Thanks for proving the point, though.
at no point did i say any of that so lolQuoteAssume that only the suffering of people you deem to be "real victims" mattersnopeQuoteproceed to marginalize and trivialize everyone elsenopeQuoteonly suffering caused by the "real problems" is important and that everything else doesn't exist or doesn't matternopeQuoteWork hard to make people otherize each other based on your hierarchy of victimhoodnopeQuotethere's a big difference from "a few people are mean to me sometimes :c" and "random strangers call me a slut on a busy street regularly"You have clear classes of "real victims" and trivialize all other suffering as "lel someone said something mean to me".QuoteAssume that empathy and sympathy don't exist and that people can only identify and want to resolve problems which personally affect themnopeQuotea lot of people will just dismiss or minimalise racism or sexism because it never happens to themYou made two generalizations here: that people outside your designated victim groups cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race or sex (which is blatantly and provably false, and that people who do not suffer from a given type of discrimination will not care about it.QuoteCall everyone who disagrees with your highly specific and arrogant worldview a bigotnope
Semi-fair, but the is the nigh-universal cop-out employed by people making the same arguments: see: all Brexit voters are cast as racist hicks, anyone who doesn't support Clinton is a sexist, &c. This is hands-down the favored argument of regressives, that anyone who doesn't blindly adhere to their specific ideological strain is a hateful enemy of progress.Quotecan't comprehend people who want to try to address all social ills instead of making their own lives better while pushing everyone else down the laddernopeQuotealso it's just naive to pretend that cis white middle-class dudes experience prejudice to the same extent as basically any other groupQuotea lot of people will just dismiss or minimalise racism or sexism because it never happens to themSee above re: the dual fallacy of group-limited victimhood and lack of empathy for those different from oneself suffering because of something encompassed by those differences. You tacitly assume that a person who does not suffer from a particular injustice will not care about it.Quoteblindly kowtowing to your pressure to allow you to do sonope
That is the conclusion most readily drawn from the previously mentioned assumption. If people do not care about problems which do not directly and personally affect them, why do those who are affected care? Obviously, personal gain. Ergo, if someone operating under your worldview is opposed to a type of prejudice, it it solely because they stand to improve their condition by doing so. You willingly reject even the possibility that someone could be opposed to hatred or prejudice because it is ethically wrong, socially destructive, &c. No, people only care about things if they gain something concrete from caring.
i could add onto why most of these things are bullshit or the exact thing you're doing, but why would i? your post is just a bunch of shit i didn't say and some random insults.
and why should i have to pm when calling people out on their bullshit?
also i guess i should have a line here passive-aggressively "thanking" you for things you didnt do but i cant really bring up the effort so meh
In order: It was a description of the ideas enshrined in your ideology and of the consequences of attempting to force it upon the world.
Because it's common courtesy to not shit up threads with unrelated arguments (or try to start fights because you don't like someone).
I understand that nuance isn't really your thing, since you didn't understand that that post was not literally quoting you, so don't sweat it.
I could say something involved about the irony of sheltered white euro-teens trying to dictate to people outside their cultural hugbox about issues which have background and history they haven't studied being taken seriously in a post-colonial world, but that's a whole different discussion.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 13, 2016, 01:42:40 pm
'least to me.
I, as an abstract point, feel that racism is a bad thing.
However, I couldn't claim to understand what it's like to be discriminated against racially, because I haven't been discriminated against racially.
It's a bit more nuanced than 'only certain people can be harmed by things'. There's maybe a higher burden of proof, but it is possible to be discriminated against even as the dominant cultural archetype. It's just that it actually does happen less, as a fraction.
Post by: NullForceOmega on October 13, 2016, 01:47:23 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 13, 2016, 01:48:51 pm
But when people use that as broad justification to say that 'no person who is not a member of [group] can understand' they are denying that life experiences like mine, where I was one of 4 white students out of 600 total, and was regularly threatened, harassed, and attacked for being white, ever occurThen they're wrong.
Also, that sucks. :v
Post by: TempAcc on October 13, 2016, 01:50:18 pm
The argument in a nutshell appears to consist of this: FD mentions, in a way or another, that discrimination is a bad thing, and often happens between minority groups and other minority groups and between said minority groups and the majority, which is also discriminated again in a reactionary action on the part of said minority groups. Miauw then disagreed by saying the discrimination against majority groups is largely irrelevant, implying that majority groups can't possibly be discriminated against or know how it feels to be discriminated against. FD disagrees and thinks miauw is a belgian babby. miauw re-disagrees and thinks Flying Dice is the next comming of hitler.
Note: does any of this actualy reflect the actual discussion in any way? Absolutely not. I am a jerk and I'm currently bored, fite me IRL
Post by: miauw62 on October 13, 2016, 01:53:25 pm
Quote
In order: It was a description of the ideas enshrined in your ideology and of the consequences of attempting to force it upon the world.why bother replying to my post specifically if your argument is against a perceived caricature of an ideology (e.g. the quote i was quoting) instead of against the points i was actually making?
but, for the record, i am indeed saying that some issues deserve more attention than others. and that these are usually the issues that already marginalized people experience. which are often dismissed and trivialized.
Quote
You have clear classes of "real victims" and trivialize all other suffering as "lel someone said something mean to me".much like the quote i was replying to was (hopefully) a hyperbole, so was this. i did not discuss the people that do recognise the issues unprivileged groups experience, but i did adress the general tendency of the media to ignore them, and the people that say, for example, that catcalling should be considered flattery. which is a good example since it highlights the extent to which people tend to assume the most benign form of these issues in their minds, and the extent to which people underestimate the psychological effects of this. surely, being whistled to from across the street should be a compliment? but this isn't about being whistled to from across the street.
and it wasnt an unrelated argument. maybe next time you want to make a post like the one i was replying to in the happy thread, instead post it here and link the person you were going to quote?
and again with the thinly veiled insults, which you can't seem to leave out of your posts. i honestly don't understand why you have to be so incredibly defensive whenever you reply to me. yes, i challenge your points a lot because you express opinions that i disagree with often. i always try to be respectful about this, but your replies are invariably (not even passive-)agressive.
But when people use that as broad justification to say that 'no person who is not a member of [group] can understand' they are denying that life experiences like mine, where I was one of 4 white students out of 600 total, and was regularly threatened, harassed, and attacked for being white, ever occur
FD didn't imply it doesn't happen less with majority groups, though.this isnt what i said either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The argument in a nutshell appears to consist of this: FD mentions, in a way or another, that discrimination is a bad thing, and often happens between minority groups and other minority groups and between said minority groups and the majority, which is also discriminated again in a reactionary action on the part of said minority groups. Miauw then disagreed by saying the discrimination against majority groups is largely irrelevant, implying that majority groups can't possibly be discriminated against or know how it feels to be discriminated against. FD disagrees and thinks miauw is a belgian babby. miauw re-disagrees and thinks Flying Dice is the next comming of hitler.
Note: does any of this actualy reflect the actual discussion in any way? Absolutely not. I am a jerk and I'm currently bored, fite me IRL
i was explaining why people would say a quote like FDs, but maybe that was my first mistake, because that was just a demonized strawman to begin with.
and hey maybe i would have agreed if the reply to my post wasnt a big picture of a strawman. but apparently some people can't do civil discourse.
Post by: i2amroy on October 13, 2016, 01:55:24 pm
Something is noticed is that the word "cis" seems to be very much on it's way of becoming a derogatory term.
What social media circles do you observe this in?I can say that most of the times I ever hear the word nowadays is when people are using it in conjunction with the negative connotations of a sense of "not us". Can't really remember the last time I've actually seen it used in a more positive sense, every time it's always being used by someone who intrinsically places themselves as not a member of whatever group they are referring to.
Is it direct or reported?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 13, 2016, 01:58:34 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 13, 2016, 02:34:36 pm
Animals are NO WHERE near as self-aware, rational, understanding, perceptive, insightful, creative, organised, coherent, calculating, restrained, detached, considerate, reflective, concentrated, focused, developed, mentally or emotionally compared to Humans.Citation please.
Post by: scriver on October 13, 2016, 04:05:47 pm
i always try to be respectful about this, but your replies are invariably (not even passive-)agressive.
[...]
but apparently some people can't do civil discourse.
You say this, but your aggressive tone and arrogant and holier-than-thou attitude shows that either clearly you are not trying, or you are lacking in your sense of yourself.
And seriously, no, you don't get complain about people strawmanning you when this whole argument arose because of you building a huge strawman to begin with.
Post by: Solifuge on October 13, 2016, 04:14:41 pm
But first...
Animals are NO WHERE near as self-aware, rational, understanding, perceptive, insightful, creative, organised, coherent, calculating, restrained, detached, considerate, reflective, concentrated, focused, developed, mentally or emotionally compared to Humans.Citation please.
This. Also you're painting in overly-broad strokes, friendo.
Without having to look very hard, I could cite solid evidence for several known cultures within populations of Orcas and Dolphin species, Gorillas, Baboons, Chimpanzees, and several Elephant species. Several groups are presently analyzing candidates for naturally occurring Dolphin-to-Dolphin "conversation" candidates (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/europe/dolphin-language-conversation-research/). We've witnessed Baboon cultural shifts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZcTvFqzxA0) that upended things we used to label "Natural Baboon Behavior," which turned out to just be social customs that were taught to children and new immigrants to their groups. We've observed legitimate Elephant funeral rites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#Death_ritual). We've observed several animals practicing herbal self-medication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoopharmacognosy#Mammals); in at least the case of elephants, the knowledge of special leaves and bark to eat to induce labor is not "instinct", but is passed down within social groups. Hell, even Bees can learn and teach other bees complex tasks (http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/5/13171714/bee-trained-skills-teach-other-bees), even when they're nothing like they'd encounter in nature.
I agree that comparing the intelligence of Humans with other Animals is deeply flawed, but not for the reasons you're citing. We're extremely different biologically, and we don't have a holistic understanding of ourselves and our minds, let alone those of the other intelligent / social species on Earth. Also, it's important to not conflate Technology (Human Math or Language, or Elephant Herbal Medicine or Burial Rites) with Intelligence too. If you mean to compare us seriously, you'd need to define a truly standardized metric for Intelligence, or design tests that aren't biased toward Human-specific skills and aptitudes.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 04:26:25 pm
Post by: Reelya on October 13, 2016, 04:30:07 pm
http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf
I think that shows quite adequate self-awareness: they're able to recognize that another monkey is another sentient being capable of suffering, and to relate that back to their own experience. And then they refrain from behavior which benefits themselves because they're aware it's hurting someone else.
Post by: TempAcc on October 13, 2016, 04:38:37 pm
Another experiment had one hyena and several easily opened boxes with meat inside (and some manner of blocking the meat's scent). I dont quite remember how they executed the test, but it was done in a way that only one of the hyenas knew were the meat was, and then sent other, higher ranked hyenas in. The higher ranked ones expected the lower ranked one to show them were the meat was, but the lower ranked one actualy led them in circles until they got tired and left, and then and ONLY then did the lower ranked hyena go and fetch the meat from the place it was hidden in. This behavior is also sometimes observed in the wild.
Ofc, all animals suck in comparison to us, but most aren't full dweebs either.
Oh, also, lions are dumb as fuck.
Post by: Flying Dice on October 13, 2016, 04:50:26 pm
i dont really have a beef with you, i have a beef with discriminatory bullshit :vOh, and so much for "I don't call people bigots for disagreeing with me."
ill happily come and call people out on it whenever i can bring up the effort.
Wasn't trying to be insulting so much as chiding with the babby's first ideology bit. 'Cause, y'know, that shit happens. That's what teenagers do, they start forming their own worldviews, and those tend to first emerge as dogmatic adherence to some ultra-binary bullshit. There's the ones who start (quite ironically enough) worshipping Marx and venerating Mao or Castro, the little rich fuckers who immediately start smoking the traditional Rand-Smith poison, the weird one who becomes ultra-nostalgic for Reagan-era conservatism; I was a budding little anarchist myself.
But we tend to grow out of that, most of us. We realize that the world isn't some fantasy bullshit division between Good and Evil, that there aren't easy answers or solutions to most of our problems, that people the world over tend to live lives which are pretty similar in structure and emotion even if the content differs. The ones that don't are the fringe-radical assholes that make cooperation and understanding difficult from the rest of us. And when you look back at your own gestation as a political creature (or someone still going through it), it's really fucking obnoxious how single-minded people are at that age.
And it sure as shit don't change, I think most anyone who self-contemplates at all gets some bitter laughs about what they believed at most any point prior to the present. I'm sure that in thirty years, if I'm still alive, I'll think that the me of today was a know-nothing little shit. That's how humans work, we change over time, and the trend tends to be towards a more nuanced view of the world (until you go senile). Absolutism is for the very young and the willfully ignorant. None of us know or understand everything, so it's generally best to try to be open and understanding, since shutting people out and trying to divide the world into hostile camps incapable of comprehending each other doesn't do anyone any good.
In other words: life sucks, then you die. Most everyone has plentiful helpings of pain in their lives, even if it's not always the same sort or derived from the same sources, and acting as if they don't (or that it doesn't matter) is frankly really goddamn arrogant. Are they a person? If they are, then they matter, and their pain is real, regardless of what sort of bullshit you need to justify your special-snowflake syndrome or self-flagellation.
Post by: chaoticag on October 13, 2016, 04:53:44 pm
Hey, this is starting to look like it's gotten personal and really off-topic. Let's chill, and get back to talking about gender soon.
Post by: Catmeat on October 13, 2016, 05:11:17 pm
Hahahaha if ever was a train to derail it this kind.
So while im here.. anyone down to dominate me?... my Kdr is 2.80
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 05:45:43 pm
Sex between humans is really quite divine and very unlike mere animal rutting (pardon my french)
Post by: Solifuge on October 13, 2016, 05:56:54 pm
humans are just in a different LEAGUE.
Lots of animals do have adequate self-awareness, but only humans have such a deep understanding of repercussions, empathy, sympathy, logic etc.
Sex between humans is really quite divine and very unlike mere animal rutting (pardon my french)
Those are nice ego-stroking notions for us Humans to tell ourselves, but the science just doesn't agree with that. Also, when people used to talk about stupid savage creatures rutting in the dirt for most of history, they were talking about other Human cultures that were different than them. It's a matter of perspective, and of judging others from ivory towers.
That said, don't let me sell Humans short; we've got one of the heaviest-duty brains in the animal kingdom, we've got dexterous hands we don't need to reserve for walking, and we also lucked into big meaty lumps of Mirror Neurons that improve our empathy and social ability. Whether it's human or baboon or elephant or whatever, once your culture develops a complex enough social language, all bets are off. Being able to pass experiences, tools, and strategies down from parent to child outpaces adaptations from biological evolution on an exponential scale, plus it's intentional and guided (unlike evolution).
Humans were basically the perfect storm for rapid advancement like this, but there's other animals on Earth in very similar positions, and with very similar raw abilities. They're just waiting for something like Fire to predigest their food, and give them the leisure time and spare energy to start culturally advancing like we did. Count yourself lucky that Humans were the species that got that head-start, so we get to run the show. :P
Post by: Calidovi on October 13, 2016, 06:01:44 pm
Lots of animals do have adequate self-awareness, but only humans have such a deep understanding of repercussions, empathy, sympathy, logic etc.
Sex between humans is really quite divine and very unlike mere animal rutting (pardon my french)
Spoiler: kind of off-topic (click to show/hide)
Post by: i2amroy on October 13, 2016, 06:03:33 pm
Lots of animals do have adequate self-awareness, but only humans have such a deep understanding of repercussions, empathy, sympathy, logic etc.I mean really that statement is fairly unprovable, given how our anthropocentric studies kind of limit us by virtue of not actually having any animal writers/etc. that have written down their thoughts on the subject. I mean for all we know animals think that their version of it is way better than anything humans might experience, but we can't exactly ask them that question and get an intelligible answer. (And emotions/understanding of emotions aren't exactly comparable things anyways. I mean if a person thinks that compassion in a particular case doesn't require action that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a "lesser" understanding of it, or that they necessarily feel it any less, they've just chosen not to act on it.)
Sex between humans is really quite divine and very unlike mere animal rutting (pardon my french)
I mean at best you can pretty much resort to the "I think that X is true" due to the lack of evidence making the statement unprovable, which while it certainly can be a belief you can hold (and one that's vague enough I'm not necessarily going to hold it against you), it doesn't actually mean anything for whether the actual idea of the statement (that X is true) is true or false.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 06:18:08 pm
For example, humans examine things in much deeper depth and detail, reference and cross reference it to existing data, abstract it and play with it as a concept or idea, and finally dismiss it at will. Humans can literally formulate ideas at will and combine them with other ideas to solve problems. They can extrapolate on data and make very accurate guesses about a variety of things (some animals can guess the weather, for example, but to them, it is much more an unconscious instinct)
Even though animals can appreciate life, they can never look at things with the same understanding that human does, because humans have such depth, breadth and width of understanding of such diverse sets of knowledge, rational and abstract, creative and intuitive.
(http://i.imgur.com/zdmn5sZ.gif)
For example, they can figure out the solutions to problems, but perhaps after seeing it and failing a few times.
Animals do problem solving unconsciously. It happens, but usually by accident.
Humans have bought problem solving to the fore of their being, evolutionarily. They seek out solutions and are able to grasp and juggle many things in their mind in a way which even apes cannot do. Most of this is down to the superior concentration of human beings. This is bought on by self-awareness.
Humans can make abstract leaps that put them bounds ahead and allows them to solve purely theoretical problems.
As far as I know, no animal can think "purely theoretically", but humans, and neither has any animal need to.
Yet humans have been pursuing "thought" for their evolutionary history, and our minds, bodies and lives reflect that.
Post by: Calidovi on October 13, 2016, 06:24:20 pm
It's not merely a matter of having a view, it's the quality of the view.
For example, humans examine things in much deeper depth and detail, reference and cross reference it to existing data, abstract it and play with it as a concept or idea, and finally dismiss it at will. Humans can literally formulate ideas at will and combine them with other ideas to solve problems. They can extrapolate on data and make very accurate guesses about a variety of things (some animals can guess the weather, for example, but to them, it is much more an unconscious instinct)
Even though animals can appreciate life, they can never look at things with the same understanding that human does, because humans have such depth, breadth and width of understanding of such diverse sets of knowledge, rational and abstract, creative and intuitive.
(http://i.imgur.com/laejooA.gif)
For example, they can figure out the solutions to problems, but perhaps after seeing it and failing a few times.
Animals do problem solving unconsciously. It happens, but usually by accident.
Humans have bought problem solving to the fore of their being, evolutionarily. They seek out solutions and are able to grasp and juggle many things in their mind in a way which even apes cannot do. Most of this is down to the superior concentration of human beings. This is bought on by self-awareness.
Humans can make abstract leaps that put them bounds ahead and allows them to solve purely theoretical problems.
As far as I know, no animal can think "purely theoretically", but humans, and neither has any animal need to.
Yet humans have been pursuing "thought" for their evolutionary history, and our minds, bodies and lives reflect that.
(https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-02-at-11-19-45-am.png)
Post by: TempAcc on October 13, 2016, 06:27:09 pm
THERE IS ONLY BABBY AND AMINALS
AM DOG, HEAR ME ROAR
NEIGH
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 06:30:19 pm
Post by: i2amroy on October 13, 2016, 06:39:20 pm
-snip-Sure humans are good problem solvers (though we still lose in certain things to some animals, such as the aforementioned example of how chimps can beat humans at solving for game-theoretic strategies and applying them). For pure theoretical thinking, my previous point stands, in that we don't know if animals can or can't, because we can't talk to them and ask and a purely theoretical thought will be, by definition, untestable due to virtue of being purely theoretical.
Regardless the ability of an animal to problem solve really has absolutely nothing to do with their emotional capacity; there are plenty of cases of autistic geniuses without the ability to really feel many emotions, as well as amazing artists who are horrible problem solvers, just within the human species alone, and that's just the differences within our species itself as opposed to the difference between multiple species.
No offense, but it's kinda like you're trying to have three different discussions on the differences between animals and humans at the same time, and are falsely implying that progress towards one goal in your statements also implies progress towards the others.
Post by: Solifuge on October 13, 2016, 06:54:34 pm
Spoiler: -Snipped for Length- (click to show/hide)
SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT ARE INVENTED, what's the deal with Gender? </Seinfeld>
I mean, is it totally fake just because someone invented it way back when, or do invented things like that become real when enough people agree on them?
If so, I motion to officially recognize Child, Tomboy, Effete, Androgyne, and Nope as official Genders. Additional suggestions are open!
Post by: Infinityforce on October 13, 2016, 07:00:01 pm
ANIMALS LACK THE WETWARE.
Humans have brilliantly faceted and intricately developed minds, formed from tens of thousands of years of contemplation on "nature" "virtue" "music" "art" "logic" and "self" as well as many more things. Our brains are just plain different and made that way through thousands of years of a specific burning curiosity that is found nowhere else. It is imprinted, burned on our minds, the thoughts and deeds of our ancestors, which, even then, were far beyond the musings of any ape by at least 100 thousand years difference in evolution.
Somethings, a dog was never meant to compute or contemplate.
Apes too, are shockingly devoid of "higher" thought processes.
Even orcas, dolphins and elephants, despite being emotionally profound and inspiring, cannot match the will of a human being who can sacrifice for an intangible cause, and do so happily, gladly, lovingly.
Only humans understand their feelings and actions to such an extent as to become conflicted.
Not that animals don't get depressed or anything, but humans are definitely more complicated, deeper, intelligent, capable of forming rational, complex, well-thought-out and rehearsed ideas, abstract theories, images etc.
Humans can lie about their feelings about sex. Animals don't even need to lie.
Humans can appreciate the presence of another person. We keep them alive in our minds in a way that a dog can never do, because a dog isn't made to understand it. They yearn and pine, but ultimately, there is no recognition of the person as an individual being, through empathy, sympathy, self-awareness etc.
Post by: i2amroy on October 13, 2016, 07:04:37 pm
SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT ARE INVENTED, what's the deal with Gender? </Seinfeld>Depends, what sense are you talking about it in? Physical, mental, emotional, role-wise? It matters, because some of those things are biologically based (hormones affecting behavior/actual physical composition of cells/etc.) while others are defined more as a collection of traditions that have been passed down through society over the years, and some are a composition of both, being an initial small physical difference that was amplified by tradition or any other number of things.
I mean, is it totally fake just because someone invented it way back when, or do invented things like that become real when enough people agree on them?
ANIMALS LACK THE WETWARE.Except we can't prove this on a number of counts, because we can't ask a dog how he feels about the presence of another dog, or what he thinks about this idea or that, or whether he feels conflicted on eating food now or saving it for later. The communication barrier alone stops us from gather any direct proof at all. And if you want to talk indirect proof through actions/etc, then those ways that we have studied appear to have come back fairly strongly in terms of grey, not in basic black and whites of humans vs other animals, as has been noted again and again in example linked studies in the last few pages alone.
Post by: Calidovi on October 13, 2016, 07:40:38 pm
Spoiler: UK Facebook Gender List (click to show/hide)
what's the difference between these? facebook has them on its gender list, but aren't these all expressions of maleness?
Post by: Criptfeind on October 13, 2016, 07:42:16 pm
Post by: Solifuge on October 13, 2016, 07:52:36 pm
I mean, Spanish is real, right? But it's also Artificial, the same way Gender is; made up and modified by people throughout history, assigned and taught to kids, and used to help us understand one another more easily. They're even both ways of standardizing behavior and communicating things to one another:
Language has standard grammar rules to keep the meaning intact when spoken (ideas are never perfectly communicated in words, but standard rules help!), and to keep the meaning of writing as stable as possible over the years. Gender has standards of appearance that encourage people to dress and label themselves visually so we can find ideal mates more easily, and standards of behavior that can restrict dangerous activities from childbearing people (and thus maximize reproductive rates and combat high mortality rates. Yes, I've talked about this a bazillion times before, and everyone is probably tired of it by now, but it's true >:U)
Spoiler: UK Facebook Gender List (click to show/hide)
what's the difference between these? facebook has them on its gender list, but aren't these all expressions of maleness?
Er... some folks might find the distinctions important, but yeah. These are just synonyms for "Trans-Male". Ugh... and Female-To-Male focuses on being trans as a thing that's about Sex Changes and Physical Bodies, rather than about Gender Roles at all, so fuck whoever invented that terminology I suppose? 9_9;
Honestly, can't we just let people be Male Men, or Female Men, or Male Women, or Female Women, and just be done with the complications? Male and Female is about your parts, and Man or Woman is about your role. Throw in "Androgyne" for anyone in the middle or outside the binary, and you could make a god-damned Gender Alignment Chart of it.
...I want someone to do this now.
Post by: chaoticag on October 13, 2016, 08:53:24 pm
Then there's a matter of degrees, because, lets say someone is in between being a man or a woman in terms of expressing their gender. What does that mean? Do they like to tone down manly and feminine things? Do they like doing both in equal regards? Both would fall in between somewhere if that's all we're interested in, but it's not really impossible for a bodybuilder to join a knitting circle.
But yeah, prolly gonna put it down as complicated.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 13, 2016, 09:51:08 pm
Identify male
Identify female
Genderfluid
Nonconforming
Agender
That seems simple enough, yes?
And just leave biological sex out of it.
Post by: Tiruin on October 14, 2016, 12:14:42 am
I just have to say that that dog gif is...there's some kind of photo-manipulation o_o I just noticed the lower right area of the stick pass through whatever the pole was.
Anyway yeah--that notice of intelligence that you're posting about, 74s, isn't merely biological :P It's part of the biological-emphasis that was done decades ago that also had other emphases on other aspects coming about (ie Cognitive, etc) because of how limited it was in its scope in actually explaining a broader viewpoint given the mere limitation of physiology and its affects.
There's also a lot of theoretical notes on intelligence that I'd love to bring up but I lack the time :I
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 14, 2016, 01:31:25 am
Look, I'll just say it plainly.Citation. Needed.
ANIMALS LACK THE WETWARE.
Humans have brilliantly faceted and intricately developed minds, formed from tens of thousands of years of contemplation on "nature" "virtue" "music" "art" "logic" and "self" as well as many more things. Our brains are just plain different and made that way through thousands of years of a specific burning curiosity that is found nowhere else. It is imprinted, burned on our minds, the thoughts and deeds of our ancestors, which, even then, were far beyond the musings of any ape by at least 100 thousand years difference in evolution.
Like, I don't think I can be much simpler than this. You're not presenting any evidence. Hell, at this point you're basically saying Lamarckian evolution caused it. You think your typical peasant in ancient egypt was musing about the meaning of life and self? The poets and shit back then aren't your everyday people. And that curiosity is found in a lot of places, actually. Yes, there is a significant difference between dog and human. There is also a significant difference between dog and spider. Or between dog and elephant. Humans make fucking stupid decisions and we solve problems in extremely inefficient ways at times. Defining that as 'smarter' means you may as well just define smartness as 'resemblance to a human' and then declare humans the smartest because they resemble themselves best. Humans will sacrifice themselves for the group far more than they will for a cause devoid of people attached to it. Animals will do that too. Hell, for that matter, the fact that we have causes to sacrifice for is as a result of technology, not intelligence. You don't think animals can be conflicted? Hell, my goddamn dog will be conflicted about things when it has competing desires. "Make pack-leader happy" and 'Get belly-rubs' conflicting with 'eat the tasty cat-poop' and 'really excited that new person is here must lick face'.
Like, you don't have any basis for this. The only thing you can say is that you haven't seen animals do that, and no shit, because we can't yet communicate with them effectively enough for them to be psycho-analyzed via language. Humans aren't more intelligent, we just have better tech. Tech includes language, in this instance (although interestingly enough knives are built into the homo sapiens genetic code in a similar fashion to how dams are built into beavers).
Post by: Catmeat on October 14, 2016, 01:38:00 am
We are slaves
Post by: Cthulhu on October 14, 2016, 02:13:11 am
Now that I've given the thread topic suitable time I'll talk about the subtopic we're on now. One of my favorite examples of human/animal similarity was originally brought up in a seminar at the school I taught for a while. Fighting was endemic at the school and reasonably smart kids were flunking out because they were suspended half the year for fighting. The discussion was on the nature of human aggression and violence and one interesting topic was how "lower-level" aggression between humans is almost identical to same between chimpanzees and similar primates.
The most surprising was that raiders almost exclusively targeted noncombatants, and traveling warbands would often ignore each other in favor of attacking noncombatants. I have heard that noncombatants were more prized as trophies in some cultures because it indicated the taker had gone into the heart of enemy territory to claim them.
You could also tie this back to above because evidence of this kind of conflict is often ignored or downplayed because it doesn't jive with narratives about human nature and especially the nature of modern human conflict.
Post by: Starver on October 14, 2016, 03:52:06 am
For what it's worth, inserted my interpretations. Not authoritative. Probably all there by demand (or perceived demand, once the first few descriptions were being added by request) because whatever slots are imposed are going to be overflowed from by those who don't quite like how their position in the spectrum(/plane/N-volumetric/etc) is limited by somebody else's preconceived ideas of 'options'.Spoiler: UK Facebook Gender List (click to show/hide)
what's the difference between these? facebook has them on its gender list, but aren't these all expressions of maleness?
ETA: As far as later discussions are concerned, I've long since gone by gender, sex and sexuality being three separate axes (or even complex, possibly wrap-around and potentially dynamic, planes of their own), but given that the three labels are rarely (and usually shouldn't be) asked to be specified independently of each other, when faced with a single field for "sex" you may feel the need to go beyond "male, female, androgynous, asex, <other ambiguity, let's sort it out later>)". And a single field for "gender" having just a sliding scale (capable of assigning sepearate extremity and median points, and probably an "idunno?!?" tickbox that greys out the scale entirely) probably leaves something wanting, for a lot of people, too...
Post by: scriver on October 14, 2016, 05:04:17 am
(although interestingly enough knives are built into the homo sapiens genetic code in a similar fashion to how dams are built into beavers).
Citation needed!
But not because I am challenging your statement but because it sounds very interesting and I would like to know more ;)
Post by: spümpkin on October 14, 2016, 05:39:25 am
Clarified with my opinions, and my knowledge having looked into the subject and being trans myself.Spoiler: UK Facebook Gender List (click to show/hide)
what's the difference between these? facebook has them on its gender list, but aren't these all expressions of maleness?
Post by: Skyrunner on October 14, 2016, 05:49:49 am
also that yellow text is incredibly hard to read.
Post by: Starver on October 14, 2016, 06:11:16 am
Clarified with my opinions, and my knowledge having looked into the subject and being trans myself.(Changed to red. You probably use a Darkling-type theme for this half/all of the fora, but yellow on pale blue needs a lot of work to read.)
Note that those were all Female To Male (of whatever kind), which I think you misread as Male To Female.
Agree with first two of your interpretations (although you still tell a lot with the first, just not the whole story). I know of "transitioned" individuals who would (by choice or necessity, according to circumstance) say they are Transgender because "they have transed", not give up the term because they only used it "while transing". But different isolate 'populations' may well employee different standards to the word. And "transsexual", apart from the usual confusion between (sex, sexuality, gender)1, tends to refer more to behaviour than presentation.
And then we agree on the abbreviations, more or less, except for the possibility of nuances.
1 The old maxim is "Gender is what is between your ears, sex is what is between your legs, sexuality is who is between your legs", and I've found that pretty much accepted by my own cadre of non-binary aquaintences, so as a not-(significantly)-non-binary person myself I'm happy to pass it on until someone complains and gives a decent alternative.
Post by: spümpkin on October 14, 2016, 06:35:47 am
Yeah, changed to red, I was introduced to the forum on Darkling, so I kinda forget that the default theme exists. But anyway, I mostly just wanted to clarify that being transsexual- as far as I'm aware -has nothing to do with sexuality.Clarified with my opinions, and my knowledge having looked into the subject and being trans myself.(Changed to red. You probably use a Darkling-type theme for this half/all of the fora, but yellow on pale blue needs a lot of work to read.)
Note that those were all Female To Male (of whatever kind), which I think you misread as Male To Female.
Agree with first two of your interpretations (although you still tell a lot with the first, just not the whole story). I know of "transitioned" individuals who would (by choice or necessity, according to circumstance) say they are Transgender because "they have transed", not give up the term because they only used it "while transing". But different isolate 'populations' may well employee different standards to the word. And "transsexual", apart from the usual confusion between (sex, sexuality, gender)1, tends to refer more to behaviour than presentation.
And then we agree on the abbreviations, more or less, except for the possibility of nuances.
1 The old maxim is "Gender is what is between your ears, sex is what is between your legs, sexuality is who is between your legs", and I've found that pretty much accepted by my own cadre of non-binary aquaintences, so as a not-(significantly)-non-binary person myself I'm happy to pass it on until someone complains and gives a decent alternative.
And Skyrunner, honestly I agree with you, which is why I just call myself trans, but I find people also asking for more clarification, because people (mostly my mother) seem to not understand trans=transgender.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 14, 2016, 07:04:46 am
Also, why only stop at ancient egypt? that was only 10 or 20 thousand years ago, and those humans were clever enough to obey orders, live in a society, speak fluently, buy, sell and trade, understand concepts like law and property, commerce and markets, build complicated structures to live in, express themselves in some way or another?
They were all able to consider their own destiny, life, situation etc. and had self-awareness (albeit, not as much as, for example, Buddha)
Self-Awareness is not a merely inherited trait: we inherit the hardware only, the software which makes use of it is memetically passed on, for example, through society, parents and family.
Keep going back a couple of 100 thousand years and you'll see what makes humans SO different from animals:
-tool use + tool creation (logic and abstract problem solving)
-fishing and agriculture (time, seasons, plant biology)
-complex tribal society, primitive language, body language (social complexity)
-reflection/meditation, worship, mysticism or shamanism (trance, concentration)
-mastered fire (understanding, overcoming fear and danger)
-drawings in ochre, creation of accessories such as necklaces, rudimentary clothing (art, creativity)
-medicine, drugs, rituals (biology, psychology)
How can anyone compare animals to humans? We've come so far, and we'll go even further. Humans are made of meditation and tantra.
Here's what wikipedia has to say about human brains versus apes
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
tldr: human brains are twice the size of gorilla or chimpanzee brains and specially developed for exploratory intelligence, not just problem solving some random shit they happen to come across.
Although everyone is quite right that animals have feelings, consciousness, thoughts, etc. there is just no comparison between them and humans.
They lack the WETWARE.
Post by: Starver on October 14, 2016, 07:18:39 am
So even though they aren't changing their actual gender ("what's between the ears") in any way, presenting as their chosen 'apparent gender/sex' without being full on 'screaming-queen' or 'touchy butchy' was better described with the unloaded term of transgender than 'transsex(ual)' confusable with 'transsexuality' and of course from 'merely' being a transvestite.
But, like I said, that's just what I get from those I know best. There is no totally homogonous trans society (or homogonous homosexual one, for that matter! Because homogonous homo sapiens often aren't in agreement over much in the first place...), so it could easily be a term that other (and certainly more internet-age) groups disagree with and have alternate/conflicting views upon .
And that may be why so many different terms available for 'roughly the same thing'. "F2M" for the 'txtspk' generation, especially, but then why no "7|24|\|563|\||)3|2 |V|4|_3" for the 133t-5p34k crowd? ;)
1 Bonus points for anyone who remembers that number... ;) Also gives a clue as to my era. As if the qctual existence of phone boxes didn't edge you that way already...
2 Unless you get to do glamour shots of actual 'glamour' models far from the capital, with or without their husband's permission while he's toiling down t'pit, in which case why are you even spending your time trolling round reading cards in Soho telephone boxes..? You probably know which exclusive clubs to go to, already...
Post by: Solifuge on October 14, 2016, 11:44:14 am
- When referring to Gender: we're talking about a person's social behavior, style of dress, and the titles or pronouns we'd address them by (...at least unless Social Roles go completely out of fashion in the next few generations). We can use Woman (She), Androgyne (They, One), Man (He), or Agender (They, One), and others as necessary. This would be where Pronouns and Titles come from (Mr./Mister, Ms./Miss, plus something like Mx./Micks), and where any expectations of femme/feminine or butch/masculine dress or behavior or presentation would go (if people really still think it's important at this point).
- When referring to Sex: we would be describing the Current state of a person's Physical Body, taking Intersex Conditions or Surgery or Hormones or whatever else into account (...at least until gonad-level sex-transdifferentiation is possible in Humans, and Sex is fully mutable). We can use Male (Primarily Male-Bodied), Trans-Female (Male-Bodied, with Female Secondary Characteristics), Intersex (Equally Male- and Female-Bodied), Trans-Male (Female-Bodied, with Male Secondary Characteristics), Female (Female-Bodied), or Asexual (Undifferentiated or Neuter-Bodied) to describe it, and others as necessary. Sex doesn't have to be public knowledge, but it should at least be reported on personal documents for medical reasons; Trans-folks who undergo body or hormone modification share different amounts of Female and Male health concerns based on their mix of Primary and Secondary Sexual Characteristics. Also Note: Sex doesn't factor in with the Pronouns we use to describe someone, the same way Eye Color or Hair Color doesn't; it's just a physical characteristic.
- When referring to Attraction and Orientation: we'd split it up into words for both the Sex and the Gender you're attracted to, since different things matter to different people. Honestly, people would probably come up with their own terms anyway, but we could use Latin for the formal equivalents; Androphilic (Likes Male-Bodied People), Masculophilic (Like Masculine-Gendered People), Gynophilic (Likes Female-Bodied People), Feminophilic (Like Feminine-Gendered People), Panphilic (Likes People), Aphilic (Ace/Asexual). These could be paired up as necessary, for more specific kinds of attraction (Andro-Feminophilic for being into Girly Boys, Gyno-Masculophilic for Butch Girls, etc.). Also, we ought to avoid orientation words that are relative to your Physical Sex (Gay, Straight) since they don't apply for non-binary people, and don't take Gender into account.
In that model, my personal profile would list me as an Androgyne Trans-Female, with a Gyno-Masculophilic Sexual Orientation. It sounds pretty medical (totally would need shorthand or common parlance words) but it's a huge improvement over having to explain (and sometimes defend) my particularly brand of "Genderqueer" to anyone who asks, since Male or Female, or Gay or Straight don't apply. Categories like this are great in helping potential partners know my whole situation quickly, and they also describe my medical situation to any doctors treating me, so I don't have to explain exactly what's going on with all my parts every time.
Also, since that information is personal, all the average person in public needs to know is that I'm Androgyne, with a Female-of-Center style of presentation. In a world that was used to this system, "They" is a safe introductory pronoun if someone looks non-binary and you don't want to misgender them, while "They" or "She" works if they're judging by my clothes and appearance.
Spoiler: Here's a more wordy rationale for that: (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 14, 2016, 12:32:44 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 14, 2016, 03:09:22 pm
I never said that humans are smartEST just smartER.So, first. Ancient Egypt was around 8,000 years ago, and was one of the largest early large-scale civilizations. Humans have not changed very much in the last 8,000 years. Evolution takes a very long time. My point here, is that you can't say whether an elephant is capable of understanding that stuff. Furthermore, if you mean Smarter, not smartest, what is the smartest? You've been saying there's an order of magnitude of difference. But TECHNOLOGY is different from INTELLIGENCE. You can teach technology. You cannot teach intelligence.
Also, why only stop at ancient egypt? that was only 10 or 20 thousand years ago, and those humans were clever enough to obey orders, live in a society, speak fluently, buy, sell and trade, understand concepts like law and property, commerce and markets, build complicated structures to live in, express themselves in some way or another?
Quote from: 74s
They were all able to consider their own destiny, life, situation etc. and had self-awareness (albeit, not as much as, for example, Buddha)Thumbs. Other animals use tools as well, and I agree that we're far better at using tools than any other animal. That's not a matter of intelligence necessarily. Fishing and Agriculture are a form of tool use, and a form of pattern recognition, which status-game creatures are pretty good at. I can't think of a single species that doesn't communicate in part via body language, and tribal society is not all that different from pack society save in that there's technology which enables specialized roles.
Self-Awareness is not a merely inherited trait: we inherit the hardware only, the software which makes use of it is memetically passed on, for example, through society, parents and family.
Keep going back a couple of 100 thousand years and you'll see what makes humans SO different from animals:
-tool use + tool creation (logic and abstract problem solving)
-fishing and agriculture (time, seasons, plant biology)
-complex tribal society, primitive language, body language (social complexity)
-reflection/meditation, worship, mysticism or shamanism (trance, concentration)
-mastered fire (understanding, overcoming fear and danger)
-drawings in ochre, creation of accessories such as necklaces, rudimentary clothing (art, creativity)
-medicine, drugs, rituals (biology, psychology)
What would you use to see if an animal could worship or meditate? The basis of it is pattern recognition and storytelling, it doesn't arise spontaneously from nothing. We do have very powerful brains. We are quite probably the smartest animals on the planet. There is, however, a comparison.
Fire is also thumbs. Cooking is actually what let us get as smart as we are, with less energy devoted to digesting food. It's pretty great.
Aesthetics is an interesting thing to look at. Mostly tools, though, far as I know. Though from what I remember apes will decorate themselves if they have the stuff to do it.
Again, medicine is tech, not intelligence.[/quote]
Quote from: 74s
How can anyone compare animals to humans? We've come so far, and we'll go even further. Humans are made of meditation and tantra.What the hell does that even mean? We aren't, I can guarantee you we aren't made of either of those things.
Quote from: 74s
Here's what wikipedia has to say about human brains versus apesOkay? There's still quite a comparison to be made. I mean literally you can compare them, it's called the encephalization quotient. Yes, humans have the largest. There's still a comparison. We're not super-beings far and away superior to all other life on this planet. Like, dude, you keep shifting the goalposts, but there really is, in fact, a comparison. A lot of the shit we like comes from status-games. Intelligence makes you better at status games. Being better at status games and appearing to have a higher reproductive fitness makes mates more likely to desire you, and makes you more likely to have more kids. That does not make us beyond comparison to animals. If you're wanting to compare like an insectoid 'hive mind' to humans, I'll agree, there's no real comparison. But dogs can reach the intelligence of somewhere around a four-year-old. And they're pretty good at some surprising stuff. And that's from a dog, not a dolphin or a chimpanzee.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
tldr: human brains are twice the size of gorilla or chimpanzee brains and specially developed for exploratory intelligence, not just problem solving some random shit they happen to come across.
Although everyone is quite right that animals have feelings, consciousness, thoughts, etc. there is just no comparison between them and humans.
They lack the WETWARE.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 14, 2016, 04:44:33 pm
Look, I'll just say it plainly.Wait, what? We made our brains smart by thinking of music? That's Lamarckian, and it's wrong. Besides, that's cultural.
ANIMALS LACK THE WETWARE.
Humans have brilliantly faceted and intricately developed minds, formed from tens of thousands of years of contemplation on "nature" "virtue" "music" "art" "logic" and "self" as well as many more things.
Quote
Our brains are just plain different and made that way through thousands of years of a specific burning curiosity that is found nowhere else.It's annoying, but [CITATION NEEDED]. Animals are curious. There is a greater amount of curiosity found in humans than elsewhere, and that might be part of why we're so successful, but...
Quote
It is imprinted, burned on our minds, the thoughts and deeds of our ancestors, which, even then, were far beyond the musings of any ape by at least 100 thousand years difference in evolution....what? Sorry, dude, learn evolution. There's no ladder. Evolution can be fast or slow. 100000 years isn't a measure of intelligence.
Quote
Somethings, a dog was never meant to compute or contemplate.Meant by whom? Also, "making calculations" - how do you know they don't? Oh, is it because they don't write anything? Too bad for them, it's impossible to be intelligent without hands.
Quote
Apes too, are shockingly devoid of "higher" thought processes.How so? They're shockingly similar to us.
Quote
Even orcas, dolphins and elephants, despite being emotionally profound and inspiring, cannot match the will of a human being who can sacrifice for an intangible cause, and do so happily, gladly, lovingly.You're talking about symbols and intangible concepts. That's a measure of sapience. Of course nonsapient beings can't do that.
Quote
Only humans understand their feelings and actions to such an extent as to become conflicted.Citation needed. When was the last time that you read an animal's mind?
Quote
Not that animals don't get depressed or anything, but humans are definitely more complicated...By what measure?
Quote
...deeper...What does this mean?
Quote
...intelligent...By what measure? Has somebody finally made an IQ test for animals, and also made the IQ test not suck, and also made it measure absolutely no learned behaviors or knowledge?
Quote
...capable of forming rational, complex, well-thought-out and rehearsed ideas, abstract theories, images etc.How do you know? Also, about the "images" thing, some birds can recall the shape of locks in order to get through them.
Quote
Humans can lie about their feelings about sex. Animals don't even need to lie.Well, hmm, maybe that's because humans can lie.
Quote
Humans can appreciate the presence of another person. We keep them alive in our minds in a way that a dog can never do, because a dog isn't made to understand it. They yearn and pine, but ultimately, there is no recognition of the person as an individual being, through empathy, sympathy, self-awareness etc.A dog isn't... made to understand anything.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 14, 2016, 05:13:08 pm
If anything, the aeon is complete in humanity's ripe usage of the internet, computers and machines to fulfill their every need.
Nowadays, we expect computers everywhere: in our watches, in our phones, at home, at work etc. and are constantly in contact with the internet and computer technology.
We can access any information and the internet is rich in provision on any subject of discourse.
We can know anyone and anything, to a reasonable extent. The amount of content is insane in breadth, depth and width. It covers every known popular subject and we can access it all through our fingers.
More than half of the globe can read and write and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world#Education) have access to the internet. (http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/)
Around 40% of the world population has an internet connection today. In 1995, it was less than 1%.
We live online, virtual lives through machines. It could be considered the ultimate tool, and the internet the ultimate function.
Modern humans interface with and live in it, living cojoined lives in a virtual world.
Our ancestors did not have access to tinder, or forums, for example. They also did not have books, songs, video games, or movies numbering in the 100s of millions.
We can create art at our fingertips using software (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=awesome+computer+art&client=ubuntu&hs=WBs&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYy-fdpNvPAhWJB8AKHXeVB2gQ_AUICCgB&biw=1360&bih=596) or become literate in another language.
Before people used to live in small, sparsely populated societies who had little or no chance to change their lives. Nowadays we can move to another part of the world, and change careers 5 times. People in the past did not have opportunities. Everything is available online, clothes, food, drugs and sex. This is only a recent development in human history compared to 100 years ago (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=100+years+ago&client=ubuntu&hs=gtC&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi90t6vpdvPAhWlJ8AKHS9OCsoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1360&bih=596), let alone 1000 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)) or 10,000 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC) (or even 100,000 years ago) (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=100000+years+ago&client=ubuntu&hs=ZIs&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjajOytptvPAhWqLsAKHaClBUcQ_AUICCgB&biw=1360&bih=596)
In the last decade, with the proliferation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8552410.stm) and growth (http://i.imgur.com/P2K3PWe.png) of the internet, human society has developed and changed a lot, and so has humanity.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 14, 2016, 05:16:31 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on October 14, 2016, 05:22:26 pm
Is it?
There have been years of study trying to get animals to communicate. Dolphins and elephants basically failed. Whales, a case can be made that they're communicating beyond what we understand. They might be close to our level, but different. Elephants too *maybe*, but... They aren't creating works of art. Nothing that even might be art.
Certain primates are at the top, with (just under) us, because that's how evolution works. And even they are barely able to communicate simple ideas.
We're *alone*. As for cats and dogs... they don't understand anything, they just have highly evolved empathy for pack behavior. They can react to emotional cues accurately and behave socially. They're not abstract like us.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 14, 2016, 05:23:10 pm
That's culture and technology.
Humans have changed socially.
Socially=Sexually. For example, tinder, porn, social media, and the internet are the modern view of sexuality.
That stuff is all on the internet, which is the thing humans have to interface with in order to have social lives, which they use to obtain sex (usually).
Even if you live in a country where it is not the norm, technology like phones, make access to social lives much easier. I can instantly find and ring a prostitute to arrange to have sex, in a relatively short time. I can also message my girlfriend all night and have cyber-sex or phone-sex instantly at any hour of the day (If you're reading, I love you baby. Those prostitutes meant nothing to me).
Sex, society and technology, are all woven together in the tapestry of humanity.
Now, I ask you a question. Isn't that different from animals?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 14, 2016, 05:25:03 pm
Aaaaah, no. Stop. You're confusing the means of interaction with the interaction itself.That's culture and technology.
Humans have changed socially.
Socially=Sexually. For example, tinder, porn, social media, and the internet are the modern view of sexuality.
Quote
That stuff is all on the internet, which is the thing humans have to interface with in order to have social lives, which they use to obtain sex (usually).And some animals get sex in even weirder ways. Your point?
Quote
Even if you live in a country where it is not the norm, technology like phones, make access to social lives much easier. I can instantly find and ring a prostitute to arrange to have sex, relatively shortly. I can also message my girlfriend all night and have cyber-sex or phone-sex.
Sex, society and technology, are all woven together in the tapestry of humanity.
Now, I ask you a question. Isn't that different from animals?
That hasn't demonstrated an individual psychological change between the people of today and the people of ~7000 BC.
Post by: Infinityforce on October 14, 2016, 05:46:40 pm
Post by: Tawa on October 14, 2016, 06:07:03 pm
I don't have to prove itThis isn't how arguing works
Post by: Calidovi on October 14, 2016, 06:08:12 pm
I don't have to prove itThis isn't how arguing works
yeah ok prove it bud
Post by: Infinityforce on October 14, 2016, 06:18:30 pm
Quote
infer
ɪnˈfəː/
verb
past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
"from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing"
synonyms: deduce, reason, work out, conclude, come to the conclusion, draw the inference, conjecture, surmise, theorize, hypothesize; More
gather, understand, presume, assume, take it, come to understand, glean, extrapolate, reckon;
read between the lines;
figure;
informalsuss, suss out;
archaiccollect
"the judge inferred that the deceased was murdered"
Origin
late 15th century (in the sense ‘bring about, inflict’): from Latin inferre ‘bring in, bring about’ (in medieval Latin ‘deduce’), from in- ‘into’ + ferre ‘bring’.
Post by: Solifuge on October 14, 2016, 07:17:29 pm
If you want to continue it, can you please move to a new dedicated thread, or at least to the General Science Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=112684.0)?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 14, 2016, 09:51:42 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Solifuge on October 18, 2016, 03:38:49 pm
We probably don't need words or labels for every combination of personality traits that exists, but I still think we could use a good, simple, easy to understand language for talking about Gender, Sex, and Attraction, especially one that works both in and outside the Binary. Here's some food for thought, and a critique for clearing up how we talk about non-binary identities:
- When referring to Gender: we're talking about a person's social behavior, style of dress, and the titles or pronouns we'd address them by (...at least unless Social Roles go completely out of fashion in the next few generations). We can use Woman (She), Androgyne (They, One), Man (He), or Agender (They, One), and others as necessary. This would be where Pronouns and Titles come from (Mr./Mister, Ms./Miss, plus something like Mx./Micks), and where any expectations of femme/feminine or butch/masculine dress or behavior or presentation would go (if people really still think it's important at this point).
- When referring to Sex: we would be describing the Current state of a person's Physical Body, taking Intersex Conditions or Surgery or Hormones or whatever else into account (...at least until gonad-level sex-transdifferentiation is possible in Humans, and Sex is fully mutable). We can use Male (Primarily Male-Bodied), Trans-Female (Male-Bodied, with Female Secondary Characteristics), Intersex (Equally Male- and Female-Bodied), Trans-Male (Female-Bodied, with Male Secondary Characteristics), Female (Female-Bodied), or Asexual (Undifferentiated or Neuter-Bodied) to describe it, and others as necessary. Sex doesn't have to be public knowledge, but it should at least be reported on personal documents for medical reasons; Trans-folks who undergo body or hormone modification share different amounts of Female and Male health concerns based on their mix of Primary and Secondary Sexual Characteristics. Also Note: Sex doesn't factor in with the Pronouns we use to describe someone, the same way Eye Color or Hair Color doesn't; it's just a physical characteristic.
- When referring to Attraction and Orientation: we'd split it up into words for both the Sex and the Gender you're attracted to, since different things matter to different people. Honestly, people would probably come up with their own terms anyway, but we could use Latin for the formal equivalents; Androphilic (Likes Male-Bodied People), Masculophilic (Like Masculine-Gendered People), Gynophilic (Likes Female-Bodied People), Feminophilic (Like Feminine-Gendered People), Panphilic (Likes People), Aphilic (Ace/Asexual). These could be paired up as necessary, for more specific kinds of attraction (Andro-Feminophilic for being into Girly Boys, Gyno-Masculophilic for Butch Girls, etc.). Also, we ought to avoid orientation words that are relative to your Physical Sex (Gay, Straight) since they don't apply for non-binary people, and don't take Gender into account.
In that model, my personal profile would list me as an Androgyne Trans-Female, with a Gyno-Masculophilic Sexual Orientation. It sounds pretty medical (totally would need shorthand or common parlance words) but it's a huge improvement over having to explain (and sometimes defend) my particularly brand of "Genderqueer" to anyone who asks, since Male or Female, or Gay or Straight don't apply. Categories like this are great in helping potential partners know my whole situation quickly, and they also describe my medical situation to any doctors treating me, so I don't have to explain exactly what's going on with all my parts every time.
Also, since that information is personal, all the average person in public needs to know is that I'm Androgyne, with a Female-of-Center style of presentation. In a world that was used to this system, "They" is a safe introductory pronoun if someone looks non-binary and you don't want to misgender them, while "They" or "She" works if they're judging by my clothes and appearance.Spoiler: Here's a more wordy rationale for that: (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 18, 2016, 03:41:18 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 18, 2016, 03:57:17 pm
Post by: Toady One on October 19, 2016, 11:16:35 pm
edit: Removed it again. Less likely to be repeated now.
Post by: Reelya on October 19, 2016, 11:59:58 pm
@Solifuge: I like that system, although I think it's unwieldy. Think about it this way: for people to understand "Androgyne Trans-Female, with a Gyno-Masculophilic Sexual Orientation" they'd have to understand all elements of that and how they fit into the broader system. Therefore they'd have to be using the full terminology to describe everyone. It doesn't help you if the terminology exists but nobody uses it, because you'd still be constantly explaining it.
The fact is, the most common terms to describe people's gender/sex and orientation are shorthand which describe most people. Even though you can iterate all the possible combinations of terms in your system, that doesn't mean that all combinations make sense, or that each combination is proportionally equal.
People will still end up using the shorthand descriptions because they're convenient to describing the vast majority of people. You can't expect e.g. a "straight male" to be referred to as a "Man Male with Gyno-Feminophilic Sexual Orientation", because people will just flat-out refuse to use that terminology. And if they're not using the "correct" terminology for the vast majority of people, then they're not going to understand the terminology when it's applied to niche minorities.
Also: if all terms a described in terms of a male/female spectrum you haven't really separated from a gender-binary concept.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 12:10:56 am
Post by: Reelya on October 20, 2016, 12:26:04 am
Basically, traits are clustered by evolution around two "poles" and when developmental things don't go to design, the most likely outcome is for trait from the other gender to be expressed. This then causes traits to appear to be on a spectrum which is in fact an arbitrary line through a N-dimensional space which defines the trait parameters. This explanation explains both trait clustering, and trait overlap, and why "spectrum" definitely doesn't imply that all points on the spectrum are equally represented.
So effectively, things could exist WAY off that line between the male and female poles, but it's just unlikely because people of both genders are built on top of the same "machinery", and evolution weeds out outliers. Also, "gender identity" might not exist at all: it's just how categorize the cluster of traits. Someone could be born with all the relevant traits that we associate with gender being completely different to both male and female norms. Do we call that their "gender" then? Does "individual gender" even make sense, when gender is a way of categorizing people? For someone who has traits that don't fit in any cluster, "gender" might not even be a relevant concept, because it's a term defining a group.
Post by: Catmeat on October 20, 2016, 12:31:03 am
I hit on obviously lesbian females all the time, but the social dynamic changes when their preference is bought up.
For some people sticking to their preference is priority over pleasurable experiences despite being mutaly and sexualy attracted.
With me there is no preference. If you are beautiful in anyway (especially mentaly stimulating) I will date you.
I actually only persue females though. I blame them smelling good and hormones.
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 20, 2016, 01:57:33 am
Gender is based off an axis, in the way we use it, just like real numbers are. But just like there are imaginary numbers that sprout off sideways and make the line into a plane, you could say there are imaginary genders, and that's where you might call it genderless and still have a shitton of different genders. There's 'dark' and then there's 'in a part of the electro-magnetic spectrum you can't see but still acts fairly similarly to colored light'.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 10:18:22 am
Or if gender itself is a combination of multiple traits that go from F to M, and if you have mostly M then you're male, then we're still stuck to the F/M anchors.
Post by: scriver on October 20, 2016, 10:28:39 am
I am disappoint in you, child.
Post by: Baffler on October 20, 2016, 10:39:09 am
I tend to go after anyone
I hit on obviously lesbian females all the time, but the social dynamic changes when their preference is bought up.
For some people sticking to their preference is priority over pleasurable experiences despite being mutaly and sexualy attracted.
With me there is no preference. If you are beautiful in anyway (especially mentaly stimulating) I will date you.
I actually only persue females though. I blame them smelling good and hormones.
This is sort of off topic, but why did guys suddenly start calling women they're potentially interested in "females?" I can't help but hear anything else they say about it as some kind of David Attenborough-esque narration, or (less likely) an alien infiltrator who hasn't been here quite long enough to sound like a local.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 10:59:49 am
Post by: Starver on October 20, 2016, 11:23:30 am
I AM DEFINITELY A HUMAN, FELLOW HUMAN. PLEASE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCATION OF NEAREST_BUILDING SUCH THAT BUILDING = PUB.je tera'ngan. pagh vIt ghaH "pasty head" tu'lu'. DaH maHvaD ghu'vam moq!
(Off topic, but probably not needing a Toady-bleaching if we don't much further.)
Post by: Imic on October 20, 2016, 12:24:09 pm
Tirak jahl. Gulatrak mitnor geldranamer. Mhalagest, d,ral. Undarak, hreldarak, eldratharak. Kultamir sen.I AM DEFINITELY A HUMAN, FELLOW HUMAN. PLEASE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOCATION OF NEAREST_BUILDING SUCH THAT BUILDING = PUB.je tera'ngan. pagh vIt ghaH "pasty head" tu'lu'. DaH maHvaD ghu'vam moq!
(Off topic, but probably not needing a Toady-bleaching if we don't much further.)
I am personally a femenist. Makin' this clear. So was me Mum. And me Dad. And me brother, though he's on the spectrum so we can't quite say for sure.
Post by: Baffler on October 20, 2016, 12:45:12 pm
But I simply can't imagine a gender that is not connected in some way to the male-female "anchors." Cisgender, transgender are each on an anchor. Genderlessness isn't even on the graph, it's not a gender. Everything else I've seen is like "demifemale" or "hemidemisemifemale", which is "halfway from one to the other."
Or if gender itself is a combination of multiple traits that go from F to M, and if you have mostly M then you're male, then we're still stuck to the F/M anchors.
I can't really see it either, but is that even a bad thing? Having solidly established anchors, to use the term, for identity gives everyone something to fall back on and a certain sense of community. Discrimination on that basis is bad, obviously, but I'm not convinced that, even if it were possible, it would be a good thing to do away with the ideas of masculinity and femininity.
Post by: misko27 on October 20, 2016, 12:53:49 pm
edit: Removed it again. Less likely to be repeated now.That's one way of putting it. Damn Toady, laying down the hammer.
Gender is relevant so long as people identify by it. And trying to tell people not to identify as certain stuff is what brought up the thing anyway.This is worth remembering even if it is decided that Gender is totally arbitrary or whatever. Race is, as a scientific concept, completely bankrupt. But we still go around talking in terms of "White" and "Black", because even if there isn't an intrinsic difference, until people actually start ignoring race, its still there.
This is sort of off topic, but why did guys suddenly start calling women they're potentially interested in "females?"I have no idea. I don't even know if I do it, but I don't think I do, because I hear a lot of complaints about it (it is weird). I usually use "girls", because "women" seems too adult for my age-group (I don't really think of myself as a "man" either, even though I've been one for a little while now).
Post by: TempAcc on October 20, 2016, 01:08:13 pm
As the most progressive being ever, I call everyone "creature" regardless of their gender. You silly creatures.
Anyway, so long as gender is perceived as a spectrum, I doubt the idea of "genderless" people will ever be taken seriously. You can't really be outside the spectrum without being some sort of horrible mutant or extradimensional entity, WHICH I AM CERTAINLY NOT, DEAR HUMANS, LET US PARTAKE IN HUMAN CONVERSATION AT A FURTHER 4TH DIMENSIONAL BUBBLE.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 02:35:14 pm
Of course that's not perfect, as most bald people used to have hair,
Post by: Rolan7 on October 20, 2016, 02:44:43 pm
Though I'm increasingly sick of caring about gender at all. "Bald" takes a lot of maintenance, whereas genderfluid (for me) is just "whatever, I don't care, I'm not even going to say anything unless asked. And then I'll say just say what they want to hear, or admit that I don't care."
Post by: Caz on October 20, 2016, 04:38:17 pm
I hit on obviously lesbian females all the time, but the social dynamic changes when their preference is bought up.
For some people sticking to their preference is priority over pleasurable experiences despite being mutaly and sexualy attracted.
I don't get this. You hit on lesbians (assuming you're a guy) and then wonder why they 'stick to their preference despite being sexually attracted'? Surely if they're homosexual they uh, wouldn't be attracted to you?
Post by: Caz on October 20, 2016, 04:40:11 pm
But I simply can't imagine a gender that is not connected in some way to the male-female "anchors." Cisgender, transgender are each on an anchor. Genderlessness isn't even on the graph, it's not a gender. Everything else I've seen is like "demifemale" or "hemidemisemifemale", which is "halfway from one to the other."
Or if gender itself is a combination of multiple traits that go from F to M, and if you have mostly M then you're male, then we're still stuck to the F/M anchors.
Agreed. Imo gender is the mental/societal aspect of the physical sex, and you only get male/female/intersex in human bodies. Gender has to follow the same spectrum otherwise we're doing stupid tumblr things like identifying as pudding. Though that would be tasty.
Post by: Catmeat on October 20, 2016, 08:22:02 pm
I don't get this. You hit on lesbians (assuming you're a guy) and then wonder why they 'stick to their preference despite being sexually attracted'? Surely if they're homosexual they uh, wouldn't be attracted to you?
Sure you can assume.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 20, 2016, 08:26:04 pm
I guess...That sounds more like agender? Or at least gender-apathetic.
Though I'm increasingly sick of caring about gender at all. "Bald" takes a lot of maintenance, whereas genderfluid (for me) is just "whatever, I don't care, I'm not even going to say anything unless asked. And then I'll say just say what they want to hear, or admit that I don't care."
Post by: Catmeat on October 20, 2016, 08:49:55 pm
I've been with lesbians, though when their preference is aired they usually snap back to being 'true' lesbian and nothing comes of it.
The other coin flip, is I've woken up to women saying that they dont sleep with guys and it was a one time thing for fun.
So I assumed that most people are Bi, but let their opinions get in the way.
* Equips full plate
Ok im ready for the
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2016, 08:52:03 pm
I hit on obviously lesbian females all the time, but the social dynamic changes when their preference is bought up.
For some people sticking to their preference is priority over pleasurable experiences despite being mutaly and sexualy attracted.
I don't get this. You hit on lesbians (assuming you're a guy) and then wonder why they 'stick to their preference despite being sexually attracted'? Surely if they're homosexual they uh, wouldn't be attracted to you?
I am just trying to think of this from the Lesbian's point of view ASSUMING that the "I am attracted to you" is true and not an inference.
I am being hit on by some guy and ok yeah he is charming and I am getting a little attracted... Maybe...
"You're gay right?"
Me: "UGH!!!... Never freeken mind..."
"Hey come on, you are clearly attracted to me, why are you sticking to being gay when you know it will be great being with me"
Me: "If I was straight... I think I'd convert to homosexuality."
I dunno... Your attitude is repulsive... As in... It repulses me sexually.
Post by: Catmeat on October 20, 2016, 08:58:13 pm
No it usually is brought up by the other party(s)
I like how im a rude person all of a sudden
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2016, 08:59:29 pm
I never ask anyones sexuality or gender, i really dont care, Im a whore for love.
No it usually is brought up by the other party(s)
I like how im a rude person all of a sudden
Sorry
"I'm gay"
"That's alright baaaby, we can just look past it and have a good time"
"No"
"Why you holding onto it. Don't you know a good time? You can go right back to gay afterwards"
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 20, 2016, 08:59:43 pm
EDIT: Also, Neonivek: chill, dawg. Flirting is something that everyone does... pretty much with everyone else for that matter, regardless of sexuality.
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2016, 09:01:00 pm
two cents incoming: Seems like most people are attracted to both genders naturally, but repress those feelings after being exposed to societal norms and any given value system. Not to mention a whole range of fucked up things that can ruin people's sexuality for life from the seemingly innocuous lack of early sexual exploration to inflicted trauma.
The thing is... Sexual Attraction isn't enough for sexual intercourse alone. Sexual attraction is a lot like a sense.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 20, 2016, 09:03:42 pm
The thing is... Sexual Attraction isn't enough for sexual intercourse alone. Sexual attraction is a lot like a sense.
K, fam. Are we or are we not talking about gender and sexuality in this thread? That doesn't even make a whole lot of sense.. because there are many many many situations where you are attracted to people when common sense tells you not to be and there are plenty of situations where you can be sexually attracted to someone without them being sexually attractive in a commonly understood way.
EDIT: ... And vice versa, there are situations where you aren't attracted at all to people who could be commonly understood to be sexually attractive.
EDITEDIT: What IS enough for sexual intercourse then?
Post by: Rolan7 on October 20, 2016, 09:05:11 pm
I don't even believe in 100% homo or hetero sexuality. Certainly could be real, I just have doubts. Maybe people are attracted to certain traits, and they get used to finding those traits in one of the two genders (cuz that's what you're supposed to do, right?)
But I'm probably waaaay projecting my own experience on other people, there :P
woop new replies
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2016, 09:07:31 pm
Sexual attraction is not "I am entirely not attracted to you 100%" and "You are viable for sexy times"
It is entirely possible, in fact... usually the case... That you are sexually attracted to someone but sexually repulsed on the prospect and act of having sex with them.
It is why I said "Sexual attraction is a lot like a sense"... It isn't a boning meter.
Which is where Cat is getting caught up. He is conflating attraction with Sex-ability where the inference is the only reason they don't sex him is because they are staunchly holding onto their perceived sexual orientation.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 20, 2016, 09:08:28 pm
It is entirely possible, in fact... usually the case... That you are sexually attracted to someone but sexually repulsed on the prospect and act of having sex with them.
... Not sure I would call that sexual attraction.
EDIT: In fact, that sounds a lot like what is widely referred to as "friendship" or "platonic love".
EDITEDIT: Also, I'm not saying sexual attraction is a "boning meter" as you say, but the whole point of classifying it as sexual is that is... well, sexual.
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2016, 09:11:01 pm
It is entirely possible, in fact... usually the case... That you are sexually attracted to someone but sexually repulsed on the prospect and act of having sex with them.
... Not sure I would call that sexual attraction.
EDIT: In fact, that sounds a lot like what is widely referred to as "friendship" or "platonic love".
No... I am using Sexual attraction to mean sexual attraction.
Just because someone is sexually attracted to you... it doesn't mean they want to have sex with you.
It doesn't mean that they are holding themselves back...
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 20, 2016, 09:13:59 pm
Bro. I feel like you are really going back on what you're saying here.
EDIT in response to your edit: OKAY. I think it's commonly understood we don't spend most of our time consciously restraining ourselves from raping the people around us who find attractive, but if you're SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO SOMEONE, then, BY DEFINITION, you would like to engage in some form of sexually gratifying activity with them.
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2016, 09:14:34 pm
Because here is the thing and I know it is a hard one to grasp but...
Sexual attraction is not "I am entirely not attracted to you 100%" and "You are viable for sexy times"
It is entirely possible, in fact... usually the case... That you are sexually attracted to someone but sexually repulsed on the prospect and act of having sex with them.
It is why I said "Sexual attraction is a lot like a sense"... It isn't a boning meter.
Which is where Cat is getting caught up. He is conflating attraction with Sex-ability where the inference is the only reason they don't sex him is because they are staunchly holding onto their perceived sexual orientation.
I don't think I am....
Post by: Rolan7 on October 20, 2016, 09:15:27 pm
Because yeah, that's a thing... Being attracted to someone and sickened by that...
That's definitely sexual attraction though, just with unfortunate social bullshit or whatever
Post by: Catmeat on October 20, 2016, 09:17:34 pm
Im just saying that I think most people are Bi, like myself
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 20, 2016, 09:19:10 pm
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 20, 2016, 09:23:32 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 09:45:43 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 20, 2016, 09:48:09 pm
Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation." -- Quoth Wikipedia
EDIT: I think that sums it up surprisingly well.
Post by: Tiruin on October 20, 2016, 10:34:21 pm
Glad to see people being reasonable :D
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 20, 2016, 10:35:26 pm
Post by: Tiruin on October 20, 2016, 10:38:30 pm
You, uh, missed the crazy guy.If you mean someone who is somehow now renamed for some reason, I did respond to him. It got deleted in the derail :P
Post by: Sergarr on October 20, 2016, 10:38:42 pm
"Bald" takes a lot of maintenanceWhat does that even mean
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 10:55:10 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 10:56:30 pm
It takes work to keep your hair bald."Bald" takes a lot of maintenanceWhat does that even mean
The analogy? I don't even know anymore.
Post by: misko27 on October 20, 2016, 10:58:20 pm
A) He asked for the rename. B) He was banned soon after, presumably for the very bizarre and obnoxious red glow text. It's what Toady meant by derails being "Less likely to be repeated now."You, uh, missed the crazy guy.If you mean someone who is somehow now renamed for some reason, I did respond to him. It got deleted in the derail :P
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 11:13:16 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on October 20, 2016, 11:18:13 pm
uh speaking of, moving on I guess
Yeah I'm not sure either now :PIt takes work to keep your hair bald."Bald" takes a lot of maintenanceWhat does that even mean
The analogy? I don't even know anymore.
I think I was saying that "bald" isn't a good metaphor for agender because baldness usually takes a lot of maintenance, agender doesn't.
Maybe atheism would be a better example than "bald". Since it's just the lack of being tied to a gender identity.
In other words I think we agree, I just didn't like your metaphor :P
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 20, 2016, 11:35:54 pm
Oh shit no. I'll take it to the Railgun thread. No derails.
Post by: Starver on October 21, 2016, 05:27:07 am
The thing is... Sexual Attraction isn't enough for sexual intercourse alone. Sexual attraction is a lot like a sense.Just to randomly say (your message was a handy hook, this is not aimed at you) I think there's "Companionship Attraction", too. Maybe, where otherwise mutually compatible, overlapping with Friends With Benefits territory, but otherwise perhaps as close as a (close, but standard) sibling relationship, but chosen not preordained. (Sexual-attraction incompatability might even be the lead-in to this other attraction, the lack of imperative or even threat from the start. But that's been done to death in drama and comedy alike.)
And also Attractions, of various types, need not be symmetrical or even sane. But if people find someone with a similar counterpart set of Attractions, there should probably be some wiggle-room for the minor mismatches.
...looks like I should have read over the next page-boundary. Didn't see that specific point developing further (Still prefer the way I put it, though.)It is entirely possible, in fact... usually the case... That you are sexually attracted to someone but sexually repulsed on the prospect and act of having sex with them.
... Not sure I would call that sexual attraction.
EDIT: In fact, that sounds a lot like what is widely referred to as "friendship" or "platonic love".
But atheism does involve a sort of belief. A different, more rational belief, but a belief nonetheless.Wrong thread for it, indeed, but you know that not all atheists are hard/explicit/strong atheists who "believe there is nothing". The default (so far as I'm concerned) is more "not believing there is anything". From there you can perhaps take up the contrarian beliefs to those who otherwise believe, of course.
Oh shit no. I'll take it to the Railgun thread. No derails.
I've said it elsewhere, but I'm not in the current hot thread on this topic and I'm not likely to want to say any more than thisbat this moment.
Move on, notning to see here.
Post by: Starver on October 21, 2016, 05:30:04 am
Post by: Starver on October 21, 2016, 05:37:14 am
Post by: hops on October 21, 2016, 06:10:04 am
Post by: Calidovi on October 21, 2016, 06:14:17 am
Just to randomly say (your message was a handy hook, this is not aimed at you) I think there's "Companionship Attraction", too. Maybe, where otherwise mutually compatible, overlapping with Friends With Benefits territory, but otherwise perhaps as close as a (close, but standard) sibling relationship, but chosen not preordained. (Sexual-attraction incompatability might even be the lead-in to this other attraction, the lack of imperative or even threat from the start. But that's been done to death in drama and comedy alike.)
im pretty sure thats what old couples have
Anyways, anybody want some of dat shaolin sex?
Spoiler: im posting it again (click to show/hide)
Post by: Catmeat on October 21, 2016, 07:12:06 am
Anyways, anybody want some of dat shaolin sex?Cinder you thai mother... yes I want some!
But I like to be treated nicely!
Post by: TempAcc on October 21, 2016, 07:18:03 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Touch me, shaolin senpai
Post by: Catmeat on October 21, 2016, 07:23:44 am
Holy fuck... its such a big weight off me now.
I feel so free.
Thanks Neon!
Post by: hops on October 21, 2016, 07:26:25 am
Post by: Catmeat on October 21, 2016, 08:00:25 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 21, 2016, 08:33:37 am
Anyways, anybody want some of dat shaolin sex?shaolin is bullshit
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 21, 2016, 08:34:10 am
*is kinda confused by all of this :v*Anyways, anybody want some of dat shaolin sex?shaolin is bullshit
Post by: Sergarr on October 21, 2016, 08:36:51 am
Me too, this was kind of the best making-at-least-some-sense response I could think of.*is kinda confused by all of this :v*Anyways, anybody want some of dat shaolin sex?shaolin is bullshit
anyway shaolin is bullshit lucid dreaming is where it's at
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 21, 2016, 08:37:31 am
Post by: Rolan7 on October 21, 2016, 08:38:50 am
I'll be honest. Im im the sexuality threads and I came out to my friends.. they laughed at me... saying they already knew I was Bi.That's awesome!
Holy fuck... its such a big weight off me now.
I feel so free.
Thanks Neon!
That's how it went for me too, pretty much. I thought I didn't need to tell them, until I did, and yeah it was like a weight being removed.
And I no longer felt like I was lying every time lgbt stuff came up in discussions.
They mostly knew because I kept hinting at it to gauge their reactions though lol
Post by: Catmeat on October 21, 2016, 08:47:34 am
Ahaha its a great feeling isnt it!!I'll be honest. Im im the sexuality threads and I came out to my friends.. they laughed at me... saying they already knew I was Bi.That's awesome!
Holy fuck... its such a big weight off me now.
I feel so free.
Thanks Neon!
That's how it went for me too, pretty much. I thought I didn't need to tell them, until I did, and yeah it was like a weight being removed.
And I no longer felt like I was lying every time lgbt stuff came up in discussions.
They mostly knew because I kept hinting at it to gauge their reactions though lol
My best friend didnt even flinch.. though I should tell hin when im sober.
Ahh who cares, I dont need to worry about it. Its out there now!
Post by: Sergarr on October 21, 2016, 10:08:25 am
If only I dreamt. Of anything :vthat's not a problem
you just have to learn how to lucid dream while being awake
it involves separating away a part of your mind that you value the most though, so it's a kind of like a Dark Pact
but you'll still be on speaking terms so it's okay
yeah I've been feeling unusually free after spilling my beans here a few days agoI'll be honest. Im im the sexuality threads and I came out to my friends.. they laughed at me... saying they already knew I was Bi.That's awesome!
Holy fuck... its such a big weight off me now.
I feel so free.
Thanks Neon!
That's how it went for me too, pretty much. I thought I didn't need to tell them, until I did, and yeah it was like a weight being removed.
And I no longer felt like I was lying every time lgbt stuff came up in discussions.
They mostly knew because I kept hinting at it to gauge their reactions though lol
freedom is one hell of a drug
Post by: Rolan7 on October 21, 2016, 10:16:22 am
If only I dreamt. Of anything :vI think I've already suggested this, but just in case: I find eating something cheesy and oily like pizza right before bed *always* gives me trippy, vivid dreams. Often a bit feverish and unrestful though.
yeah I've been feeling unusually free after spilling my beans here a few days agoI'm really glad (:
freedom is one hell of a drug
I felt even better once I did so with meatspace friends, but... Uh, I guess you live in Russia? Sorry if this is rude, but it's very dangerous to be openly non-binary there isn't it? ):
The important thing is that your friends know, wherever they are. I mean heck, I didn't tell my friends in *person*, we only meet in meatspace like twice a year since I moved. Yet we talk most days.
Post by: Sergarr on October 21, 2016, 10:48:18 am
Yes, I think it is indeed somewhat dangerous to come out openly in here; thankfully (for the purpose of "not getting beat up"), I don't really have any meatspace friends, and I currently barely have any Russian acquaintances outside of the people in my university, who don't count as even potential friends because they have either displayed zero interest in the overwhelming majority of the stuff I'm interested in, or evidently regularly visit 4chan and are insufferable douchebags. There is one possible exception here, but that person is hanging out all the time with the "insufferable douchebags" group, so I'm kind of not really interested.yeah I've been feeling unusually free after spilling my beans here a few days agoI'm really glad (:
freedom is one hell of a drug
I felt even better once I did so with meatspace friends, but... Uh, I guess you live in Russia? Sorry if this is rude, but it's very dangerous to be openly non-binary there isn't it? ):
The important thing is that your friends know, wherever they are. I mean heck, I didn't tell my friends in *person*, we only meet in meatspace like twice a year since I moved. Yet we talk most days.
Basically, the 95+% of my active social circle is, well, here and on that one other English-speaking forum, which I basically treat as a war zone because it's a rather aggressive place. It wasn't always like that, I used to be pretty regularly visiting some other Russian-language places, but I got too damn tired of the many, many trolls of various kinds being allowed to just constantly say ugly stuff to everyone around them, so I kind of totally quit even going there.
Anyway, what am I saying is that coming out here was basically almost as close to coming out to my friends as I can get.
Post by: hops on October 21, 2016, 12:29:04 pm
If only I dreamt. Of anything :vNot to be a pedant but everyone dreams. It's just a matter of you not remembering it.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 21, 2016, 12:37:37 pm
Post by: Solifuge on October 21, 2016, 05:13:42 pm
Spoiler: Expand for Quotes: (click to show/hide)
Reelya, I'm not 100% sure I follow you on why people need to know the whole system to understand any one part of it, or why that's any different than it already is? The idea was that we get 1 step more specific than Man/Male and Woman/Female without abandoning their existing meanings, and reform "Gay/Straight/Bi" to work for non-binary folks. The medical-sounding long form words were intentionally clinical, since they describe the state of someone's body or mind. I agree that it needs shorthand words for some new concepts (gynophilic and androphilic are already the terms we're using for non-binary Sexual Orientations), but old shorthand words still work in that system. For example, "Gay Guy" would apply to any Androphilic Man, regardless of their body's Sex (Male, Female, etc.) or their additional preferences (say if they're into Girly Males and are Andro-Feminophilic).
For the "also" part, and in response to Caz and DL...
When thinking about reforming our ideas about gender and sex, I think it's important to keep it relevant to the average person, and to build on ideas they already know. There's a reason that singular "They" is the most common pronoun-of-choice for androgynous or genderqueer folks, while earlier attempts to use "Ze/Hir" didn't take off as well outside of LGBT folks and allies. It's similar to the reason Esperanto never took off as a constructed language either. People prefer to use tools they're familiar with, including language. Also, ideas need to relate to something concrete or important, and for people we're evaluating as patients or as partners, that's often our bodies and our behavior.
Male and Female are good anchors, which is why I use them to describe Physical Sex. Feminine and Masculine are less solid anchors, since they're cultural ideals and vary from person to person. Still, it helps to have a word to separate the Masculine Gender Role (Man) from the XY or Androgenic Body (Male), and the Feminine Gender Role (Woman) from the XX or Estrogenic Body (Female).
Speaking of which, I do think it's relevant to doctors and potential partners to expand beyond Male, Female, and Intersex as definitions for bodies. We have both Primary (genetic) and Secondary (hormonal) sex characteristics as people, and trans and intersex people may have Secondary traits which don't match their Primary ones due to hormones or surgery. Working off that mess I posted earlier (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=160244.msg7216639#msg7216639), here's some charts that define the kinds of Physical Sexes there are, without distancing it from ideas people are familiar with. I'm skipping a Gender Chart since they're arbitrary, but there's an Orientation Chart that sort of covers it too.
Also they're color coded by their relationship to the binary, because I love y'all too. :Y
Spoiler: Primary and Secondary Sex Chart (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Physical and Gender Orientation Chart (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 22, 2016, 11:41:44 am
If you can never observe a thing, did it happen?If only I dreamt. Of anything :vNot to be a pedant but everyone dreams. It's just a matter of you not remembering it.
@Rolan:I generally eat pizza every single night and don't dream a whit. :v
My diet is kinda shot, isn't it. Wrong thread for that though!
@Sergarr:Teach meeeeeeee
@Sergarr, one post later:*hugs*
@Solifuge:I was literally about to link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia
Thrn I read your post.
Post by: Sergarr on October 22, 2016, 02:39:21 pm
Yes. It's a quite often thing when things that people don't consciously remember continues to affect them on the subconscious level. A lot of phobias are like that.If you can never observe a thing, did it happen?If only I dreamt. Of anything :vNot to be a pedant but everyone dreams. It's just a matter of you not remembering it.
@Sergarr:Teach meeeeeeeeSee that's the tricky part. To make a Dark Pact, you need to find a devil, but as you all know, devils don't quite exist IRL. So you have to imagine one, really hard, and then you have to sell your soul
/jk
But really, as much as I doubt it would work for another person (because our minds are highly, highly individual), you can try the following:
@Sergarr, one post later:*hugs*/me hugs back
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 22, 2016, 05:42:38 pm
Post by: Codician on October 23, 2016, 12:42:47 am
I have a real problem with this, mainly that Allah is DEFINITELY male. There's no other way around it, especially considering in the Qu'ran he refers to himself as male.
This person has a huge lack of understanding of both gender AND Islam. What a mess.
Post by: Edmus on October 23, 2016, 12:49:48 am
ie. Islam has no gender.
I'm sure she holds some very strong opinions, and that she'd love to share them.
Post by: Catmeat on October 23, 2016, 01:02:06 am
I have a real problem with this, mainly that Allah is DEFINITELY male. There's no other way around it, especially considering in the Qu'ran he refers to himself as male.
This person has a huge lack of understanding of both gender AND Islam. What a mess.
Just like all deitys DEFINITELY exsist?
Translated into my language it goes like this; You what mate?!
Post by: Codician on October 23, 2016, 01:03:01 am
Perhaps it's less literal than you are interpreting. Allah or God may serve as a metonym for the religion.
ie. Islam has no gender.
I'm sure she holds some very strong opinions, and that she'd love to share them.
Their Imam would have some very strong opinions on how wrong they are on that.
I mean, the order of importance in creation is pretty much Allah > Man > Woman. Trying to change Islam like that is heresy, it's not something that can be reformed like Christianity.
Just like all deitys DEFINITELY exsist?
Translated into my language it goes like this; You what mate?!
???
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 23, 2016, 02:01:39 am
Neither was Christianity, until someone did it anyway.Perhaps it's less literal than you are interpreting. Allah or God may serve as a metonym for the religion.
ie. Islam has no gender.
I'm sure she holds some very strong opinions, and that she'd love to share them.
Their Imam would have some very strong opinions on how wrong they are on that.
I mean, the order of importance in creation is pretty much Allah > Man > Woman. Trying to change Islam like that is heresy, it's not something that can be reformed like Christianity.
Post by: Codician on October 23, 2016, 02:45:51 am
Neither was Christianity, until someone did it anyway.
Huge differences between Islam and Christianity at the most basic level of theology.
Believing Islam can be reformed without it becoming not!Islam is fundamentally ignorant of the religion itself.
Post by: SirQuiamus on October 23, 2016, 03:13:56 am
Christians are equally unreformed in that sense, since they keep calling their deity "Father." :PNeither was Christianity, until someone did it anyway.Perhaps it's less literal than you are interpreting. Allah or God may serve as a metonym for the religion.
ie. Islam has no gender.
I'm sure she holds some very strong opinions, and that she'd love to share them.
Their Imam would have some very strong opinions on how wrong they are on that.
I mean, the order of importance in creation is pretty much Allah > Man > Woman. Trying to change Islam like that is heresy, it's not something that can be reformed like Christianity.
Post by: Harry Baldman on October 23, 2016, 03:18:20 am
Christians are equally unreformed in that sense, since they keep calling their deity "Father." :P
There's still your old pal the Holy Ghost though, which is a weird energy thing that suffuses all things holy and such, and probably has no real gender that we know of. And hey, there's Jesus, commonly depicted as gentle, long-haired, pure and submissive to his ultimate fate. That is, when he's not withering trees and beating the shit out of people with a whip made of his hair - the latter of which, come to think of it, is also kind of effeminate in a more modern tropey context.
Post by: spümpkin on October 23, 2016, 04:02:47 am
But really, as much as I doubt it would work for another person (because our minds are highly, highly individual), you can try the following:tried this, just ended up feeling weird in my stomach and got a boner, but also felt extreme dysphoria, dunno if that was intentional :v
Post by: Sergarr on October 23, 2016, 04:25:06 am
Hm.But really, as much as I doubt it would work for another person (because our minds are highly, highly individual), you can try the following:tried this, just ended up feeling weird in my stomach and got a boner, but also felt extreme dysphoria, dunno if that was intentional :v
Okay I don't exactly know what this "dysphoria" thing is, but if it's that thing where you feel mad uncomfortable about yourself, then yes, this thing can cause that. Keep trying more, though, it should eventually get better.
Oh, and also before I forget, you probably also need to do the reversal afterwards. So, like, points 4 and 3, but you instead push your clingy inner world outside of your control room and mentally seal the path with a barrier so that you start feeling like yourself again.
It might also help if you try to anthropomorphize your inner world, somewhat. It was fairly natural to me, but I don't know if that's a thing that is natural for anyone else.
Post by: Catmeat on October 23, 2016, 04:50:44 am
Take that to the religion thread created by orange wizard. May his banned soul rest in hell
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 04:53:54 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I have a real problem with this, mainly that Allah is DEFINITELY male. There's no other way around it, especially considering in the Qu'ran he refers to himself as male.
This person has a huge lack of understanding of both gender AND Islam. What a mess.
Allah is refered to in male pronouns and COULD be considered masculine...
But no she is definitely right... Allah has no real gender... Being genderless and all that.
---
As for this having no REAL position in a gender/sexuality thread
Unfortunately it really REALLY REALLY does... but in ways that are a bit too dark for this (AKA: Another excuse for female inferiority)
But I agree perhaps we shouldn't focus on it.
Post by: Starver on October 23, 2016, 05:38:42 am
I mean, the order of importance in creation is pretty much Allah > Man > Woman. Trying to change Islam like that is heresy, it's not something that can be reformed like Christianity.
(Darnit, quoted instead of spoilered. Corrected. Again.)
And in any language where one has to make a clear choice of Masculine and Feminine (Arabic is exactly that, so far as I am aware), there has to be a polar choice made by the person, or else go through convoluted hurdles to say the equivalent of "It" whilst retaining the deference one wishes to apply to the version of the almighty concerned...
Someone makes the choice, and that someone was a man. Whether he (or his inspiration) intended it, this choice then gets instantiated by others and accidentally/willfully taken as more literal than the original mere literary convenience.
(Gender is a sociopolitical issue not limited to religion, in short. If I had mentioned seeing my doctor, the other day, and then go on to say she told me something about my health, would you have avoided the obvious initial but incorrect assumption? Or (over)compensated at the risk of him being male after all? Before going off into further realms of possibility.)
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 05:41:07 am
Quote
the order of importance in creation is pretty much Allah > Man > Woman
Wait... Where the heck is that in the Koran?
Also aren't there like... a Host of Angels too?
I mean I know religious texts put a lot of importance on how women should be loyal and dutiful and a man has a right to enforce that loyalty and duty... But... The Sheppard is not more important than the sheep in this case... and there is a reason WHY there is an insistence towards women being loyal and dutiful, which comes with the equally important requirement that a man be wise.
Within the logic of the situation if one were to assume it is correct. If a woman is disloyal because the man isn't worth loyalty... He is at fault.
Or rather... GOODNESS is the whole situation between men and women often brought up to just shove responsibility off of men and onto women. As if the only tool in their toolbox is subjugation.
Quote
this choice then gets instantiated by others and accidentally/willfully taken as more literal than the original mere literary convenience
It is probably best to remember the order of events. Allah existed before man and woman.
Post by: spümpkin on October 23, 2016, 05:56:06 am
Gender dysphoria, being trans n all makes it occur on a fairly regular basis. so yeah, uncomfortable wit myself, largely because i dont match my inner, female self :v. honestly, it didnt feel like i wasnt in control, it felt like the parts of me that are normally hidden just kinda... absorbing into me. idk. ALso now theres just an image of a guy whos just a bunch of trees n shit.Hm.But really, as much as I doubt it would work for another person (because our minds are highly, highly individual), you can try the following:tried this, just ended up feeling weird in my stomach and got a boner, but also felt extreme dysphoria, dunno if that was intentional :v
Okay I don't exactly know what this "dysphoria" thing is, but if it's that thing where you feel mad uncomfortable about yourself, then yes, this thing can cause that. Keep trying more, though, it should eventually get better.
Oh, and also before I forget, you probably also need to do the reversal afterwards. So, like, points 4 and 3, but you instead push your clingy inner world outside of your control room and mentally seal the path with a barrier so that you start feeling like yourself again.
It might also help if you try to anthropomorphize your inner world, somewhat. It was fairly natural to me, but I don't know if that's a thing that is natural for anyone else.
Post by: Sergarr on October 23, 2016, 06:17:33 am
Gender dysphoria, being trans n all makes it occur on a fairly regular basis. so yeah, uncomfortable wit myself, largely because i dont match my inner, female self :v. honestly, it didnt feel like i wasnt in control, it felt like the parts of me that are normally hidden just kinda... absorbing into me. idk. ALso now theres just an image of a guy whos just a bunch of trees n shit.Oh so it's definitely that thing. That thing is definitely a thing that I experienced when I let in a little bit too of my inner world and accidentally absorbed too much of my inner suppressed femininity or something, IDK what that was, exactly. It was really quite uniquely uncomfortable for the relatively short period of time when I experienced it (until I managed to suppress that pesky femininity back into my imagination). It's when I realized exactly why people would go to such lengths to change their physical sex in order to match their inner gender :-X
And you definitely are close to being on a right track. It's slightly different from what I felt, but, as I've said before, our minds are highly, highly unique, it's kind of a miracle that it even does anything similar, really. I'm very, very delighted.
Post by: chaoticag on October 23, 2016, 09:33:44 am
I have a real problem with this, mainly that Allah is DEFINITELY male. There's no other way around it, especially considering in the Qu'ran he refers to himself as male.Uhhhh, I don't think you read the Qur'an. Or spoke to Shyoukh.
This person has a huge lack of understanding of both gender AND Islam. What a mess.
God is specifically defined as one of a kind in the Qur'an, while, unlike Christianity (and possibly Judaism) man is not made in the image of God but in the best possible form instead, so it's not like we can point to Adam and say God looked like that.
The other thing is I've had about three sheikhs come over to help me learn and memorize parts of the Quran, and it's been pretty consistent between the three of them that God has no gender. While the Qu'ran does use huwa as a pronoun to refer to him, and while that is generally accepted to be the more masculine pronoun, it's not incorrect to use it one someone more feminine, and in a sense, many people already use the plural form of it when referring to an exclusively female group around here.
Ah, speaking of Islam, looks like a law got passed recently around here to allow legally and medically transitioning. Don't think I'll meet the requirements for it though but it's something.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 23, 2016, 09:47:47 am
What is dysphoria? For instance, what does it feel like?
Post by: chaoticag on October 23, 2016, 10:05:11 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 23, 2016, 10:17:53 am
So since there are trans people here, I'll ask a question that has perplexed me for ages.Well I think it's not a kind of feeling you can adequately express in words; there are no good analogies for it existent in languages that I know of. It's like, a really really shitty feeling of things not being right that you desperately want to not feel yet can't help yourself but continue to feel it anyways, and that element of unwantedness multiplies its shittiness exponentially.
What is dysphoria? For instance, what does it feel like?
I don't want to remember how it felt more precisely than this, to be honest; I'm already pretty sure that I'm having a mild headache due to that.
Post by: Catmeat on October 23, 2016, 12:24:57 pm
Post by: Edmus on October 23, 2016, 03:45:11 pm
Post by: Calidovi on October 23, 2016, 03:47:35 pm
So was Adams rib M2F?
ribs dont have genders
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 23, 2016, 03:54:16 pm
In this case, the rib to woman could be explained as some sick process in which the process of cell differentiation is reversed in bone marrow cells to get stem cells and thus create an abominable human pair with which to conquer the world with their insufferable ilk
Thus the rib would be M->N/A->F, and humans should not be rendered extinct by elder star parasites
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 03:55:05 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 23, 2016, 03:57:31 pm
From that description it somewhat resembles anxiety.Well to be fair, the reactions are fairly individual, but anxiety is a part of the usual ones:
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria
Symptoms of GID in children may include any of the following: disgust at their own genitalia, social isolation from their peers, anxiety, loneliness and depression.
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 03:59:45 pm
I immediately checked the internet for Classical Pictures of Eve
To see if she had large breasts and/or was fat.
Yet she tends to be modest.
I think I am getting my symbolism mixed up given the Greeks had a tendency to depict "hypersexuality" as a negative (Barbarians would get huge schlongs).
---
For those who don't know why I looked for that...
I was wondering if Eve's "Mother of all" status would give her some typical symbolic features.
Post by: Reelya on October 23, 2016, 04:01:40 pm
Quote
So was Adams rib M2F?
ribs dont have genders
Ribs contain DNA, and you can argue that DNA is biologically gendered.
Neo: the paintings probably depend on the era in which they were created. Most ones you're looking at are probably from the 15th-18th centuries.
Post by: Calidovi on October 23, 2016, 04:02:39 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 23, 2016, 04:03:13 pm
I'm pretty sure they actually don't, that's why identical different-gendered twins exist.Quote from: CalidoviSo was Adams rib M2F?
ribs dont have genders
Ribs contain DNA, and you can argue that DNA is biologically gendered.
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 04:03:59 pm
I'm pretty sure they actually don't, that's why identical different-gendered twins exist.
To my knowledge they don't exactly live very long.
Post by: Reelya on October 23, 2016, 04:04:33 pm
Differently-gendered twins don't usually come from the same egg, BTW. There are cases where two sperm fertilized the same egg, which could theoretically lead to twins, but usually it just means really bad deformity shit happens.
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 04:05:03 pm
Of course ribs contain DNA.
Mud DNA
Differently-gendered twins don't come from the same egg, BTW.
It was a reference to Identical twins with different genders (or sexes whatever the term you want to use here... I can never remember)
Which is a contentious issue...
But in the cases where it "Might" have happened... It typically is a death sentence.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 23, 2016, 04:07:04 pm
Mud DNAwat
Post by: Reelya on October 23, 2016, 04:08:48 pm
Twins of opposite gender are always fraternal twins, i.e. two eggs and two sperm. There might be some exception, but it'd be the "medical freak show" type scenario.
Pretty much the only way you'd get the case of "Identical twins with different gender" is the extremely rare hypothetical scenario (so rare I don't know if it's ever happened), where you had identical male twins, but one suffered from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while the other didn't, for some reason.
Post by: Sergarr on October 23, 2016, 04:12:46 pm
There are no identical twins with different genders. They always came from a different sperm, because sperm is sexed. There are male and female sperm, that's what differentiates things.Okay
Twins of opposite gender are always fraternal twins, i.e. two eggs and two sperm. There might be some exception, but it'd be the "medical freak show" type scenario.
So, coming back to the rib question, the answer is that rib doesn't have any gender, so it cannot be MtF.
Post by: Reelya on October 23, 2016, 04:14:23 pm
But doesn't MtF normally mean the physical surgery? Normally we don't apply that to just means the outward trappings such as clothing and appearance, but the physical changes to the body.
Since surgery counts as MtF, then so does changing the DNA of the rib from male to female.
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 23, 2016, 04:24:52 pm
Post by: Reelya on October 23, 2016, 04:28:00 pm
Post by: spümpkin on October 23, 2016, 04:30:42 pm
Well, the upset-ness wasn't a new feeling, since I feel that on a nigh-constant basis, but it also just kinda developed to me and my inner self talking about how we're cool, which is a conversation I have to have with myself a lot so I don't hate myself *all* the time.Gender dysphoria, being trans n all makes it occur on a fairly regular basis. so yeah, uncomfortable wit myself, largely because i dont match my inner, female self :v. honestly, it didnt feel like i wasnt in control, it felt like the parts of me that are normally hidden just kinda... absorbing into me. idk. ALso now theres just an image of a guy whos just a bunch of trees n shit.Oh so it's definitely that thing. That thing is definitely a thing that I experienced when I let in a little bit too of my inner world and accidentally absorbed too much of my inner suppressed femininity or something, IDK what that was, exactly. It was really quite uniquely uncomfortable for the relatively short period of time when I experienced it (until I managed to suppress that pesky femininity back into my imagination). It's when I realized exactly why people would go to such lengths to change their physical sex in order to match their inner gender :-X
And you definitely are close to being on a right track. It's slightly different from what I felt, but, as I've said before, our minds are highly, highly unique, it's kind of a miracle that it even does anything similar, really. I'm very, very delighted.
So since there are trans people here, I'll ask a question that has perplexed me for ages.Dysphoria is like the common cold, in the sense that it comes in many different forms, it's an ass to cure, and that it comes frequently when you go outside. Dysphoria isn't quite the same for everyone, but from my experience, it's largely brought on by envying other people who have the body you want, or just seeing something that reminds you of the body you know you should have, but realise that you don't. It doesn't really listen to the rational sense of "it'll only take a few more years, don't worry about it", because it's kinda soul-wrenching to present yourself as... not yourself. Which I do on a daily basis. But I digress, and I can't speak for everyone, but it's been a driving factor in my two suicide attempts, even when I wasn't fully aware of it.
What is dysphoria? For instance, what does it feel like?
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 23, 2016, 04:32:19 pm
But that's basically a sex change operation on the rib then, so it counts as MtF.Jesus disagrees.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 23, 2016, 04:32:56 pm
There are no identical twins with different genders. They always came from a different sperm, because sperm is sexed. There are male and female sperm, that's what differentiates things.Pretty sure they're talking about genetically identical twins where one is trans.
Twins of opposite gender are always fraternal twins, i.e. two eggs and two sperm. There might be some exception, but it'd be the "medical freak show" type scenario.
Pretty much the only way you'd get the case of "Identical twins with different gender" is the extremely rare hypothetical scenario (so rare I don't know if it's ever happened), where you had identical male twins, but one suffered from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while the other didn't, for some reason.
Which I imagine is a pretty contentious issue.
Post by: Calidovi on October 23, 2016, 04:36:21 pm
But that's basically a sex change operation on the rib then, so it counts as MtF.Jesus disagrees.
"Do not you Jews seek to understand the teachings of my Father, the LORD your God? Countless years ago he so said to Abraham, your father, and his sons in Barnea: 'adams ribs arent trans you dips why do you do this to me'."
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 23, 2016, 04:42:58 pm
Also if that scenario is the one where one twin got XY and the other just got X, yes, it has happened. Fewer than 10 reported instances, however.There are no identical twins with different genders. They always came from a different sperm, because sperm is sexed. There are male and female sperm, that's what differentiates things.Pretty sure they're talking about genetically identical twins where one is trans.
Twins of opposite gender are always fraternal twins, i.e. two eggs and two sperm. There might be some exception, but it'd be the "medical freak show" type scenario.
Pretty much the only way you'd get the case of "Identical twins with different gender" is the extremely rare hypothetical scenario (so rare I don't know if it's ever happened), where you had identical male twins, but one suffered from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while the other didn't, for some reason.
Which I imagine is a pretty contentious issue.
Post by: ECrownofFire on October 23, 2016, 04:47:23 pm
So since there are trans people here, I'll ask a question that has perplexed me for ages.
What is dysphoria? For instance, what does it feel like?
As mentioned, it's rather hard to explain, but it's also highly individual. For me, one part of it is discomfort with my physical self, a strong dislike for my masculine features, things like my facial hair, relatively masculine face, broader shoulders, height, anything really. The severity and therefore what I feel bad about varies, essentially based on how "picky" I am. For example, my height isn't that big of a deal. While I'd certainly be more comfortable being a bit shorter, at 5'8" I'm not that tall for a woman. My facial hair is pretty bad, I can't go long without thinking about it. My voice is also really awful, I've always hated it and it's just awful. I'm not going into genital dysphoria but that also really sucks.
The second part of it is essentially how society and other people view me. Whenever people call me by female pronouns or other words (e.g. "miss"), it just feels a lot more right than "sir" and such. It's a hard feeling to describe, but it's as if people looked at you and assumed you were one thing when you're really not. I don't know if there's really another similar way to describe it. It almost feels like I'm being insulted, in a way? I mean there isn't anything wrong with being male or female or whatever, but it just doesn't feel right.
Oh and re: the twin discussion. They said gender, not sex. There have certainly been many identical twins where one was trans and the other wasn't. Though there's also a very strong tendency for them both to be identical in that way as well.
Post by: Starver on October 23, 2016, 04:57:56 pm
There are no identical twins with different genders. They always came from a different sperm, because sperm is sexed. There are male and female sperm, that's what differentiates things.There are various "Disorders of Sex Development" that, in an individual, can create an intersex of apparentsex=/=chromasomalsex, to one or other degree. While rare, I wouldn't put it past a 'well defined' DSD happening so that one of a pair of nominally XYed identical twins develops in utero as female-looking.
And then there's chimeric mechanisms (not unknown in humans, mothers having failed genetic maternity tests due to blood/skin being dissimilar genetics to their own ovaries), which could make one twin's gonads different from the other as parts of the origonal 'dizygotic' twinning, but significant cross-over has made the non-sexual aspects of one twin's appearance be a monozygotic copy of the other, awaiting only the local wash of development hormones to enact the vital differences, but leaving surprisingly identical-looking1 allotypes of each other.
But it's only very recently that this could have been fully diagnosed, compared with the whole of human history where even solo 'anomolies' have been mostly hidden from view (if not made famous to the extent of being now legendary and thus practically mythical), and I couldn't guess where to go poking about for case studies (or the lack, thereof) upon which to base this hypothetical (or reduce expectations of its possible undocumented existence).
1 Of course, brother/sister fraternal twins are produced from one father and one mother under near-identical in-utero conditions, so maybe power(25%, n) of the time (assuming no undue dominance or random development switch of one of them in the amniotic environment) at least until puberty one could imagine a everything-but-genitals-being-near-identical-looking pair of twins, too.
Post by: Catmeat on October 23, 2016, 05:16:50 pm
So the rib is trans what is the fruit?
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 05:18:06 pm
Im a Barbarian lol.
So the rib is trans what is the fruit?
While trees often have a gender...
I am not sure what gender to apply to the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
But... probably truly genderless.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 23, 2016, 05:19:07 pm
Post by: Solifuge on October 23, 2016, 08:04:56 pm
"Do not you Jews seek to understand the teachings of my Father, the LORD your God? Countless years ago he so said to Abraham, your father, and his sons in Barnea: 'adams ribs arent trans you dips why do you do this to me'."
:Y
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 08:21:38 pm
Hey, quick reminder for folks using them interchangably. "Gender" isn't a formal or polite way of saying "Sex". Gender is a social performance or a role, while Sex is a body type or collection of average physical traits. They totally different things, yo.
I just forget which is which a lot of the time... and remembering the difference is USUALLY unimportant.
Since remembering or acknowledging the existence someone's sex is usually a faux pas if it is different.
Meaning socially only Gender matters, even if that discussion is scientific and technical.
Which means the distinction is completely unimportant because only Gender matters. Even if we are talking about a disease that only kills men, sex doesn't matter.
---
In fact I am predicting a movement in the future to remove the word "Trans" and "Transsexual" from the English language.
Though I will say I don't feel too strongly about that happening. Given that, frankly, we managed to not turn Trans into a "swear word". (though I think Tranny is an insult)
With Gay turning into a swear word you weren't allowed to say... THEN reversing and being ok to say again.
Post by: Solifuge on October 23, 2016, 08:32:55 pm
Maybe different people feel differently than I do about it? But I'm pretty chill about the whole thing.
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 08:57:41 pm
Maybe different people feel differently than I do about it? But I'm pretty chill about the whole thing.
It is more like being sensitive.
Like calling someone fat... They are fat... Please stop bringing it up.
Which given that a lot of trans people put a lot of work into their personas... It hurts all the more.
THEN... There are the crazy people... But that is a whole other weirdness.
Post by: Solifuge on October 23, 2016, 09:07:32 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 23, 2016, 09:10:27 pm
Is experience...
Nothing makes you more overly sensitive then experience...
So get someone who constantly has to defend their gender to people... and yeah they won't enjoy someone bringing up their sex... (And given the community I hung out with... Yeah... Bad experiences was... common)
Post by: Reelya on October 23, 2016, 09:58:09 pm
There are no identical twins with different genders. They always came from a different sperm, because sperm is sexed. There are male and female sperm, that's what differentiates things.There are various "Disorders of Sex Development" that, in an individual, can create an intersex of apparentsex=/=chromasomalsex, to one or other degree. While rare, I wouldn't put it past a 'well defined' DSD happening so that one of a pair of nominally XYed identical twins develops in utero as female-looking.
I know it's theoretically possible. But like I said, that would be so rare that it's probably never happened. First up, you'd need identical twins (about a 1 in 300 chance). Then, you'd need that they have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (about 1 in 20,000). So the chance so far is sounding like 1 per 6 million births, and I'm assuming if one twin has CAH, the other twin has CAH.
And then, on top of that, you'd need that one twin develops normally male, the other twin develops normally female, despite having identical DNA and an identical prenatal environment, whereas the sheer bulk of CAH sufferers have ambiguous genitalia. Call that like a 1% chance for each kid (almost all CAH sufferers have ambiguous genitalia) for our hypothetical, and you're looking at around a 1/10000 chance of BOTH children matching but somehow opposite despite the same DNA and environment. Which means an aggregate chance of around 1 in 60 billion, or ... on the scale of the number of people that have ever lived.
Post by: Catmeat on October 23, 2016, 10:15:43 pm
What happens after that also doesnt matter cause im sexy as fuck.. lol I wish.
I feel like everything Im saying is irrelevant. But it could be the apathenol I brewed up.
I love you guise
Reelya obviously stayed in school cause that hurt to read :P
Post by: Rolan7 on October 24, 2016, 01:01:00 am
Then my brother linked... uh... PG13, but probably NSFW...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mV-zPMBPuQ
>.<
>.o
O.O
ovo
Edit:
also this sexy villain straight out of Dr Horrible practically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_SlAzsXa7E
also the garbage men in Goldfrapp's "Ride a White Horse" but that's just generic backup singers being sexy, albeit a bit dirty.
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 03:28:07 am
Maybe my recent "don't give a shit" is a product of recent life events. Attraction included, because I was basically disinterested in the entire mess.why did I open the link
Then my brother linked... uh... PG13, but probably NSFW...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mV-zPMBPuQ
>.<
>.o
O.O
ovo
why did I watch it to the end
aaaah~
Post by: Arx on October 24, 2016, 03:59:54 am
Im a Barbarian lol.
So the rib is trans what is the fruit?
The fruit is a true hermaphrodite, able to produce both male and female gametes (once it has matured).
Post by: Neonivek on October 24, 2016, 04:38:01 am
Im a Barbarian lol.
So the rib is trans what is the fruit?
The fruit is a true hermaphrodite, able to produce both male and female gametes (once it has matured).
I don't think the fruit from that tree can actually reproduce so to speak.
Post by: Arx on October 24, 2016, 10:44:16 am
*Missing the female gonads is a little trickier to manage.
**Off the top of my head it seems unlikely that such defects would really be a thing, but if we accept that it's an absurd hypothetical?
Post by: tonnot98 on October 24, 2016, 10:53:01 am
Post by: Solifuge on October 24, 2016, 10:55:38 am
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls". Or redefine orientation in terms of Attraction like in the thought experiment a few pages ago. That works better than defining orientation as Who You Want To Have Sex With, so people don't have to specify that they still want romantic relationships but don't experience sexual desire. Androphilic/Gynophilic casts love and romantic attraction as the important part, rather than the sexy times, and I like the simplicity.
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 10:59:01 am
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls".IDK, uh, Platophilic?
Post by: TempAcc on October 24, 2016, 11:04:25 am
Im a Barbarian lol.
So the rib is trans what is the fruit?
The fruit is a true hermaphrodite, able to produce both male and female gametes (once it has matured).
Aw shit.
I guess I better put "daily eating of hermaphrodites" into my list of sins.
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls". Or redefine orientation in terms of Attraction like in the thought experiment a few pages ago. That works better than defining orientation as Who You Want To Have Sex With, so people don't have to specify that they still want romantic relationships but don't experience sexual desire. Androphilic/Gynophilic casts love and romantic attraction as the important part, rather than the sexy times, and I like the simplicity.
Asexual, like pretty much any related term, has fallen victim to the umbrella syndrome, meaning a whole lot of people just kinda nabbed it and used it to describe a wide range of "ew, sex" behaviors. Kinda like pansexual became trendy in the last years and started being used to describe pretty much everything and everyone who might have had attraction for something other than the opposite sex for a few miliseconds. When myspace was a thing it was the easiest way to nab a friendship invite from impressionable 16 year olds. You just slapped pansexual into your profile and bob's your uncle.
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls".IDK, uh, Platophilic?
Look, there's prob better ways to declare your craving for people named plato :v
Post by: Solifuge on October 24, 2016, 11:13:26 am
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls".IDK, uh, Platophilic?
Look, there's prob better ways to declare your craving for people named plato :v
Oh come on, like you wouldn't hit this? (http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1447950/plato.jpg)
Post by: Calidovi on October 24, 2016, 11:14:51 am
Post by: TempAcc on October 24, 2016, 11:21:11 am
Can't causeHonestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls".IDK, uh, Platophilic?
Look, there's prob better ways to declare your craving for people named plato :v
Oh come on, like you wouldn't hit this? (http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1447950/plato.jpg)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
All that elf booty and hairy dwarf chests, gone to waste.
Also why the hell does plato look so much like socrates in his depictions? Did greek philosophers have a dress code of looking like wise hobos? Probably, because many of them were literal wise hobos anyway.
Also I do think that is a statue of socrates but WHO CARES they're all beardy wise men with cool ideas that prob touched boybutts on ocasion.
Post by: Solifuge on October 24, 2016, 11:22:55 am
oh bb tell me how im your ideal image incomparable from any creation in an instantiated universe
ILU <3
Post by: Calidovi on October 24, 2016, 11:42:10 am
Excuse the shitpost please, butthere is no excuse for shitposting but ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuseoh bb tell me how im your ideal image incomparable from any creation in an instantiated universe
ILU <3
thanks, i still made a typo though so im done with all of this
All that elf booty ... gone to waste.∧＿∧
（ ´_ゝ`）
／ ＼
/ /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
∧＿∧
（' º_ゝº）
／ ＼
/ /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
∧＿∧
（ ´_ゝ`） treehuggers never learn, do they
／ ＼
/ /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
Post by: Rolan7 on October 24, 2016, 11:49:27 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 24, 2016, 11:51:02 am
Neither do treehuggerhuggers
Do you want quote pyramids? This is how you get quote pyramids. Silly treehuggerhuggerhugger.
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 11:58:46 am
I accidentally read the middle "hugger" as "bugger"...Neither do treehuggerhuggers
Do you want quote pyramids? This is how you get quote pyramids. Silly treehuggerhuggerhugger.
was my mind always that dirty
Post by: Neonivek on October 24, 2016, 12:14:37 pm
Arx, Asexual is actually the formal term, yeah. People started using that for people who prefer their relationships to be intercourse-free, which confuses things.
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls". Or redefine orientation in terms of Attraction like in the thought experiment a few pages ago. That works better than defining orientation as Who You Want To Have Sex With, so people don't have to specify that they still want romantic relationships but don't experience sexual desire. Androphilic/Gynophilic casts love and romantic attraction as the important part, rather than the sexy times, and I like the simplicity.
The nickname for people who don't like or want sex with anyone... are Aces
Post by: TempAcc on October 24, 2016, 12:19:06 pm
| _∧ ∧＿∧All that elf booty ... gone to waste.∧＿∧
（ ´_ゝ`）
／ ＼
/ /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
∧＿∧
（' º_ゝº）
／ ＼
/ /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
∧＿∧
（ ´_ゝ`） treehuggers never learn, do they
／ ＼
/ /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
| ͜ʖ ͡°) （ ´_ゝ`）
| ＼／ ＼
| / /￣￣￣￣/
|__ (__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
∧＿∧ ∧＿∧
ey bby ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)（ º_ゝº）
/ \／ ＼
/ / /￣￣￣￣/
＿_(__ﾆつ/ B12 /
＼/＿＿＿＿/
Arx, Asexual is actually the formal term, yeah. People started using that for people who prefer their relationships to be intercourse-free, which confuses things.
Honestly, we should probs come up with a better word for "No Sex Pls". Or redefine orientation in terms of Attraction like in the thought experiment a few pages ago. That works better than defining orientation as Who You Want To Have Sex With, so people don't have to specify that they still want romantic relationships but don't experience sexual desire. Androphilic/Gynophilic casts love and romantic attraction as the important part, rather than the sexy times, and I like the simplicity.
The nickname for people who don't like or want sex with anyone... are Aces
Hilariously enough, in many games, the ace card has the least value, and is only worth many points when combined with other cards. So its the least asexual nickname for asexuals, while also implying asexuals are trash :v
Plus I never met anyone who seriously adopted the term, which is good.
Post by: Neonivek on October 24, 2016, 12:42:52 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 24, 2016, 12:51:17 pm
It's literally just short for asexual. Just like trans and bi are shortened versions of transgendered/transsexual and bisexual.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 24, 2016, 01:37:40 pm
Post by: Starver on October 24, 2016, 01:39:36 pm
Click, right, right, Click, right, right, Click...
(Or "Fire, Drift over, Fire, Drift over, Fire" in a light-pistol game, which I was strangely often very good at..)
Nothing to do with my initials, but then I never was out to prove anything, and if I saw "ACE" on a game I hadn't played, I still got that internal warm feeling, in taking credit from a true narcissist... ;)
1 For the youngsters among us a "video game arcade" had, like, loads of nintendos and xboxes and things, only before there were xboxes, all sort of like running MAME, but you couldn't do anything to change the MAME game, 'cos they were, like, sealed into a big TV cabinet (a big cabinet with a small TV in it, actually) and the joypad was only accessible by pressing buttons attached to the cabinet and you had to put coins in a slot to work the little generator to power the controls, or something... Because of all this security, they had to put a load of these machines in one big room, and you went to the bit of the room that had the cabinet playing the game you wanted and then waited whilst someone on the autistic spectrum used his few coins to keep the game you wanted to play going for half an hour or more... Or something like that. Some of the details are lost in the mists of time, and the only thing anybody really knows is that these places also suffered from thematically-inclined graffitit artists, such that the cabinets were all covered with strange writing that was often, but not always, related to the kind of thing the cabinet's TV was showing.
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 01:41:19 pm
Hmm, interesting, so there are multiple components to, or expressions of, dysphoria? I remember that autism has multiple "components," and somebody with a certain number or more would be considered autistic; is dysphoria similar, or is it "all components or nothing"?I'm pretty sure that people have already said that it's individual. We're talking about our minds, remember? Our personalities are not so easy to put into neat color-coded boxes.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 24, 2016, 01:45:11 pm
Post by: Solifuge on October 24, 2016, 10:53:37 pm
We can't know anyone else's mind, so we have to trust people's self-assessment. Still, sometimes I wonder if the Hardcore Dysphoria is just a reaction against the aggressive gender policing that happens in some religious or cultural circles. In some places, it wouldn't be enough to just have a preference to tweak their body, or to want to dress in a different way than their culture deems appropriate for their assigned gender role. In cases like that, I could see someone using that kind of Dysphoria to "justify" their identity in a way those people would accept.
Same stuff happens with gay folks, being forced to justify an open sexuality as some clear-cut biological or fundamental difference in their sexuality, rather than just being an interest or preference. Wish we could just generally let people love who they want to love at any given time, without slapping labels on it. Sexualities and Gender Identities and all that change as people live and grow, and learn about themselves. I worry that talking about them in terms of absolute labels and fundamental traits might make people think less of folks who change ore redefine them as they come to understand themselves better.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 24, 2016, 11:02:54 pm
At first I thought it was being judgemental of my choices but actually, probably not. I think I was projecting my self-resentment on it! And a game that can give me a bit of introspection like that isn't so bad, particularly a short one.
Does take a while to load though, lots of animated gifs and music. https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/games-by-me/
(It's the same person who LP'd Witcher and analyzed the "love interests" so comedically)
Post by: Solifuge on October 25, 2016, 12:53:46 am
Spoiler: Spoilery, sleepy thoughts. (click to show/hide)
Post by: alway on October 25, 2016, 01:06:13 am
The Ace is typically the wild card. The smallest and largest and in Tarot the Ace are typically the hero.As a noun, ace can refer to playing cards, but as an adjective, it's more clear about connotation. As in an ace pilot or similar. Whose etymology comes from the fact that aces are often the most valuable card. So yeah, ace is a term which generally has very positive connotation to it.
Post by: scriver on October 25, 2016, 01:12:26 am
Post by: Edmus on October 25, 2016, 03:01:45 am
Post by: scriver on October 25, 2016, 05:10:50 am
Post by: Catmeat on October 25, 2016, 05:21:12 am
Same goes for any positive descriptor though. Who non-ironically calls themselves cool?* takes bait
I'm cool.
Not even joking. Sure I can be negative and shy, but I can make friends and make people laugh easily.
*hmm should I post this.. am I..
Post by: Sergarr on October 25, 2016, 05:30:12 am
Same goes for any positive descriptor though. Who non-ironically calls themselves cool?What if it can be factually confirmed? *temperature drops*
Although, yes, I usually try to stop flattering myself by occasionally reminding me of my numerous embarrassing failures in the past, as well as the tremendous number of things that I have no idea about.
Post by: Edmus on October 25, 2016, 06:20:35 am
I usually try to stop flattering myself by occasionally reminding me of my numerous embarrassing failures in the past, as well as the tremendous number of things that I have no idea about.I wish I had this problem. I'm constantly assaulting myself with regrets.
My brother once suggested something he titled "the vanity game." Which is to ironically act as if you are incredible in every aspect; you can imagine the over the top delivery. hehehe
It's remarkably good for the self esteem, and only mildly annoying.
"Hey Brady, you know what's great?"
*sighs* "It wouldn't happen to be you, would it?"
"I was going to say modern medical advances, but THANK YOU~!"
Not something if your self esteem is already solid, but I recommend it if you're in a deficit.
To round off the sleep deprived rave, I would say that be cool is to be respected.
To feel cool you need self respect/esteem, which is where I'd guess you're coming from Catmeat.
Post by: Catmeat on October 25, 2016, 07:07:15 am
Though my self esteem is still low, Im getting better and so on so forth.
Most the time im day dreaming in my own world and ignore humans, even ones I'm interested in because of my perceived low self worth, but sometimes, I switch to my other personality and it goes for it.
Then they realise Im too much, ahh such is the life for someone who wears their heart on their sleeve.
I dont get it, if I was shown the amount of love I give, I wouldnt run away.
Makes me think im never going to find this 'love' thing, or if it even exisits
Post by: TempAcc on October 25, 2016, 07:47:00 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 26, 2016, 08:09:22 am
Quote
I have to choose between what makes me feel whole and what is safe all the fucking timeI don't even need to play the game, it's already hit me in the feels
- skullvomit, tumblr.com, 2014
Post by: Catmeat on October 26, 2016, 08:31:38 am
I don't even need to play the game, it's already hit me in the feelsYeah I hate when I accidently hit my feels, hurts so much.
Such a strange lingering pain... feelings that is..
Ehh hem
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 03:34:24 pm
Seems pretty cool, but I doubt it would work for me - I can't remember any "various good and pretty [things]... that [I] keep separated from myself." However, with the Power of Thought, I think I might be able to modify it.
The feeling that I got from your description was that the "inner-ness" was reversed, with "you" being surrounded by the inner-self, and with a semipermeable membrane between them. (Err, sorry, biology class getting to me.) Is that what you were trying to describe, or did I put my own spin on it?
Post by: Sergarr on October 27, 2016, 04:39:40 pm
Spoiler: some further explanations about Dark Pact (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 05:32:48 pm
Quote
*half-sleeping but, for some reason, unable to go fully to sleep*
refers to you or the pact.
Post by: Sergarr on October 27, 2016, 05:36:40 pm
that wasn't intentional, I'm just quite sleepy IRL right now
also what would that even mean in regards to the pact
it doesn't feel very sleepy when you do it
rather the opposite of that
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 05:42:12 pm
Also, I've been doing some of my own meddling with my mind, mostly with perception. I'm able to do more when I am in a sort of sleep-like state. Sort of like lucid dreaming. But if I actually fall asleep I can't focus my thoughts enough, so I have to hold myself in the in-between.
Of course I'm also sleepy so I could just be babbling some deepity, who knows.
Edit: Ahahaha this is fun. I'm putting the two together. Now that I can modify things, I've experimented and found two different things. I can't even describe them, but they both are me. I think. Wait, no, there's another. And another. Whoaaaaaaaaa. This is more than gender, this is identity itself.
Post by: Sergarr on October 27, 2016, 06:06:56 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 27, 2016, 06:10:06 pm
Post by: Calidovi on October 27, 2016, 06:19:13 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 27, 2016, 06:20:42 pm
Post by: Calidovi on October 27, 2016, 06:23:14 pm
Post by: TempAcc on October 27, 2016, 06:24:04 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 27, 2016, 06:25:20 pm
i dont know, make a meditation general and put your dark pact stuff on that for general discussiondoes "religion and spirituality thread" come close enough for me to deposit that stuff in or am I being drunk on sleepiness again
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 27, 2016, 06:28:08 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 09:12:17 pm
Post by: Solifuge on October 27, 2016, 09:15:18 pm
Going back on topic...
Just saw this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjg-ZSk31rw)
WHO'S CHOPPING SO MANY ONIONS?!
:<
I mean, they're still selling an unnecessarily gendered product, despite that all people are hairy and smelly regardless of what myths society wants to tell you... but sure, it's still sweet.
Good on ya, DeoderantCorp.
Post by: Max™ on October 27, 2016, 09:56:58 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 10:01:56 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on October 27, 2016, 10:03:39 pm
I guess those still exist!
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 10:13:13 pm
Post by: spümpkin on October 27, 2016, 11:56:08 pm
Going back on topic...That's pretty neat.
Just saw this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjg-ZSk31rw)
WHO'S CHOPPING SO MANY ONIONS?!
A personal story, but today I received my first injection of hormone blockers! I'll update if I observe any interesting side effects, but the main thing is an absence of things happening. Also, my mum has said that sometime in 2018, she'd be okay with me starting hormones, and then, unless changes already happen, I can present myself as publicly female in 2019 at school etc. Which is pretty rad!
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 27, 2016, 11:57:32 pm
Post by: Max™ on October 28, 2016, 12:12:23 am
What comic? What letters? Also, sex criminals... tend not to be asexual.The book is literally called Sex Criminals for less than obvious reasons involving sex and crime, but not sex crimes. The asexual twist was in #13 or #14 I think?
I assumed it was a webcomic but hm, seems like it's an actual physical comic book.Yar, digital too, but if nobody bought the physical copies they couldn't leave them in the woods along with random porn for others to find, in a long and confusing tradition of some sort.
I guess those still exist!
Post by: Solifuge on October 28, 2016, 01:03:17 am
A personal story, but today I received my first injection of hormone blockers! I'll update if I observe any interesting side effects, but the main thing is an absence of things happening. Also, my mum has said that sometime in 2018, she'd be okay with me starting hormones, and then, unless changes already happen, I can present myself as publicly female in 2019 at school etc. Which is pretty rad!
:D :D :D :D :D
That's super exciting, hon! The earlier you can start, the easier it'll be, and the better your results! Glad your folks are being supportive, too; that's so good to see.
Post by: Tiruin on October 28, 2016, 04:07:53 am
That's super exciting, hon! The earlier you can start, the easier it'll be, and the better your results! [...]Well :'( Yay.
/me goes aaahhh, vaguely. :'(
That said, yay for you Digi! :D
Could...I ask a textual description :x I can't load youtube videos currently.Going back on topic...That's pretty neat.[...]
Just saw this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjg-ZSk31rw)
WHO'S CHOPPING SO MANY ONIONS?!
Post by: spümpkin on October 28, 2016, 05:08:18 am
Three girls enter a public restroom, a transwomen is in one of the stalls. She stresses out while they chat, and finally she walks out and is complimented, before it shows an image of the deodorant product it is an advertisment for, and it's basically a women's deodorant commercial promoting being nice to trans people I guess?That's super exciting, hon! The earlier you can start, the easier it'll be, and the better your results! [...]Well :'( Yay.
/me goes aaahhh, vaguely. :'(
That said, yay for you Digi! :DCould...I ask a textual description :x I can't load youtube videos currently.Going back on topic...That's pretty neat.[...]
Just saw this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjg-ZSk31rw)
WHO'S CHOPPING SO MANY ONIONS?!
Post by: TempAcc on October 28, 2016, 06:28:45 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 28, 2016, 06:51:28 am
Post by: Starver on October 28, 2016, 07:01:19 am
Post by: Edmus on October 28, 2016, 07:24:11 am
I imagine that would be quite the relief; the idea of my body changing in a way that goes against what I accept and expect is horrifying.
Like, puberty is already shitty enough, right?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 28, 2016, 03:41:15 pm
On the one hand, I miss the androgyny of pre-adolescence, and whatever my gender is, it's probably nearest to androgyny. And since all my research has only come up with "gender dysphoria is dysphoria because of gender," and dysphoria is pretty similar to depression, I don't know? It might be good to avoid moving further away from androgyny and toward more masculinity? And besides, hormone blockers just put off puberty, so if it turns out that I'm not androgyne or trans, no harm done. And even if it weren't reversible, it would be at worst "meh, I don't get more facial hair or a more masculine body. Okay, fine."
But on the other hand, I'm doing fine-ish as it is. I'm not sure if there's a need for treatment. And I'm still not sure if I'm noncis, or just confused. And I really don't want to talk about this to anybody.
Yes, but on the first hand, this is reversible. Come on, you know you want to science the fuck out of this unclear situation. You have the chance to know. You'll always wonder if you don't. The longer you wait, the less effective the treatment, and the more puberty you'll have go through.
I know, but I kind of feel like I need more information.
So do I! That's why we should talk to a person whose job it is to -
no no no, no talking
dammit Doz, we'll have to talk about this sooner later. As I was saying, the best choice is to talk to somebody about this, since talking doesn't mean we have to do the treatment. It just means that we get more information and help.
(just wanted to share my internal monologue/dialogue/whatev)
(also advice would be cool)
(wait, no, I already got the advice of talking to somebody)
(didn't I?)
Post by: Neonivek on October 28, 2016, 03:45:27 pm
I SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY wonder how much of Gender Dysphoria is just... completely just the person bending to gender norms and their expectations of gender normative behavior and body image.
If there is one thing that bugs me about someone going through it, it is why I don't console people suffering from gender dysphoria if I have the option, it is that they will sometimes point to societal conventions as excuses...
This isn't always the case... but I want to slap someone who goes "I like puppy calendars so I am a girl"... and I am not taking that back.
Then again... there is quite a bit to suggest that I am onto something... but I won't go there because it is too depressing a topic that is too interwoven into political issues AND is too polarized to ever get a meaningful topic out of it.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 28, 2016, 03:46:55 pm
Post by: Calidovi on October 28, 2016, 04:16:40 pm
Ok I won't lie...
I SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY wonder how much of Gender Dysphoria is just... completely just the person bending to gender norms and their expectations of gender normative behavior and body image.
If there is one thing that bugs me about someone going through it, it is why I don't console people suffering from gender dysphoria if I have the option, it is that they will sometimes point to societal conventions as excuses...
This isn't always the case... but I want to slap someone who goes "I like puppy calendars so I am a girl"... and I am not taking that back.
Then again... there is quite a bit to suggest that I am onto something... but I won't go there because it is too depressing a topic that is too interwoven into political issues AND is too polarized to ever get a meaningful topic out of it.
there is gender dysphoria
and there is being a civil human being that likes puppy calendars
Post by: Edmus on October 28, 2016, 04:17:49 pm
From my experience, school councillors are very good.
It is their job to be compassionate, and your problem is one that can be tackled far more directly than the poverty cycle teens they are used to.
They are very understanding, even of all the introspective-seeming-nonsense we never share; speaking to mine was one of the best decisions I've made.
If you're dubious as to the quality of the school councillor, doctors too are trained for compassion.
They mightn't know what to do, but can give you a referral to someone that does, and are sworn to secrecy.
If you decide to tell someone, the best tip for spilling the beans of a secret is to work yourself into a corner from somewhere innocuous.
"I recently did X"
Why did you do X?
"Because I constantly feel Y?"
Do you have any idea why you feel Y?
Nowhere to go, alphabet exhausted: "Z"
The best of luck to you!
Post by: spümpkin on October 28, 2016, 04:23:06 pm
I'm kind of torn about the prospect of hormone blockers. (Just at the "hmm what if" stage, I haven't made any moves or said this to anybody let alone a doctor/therapist/whatev.)Well, a little bit of forewarning...
On the one hand, I miss the androgyny of pre-adolescence, and whatever my gender is, it's probably nearest to androgyny. And since all my research has only come up with "gender dysphoria is dysphoria because of gender," and dysphoria is pretty similar to depression, I don't know? It might be good to avoid moving further away from androgyny and toward more masculinity? And besides, hormone blockers just put off puberty, so if it turns out that I'm not androgyne or trans, no harm done. And even if it weren't reversible, it would be at worst "meh, I don't get more facial hair or a more masculine body. Okay, fine."
But on the other hand, I'm doing fine-ish as it is. I'm not sure if there's a need for treatment. And I'm still not sure if I'm noncis, or just confused. And I really don't want to talk about this to anybody.
Yes, but on the first hand, this is reversible. Come on, you know you want to science the fuck out of this unclear situation. You have the chance to know. You'll always wonder if you don't. The longer you wait, the less effective the treatment, and the more puberty you'll have go through.
I know, but I kind of feel like I need more information.
So do I! That's why we should talk to a person whose job it is to -
no no no, no talking
dammit Doz, we'll have to talk about this sooner later. As I was saying, the best choice is to talk to somebody about this, since talking doesn't mean we have to do the treatment. It just means that we get more information and help.
(just wanted to share my internal monologue/dialogue/whatev)
(also advice would be cool)
(wait, no, I already got the advice of talking to somebody)
(didn't I?)
Hormone blockers, at least in New Zealand, aren't often prescribed without the person doing hormones in the future. It's often used as a preliminary step, although it isn't compulsory, it helps. But yeah, I don't think you can do hormone blockers forever (for one, you'd have to get stabbed in the butt every 12 weeks for the rest of your life) due to it sorta effecting bone strength after long periods of use.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 28, 2016, 05:15:06 pm
Ok I won't lie...
I SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY wonder how much of Gender Dysphoria is just... completely just the person bending to gender norms and their expectations of gender normative behavior and body image.
If there is one thing that bugs me about someone going through it, it is why I don't console people suffering from gender dysphoria if I have the option, it is that they will sometimes point to societal conventions as excuses...
This isn't always the case... but I want to slap someone who goes "I like puppy calendars so I am a girl"... and I am not taking that back.
Then again... there is quite a bit to suggest that I am onto something... but I won't go there because it is too depressing a topic that is too interwoven into political issues AND is too polarized to ever get a meaningful topic out of it.
Oh hell no. I'd be the last person to say "I am a girl because I like girly things." There might be a correlation, but since girly things are girly because girls like them and are supposed to like them... it's just too much of a can of worms to get into.
My consideration of HRT isn't about other people seeing me, anyhow. It's mostly about matching my self-perception with my identity. And while my Bogus Gibber-BabbleTM can tweak the way I see myself, it doesn't really work over extended periods of time.
And when I say that I've made my self-perception "feminine," I don't mean "with breasts etc." There's a slight feeling of a difference in body shape, perhaps, but that's more in the shoulder areas, and that isn't the primary part of the tweak. It's not really explainable. There's just a... variable in the data stored about a person, and one of them is "masculine/feminine," and I know this because all feminine people have that as a 1 and all masculine people have that as a 0. I can switch that value to a 1 with my Bogus Gibber-Babble, but actually appearing less masculine would do the same.
I'd also like to note that my feeling of 'femininity' and 'masculinity' are completely subjective and shaped by the world around me. The same would apply to... pretty much everything. Sociology and psychology are fun.
Of course, that analogy is completely wrong. The best explanation I've found for gender is:
Code: [Select]
Masculine:----------
Feminine: ----------
Other: ----------Where it's a sliding scale for masculinity, femininity, and then the Other could be whatever third gender you identify as, I don't know. Hemidemisemifemis would look like
Code: [Select]
Masculine:O---------
Feminine: -O--------
Other: O---------And a "traditionally male person" would look like
Code: [Select]
Masculine:--------O-
Feminine: O---------
Other: O---------I'd probably rank myself as
Code: [Select]
Masculine:-O--------
Feminine: --O-------
Other: O---------or similar.
But of course that is inadequate too. I conducted an experiment in which I used my BGB at different times and determined which self-perception felt most "right." The results were... interesting.
They never differed that far from androgyny, but there was a noticeable difference between my "optimal self-perception" throughout the day, masculine-androgynous at one point and feminine-androgynous at another. That is, my optimal self-perception is not time-independent! If you asked me to place my gender on the same scale before, you'd see something like
Code: [Select]
Masculine:--O-------
Feminine: --O-------
Other: O---------or like
Code: [Select]
Masculine:--O-------
Feminine: -O--------
Other: O---------So my gender-guess has gone from cisgender, to maybe transgender, to agender/genderless, to androgyne, to gender-fluid androgyne.
Okaaaaaaaay. I might be overthinking this, but who knows.
=====
That tangent aside, I do disagree with something you say. This part to be exact.
I don't console people suffering from gender dysphoria if I have the option
I sometimes feel like my presented gender is just an act, the steps I go through just because people expect it. Yet again, sociology to the rescue! Err, rescuing me from incorrect statements. Many things, not just gender, are 'roles' or 'acts' that people do. So part of gender dysphoria might arise from cultural things. But does that invalidate their feelings?
Second, what the hell dude. Unless... wait...
When people talk to you about their "gender dysphoria," are they saying "man I hate being a boy, I'm really a girl because I like ponies and shit"? That's not gender dysphoria. This isn't intended to tell them "your feelings don't matter," but gender dysphoria is a clinical term with an actual definition. Gender dysphoria is a profound feeling of anxiety or unease arising from a conflict between one's gender identity and the way they and others perceive them, or their sex and gender expression. It is usually resolved by changing the latter to align with the former.
So when somebody is going through gender dysphoria, it's basically depression because of unresolved transgenderness. So yes you console them, the same as anybody going through depression.
@Dozebôm:*supports talking to knowledgeable peoples*
Like whom?
there is gender dysphoria
and there is being a civil human being that likes puppy calendars
I know, right? Who doesn't like those... wait you said puppy. I was imagining kitten calendars.
PURGE THE HERETICS
re Dozebôm,
From my experience, school councillors are very good.
It is their job to be compassionate, and your problem is one that can be tackled far more directly than the poverty cycle teens they are used to.
They are very understanding, even of all the introspective-seeming-nonsense we never share; speaking to mine was one of the best decisions I've made.
If you're dubious as to the quality of the school councillor, doctors too are trained for compassion.
They mightn't know what to do, but can give you a referral to someone that does, and are sworn to secrecy.
If you decide to tell someone, the best tip for spilling the beans of a secret is to work yourself into a corner from somewhere innocuous.
"I recently did X"
Why did you do X?
"Because I constantly feel Y?"
Do you have any idea why you feel Y?
Nowhere to go, alphabet exhausted: "Z"
The best of luck to you!
Thanks! I think that I will try that.
oh shit
How do I start a conversation like that? *is a clueless and nervous socially incompetent person*
Well, a little bit of forewarning...
Hormone blockers, at least in New Zealand, aren't often prescribed without the person doing hormones in the future. It's often used as a preliminary step, although it isn't compulsory, it helps. But yeah, I don't think you can do hormone blockers forever (for one, you'd have to get stabbed in the butt every 12 weeks for the rest of your life) due to it sorta effecting bone strength after long periods of use.
I'm not in NZ, and I don't think this applies in the US. And yes, I know that I can't hold off puberty of some sort forever, but there's something reassuring about how the first stages of hormone-changing-things aren't permanent.
Hmmm. A misconception and logical inconsistency that I held has been refuted by more research. Going off of HB will just result in puberty coming back like normal. I knew this. What I didn't draw from that was the following conclusion: I will need to have puberty, whether it's testosterone or estrogen that triggers it. Armokdamn it, what if I don't want either the masculine or the feminine secondary sexual characteristics? The decision is paralyzing.
Post by: Neonivek on October 28, 2016, 05:19:13 pm
Because I am not the best person for the job silly :P
I am far too clumsy and temperamental. I'd just end up hurting them somehow.
But usually you don't get a choice, someone needs to talk.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 28, 2016, 05:24:33 pm
I don't console people with gender dysphoria IF I have a choice...
Because I am not the best person for the job silly :P
I am far too clumsy and temperamental. I'd just end up hurting them somehow.
But usually you don't get a choice, someone needs to talk.
Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted it as "I don't console them because I don't think their pain is legitimate."
Post by: Neonivek on October 28, 2016, 05:27:00 pm
Besides you didn't go on a tirade over what I said. You were like "WTF!!! wait... maybe it is a lot more reasonable then I am thinking".
Which is a much more preferable reaction :P
Post by: Edmus on October 28, 2016, 05:30:18 pm
oh shitDon't panic, me too. :P
How do I start a conversation like that? *is a clueless and nervous socially incompetent person*
Work out who you need to talk to first.
For me it was the school councillor.
Then I was faced with the issue, 'how do I talk to her?'
This might be different for you, but I went to the front office, unplugged my thinking self from my doing self (like how you do when you jump into a pool) and asked for an appointment.
Another option is sliding a note with contact details under the councillor's door, getting their number, getting a doctors appointment for some other issue...
It's easy to get there, you just have to commit to it. There's nothing but yourself stopping you.
Once in there...
For me I had a linked event, like, mine was 'I not too long ago broke into tears trying to study maths.'
The direct cause for that was being in the closet, so her line of enquiry followed along reasons for my stress until it cornered the proper reason.
Which was actually my plan. :D
Post by: Tiruin on October 28, 2016, 10:06:28 pm
Psych student here with a 'mentor' that is a Guidance COunselor--you can start ANYWAY you want because you're in part also responding to the other person :Pre Dozebôm,
From my experience, school councillors are very good.
It is their job to be compassionate, and your problem is one that can be tackled far more directly than the poverty cycle teens they are used to.
They are very understanding, even of all the introspective-seeming-nonsense we never share; speaking to mine was one of the best decisions I've made.
If you're dubious as to the quality of the school councillor, doctors too are trained for compassion.
They mightn't know what to do, but can give you a referral to someone that does, and are sworn to secrecy.
If you decide to tell someone, the best tip for spilling the beans of a secret is to work yourself into a corner from somewhere innocuous.
"I recently did X"
Why did you do X?
"Because I constantly feel Y?"
Do you have any idea why you feel Y?
Nowhere to go, alphabet exhausted: "Z"
The best of luck to you!
Thanks! I think that I will try that.
oh shit
How do I start a conversation like that? *is a clueless and nervous socially incompetent person*
There is no 'right way' other than the usual etiquette and you being there with the other person.
And, if you do mention that you're nervous, you'll get a response that'll help you. What mind said when I mentioned 'I'm worried that you won't understand because I'll most likely say it out piece by piece and it's not really going to sound connected' was (paraphrased, grr memory >_>; paraphrased because she knew I'm in the course and aiming to be one) 'Professionals can connect the dots; it however needs you to start :) Don't worry yourself too much there'.
...There was a very obvious note of warmth tha thelped me a lot there but I'm unsure how the wording was :I
Ok I won't lie...If you're going to wonder about that--please, please beware of one's own context in processing the situation. Like, I recall you're in America, so part of the context would be your exposure and experience...and personally there's somewhat of a o_O with some sources of information there given how extreme the ideas are, or at least how I'm aware the ideas are there. Many are very useful and insightful, but there's also mention of the extreme/narrow information being mixed in.
I SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY wonder how much of Gender Dysphoria is just... completely just the person bending to gender norms and their expectations of gender normative behavior and body image.
And no--the 'completely' part is out of the question :P Taking in the note of Gender Dysphoria, it's both a response to the environment, a persistent affect to the person (I've to format a significant mark here because of what I guess how casual it is missed in the common viewpoint, as both persistence/time, and especially external context is VERY IMPORTANT), the environment itself, and the judgement of the ones viewing them.
Like, the culture of where one is at is VERY IMPORTANT because it's what they're in contact with 24/7. That includes 24/7 units of time's worth of thoughts. That includes less of the 'conformity' theme and more of 'There's a lot I'm responding to, this is very important to note in how I respond' theme. :P
However there's a lot there that I bet you're not stating because of that curiosity and further dee-tails. I'd love to hear those added details btw. :3 You've a lot of thoughts under what you post and many times it's left unsaid.
Post by: Solifuge on October 28, 2016, 10:40:02 pm
Ok I won't lie...
I SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY wonder how much of Gender Dysphoria is just... completely just the person bending to gender norms and their expectations of gender normative behavior and body image.
If there is one thing that bugs me about someone going through it, it is why I don't console people suffering from gender dysphoria if I have the option, it is that they will sometimes point to societal conventions as excuses...
This isn't always the case... but I want to slap someone who goes "I like puppy calendars so I am a girl"... and I am not taking that back.
Then again... there is quite a bit to suggest that I am onto something... but I won't go there because it is too depressing a topic that is too interwoven into political issues AND is too polarized to ever get a meaningful topic out of it.
I think it's important to take people's feelings or experiences seriously, and not doubt them just because we don't feel the same as they do. It's one of those situations where, unless we develop a technology that can stream experiences or neural impulses from one person to another, only the person experiencing it can actually know. And trusting their feelings doesn't cost anyone else anything. I don't see the harm.
That said, even as a genderqueer transperson, I wonder about this stuff too. I understand Body Dysphoria, but Gender Dysphoria doesn't really make sense to me. I've never identified with or adhered to any Gender, except when coerced by family or peers or whatever. When people called me "miss" or said I was being girly, I kinda liked that. When people called me "sir" or young man or whatever, I kinda disliked that. Most of the effects of puberty felt kinda shitty, but not catastrophically; I just dealt with it. I barely even noticed that it felt shitty, until some time later, when I got fresh perspective and started to connect the dots.
So yeah, I experience just enough Body Dysphoria to kinda get it, but I have a hard time understanding Gender Dysphoria. Gender Roles are made up and arbitrary; they're social standards, like what side of the plate to put the forks and spoons on. I don't see the harm in people picking one that they like, rather than sticking with one that other people gave them. If they want to dress pretty and gaze lovingly at puppy calendars, and that's part of being "Feminine" for them, more power to them. If they want to dress in camo cargo pants and get into fistfights, and that's part of being "Masculine" for them, ditto. If they just want to define their own visual style and way of being, fuck the conventions, that's totally cool; why should whichever tribal chief decided what counted as Masculine or Feminine Behavior get to have all the fun?
Post by: Rolan7 on October 29, 2016, 10:50:00 am
Until that time I just knew genderswap stories as fun experimentation. My first response was basically "I feel like being the other gender sometimes too but not nearly so dramatically". Glad I pretty much kept that to myself though :P I'm not psychologist, I defer to their expertise.
Heck maybe I feel a little guilty about that (maybe I accidentally gave someone even more doubt in a difficult time). So while some people are definitely just hopping on a trend, like I would be doing, I'm happy to just unconditionally support people and hope they get professional assistance. Since I am in no position to judge or give advice.
It's just so weird and tragic seeing people so desperate to have either gender, much less one their body doesn't match. That's my personal feelings making it hard to understand others, though.
Post by: Tiruin on October 29, 2016, 10:59:21 am
It's just so weird and tragic seeing people so desperate to have either gender, much less one their body doesn't match. That's my personal feelings making it hard to understand others, though.It's less 'have' and more 'external factors', really. :P There's a lot to cover with this kind of discussion that online interaction can only do so much--self-education will really help a lot in that matter because you are the first person able to notice where you may improve, and others can help by the large amount of information available that work with seminal data because the influence or impression of first-hand experiences (also would help observers that are not experiencing or have developed an idea from second or third-hand sources) have a basis and process.
It's a ton less 'this is made up or being misplaced by the process of cognition'. Really. :P
But always put in mind that your locality and whatever happens therein is also just as important (eg Are there conflicting sources of information, is there a culture of conflicting information, is there something with how information is being presented, how broad is my basis of what I had just concluded, how many experiences am I basing this on and what else may the context cover, what are the common terms being used and what is the baseline meaning presented, etc)
Post by: ECrownofFire on October 29, 2016, 02:51:11 pm
To be honest I would doubt gender dysphoria quite a bit, except that experts seem pretty convinced that it's a real thing. That's good enough for me. I haven't really known any trans people in meatspace. I met two different FtMs through friends of mine, which was eye-opening, but didn't really hang out with them much. Mainly I heard second-hand stories of how hard it was for said friends to adjust. (Particularly the ex-boyfriends)
Until that time I just knew genderswap stories as fun experimentation. My first response was basically "I feel like being the other gender sometimes too but not nearly so dramatically". Glad I pretty much kept that to myself though :P I'm not psychologist, I defer to their expertise.
Heck maybe I feel a little guilty about that (maybe I accidentally gave someone even more doubt in a difficult time). So while some people are definitely just hopping on a trend, like I would be doing, I'm happy to just unconditionally support people and hope they get professional assistance. Since I am in no position to judge or give advice.
It's just so weird and tragic seeing people so desperate to have either gender, much less one their body doesn't match. That's my personal feelings making it hard to understand others, though.
It's not something you really can understand unless you've experienced it. Most people don't even think about gender much at all. You are who you are and that's the end of that. Never really question it. Most cis people don't even consider what it'd be like to be the other gender.
One somewhat similar feeling is when people assume you're straight. If you're a guy, they ask you if you've gotten a girlfriend yet. Ask you when you're gonna have a wife. There's nothing wrong with being straight, but it's not you, so it almost hurts when people assume it. That gets pretty damn awkward sometimes, and if you know your family is homophobic...
But that's something you usually only hear from friends and family. Now imagine you get asked that constantly, by every stranger who ever says a word to you. Every single person not only assumes you're straight, but basically constantly rubs it into your face. Again, nothing wrong with being straight, but it's not who you are. (This is basically the concept of "heteronormativity", but that's not the focus right now)
Post by: BlackHeartKabal on October 29, 2016, 08:48:08 pm
Ugh, more harassment of female creators. Chelsea Cain this time. Fuck Gamergate and all of its spawn.What's an industry's consumer revolt got to do with the topic...?
Also, I'm genuinely surprised this thread hasn't crashed into the sun yet. I honestly have very little understanding of people in general, let alone these things, but is your identity necessarily a major deal to you compared to other aspects of yourself and your life? It's probably due to my background, but I'm very subdued about everything related to that (and deep in the closet, which will never change). I think the only time I've been genuinely nervous about that is when I came out to bay, and I got over that quickly. It's not something I keep in conscious thought and I have to remind myself sometimes, but I'm curious about others.
Post by: Edmus on October 29, 2016, 08:58:27 pm
It just gets pushed to the back of the mind and happily stays put.
A relationship keeps pulling it out and it all starts to feel like a big lie, rather than a minor secret.
I can't speak for gender, I think it's a different kettle of fish.
Post by: spümpkin on October 30, 2016, 02:23:56 am
Well, it's sort of a big deal when the pieces don't match up :pUgh, more harassment of female creators. Chelsea Cain this time. Fuck Gamergate and all of its spawn.Also, I'm genuinely surprised this thread hasn't crashed into the sun yet. I honestly have very little understanding of people in general, let alone these things, but is your identity necessarily a major deal to you compared to other aspects of yourself and your life?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 30, 2016, 09:18:56 am
...isn't misogyny relevant? (Also, I could be wrong about what Gamergate is, but IIRC parts of it included misogyny? It's rather confusing, there's what they said they were doing and then there's what they actually did AFAIK.)Ugh, more harassment of female creators. Chelsea Cain this time. Fuck Gamergate and all of its spawn.What's an industry's consumer revolt got to do with the topic...?
Ah, okay, searched a bit more. Yes, Gamergate says that it's trying to bring about "editorial integrity" or some shit, but they're really just bashing women who dare to enter the gaming/game-making/game-writing-about community. So this is similar to Gamergate. As for "how it's relevant", I dunno? It's about misogyny, right? We've discussed more than just cis/trans and hetero/homo here, we've also discussed gender roles and other things about women and men. That's gender, it fit in this thread, right? I just figured I would mention it.
Quote
Also, I'm genuinely surprised this thread hasn't crashed into the sun yet.Why is that? Because it's too much of a heated topic?
Quote
I honestly have very little understanding of people in general, let alone these things, but is your identity necessarily a major deal to you compared to other aspects of yourself and your life?Well, your identity is you, but I'll assume that you mean gender identity.
It's really not as much of a big deal for me as for other people, my freaking-out was the combination of self-loathing expressed as hating my body and the feeling of not knowing. Gender etc. isn't that important to me, but my Bogus Gibber-Babble (perception-changing shit) does make me feel a little happier, so I'll go with that.
Quote
It's probably due to my background, but I'm very subdued about everything related to that (and deep in the closet, which will never change). I think the only time I've been genuinely nervous about that is when I came out to bay, and I got over that quickly. It's not something I keep in conscious thought and I have to remind myself sometimes, but I'm curious about others.I honestly think that gender has been made into a bigger deal than it should be, just like race and male/female and sexual orientation and all that stuff people use to hate people. If society was perfect, I don't think that gender dysphoria would be nearly as significant as now. But I really can't speak for people with gender dysphoria, since AFAIK I didn't have it; it was purely coincidental that a period of depression overlapped with questioning my gender.
Spoiler: some explanation (click to show/hide)
I don't mind if people think that gender isn't that important, and I think most everybody would agree, as long as you stay away from diminishing the pain of those with gender dysphoria. Just be decent, and you can think and question anything.
================================
Armokdamnit, why didn't I do this before? I formulated the rewards and risk for each course of action I could take (HRT, no HRT), and it is painfully obvious that HRT would be a bad idea. Graphs and equations! Bah, who needs counseling when they have logic?
Spoiler: logic (click to show/hide)
Such a great weight off my back, not having to worry about my gender anymore. How did I come to that conclusion?
As long as no permanent alterations are done (surgery/HRT), it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. What could happen? Mental stability issues? Pfff, haha, like I have any of that to worry about. Being seen as weird because I occasionally hold my body like a girl or something? I'm already seen as weird.
And if I'm only deluding myself into thinking that perceiving myself as androgynous makes me happier, and I have a way of doing so without any downsides... I'll take that!
If I am really androgyne, okay, I've dealt with it pretty well so far. As I practice my BGB (bogus gibber-babble), I'm becoming even better at changing my self-perception and holding it, so... I'll be fine continuing like this.
The only part that made me distressed was "is it a good idea to do HRT," which required me to know whether I was actually androgyne" or not. But HRT is a bad idea regardless of my gender (unless I'm trans, but I'm pretty sure I'm not), so that doesn't matter!
Post by: Rolan7 on October 30, 2016, 09:33:17 am
Suffice to say one side says it's about the integrity of video game news sources, and the other side says it's about misogyny. The huge distance between those concepts kinda speaks to how irrational any discussion of the topic inevitably gets.
Coming in after a few minutes and saying "Oh I see it's about misogyny" is basically an unintentional declaration of war, just warning.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 30, 2016, 09:36:33 am
Post by: Grimlocke on October 30, 2016, 11:00:04 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 30, 2016, 11:01:46 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 30, 2016, 11:17:31 am
Well, that was my first perception after reading various things, but thanks for the warning. I'll make sure not to mention it again. (I thought it was only MLP and NMS that were banned... is there a list somewhere, or do you just learn it?)No there isn't any single list of banned topics as far as I know it, but I don't think there are any more things that are banned, outside of the usual ToS/Forum Guidelines ruleset.
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 30, 2016, 11:37:50 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on October 30, 2016, 12:11:32 pm
Discussing MLP itself is taboo due to certain things those discussions devolve towards IIRC, not things related to it.
I'm pretty sure Toady didn't even ban gamergate discussion, most people just decided to stop talking about it after the third or fourth ban.This seems to be.
Post by: i2amroy on November 01, 2016, 07:06:00 pm
It's like using matches; as long as you are very careful and responsible you can light up some of the other discussion in a new way, but go a step to far and your discussion will go up in the pyre of bans and wasted time.
Post by: TempAcc on November 01, 2016, 07:13:09 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 01, 2016, 09:25:23 pm
no using the word "snowflake"
Besides that, it is indeed amazing that this thread has only had one victim.
Post by: TempAcc on November 01, 2016, 09:28:32 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 01, 2016, 09:33:14 pm
Post by: Edmus on November 01, 2016, 10:05:23 pm
Concerning gender identity and how to respond to your child.
Post by: Calidovi on November 02, 2016, 07:36:33 pm
special snowfl*kes are now unique sleetsheets
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 02, 2016, 10:00:46 pm
1. It's a label, and these are people trying to rebel against labels by making their own labels, we don't need more of this.
2. How do you know that they aren't actually demigirls?
3. Even if they aren't, at least try to be decent.
4. Is it worth it to "be right"? What harm is there in humoring people?
Also, we should tolerate people even if we disagree with them, this is basically what I learned in the beginning of the thread. Tolerating people includes not labeling them as weird just because they do something different.
Of course I could just be tilting at windmills here.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 02, 2016, 11:13:59 pm
I mean, I use it more for people who are all 'I was a unicorn in a previous life' or some shit like that. I'm not going to talk to them like that, but special snowflake is useful shorthand for 'people who either knowingly or unknowingly have come up with some unnecessary reason to explain why they're unique and different from all the other seven billion unique and different people in the world and therefore why people should give them lots and lots of attention'.
Just like I use 'queer' as shorthand for 'whatever else I didn't cover in the first four letters cuz fuck making this acronym any longer for the purpose of further splitting the LGBTQ community into subfactions'
Post by: hops on November 03, 2016, 01:50:43 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 03, 2016, 05:26:38 am
Quote
“They can have a gay flag or they can have a parade but we can’t have a shirt?” Yan Miller said.Yeah, because "gay flags" and "gay parades" involve death threats.
Spoiler: good point (click to show/hide)
Labeling someone isn't really the same as not tolerating them. :/Oh, labels are great. I have no problem with using a sequence of sound compression and rarefaction waves to symbolize a concept. "Special snowflake" isn't just a label, though. It's disapproving. It's...
Quote
I mean, I use it more for people who are all 'I was a unicorn in a previous life' or some shit like that.Ohh. You mean people who seriously say "I sexually identify as an Apache helicopter"? Yeah, carry on, that's just obnoxious.
Quote
I'm not going to talk to them like that, but special snowflake is useful shorthand for 'people who either knowingly or unknowingly have come up with some unnecessary reason to explain why they're unique and different from all the other seven billion unique and different people in the world and therefore why people should give them lots and lots of attention'.I've heard it used to refer to anybody who doesn't exactly fall on the Masculine-Feminine spectrum, including things like genderfluid, which is why I wanted to avoid its use. (I may or may not be genderfluid, but that wouldn't affect my decision anyway.) But if people can restrict its use to the ridiculous ones like
Quote
Angeligender– A gender found only among angels, that is hard to describe to non-angels. For godkin and angelkin only.and
Quote
Genderflora– A gender that blooms and evolves based on the weather and atmosphere; similar to genderfluid but more plant-like.and not
Quote
Ambonec– Identifying as both man and woman, yet neither at the same time.Because sometimes people try to explain how they feel and it just sounds like deepity and it makes no sense and insulting them for that is just not okay, that's why. Basically err on the side of not labeling someone's sincere feelings as fake or intentionally obnoxious.
But really I can't imagine this being much of a problem with people here, so *still tilting at windmills*
Quote
Just like I use 'queer' as shorthand for 'whatever else I didn't cover in the first four letters cuz fuck making this acronym any longer for the purpose of further splitting the LGBTQ community into subfactions'Well, that's different - queer doesn't carry a negative connotation.
But we all know that the Ork is the best LGBT subfaction.Omnisexual? Or do you mean that Ork is literally a sexuality or gender?
Post by: Neonivek on November 03, 2016, 05:29:18 am
It is hard to grasp at exactly what I mean but goodness... The fury between two women is intense even when all they do is look at each other.
Mind you I am sure guys do it too... and my experience with it has more to do with my two sisters and the obviously always accurate television. So yeah I have far too limited experience it.
Still though... nothing is more scary than a woman's ire. Guys get stand offish... Women get all "I will destroy you".
Post by: scriver on November 03, 2016, 06:46:18 am
Brawling is a lot like hugging.
Post by: TempAcc on November 03, 2016, 06:53:00 am
But we all know that the Ork is the best LGBT subfaction.
Man, asexuals are missing a
Post by: Tiruin on November 03, 2016, 08:23:30 am
A little bit of agression can be good every once in a while :vOther than being totally 'naturally' bent on war and other violence? I won't go for that, despite being able to WAAAAGH! everywhere. :P (Also it's less sexual orientation and more 'actual physiological asexual' given ALL THE SPORES)But we all know that the Ork is the best LGBT subfaction.
Man, asexuals are missing agoldengreen opportunity. They'd prob get a lot more attention and be taken more seriously if they adopted glorious ork kultur. Orks are like, the ultimate asexuals.
It's a partial in-joke. Orks (Warhammer 40k) are actually asexually reproducing 'fungi'-like sentience, due to a long backstory that has the theme of 'made for war or as warriors' by the "creators" or Old Ones (long backstory that most don't know in-fiction because 'knowledge blackout'). When they die, they release their spores, so in the context of WH40k, there are 'feral' Orks, which means 'born from spores left over from battle' on a planet that didn't have Orks. Point being, they're 'asexual' in sexual orientation BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THESE COMPLEX THINGS BECAUSE WAAAAGH! (Pronounced as 'War' with a near-silent "r"). To the point, they're also physiologically asexual. So yeah. :PBut we all know that the Ork is the best LGBT subfaction.Omnisexual? Or do you mean that Ork is literally a sexuality or gender?
If there is one thing I find odd about female behavior it is probably the open hostility they will sometimes show each other.Specifics, Neo. :P You're describing a part of a culture rather than 'female behavior' (overall) there. It's part of social mannerisms more than internal behavior.
It is hard to grasp at exactly what I mean but goodness... The fury between two women is intense even when all they do is look at each other.
Mind you I am sure guys do it too... and my experience with it has more to do with my two sisters and the obviously always accurate television. So yeah I have far too limited experience it.
Still though... nothing is more scary than a woman's ire. Guys get stand offish... Women get all "I will destroy you".
Post by: ECrownofFire on November 03, 2016, 08:23:48 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 03, 2016, 09:24:19 am
Post by: Arx on November 03, 2016, 09:44:40 am
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 10:32:07 am
So over here in the Netherlands, a few years ago the government decided to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 in 2020, and after 2020 keep it increasing directly proportional to average life expectancy.
The columnist argues that, since woman have a average life expectancy that is 5 years older than for men, it would only be fair to change the law, so that men are allowed to retire 5 years earlier than women.
Quote
"And before all our country's feminists come bashing in my door and calling me a sexist, they should consider this: If all the old geezers that work as top managers and directors, and in other top positions about which feminists constantly (and rightfully so) remind us that women are severely underrepresented, are forced to retire earlier than women, women representation will have room to increase."
(Note that over here, retirement is mandatory. You cannot keep your job and go on after retirement age. A 85 year old high court judge would not be possible here. There's few exceptions, amongst which are parliamentary and other politcal functions, board membership, and academic seats, although I do believe a professor will be kindly pushed to change his title and job to professor emeritus and work less than fulltime)
Post by: hops on November 03, 2016, 11:08:05 am
And I don't really understand people who complain about LGBTQ groups not being inclusive of heterosexual cisgendered people. It's a goddamn LGBTQ group, not a literally every human being group.
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 11:10:25 am
Post by: hops on November 03, 2016, 11:12:23 am
Maybe in the future where LGBTQ groups are rebranded as groups promoting tolerance for different gender and sexual expressions rather than needing to champion the minority, maybe.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 03, 2016, 11:12:37 am
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 11:14:13 am
Martinuzz:You literally can't work if you want to? Yikes.Yep, it's either go find some volunteer job, or spend the rest of your days weeding your garden.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 03, 2016, 11:15:14 am
(that's bloody stupid imho)Martinuzz:You literally can't work if you want to? Yikes.Yep, it's either go find some volunteer job, or spend the rest of your days weeding your garden.
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 11:17:31 am
It's not surprising that loneliness and feelings of being useless are the number one reason for depression amongst the elderly (or amongst unemployed in general).
What's really scary is, that our government now wants to approve euthanasia on grounds of 'fulfilled life'. In other words, they want to make it legal to euthanize someone who is not physically ill, but just old, bored and lonely.
The flip side is, if you tell people you want to raise the retirement age, they'll take to the barricades with pitchforks.
Post by: hops on November 03, 2016, 11:19:27 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 03, 2016, 11:21:55 am
I do agree.That is terrifying and terrifyingly stupid.
It's not surprising that loneliness and feelings of being useless are the number one reason for depression amongst the elderly (or amongst unemplyed in general).
What's really scary is, that our government now wants to approve euthanasia on grounds of 'fulfilled life'. In other words, they want to make it legal to euthanize someone who is not physically ill, but just old, bored and lonely.
Why not just make it not mandatory to retire?
I mean, as nice as it is to employ everyone, an elderly person is kind of a liability. You can't expect as much reliability from them as younger people because there's a real possibility they'll just up and die instead of coming to work.People who might 'up and die' generally aren't working or are susceptible to the same risks as younger workers.
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 11:27:51 am
But that's literally the entire point of LGBTQ groups? If we weren't considered the odd one out in society then the need for LGBTQ groups would disappear.That does not mean that you need to affirm this view by calling yourself queer. LGBT is as neutral as it gets. It's purely a descriptor.
Maybe in the future where LGBTQ groups are rebranded as groups promoting tolerance for different gender and sexual expressions rather than needing to champion the minority, maybe.Ideally, LGBTQ groups would become just another subculture, for some LGBTQ who feel the need to identify with a social structure like that, just like skaters, hardrockers and preppers. The rest of the LGBTQ will have fully integrated in society and be regarded as just as normal as anyone else.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 03, 2016, 11:42:54 am
Queer is intended to be a term that has been 'taken back', as the term 'dyke' has by some lesbian communities, to a lesser extent (dyke's still more of a slur than queer is). Queer is still used as a derogatory insult, but it's useful as a way to catch all the folks who weren't represented by one of the first four letters and feel excluded. When people demand that every possible identity have it's own letter is where you get the ridiculous acronyms like LGBTQQIAASSD or whatever. Queer can be used in a derogatory fashion, and some people don't feel comfortable with identifying as that, which is where that whole thing comes from, but at a certain point I have to just say 'no, I'm sorry, I'm not going to remember every possible combination of suffixes and prefixes and what all the cultural connotations are.'But that's literally the entire point of LGBTQ groups? If we weren't considered the odd one out in society then the need for LGBTQ groups would disappear.That does not mean that you need to affirm this view by calling yourself queer. LGBT is as neutral as it gets. It's purely a descriptor.
But then, I don't really care too much about the terms, personally, others are often different. I just say I'm bi because it was the first term I knew about which meant you liked multiple genders, and stuck with it. Some people would probably tell me I'm not bi, I'm pan or something because of that and I'll just shrug and move on.
Post by: TempAcc on November 03, 2016, 12:37:41 pm
Its got to the point I see people being marginalized inside LGBT groups simply because they disagree about the direction the movements are taking. Ahah, how dare you disagree with us, your overlords! Only we know whats best for you, so vote for the people we want you to vote or get out! ~etc.
Most people don't even fucking care what society at large thinks of them when it won't get them killed or seriously marginalized, they just want to be accepted and loved by their family and friends, and there's no minority group in the face of the earth that can give them that.
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 12:41:44 pm
Post by: Solifuge on November 03, 2016, 01:47:23 pm
Ideally, LGBTQ groups would become just another subculture, for some LGBTQ who feel the need to identify with a social structure like that, just like skaters, hardrockers and preppers. The rest of the LGBTQ will have fully integrated in society and be regarded as just as normal as anyone else.
If only we stopped using the word "black" to describe people. Then people wouldn't see race anymore :y
Seriously though, I like Queer. Clinical acronyms confuse people, and limit the definition to certain "types of people" unnecessarily. Queer is cute, simple, inclusive, and I like that it's been taken back; turning a word once used as derogatory into a proud lable is another way to erase old meanings and undermine old hate.
What's really scary is, that our government now wants to approve euthanasia on grounds of 'fulfilled life'. In other words, they want to make it legal to euthanize someone who is not physically ill, but just old, bored and lonely.
Don't want to derail here... but...
I gather that you meant that to be sad or scary, but they're not taking about Big Government being allowed to kill old people against their will. They're talking letting quietly suffering people choose suicide for themselves, which is a matter of respect and dignity
I'm glad we're getting around to assisted suicide reform. Check out Terry Pratchett's documentary on euthanasia, or look up what he had to say on choosing to die rather than suffer through dementia and Alzheimer's. It lets people say goodbye while they can, and restricts needless suffering for no end. Why should other people get to decide whether your life is worth living for you? And punish your family legally if you choose to take your own life, or seek help in so doing.
Post by: spümpkin on November 03, 2016, 02:25:48 pm
If there is one thing I find odd about female behavior it is probably the open hostility they will sometimes show each other.I've always found women to be more slyly hostile, while guys are more likely to go up and threaten someone.
It is hard to grasp at exactly what I mean but goodness... The fury between two women is intense even when all they do is look at each other.
Mind you I am sure guys do it too... and my experience with it has more to do with my two sisters and the obviously always accurate television. So yeah I have far too limited experience it.
Still though... nothing is more scary than a woman's ire. Guys get stand offish... Women get all "I will destroy you".
I know a fair bit of people who willingly distanced themselves from LGBT etc groups simply because said groups seem to be doing exactly the opposite to any real attempt at normalizing non hetero people. There's a huge focus on "queer culture" and creating different terms for different people and forming different minority groups. LGBT movements have thrown away the "making society accept us" objective a long time ago, nowadays its more about giving political leverage to whoever pleases the perceived movement leaders the most, IE welcome to the cesspit in which pretty much every minority group in the west has fallen into, the marvel of identity culture.I kinda agree with that, but I just kinda go to LGBT groups to make friends etc. :v It's just nice to have the support of people, and oftentimes non-LGBT people can have a hard time adjusting to that. My two best friends, still, in private, call me by male pronouns, because they're used to it. I don't blame them, but it's nice to be able to go to a place where I'm understood :v
Its got to the point I see people being marginalized inside LGBT groups simply because they disagree about the direction the movements are taking. Ahah, how dare you disagree with us, your overlords! Only we know whats best for you, so vote for the people we want you to vote or get out! ~etc.
Most people don't even fucking care what society at large thinks of them when it won't get them killed or seriously marginalized, they just want to be accepted and loved by their family and friends, and there's no minority group in the face of the earth that can give them that.
Also, most of my best friends are queer in some way, so it's getting me somewhere. I would like things to be normalised, but honestly...
Most people don't even fucking care what society at large thinks of them when it won't get them killed or seriously marginalized, they just want to be accepted and loved by their family and friends, and there's no minority group in the face of the earth that can give them that.:v
This is kinda the case for me, and while going there isn't making me be more accepted by anyone, my parents are more open to it now, and open to things like wearing feminine clothes at home, etc. I think it just makes it more legitimate for them, you know?
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 02:43:29 pm
I gather that you meant that to be sad our scary, but they're not taking about Big Government being allowed to kill old people against their will. They're talking letting quietly suffering people choose suicide for themselves, which is a matter of respect and dignity.No I'm not talking about Big Government either, but I did use the expression 'euthanize someone' purposedly as is though. Suicide by pill of Drion, as you describe is still illegal over here. Euthanasia requires a doctor administering it, with a whole convoy of at least one other independent doctor, and a bunch of healthcare and legal workers double and triple checking every part of the procedure. And while I personally do not object to euthanasia for those afflicted by an incurable disease, even for some mental disorders, I do not approve allowing people to be euthanized because they feel they are left baggage and useless trough societal neglect and redundancy. Thirty years of neo-liberal budget cuts after budget cuts on elderly care have left a lot of elderly who aren't very rich rotting away in elderly homes with no activities organized for them, or worse, only being allowed to go to the bathroom once a day because of lack of staff, and being forced to wear diapers and called incontinent at that. Add that to children taking their parents in or spending time with them having become a thing of the past in career-driven lives.
And then, when elderly who are left and forgotten get so saddened by this that they say their life is complete and they want to die, the government's reaction is "we should liberalize euthanasia even further to include these people", instead of "let's fix the root of their problem and give them some purpose and decency for their old days". Really. That has nothing to do with 'letting quietly suffering people choose for themselves', with all due respect. The law already provides for those, albeit in a less than perfect way.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 03, 2016, 03:22:36 pm
Armokdammit, this is the wrong thread for this discussion. If you want to continue, let's move it to my Philosophy and Ethics thread. (Or is it just Philosophy? I don't give a carp, it's Philosophy and Ethics now.)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 03, 2016, 03:35:54 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 03, 2016, 04:09:18 pm
Post by: martinuzz on November 05, 2016, 01:47:41 am
They were arrested and put in adult prison.
This led to an outrage amongst the younger half of the Moroccan population, which has already resulted in the girls being released from (adult) jail, because authorities feared a revolution in the streets. Their lawyer says however, that it is not possible for them to get acquitted, but he is going to plea for a conditional conviction, so they won't need to return to jail.
It has however greatly openend he debate in Morocco about LGBT rights, with many people demanding the medieval laws be abolished and sexual freedom accepted by law. Many heterosexuals are showing their support by making intimate same sex photos with a 'we are heterosexual and we support LGBT' caption.
Post by: hops on November 05, 2016, 03:36:53 am
Post by: martinuzz on November 05, 2016, 03:41:30 am
Post by: scriver on November 05, 2016, 11:32:47 am
TFW Moroccans are more modern than white people.
Moroccans are pretty white, dude.
Post by: hops on November 05, 2016, 12:22:19 pm
(https://media.giphy.com/media/vMEUFhYWZI5pK/giphy.gif)TFW Moroccans are more modern than white people.
Moroccans are pretty white, dude.
Post by: Arx on November 05, 2016, 12:34:29 pm
'But the sun', he says. What about the sun?
Post by: hops on November 05, 2016, 01:34:28 pm
Post by: Edmus on November 05, 2016, 04:39:11 pm
Africa is in an alternate dimension where the Earth has three suns.The etymology for the name Africa is interesting too.
Ka means sun in the pre-babel unified language. Africa, a-three-ka, a three sun, a three sunned land.
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2016, 11:25:43 pm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/
In 2015 a series of research experiments were published where they sent fake resumes for science tenure positions to various science faculties (typical fields where women are under-represented). The result was that faculty preferred the female applicant 2:1 over identical male applicants. This study isn't getting wide publicity, even though it specifically suggests that women get strong advantages in academic hiring, specifically due to their low numbers in those fields and a desire by academic departments to even out the gender balance.
This kind of research, if it was more widely reported, would actually make science careers sound more attractive to female applicants. But you just know some people are going to angrily reject this research and cite "science hates women" articles instead, and claim that whoever cited the above link must be a sexist. I've seen that exact attitude in these threads before: angry dismissal of any article that claims anything is less than horrible for women in any underrepresented field.
But if the goal is more women in science, then how is such biased reporting supposed to help? Surely good news would encourage more women into those fields. It just seems counter-productive to stress an us-vs-them mentality between feminism and science.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 11, 2016, 11:34:02 pm
Africa is in an alternate dimension where the Earth has three suns.The etymology for the name Africa is interesting too.
Ka means sun in the pre-babel unified language. Africa, a-three-ka, a three sun, a three sunned land.
Heh, alright, I had to laugh at this. I went past it and thought "Huh, that's cool." Moving onto the next post until it slowly ticked in my head how silly that is and I had to scroll back up to double check what the you just said. :D. Fuck I'm tired. Goodnight.
@Reelya, that's cool, and relevant. But the proselytizing at the end seems to be coming outa a bit of nowhere.
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2016, 11:39:34 pm
It's like saying you think more Americans should move to Canada, and then telling everyone how Canadians hate you and will beat you up daily when you turn up. The spin is clearly at odds with the goal of getting more Americans to move to Canada.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 11, 2016, 11:40:52 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2016, 11:43:00 pm
Rather than bad-faith arguments, I'm more concerned that they're good-intentioned arguments but objectively would seem to encourage the opposite result to what was intended.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 11, 2016, 11:48:16 pm
Edit: To clarify, bringing up a general discussion of how such things are ignored would be fine, the thing that strikes me as wrong is the way you throw out a simultaneously wishy washy but accusatory statement at anyone in the thread.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 11, 2016, 11:48:54 pm
Like, it gets them to avoid those behaviors, but it also sorta plants seeds that weren't there to begin with and can negatively impact interactions when you continually tell people they're automatically ____ and need to
Gar I'm not even tired.
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2016, 11:50:57 pm
Sure, I don't think you should name names, but without doing so you're just throwing out a general accusation against people in this thread (and others like it) for what seems like no practical purpose.
The practical purpose was to head off the same argument that occurs whenever this sort of research got posted in the past, and foster a debate. And I did say that it was indicative of how previous threads have gone, because it's been my experience that this happens 100% of the time when similar studies are posted.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 11, 2016, 11:56:17 pm
The practical purpose was to head off the same argument that occurs whenever this sort of research got posted in the past, and foster a debate.
This purpose is served by your noting that such a discrepancy in the reporting and attention paid to such articles, which you'll note, isn't what I took umbrage too.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 12, 2016, 06:09:22 am
If pedophiles don't breed, wouldn't their prevalence be significantly lower than it appears to be? Darwin 101, as you've mentioned before. And homosexuals, for that matter, shouldn't breed by definition. And yet up to 20% of respondents in modern anonymous polls report some level of homosexual tendencies these days.
I want to just point out that Jared Fogle (Subway Man) had a wife and children. I say had because they're divorced and he's in jail for pedo-ing. Mind you, he was just going for less-than-the-legal-age girls, who are/were in parts of the world and much of history considered suitable for marriage, sex, reproduction, etc. Our modern western civilization is more civilized, IMO, since it recognizes that underage people are not emotionally mature and are too easily manipulated by their emotions.
I have also heard of homosexuals historically (even recently, or even now in less accepting society) having wives and families because it was expected of them.
I really don't like discussing pedophiles and homosexuals near each other, because they're nothing alike, despite attempts by some religious groups to demonize homosexuals by claiming that they are all pedophiles.
But since the system is a completely artificial construct of evolution, there's no scientific reason someone couldn't be a trans-cat or something. You could theoretically end up with brain wiring of a cat in part of your head that does identity. Cat neurons aren't any different from human ones, and human neurons have even been made to work properly in other species. It's just extremely unlikely to happen because the brain wiring would have to construct that out of nothing, whereas a male having female traits or a female having male traits is building off existing systems.
I've known a fair number of furries on the internet, but I am not one myself, so I don't really want to speak for them, but could this actually be them?
I had a weird moment a few years ago when I suddenly realized that...probably at least 80% of the different characters I'd created over the years as vehicles for myself were both a) physically sexless and b) outwardly either neither or both genders.
So... apparently that's essentially how I see myself. Not terribly interested in labeling myself in any way, though.
When playing video games*, I play both male and female characters, and when I'm playing female characters I'm attracted to both men and women, but when I play male characters, I'm attracted to women only. So that's a thing. I think it's a form of gender fluidity, even if I only express the female-ness by playing female characters in games? Also, I don't switch randomly between (mental) genders.
* example games: Mass Effect 1-3, Skyrim, the Witcher series (only lets you play Geralt; I've only played through 1 and 2), etc.
That said, what I find most attractive is personality, and I'm not bothered by a person having the equipment for the other gender, or a voice that doesn't quite fit their gender, etc. (I'm surprised that there's no term for attracted-to-personality on http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation ) For example, in Katawa Shoujo, out of all the girls (and there are no guys you can date), I'm most attracted to Emi, because of her personality.
I have made a choice to be cis, though. I have always been unhappy about how people see me as male, and on the forum I do prefer female pronouns, but I won't be asking people to call me female when they're in person and hearing my deep as hell voice and face to face with my male face. I don't actually subscribe to the concept of "x in y's body" and I'm more concerned about "why does it have to be permanent?" and the main answer is "we can't meaningfully change someone's sex yet", but the thing is, it doesn't hurt to be accommodating and support people while we wait for science to catch up with humanity's demand to be beautiful.
I made that same choice. Deep voice, widow's peak leading to hair loss in the front which had already started at 18, etc. I don't generally experience gender dysphoria and have no problem being 'male', so it's not a huge problem for me. I also only knew of one trans-person when I was growing up, who committed suicide after transitioning fully (Dani Bunten).
Still... if we could have cyberbodies like in Ghost in the Shell, I'd probably try a female one.
That said, voice training to achieve a more feminine voice is a thing. This is one guide, which I have not tried myself: http://www.looking-glass.greenend.org.uk/voice.htm
I don't like choosing my ice cream flavour, so nobody else gets to choose either - they all have to get vanilla.Chocolate is the only correct choice you vanillanormative scum.
I like mint chocolate chip~
Everyone else tells me it tastes like toothpaste but I don't care
I'm being totally serious.
Maybe my recent "don't give a shit" is a product of recent life events. Attraction included, because I was basically disinterested in the entire mess.
Then my brother linked... uh... PG13, but probably NSFW...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mV-zPMBPuQ
>.<
>.o
O.O
ovo
Edit:
also this sexy villain straight out of Dr Horrible practically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_SlAzsXa7E
also the garbage men in Goldfrapp's "Ride a White Horse" but that's just generic backup singers being sexy, albeit a bit dirty.
Definitely attractive people in both those videos. The James Bondalike and the villain's wife are pretty attractive too. Also, this is way better than actual James Bond.
Armokdamnit, why didn't I do this before? I formulated the rewards and risk for each course of action I could take (HRT, no HRT), and it is painfully obvious that HRT would be a bad idea. Graphs and equations! Bah, who needs counseling when they have logic?Spoiler: logic (click to show/hide)
Such a great weight off my back, not having to worry about my gender anymore. How did I come to that conclusion?
As long as no permanent alterations are done (surgery/HRT), it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. What could happen? Mental stability issues? Pfff, haha, like I have any of that to worry about. Being seen as weird because I occasionally hold my body like a girl or something? I'm already seen as weird.
And if I'm only deluding myself into thinking that perceiving myself as androgynous makes me happier, and I have a way of doing so without any downsides... I'll take that!
If I am really androgyne, okay, I've dealt with it pretty well so far. As I practice my BGB (bogus gibber-babble), I'm becoming even better at changing my self-perception and holding it, so... I'll be fine continuing like this.
The only part that made me distressed was "is it a good idea to do HRT," which required me to know whether I was actually androgyne" or not. But HRT is a bad idea regardless of my gender (unless I'm trans, but I'm pretty sure I'm not), so that doesn't matter!
You can do the blockers without the HRT to postpone the decision, and that may actually be the best choice. You'll also know if HRT is a bad idea if you start on estrogen and suddenly start newly experiencing gender dysphoria. (I'd characterize gender dysphoria as 'my hormones don't match my brain,' generally, anyways. It seems to be possible to experience it with only mental changes - it was mentioned in this thread, and happened to me for two or three days in February of this year)
IIRC there are three stages to transitioning when you haven't gone through puberty yet:
1. Testosterone/androgen blockers, which merely postpone puberty, which you can stay on for a few years
2. HRT, that is, Estrogen, basically, which would trigger female puberty, and cause physical feminization. If you waited until you had already gone through male puberty, then it will not alter bone structure - you'll have male bone structure instead of female. Your face and secondary sexual characteristics still become feminine, however. Everything except bone structure changes are reversible, I believe.
3. Surgery to turn the one kind of genitals into the other. This is optional unless experiencing dysphoria due to still having the wrong genitals. It's also not reversible.
If you had gone through puberty, 1 and 2 would be combined into a single stage, I believe. IIRC you only get rid of the need for the blockers by getting rid of your balls.
I'm not saying you need to do these, or some of these. I'm just offering information in case you didn't already know it. You do you. :)
(Hey! I reached the end of the thread. Only took around four hours.)
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 07:42:30 am
If pedophiles don't breed, wouldn't their prevalence be significantly lower than it appears to be? Darwin 101, as you've mentioned before. And homosexuals, for that matter, shouldn't breed by definition. And yet up to 20% of respondents in modern anonymous polls report some level of homosexual tendencies these days.
Well the thing is, natural selection can only work if total breeding success < 100%, therefore no species optimizes for 100% survival / procreation. There's also the fact that any number of developmental issues can make an organism turn out sub-optimal, even if there's one "perfect" way to turn out.
Wanting to have sex is the primary thing: without that you're not having many babies. Separately, the system needs to code in your primers for attraction. And concepts like "male" and "female" don't actually exist as objective binary categories. So evolution can only code for things like "attracted to faces", "attracted to a nice butt" etc etc. Because those categories aren't real things, evolution tries to correlate your attraction to physical traits of the other gender, but it's only a correlation, not a binary thing.
Evolution doesn't deal in absolutes, only averages. Things aren't needed to be perfect, only to be good enough to replace the last generation. It requires two things: interest in sex, and who you're interested in. Those things are programmed in the womb by hormones, not directly by genes. That's the main thing to understand: genes do very little directly, they do everything through intermediary chemicals, so they can only control things within a certain level of tolerance. The brains of everyone male and female start out neutral and they get imprinted by various chemicals. Genes can only loosely control that, and anything that perturbs the levels of those chemicals can make things turn out different.
So say the genome that turns out the horniest straight men and women 90% of the time also turns out 10% of people who are gay. Well, the birthrate just evolves to be 10% higher than it would otherwise. Humans have a lot more sex than most related primates, it might be that our much higher sex drive in general gives a survival advantage, but also causes higher rates of same-sex attraction and other sexual attractions.
It's a cost/benefit thing. Evolution has a cost-effective strategy to deal with some organisms not maturing into active breeders: have more babies. That's a lot cheaper in evolutionary terms than "evolve to be 100% perfect and flawless".
Post by: Harry Baldman on November 12, 2016, 08:20:26 am
You can't in good faith invoke evolution to try and explain why non-binary genders are uncommon because it's pretty much guaranteed to have a very high degree of environmental influence much like any psychological or neurological factor, which means it's hardly well-regulated by evolution even if it did confer a measurable change in fitness (which is also not at all guaranteed). For example, a study of all adult twins in Sweden (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9386-1) checked for concordance of homosexuality, and what they ultimately found was that genetic factors explain 34-39% of the variance in men (individual-specific environmental factors mostly) and 18-19% of the variance in women.
These are fairly moderate numbers comparable to, say, autoimmune disease, and the key difference here is that an autoimmune disease and queerness are both somewhat easily distinguished phenotypes, as opposed to non-binary genders, which are concepts with limited bearing on behavior that often don't really make a lot of sense upon closer examination. The evolutionary argument, my point was, is a pretty fallacious thing to invoke for something only barely controlled by evolution, so this is why I took issue with your criticism of the article. Not only would non-binary gender be poorly regulated by evolution at best, there's no actual guarantee that it's in any way maladaptive to be a demigirl as opposed to a woman. Or even agender, or any other intriguing variation. Especially not in an ancient world (the kind that you'd expect such selective pressure to take hold) where procreation was a much less liberally approachable question than it is in our modern society rich in choice and alternatives.
I want to just point out that Jared Fogle (Subway Man) had a wife and children. I say had because they're divorced and he's in jail for pedo-ing. Mind you, he was just going for less-than-the-legal-age girls, who are/were in parts of the world and much of history considered suitable for marriage, sex, reproduction, etc. Our modern western civilization is more civilized, IMO, since it recognizes that underage people are not emotionally mature and are too easily manipulated by their emotions.
I have also heard of homosexuals historically (even recently, or even now in less accepting society) having wives and families because it was expected of them.
I really don't like discussing pedophiles and homosexuals near each other, because they're nothing alike, despite attempts by some religious groups to demonize homosexuals by claiming that they are all pedophiles.
Which was exactly my point - even something that you would very reasonably expect to negatively impact your reproductive fitness, such as a sexual preference for children or the same sex, does not necessarily do any such thing. So thus I challenged the overly simplified assumption by Reelya that it would, and that this would create selective pressure against it as opposed to it being just a case of drift over time combined with environmental factors favorable for the emergence of non-binary genders.
And yeah, I'm not actually equating pedophiles with homosexuals, it's just that homosexuality is rather unusual in that it is a non-pathology that gets tracked quite a lot, and thus when trying to bring up statistical data for psychological factors it invariably ends up in similar company as pedophilia, schizophrenia, depression and other such things.
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 08:22:36 am
What's that about non-binary genders being rare because of evolution? I don't get it. It's a complete tangent to what I just wrote.
Post by: Harry Baldman on November 12, 2016, 08:31:35 am
Well Shadowlord quoted it just now so I thought I'd lay out my argument in full there.
Although the context in which Shadowlord cited your quote wasn't about non-binary genders at all here, and I didn't reference "non-binary genders" either
in what I wrote so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
Because that was what the original argument was about - how to explain that an overwhelming amount of people fall into the two main genders while a relatively small minority say they are actually in different places on a hypothetical gender spectrum. The author maintained that they were making shit up to differentiate themselves in a quest for identity, you maintained that it was evolution. And I said that it's probably not evolution because evolution doesn't work like that for factors as complex as subtle psychological differences, and that Darwin 101 does not apply at all well to multifactorial inheritance, especially the kind with a large environmental component. And also that evopsych is a crock of shit, of course, but I always say that in any argument.
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 08:32:28 am
But i guess I still stand by what I wrote before anyway.
Quote
Especially not in an ancient world (the kind that you'd expect such selective pressure to take hold) where procreation was a much less liberally approachable question than it is in our modern society rich in choice and alternatives.
I'd agree that it would be more regulated in agrarian societies, but I think if you're talking the 500,000 years before that things would be very different, and basic mating instincts would be much more important. And that's the key period for evolution, not the last 10000 years where mating has been regulated by agricutural life.
Post by: spümpkin on November 12, 2016, 08:36:18 am
Quote
I've known a fair number of furries on the internet, but I am not one myself, so I don't really want to speak for them, but could this actually be them?'Furry' is a vague term, at best. Some people are 'kin' and would rather be an animal/character or something (I'm not gonna judge, whatever makes them happy), but I don't think either of these things have to do with actual physical brain structure. Of course, not every person who experiences gender dysphoria gets a brain scan, so who knows if they're really lying or not? :P
If I'm honest, I've doubted myself in the past on my gender, and spent the last 6 years doing so. But here I go on again about my own story, so I'll cut to the chase :V
People who are trans-{x} have to feel consistently dysphoric to be classified as officially trans-{x}, so I dunno if it counts, no.
Well then you're derailing what I just wrote to bring back an argument we have a long time ago. If you check, what I wrote here has almost no connection to the "refutation" you just gave.I think he's more refuting your point against his old point in-context of the original argument.
Post by: Harry Baldman on November 12, 2016, 08:44:29 am
Well then you're derailing what I just wrote to bring back an argument we have a long time ago. If you check, what I wrote here has almost no connection to the "refutation" you just gave.
I carry very long grudges and I'm easily riled up by people conveniently simplifying evolution for the purposes of argument :P
I think he's more refuting your point against his old point in-context of the original argument.
Yeah, I thought he was just picking up where we left off when he quoted me. Hence attempting to contextualize the whole thing for anybody who blissfully missed the first go-round. I think I was mistaken?
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 08:50:49 am
Quote
You can't in good faith invoke evolution to try and explain why non-binary genders are uncommon because it's pretty much guaranteed to have a very high degree of environmental influence much like any psychological or neurologicalThis seems to be opinion/circular reasoning.
Quote
For example, a study of all adult twins in Sweden checked for concordance of homosexuality, and what they ultimately found was that genetic factors explain 34-39% of the variance in men
But that's not the only biological factor. There's the fraternal birth order effect, which reportedly increases the chance of being homosexual by 28%-48% per older biological brother (adopted or step-brothers doesn't affect it, and it doesn't matter if your raised in the same house or separate. So it's fairly conclusively biological). Take the base of 35% for genetics times 1.4 from one older brother and we're already up to the majority of homosexuality in some males being explained by two known biological variables.
But "genes" and "biological older brothers" aren't even the direct variables, they're merely secondary or even tertiary variables. The proximate causes are hormones. And if things which are merely loosely correlated with hormones can already account for 50%+ of homosexuality then how much better a predictor would good knowledge of the hormones involved give us?
Post by: Harry Baldman on November 12, 2016, 09:30:17 am
This seems to be opinion/circular reasoning.
Not quite - the simplest genetic issues are monogenic illnesses like cystic fibrosis, where straightforward alterations in a key protein disable functions insufficiently critical to outright immediately kill you. You can't explain higher brain functioning quite as easily because it's not just determined by genetics but also by the neuronal pathways that see active use in your development. Hence anything that involves your mental functioning and little else tends to be multifactorial as a rule because the proteins involved are subtle in their effects and your mind is a product of its environment to a high degree. Hence why eugenics and other such things failed - many of the things they were interested in, such as heightened intelligence, was a product of nurture as much or more so than of nature. Similarly virtually anything complex or anything that integrates information from the environment - autoimmune diseases being a great non-neural example - are very environment-dependent.
But that's not the only biological factor. There's the fraternal birth order effect, which reportedly increases the chance of being homosexual by 28%-48% per older biological brother. Add in your base of 35% for genetics with +38% from one older brother and we're already up to 70+% of homosexuality in males explained by two known biological variables. And we'd be fools to think those are the only biological variables at play. Genetics only influences development one-step-removed from the actual hormones and developmental chemicals. So if we knew which chemicals were the important ones the genes were affecting, then the correlation between that and sexual orientation is probably a good bit better than the 35% correlation with genome.
I'm pretty sure that's shitty math at play there (although concordance math is pretty simple as well), but then I'm not a mathematician, so we'll leave that be.
I'm also fairly sure that fraternal birth order counts as an environmental effect (in that it presumably arises from hormone levels as you say), and singling it out as a biological variable is another way to confuse the issue - all significant variables are biological variables because all signals that have an effect are integrated into your biology.
You might as well say that the inhibition of action for VEGF, cereblon and bFGF is a significant biological effect with relevance on the birth of short-limbed individuals. You'd be right, but what inhibits that and is the real thing to look out for is that you took thalidomide during a pregnancy that acts as the inhibitor in question. You're taking the middle of the signal pathway as all the explanation you need to dub it a biological factor, when in truth it's anything but.
When people talk about genetic effects, this is what they're referring to. Let's assume that homosexuality is determined by androgens/estrogens in the womb. When people talk about genetic effects on this, they would mean relative loss of function or gain of function in pathways that affect said androgen-estrogen ratios, and thus predispose the fetus for exposition to unusual concentrations of these factors during development even under circumstances that normally would not cause them.
Meanwhile, environmental effects are also completely biological factors, but they're in turn caused by changes in the environment - such as the birth of a previous boy or a particularly good/bad day at work causing alterations in your stress reaction pathways - rather than predicted by faults in your genome. And this evolution has very little to do with (unlike controlling the integrity of active sites of key proteins in endocrine pathways), although you could make the argument that group-level selection might apply if homosexuality provided a net effect on fitness for groups containing them (not entirely implausible that this might be an increase in fitness, truth be told, but all of that is merely guesswork).
COUNTEREDIT: as for needing to study what really causes all of this, I wholeheartedly agree. I find the hormone link terribly interesting myself, and look forward to any science on the subject, whether through mapping the gayest known SNPs and indels and figuring out their respective pathways or through any other method.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 12, 2016, 01:00:34 pm
QuoteI've known a fair number of furries on the internet, but I am not one myself, so I don't really want to speak for them, but could this actually be them?'Furry' is a vague term, at best. Some people are 'kin' and would rather be an animal/character or something (I'm not gonna judge, whatever makes them happy), but I don't think either of these things have to do with actual physical brain structure. Of course, not every person who experiences gender dysphoria gets a brain scan, so who knows if they're really lying or not? :P
If I'm honest, I've doubted myself in the past on my gender, and spent the last 6 years doing so. But here I go on again about my own story, so I'll cut to the chase :V
People who are trans-{x} have to feel consistently dysphoric to be classified as officially trans-{x}, so I dunno if it counts, no.
My understanding is that there are trans-people who didn't/don't feel consistently dysphoric, that it isn't a requirement (I saw some people saying that euphoria at the thought of being female was also a sign, but I think perhaps not as certain a sign as dysphoria). The ultimate test, though, that would be starting on the hormone therapy - if someone does that and THEN feels newly dysphoric*, then they're not trans, and continuing the hormone therapy (which isn't really a therapy anymore at that point?) would only be mentally harmful.
* To be clear, I mean because suddenly they have the wrong hormones. It's still possible, and I expect some here have experienced it (I talked with someone to whom this has happened), to start on hormones and have dysphoria mostly go away but not entirely, or come back to some degree, because that penis is not a vagina. I also get the impression that it's possible to not have dysphoria from being a woman with a penis, but I have not talked to anyone like that, but "trans-women I have talked to extensively about how they feel" is a sample size of one right now.
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 01:46:59 pm
Yeah, I thought he was just picking up where we left off when he quoted me. Hence attempting to contextualize the whole thing for anybody who blissfully missed the first go-round. I think I was mistaken?
I hadn't actually recalled the details of the previous conversation in the slightest until you reminded me, i was just picking up with a fresh train of thought since Shadowlord linked a quote of yours that I thought was interesting to elaborate on.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 12, 2016, 03:16:08 pm
From a quick search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido#Impact_of_age
which cites https://books.google.com/books?id=lZ_u181EM_IC&pg=PT196&dq=&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zSowT5SHCMeP0AXYu5StCA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The reason I bring this up is because I don't remember mine starting ridiculously high (I wasn't terribly interested in sex, never even kissed a girl, though I 'dated' a couple girls in high school), but it's increased over time and affects my thoughts far more now than it did when I was a teenager. I'm not really expecting anyone to have an explanation for that, I'm just wondering if that has been the case with anyone else here of a similar age or older (I'm 34).
I'm also not seeing anyone currently.
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 03:28:38 pm
http://www.livescience.com/7038-men-report-sex-partners-women.html
Quote
The women reported on average 8.6 lifetime sexual partners. The men claimed 31.9.
I think last time I brought that one up, Smeeprocket or someone similar claimed the average male was counting the prostitutes he's slept with against the total, but I think it's hard to claim that the "average" joe blow sleeps with 23 prostitutes in their lifetime (in fact only 20% of American men (http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004119) on surveys say they've ever used a prostitute, so those 1/5 would have had to have had 100 prostitutes each to reach the total that way). So, that's another myth that's out there: the vast majority of American men use prostitutes.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 12, 2016, 03:36:50 pm
Edit: I see you edited your post! I don't have the statistics from any studies that may have formed the basis for the age-difference in libido, but I would assume they could adjust for people over/underestimating their partners by taking the total partners stated for each gender, and adjusting up/down so that the totals matched? Except I don't think they were basing it on number of sexual partners at all?
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 03:45:38 pm
The survey with 8.6 vs 31.9 was actually life-time prevalence for a cohort in their late 40's. The numbers represent the average number of individual sexual partners in their lifetimes. Coming up with explanations is always interesting because the explanations usually defy common beliefs, or are at odds with other research.
I don't really know about the libido thing. But the fact that women systematically seem to minimize the number of sexual partners they have might mean their answers on "libido" surveys are also suspect. After all, if men are actually counting the number of ladies they've been with, those ladies must have been with the same number of men, yet they only report 1/3rd the number of partners, so they're under-counting by 2/3rds. And even if men are exaggerating: they're probably exaggerating their libido on those surveys as well.
Post by: spümpkin on November 12, 2016, 06:15:45 pm
Oh, I just meant... The medical condition of transgenderism, means that they, experience dysphoria commonly, and don't necessarily feel dysphoric all the time, but they have to have semi-consistent feelings of dysphoria (say, once every 2/3 months at least ((don't take me entirely seriously I'm not a medical professional))) for a long amount of time, usually over a year-ish. Until then, the medical conditions for blockers and hrt aren't really met yet, and doctors who administer such things are either being too-politically-correct, or are short-sighted in their judgement. Or the situation allows for it, I dunno, I'm not a doctor. But yeah, you're right about the biggest test being once they start hrt.QuoteI've known a fair number of furries on the internet, but I am not one myself, so I don't really want to speak for them, but could this actually be them?'Furry' is a vague term, at best. Some people are 'kin' and would rather be an animal/character or something (I'm not gonna judge, whatever makes them happy), but I don't think either of these things have to do with actual physical brain structure. Of course, not every person who experiences gender dysphoria gets a brain scan, so who knows if they're really lying or not? :P
If I'm honest, I've doubted myself in the past on my gender, and spent the last 6 years doing so. But here I go on again about my own story, so I'll cut to the chase :V
People who are trans-{x} have to feel consistently dysphoric to be classified as officially trans-{x}, so I dunno if it counts, no.
My understanding is that there are trans-people who didn't/don't feel consistently dysphoric, that it isn't a requirement (I saw some people saying that euphoria at the thought of being female was also a sign, but I think perhaps not as certain a sign as dysphoria). The ultimate test, though, that would be starting on the hormone therapy - if someone does that and THEN feels newly dysphoric*, then they're not trans, and continuing the hormone therapy (which isn't really a therapy anymore at that point?) would only be mentally harmful.
* To be clear, I mean because suddenly they have the wrong hormones. It's still possible, and I expect some here have experienced it (I talked with someone to whom this has happened), to start on hormones and have dysphoria mostly go away but not entirely, or come back to some degree, because that penis is not a vagina. I also get the impression that it's possible to not have dysphoria from being a woman with a penis, but I have not talked to anyone like that, but "trans-women I have talked to extensively about how they feel" is a sample size of one right now.
I do know of trans people who are completely fine with their birth genitalia. It's different for everyone, which makes it a pain to prove :V
Post by: Shadowlord on November 12, 2016, 06:24:25 pm
DD: What you're describing is actually called, medically, gender dysphoria. So that's the miscommunication here.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 12, 2016, 07:16:57 pm
Well, the short answer is you can't trust people's responses in these surveys.Or there's a lot more...experimentation...by guys than gals.
The survey with 8.6 vs 31.9 was actually life-time prevalence for a cohort in their late 40's. The numbers represent the average number of individual sexual partners in their lifetimes. Coming up with explanations is always interesting because the explanations usually defy common beliefs, or are at odds with other research.
I don't really know about the libido thing. But the fact that women systematically seem to minimize the number of sexual partners they have might mean their answers on "libido" surveys are also suspect. After all, if men are actually counting the number of ladies they've been with, those ladies must have been with the same number of men, yet they only report 1/3rd the number of partners, so they're under-counting by 2/3rds. And even if men are exaggerating: they're probably exaggerating their libido on those surveys as well.
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2016, 07:33:26 pm
A bit of analysis will show that this is a logical impossibility.
Say that only 5 men and 5 women existed. Each woman reports 1 lifetime male partner, and each man reports 3 lifetime female partners. draw circles to represent the people, Now, try and draw lines between the men and women that satisfy the lifetime partners condition. Good luck!
Clearly, the values must be the same, because it's a symmetrical condition. e.g. if Jim went on 6 dates with Sally, then it can't simultaneously be true that Sally went on 2 dates with Jim. The lifetime sexual partners thing is just that same relationship, but extended to a group: basically, each time there's a unique "pairing" (we're only talking heterosexual here though) it counts as a pairing for both the male and female population, so that number is a shared value. Take the number of unique pairings then divide by the number of men or women to get the true average lifetime partners. Since male and female are close to 50% of the population each, then the value is very close. 3 to 1 is basically impossible unless women outnumber men by 3 times.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 12, 2016, 07:52:58 pm
Men probably overreport while women probably underreport, or different standards for whom/what they consider a partner/sex, or all of the above.
Post by: Grek on November 12, 2016, 09:15:18 pm
Say that only 5 men and 5 women existed. Each woman reports 1 lifetime male partner, and each man reports 3 lifetime female partners. draw circles to represent the people, Now, try and draw lines between the men and women that satisfy the lifetime partners condition. Good luck.
It works if you take "average" to be median or mode rather than mean?
Post by: Shadowlord on November 12, 2016, 10:19:26 pm
Say that only 5 men and 5 women existed. Each woman reports 1 lifetime male partner, and each man reports 3 lifetime female partners. draw circles to represent the people, Now, try and draw lines between the men and women that satisfy the lifetime partners condition. Good luck.
Spoiler: I treated this question as a puzzle... and found solutions to it (click to show/hide)
Post by: spümpkin on November 12, 2016, 11:37:56 pm
DD: What you're describing is actually called, medically, gender dysphoria. So that's the miscommunication here.Yeah. I more meant that generally people have to have medical gender dysphoria for over a year-ish to be considered in need of medical countermeasures. Of course, someone can say whatever they want, but it's generally considered people don't do that. And then there's the fact that everyone experiences dysphoria differently, putting everyone on different places on the continuum...
people are confusing
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2016, 12:28:22 am
Say that only 5 men and 5 women existed. Each woman reports 1 lifetime male partner, and each man reports 3 lifetime female partners. draw circles to represent the people, Now, try and draw lines between the men and women that satisfy the lifetime partners condition. Good luck.
It works if you take "average" to be median or mode rather than mean?
It could ... but you get unfortunate implication that aren't born out by other data. e.g. if it's true the medians diverge, then the difference needs to be made up in the mean. So there needs to be a small subset of women who are sleeping with literally the whole male population. e.g. if the median for men is 3 times the median for women, then perhaps the median man is seeing twice as many prostitutes as he's ever had sex with women in all other circumstances. While possible, the prevalence data on prostitution is nowhere near that (UK, less than 10% of men have ever used one. USA: up to 20%).
Post by: Shadowlord on November 17, 2016, 09:34:15 pm
In light of recent events and feels... I am pretty sure I'm bisexual.Spoiler: how do you know this Doz (click to show/hide)Spoiler: But I thought you were asexual, Doz...? (click to show/hide)
This doesn't feel bad, honestly. It's unlikely to develop into anything - even if it were a girlcrush, there's no way I'd ever work up the courage to ask them out, and I'm not sure if I have the time or interest in dating. And given that the chance of him being non-hetero are minimal, I'd bet a million dollars on this never becoming anything. But it's nice to know, and it's also nice to look at him and be around him. *shysmile*
Interestingly, assuming Hypothesis G-C (genderfluid; the G is for gender and C is for 3rd) is correct, I would rank myself asCode: [Select]Male: ---O------
Female: -O--------
at the time. This would imply that my sexuality is independent of my instantaneous gender-inclination-whatsit, if G-C is true. (If G-C is false, then this is irrelevant.)
Edit: On second thought, this might belong in the G/S thread? It was kind of a wtf moment for me when I realized though. My guesses were hetero or asexual, I never predicted this.
Doze: So, have you ever listened to Shania Twain's song "Man! I Feel Like A Woman!"?
If not, I'll link some videos on youtube, and you can see how they make you feel, if youtube lets you watch them. I'm not sure if they're restricted by country (I'm in the USA).
(I just watched all three now, and I was distracted by her backup dancers in the second video, but that could tell you something too, if it happens to you)
Lyrics (uploaded by someone else, 1080p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gABOfZTMkIs
The original video (480p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL4UGSbeFg
Live in 2015 (1080p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDkCe2cUHAA
You can know yourself, but doing so though this method is doomed to failure and worse, it can increase your self-ignorance. The world can be understood through categorization and empiricism, but a human mind is neither well-categorized or particularly empirical to its owner. You're not gonna fit in the box. You might identify your dominant feelings or what you want to believe is true, but this will cause suppression of your dissenting side and unknown knowns.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 17, 2016, 10:17:02 pm
Posting my reply in this thread instead of the WTF thread:In light of recent events and feels... I am pretty sure I'm bisexual.Spoiler: how do you know this Doz (click to show/hide)Spoiler: But I thought you were asexual, Doz...? (click to show/hide)
This doesn't feel bad, honestly. It's unlikely to develop into anything - even if it were a girlcrush, there's no way I'd ever work up the courage to ask them out, and I'm not sure if I have the time or interest in dating. And given that the chance of him being non-hetero are minimal, I'd bet a million dollars on this never becoming anything. But it's nice to know, and it's also nice to look at him and be around him. *shysmile*
Interestingly, assuming Hypothesis G-C (genderfluid; the G is for gender and C is for 3rd) is correct, I would rank myself asCode: [Select]Male: ---O------
Female: -O--------
at the time. This would imply that my sexuality is independent of my instantaneous gender-inclination-whatsit, if G-C is true. (If G-C is false, then this is irrelevant.)
Edit: On second thought, this might belong in the G/S thread? It was kind of a wtf moment for me when I realized though. My guesses were hetero or asexual, I never predicted this.
Doze: So, have you ever listened to Shania Twain's song "Man! I Feel Like A Woman!"?
If not, I'll link some videos on youtube, and you can see how they make you feel, if youtube lets you watch them. I'm not sure if they're restricted by country (I'm in the USA).
(I just watched all three now, and I was distracted by her backup dancers in the second video, but that could tell you something too, if it happens to you)
Lyrics (uploaded by someone else, 1080p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gABOfZTMkIs
The original video (480p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL4UGSbeFg
Live in 2015 (1080p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDkCe2cUHAA
I do not get it. It is a song...?
The thing about my postulated gender... is that it is largely irrelevant. I have figured out that much. Just do what you feel is right for you. This whole gender-guess thing was based off of a single "I am non-binary and this is how I classify myself" slide in a gender presentation, and some experimentation with "which of these feels 'more right,' hypothetically." The classification is flawed, the experiment is flawed, it's all more biased than your racist uncle. It only really reflects how I think I would prefer to see myself.
Regardless of the flaws in the experiment, it at least shows that gender doesn't matter much to me. Nobody could tell the difference between "Doz, with internal gender slider further to the left" and "Doz... right", because there was no discernable change. If I woke up tomorrow as a girl, I might like it more, or I might like it less, but I would go about my life in exactly the same way as always.
I suppose I could just go with genderqueer. It's probably safe to say that I'm not a "wannabe special snowflake," so genderqueer is likely to be an accurate description.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 17, 2016, 10:21:41 pm
And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 17, 2016, 10:24:40 pm
Yes, it's a song.Says you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 17, 2016, 10:35:46 pm
Yes, it's a song.Says you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
It has a bi prefix. Bi means two. vOv
Post by: spümpkin on November 17, 2016, 10:39:02 pm
Typically, pansexual is used for non-binaries+binaries :VYes, it's a song.Says you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 17, 2016, 10:40:46 pm
It's like asking me if I am sexually attracted to space aliens. No, because I haven't met any.
Post by: Solifuge on November 18, 2016, 07:18:41 am
Typically, pansexual is used for non-binaries+binaries :VSays you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
Yeah. All this Gay or Straight or Bi stuff doesn't work if you're non-binary. And the whole hetero/homo thing has this connotation of being the "Normal" Mode (Hetero) or the "Abnormal" Mode (Homo). And what happens if you're Non-Binary, and not Pansexual? Like, I've definitely got an orientation, but these options don't work for it.
It's dumb and weird to have to define your sexuality in terms like that; relative to your own gender. This is why I like the Gynophilic (Likes Ladies) or Androphilic (Likes Dudes) model. You can add more for categories as necessary, but at least you talk about who you're attracted to, rather than who you're attracted to relative to how you identify, you know?
Post by: hops on November 21, 2016, 04:25:18 pm
But it hurts the last time I tried to get it on with them, plus who knows what teflon does if it touches your parts.Typically, pansexual is used for non-binaries+binaries :VYes, it's a song.Says you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 21, 2016, 04:36:35 pm
...robosexual? What?But it hurts the last time I tried to get it on with them, plus who knows what teflon does if it touches your parts.Typically, pansexual is used for non-binaries+binaries :VYes, it's a song.Says you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
Oh, binaries as in the computery things.
Post by: TempAcc on November 21, 2016, 05:16:59 pm
But it hurts the last time I tried to get it on with them, plus who knows what teflon does if it touches your parts.Typically, pansexual is used for non-binaries+binaries :VYes, it's a song.Says you.And if I have to choose a box, what better box than bisexuality? It just means "I may or may not be attracted to any given person." It carries no restrictions.
Except people who identify as something outside the gender binary. The "bi" only covers male and female.
O hey, this made me think that, in the future, sexbots will prob have teflon covered sexholes, to save on lubricant.
Why did I just think about that.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 21, 2016, 05:39:24 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on November 21, 2016, 10:12:30 pm
The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Whenever I hear something like that I think of a song by the Romanovs named 'Kiss' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_ua2lCfaw).
Quote from: that song, around 2m6s
If we could just [censored for these forums]!
And never have to touch
Life would be so perfect~
Post by: Interus on November 21, 2016, 11:34:55 pm
...robosexual? What?I think it was a joke about being pansexual
Oh, binaries as in the computery things.
Post by: scriver on November 22, 2016, 01:10:01 am
The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Unless you've gotten so worked up about the social aspects of it that fear and anxiety is what is the cause behind said repulsion.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 09:28:55 am
Aye, there's the rub. Or it could just be that I have a very latent sexuality. And as experimentation is infeasible at this point... I guess I'll have to move on and live with the uncertainty. Whatever my sexuality is, though, I'm nearly certain I'm biromantic, so there's that...The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Unless you've gotten so worked up about the social aspects of it that fear and anxiety is what is the cause behind said repulsion.
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2016, 09:33:35 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on November 22, 2016, 09:59:59 am
Aye, there's the rub. Or it could just be that I have a very latent sexuality. And as experimentation is infeasible at this point... I guess I'll have to move on and live with the uncertainty. Whatever my sexuality is, though, I'm nearly certain I'm biromantic, so there's that...
Could be that your puberty hasn't properly kicked in yet in every respect. Best not to think too much about it, and reflect on what you really are when you're, say, 18 or so.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 10:48:36 am
BE AGRESSIVEWHY
That's probably best, yeah.Aye, there's the rub. Or it could just be that I have a very latent sexuality. And as experimentation is infeasible at this point... I guess I'll have to move on and live with the uncertainty. Whatever my sexuality is, though, I'm nearly certain I'm biromantic, so there's that...Could be that your puberty hasn't properly kicked in yet in every respect. Best not to think too much about it, and reflect on what you really are when you're, say, 18 or so.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 04:13:05 pm
The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Cheers bro. Join the club.
If anything, I find the constant "But I NEEEEEEEEEEEED to have (insert gregariously sexual behavior here) Or I will explode!" behavior of basically all sexual people (regardless of orientation) quite tedious. Yes. You guys have sex. That's nice. I am sorry that you are hopelessly enslaved by your hormones. Please stop trying to tell me about how your self-identity revolves around what kind of sex you have. Next you will tell me that your self-identity revolves around what clothes you wear, or what foods you eat, rather than WHO you are as a person. Nice. So good to meet you. Now have a nice day, and go away.
I am attracted to beautiful minds. I am not attracted to boobies, asses, crotches, or any other physical attribute. Do you have a strong, independent personality, with a clever, inventive imagination? Odds are, I will find you very attractive, but not in a sexual way. Do you harp endlessly about how you like Tits and Ass? Odds are I will be repulsed by this, and want to distance myself from you.
Not that you do those things Doze, just saying that I too find the very idea of sex repulsive, and am disturbed by how much people fixate on the act.
Post by: BlackHeartKabal on November 22, 2016, 04:51:22 pm
What size fedora do you wear?The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Cheers bro. Join the club.
If anything, I find the constant "But I NEEEEEEEEEEEED to have (insert gregariously sexual behavior here) Or I will explode!" behavior of basically all sexual people (regardless of orientation) quite tedious. Yes. You guys have sex. That's nice. I am sorry that you are hopelessly enslaved by your hormones. Please stop trying to tell me about how your self-identity revolves around what kind of sex you have. Next you will tell me that your self-identity revolves around what clothes you wear, or what foods you eat, rather than WHO you are as a person. Nice. So good to meet you. Now have a nice day, and go away.
I am attracted to beautiful minds. I am not attracted to boobies, asses, crotches, or any other physical attribute. Do you have a strong, independent personality, with a clever, inventive imagination? Odds are, I will find you very attractive, but not in a sexual way. Do you harp endlessly about how you like Tits and Ass? Odds are I will be repulsed by this, and want to distance myself from you.
Not that you do those things Doze, just saying that I too find the very idea of sex repulsive, and am disturbed by how much people fixate on the act.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 04:55:02 pm
What size fedora do you wear?The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Cheers bro. Join the club.
If anything, I find the constant "But I NEEEEEEEEEEEED to have (insert gregariously sexual behavior here) Or I will explode!" behavior of basically all sexual people (regardless of orientation) quite tedious. Yes. You guys have sex. That's nice. I am sorry that you are hopelessly enslaved by your hormones. Please stop trying to tell me about how your self-identity revolves around what kind of sex you have. Next you will tell me that your self-identity revolves around what clothes you wear, or what foods you eat, rather than WHO you are as a person. Nice. So good to meet you. Now have a nice day, and go away.
I am attracted to beautiful minds. I am not attracted to boobies, asses, crotches, or any other physical attribute. Do you have a strong, independent personality, with a clever, inventive imagination? Odds are, I will find you very attractive, but not in a sexual way. Do you harp endlessly about how you like Tits and Ass? Odds are I will be repulsed by this, and want to distance myself from you.
Not that you do those things Doze, just saying that I too find the very idea of sex repulsive, and am disturbed by how much people fixate on the act.
I don't. I hate wearing hats, they mess with my ability to sense what is behind me. I suspect this is related to hearing, but I dunno.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 04:57:42 pm
Well, that's hardly true for everyone. I mean, not every non-asexual person has a strong libido. And "I go insane without sex; i.e., I am psychologically addicted to it" is not the same as "my identity revolves around who I have sex with."The fact that the mere thought of sex repulses me is probably an indication that I'm asexual, on further reflection.
Cheers bro. Join the club.
If anything, I find the constant "But I NEEEEEEEEEEEED to have (insert gregariously sexual behavior here) Or I will explode!" behavior of basically all sexual people (regardless of orientation) quite tedious. Yes. You guys have sex. That's nice. I am sorry that you are hopelessly enslaved by your hormones. Please stop trying to tell me about how your self-identity revolves around what kind of sex you have. Next you will tell me that your self-identity revolves around what clothes you wear, or what foods you eat, rather than WHO you are as a person. Nice. So good to meet you. Now have a nice day, and go away.
Quote
I am attracted to beautiful minds. I am not attracted to boobies, asses, crotches, or any other physical attribute....if I aesthetically favour girls slightly over boys, as long as I'm not interested in sticking myself into them, that could still be asexuality, right?
Quote
Do you have a strong, independent personality, with a clever, inventive imagination? Odds are, I will find you very attractive, but not in a sexual way.And thus want to be in a relationship with them! Aha!
Quote
Do you harp endlessly about how you like Tits and Ass? Odds are I will be repulsed by this, and want to distance myself from you.except this doesn't describe everybody
Quote
Not that you do those things Doze, just saying that I too find the very idea of sex repulsive, and am disturbed by how much people fixate on the act.Indeed. I often use the indefinite you, and am misinterpreted as speaking directly to someone.
@hatstuff: I think he was saying that you were SUPER EDGY.
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2016, 05:02:42 pm
I HAVE COME FROM THE MAGICAL LAND OF
STEP 1:
FIND HUMAN
STEP 2:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
REPEAT UNTIL ENOUGH DATA IS ACQUIRED
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 05:26:16 pm
No, if a human did that I would freak the hell out, and demand they leave.
Want to discuss deep intellectual topics, like comparing and contrasting Kant and Nietzsche? Fantastic!
Doze:
No, not all sexual people do that, no. However, nearly all have great difficulty with the concept of being sexless, and not feeling deficient about it. If I had a dollar for the number of times I've been asked about masturbation... Yeesh.
And yeah, the grey area of asexuality is bigger than just my version of it, much like any other orientation. There us both romantic and nonronantic asexuality, as well as aesthetic biased flavors. I don't have a real preference for gender, I have personality preferences, and honestly feel I could have a nonphysical romantic crush on either gender, as long as they had beautiful minds, and strong, independent personalities. This is not true of all asexuals.
From the discussion, I take it you are still young. Me? I am 37, and the hormones turned on years ago, as evidenced by the beard on my face. It really didn't change much in my case. If I were suddenly going to lose my mind and chase after something, I think it would have happened by now.
You might find you just have a weak libido, instead of no libido, like me. That's fine, as long as you are comfortable with it.
The world likes to make a big to-do about gender expectations, but I find this is usually tied to transparent marketing, and mental laziness. Normative females are marketed jewelry, cosmetics, shapely clothes, fancy shoes, etc. Normative men are pitched "male enhancement", ads for tittybars, gruff merchandising for mechanical things, and the like. People expect these generic mental shapes, and get all confused and disturbed when something different shows up.
I dislike the " pink aisle madness" and "testosterone man!" Archetype roles. I also dislike the "metrosexual man", " butch girl", "raging Queen", and " burly letcherous gay man" archetypes being portrayed.
I much prefer the way people relate to food in thus respect. Does liking candy mean anything particular about you? No. Does liking pizza? No.
Why does your preference in sexual partners need to have such baggage?
I see no compelling reason, other than people just being strange about overhyping how good their sex is, and how strange that other kind of sex is.
Post by: spümpkin on November 22, 2016, 06:10:39 pm
Because people are extremely multifaceted :v
Not wanting to argue, and I do agree with you on some level, although I personally think nothing wrong of discussing sexual preferences. Do you like pizza? Yes? If you want to talk about your favourite pizza, go ahead. Doesn't define who you are, because not every conversation has to be about things that define us. Talking about pizza all the time would be boring, but as said before, people are multifaceted.
also platonic snoogles r great
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 06:16:39 pm
And yes, much like listening to Violet from the chocolate factory harp about gum all day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mepPt1eV8hI) gets tedious, hearing people harp about sex, or nudge you to ask if "you saw that" as somebody walks by is equally exhausting.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 06:31:07 pm
Why does your preference in sexual partners need to have such baggage?
I see no compelling reason, other than people just being strange about overhyping how good their sex is, and how strange that other kind of sex is.
Although it's certainly not required, I think the distinction of why for some people this is important (and validly so!) is easy enough to see. Our relations to other people is (for many people, maybe even most people) one of the or the most important aspect of our being. And sexuality is directly tied into that. As an aside I think this is a perfectly valid way to view ourselves and our place in the world.
Ultimately sex and sexual attributes are important, not to everyone, but to some people, and that's enough, and they are as completely valid a thing to put importance on as "personally" or "imagination"
And, furthermore, simply dismissing "basically all sexual people" as "hopelessly enslaved by your hormones" is really just somewhat thoughtlessly dismissing completely valid ways to view the world (not to mention saying that basically all sexual people are annoying about their sexuality is frankly nothing more then an inaccurate insult.) and placing one's own behaviors/desires in others driven by essentially the same processes (Why is the pleasure you derive from someones personality more valid then the pleasure that someone else derives from someones body?) on some type of pedestal. Ultimately it all drives down to people being pleasured by things.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 06:47:37 pm
it blinds you to stunning things you would otherwise notice about people, like how horrible that devil in prada really is (but damn does she look hawt!), or how amazing that dumpy fat guy is aside from looking fat and dumpy.
it causes you to stare at asses and breasts intead of talking to people.
it makes people feel violated when a group oogles from across the room.
many pathologies.
and, it gives a negative body image complex its power to destroy truly beautiful people.
then there is the whole "i cant wear pink, thats a fucking gay assed color! i gotta wear a mans color, like black." and similar pathologies, like "being smart isnt womanly, so i wont persue my childhood dream of being a scientist." and pals.
smart, independent woman scientist is freaking hawt. flaunt that methyl blue stained labcoat! woo!
as for the statement about being enslaved by hormones being offensive, just ask all your friends if they think they could go a week without sex. a month? a year?
you will find that most cant even go 3 days without it. that's pretty damned hooked.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 06:54:41 pm
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 07:05:04 pm
i think you are reading too much into this, and making the leap from how i see the world, to my asserting that the world would be better if nobody was driven by sexual attraction.
no, i am saying that i get annoyed by people that base thier core, internal identity on external things, like what genitals they have, or what society expects from them.
that is an assertion of personal preference, which i have reasons fr, even though i really dont need them.
a person can like getting it on with women, and that is fine, just like liking to chew gum is fine. but fixating on that to the point where it shapes what you do, say, wear, or how you would otherwise act, is bordering on mental illness, and i wont justify that for you. you can like those things without being a slave to them, and wihout constantly seeking outside reinforcement. you dont need me to tell you that your attraction to that random woman is normal, by asking me if i found her hot too. really, i did not even notice her, and dont want to have such a conversation. if you found her hot, smile, and enjoy what you saw, just leave me out of it.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 07:18:41 pm
i think you are reading too much into this, and making the leap from how i see the world, to my asserting that the world would be better if nobody was driven by sexual attraction.
no, i am saying that i get annoyed by people that base thier core, internal identity on external things, like what genitals they have, or what society expects from them.
No, my last post was purely directed towards what I perceived was your notion that your preferences were more valid then certain other peoples preferences. As for your annoyance and lack of understanding for the reasons why people biased their identities on external things, I addressed that in my first post on this subject, and since you didn't (as far as I'm aware, it's impossible to tell for sure without quotes but from what I was able to infer from your response. From what I can see your response post was all directed at my question of why your type of pleasure is more valid) actually object to the reasoning I put forward, I had figured you either had come to an understanding on the matter or decided you didn't want to pursue it further.
that is an assertion of personal preference, which i have reasons fr, even though i really dont need them.
You probably should have defensible reasons for your thoughts and feelings, at least ones that you allow to influence your external actions, otherwise you'd be acting irrationally.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 07:24:14 pm
Say you don't like asparagus. Do you really need a reason for not liking it? Say you love it instead, do you really need a reason, other than that you love it?
Preferences are just that. You don't need reasons for them.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 07:29:31 pm
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 07:37:29 pm
'I will eat popcorn today' is an action.
I favor eating popcorn "because I like popcorn", over eating said popcorn " because I am watching a movie". There are any number of things you can eat when watching a movie, including nothing at all, but the ultimate reason to eat popcorn is that you enjoy eating popcorn.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 22, 2016, 07:48:21 pm
it blinds you to stunning things you would otherwise notice about people, like how horrible that devil in prada really is (but damn does she look hawt!), or how amazing that dumpy fat guy is aside from looking fat and dumpy.Not in my experience.
it causes you to stare at asses and breasts intead of talking to people.I like to look in people's eyes.
and, it gives a negative body image complex its power to destroy truly beautiful people.Because they aren't being ogled? Oh, I expect you probably mean beautiful minds.
then there is the whole "i cant wear pink, thats a fucking gay assed color! i gotta wear a mans color, like black." and similar pathologies, like "being smart isnt womanly, so i wont persue my childhood dream of being a scientist." and pals.idgi
I don't feel constrained to or away from particular colors. I particularly like red.
smart, independent woman scientist is freaking hawt. flaunt that methyl blue stained labcoat! woo!Strong women in general are hot! Whether mentally or physically.
as for the statement about being enslaved by hormones being offensive, just ask all your friends if they think they could go a week without sex. a month? a year?I've gone 34 years without sex~
Voluntarily
But I am not averse to the possibility.
Spoiler: off topic food preferences (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 22, 2016, 08:23:09 pm
Man, I already know about most of my friends' sex lives and this is comically untrue. Are you basing this "can't go without sex for three days" thing on college freshmen?
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 08:26:34 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 22, 2016, 08:41:05 pm
B) people lie very often on surveys about their sex lives
Post by: Solifuge on November 22, 2016, 08:42:51 pm
Spoiler: Just to make a few points on the derail discussion: (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 08:45:39 pm
maybe i am clairvoyant or empathic or something, but it most certainly is mine.it blinds you to stunning things you would otherwise notice about people, like how horrible that devil in prada really is (but damn does she look hawt!), or how amazing that dumpy fat guy is aside from looking fat and dumpy.Not in my experience.
Quote
it causes you to stare at asses and breasts intead of talking to people.I like to look in people's eyes.
me too. i also like to hear what people really think, and dispense with all the aires and masks.
Quote
and, it gives a negative body image complex its power to destroy truly beautiful people.Because they aren't being ogled? Oh, I expect you probably mean beautiful minds.
yes and no. a beautiful person is beautiful because they are genuinely transcendent. say, mother theresa. i doubt anyone here without a fetish would say she was physically attractive, but she was a genuinely beautiful person. a person need not be famous to be beautiful like that. a beautiful soul shines through anything.
Quote
see the term, "machismo"then there is the whole "i cant wear pink, thats a fucking gay assed color! i gotta wear a mans color, like black." and similar pathologies, like "being smart isnt womanly, so i wont persue my childhood dream of being a scientist." and pals.idgi
I don't feel constrained to or away from particular colors. I particularly like red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo
then re-evaluate things like "truck nuts", the dos equis 'most interesting man', (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U18VkI0uDxE) and yes, getting all crazy over a man wearing pink. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5zXNulu7-A) this is not my imagination.
Quote
smart, independent woman scientist is freaking hawt. flaunt that methyl blue stained labcoat! woo!Strong women in general are hot! Whether mentally or physically.
strong PEOPLE are hot. the gender is not really important. however, the "brains arent sexy on women" trope is sadly very real (or at least, still ruining lives and dreams), and seeing it rejected is sexy as hell.
Quote
celebacy is rare. like, 1% of the population, just as good a chance as meeting mark cuban, rare. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/)as for the statement about being enslaved by hormones being offensive, just ask all your friends if they think they could go a week without sex. a month? a year?I've gone 34 years without sex~
Voluntarily
But I am not averse to the possibility.
cherry picking and all that.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
i like the taste and texture of buttered popcorn. no other reaason. when i want some, i pop it and eat it.
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2016, 08:50:35 pm
Sure, there's the social interaction part, and thats pretty important (well, I guess it depends on each person's feelings and tastes, for me its pretty damn important anyway), and yea it can be pretty awkward, BUT HEY, its basically supposed to be pretty awkward unless magic happens, so if you want to try it, you'll just have to deal with it. Its a barrier for many people, though.
Maybe its really not for you, but it might be! And its not like drugs in which there's a very obvious and proven downside to even trying (and its not illegal unless you have some very specific tastes, in which case I invite you to visit the closest psychiatrist). Life's scary, people are scary, but scary things can be pretty enjoyable once you get past the first few bumps, kinda like DF :U (jesus infinite christ I just made a DF sex analogy someone please find me in the next life and punch me)
So yea. Do the impossible, see the invisible, row row, fight the butt.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 22, 2016, 08:56:00 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krithika-varagur/mother-teresa-was-no-saint_b_9470988.html
Post by: Solifuge on November 22, 2016, 09:07:07 pm
a beautiful person is beautiful because they are genuinely transcendent. say, mother theresa. i doubt anyone here without a fetish would say she was physically attractive, but she was a genuinely beautiful person. a person need not be famous to be beautiful like that. a beautiful soul shines through anything.
When she was an appropriate age for the majority of this forum's members, she was pretty dang Conventionally Attractive actually. (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c8/68/7e/c8687ed206804ccf3977077c38a2e984.jpg)
That's not to say that she didn't have problematic personality traits and prejudices, according to Shadowlord's link, though. That's unfortunate. :I
Anyway, beauty comes in a lot of forms both internal and external, and either are great.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 09:08:07 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders
it is also important to seperate the woman, from her order.
less beauiful, but still not as ugly as depicted, and the article goes through great pains to dispel the aura of beauty she presented. if not the actual person, examine the concept sshe represented in terms of such beauty.
also, very much pegged an 11 sized ad hominem.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 09:27:18 pm
Wierd, if I may point you to the spoiler I just posted? You dun gotta reply, but it was largely for you.a beautiful person is beautiful because they are genuinely transcendent. say, mother theresa. i doubt anyone here without a fetish would say she was physically attractive, but she was a genuinely beautiful person. a person need not be famous to be beautiful like that. a beautiful soul shines through anything.
When she was an appropriate age for the majority of this forum's members, she was pretty dang Conventionally Attractive actually. (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c8/68/7e/c8687ed206804ccf3977077c38a2e984.jpg)
That's not to say that she didn't have problematic personality traits and prejudices, according to Shadowlord's link, though. That's unfortunate. :I
Anyway, beauty comes in a lot of forms both internal and external, and either are great.
from your spoiler--
1) i can accept that the first time i meet somebody, and they do it. however, when i tell them that i dont find anyone attractive, they do one of two things, usually. one, they will be cool with it and not ask me about such things again, or two, they will be convinced that i am sexually repressed, and need to be "liberated", or worse still, think if i try it, i will like it. {protip, i have not lived under a rock, and am not a virgin. i dont find sex appealing after trying it. i dont want you to find me a date.}
2) i agree. i also insist on reciprocity. i understand thaat other people are sexual. i want others to reciprocate that understanding, and not wax philosophical about how awesome that gay 4some was last night, and no, i dont want to see pictures. {true story. really happened.}
3) i have seen "the ugly girl" get excluded from everything more often than you can count. there is also real research (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-ts-laham-/sitting-pretty-good-looking-people-make-more-money-but-its-not-all-roses_b_8203894.html) that less attractive people get passed up for jobs, get less pay, and get hassled needlessly, despite being better qualified, being more essential to productivity, and being good people. the world fixates on physical hotness way too much, and yes, this demonstrably blinds people.
4) i always try things to see if i do indeed dislike it. the kid refusing the asparagus is not making a decision on known preferences, but instead on "reasons". eg, "asparagus is a vegetable, and vegetaables are gross tasting, so i wont try it, and assert it is gross tasting." this is not the same as "i dont like asparagus", which is a true statement after tryig it, and not liking it.
Post by: TempAcc on November 22, 2016, 09:30:34 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 09:46:38 pm
"I don't like Asparagus" could or could not be a true statement, but it's not a rational statement or a valid statement.
"I don't like Asparagus because I have an informed dislike of the taste" could or could not be a true statement, but it's a rational and valid statement.
Of course this metaphor is pretty ridiculous because most of the time we don't really need to know your reason for disliking a food, indeed, we don't need your reasoning for disliking most things, so long as it's easy enough for us to conceive why you dislike something and the reason doesn't actually matter we can simply fill in the blanks with our imagination, it's not perfect, but for many things it'd better then giving a background for all the obvious and non important reasoning.
The important bit of what I said was that when you don't have such a reason in the back (As you claimed you did not need!), your feeling is irrational, even if it's true. If your actions are informed by that feeling, then your actions are irrational, even if they turn out to be the correct action to have taken.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 09:59:39 pm
when I say "you dont need a reason to dislike something", i mean it like this:
1) there is this thing that most people like. Let's say chocolate. its everywhere, its even cultual at valentines day. but when you eat it, it tastes horrid vile, like eating old used tampons vile. you hate it.
2) you politely decline the chocolate when offered, and people demand a reason why you hate the chocolate.
3) short of going all commander data on them, and exhaustively exploring why your tastebuds are different (which they might not be), you politely tell them that you just do not like the taste of chocolate, and really dont need a reason why, because you simply find it horrible vile.
substitute chocolate for sex, and you have me.
Post by: Starver on November 22, 2016, 10:02:35 pm
substitute chocolate for sex, and you have me.Combine chocolate and sex, and you have messy.
(It had to be said.)
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 10:04:47 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 10:08:47 pm
I think there is a failure to communicate.
Yes, that's been obvious from the start of this conversation. You making a misstep in saying you don't need a reason for preferences when you really meant you don't need to elucidate on the actual existing reasons was, I felt three hours ago, not really worth diving further into. But I guessssss not! Hopefully with this it may be possible to put this conversation in the past now though that it's been brought to light.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 10:13:27 pm
you are outright saying there must be a reason. I am saying that this is simply untrue.
why do gay people like gay sex? do they need a reason? I say no.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 10:22:12 pm
Ultimately, they do have reasons. Everyone who's acting rationally has reasons for what they do. Heck, If you're a determinist, even people not acting rationally have reasons for what they do.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 10:24:53 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 10:30:37 pm
Exactly. Its circular.
No it's not at all. It's not even circular in the post, I did redefine gay sex, basically going in a circle once, because I thought it would be helpful to define what I meant by gay sex in that sentence. But after that I gave two valid reasons (emotional and physical enjoyment). These reasons themselves have their underpinnings, both for why they are desirable, and why they biologically happen. And then those reasons can be further examined, so on and so forth until we get back to the foundation of the universe. Of course we can't literally do that, seeing as we're lacking in ability and time to make such descriptions, but even the start of such a chain, and at least bringing it back to some axiom that can be generally agreed upon (like enjoyment being a rational reason to do something) is a requirement for it to make any logical sense as a statement and rational action to take. Otherwise if you don't need these reasons for preferences and actions you are a wholly irrational being.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 10:35:53 pm
the preference is apriori. the reasons come after.
let me leave you with this smbc. I was very tickled by it when i first saw it. it fits here perfectly.
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1478708912-20161109.png)
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 10:52:38 pm
Also the smbc comic only seems... Barely related to the discussion at hand, to the point I worry about your reading comprehensions somewhat. This isn't about assigning grand meaning to petty action. This is about assigning meaning at all to action. Even in the comic given the alien gives an example of this, we kill a rival for resources. The gaining of the rivals resources is the reason behind the action of killing.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 10:56:51 pm
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
your rational decision is less real than you think it is.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 11:00:41 pm
You realize that this isn't evidence in the slightest of a lack of reasons behind what people do? Ten seconds is not long enough to inform about a majority of decisions, the decision that was taken in this experiment was so trivial as to be practically to the point of randomness, and even if we're not consciously aware of the reasons why we make decisions that doesn't mean that the reasons we give or realize later are false or made up after the fact.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 11:06:34 pm
also, counter argument wrong.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/sep/18-your-brain-knows-lot-more-than-you-realize
every decision you make is preprocessed. every. single. one.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 11:09:00 pm
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 11:13:32 pm
when you choose to do an action, your brain has already worked it out seconds in advance. long before your slow executive functions start. 10 seconds or so in advance. you fabricate a narrative to explain your acton without realizing it. that is what the science is saying.
the people that like gay sex get activation in thier pleasure centers, then think about why afterward. the gay sex is what is pleasurable. the thoughts about company, togetherness, and other thoughts come afterward. the preference is apriori. the reasons are not.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 22, 2016, 11:15:52 pm
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 11:21:32 pm
the alien is right.
only a really premeditated action is truly the result of rational thought. almost all of your decisions in life are excluded from this class.
when it comes to things like pleasure, it is universally excluded.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 11:34:22 pm
How exactly is this S/G-related, again? Seems like A JOB FOR THE PHILOSOPHY THREAD! (You know what's weird? In this thread, I've tried to redirect a conversation to the philthread three times. And this thread isn't a megathread like WTF or Happy. How odd. What is it about S/G that leads to philosophy?)
Post by: spümpkin on November 22, 2016, 11:37:07 pm
All too often I find people fixate though.
And yes, much like listening to Violet from the chocolate factory harp about gum all day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mepPt1eV8hI) gets tedious, hearing people harp about sex, or nudge you to ask if "you saw that" as somebody walks by is equally exhausting.
I feel like maybe you hang out with some friends who don't understand asexuality, and maybe you should reconsider :V
as for the statement about being enslaved by hormones being offensive, just ask all your friends if they think they could go a week without sex. a month? a year?
you will find that most cant even go 3 days without it. that's pretty damned hooked.
Also, stop the dang derail guys!
Post by: smjjames on November 22, 2016, 11:38:03 pm
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 11:38:14 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 22, 2016, 11:40:40 pm
most people do not understand asexuality, in my experience.
In the most literal term, it means genderless. Though I understand it in this context to just mean 'not interested in sex, regardless of gender'.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 11:42:03 pm
I could live just fine without them. mentally, i *am* genderless.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 11:48:48 pm
NO, NO, NO - WRONGmost people do not understand asexuality, in my experience.
In the most literal term, it means genderless.
That would be agender! Not asexuality!
Quote
Though I understand it in this context to just mean 'not interested in sex, regardless of gender'.Or "not having any libido, i.e., drive to engage in sexual activity." A subtle distinction: someone could be not interested in sex at the moment (too busy with SCIENCE) and yet be hetero/homo/bisexual.
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 11:52:27 pm
I do not have attraction, ever, and do not relate with my gender. Or the other gender. I just kinda am.
To cope with that, I have created my own, personal identity. I relate with others who have done that as well.
Post by: smjjames on November 22, 2016, 11:54:08 pm
NO, NO, NO - WRONGmost people do not understand asexuality, in my experience.
In the most literal term, it means genderless.
That would be agender! Not asexuality!QuoteThough I understand it in this context to just mean 'not interested in sex, regardless of gender'.Or "not having any libido, i.e., drive to engage in sexual activity." A subtle distinction: someone could be not interested in sex at the moment (too busy with SCIENCE) and yet be hetero/homo/bisexual.
I'm probably conflating it with 'asexual' as in 'asexual reproduction', which I know has nothing to do with asexuality, and I wasn't being entirely serious with that first comment.
edit: Wait, even asexual in that context doesn't mean 'genderless', it just means 'outside of sex, or no sex involved in the proccess'. You can have a gendered organism and still have asexual reproduction (aphids, a few species of lizard come to mind, also corals and anemonenes).
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 11:56:08 pm
for all intents and purposes, my genitals serve only a useful endochrine function, and nothing else.I just realized something. The way that I might want to present myself could overlap with different form of gender expression, and I could still be agender.
I could live just fine without them. mentally, i *am* genderless.
Which is another way of saying "just do you," I guess. Huh. I keep coming back to that. Maybe I should follow it.
(But hmm, negative body image associated with the part of me that is more associated with masculinity; i.e., hairiness... that's the issue, association. Whence these feelings? Transgenderness, or have I simply associated "feminine" with "good"?)
Quote
That is true doze. "Got a headache" being cliche.Creating your own identity... why the heck not? Just restrain your urge to label yourself and put yourself in a box, Doz, and it might just work!
I do not have attraction, ever, and do not relate with my gender. Or the other gender. I just kinda am.
To cope with that, I have created my own, personal identity. I relate with others who have done that as well.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 22, 2016, 11:57:04 pm
Ah. Asexual reproduction doesn't imply a lack of sex (physical state), though. Parthenogenesis and whatnot.NO, NO, NO - WRONGmost people do not understand asexuality, in my experience.
In the most literal term, it means genderless.
That would be agender! Not asexuality!QuoteThough I understand it in this context to just mean 'not interested in sex, regardless of gender'.Or "not having any libido, i.e., drive to engage in sexual activity." A subtle distinction: someone could be not interested in sex at the moment (too busy with SCIENCE) and yet be hetero/homo/bisexual.
I'm probably conflating it with 'asexual' as in 'asexual reproduction', which I know has nothing to do with asexuality, and I wasn't being entirely serious with that first comment.
Post by: smjjames on November 22, 2016, 11:58:39 pm
Ah. Asexual reproduction doesn't imply a lack of sex (physical state), though.NO, NO, NO - WRONGmost people do not understand asexuality, in my experience.
In the most literal term, it means genderless.
That would be agender! Not asexuality!QuoteThough I understand it in this context to just mean 'not interested in sex, regardless of gender'.Or "not having any libido, i.e., drive to engage in sexual activity." A subtle distinction: someone could be not interested in sex at the moment (too busy with SCIENCE) and yet be hetero/homo/bisexual.
I'm probably conflating it with 'asexual' as in 'asexual reproduction', which I know has nothing to do with asexuality, and I wasn't being entirely serious with that first comment.
Yeah, I realized that and corrected that in my post above.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 12:29:55 am
sure it does. we attribute value to reasons, but nature does not.
This is not true. 'Nature' (By which I assume you mean reality) is the ultimate arbitrator of if something happens, if there is no cause, there is no effect. Instincts are decisions make so quickly to by unconscious that the conscious mind is unaware of them, but that doesn't mean that they are not rational and do not have underlying reasons. Once again, just because instinct exists, that doesn't mean that there is no cause and rationality to why our instincts do what they do.
only a really premeditated action is truly the result of rational thought. almost all of your decisions in life are excluded from this class.
when it comes to things like pleasure, it is universally excluded.
Although the first point may be true from a raw number of decisions point, after all, we do things constantly on an unconscious level, like breathing or how many times I click my mouse to highlight a sentence for copy and pasting. It's really just an obfuscation, since most things that people would actually call decisions are in fact these premeditated actions. Including often deciding to have sex. The second point is demonstrably false. In order to prove you false, I considered actions that could give me pleasure, choose one, and executed it. This feels like something that would be a no brainer, that if you have an argument with an obviously false conclusion, you would rethink the argument. I feel like you may not be discussing this in good faith, I must be honest.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 01:24:28 am
Reasons are things humans make, to explain things. The universe explains nothing.
Here, dont take my word for it:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
Quote
Full Definition of reason
1
a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2
a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3
archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
in reason
: rightly, justifiably
within reason
: within reasonable limits
with reason
: with good cause
Humans CREATE reasons, to explain what is.
They always come after the fact. You can predict that you will like something, after having done that thing in the past, but that does not change the reality that the event itself is what is pleasurable, and you are simply rationalizing that pleasure after the fact with your reasons.
To wit- Being gay is not a choice. One does not go "You know, I think I will be gay from now on." It does not work that way. They have always been gay, and come to that startling revelation. Then they rationalize why it is OK to be gay, and why they like the things they like. This is also why "reprogramming camps" dont work. You dont choose what you find enjoyable. You cant be told what you find enjoyable either. You can choose to do things that you know to be enjoyable, but that is most certainly NOT the same thing.
Post by: spümpkin on November 23, 2016, 01:42:05 am
Also, wierd, maybe I'm a bit biased because I'm friends with a lot of non-heterosexuals :V
that and smart people
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 01:48:12 am
I'll share my IQ if you share yours. :P
I have unusual thoughts and opinions on how people think and act, because I have an almost morbid interest in it. Strangely, neuroscience and behavioral science agree with my takes on it.
Cript just does not like that explanation, and does not think I am being honest about the conclusions I have arrived at.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 23, 2016, 02:14:06 am
extraordinary evidence.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
your rational decision is less real than you think it is.
Why are you trying to argue using pop science (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTX2ZGEQUo4) articles?
Abstract from actual study:
Quote
There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.
I don't want to be arguing this crap here, mind you.
P.S. Dictionaries are things humans make, to words words. The universe words nothing.
> reasons always come after the fact
After what fact?
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 02:19:54 am
Human question: Why?
Human reason: A god must do it!
The reason ALWAYS comes AFTER the fact.
Does nature care if you got it right? No. It will keep on regardless of your thoughts in the matter.
In fuller context, because people seem unable to follow my train of thought--
When a person is subjected to a stimulus, they dont "decide" that it is pleasurable, painful, ticklish, whatever-- Their nervous system simply reacts to it. That reaction is "the fact."
The REASONING comes later, after that fact. Humans are not precognitive, and our predictive ability is tied exclusively to past experiences. We can reason that, eg, "This thing is a lot like that other thing that I like, so I will probably like it too." but that does not make it true that "I like this other thing". We can try that thing and hate it. Crystal pepsi, for instance.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 23, 2016, 02:46:46 am
When a person is subjected to a stimulus, they dont "decide" that it is pleasurable, painful, ticklish, whatever-- Their nervous system simply reacts to it. That reaction is "the fact."
The REASONING comes later, after that fact. Humans are not precognitive, and our predictive ability is tied exclusively to past experiences. We can reason that, eg, "This thing is a lot like that other thing that I like, so I will probably like it too." but that does not make it true that "I like this other thing". We can try that thing and hate it. Crystal pepsi, for instance.
Okay, so when subjected to a stimulus, one's reaction is "the fact" and the reason comes after.
I don't like alcohol, yet I have never tried it - I've never been subjected to that stimulus. (But in a way your logic still holds, but the stimulus, instead of trying it, was observing what it did to other people, and deciding I never wanted to be like that. Losing control of my mind has no appeal to me. The idea of consuming a substance that would make me stupider disgusts me.)
Let's see... religion? One's reason for doing things is because they believe they must because it's what their God wants. Of course you could say the stimulus there was religious indoctrination.
So... why are we talking about this?
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 02:50:43 am
I was pointing out that the action (response to the stimulus) precedes the reason (eg, the act of reasoning in response to the stimulus), always.
He does not agree.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 23, 2016, 02:53:01 am
I was pointing out that the action (response to the stimulus) precedes the reason (eg, the act of reasoning in response to the stimulus), always.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 02:56:25 am
You observed the ill effects of alcohol consumption. (stimulus)
You did not like it. (fact.)
You created reasons to substantiate that dislike. (reason.)
You would have to have precognition to experience it any other way.
In the EVEN FULLER context:
I asserted that I do not need a reason for my known preferences, which is what kicked this off.
This is logically sound as a statement, given the above chain of events to arrive at a reason.
1) I experience a stimulus.
2) I have a reaction.
3) I create a reason to explain my reaction.
Step 3 is optional. Steps 1 and 2 happen without my control, and are simply facts.
In this example, step 2, my reaction, is the basis of my preference. EG, "I liked it."
We can then put it this way.
1) Something happened
2) I liked it.
3) I come up with some reason to explain why I liked it.
I do not need to come up with a reason to accept that I liked it. It is simply a fact.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 23, 2016, 03:10:33 am
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 03:12:49 am
Post by: Tiruin on November 23, 2016, 05:46:49 am
> It's also based on personal perception of the self, which includes the matter that one's understanding may be influenced by one's exposure and experience (which isn't necessarily meaning 'go have sex'; experience in that manner includes one's current environment or what one is usually connected to in their daily life, otherwise 'what they're persistently exposed to').
Which is commonly noted in the teen years--where people 'discover' themselves :P
> Asexuality is a thing :P Yes. However that doesn't mean anatomical or physiological--everyone is, by nature, physiologically sexual. Sexuality is not a definitive of that. It is the inclination. o_O And this can be termed by one's outlook or one's actual feelings, either/or.
> The environment can shape one's perception :O That's where cognitive constructs build up (otherwise known as 'a basis of knowledge'), like if you're surrounded by things you don't like, and it jives in parallel to something you've noticed internally (as in in mind for quite some time), it can help denote something about you.
> wierd and Cript both have their respective and relative points, but there's the possible divergence of applying those points to an exact proportion of people. Because misunderstandings happen in generality, or usually 'how' you say it rather than what is meant. :P
It will help you a lot to talk about this with a professional rather than internet sources alone.for all intents and purposes, my genitals serve only a useful endochrine function, and nothing else.I just realized something. The way that I might want to present myself could overlap with different form of gender expression, and I could still be agender.
I could live just fine without them. mentally, i *am* genderless.
Which is another way of saying "just do you," I guess. Huh. I keep coming back to that. Maybe I should follow it.
(But hmm, negative body image associated with the part of me that is more associated with masculinity; i.e., hairiness... that's the issue, association. Whence these feelings? Transgenderness, or have I simply associated "feminine" with "good"?)
And this is from a student of that profession. :P Really gonna help you that way.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 06:24:19 am
i am fully accepting of my asexuality, and do the best i can to be brutally honest about likes and dislikes when considering myself. (this brutal introspection is what led me, many years ago, to conclude that liking or disliking something is not really a choice, but a reaction, and thus does not need an explicit reason, which for me made it easier. likes and dislikes can change however; I used to despise fried squash for instance. Now I find it enjoyable in limited quantities. no reason is needed, it is simply a fact. the two facts together indicate that reactions, and thus preferences change over time, so continued experience is required to retain self knowledge.) Not everyone can, or does engage themselves with brutal honesty though. That is where a professional asking questions can help. a person may have hangups involving reasons, that prevent acceptance, which leads to unresolvable conundrums, which makes them crazy. better understanding through questioning assumptions and other imposed reasoning can help a person get to acceptance, and then growth.
The thing is, sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we have irreconcilable truths about ourselves.
For instance, we might find that normally, we are aghast at the idea of hurting somebody, but when conditions are right, we want that bastard to fry. Being honest with ourselves, we are presented with seemingly irreconcilable impulses: We abhor violence and harm to others, but yet-- strong desire to do so in this case. We may have very great difficulty getting to acceptance, even after considerable after-the-fact reasoning to try to reconcile them. Even with the help of a professional, this is not an easy task.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 07:45:32 am
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
Quotecause <the reason for earthquakes>
Your link disagrees with you. Your very own quote disagrees with you. Even if it didn't disagree with you, you're still failing to establish that instinctive action precludes reasoning.
To wit- Being gay is not a choice. One does not go "You know, I think I will be gay from now on." It does not work that way. They have always been gay, and come to that startling revelation. Then they rationalize why it is OK to be gay, and why they like the things they like. This is also why "reprogramming camps" dont work. You dont choose what you find enjoyable. You cant be told what you find enjoyable either. You can choose to do things that you know to be enjoyable, but that is most certainly NOT the same thing.
How was this ever in question? This is such a rapid shift of what the conversation was about that I frankly call bullshit.
The sun appears to rise every day. (fact)
Human question: Why?
Human reason: A god must do it!
The reason ALWAYS comes AFTER the fact.
Just because YOU assign an incorrect and post dated reason doesn't mean that all reasoning is incorrect or non predictive. The sun appears to rise every day because the earth is spinning. That's the reason. The physical principles involved in the rotation of the earth have existed before the earth itself did, this is a wholly predictable thing given knowledge of the condition of the earth and it's local space, even before the very first sunrise (Well, if there was such a thing, obviously that's like, one of those questions of definitions given the earth didn't just pop into existence fully formed.) If another earth suddenly appeared around another sun and we were able to observe that it was spinning, we would be able to say that because it's spin, it will now have a wave of sunrises continually moving across it.
In fuller context, because people seem unable to follow my train of thought--
When a person is subjected to a stimulus, they dont "decide" that it is pleasurable, painful, ticklish, whatever-- Their nervous system simply reacts to it. That reaction is "the fact."
The REASONING comes later, after that fact. Humans are not precognitive, and our predictive ability is tied exclusively to past experiences. We can reason that, eg, "This thing is a lot like that other thing that I like, so I will probably like it too." but that does not make it true that "I like this other thing". We can try that thing and hate it. Crystal pepsi, for instance.
Except, going forward in FUTURE events, you can use this reaction to past events as a reason to predict future events. You can predict the same stimulus will be good, and that can be your reason to seek it, or you can predict it will be bad, and that will be your reason to avoid it. Furthermore, when we make an assumption about an unclear future using similar past events, that's still making a rational and reasoned decision! It doesn't need to be true to be those things, shockingly perhaps to you. Having a valid reason for what you're doing does not always Equal truth.
In the EVEN FULLER context:
I asserted that I do not need a reason for my known preferences, which is what kicked this off.
This is logically sound as a statement, given the above chain of events to arrive at a reason.
1) I experience a stimulus.
2) I have a reaction.
3) I create a reason to explain my reaction.
Step 3 is optional. Steps 1 and 2 happen without my control, and are simply facts.
In this example, step 2, my reaction, is the basis of my preference. EG, "I liked it."
We can then put it this way.
1) Something happened
2) I liked it.
3) I come up with some reason to explain why I liked it.
I do not need to come up with a reason to accept that I liked it. It is simply a fact.
Except now moving forward we can have chains of events like this:
1) I have a choice to have something happen to me or not.
2) In the past I liked it, so I have an informed reason to think I will enjoy it in the future.
3) I choose to have it happen to me again.
4) I liked it.
Or
1) I have a choice to have something happen to me or not.
2) In the past I disliked it, so I have an informed reason to think I will not enjoy it in the future.
3) I choose to not have it happen to me again.
Or even
1) I have a choice to have something happen to me or not.
2) In the past I liked it, so I have an informed reason to think I will enjoy it in the future.
3) I choose to have it happen to me again.
4) I disliked it.
5) I can figure out why it changed or not, but ultimately I probably won't choose that again in the future if I think it's likely to be disliked again.
Post by: sjm9876 on November 23, 2016, 09:07:24 am
Asexual people aren't necessarily uninterested in sex, they just don't feel any drive to. Some asexuals do still have sex, they just don't have an innate biological drive behind it.\Huh. All the asexual people I've met have been pretty much the reverse, which is interesting. Not sure if that's a different form with a similar effect (at least regards other people) or a misuse of definitions on one of our parts, though I'm inclined to say the former.
Also, wierd, maybe I'm a bit biased because I'm friends with a lot of non-heterosexuals :V
that and smart people
Also, it's rather important to note, that it's all spectrum. Libidos vary, as does 'conscious' (ie. non libido) interest in sex, as does desire for the intimacy that results from sex (though this overlaps somewhat with the previous) (or even how much you feel said intimacy). Trying to sum people up into sexual and asexual is rather flawed, because people could quite conceivably rate a 0 on any aspect of that but still have the others. It's also worth noting that asexuality certainly doesn't imply an active dislike for sex - an asexual person could conceivably have sex with their partner for their sake, similar to how they might cook a meal their partner likes but they themselves are indifferent towards.
Basically, oversimplification can be risky because using simple labels has a tendency to cause the brain to forget that those labels aren't cover-alls.
Hell, similar things apply to gender and (other) sexualities, and it is very important to not assume your experience of the factors that make up your feelings in the area is the same as someone else who fits into the same 'label'.
Post by: Tiruin on November 23, 2016, 09:18:08 am
/me meets sjm9876, she is asexual in her sexual orientation o_oAsexual people aren't necessarily uninterested in sex, they just don't feel any drive to. Some asexuals do still have sex, they just don't have an innate biological drive behind it.\Huh. All the asexual people I've met have been pretty much the reverse, which is interesting. Not sure if that's a different form with a similar effect (at least regards other people) or a misuse of definitions on one of our parts, though I'm inclined to say the former.
Also, wierd, maybe I'm a bit biased because I'm friends with a lot of non-heterosexuals :V
that and smart people
:P
It's nicely lighthearted to nudge being part of a sample population and work with concepts all the way. Just a note that if one is to treat a general category--try substituting the more common idea; like 'heterosexual' for 'asexual', and there's the notice of perceptive adjusting.
But yeah, it's really nice to hear from many folks on their experiences.
@wierd/Cript: I...think both of you are pretty much agreeing on one major thing, and disagreeing with how either of you are going about in minor details ._. (which makes it seem like disagreeing with major details from there on) If that's to continue...maybe it'd be better to PM each other, or use the first-person perspective to help with exacts in meaning? :-[ sorry for nudging that.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 23, 2016, 10:16:27 am
Post by: TempAcc on November 23, 2016, 10:26:55 am
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 10:34:52 am
Um, I'm fairly unsure of my conclusions here, but uh. Maybe?
Post by: smjjames on November 23, 2016, 10:35:31 am
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 10:36:48 am
Post by: Tiruin on November 23, 2016, 10:41:08 am
So...nope. That's a tad bit more personification and attribution of human qualities onto observations in a way. :O It's rather less of actual gender there given what you're citing.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 10:44:55 am
Err...do remember that gender != gender role. The 'role' here is the manner of interacting towards a certain theme or concept noticed as a characteristic, not necessarily of the gender. (It's like more of a title/term rather than an indicator)
Ah, yeah, fair enough. I'm not totally sure of where the divide here lays. Like, the role is how you expect something to act when given a certain label, which conversely means that the label can be used as short hand to bring the mind the role. And if you change the meaning of the label or the content of the role, you've transitively changed both.
If that's not the case, then, well, whoops.
Post by: smjjames on November 23, 2016, 10:55:01 am
Er. Genders? Or Sexes?
Not sure if that was at me or not, was just going along with what Doze and TempAcc were quipping about.
Though the system used by fungi stretch the human cultural concept of genders/sexes, as in functional sex, not gender roles, stretches the human concept of genders/sexes to near meaninglessness. At least in the form that we have a concept of it as a dual thing rather than a multispectral whatever (again, functional and biological gender/sex not gender roles).
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 11:03:44 am
Post by: smjjames on November 23, 2016, 11:06:52 am
Post by: Criptfeind on November 23, 2016, 11:16:05 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 23, 2016, 11:17:27 am
I was just imagining Fungus wearing 1000s of different types of dresses.One fungus, or multiple fungi? Because the first would be difficult to pull off. It would also be difficult to pull the dresses off of the fungus afterward.
:D
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 23, 2016, 11:18:18 am
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 01:07:16 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 23, 2016, 01:32:36 pm
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 01:56:38 pm
What is this, a peewee herman rerun?
/joke
Naw, it is basically because of a massive derail about how preferences are innately based on likes and dislikes, which are innately internal, automatic things and not based on after the fact reasoning, and another user disagreeing vociferously. This spiraled into a long and tedious examination of a number of things which does indeed border on philosophy very closely.
In that derail I mentioned asparagus as something people might instantly dislike.
Post by: Solifuge on November 23, 2016, 05:45:59 pm
Do animals even have gender, or is it just sex?The best I can remember off the top of my head was the event where in a troop of baboons the aggressive males more or less all died because of poisoned food, which then changed the culture of the group as a whole. (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020106) If you say that the aggressiveness of the alpha males and their hierarchy was a facet of the gender role that their society enforced (which seems to be the case since after this event other males that moved in from other troops would adapt to the more chill troop, learning to be less aggressive) then this seems like it'd be a case non human animals having gender (and what that gender means being changed after a radical event.)
Yeah. Robert Sapolsky's baboon research was going to be my example too. Dramatic cultural shift in the role of Males in that troupe toward what had been the Female role (grooming, less dominance displays and fighting, sharing food, pro-social behavior), which was enforced by gender-policing the incoming aggressive new Males from other cultures, until they conformed.
Basically, it happens to other animals than humans, but they have to be socially-organized and have a culture in order for gender to exist. Solitary animals don't tend to have clearly defined roles or behaviors, because individuals can't specialize. Each individual has to hunt and find a mate and do all the things their species needs to do to survive, so roles that limit their behavior don't make sense. Plus, if they live solitarily, there's no neighbors or cultures to create or to enforce roles, either!
EDIT: basically, gender is a facet of culture, not of biology. Sex is biological. Even nature agrees!
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 05:55:33 pm
Note, I do not mean paranoid schizophrenic.
I mean this:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/schizoid-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Post by: smjjames on November 23, 2016, 05:58:58 pm
That might explain my anomalous gender identity as well. In addition to being asexual, I also exhibit schizoid behaviors, and have less need of social interaction. I acknowlege that this is not normal, but other than the strange reactions I get when I do interact with other people, I do not feel deficited.
Note, I do not mean paranoid schizophrenic.
I mean this:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/schizoid-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Sounds a bit like maybe something in the autism spectrum? Not gonna psychomedcialanalyze you here though. Then again, some of those symptoms definetly aren't me.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 06:04:45 pm
It does not fully describe me either. I am capable of social interaction, but I do have "flattened affect". I can come off as cold and emotionless, but this is untrue.
I do not feel a need for constant social interaction. I visit friends maybe once a year, and visits to family are months apart. I am quite content at home.
.however, I have a great many hobbies, but all are solitary.
Not a perfect fit, but no diagnosis ever is.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 23, 2016, 06:09:38 pm
Post by: Solifuge on November 23, 2016, 06:37:16 pm
Sex: the physical state of the body, featuring Primary (genetic and from birth characteristics), or Secondary (hormonally-derived characteristics). Sex comes in many combinations across a Female-Intersex-Male spectrum, and describes the physical body, reproductive capabilities, and so on, taking intentional modification, surgeries, HRT, or whatever else into account.
Gender: an artificial cultural role assigned to an individual, and enforced by law, peers, or social tradition. These vary from culture to culture, but commonly include expectations of behavior, restrictions on styles of relationship or sexual partnership, standards of appearance, encouraged modes of communication, restriction from performing certain activities, etc. These are generally considered a spectrum, but are hard to classify as such due to the arbitrariness of gender roles, and cultural differences. Common historical examples are "Masculine" and "Feminine".
Post by: Starver on November 23, 2016, 07:22:14 pm
Each is potentially complicated and non-binary, possibly changable and somewhat independent of the others.
Post by: sjm9876 on November 23, 2016, 08:00:20 pm
Can you clarify? The definitions I work with areI believe what you are calling gender and Shadowlord gender role are the same. Likely by gender Shadow is referring to ones sense with respect to themself - the part that can feel incongruent with sex and cause physical as opposed to social dysphoria.
Sex: the physical state of the body, featuring Primary (genetic and from birth characteristics), or Secondary (hormonally-derived characteristics). Sex comes in many combinations across a Female-Intersex-Male spectrum, and describes the physical body, reproductive capabilities, and so on, taking intentional modification, surgeries, HRT, or whatever else into account.
Gender: an artificial cultural role assigned to an individual, and enforced by law, peers, or social tradition. These vary from culture to culture, but commonly include expectations of behavior, restrictions on styles of relationship or sexual partnership, standards of appearance, encouraged modes of communication, restriction from performing certain activities, etc. These are generally considered a spectrum, but are hard to classify as such due to the arbitrariness of gender roles, and cultural differences. Common historical examples are "Masculine" and "Feminine".
Obviously this is all just a guess of what Shadow means, but a likely one IMO :P
Post by: Gentlefish on November 23, 2016, 08:15:31 pm
Can you clarify? The definitions I work with areI believe what you are calling gender and Shadowlord gender role are the same. Likely by gender Shadow is referring to ones sense with respect to themself - the part that can feel incongruent with sex and cause physical as opposed to social dysphoria.
Sex: the physical state of the body, featuring Primary (genetic and from birth characteristics), or Secondary (hormonally-derived characteristics). Sex comes in many combinations across a Female-Intersex-Male spectrum, and describes the physical body, reproductive capabilities, and so on, taking intentional modification, surgeries, HRT, or whatever else into account.
Gender: an artificial cultural role assigned to an individual, and enforced by law, peers, or social tradition. These vary from culture to culture, but commonly include expectations of behavior, restrictions on styles of relationship or sexual partnership, standards of appearance, encouraged modes of communication, restriction from performing certain activities, etc. These are generally considered a spectrum, but are hard to classify as such due to the arbitrariness of gender roles, and cultural differences. Common historical examples are "Masculine" and "Feminine".
Obviously this is all just a guess of what Shadow means, but a likely one IMO :P
I agree with Soli's definition of Gender - social construct used to align ourselves with 'like' folk and define sexual attractions outside of biological sex.
Gender roles are fun!
Defined for me, gender roles are: Roles imposed upon a gender (or sex, if you ascribe to binary gender being assigned at birth), such that the gender is expected to act in a certain way and will be socially shunned or otherwise ostracized for acting outside of.
Hence "feminine" and "masculine" gender roles. Boys will be boys and girls should shut up and do what they're told. Not that I believe in gender roles. A dude who wants to cook and clean and be a homebody should be able to do so as much as a woman who wants to be an engineer, for example.
((Oh god what am I getting myself into first the ameripol thread and now this one))
Post by: Grek on November 23, 2016, 08:25:49 pm
Sex. What shape your meat is. Can be specified further - natal sex, current sex, desired sex, etc.
Identity. Your self-concept of who you are. Can be specified further - national identity, sexual identity, gender identity, etc.
Role. What other people expect from/about you. Can be specified further - gender roles, occupational roles, class roles, etc.
Gender. Choice of pronoun. Important because of the roles and identities based on it rather than for its own sake.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 23, 2016, 08:29:50 pm
More useful terms:
Sex. What shape your meat is. Can be specified further - natal sex, current sex, desired sex, etc.
Identity. Your self-concept of who you are. Can be specified further - national identity, sexual identity, gender identity, etc.
Role. What other people expect from/about you. Can be specified further - gender roles, occupational roles, class roles, etc.
Gender. Choice of pronoun. Important because of the roles and identities based on it rather than for its own sake.
I wouldn't go so far as to say sex is mutable - whether you were born male, female, or intersex is important, medically. It simply shouldn't define you more than what you want it to. It's a distinction for medical purposes, and an important one at that.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 08:33:52 pm
More useful terms:
Sex. What shape your meat is. Can be specified further - natal sex, current sex, desired sex, etc.
Identity. Your self-concept of who you are. Can be specified further - national identity, sexual identity, gender identity, etc.
Role. What other people expect from/about you. Can be specified further - gender roles, occupational roles, class roles, etc.
Gender. Choice of pronoun. Important because of the roles and identities based on it rather than for its own sake.
I wouldn't go so far as to say sex is mutable - whether you were born male, female, or intersex is important, medically. It simply shouldn't define you more than what you want it to. It's a distinction for medical purposes, and an important one at that.
Useful endocrine functions.
Post by: Solifuge on November 23, 2016, 08:38:23 pm
I'd also draw a distinction between a person's primary and secondary sex, for medical reasons. The health concerns of TransMales overlap with the concerns of both cis Males and Females, because hormones etc., and are in some respects unique from cis sexes entirely. Same for TransWomen, or Intersex people. Medicine is still learning to accommodate their needs, and more inclusive study is needed.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 23, 2016, 08:41:17 pm
I said it before, but medically speaking sex is totally mutable too; recent genetic research with mice might even lead to transgender fertility and an end to the need for external hormone therapy.
I'd also draw a distinction between a person's primary and secondary sex, for medical reasons. The health concerns of TransMales overlap with the concerns of both cis Males and Females, because hormones etc., and are in some respects unique from cis sexes entirely. Same for TransWomen, or Intersex people. Medicine is still learning to accommodate their needs, and more inclusive study is needed.
I stand corrected - that's actually wonderful news. I haven't looked into terribly many papers on the subject.
Post by: Grek on November 23, 2016, 08:43:29 pm
I wouldn't go so far as to say sex is mutable - whether you were born male, female, or intersex is important, medically. It simply shouldn't define you more than what you want it to. It's a distinction for medical purposes, and an important one at that.Right, that's natal sex. Current sex is obviously based on natal sex, but equally obviously, the two aren't the same thing. Your body changes over time based on things that happen to you, including accidents, puberty, hormones, surgery, etc. Natal sex = sex you were at birth.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 08:49:25 pm
I said it before, but medically speaking sex is totally mutable too; recent genetic research with mice might even lead to transgender fertility and an end to the need for external hormone therapy.
I'd also draw a distinction between a person's primary and secondary sex, for medical reasons. The health concerns of TransMales overlap with the concerns of both cis Males and Females, because hormones etc., and are in some respects unique from cis sexes entirely. Same for TransWomen, or Intersex people. Medicine is still learning to accommodate their needs, and more inclusive study is needed.
Tissue printing *will* become a thing in the next 20 years, if we avoid going into a new dark age.
Post by: spümpkin on November 23, 2016, 10:19:51 pm
It's related to brain stuff, I'm fairly sure, while gender roles are culture stuffs.
Post by: Solifuge on November 24, 2016, 01:29:51 am
Gender is something we start being instructed and inculcated into, from such an early age, that it's hard to separate that training from our innate nature and personality (if that is even a thing that exists). Gender (as Roles) are a sort of thing one labels theirself with to better define their Gender (as Self Concept), especially when talking about theirself to others, or when making decisions about how they'll represent theirself in public.
Sometimes, people fully buy-in and ascribe to a Gender (as Role) they were assigned when young, whether because of their preference, peer pressure, parental instruction, bullying over non-standard gender expression choices, social pressures put on them before their sense of individuality formed, or whatever else. Sometimes, self-concept is based on the rejection of the "appropriate" or standardized Gender, per societal pressures, which goes on to inform their Self-Concept. Sometimes people revise their Genders during their teen years or adulthood, and do an Ala Carte thing to pick the aspects of Socially-Standard Genders that suit who they are. Sometimes, people invent their own self-concept entirely, or elect not to relate to the Gender of their culture. Just by living within society, and wearing it's clothes and interacting with members who do buy in to the culture, it's virtually impossible to avoid Gender-related baggage in it's entirety. People have no choice but to relate to it, in some way... even if that relationship is to invert it, deconstruct it, or reject it entirely.
Insofar as "Gender-as-Personality", that's something I'd lump with Sex, rather than Gender. I've heard of studies of neurology, and the tendencies and differences between the "Male" or "Female" brain; I'm not sure how rigorous they were, or if any study of the brain can really be separated from the effects of Nurture or Culture... but assuming it's a thing. The general conclusion is that some people have Brains that bias them toward certain activities, certain sexualities and attractions, and so on. Sometimes, people have brains that are more neurotypical for a different Sex than their assigned Sex, and that tends to cause clashes with the Gender Role they're likely to be assigned as well. But "Gender-as-Personality" is more a matter of your brain's physiology, rather than one of cultural norms or training.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 24, 2016, 03:02:06 pm
I know it's all anecdotal evidence, but I've been privy to (not-so-personal) diaries of people transitioning M-to-F, and their talk about how feelings effect them differently and how they're processed is, actually, pretty amazing.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 12:23:23 am
Quote from: some TERF blog's strawmen - err, no, straw-women
"Those mean transphobic powerful feminists want to restrict my access to rape shelters because they think I’m a man!"I am incredibly enraged. Like, my eyes are literally glowing. Get help.
"I just want to pee and those TERF bigots say I have to use the men’s room where I might get attacked!"
"Those bigoted cis lesbians say they don’t want to have sex with me because they don’t like penis. How do they even know that if they haven’t seen my penis? My penis is a girl’s penis."
Okay, what the fuck. That first straw-woman is just so fucked up. If a man has been raped, then they should fucking get helped. Is that less common than women getting raped? Of fucking course. Arguing that men shouldn't be helped by rape shelters because that's very uncommon is the same fucking logic that sexists use to support male-only things, because "oh this requires strength and women are generally weaker." Yeah, I know, but shouldn't the strong women be allowed too? Similarly, yeah, men are generally raped less, but we fucking help the ones that are. These are the feminists who the antifeminists use to nutpick against us. SUCH RAEG
Second sentence: Here's a strawman for you, you fucking sociopath. "Oh? Somebody is at danger of being attacked in a restroom? Like I give a shit. I don't like this person, remember? I think that they're a "fake woman."" YEAH FUCK YOU
Third: NOBODY EVEN SAYS THAT WHAT THE FUCK
ALSO SURE, KEEP ENFORCING THOSE GENDER ROLES, YOU ARE A VERY GOOD FEMINIST
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 25, 2016, 01:27:15 am
*makes WTF noises*
I don't understaaand.
Post by: ECrownofFire on November 25, 2016, 01:53:23 am
I can at least say for certainty that the "male/female brain" has been hotly contested and has flip-flopped quite a few times as to whether or not there is a difference (in structure. Hormones, again, play a yuuge part in mental tasks).
I know it's all anecdotal evidence, but I've been privy to (not-so-personal) diaries of people transitioning M-to-F, and their talk about how feelings effect them differently and how they're processed is, actually, pretty amazing.
There have been numerous studies on the subject of "brain sex" and there are a few conclusions that I've seen.
First of all, for the most part, classifying a particular brain as "male" or "female" is very difficult. The ranges overlap somewhat and there are many different individual areas that may or may not be larger/more connected/denser/etc.
However, statistically, there are definitely gaps and differences between "male and female brains". It has also been shown that trans women and cis women are similar in several aspects of their brain (and the same for trans men, but there have been less studies there).
In several of these studies, they've looked at trans people both before and after hormone treatment, so that doesn't affect things (IIRC there wasn't a significant difference between the two groups either). In the studies they also had a wide age range, including both early and late transitioning people, which should minimize effects of any brain changes that may happen due to socializing and such as a woman or man.
Also I'll say that personally, as a result of taking hormones, I don't really feel emotions any more intensely, but it's a lot easier to express them.
Post by: Solifuge on November 25, 2016, 07:30:29 am
- The emotional effects of the hormone cycle are in full force; when my hormone levels drop, I've gotten moody/bitchy, to the extent that I'm still learning how to be graceful about it. There's no physical pain or anything to drive it either, so it seems to be something my brain or body is doing on it's own. Not sure if that's a revelation to cis-gals out there, but I can only imagine the cramps et al. make it way worse. They'd probably do plenty to make anyone miserable on their own.
- From what it seems, emotions of any sort impact me harder and are processed faster. In large part, I think that's just continued emotional thawing-out, as I kick old dissociating-from-my-feelings habits due to dysphoria and other formative experiences. I experience a lot less depression, and a more comfortable range of moods in general too. Again, there's obvious and non-hormonal reasons for that, including greater self-acceptance and better self-actualization, a huge decrease in dysphoria, the support of friends and family, a better sense of who I am and what I want to do, a better agreement between the kind of person I am and the kind of person I present to the world, etc.
- Another example that was unexpected but pretty clear-cut; having Androgens in my system seems to have suppressed motion sickness; for example, I could read when riding as a passenger without any nausea. Without Androgens in my system, I got super queasy every time I did that. This applied to experiences with VR as well, which makes me think it's something to do with the Vestibular System, and the general sense of motion and balance. Normally, folks think of that as an inherently "Male" neurology thing, but since I've gained and lost it, that suggests it's been 100% hormone-dependent.
I'm keeping on the lookout for other trends like that, cliches to investigate or bust, etc., since I've had the two neurological perspectives to work off of. That said, a grain of salt, for anyone taking anecdotes like this as absolutes or hard facts; I'm just one person, with a particular personality, set of experiences and biases, etc.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 12:57:19 pm
*looks at above post*TERFs are Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. They claim that No Real Feminist would support trans-women, and instead they call them by their old pronouns, go out of their way to insult them, and make horrible straw-women like "waaa lesbians won't have sex with my female penis."
*makes WTF noises*
I don't understaaand.
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2016, 01:00:37 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 01:03:42 pm
That one line was born out of a single particulary insane trans porn star that had a bad reaction out of the fact a certain lesbian pornstar didn't want to do a video with her because she had a penis. Bit of an old story by now.Well, that's called "nutpicking." It's as bad as strawmanning.
If you use the complaints of a single insane trans-woman to delegitimize the complaints of all trans-women, you might as well be using the complaints of a strawman to do the same.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 25, 2016, 01:04:08 pm
No, like, I know what they are, I just don't get what they're even saying. Or what you're saying. :v*looks at above post*TERFs are Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. They claim that No Real Feminist would support trans-women, and instead they call them by their old pronouns, go out of their way to insult them, and make horrible straw-women like "waaa lesbians won't have sex with my female penis."
*makes WTF noises*
I don't understaaand.
Except for that last one which is all around crazy.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 01:05:54 pm
THEY ARE BEING TRANSPHOBIC HYPOCRITICAL PIECES OF SHITNo, like, I know what they are, I just don't get what they're even saying. Or what you're saying. :v*looks at above post*TERFs are Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. They claim that No Real Feminist would support trans-women, and instead they call them by their old pronouns, go out of their way to insult them, and make horrible straw-women like "waaa lesbians won't have sex with my female penis."
*makes WTF noises*
I don't understaaand.
Except for that last one which is all around crazy.
I AM ENRAGED
Post by: TempAcc on November 25, 2016, 01:06:36 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 25, 2016, 01:07:41 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 01:09:56 pm
... Like, is this inverse Poe's law going on here? I feel like I'm missing context...What would that even be? Poe's Law says that fundamentalists are indistinguishable from parodies of such.
I read a TERF blog. I needed to RAEG. So I posted here to let out the RAEG.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 25, 2016, 01:16:48 pm
Post by: uber pye on November 25, 2016, 01:57:41 pm
Post by: Kansa on November 25, 2016, 05:29:03 pm
I've just been going through a lot of feelings lately and it would help a lot.
Post by: Kansa on November 25, 2016, 07:11:52 pm
I guess there isn't anyway to know for sure, right?
Post by: Solifuge on November 25, 2016, 07:14:02 pm
I think when I was very young, I experienced clearer feelings of something like jealousy, or not understanding why I was the way I was, as opposed to another way. I got shamed and trained out of feeling that way over time, and forgot about it. The symptoms started again with feeling upset and not-good about puberty crap, rather than feeling excited or whatever. After that, persistent depression settled in, plus dissociation and a lack of awareness of what I was feeling, what I wanted or needed to do, lack of connection to other people, lots of other things. I lost sight of it again, and that sort of persistent out-of-touch-with-myself feeling continued for the next decade or so, until I started to sort my identity out.
The pattern was hard to see while I was dealing with it. Getting a change in perspective and all that helped me see the pieces of it. But yeah, it's kinda hard to know based on that alone.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 07:27:44 pm
Post by: Kansa on November 25, 2016, 07:48:29 pm
It's just so confusing and I don't know what to think, or whether I'm just making the feelings up or not.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 07:53:38 pm
Thank you, I can relate to not wanting to grow up.That's exactly where I am right now.
It's just so confusing and I don't know what to think, or whether I'm just making the feelings up or not.
Post by: spümpkin on November 25, 2016, 08:04:21 pm
As has been said, it's different for everyone. The wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria) has a pretty suitable range of possible symptoms, but it's very easy to mistake for anxiety, regular body discomfort, depression, etc. It's a hard thing to define, and as such takes years to actually nail down.
Post by: Starver on November 25, 2016, 08:05:44 pm
It's hard to say, either way. Each human has just one experience to judge their existence against, depending on how solipsist you want to get over it.
The better way of thinking of it might be that unless you're in a particularly conformist culture (and, thanks to your presence on here, you've obviously found the Internet which so easily breaks down the conceptual edges of anything like that, if you let if) you can see that other people are around who are similarly (or at least equivalently) not so easy to self-label, or at least willing to use the labels given by others.
Take your time. Some things might take a while to work out, but that's what life is often about, from finding a favourite author to getting yourself a career.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2016, 08:44:49 pm
I'm sorry if it's been asked before but what does Gender Dysphoria feel like?
I've just been going through a lot of feelings lately and it would help a lot.
Not the best one to ask. That should be asked of people who have suffered it in the more mainstream way.
But, as I mentioned earlier, internally I do not ascribe to a gender, really. That said, I am physiologically male.
It is my understanding that people with stronger dysphoria (I dont hate that I have a penis, I just dont have an internal gender, and am ambivalent about the physical one I was born with-- People with strong dysphoria are internally THE OTHER gender, and deeply resent being stuck in a body that does not match.) suffer a serious self-identity crisis, and feel locked out of the world, because others insist that they conform to their physical body, rather than their internal gender identity. (I only get this a little, but usually people just think I am gay, when in fact I am ungendered. I shrug, and allow them their easier to understand, but incorrect interpretation of my behavior.) People with strong gender identity disagreement long to wear the pretty dress, because damnit-- that dress is pretty! Why do natural born women want to wear pretty dresses? The transsexual wants to wear the dress for the same reasons. (and vise-versa, for born females that are internally male.) However, society sees their natural desire to be what they are inside, manifest on the outside, as "degenerate", and "sick", when in reality they feel stifled and trapped by their body.
Transsexuals are not "Perverted men who want to use the ladies' room so they can stare." or "Weird, gross women who deny being lesbians." or any other incorrect interpretation. They are people trapped inside the wrong body type, and when they get surgery to fix that, they want to be treated like they were born that way. They want to use the ladies' room because they are ladies, or they want to be with women romantically, because they are heterosexual men.
Doze is angry about the TERPs he mentions, because there is a woman is being denied rape services, because she was born male.
Post by: Kansa on November 25, 2016, 08:50:47 pm
That's exactly where I am right now.
It's nice to know that someone's in the same situation as me.
Thank you all very much, I really appreciate all your advice and help. Hopefully I'll figure it out one day.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2016, 09:00:06 pm
You could be like me, and have the hormones flow, grow the beard and all the hair-- and watch perplexed at how all your peers lose their ever loving minds, while you remain basically the same.
(and then mis-attribute your lack of interest in boobies as being a secret interest in penis, when the idea is equally alien to you.)
Hell, I am in my late 30s, and STILL haven't had that kind of transition to "male-ness."
Testosterone isn't a bad thing, it increases your muscle mass, helps you stay thin, and helps regulate your metabolism as an adult. Sure, it makes you grow hair, but meh-- Unless you are mortified by having said hair, it isn't that bad. You can shave off hair. Estrogen? That makes you grow boobies, and those are harder to deal with I understand. I'll take the testosterone. If I want to get rid of the hair, there are any number of inexpensive products one can use, in the comfort and privacy of one's home.
Dont worry about the physical nitty gritty of growing up, or growing older. Just follow the advice of the old bard-- "Above all else, to thine own self be true."
Post by: Solifuge on November 25, 2016, 09:57:30 pm
As has been said, it's different for everyone. The wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria) has a pretty suitable range of possible symptoms, but it's very easy to mistake for anxiety, regular body discomfort, depression, etc. It's a hard thing to define, and as such takes years to actually nail down.
Yeah, that's my main point. I didn't really get it back then, and thought that those symptoms were part of many other things. The fact that they cleared up after I started transitioning was a good indication of their cause, though. Back then, I didn't have the headspace to sort it out; I was an mental and emotional mess, dealing with a lot of other things that weighed a lot more heavily on my mind, and were a lot more obvious. I didn't unravel the gender puzzle and recognize the feelings I was experiencing for what they were, until much later.
While that is true, and not-feeling-good-about-puberty might be suggestive of dysphoria, it is not a definitive sign of dysphoria, right?
Of course not; Everyone's different, and the same feeling can have a very different reason in different people too. I'm just talking about things that were indicators for me. Feeling wrong in one's body once puberty hit is something that's been common for other trans and non-binary folks I've talked to as well.
When I talked with family about that feeling, they told me I was probably just anxious about adulthood and responsibility, and I believed them (as though I hadn't already been cooking, cleaning, working, and otherwise taking care of myself by that age). I used to put a lot more weight behind other people's assessments than my own back then, which was a huge part of the problem. Letting other people tell me how I felt or who I was... that was a big part of what made figuring everything out so hard.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 25, 2016, 10:05:20 pm
Heh, it could be worse Kansa.Hah, that's almost exactly my situation. Whether it's peers losing their minds over penis and butt, or losing their minds over MACHO IDIOCY, or arsehole boys, I've dreamt of just skipping the next few years, but...
You could be like me, and have the hormones flow, grow the beard and all the hair-- and watch perplexed at how all your peers lose their ever loving minds, while you remain basically the same.
Quote
(and then mis-attribute your lack of interest in boobies as being a secret interest in penis, when the idea is equally alien to you.)(thanks for pointing out that pitfall, I almost fell into it)
Quote
Hell, I am in my late 30s, and STILL haven't had that kind of transition to "male-ness."...and I'm guessing that the lost minds still haven't gone away yet. Sigh.
Quote
Testosterone isn't a bad thing, it increases your muscle mass, helps you stay thin, and helps regulate your metabolism as an adult. Sure, it makes you grow hair, but meh-- Unless you are mortified by having said hair, it isn't that bad. You can shave off hair. Estrogen? That makes you grow boobies, and those are harder to deal with I understand. I'll take the testosterone. If I want to get rid of the hair, there are any number of inexpensive products one can use, in the comfort and privacy of one's home.I'll take that! Very useful. Pseudo-sour grapes are always good for feeling !bad. :P
Quote
Dont worry about the physical nitty gritty of growing up, or growing older. Just follow the advice of the old bard-- "Above all else, to thine own self be true."Hmm...
Spoiler: personal gender rant (click to show/hide)
TL;DR: Ahahaha, I think I figured out why I've been feeling bad - association. Also I'm pretty sure I'm agender.
Also I'm pretty sure I'm misusing the term association, but I don't care, it fits.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2016, 10:26:04 pm
they never return, even a little, to the people that just liked playing soccer, or just liked watching movies/cartoons that they were when they were younger. Now the sports are to show off to women, and the movies need "sexytime" with hollywood starlets or they lose interest.
Its more complicated in girls, but the pink aisle madness tends to settle down when they get older, usually mid 30s.
Post by: Tiruin on November 25, 2016, 10:31:16 pm
Dozebôm, please do follow up your conclusions with a professional, because it's coming off to me that you're working with surface-reasoning given the allowance of the internet to branch out for details (which is pretty common with people now) x_x There's a lot more to this than cognitive dissociation and association, alongside past experience with gender roles due to current environment/vicinity (alongside mentions of interest). Gender is not defined by stereotypical norms. :I [Surface-reasoning != Not your capabilities to reason, but the amount of ideas presented to you that can be better worked with when in physical communication with someone else]
Especially given stereotypical American culture as a big influence given it's note as a major world power [and thus its culture being sprayed everywhere--which includes the not-really-nice-bits, especially over the internet and social media at times].
Also there's mixing one's preferences with one's identity x.x which are different things altogether, and that's poking your mind as if it was a seperate entity in its working when that's you and yourself, but I get the humor in it.
Like a nice contending note with experience: Movies :O Good note of masculinity is a nice ol' movie called George in the Jungle, really presents a more 'realistic' view of masculinity with the protagonist instead of a jerk that goes TESTOSTEROOOONE! and stuff.
Post by: wierd on November 25, 2016, 10:49:31 pm
(To me, a "chick flick" is a movie about female wish fulfillment, rather than just good narrative, or evocative story telling.)
An example is Chocolat (2000! not 2016. The one about the itinerant gypsy woman and her daughter that open a french chocolate shop, and improve the lives of the entire french town they are in, before moving on.)
It didnt have flagrant sexytime, or explosions, so it did not appeal to mainstream male audiences. I however, really enjoyed it.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 26, 2016, 01:36:25 am
:onooooooooooooooooooooo I just resolved things what do you mean
Dozebôm, please do follow up your conclusions with a professional
Quote
because it's coming off to me that you're working with surface-reasoning given the allowance of the internet to branch out for details (which is pretty common with people now) x_xI actually didn't use the internet to come to this conclusion. Also what do you mean I'm not an expert on psychology... fine it might be useful to see a professional, if you think that's best, I'm just... embarrassed to talk to RL people about this.
Quote
There's a lot more to this than cognitive dissociation and association, alongside past experience with gender roles due to current environment/vicinity (alongside mentions of interest). Gender is not defined by stereotypical norms. :IBut that's the point. If I "unlink" the various stereotypes and roles from gender itself, that's good right?
Quote
[Surface-reasoning != Not your capabilities to reason, but the amount of ideas presented to you that can be better worked with when in physical communication with someone else]So you're saying that talking > typing for this kind of conversation?
Quote
Especially given stereotypical American culture as a big influence given it's note as a major world power [and thus its culture being sprayed everywhere--which includes the not-really-nice-bits, especially over the internet and social media at times.]So unlinking the stereotypes from gender would help, right? That's what I'm doing.
Quote
Also there's mixing one's preferences with one's identity x.x which are different things altogether,Again, did I write that correctly? Because the whole point of Project Disassociate was to distinguish between all those things. They are different.
Quote
and that's poking your mind as if it was a seperate entity in its working when that's you and yourself, but I get the humor in it.humor? it is SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY what do you mean that's impossible, thinking of myself as somebody else cannot possibly go wrong
Post by: Kansa on November 26, 2016, 05:36:33 am
Heh, it could be worse Kansa.
You could be like me, and have the hormones flow, grow the beard and all the hair-- and watch perplexed at how all your peers lose their ever loving minds, while you remain basically the same.
(and then mis-attribute your lack of interest in boobies as being a secret interest in penis, when the idea is equally alien to you.)
Hell, I am in my late 30s, and STILL haven't had that kind of transition to "male-ness."
Testosterone isn't a bad thing, it increases your muscle mass, helps you stay thin, and helps regulate your metabolism as an adult. Sure, it makes you grow hair, but meh-- Unless you are mortified by having said hair, it isn't that bad. You can shave off hair. Estrogen? That makes you grow boobies, and those are harder to deal with I understand. I'll take the testosterone. If I want to get rid of the hair, there are any number of inexpensive products one can use, in the comfort and privacy of one's home.
Dont worry about the physical nitty gritty of growing up, or growing older. Just follow the advice of the old bard-- "Above all else, to thine own self be true."
It could be worse yeah.
The hair and the voice are the main things, I can shave off the hair at least (Though I wish I had the courage to just do it :-\). The voice is more difficult but at least it sounds better when I don't actually listen to it recorded.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2016, 05:44:39 am
(Also facial hair but that's permanently removable if you have enough money)
Post by: Kansa on November 26, 2016, 06:20:21 am
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 08:26:18 am
:onooooooooooooooooooooo I just resolved things what do you mean
Dozebôm, please do follow up your conclusions with a professionalQuotebecause it's coming off to me that you're working with surface-reasoning given the allowance of the internet to branch out for details (which is pretty common with people now) x_xI actually didn't use the internet to come to this conclusion. Also what do you mean I'm not an expert on psychology... fine it might be useful to see a professional, if you think that's best, I'm just... embarrassed to talk to RL people about this.QuoteThere's a lot more to this than cognitive dissociation and association, alongside past experience with gender roles due to current environment/vicinity (alongside mentions of interest). Gender is not defined by stereotypical norms. :IBut that's the point. If I "unlink" the various stereotypes and roles from gender itself, that's good right?Quote[Surface-reasoning != Not your capabilities to reason, but the amount of ideas presented to you that can be better worked with when in physical communication with someone else]So you're saying that talking > typing for this kind of conversation?QuoteEspecially given stereotypical American culture as a big influence given it's note as a major world power [and thus its culture being sprayed everywhere--which includes the not-really-nice-bits, especially over the internet and social media at times.]So unlinking the stereotypes from gender would help, right? That's what I'm doing.QuoteAlso there's mixing one's preferences with one's identity x.x which are different things altogether,Again, did I write that correctly? Because the whole point of Project Disassociate was to distinguish between all those things. They are different.Quoteand that's poking your mind as if it was a seperate entity in its working when that's you and yourself, but I get the humor in it.humor? it is SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY what do you mean that's impossible, thinking of myself as somebody else cannot possibly go wrong
Tir has a point on the last bit. I dont think about myself from an imposed outside perspective, I just accept what and who I am, and do not succumb to what others think I should be. Those are not the same thing. If I want to play with crochet and knitting as relaxing hobbies, there is nothing wrong with that. Men have been working with textiles for centuries, the gender bias is nearly entirely a socially imposed construct-- etc.
Kansa:
For the voice, adult males have this thing called falsetto. (women too, but it is most pronounced in men.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsetto
Like other physical tasks, if you use your falsetto frequently, or even preferentially, you will find it becomes your default modal voice.
It need not sound harsh or unnatural either, if you learn good control with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iox2ypl5jSg
also this kid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7dPlCzUG44
My natural range is baritone, which is between tenor and bass, but I have very good control of my falsetto. I can hit ALL of the tenor range, and some of the alto range, and do it well. I might be coaxed into giving a sample if you want.
Post by: Solifuge on November 26, 2016, 08:56:07 am
On the near future side: in the lab, researchers have even begun to enable organ transdifferentiation and fertility in Post-Puberty mice using the body's natural Sex-Deciding and Maintaining mechanisms; the same ones that enable some species to change sex in adulthood exist in Mammals, but are just not being used by the body. Mammals experience more physical differences between the sexes which might not change, but research suggests they'd be able to produce their own hormones, develop secondary traits, and potentially have kids as their identifying sex with a bit of medical assistance.
As a side note, contrary to what society tells people by things like the word "pass", trans people don't need to make others believe they are a cisgendered person as part of being Trans. Some transmen don't have deep voices, beards, or masculine shoulders; some transwomen have bushy eyebrows, low voices, stubble, and big hands. These exact same things happen in Cisgendered people too. Bodies don't have gender, and not fitting an arbitrary beauty-standard, or having a body that's different than other people of your gender doesn't make you less valid in your identity, or any less of a Man, Woman, or Person.
Edit: Wierd, relying on falsetto is generally considered bad advice for a transperson trying to pass as Cis; it lacks overtones, and sounds tin-ish and thin, and like a person doing a silly or cartoon voice. Better to practice intonation, and use your upper comfortable range; men and women have overlap in half or more of their range. The tricky thing to learn is intonation, "resonance" or timbre, and manner of speaking.
Post by: Tiruin on November 26, 2016, 09:02:45 am
[...]This last part (along with transposing the word 'clothes' for 'bodies' in regards to gender) is a lot of my thoughts onto there \o/ Rigid physical stereotypy, or the conceptual 'face value' is sometimes a hindrance too when used as one's perception onto others' perception onto them.
As a side note, contrary to what society tells people by things like the word "pass", trans people don't need to make others believe they are a cisgendered person as part of being Trans. Some transmen don't have deep voices, beards, or masculine shoulders; some transwomen have bushy eyebrows, low voices, stubble, and big hands. These exact same things happen in Cisgendered people too. Bodies don't have gender, and not fitting an arbitrary beauty-standard, or having a body that's different than other people of your gender doesn't make you less valid in your identity, or any less of a Man, Woman, or Person.
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 10:36:01 am
Actually, hormones meditate most of the things we think of as male or female appearance. Facial and body hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your family when on DHT blocking antiandrogens. Bone structure is what it is, but face and body shape are significantly changed by muscle mass and fat deposits, which change based on hormones. Male and Female voices have an octave or more of vocal overlap, and with training anyone can learn to speak and even sing in a range suitable for their identity. That aside, there's also surgical options for all of the above, if that's your preference or if you have the money.
On the near future side: in the lab, researchers have even begun to enable organ transdifferentiation and fertility in Post-Puberty mice using the body's natural Sex-Deciding and Maintaining mechanisms; the same ones that enable some species to change sex in adulthood exist in Mammals, but are just not being used by the body. Mammals experience more physical differences between the sexes which might not change, but research suggests they'd be able to produce their own hormones, develop secondary traits, and potentially have kids as their identifying sex with a bit of medical assistance.
As a side note, contrary to what society tells people by things like the word "pass", trans people don't need to make others believe they are a cisgendered person as part of being Trans. Some transmen don't have deep voices, beards, or masculine shoulders; some transwomen have bushy eyebrows, low voices, stubble, and big hands. These exact same things happen in Cisgendered people too. Bodies don't have gender, and not fitting an arbitrary beauty-standard, or having a body that's different than other people of your gender doesn't make you less valid in your identity, or any less of a Man, Woman, or Person.
Edit: Wierd, relying on falsetto is generally considered bad advice for a transperson trying to pass as Cis; it lacks overtones, and sounds tin-ish and thin, and like a person doing a silly or cartoon voice. Better to practice intonation, and use your upper comfortable range; men and women have overlap in half or more of their range. The tricky thing to learn is intonation, "resonance" or timbre, and manner of speaking.
I did not mean the really really false sounding kind. More, practice using upper registers. Also, falsetto need not sound thin or airy. With proper voice training, it can produce very rich sound. Dont practice in public of course, it sounds weird when not well used, but it is normal and accepted by most to use it for pets, which can overcome the "wtf?" people have when they hear it when unpracticed, and gives a good use case for training. When used right, you should feel some 'rumble' in your throat. if you just feel tight, you are not doing it right. It is that secondary vibration (rumble) that gives natural timbre. Hard to explain, you just have to pay attention to normal vocalization, and if you dont feel that same vibration, you are not using your full vocal chords, and will get the unnatural sound. Practice will give you control of the upper registers with proper timbre.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2016, 10:41:06 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 26, 2016, 10:44:43 am
I used it to talk to pets, but, well, I sounded kind of like Elmo for some reason. :VWas your pet a cow-cat?
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2016, 10:46:00 am
One of my friends was worried about her voice during transition. I told her she shouldn't worry because she always sounded like a slut to me.
I am very loving friend.
Man would I have a lot of trouble if I was a trans person, since my voice is a combination of south park and serial murderer. I wish I sounded more like JEREMY IRONS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL4w__Vqdjg&t)
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 10:50:16 am
Hard to explain.
Put your fingers on your throat, and talk like elmo. You will feel very little vibration, if any at all. That is because the actual vocal chords are not vibrating, just the outer mucosa on them. Now, talk normally. You will feel strong vibration with your fingers. There is a lot of secondary and tertiary vibration in normal vocalization, because the whole chord is used. Now, try talking like elmo, but lower the tone carefully until you feel the vibration. You will likely find there is a 'break' in the voice. This is normal. It will be hard to have full timbre in upper registers at first, but with practice the range can be extended until the 'break' between full voice and airy-fake falsetto vanishes.
Again, short of japanese cliches, women dont sound like they breathe pure helium. Lots of brassy tones in female voices.
Some women even have downright manly voices. There is a lot of overlap. You do NOT want to sound like michael jackson. If you have to force it, it will sound forced.
Post by: Starver on November 26, 2016, 11:48:40 am
I'm no competently musical sort, but have you ever tried to ♬Laaaa!♬at a constant(ish!) note(ish!) but change the timbre? If you can't 'slide' it, experiment with any note at two or more different offsets. My normal mid-range ♬Laaaa... ♬can be made to sound like a lower-register straining too high or a higher-register straining to be too low. Achieve that, and then you can work out how to use the lower register properly low and the same for high.
(I understand that this is how wide-ranging vocalists fulfil the range. But having no ear for notes, at least of my own production, I've never actually tried singing outside of a usefully camouflaging group effort. Jeremy Irons? More like Jeremy Hardy (https://youtu.be/IhnQV8urYy4)... ;) )
At the very least, I can make a convincing mid-voice that sounds like a high voice trying to be a bit too low, and a mid-deep one that's a very deep one trying to rise to high. Which I more use as a useful effect in comedy voices, not myself having anything to pass for, but it doesn't have to be comedy, if you're someone who has to pass. Just practice first, and get a third-party's opinion, maybe... ;)
Post by: Kansa on November 26, 2016, 01:56:53 pm
I'm glad to hear things like that would change, even if it's only slightly.
I guess I wouldn't have to pass, but I would like to if I'm able to.
Thank you for the advice about the voice. I'll try training it and see if I can learn to speak higher.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 26, 2016, 02:32:48 pm
Post by: Arx on November 26, 2016, 03:05:33 pm
Post by: sjm9876 on November 26, 2016, 06:22:25 pm
Facial hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your familyAre you certain that this is general? Pretty much every account of HRT I've heard has said that regards facial hair there is pretty much no change? Though having said that, I'd imagine a lot of it is dependent on how developed the facial hair is beforehand, etc.
Post by: TempAcc on November 26, 2016, 07:33:01 pm
Post by: Starver on November 26, 2016, 07:54:14 pm
Spoiler: Totally non-serious responses... (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on November 26, 2016, 08:10:50 pm
Post by: Solifuge on November 26, 2016, 10:04:13 pm
Facial hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your familyAre you certain that this is general? Pretty much every account of HRT I've heard has said that regards facial hair there is pretty much no change? Though having said that, I'd imagine a lot of it is dependent on how developed the facial hair is beforehand, etc.
Sorry in advance if this is getting too much into BioChem stuff.
So, there's multiple Androgens (Masculinizing Hormones) in the body, and different ones are more or less potent on certain receptors. DHT is a Testosterone decay product (sort of), which activates androgen receptors more strongly than Testosterone, and stays in the blood for longer. DHT is the most significant trigger for causing facial/body hair in men and women to grow as thicker terminal hair rather than peach fuzz vellus hair. DHT also triggers the hair dormancy seen in androgenic alopecia (Male-Pattern Baldness). Not all hormone regimens inhibit DHT synthesis as well as Testosterone production, but those that do tend to see a much more significant decrease in body and facial hair.
Post by: ECrownofFire on November 27, 2016, 12:44:35 am
I've heard that body and facial hair differ quite a bit in how they're affected by T and DHT. Mainly that body hair growth is much more "dependent" on it, and so low T and/or DHT will decrease body hair to a rather large degree. But facial is a bit more tricky and will still grow a fair bit even without either hormone.Facial hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your familyAre you certain that this is general? Pretty much every account of HRT I've heard has said that regards facial hair there is pretty much no change? Though having said that, I'd imagine a lot of it is dependent on how developed the facial hair is beforehand, etc.
Sorry in advance if this is getting too much into BioChem stuff.
So, there's multiple Androgens (Masculinizing Hormones) in the body, and different ones are more or less potent on certain receptors. DHT is a Testosterone decay product (sort of), which activates androgen receptors more strongly than Testosterone, and stays in the blood for longer. DHT is the most significant trigger for causing facial/body hair in men and women to grow as thicker terminal hair rather than peach fuzz vellus hair. DHT also triggers the hair dormancy seen in androgenic alopecia (Male-Pattern Baldness). Not all hormone regimens inhibit DHT synthesis as well as Testosterone production, but those that do tend to see a much more significant decrease in body and facial hair.
And would something that inhibits T production not inherently inhibit DHT synthesis? Just by the fact that less T means less to convert. Unless you mean that you'd still have significantly more DHT even if your T levels are at that of a cis woman's.
Either way, I'm still gonna need electrolysis to get rid of mine... Ugh. Probably gonna go for laser hair treatment first to get rid of most of it.
Personally I've noticed that my body hair is a little slower to grow. My facial hair might be a tiny bit slower too. Though it's really hard to know for sure, and I've never bothered to keep track of it.
Post by: Starver on November 27, 2016, 09:33:56 am
If T production is suppressed, but not eliminated, and what T there is still has the mechanism to convert to DHT then it's possible that the further mechanism to 'disarm', 'dismantle' or further down-convert the DHT is throttled up/down by the T levels, not the DHT (biology being what it is and often uses slightly more complicated feedback loops than we might have designed it with).
Because if history has taught the evolving human body one thing, it may be that a slowly reducing level of Testosterone ought to immediately slowly reduce the removal of (soon to reduce by lower input) DHT, rather than wait for the production lag to kick in, all the better to oil the wheels of the human body at that time in life.
Or, because evolution tends to care less about what happens once reproduction starts to tail off, it's actually more a mechanism for the ramping up stage, in puberty. Rapid rises in T means rapid rises in DHT shortly, thus get the DHT-targetting enzymes ready now, lest that product spike in awkward ways before their moderation mechanismd detect them and start to kick in.
All of which makes sense in (most) natural bodies, but is a complication that medical intervention really needs to understand before trying a single-target artificial adjustment of just one (or one 'level') of the modern bodily 'humours'. Like messing with just one or two valves on a multi-product chemical synthesis plant's spaghetti-pipework and not anticipating a knock-on effect down a different feeder pipe that's now at a higher flow-rate or pressure.
Post by: Reelya on November 30, 2016, 09:09:20 pm
Now they're talking about a "voluntary manslaughter" plea deal where she gets three months in prison, community service and has to attend an "anger management" course.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/niece-of-californian-mayorsays-his-wife-should-have-divorced-him-rather-than-shot-him-dead/news-story/e075e14a80452b9861988683c0d29724
Quote
One recording captured an exchange with his wife in which Daniel asked: “Why would you threaten to shoot me?”
“Well, if you cheat, that’s what I would do,” Lyvette responded.
Yeah a totally non-premeditated self-defense, spur-of-the-moment thing. It's a gender issue because gender stereotypes play into this ridiculous situation where a woman who had a history of making those specific threats on the record carries them out, but then all that's washed away by a gendered narrative: she was abused. But the text message pattern shows that she was the aggressor, constantly hounding him about who he associated with and making death threats etc. In those situations (very controlling partner who constantly hounds you about what you're doing) I think that can excuse the occasional lashing out back at the controlling partner. If a man was constantly hounding his female partner about who she associated with and made death threats, i think that would totally excuse the occasional violent outburst from the woman. Nobody should be expected to put up with that shit with a constant smile on their face regardless of the genders involved. If we switched genders in this case there's no frikkin way they'd be talking a lenient plea deal justified by "he was abused" because the woman occasional lashed out at the controlling partner. It's ridiculous.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 30, 2016, 09:20:41 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 01, 2016, 08:37:44 am
Post by: Shadowlord on December 01, 2016, 09:41:10 am
Men are still expected to take the initiative, apparently, but if a guy tells someone they're cute or w/e it's sexual harassment*? So confusing.
* or so I hear on the internets, because I don't hit on people irl, or talk to random people that I don't know and have no reason to be talking to**
** I bet parents drilling "don't talk to strangers" into their kids is why we*** all seem to need dating apps**** today
*** this generation
**** I haven't used any of said apps, because "I don't have a job or vehicle why would anyone want to date me"
That was a bit of a tangent. Sorry about that.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 01, 2016, 10:22:53 am
I saw someone tweet "How do you know if a guy likes you?" and while I did not reply, I thought "You know, that's a good question."It's a relevant tangent, IMHO.
Men are still expected to take the initiative, apparently, but if a guy tells someone they're cute or w/e it's sexual harassment*? So confusing.
* or so I hear on the internets, because I don't hit on people irl, or talk to random people that I don't know and have no reason to be talking to**
** I bet parents drilling "don't talk to strangers" into their kids is why we*** all seem to need dating apps**** today
*** this generation
**** I haven't used any of said apps, because "I don't have a job or vehicle why would anyone want to date me"
That was a bit of a tangent. Sorry about that.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 01, 2016, 11:05:21 am
So don't use words like p****y, don't continue to ask after she says no, don't intimidate her. Easy. As long as you follow those rules, it's not sexual harassment.
...don't tell me, some people are calling any sexual advance that they don't like "sexual harassment". *sigh* I recall a tale, it might have been an urban legend, about a girl who accused anybody she didn't think "looked good enough" of sexual harassment. I hope to Armok people like that don't exist, but they probably do. GODDAMN IT WORLD, THIS IS AN ACTUAL ISSUE, STOP IT!
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 12:35:16 pm
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2016, 02:16:25 pm
In my home state, there is no "common sense" arbitration on what constitutes sexual harassment. The defining factor is if the victim THINKS they have been harassed, THEN THEY HAVE BEEN. Yes, the defining characteristic is the FEELING, not any specific act.
A co-worker winks and smiles, and it makes you uncomfortable? BAM-- Sexual harassment.
Somebody calls you "sweety", or "sugar" (in the southern lexicon sense), and it makes you uncomfortable? BAM-- Sexual harassment.
In the mad rush to never blame the victim (even when the sense of being victimized really *IS* absurd, and following through will ruin innocent people's lives), we have created such absurd standards.
How do you prove that something made you feel uncomfortable? YOU CANT. The court has no choice but to accept the testimony a-priori, and assume the statement is ontologically true, and proceed from there. Why do you think HR fucking HATES sexual harassment claims?
What happens when you cannot defend against an accuser? Miscarriage of justice, and kangaroo courts.
(This is one of the poster children for how well-meaning progressivism that is NOT well thought out in implementation fucks everyone over, and makes people more willing to vote for somebody like Trump.)
You can read more about it here:
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/currentissues.pdf
straight from the equal employment opportunity people.
relevant verbiage on page 4.
The arbitrating factor is the "welcomeness" of the exchanges, and guess what- they dont even need to be directed at YOU for you to be able to lodge a title VII claim with HR. You just have to feel it makes the workplace hostile or toxic. Your FEELING is the arbitrating factor.
I understand that how people feel impacts their lives, but so does having a suit brought.
Observe said chilling effects, as discussed by others prior.
Ladies, men are NOT telepaths, and they have to deal with the reactions of the rest of the women in the workplace as well. He cant just rush up to you, and follow you around like a puppy dog lavishing attention on you. Other women in the workplace will find it vulgar, and file complaints. That means men are not welcome to approach you on anything remotely related to initiating a relationship, or even could possibly, maybe, be conceived of as being related to initiating a relationship. That kind of cold turkey cessation is the only way to fully, and reliably remain in compliance with the laws as they currently are. anything else is dangerously risky in a very real, legal, "oh shit, my career and livelihood!" way.
It is why the rule of thumb is "Never date a co-worker."
The sad part is that most people spend the vast majority of their time as adults, AT THE WORKPLACE. Patterns of behavior established at the workplace can and do carry over to private life.
Then you end up with the "Why wont men ever hit on me? Am I ugly or something?" neurosis women are now complaining about. Rather than honestly evaluate how hostile laws like this have made the situation, the answer is clearly that men are pigs... somehow... for not being pigs... Yeah. That makes total sense.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 01, 2016, 06:48:28 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 07:02:00 pm
Is that *completely* wrong? I don't really think so, for similar reasons as I support racial affirmative action. But when it comes to condemning people without proper evidence, I think it goes too far. Including when it's trial-by-media, or community.
Ladies, men are NOT telepaths, and they have to deal with the reactions of the rest of the women in the workplace as well.Yes
It is why the rule of thumb is "Never date a co-worker."Maybe not *never*-never, but you did say it's a rule of thumb. Yeah. Tread carefully with people you're forced to see on a weekly basis. That can get awkward.
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2016, 07:07:50 pm
Unrealistic expections from life (the premise of the legislation, 'everyone has the right to never experience unwelcome interaction from people of a sexual nature', is unreasonable. To whit, I am a person who finds any display of public affection icky. to satisfy my 'rights', nobody can say, do, or allude to whatever kinky shit it is you do with each other at home. Is that reasonable? NO. IT IS NOT.) being placated by the courts, leads to unrealistic outcomes. Such as men being afraid to ask you out.
It is better for everyone when expectations are realistic, and nobody with extreme views gets to dictate policy as the lowest common factor.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 01, 2016, 07:11:42 pm
Well yeah, for better or worse, the legal system is strongly "affirmative action" for women. They get the benefit of the doubt.IIRC there's some law or Constitutional section about how a trial should go, that you need evidence to judge someone as guilty, the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. It might just be a very important custom, though.
Is that *completely* wrong? I don't really think so, for similar reasons as I support racial affirmative action. But when it comes to condemning people without proper evidence, I think it goes too far. Including when it's trial-by-media, or community.
Indeed: When affirmative action starts violating one of the most sacred principles in the the American criminal justice system, it's gone too far.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 07:36:24 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 07:41:33 pm
Because we don't actually have "innocent until proven guilty", and that is very scary.
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2016, 07:42:12 pm
ninja x2
re, video refutation
Which only works when there is something physical, which can have evidence to disprove.
With sexual harassment, the thing injured is the psyche, and the only real evidence is the claim.
Again, I honestly get grossed out by any public display of affection. How do you disprove my statement of this fact?
The law, as written, says I have the RIGHT to not feel unwelcome or toxic exposure to statements or acts of a sexual nature. Having to be in a room where two people are playing tonsil hockey is such an experience for me. Very distracting and unwelcome.
The deal is, I recognize that I am the anomalous one, and that my discomfort is better than imposing a dystopia on everyone else. I thus willfully refuse to report it when I see people sneak a kiss at work, or talks about whatever nasty kinky thing that turns them on, if they are at least trying to be discrete.
I do that because I value other peoples happiness.
Most people value their own desires first and foremost, and it leads to bad places, like this one.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 07:45:56 pm
I *assume* that it's the latter, unless the advance is offensively crude or carries an implied threat (IE, the CEO hitting on a mailgirl, or a manager hitting on her direct subordinate).
Post by: Neonivek on December 01, 2016, 07:47:07 pm
The statistics on it count every single person who isn't charged as "getting away with the crime" which helps to build this paranoia.
So we built laws that basically allow no way out other than to just deny ever being there, doing an action, or anything else.
One of the MANY reasons never EVER to talk to a police officer without a lawyer no matter how innocent you are.
---
But honestly overzealous laws like these go away eventually... Kind of... It usually takes a supreme court ruling.
Post by: Reelya on December 01, 2016, 07:51:38 pm
e.g. 56% of highschool girls say they've been sexually harassed. And we can stop talking there, and that's the typical headline figure. But 40% of highschool boys also say they've been sexually harassed in the same surveys, and there's also a well-known bias in which male respondents are less likely to report this sort of stuff than female respondents (it's much less socially acceptable for a male respondent to label themselves a victim). So the numbers are probably even more gender equal than 56-40.
40% is also pretty much half the male population, which also kind of contradicts the narrative that only LGBT males would be harassed. Regardless of the content of the harassment (being called gay etc), it's pretty universal.
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/11/09/survey-nearly-half-of-students-sexually-harassed-in-school
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2016, 07:53:46 pm
you get absurd statitics from absurd definitions.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 07:55:31 pm
What ticks me the fuck off is when people call harassment "rape".
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2016, 08:03:57 pm
assault is when something is not inserted, but sexual contact happens by force. (groped, et al.)
harassment (to me) is when somebody wont take a hint, or a polite request seriously, and says or does stuff around you on purpose with the sole intent of causing you to feel distress, or compel you to action.
and, finally, sexual dicomfort is what you feel when you are exposed to something sexual that just maks you feel icky.
you dont have a right to not feel icky. people have all kinds of kink they get into, and you have no right to tell them they cant have those feelings or do those things just because you find them icky.
you do have the right to not be sexually bullied (real harassmen), assaulted, or raped.
the definition of harassment currently covers discomfort. it is absurd because of that.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 01, 2016, 08:10:28 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on December 01, 2016, 10:08:20 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 01, 2016, 10:27:54 pm
rape is when somthing gets inserted against ones will, and is of a sexual nature.
assault is when something is not inserted, but sexual contact happens by force. (groped, et al.)
harassment (to me) is when somebody wont take a hint, or a polite request seriously, and says or does stuff around you on purpose with the sole intent of causing you to feel distress, or compel you to action.
and, finally, sexual dicomfort is what you feel when you are exposed to something sexual that just maks you feel icky.
you dont have a right to not feel icky. people have all kinds of kink they get into, and you have no right to tell them they cant have those feelings or do those things just because you find them icky.
you do have the right to not be sexually bullied (real harassmen), assaulted, or raped.
the definition of harassment currently covers discomfort. it is absurd because of that.
Eh... I agree with most of this, but if someone does something around you with the knowledge that it will cause you distress, even if their main goal wasn't to cause you distress... could that be harassment?
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2016, 10:33:57 pm
Say I sing as I walk to the bus stop. say it is "no rain" by blind melon. a person at the bus stop hates that shit, and likes 50cent instead. I do not mean to be offensive to this person, I am just feeling happy and singing a song I like. am I harassing that person though? at this point, I say no.
say he asks me not to sing that shit, in a reasonably nice way, but I just sing louder because I dont care what he thinks, and feel he is being a jerk (raining on my favorite song like that!) and needs some grief for it. am I harassing him now? I say yes.
Post by: Reelya on December 01, 2016, 11:48:46 pm
Quote
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
Quote
One of those surveys is the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.
So when only talking about rape, women are raped a lot more. But when talking about sexual assault in the form of intercourse, there's not much disernable gender difference in the data. These numbers are meaningful because they come from the same surveys with almost identical wording for the male / female questions. The only difference was whether the survey respondent had a penis or not.
The problem with only highlighting "rape" statistics is that the definition of rape is virtually a gendered definition. It used to literally be a gendered definition until about 2012, but even now, ideas about sexual politics / gender relations are encoded into how we define which sex is, and is not, rape. e.g. if a woman drugs a man and has sex with him, that's not "rape" according to the textbook definition.
It's only logical that if you ask inherently gendered questions, you get gendered answers, so it's circular logic to claim that differences in rape statistics show some gender difference. When looked at in terms of non-gendered "sexual assault" then the differences basically vanish, as the CDC study shows.
Post by: wierd on December 02, 2016, 12:04:58 am
sexual assualt is when no penetration happens, but it is still forced, and sexual. EG, getting your tits grabbed, or as Mr Trump likes to do "grab em by the pussy", getting felt up, or getting grinded on--all sexual assault.
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2016, 12:08:06 am
Quote
i worded my definition of rape carefully.
Sure, that's perfectly fine. But then it's apples and oranges when talking about any specific rape statistics, because your definition is not how the people doing the statistics are doing it.
So there really is a dissonance here: people generally mean the broad non-gendered definition you described when they say rape, but then the cite rape statistics based on the much more narrow (and gendered) definition used by the FBI and CDC.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 02, 2016, 12:09:43 am
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2016, 12:11:13 am
e.g. the wording of both the rape and "made to penetrate" questions are "did X happen to you while were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
Post by: Shadowlord on December 02, 2016, 12:13:36 am
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2016, 12:18:08 am
That's not how it works. Rape surveys don't mention the word "rape" at all.
All rape surveys?
Yes. For the last 30 years or so. It was found that if you ask about rape then it's biased by the persons understanding of what is and is not rape, and is open to interpretation. So since about 1985 all reputable surveys have described behavior and ask if that happened. So you ask about behavior, then cross-check that with the legal definition of rape, and you have your rape numbers, but in a way that's not dependent on victims knowing what the definition of rape is.
The CDC studies I mentioned were based on the work of Mary Koss, who was the pioneer in rape victim studies (and was involved with the CDC setting up national victim surveys) and have a lot of her wording intact. That's what gives their numbers especial credence: they're based on the same methodology used by the leading rape campaigners for their headline figures such as "1 in 5".
Can we really scoff at the survey results when they tell us things we don't wish to hear, at the same time as loudly repeat cherry-picked conclusions from the same surveys? The female victimization data from the 2010 survey was widely repeated by the media as backing up the "1 in 5" idea, but the almost-identical male victimization data from the 2010 survey was virtually ignored. That doesn't sound much like objective science.
Post by: Neonivek on December 02, 2016, 01:00:44 am
"Have you ever been coerced into a sexual encounter?"
But lets go further lets use Wierd's definition of rape for a moment here
Quote
rape is when somthing gets inserted against ones will, and is of a sexual nature
So... using this definition, a woman who forces herself upon someone... do not constitute rape. Whether it be a man or another woman.
---
That is why I never EVER give much credence to ANY survey on this subject. It is far too easy to manipulate the numbers both up and down AND it is far too easy to have the numbers be wildly inaccurate as well.
And this isn't even getting into "assault and harassment" territory, because even the courts have problems telling which is which sometimes.
For example you know those famos scenes where a woman is insulted and splashes her beverage all over a man's head? Legally that is assault if I remember correctly. How many people would accept that as assault on a survey?
Post by: misko27 on December 02, 2016, 01:17:52 am
Legally It's sexual assault. It being not rape and "merely" sexual assault doesn't make it more ok, which is what you are implying with this question. Rape isn't defined as "the only real sex crime," and if people didn't use it that way - like you are right now - the world would have zero problems about it. The only reason that the difference matters is people attributes immense power to the word rape and use and misuse it all the time.Quoterape is when somthing gets inserted against ones will, and is of a sexual nature
So... using this definition, a woman who forces herself upon someone... do not constitute rape. Whether it be a man or another woman.
The solution isn't social progressivism or LGBT rights; it is the universal adoption of linguistic prescriptivism as the highest law of the land. If you use a word wrong, you are shot for crimes against Merriam-Webster.
Post by: Starver on December 02, 2016, 01:18:06 am
Only if you read it as "...when something gets inserted (into a person) against (that particular person's) will..."Quoterape is when somthing gets inserted against ones will, and is of a sexual nature
So... using this definition, a woman who forces herself upon someone... do not constitute rape. Whether it be a man or another woman.
I think it was intended to be "...when something gets inserted (into either party) against (one party's) will..." and, whether or not I would have assumed that fuller meaning at first sight, I think it quite clearly lends itself to this broader coverage upon testing against F>M potential-rape.
Post by: wierd on December 02, 2016, 01:58:45 am
Except here is kind of the thing... The definition of rape is vague.
"Have you ever been coerced into a sexual encounter?"
But lets go further lets use Wierd's definition of rape for a moment hereQuoterape is when somthing gets inserted against ones will, and is of a sexual nature
So... using this definition, a woman who forces herself upon someone... do not constitute rape. Whether it be a man or another woman.
---
That is why I never EVER give much credence to ANY survey on this subject. It is far too easy to manipulate the numbers both up and down AND it is far too easy to have the numbers be wildly inaccurate as well.
And this isn't even getting into "assault and harassment" territory, because even the courts have problems telling which is which sometimes.
For example you know those famos scenes where a woman is insulted and splashes her beverage all over a man's head? Legally that is assault if I remember correctly. How many people would accept that as assault on a survey?
BZZT-- WRONG. If she forces herself on a dude, she is forcing his dick up her cooch. That is penetration, and it is rape. HE does not have to be the one penetrated.
If a woman goes down on another woman without her consent, there are many ways it is still penetration. Be it with tongue, with finger, with scissor style clit juices, whatever. The other woman does not want any of that, and it happens. RAPE.
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2016, 02:42:21 am
Reminds me of the study that showed that the difference in negotiated wages for the same position across genders is about 7%. Coincidentally, if you compare the wage gap between men and women across the same job (rather than just doing a straight "average wage"), the gap goes from something like the 23% that it's usually stated to be to around... 7%.
Though don't be misled; the 23% does reflect that women are also employed in jobs that pay less than the jobs that men are generally employed in, though that's a whole other beast to tackle. So you have a gap within the same career that's explained through wage negotiating, and a gap without the same career (to clarify, using a particularly odd definition of "without" here; think the phrase "within and without" to get an idea of what it is) that's explained by the gender ratio across professions skewing towards men in higher-paying career paths (unsure on the statistics of this one here).
I don't know why I thought to bring this up, but eh. There's the nuance for the usual statistic of the "wage gap", and to no surprise, it's not as clear-cut as you'd expect.
Yeah, i wrote about some confounding factors before. For example, maternity leave. It costs money to provide leave (even unpaid leave costs companies money). Since it's almost always mothers who take leave for children, then it's the companies that hire more women that are hit with the costs. These costs come off the bottom line, reduce profitability, and those costs are born by everyone in the company. And of course, this disproportionately affects other women, whether or not they even want kids.
This is why I think laws that compare paychecks from male and female employees of the same company (Equal pay act 1963) haven't actually uncovered widespread discrimination. If a woman will do the same job for 20% less than a man, why would you hire any men? You just set a single wage that attracts enough people to fill your jobs and be done with it. That's just business sense. The really big disparities are between different companies due to multiple economic pressures, and different social norms.
And that's not something you can just legislate away. The core problem is that companies with mainly male employees don't pay their fair share for childcare, that's born by the mother's companies. And the unbalanced costs feed into wage differentials. Yet our response is actually to launch intrusive investigations of the companies hiring women to see that they're paying "fair wages". Which is just piling even more costs onto companies for hiring women.
Post by: Neonivek on December 02, 2016, 03:22:25 am
BZZT-- WRONG.
And the moment you had to correct it, it loses its point.
Post by: wierd on December 02, 2016, 03:30:02 am
BZZT-- WRONG.
And the moment you had to correct it, it loses its point.
I was meaning, "No, you are interpreting that wrong, I worded it carefully and you are purposefully avoiding that word choice in your twisted interpretation."
Post by: Neonivek on December 02, 2016, 03:42:42 am
BZZT-- WRONG.
And the moment you had to correct it, it loses its point.
I was meaning, "No, you are interpreting that wrong, I worded it carefully and you are purposefully avoiding that word choice in your twisted interpretation."
Yes I did intentionally misinterpret your definition, that is the point.
The fact that you had to correct me shows the major weaknesses in the definition, rather then it being self-evident.
Yet the better part is.. The more direct you are and the more precise you are with the definition... The LESS people will apply it.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 02, 2016, 08:20:49 pm
Is showing somebody else your stuff against the law? I could see something like that being a law... indecent exposure or similar? But that has its own problems, because the law means policing what women wear, but !the law means men can do creepy stuff showings to children, and gendered-law is sexist (couldn't a woman do creepy stuff showings to children?)
Post by: wierd on December 02, 2016, 08:22:30 pm
There is grey area, because nudists.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 02, 2016, 08:27:07 pm
Indecent exposure is a crime, yes.How well is the gray area defined in American law?
There is grey area, because nudists.
(By the way, because we're discussing pedophilic stuffshowers, your personal text just took on a new meaning... one that I'd rather not consider anymore. :P)
Post by: wierd on December 02, 2016, 08:33:50 pm
As for how grey?
Nudists tend to be congenial, and only practice their way of life away from those it would upset. They have beaches and colonies that they tend to stick to.
It isn't like they show up at Walmart in the nude.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 02, 2016, 08:35:39 pm
I mean I like to eat them in a rich reduction glaze sauce, or possibly with hollandaise. ;)So as long as it's private property, and it's not the middle of town on someone's lawn, or if nobody minds, they don't get in trouble? Works for me...
As for how grey?
Nudists tend to be congenial, and only practice their way of life away from those it would upset. They have beaches and colonies that they tend to stick to.
It isn't like they show up at Walmart in the nude.
Post by: x2yzh9 on December 03, 2016, 10:26:06 am
It isn't like they show up at Walmart in the nude.can I sig this?
Post by: Starver on December 06, 2016, 06:47:22 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 06, 2016, 07:33:27 pm
Malta doesn't like people who don't like people who are just being themselves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38230937).Finally.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 06, 2016, 07:39:49 pm
Well except for all the evidence that it's completely ineffectual, and just messes people up. But if it did work, I'd understand.
So yeah, a total ban is so much better than a practice that has completely failed peer review. (:
Post by: Edmus on December 06, 2016, 08:21:09 pm
That said, I was flipping through an old book on homosexuality and they claimed the same then.
Edit:
Here it is:
https://thewalrus.ca/growing-up-trans/
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 06, 2016, 09:06:54 pm
That said, I don't disagree with scientifically grounded decisions.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2016, 09:09:45 pm
Of course you'd never not use the door, as you are capable of overriding your hesitation
But damn is it annoying when your own body involuntarily hesitates
Post by: scriver on December 07, 2016, 02:44:22 am
Electroshock therapy, as opposed to psychological therapy, definitely doesn't work.
You are saying electroshock therapy doesn't work in this context (hay conversation purposes), and not as a general rule, correct?
Post by: spümpkin on December 07, 2016, 04:17:32 am
I linked an article a few pages back that claimed therapy methods are quite effective for getting gender confused children to accept their sex assigned gender. There were follow up studies of a controversial 'conversion' clinic that wound up shut down.Oh yeah, that article was really good, actually. Thanks for that.
That said, I was flipping through an old book on homosexuality and they claimed the same then.
Edit:
Here it is:
https://thewalrus.ca/growing-up-trans/
It raised some good points on both sides, and didn't stay biased to one argument.
Post by: tonnot98 on December 07, 2016, 01:14:23 pm
with rape, penetration happensOld quote, but I must ask: If someone is wielding a sword on their groin and stabs someone, is that considered rape?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 07, 2016, 02:36:45 pm
Correct. Although I'm certainly not sure of anywhere else it would work.Electroshock therapy, as opposed to psychological therapy, definitely doesn't work.
You are saying electroshock therapy doesn't work in this context (hay conversation purposes), and not as a general rule, correct?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 07, 2016, 04:57:09 pm
...wielding a sword...with rape, penetration happensOld quote, but I must ask: If someone is wielding a sword on their groin and stabs someone, is that considered rape?
...with their dick...
...why does that sound familiar?
Post by: Shadowlord on December 07, 2016, 04:58:21 pm
...wielding a sword...with rape, penetration happensOld quote, but I must ask: If someone is wielding a sword on their groin and stabs someone, is that considered rape?
...with their dick...
...why does that sound familiar?
tonnot98 didn't say they were male, obviously it's a strap-on sword.
Post by: Tiruin on December 08, 2016, 12:43:22 am
Notes in BioPsychology. It works in a therapeutic way with people who have...and I forgot my notes here :V...something that can be aided in the brain with low jolts (I forgot and remember only the gist :V) of energy.Correct. Although I'm certainly not sure of anywhere else it would work.Electroshock therapy, as opposed to psychological therapy, definitely doesn't work.
You are saying electroshock therapy doesn't work in this context (hay conversation purposes), and not as a general rule, correct?
Obviously not working with this stupid thing called conversion therapy. Because wow. That's dumb. :^
Post by: Shadowlord on December 08, 2016, 01:17:30 am
Notes in BioPsychology. It works in a therapeutic way with people who have...and I forgot my notes here :V...something that can be aided in the brain with low jolts (I forgot and remember only the gist :V) of energy.Correct. Although I'm certainly not sure of anywhere else it would work.Electroshock therapy, as opposed to psychological therapy, definitely doesn't work.
You are saying electroshock therapy doesn't work in this context (hay conversation purposes), and not as a general rule, correct?
"Low energy" - Donald Trump
(probably not it)
Post by: scriver on December 08, 2016, 02:43:21 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 08, 2016, 10:06:01 am
Post by: scriver on December 09, 2016, 02:54:39 am
Yeah, modern electrotherapy is generally not the kind of horrible locked-in-an-electric-chair mad-science-psychology pop culture likes to pretend it is.I mean, when used in the proper way for the right disorders it's definitely really good.
However, even in the 70s and 80s conversion therapy camps still used electric shocks combined with images of erotic images to create an aversion reaction. Because some of these people are literal comic book villains, apparently.
Yeah, I figured that could be the case, which is why I wanted the distinguishment from tbf.
Is there any purple? :o
I can't see any either.
...I'm beginning to suspect that is the point ;)
Post by: Tiruin on December 11, 2016, 12:52:03 am
Either it's my eyesight, laptop, or the lighting, but I think I see a tiny speck of purple below Pennsylvania? I forgot the name of that state below it. >_<Is there any purple? :o
I can't see any either.
...I'm beginning to suspect that is the point ;)
Source for easier browsing? :D
Also conversion therapy @LGBT folks is dum :v
Could I ask the history of it please? We've never believed it in this country or as far as I and all those I've asked or been with in religious/psych fields have known. Or practiced it. :v
Post by: Reelya on December 11, 2016, 01:23:11 am
note that if you go to the page for the image itself, it only lists two colors, blue or grey, not the third one. The first city to outlaw conversion therapy for gender was Cincinatti at the end of 2015, perhaps the map hasn't been updated but someone put in the purple into the legend in preparation for that, but didn't get around to updating the map itself.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 11, 2016, 11:47:25 am
The state below PA is Maryland.Either it's my eyesight, laptop, or the lighting, but I think I see a tiny speck of purple below Pennsylvania? I forgot the name of that state below it. >_<Is there any purple? :o
I can't see any either.
...I'm beginning to suspect that is the point ;)
Source for easier browsing? :D
Also conversion therapy @LGBT folks is dum :v
Could I ask the history of it please? We've never believed it in this country or as far as I and all those I've asked or been with in religious/psych fields have known. Or practiced it. :v
Post by: Starver on December 11, 2016, 11:57:18 am
The state below PA is Maryland.I thought it was Angband... ;)
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 13, 2016, 11:01:38 am
I think there is, and should only be four sexualities: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Asexual and Bisexual. I think more common terms like pansexual, or the tumblr tier sexualities like Iculasexual or Gynosexual are just meaningless terms. You like men, women, neither or both. If you like things other than their gender, like their age or hair colour, that's a fetish, not a new sexuality.
I also think there's two genders. Male and Female. These do not have to correspond to your genitalia at birth, transgenders who identify as female should thus be approached like them. No one truly fits in with the stereotype, as every individual is different. This doesn't mean you're special enough to change hundreds of thousands of years of human gender-related values.
People who make everything about their sexuality or gender, no matter if it's one I consider real or fake, are incredibly shallow. I usually don't tell anyone I'm gay unless they ask (or I'm interested in them ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )), and I have an incredible dislike towards the "flamer" community, a very vocal minority of gays that need to tell everyone "hurr durr im gay hurr durr homophobe hurr durr im better than you". I am more than my sexuality, and most of the time it's got nothing to do with the situation. I usually don't see the point in mentioning it.
Most importantly, I also don't harbor any distaste against people identifying as something I don't consider real. Sure, they're not perfect in my eyes, but everyone has flaws and just because they support something I don't doesn't mean they're bad people. As long as they're not constantly complaining about it and stuff, I'm totally fine with it.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 13, 2016, 11:18:09 am
I've called myself genderfluid a lot, but I've also honestly doubted whether it's a thing that needs a word. I'm definitely not trans, I'm just a guy that doesn't match the male stereotype in a lot of ways. It's nice to be able to talk about it, because society often makes me feel shitty about it. But does it need to be an "identity" I "subscribe to"?
I'd so much rather reduce the stigma against being non-stereotypical. Ideally we shouldn't have words like "tomboy" and "genderfluid", we'd just accept that gender isn't a role we need to follow closely. Ideally, gender wouldn't be a big deal at all...
Post by: TempAcc on December 13, 2016, 11:30:32 am
Really now, when people get to the point that their sexuality is at the core of their lives to the point they feel the need to expose it to pretty much anyone, it gets pretty hard to see them as anything other than cartoonish teenagers that have dulled their senses and personality to the point their sexuality almost completely takes over their social persona and transforms them into walking caricatures. Be you heterosexual, homosexual, or anything near, far and in between, if your sexuality is the centerpoint of your social experience, you're probably a huge boring dweeb thats not worth my time.
Altough I have coped with that kind of stuff before, to get what I wanted out of people. Thankfuly I've grown past that since, but you get what I mean ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I mean, I have nothing against people using a certain environment or situation as a place and a time to express their sexuality in full, but I've met people whose sexuality had essentialy taken over their lives and altered the course of their life choices.
Post by: spümpkin on December 13, 2016, 02:12:54 pm
I don't care much about what people identify themselves as, I just have a hard time taking anyone who makes their sexuality the centerpoint of their existence very seriously.I agree with this, and I find it kinda saddening that people make their whole lives based around who they're interested in. I might do it myself, please point it out if I do, but I try not to.
Really now, when people get to the point that their sexuality is at the core of their lives to the point they feel the need to expose it to pretty much anyone, it gets pretty hard to see them as anything other than cartoonish teenagers that have dulled their senses and personality to the point their sexuality almost completely takes over their social persona and transforms them into walking caricatures. Be you heterosexual, homosexual, or anything near, far and in between, if your sexuality is the centerpoint of your social experience, you're probably a huge boring dweeb thats not worth my time.
Altough I have coped with that kind of stuff before, to get what I wanted out of people. Thankfuly I've grown past that since, but you get what I mean ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I mean, I have nothing against people using a certain environment or situation as a place and a time to express their sexuality in full, but I've met people whose sexuality had essentialy taken over their lives and altered the course of their life choices.
Who we are isn't dependent on who we want to date/bang, or what gender we identify as, 'we' in this statement being humans on a whole.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 13, 2016, 04:17:37 pm
I think there is, and should only be four sexualities: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Asexual and Bisexual. I think more common terms like pansexual, or the tumblr tier sexualities like Iculasexual or Gynosexual are just meaningless terms. You like men, women, neither or both. If you like things other than their gender, like their age or hair colour, that's a fetish, not a new sexuality.Personally, I say pansexual because if I were to say 'bisexual' I feel like I would be implying that people who don't don't identify as either gender, or who appear androgynous, etc, aren't acceptable to me, when they are.
As for the second part, I don't think I'd call liking particular hair colors more a fetish. It's not really on par with what's commonly thought of as a fetish (feet... stuff... for example). I find some hair colors more attractive and some less attractive. (I've always assumed that everyone does, tbh. Society tries to tell us that blondes are the most attractive, but blond hair makes people less attractive to me)
I also think there's two genders. Male and Female. These do not have to correspond to your genitalia at birth, transgenders who identify as female should thus be approached like them. No one truly fits in with the stereotype, as every individual is different.There are many cultures that have, or have had, a third gender, or more than three, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#India
This doesn't mean you're special enough to change hundreds of thousands of years of human gender-related values.Isn't this the same sort of argument that was used against gay marriage? (Answer: yes, in the form of "marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman, and has been for all of history," which is an argument which relied not on actual history but on appealing to people who saw their way of life as somehow being under attack)
People who make everything about their sexuality or gender, no matter if it's one I consider real or fake, are incredibly shallow. I usually don't tell anyone I'm gay unless they ask (or I'm interested in them ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )), and I have an incredible dislike towards the "flamer" community, a very vocal minority of gays that need to tell everyone "hurr durr im gay hurr durr homophobe hurr durr im better than you". I am more than my sexuality, and most of the time it's got nothing to do with the situation. I usually don't see the point in mentioning it.You could look at it as folks wanting to embrace their identify and show it proudly. Of course as with everything, insulting people isn't usually a good way to get people to look at things from your point of view. I don't mean you personally, I mean the general "your", just to be clear.
Most importantly, I also don't harbor any distaste against people identifying as something I don't consider real. Sure, they're not perfect in my eyes, but everyone has flaws and just because they support something I don't doesn't mean they're bad people. As long as they're not constantly complaining about it and stuff, I'm totally fine with it."I don't think your identity really exists, no disrespect."
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 13, 2016, 04:44:54 pm
Personally, I say pansexual because if I were to say 'bisexual' I feel like I would be implying that people who don't don't identify as either gender, or who appear androgynous, etc, aren't acceptable to me, when they are.As mentioned before, I don't think there are more than two genders. However, my definition of bisexual is "fucks everything", so maybe omnisexual/pansexual would be a better term instead of bisexual.
As for the second part, I don't think I'd call liking particular hair colors more a fetish. It's not really on par with what's commonly thought of as a fetish (feet... stuff... for example). I find some hair colors more attractive and some less attractive. (I've always assumed that everyone does, tbh. Society tries to tell us that blondes are the most attractive, but blond hair makes people less attractive to me)I agree, I should've said it would've either been a fetish or sexual preference. My point still stands though, it shouldn't be a new sexuality.
There are many cultures that have, or have had, a third gender, or more than three, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#IndiaIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same. You can still be a man and like cooking (like me!) or dolls. Gender terms aren't something you should strictly adhere to, and someone that's different should'nt need a different gender assigned to them.
Isn't this the same sort of argument that was used against gay marriage? (Answer: yes, in the form of "marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman, and has been for all of history," which is an argument which relied not on actual history but on appealing to people who saw their way of life as somehow being under attack)The difference between this and gay marriage, is that everyone has to change for this. Everyone would have to memorize a bazillion pronouns and new genders, whilst for gay marriage only some laws have to change. Gay marriage only influences those who choose to be influenced.
I support gay marriage, but I vehemently oppose gays wanting to marry in/for a church/mosque/temple that is anti gay. I think that's disrespectful towards that religion, be it a minority or majority religion. Gays should freely be allowed to marry for the state, and pro gay religious organisations though.
You could look at it as folks wanting to embrace their identify and show it proudly. Of course as with everything, insulting people isn't usually a good way to get people to look at things from your point of view. I don't mean you personally, I mean the general "your", just to be clear.I understand why they do it. I just hate it because they give moderate gays like us a terrible name. No, I don't like "big black dicks" just because some flamer said all gays like them.
"I don't think your identity really exists, no disrespect."I don't think your gender identity really exists, but you're a great person so I don't care if something else about you isn't as I'd want it because I'm not a narcissist.
Not ignoring the fact that I'd never bring it up in the first because I don't hang out with people who let their gender/sexuality define them, I don't care that much and I don't think their gender is all of their identity.
Post by: spümpkin on December 13, 2016, 04:59:51 pm
Quote
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 13, 2016, 05:23:16 pm
Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
Post by: Edmus on December 13, 2016, 05:35:15 pm
I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.
Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 13, 2016, 05:45:58 pm
If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.
I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.
Quote
Well, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 13, 2016, 06:49:32 pm
Take, for instance, submissiveness. It's considered a feminine trait, and there is an expectation (albeit weaker today) for women to be submissive. This is a gender role.
Somebody might then decide to be submissive in order to communicate that they are feminine. This is gender expression.
I have no idea why anybody would want to do that, and it honestly seems like a "man's view" of femininity... but who am I to say that somebody cannot be submissive? You see TERFs yelling at the trans-women who accrue "feminine, as seen by a man" traits (submissiveness, etc.), but you don't see them yelling at the women who does so. I'd argue that if this is a problem, we'd solve it by decoupling traits from gender (boys can wear dresses and play with dolls, boys can be gentle and thoughtful and emotional), and there's no need to treat trans-women differently from women.
And if gender is defined as "which gender expression do you prefer," then eugh that's some gender-role-enforcing shit.
If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.
I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.QuoteWell, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.
Why not just treat people like people
Post by: Edmus on December 13, 2016, 06:52:08 pm
If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.
I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.QuoteWell, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.
I've known a guy that fits the bill in a mundane context, except I never did work out if he was gay or not. Obnoxious arsehole though he was, he did have his moments. :P
I have also seen a fellow that meets your description even more closely on a discussion hosted by tvo.
Given the thread, here's a hyperlink (http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech).
It's quite a solid watch with a wide range of perspectives, but the guy they got to represent the furthest genderqueer argument is... Nyeah.
I do suppose he's more affable in reality though.
And that's a fairly solid approach re: gender. I think I disagree with you in some areas, but if you're being respectful and tolerant it's hard for me to be fussed. :P
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 13, 2016, 07:03:39 pm
I honestly have no idea what gender identity even is, but I know that Lemonpie is describing gender roles and expressions."treating them like a man/woman just means using he/she pronouns tbh.
Take, for instance, submissiveness. It's considered a feminine trait, and there is an expectation (albeit weaker today) for women to be submissive. This is a gender role.
Somebody might then decide to be submissive in order to communicate that they are feminine. This is gender expression.
I have no idea why anybody would want to do that, and it honestly seems like a "man's view" of femininity... but who am I to say that somebody cannot be submissive? You see TERFs yelling at the trans-women who accrue "feminine, as seen by a man" traits (submissiveness, etc.), but you don't see them yelling at the women who does so. I'd argue that if this is a problem, we'd solve it by decoupling traits from gender (boys can wear dresses and play with dolls, boys can be gentle and thoughtful and emotional), and there's no need to treat trans-women differently from women.
And if gender is defined as "which gender expression do you prefer," then eugh that's some gender-role-enforcing shit.If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.
I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.QuoteWell, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.
Why not just treat people like people
Gender Identity is Male or Female in a general sense, and for those using other terms like Polygender, too.
I'm glad you think of me as tolerant. The thing is, I'd rather not mention any of this in public out of the blue at all. Generally speaking it's a non-issue to me, but since I'm "ideologically speaking" in this thread it might seem a bit more "extreme".If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.
I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.QuoteWell, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.QuoteIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.
If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.
But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.
I've known a guy that fits the bill in a mundane context, except I never did work out if he was gay or not. Obnoxious arsehole though he was, he did have his moments. :P
I have also seen a fellow that meets your description even more closely on a discussion hosted by tvo.
Given the thread, here's a hyperlink (http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech).
It's quite a solid watch with a wide range of perspectives, but the guy they got to represent the furthest genderqueer argument is... Nyeah.
I do suppose he's more affable in reality though.
And that's a fairly solid approach re: gender. I think I disagree with you in some areas, but if you're being respectful and tolerant it's hard for me to be fussed. :P
I just think people shouldn't be entitled cunts on both sides. Try to call people by whatever they want, and don't get fussy when someone makes a mistake by calling you something wromg.
Post by: Edmus on December 13, 2016, 07:20:36 pm
-snip-The trans people I have met are all surprisingly easy going about it actually. The internet prepared me to walk on egg shells, so it feels a strange disconnect from that expectation.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 13, 2016, 07:39:09 pm
However, my definition of bisexual is "fucks everything", so maybe omnisexual/pansexual would be a better term instead of bisexual.That makes sense. There are exceptions to "everything," of course, like, say, children.
Yeah, it would be weird if a person claimed to be pinkhairsexual (as in, only pink hair will do), but in that case that really would be a fetish, wouldn't it?As for the second part, I don't think I'd call liking particular hair colors more a fetish. It's not really on par with what's commonly thought of as a fetish (feet... stuff... for example). I find some hair colors more attractive and some less attractive. (I've always assumed that everyone does, tbh. Society tries to tell us that blondes are the most attractive, but blond hair makes people less attractive to me)I agree, I should've said it would've either been a fetish or sexual preference. My point still stands though, it shouldn't be a new sexuality.
I think I get what you mean, but it's a little confusing. "Behaves and dresses like a woman" sounds like gender roles, but so does "liking dolls" (or being submissive, a female-associated trait that is practically required in Japan, or so I have read).There are many cultures that have, or have had, a third gender, or more than three, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#IndiaIf someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same. You can still be a man and like cooking (like me!) or dolls. Gender terms aren't something you should strictly adhere to, and someone that's different should'nt need a different gender assigned to them.
That makes sense.Isn't this the same sort of argument that was used against gay marriage? (Answer: yes, in the form of "marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman, and has been for all of history," which is an argument which relied not on actual history but on appealing to people who saw their way of life as somehow being under attack)The difference between this and gay marriage, is that everyone has to change for this. Everyone would have to memorize a bazillion pronouns and new genders, whilst for gay marriage only some laws have to change. Gay marriage only influences those who choose to be influenced.
I support gay marriage, but I vehemently oppose gays wanting to marry in/for a church/mosque/temple that is anti gay. I think that's disrespectful towards that religion, be it a minority or majority religion. Gays should freely be allowed to marry for the state, and pro gay religious organisations though.I agree with this completely.
"I don't think your identity really exists, no disrespect."I don't think your gender identity really exists, but you're a great person so I don't care if something else about you isn't as I'd want it because I'm not a narcissist.
Not ignoring the fact that I'd never bring it up in the first because I don't hang out with people who let their gender/sexuality define them, I don't care that much and I don't think their gender is all of their identity.
Thanks. About not bringing it up normally, yeah, this is where we talk about things we don't normally talk about, I think. :P
Edit: Whoops, screwed up the quote tags.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 13, 2016, 07:40:07 pm
treating them like a man/woman just means using he/she pronouns tbh.Oh, that's fine.
Quote
Gender Identity is Male or Female in a general sense, and for those using other terms like Polygender, too.No, but... that's like if I asked you "what is a coordinate plane" and you said "x and y", except "x and y" have a dozen other meanings.
What is gender identity, and is it different from "I prefer this set of gender roles/expressions"?
Nonbinary: I guess that's what happens when you try to take a PERSON and then wedge them into a box. Sometimes you need more than one box, and sometimes one box fits better one day, and another box the next.
Quote
don't be entitled cuntsHey, another expression of:
Quote
Rulesof Internet Discussion
1. Don't be a dick.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 13, 2016, 07:42:12 pm
Nonbinary: I guess that's what happens when you try to take a PERSON and then wedge them into a box. Sometimes you need more than one box, and sometimes one box fits better one day, and another box the next.
Nobody wants to be cut up and put in two boxes. D:
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 13, 2016, 07:46:03 pm
There are over 7.5 billion individual genders. One for every person on Earth. This is because it's an individual identity. Society labels and lumps together different genders together for various reasons, but just look at the various cultures that have recognized genders other than "male" and "female". Look at the variations in what "male" and "female" even mean to different cultures. Can you even really say that all these different ideas of what man and woman really mean and say that they're universal? The idea of assigning gender labels to people based on their sexual characteristics is nothing unique (but not universal), and it's not universal in what those gender labels mean. Almost every culture has some notion of "man" and "woman", but what that
What you are talking about when say "somebody who dresses and acts like a woman" is strictly talking about gender roles, which are a completely separate thing. Less than a century ago, a woman who wore pants wasn't considered a "real woman". Men who stayed at home to take care of kids weren't "real men" (and many people still have issues with that).
A huge hint is that "male" and "female" are entirely based on exclusion, not inclusion. Is there any way to define "man" and "woman" that's not circular? Their entire basis is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The entire purpose of gender roles is to exclude and send people into this mysterious "other" group (look up the concept of "othering" if you want more on that).
“They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.” - Eddie Izzard
The same also applies to sexuality, by the way. I do think that the "main four" are a good basis, and apply to most people to some degree. But there are plenty of other aspects to it...
Post by: Starver on December 13, 2016, 08:42:08 pm
But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.This is like Canadians/New Zealanders, right? Without any obvious clues as to true nationality, you just assume every North American relates to the maple leaf and every Antipodean is a Kiwi - the ones that are will be pleasantly surprised at your ability to correctly place them, whilst the ones that actually aren't will be amused but normally not at all upset by the error you just made. ;)
Post by: spümpkin on December 13, 2016, 09:09:55 pm
Yeah, we don't bite, much :P-snip-The trans people I have met are all surprisingly easy going about it actually. The internet prepared me to walk on egg shells, so it feels a strange disconnect from that expectation.
I don't actually know really any trans people who get super (apologies for the meme) ~triggered~ about it. I calmly note it to people, but I don't really care.
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2016, 11:57:45 am
It's honestly not surprising. How many regular women you know, even ones who call themselves feminists seem to get in a spin about even a fraction of the stuff that outrages the feminist blogs? A lot of things that have the "internet" in an uproar don't seem to even be on the radar of most regular people. That includes most LGBT people, feminists etc as well. They're not all busy being outraged constantly about minor things, because they have lives.
The rhetoric of activism is often at odds with the lives of the supposed people that activism is speaking for. e.g. marxism has often been middle-class intellectuals "speaking" for blue-collar workers - while often disdaining everything about working-class culture, then wondering why all the "ignorant uncultured" workers are so stupid that they're not supporting your party, when you clearly know what's best for them.
Seriously, if you were to say you were triggered by seeing people getting shot in movies, people would look at you funny, because we know that's not how 'triggered' is meant to be used. It's not actually a means of preventing people being exposed to stuff they might get distressed by, we have very few controls on any of that, it's about controlling interpersonal dialogue, and it's even limited in that: you can only claim to be triggered about an official list of triggers. Saying you're triggered by anything not on that list just comes across as ludicrous, no matter how reasonable it is.
One interesting angle on the whole thing is to look at the history of interpersonal cultures. Honor cultures gave way to dignity cultures, now people have identified a new trend of victimhood cultures. Hint: it's pretty new and it seems to be appearing on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/
Post by: Tiruin on December 14, 2016, 12:05:43 pm
Well that might be because "triggered" and "microaggressions" both seem to be partly political concepts. Basically I see a wide gulf between (1) stuff that could reasonably upset people and (2) the "approved list" of Official Triggerstm.I'd REALLY love to know more about that highlighted bit though >_< because it doesn't seem a healthy place for many who browse the internet who are new to most things (like the ever-growing # of young people accessing the internet and stuff) given the quality of content in some parts which cause all those...things. o_O
It's honestly not surprising. How many regular women you know, even ones who call themselves feminists seem to get in a spin about even a fraction of the stuff that outrages the feminist blogs? A lot of things that have the "internet" in an uproar don't seem to even be on the radar of most regular people.[...]
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2016, 12:08:18 pm
Well it's just a personal observation. I almost never come across most of the attitudes and issues from the internet from people I meet in normal life.It's honestly not surprising. How many regular women you know, even ones who call themselves feminists seem to get in a spin about even a fraction of the stuff that outrages the feminist blogs? A lot of things that have the "internet" in an uproar don't seem to even be on the radar of most regular people.[...]I'd REALLY love to know more about that highlighted bit though >_< because it doesn't seem a healthy place for many who browse the internet who are new to most things (like the ever-growing # of young people accessing the internet and stuff) given the quality of content in some parts which cause all those...things. o_O
For example, the whole "manspreading" thing. There was a big campaign about it based on tumblr stuff. Then because of that, the NY Metro (and other transit systems), instituted public awareness campaigns about it. Yet, they also said they'd never received a single complaint about it. In fact, they said the most common complaint was about people taking up excessive seating space with bags. And notably, it's mostly women shown doing that in images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading
Post by: Tiruin on December 14, 2016, 12:20:36 pm
So...could I ask the point there than what seems to be only implying assumption (Like, I see a dude spreading his legs...so THAT MUST MEAN {reasoning}), when you could just...talk to people? That doesn't seem like it has been mentioned at all there. ._.
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2016, 12:34:56 pm
Post by: Tiruin on December 14, 2016, 12:48:22 pm
...Also that biological bit really matters too. As in temperature via body heat when the legs are closed in a sitting position.
That's pretty much more on why there's 'not consciously aware of that' because it's not necessarily a conscious phenomenon. :P
Post by: wobbly on December 14, 2016, 12:51:19 pm
For example, the whole "manspreading" thing. There was a big campaign about it based on tumblr stuff. Then because of that, the NY Metro (and other transit systems), instituted public awareness campaigns about it. Yet, they also said they'd never received a single complaint about it. In fact, they said the most common complaint was about people taking up excessive seating space with bags. And notably, it's mostly women shown doing that in images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading
That's actually something that's pretty annoying in a car if your trying to fit 3 people in the back seat on a long trip. On a bus or train it pisses me off, but you just can tilt so your legs are in the aisle. Possibly you don't hear about it in real life because it's annoying but not worth bitching about? Where as on the net you can bitch anonymously about every little thing?
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 14, 2016, 01:12:54 pm
I'm primarily aware of this due to being adjacent to it; I never really had significant problems about being bi (never having had a boyfriend and appearing straight for just about all metrics helps with that, I suspect) beyond like, freshman year in high school (oddly enough, after coming within about half a second of smashing a chair into a guy's face after he clotheslined me for refusing to let him pull some 'don't sit near me freak' shit, no one wanted to mess with me. Weird how that works.(actually more disturbing was people congratulating me or praising me for it especially considering how lucky I was to be tackled before I actually hit the guy)), and when I went to drop-in stuff for the semi-local lgbt center, I never really felt like I fit in. Identify more as a geek than as lgbt, and nobody there seemed all too interested in the stuff I was. They all were much more interested in lgbt stuff than me, had their friend groups and usually had either home lives that kinda sucked or a significant amount of abuse from peers.
Post by: TempAcc on December 14, 2016, 01:16:09 pm
The problem with the whole thing isn't that "manspreading" (infinicringe) isn't annoying, its that stuff like the tumblr buzz about it and its resulting effects blew up something that was essentialy a non issue to ridiculous proportions.For example, the whole "manspreading" thing. There was a big campaign about it based on tumblr stuff. Then because of that, the NY Metro (and other transit systems), instituted public awareness campaigns about it. Yet, they also said they'd never received a single complaint about it. In fact, they said the most common complaint was about people taking up excessive seating space with bags. And notably, it's mostly women shown doing that in images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading
That's actually something that's pretty annoying in a car if your trying to fit 3 people in the back seat on a long trip. On a bus or train it pisses me off, but you just can tilt so your legs are in the aisle. Possibly you don't hear about it in real life because it's annoying but not worth bitching about? Where as on the net you can bitch anonymously about every little thing?
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it didn't happen nearly enough to become a real issue or be worthy of regulation or awareness campaigns. A non issue was artifically made into an issue because there were people interested in making an issue out of it, and not because it ever was a real, significant issue. In the end the campaign benefitted none of the supposed affected parties, and only served to bring money and attention to media outlets and people that rode on the popularity wave it generated.
Post by: wobbly on December 14, 2016, 01:31:24 pm
The problem with the whole thing isn't that "manspreading" (infinicringe) isn't annoying, its that stuff like the tumblr buzz about it and its resulting effects blew up something that was essentialy a non issue to ridiculous proportions.
Did it though? I never saw the tumbler buzz about it, & I didn't see it ever become an issue outside of tumbler either. It often seems that the people who complain about tumbler being out of touch with reality are spending too much time watching what goes on on tumbler.
Post by: tonnot98 on December 14, 2016, 01:33:24 pm
So gender dysphoria is a thing, or at least it is debatably a thing. Could someone have dysphoria over being a person? Could someone just dislike being a person, or being human so much that it develops into a mental disorder? I haven't been able to actually look up any examples, but there's that whole "otherkin" thing that has been going on in tumblr and such for a while. I kind of want to disclude them but that'd be a horrible bias, even if they do just want to be snowflakes.
Post by: TempAcc on December 14, 2016, 01:39:11 pm
The problem with the whole thing isn't that "manspreading" (infinicringe) isn't annoying, its that stuff like the tumblr buzz about it and its resulting effects blew up something that was essentialy a non issue to ridiculous proportions.
Did it though? I never saw the tumbler buzz about it, & I didn't see it ever become an issue outside of tumbler either. It often seems that the people who complain about tumbler being out of touch with reality are spending too much time watching what goes on on tumbler.
Me thinks you didn't quite understand. It was blown out of proportion within tumblr itself, and never did it have any real consequence IRL, because it was never an actual issue IRL, except I guess for the NY subway but lel, NY.
If you didn't see it, good job (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/men-taking-up-too-much-space-on-the-train_n_3921150.html) living under (https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/manspreading) an internet rock (http://yourballsarenotthatbig.tumblr.com/), as pretty much everyone made fun of the posts and videos that got posted about it by people that actualy took it seriously.
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 14, 2016, 01:45:02 pm
I'd like to note something for Lord lemonpie primarily; for people who make their sexuality a keypoint of their identity/existence, in my experience it's often or usually a result of being attacked for it. When other people make it the centerpiece of their perception of you, especially if it's one's parents, it can be both a defense mechanism and one of the only avenues left in which to feel like you belong. The principle seems fairly similar to how people get defensive and believe more strongly in their position if challenged on it. That being said, this goes for moderate-high amounts of centerpiecing, rather than internet troll/Poe's law levels.Yeah, I understand why they'd do it. I just hate those that are incredibly toxic about it, and I hate the fact that everyone assumes that because they're so gigantically vocal about it that has to mean I'm automatically like them too.
Post by: wobbly on December 14, 2016, 01:48:48 pm
If you didn't see it, good job (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/men-taking-up-too-much-space-on-the-train_n_3921150.html) living under (https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/manspreading) an internet rock (http://yourballsarenotthatbig.tumblr.com/), as pretty much everyone made fun of the posts and videos that got posted about it by people that actualy took it seriously.
Fair call. To a large extent I do "live under an internet rock" but as you say, it wasn't worth paying attention to in the 1st place & never would of been an issue if people didn't pay too much attention to things that weren't worth paying attention.
Post by: TempAcc on December 14, 2016, 01:53:18 pm
That attitude is also specially deleterious not only because it makes them a target for terrible people, but also warps society's view of the group they belong to. If you belong to group A and you make sure to be loud, toxic and flamboyant about your sexuality because you feel it is somehow a good defense mechanism against social rejection, and people end up getting a negative view of you, through generalization people will start thinking all members of said group are similar or the same.I'd like to note something for Lord lemonpie primarily; for people who make their sexuality a keypoint of their identity/existence, in my experience it's often or usually a result of being attacked for it. When other people make it the centerpiece of their perception of you, especially if it's one's parents, it can be both a defense mechanism and one of the only avenues left in which to feel like you belong. The principle seems fairly similar to how people get defensive and believe more strongly in their position if challenged on it. That being said, this goes for moderate-high amounts of centerpiecing, rather than internet troll/Poe's law levels.Yeah, I understand why they'd do it. I just hate those that are incredibly toxic about it, and I hate the fact that everyone assumes that because they're so gigantically vocal about it that has to mean I'm automatically like them too.
Given that society in general, both western and eastern, still has a very generalized view of non heterosexual people (mostly thanks to the LGBT movements trying to make sure anything non heterosexual gets appropriated under their representation umbrella), its gets very easy to warp society's view of a huge number of people.
Post by: Starver on December 14, 2016, 01:57:08 pm
How much is sexual dimorphism relevent in the sitting geometry of the hip and thigh areas?
Wider hips allow more upper thigh to comfortably lie close together without spread at the knees, the 'thigh gap' seems to be a sought-after phenomenon (at least recently) meaning it's the traditionally leaner knees that dictate the spread (or, in this case convergence) angle. Men have narrower hip-joints and may well have thicker thighs (fat and/or muscle, depending on lifestyle) already pressing together.
Depending on how I'm sat, it isn't always possible to get my knees to touch, I have discovered whilst consciously thinking about this issue as I'm sat at a window seat and the rapidly filling bus puts someone else on the aisle side. (Strangely, though, I can do this right this moment. It might depend upon things including the actual trousers I'm wearing at the time - perhaps the feeling of straining certain seams or creasing other bits of fabric into my flesh without the easy ability to fidget those tensions in the material away round the curve of the joints.)
The male variety of equipment between those thighs tends to find a place to be, in my experience, so it's not so much part of the topological problem except maybe with badly fitting underwear, but I can't personally compare and contrast with those who have to manage with the alternative (and possibly their choice of monthly products being an issue. Ditto there are two different forms of potentially being hot and sticky.
Also, socially (and sartorially) girls are not encouraged (actively discouraged) to spread their legs whilst sitting, so maybe us men have never quite had the imperative to try to reduce our natural divergence of thighs (and the monotubular nature of skirting likewise a restriction, if pleating or slitting1 isn't a major feature to allow movement...), even when we aren't trying to display our 'manliness' on whatever conscious level.
1 In the last few minutes I have learnt more new things about skirts and dresses than I previously already knew, as I tried to qualify my existing ideas by looking at everything from hobble skirts to Empire silhouettes in a bit of crash research on the subject.
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2016, 03:03:04 pm
The problem with the whole thing isn't that "manspreading" (infinicringe) isn't annoying, its that stuff like the tumblr buzz about it and its resulting effects blew up something that was essentialy a non issue to ridiculous proportions.
Did it though? I never saw the tumbler buzz about it, & I didn't see it ever become an issue outside of tumbler either. It often seems that the people who complain about tumbler being out of touch with reality are spending too much time watching what goes on on tumbler.
It leaked into the real-world with big posters about it everywhere on several cities metro services. That's certainly "outside of tumblr". And it was a distortion: if you read the relevant articles, the subway operators mentioned they'd never had a complaint about that specific thing yet it was the thing mentioned in bold letters at the top of the community service signs (above a number of other things written in small writing, which were the things people on the metro did actually complain about).
Post by: Lord_lemonpie on December 14, 2016, 03:12:19 pm
A source, for those who (understandably) refuse to believe this absolute nonsense (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11309866/Ban-manspreading-Brits-want-men-to-sit-with-their-legs-together.html). I refused to believe it when I first heard about it.The problem with the whole thing isn't that "manspreading" (infinicringe) isn't annoying, its that stuff like the tumblr buzz about it and its resulting effects blew up something that was essentialy a non issue to ridiculous proportions.
Did it though? I never saw the tumbler buzz about it, & I didn't see it ever become an issue outside of tumbler either. It often seems that the people who complain about tumbler being out of touch with reality are spending too much time watching what goes on on tumbler.
It leaked into the real-world with big posters about it everywhere on several cities metro services. That's certainly "outside of tumblr". And it was a distortion: if you read the relevant articles, the subway operators mentioned they'd never had a complaint about that specific thing yet it was the thing mentioned in bold letters at the top of the community service signs (above a number of other things written in small writing, which were the things people on the metro did actually complain about).
Post by: Grek on December 14, 2016, 08:59:56 pm
So gender dysphoria is a thing, or at least it is debatably a thing. Could someone have dysphoria over being a person? Could someone just dislike being a person, or being human so much that it develops into a mental disorder? I haven't been able to actually look up any examples, but there's that whole "otherkin" thing that has been going on in tumblr and such for a while. I kind of want to disclude them but that'd be a horrible bias, even if they do just want to be snowflakes.Theoretically, yes. But there's no useful treatment to recommend, so there's no point diagnosing someone with species dysphoria or whatever the technical term would be, and no research done into that sort of thing.
Honestly, I find the whole "otherkin are cringey special snowflakes" meme kinda terrible. Maybe they really would be happier as an tiger or anthromorphic manseal or whatever. If we had the technology to make that happen, there'd be no reason not to let them make use of it in their pursuit of self-actualization. We don't, which is vaguely sad in the same way that our ongoing lack of flying cars and robot maids is sad, but that's no reason to mock someone for wishing it was possible.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 14, 2016, 09:40:32 pm
I mean, we do, and there are a few cases where such procedures actually happened. Thing is, it is a recognized mental disorder, and it has a name- schizotypal personality disorder....that's social anxiety and paranoia. That has nothing to do with otherkin AFAIK.
Edit: that's STPD in a nutshell. Not everybody who has social anxiety is schizotypal, obviously.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 14, 2016, 11:06:46 pm
It generally ties into the "unconventional beliefs" part. To quote Wikipedia quoting the DSM-5:QuoteAt least five of the following symptoms must be present: ideas of reference, strange beliefs or magical thinking, abnormal perceptual experiences, strange thinking and speech, paranoia, inappropriate or constricted affect, strange behavior or appearance, lack of close friends, and excessive social anxiety that does not abate and stems from paranoia rather than negative judgments about self. These symptoms must not occur only during the course of a disorder with similar symptoms (such as schizophrenia or autism spectrum disorder).
That does not sound particularly useful as as diagnostic tool to me. There are a lot of people in the USA which appear to fit five of these at the same time. For example:
Strange beliefs or magical thinking (god created the world ~4000 years ago, Jesus rode dinosaurs, I will live forever), abnormal perceptual experiences (two-way mental conversations with Jesus etc), strange thinking and speech (I certainly cannot make sense of their thinking), paranoia (communist muslim obama is going to take our guns and put us all in fema camps), strange behavior or appearance (lots of strange behaviors! Like having guns and supporting the death penalty when Jesus said to turn the other cheek!).
But maybe it's more rigorous than it sounds? I hope?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 14, 2016, 11:18:27 pm
Remember, you should always diagnose your enemies as mentally ill. Especially if you aren't a doctor, especially if you're conversing over the internet and you really have no way of knowing their mental health.
(I'm just poking fun, I'm aware that you're not really trying to diagnose fundies.)
Post by: Tiruin on December 14, 2016, 11:47:30 pm
It generally ties into the "unconventional beliefs" part. To quote Wikipedia quoting the DSM-5:Follow up to what Ispil said, I've read a bit about that part you mentioned tonnot, and there...is a background of this in (some?) people who claimed otherkin; the issue with those were that the background wasn't usually discussed compared to the claims given the openness of the internet and such. Compared to gender dysphoria, which isn't a mental illness or a disorder but was categorized within the DSM because it is a diagnosis, there's a notable degree of reference towards the above while in regards to gender, it has been recorded to happen to people regardless of their society and culture (eg we've cultures here in the Philippines which lack the usage of gendered pronouns [no thanks SPANIARD CONQUISTADORES], like in Davao and in the other areas in the Visayas, and there are people who are transgender there, with records as far as...those that haven't been burnt BY THOSE SPANIARDS, etc) even without a notable degree of reference other than a personal degree of reference.QuoteAt least five of the following symptoms must be present: ideas of reference, strange beliefs or magical thinking, abnormal perceptual experiences, strange thinking and speech, paranoia, inappropriate or constricted affect, strange behavior or appearance, lack of close friends, and excessive social anxiety that does not abate and stems from paranoia rather than negative judgments about self. These symptoms must not occur only during the course of a disorder with similar symptoms (such as schizophrenia or autism spectrum disorder).
Also I just noticed a...weird thing? Why was homosexuality and other benign ideas described as a crime back in the 1930's when prominent scientists and otherwise knew and mentioned that it wasn't (and it somehow still persists until today--in the least the stigma, even heavily, in certain areas)?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 14, 2016, 11:59:14 pm
Post by: tonnot98 on December 15, 2016, 11:31:55 am
Post by: TempAcc on December 15, 2016, 11:37:45 am
The greatest hope for otherkin and the furries on the even weirder side of the spectrum is VR avatars.
Post by: tonnot98 on December 15, 2016, 11:47:34 am
You'd prob get balls of walking cancer that wouldn't be able to even use normal military equipment.Sadly, that's probably true. I don't think there's been any serious research in turning people into something else.
The greatest hope for otherkin and the furries on the even weirder side of the spectrum is VR avatars.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 15, 2016, 01:46:35 pm
The difference between this and, say, gender dysphoria (I want to type diaspora for some reason), is that this goes beyond... actually, there's a whole lot of co-morbidity here with depression and other depressive disorders. Arguably gender dysphoria is a particular form of schizotypal personality disorder, though I just want to stress that the treatment of this disorder never is to "correct the strange thoughts". Usually it's a matter of coping, forming better social relationships (there's a lot of social anxiety involved here, which... can't say anything relating to that and gender dysphoria; others would need to weigh in), and in extreme cases surgical operation. Again, I have no idea to what degree gender dysphoria and social anxiety relating to paranoia tie into each other and would need others to weigh in. Additionally, most schizotypals simply see themselves as nonconformist or eccentric.
I really have no idea how you came to that conclusion at all.
In general, a personality disorder is a disorder in a person's personality itself, basically a pattern of maladaptive behaviors, inner thoughts, beliefs, etc. Schizotypal personality disorder in particular is a disorder in which they have strange beliefs and have paranoia regarding other people. In particular, that people have negative thoughts about them. The social anxiety is basically fear that others don't like them, unlike most social anxiety which stems from a negative self-image.
Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, is mainly a discomfort with how other see you, or with your own body. By definition, it is nothing more than that. This may lead to isolation, social anxiety, depression, etc, but these are not core to it. There is no paranoia that other people have negative thoughts about them. Any social anxiety is due to not being seen how you want to be, not because you fear others don't like you.
People with GD have a strong tendency towards a negative self-image because of their gender identity, but people with STPD don't have a negative self-image at all.
The two couldn't possibly be further apart.
(Not to mention that personality disorders are mostly a matter of maladaptive behaviors and less due to biological factors, whereas trans identities have a very very strong biological basis)
Post by: Reelya on December 16, 2016, 07:43:03 pm
I thought this would be of interest for comment in the thread:
Quote
This week, the consultancy's focus is on why people of different genders play games, and the top takeaway for devs seems to be: men are most often motivated to compete, women most often want to complete things, and folks of non-binary gender are most motivated to play games in order to explore fantasies.
(http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/news/287889/Capture.PNG)
(http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/news/287889/Capture2.PNG)
(http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/news/287889/Capture3.PNG)
There's the raw survey data, as you can see there are some strong differences based on people's stated gender identities. There's less variance in the male scores, this could possibly be due to more game genres having been developed to cater to an assumed male audience, so they cover a wider range of motivations, whereas less games are made for female audiences, and even less for non-binary gender, so those ones are more skewed to specifics.
That really suggests a paradox: do you cater "inclusive" games to what non-male people list as their highest motivators or do you cater "inclusive" games to things that they list lowest. After all, if games are only providing a specific range of interests to a specific gender, then doubling-down on what they say they like might just make the genderization issue worse.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 16, 2016, 08:12:39 pm
Post by: TempAcc on December 16, 2016, 08:50:04 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on December 16, 2016, 09:01:40 pm
Quote from: http://quanticfoundry.com/the-v23-sample/
Gamers primarily found the Gamer Motivation Profile via social media sharing (67% of all traffic) on Facebook (91% of all social media traffic) and Twitter (4.9% of social media traffic). Referrals from other websites accounted for 26% of all traffic, primarily from an article on Ars Technica (62%). The remainder (5%) was from organic search.
SELF SELECTION BIAS
[quote="Sample Bias" section at the end of the same webpage]
Compared with the ESA 2015 factsheet of all gamers, our sample has a far higher proportion of male gamers and the average age is far lower. Also, our sample consists of a higher percentage of core gamers (the top game genre in the ESA sample was social games) with a skew towards PC gamers and RPG gamers.[/quote]
So basically, sadly, the results aren't necessarily as informative as they might like you to think.
Post by: Reelya on December 28, 2016, 01:12:34 am
I was looking into this research. It's kind of interesting. The researchers did surveys in Guyana and found that the stereotype of aggressive promiscuous males vs coy monogomous females only held in areas with a shortage of men vs women. A "harem effect" basically where men are incentivized to play around when there are excess women to choose from. In other areas with lots of men, such as where mines were located, there was no difference in the male/female preference for long-term relationships vs "playing the field". They then did the same analysis in the USA and found the connection holds for all 3000+ counties. Pretty much all violent or sex crimes are negatively correlated with the percentage of men in the county. Male parental involvement was also higher in areas with more men. So, the takeaway is that removing men from poor areas via incarceration is a double-whammy for these reasons.
A ratio of e.g. 52% women to 48% men might not sound like much, but then you have to consider what happens to the ratios when people pair up. if 40% of both sides marry each other, then you're left with a dating pool of 12 women to 8 men. If some of those people get married, the remaining ratio could skew up to 4:1 or 5:1 in the dating pool. And that's only for a 2% population difference. So women in metro areas with lots of offices that employ women, who wonder "where all the available men are" they're not bullshitting. They aren't there.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on December 28, 2016, 02:03:07 pm
Post by: Fniff on December 28, 2016, 02:09:02 pm
A game about nonbinary genderfluid neuro divergent lesbians MURDERING THE SHIT OUT OF EACH OTHER.That's a similar premise to my current fiction project, actually.
Also, sigged.
Post by: Ghills on December 28, 2016, 02:12:18 pm
A game about nonbinary genderfluid neuro divergent lesbians MURDERING THE SHIT OUT OF EACH OTHER.
Am I missing something, or is that really redundant and also contradictory?
Nonbinary = not firmly in male or female
Genderfluid = changes between male and female
Lesbian = female attracted to females
Right?
Post by: Starver on December 28, 2016, 03:24:04 pm
What happens when there are few women in a community?A friend of mine has this idea that this is the problem with islamic immigrants (mainly of the young men, because there are no women and children refugees at all), plus in their original homelands where there are too few females anyway. I have big problems with those observations, so I'm not going to try to justify them, being plainly false in all important ways while I suddenly discover that I'm on 3% battery.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 28, 2016, 04:18:07 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on December 28, 2016, 05:33:35 pm
Post by: Starver on December 28, 2016, 05:36:11 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 28, 2016, 05:39:31 pm
Post by: RoseHeart on December 28, 2016, 06:12:33 pm
If we want to take a really reductionist approach to the topic, it's all just our brain wanting to minimize the thinking it does on generating an opinion on every individual. It takes some key characteristics, generalizes, and extrapolates to all others sharing those characteristics. At least, for explaining our cultural perception of sexual and gender norms. As for how they exist in an actual person? I'll be frank: I haven't a fucking clue. How someone sees themselves is entirely up to them and entirely their business.
Reminds me of the philosophical dilema: you cannot prove to anyone, other than yourself, that you exist.
(You KNOW you exist, because you're able to think about the question)
Post by: Reelya on December 28, 2016, 10:32:00 pm
Quote from: http://quanticfoundry.com/the-v23-sample/Gamers primarily found the Gamer Motivation Profile via social media sharing (67% of all traffic) on Facebook (91% of all social media traffic) and Twitter (4.9% of social media traffic). Referrals from other websites accounted for 26% of all traffic, primarily from an article on Ars Technica (62%). The remainder (5%) was from organic search.
SELF SELECTION BIAS
That doesn't actually make a lot of sense when you're comparing people who were self-selected according to the same criteria. e.g. why would women on facebook be more likely to enjoy completing games vs men on facebook who like competing in games. Self-selection bias can plausibly skew things from the "true" ratios, but when it's relative ratios within the same group, then that mechanism is a lot less convincing.
Especially when there's an absolute bucket of data from other sources that backs up the observations in this survey.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 29, 2016, 05:42:45 am
Also my second quote in that post, which... I guess the forum upgrade broke somehow?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 29, 2016, 06:15:39 am
That makes sense, but it's still not representative of all gamers - it's skewed towards the opinions of people who play games and also Facebook, mostly lacking representation from people who don't use Facebook.Yeah, that's a bug.
Also my second quote in that post, which... I guess the forum upgrade broke somehow?
Post by: Starver on December 29, 2016, 07:19:42 am
Yeah, that's a bug.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
For my part, as a male not using Facebook, I prefer to explore to completion rather than exploit and compete, although there's often a necessity for the latter to allow me to do the former in a certain type of game (Dig'n'Fight, Minethings, Boom Beach, etc) that I have been known to take far more seriously than I really should. I try, therefore, to stick to the more casual 'catelogable' games like Hill Climb Racing (attempted completion on three Androidbdevices, already) or the self-imposed solo challenges in sandbox games of various kinds (DF, of course, or Minecraft at one time) knowing from tje start that I'm not doing this for (or against) anybody else.
I thus appear to be more female in my mental attitude. Or not. But aren't female minds supposed to be more passive-aggressive/psychological in their competitiveness with others? So is that what I'm actually doing now by suggesting that I'm playing things in the more purist way? It's enough to make one confused, not even knowing if one is even being self-depricating or trying to one-up all y'all barbarian-heads... ;)
Post by: Reelya on December 29, 2016, 07:53:59 am
If you look at the data, 25% of males chose competition/destruction as their primary motivators. That's still only 25% of the total sample. 75% of men picked something else, with "completion" coming in first for those men not primarily motivated by destroying things and people.
The big difference was that the female gamer crowd in the survey lacked a high number of people who pick competition/destruction. If you excluded that, then "completion" would be the top motivator for both genders.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 29, 2016, 08:04:31 am
Wait, there's another bug? Huh.Yeah, that's a bug.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Shadowlord on December 29, 2016, 10:31:06 am
Then I attempted to register and found that I already had and had taken the survey before, although I don't remember doing it. Hmm. My answers have changed, apparently, and I don't see any way to update my account with the new results.
Also that seems like another flaw: The same person can take it multiple times without realizing it. I've taken too many "let me ask you your motivations so I can tell you what kind of gamer you are" quizzes.
In any case, my results both times had creativity #1, immersion #2. The main change is that social went from 23% to 75%, which brought it to #3.
Post by: Reelya on December 29, 2016, 11:09:28 am
Quote
The v2.3 sample consists of 239,205 gamers (counted as unique IP addesses).
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 29, 2016, 11:18:27 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 29, 2016, 11:39:31 am
Suppose it explains why I almost never finish games :/
Or maybe I just put myself at 'some' too often >.>
Post by: Reelya on December 29, 2016, 11:40:29 am
Post by: Starver on December 29, 2016, 11:41:05 am
Oh, cool. (https://goo.gl/qYqSCr)Comparison (https://goo.gl/k1HtG0). We match best in the Mastery components. Not at all in others.
(I think my stats are odd, if arguably correct. They're going to be confused by my freetext answers, though.)
Post by: Shadowlord on December 29, 2016, 12:25:32 pm
It covers that:QuoteThe v2.3 sample consists of 239,205 gamers (counted as unique IP addesses).
I did the survey that last time on my crappy cellphone with the low memory that likes to crash on most websites, and had no trouble completing it.
Post by: Solifuge on December 29, 2016, 07:48:56 pm
I just took their survey and got https://goo.gl/fHfvDh
Took this one when it came up in the "Shit, Let's Be... (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78290.4995)" thread. Basically, I'm a bow tie (https://goo.gl/w1Xxh3). I like Exploration/Creativity and Challenge/Strategy most, and Story or Community second. Don't so much care to compete and kick ass, to be an agent of chaos, to get hyped on adrenaline, nor to "complete" a game or get as OP as possible.
What this says about my gender, I could not tell you.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 29, 2016, 08:14:40 pm
Eh. Apparently I'm not very interested in any of these things.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 29, 2016, 08:21:08 pm
Community, 97%, I really like grouping people together towards a common goal. Gods, I have a great story to tell which I would if I had the time.
Challenge, 94%, DF community, self-explanatory - I like having complex mechanics or gameplay to master.
Strategy, 93%, I absolutely love strategy games and am positively moist at grand strategy games, ones where you've already lost or won by the time war begins.
Destruction 92%, I like having more tools of destruction at my disposal. I don't like the overuse of them.
Discovery, 91%, I like exploring the game's actual mechanics, finding exploits and employing lateral thinking to win differently
Design, 85%, I like designing my game avatars, cities, factions and so on. Really love it, really, really infatuated with the whole process across all genres
Competition, 81%, I would not say I'm a competitive gamer in the same sense that a SC2 player plays competitively. I just like competition.
Excitement 70%, I like fast paced, intense videogame experiences. I'm not particularly good at them, nor do I seek them if I have strategy ones available :]
Story, 58%, I always appreciate an amazing plot and rich tapestry of characters, but I also make my own stories in the absence of them so am not too bothered either way.
Fantasy, 43%, I like immersion but I do not like escapism, finding it to be dangerously alluring
Completion, 32%, I would score much higher on this but I weened myself off this practice after too many MMORPGs left me drained.
Power, 26%, I find being the most powerful thing or person, in single player or multiplayer, whilst it can be fun is hard to maintain as fun. I do feel compelled to optimize efficiency though.
Which one of these things would quantify what motivates horror gamers? Fantasy I think for horror and psych horror, Challenge/Excitement for survival horror and terror. I don't fit all too well with any three of the category averages so meh
Post by: BlackHeartKabal on December 29, 2016, 08:26:05 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on December 29, 2016, 08:45:14 pm
I guess I just don't like video games.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 29, 2016, 11:15:45 pm
It is I, Dozebom, back from the undead, now
As you may have read in the Sad Thread, I was pretty sure I was trans, for many reasons, I came out to my parents, and was met with a yuuuuuuuuge wave of stuff from my dad. I think he's doing this to help me, but...
Spoiler: stuff my dad said (click to show/hide)
And now I'm fighting a vicious war within myself. Great fun. My questions are:
What does it mean to "identify" as a gender? One's concept of femininity or masculinity are just based on stereotypes, right?
Is dysphoria really a medical fabrication?
Post by: Neonivek on December 29, 2016, 11:40:35 pm
I am curious as to why this is the case... But I dare not research it because the last time I did I ended up reading a feminist article on how transfemales are a disgrace to womankind and need to stop pretending because they aren't real women.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 29, 2016, 11:41:03 pm
Honestly I think the answer I'd give you is that you're identifying as a sex, and a gender that goes with that biological shape.
Post by: Tiruin on December 30, 2016, 12:43:15 am
I'll bring up a blunt example--"American" culture involves a lot of focus to the self, and it has a long history of differentiating gender as a generality and gender roles as a concrete concept; in contrast in other cultures (eg ours in the Philippines), we have many different ways we can mention the self as our culture isn't individualistic but communal, we have many dialects and languages which do not include those minor details supporting what your dad says (eg the concept of gendered pronouns; many languages and dialects here refer to other people...as people, instead of him/her, in the local tongue :P). Now from this includes how a person is brought up and raised. In western cultures, or at least as far as I can read popular conception, there's a lot of focus into binary representation (male/female), and that may lead into the concept which your dad mentioned to you--that being the societal norms pervading your area there. But in all these, the same concepts of non-rigidity hold, even in western cultures. Gender roles are predominantly socially constructed; gender isn't.
All this doesn't represent the concept of being transgender as this has been observed in all cultures regardless of societal norms. It has been studied in researches, seminal or otherwise, from multiple areas around the globe. Trans*people are NOT obsessed with their appearance, as studies from childhood notice that it's rather not the appearance they're obsessed with, and societal constructs only go so far as to determine the possible observations others may make--this doesn't include all observations that can be made, as both go deeper than that. Alongside that--gender dysphoria is NOT a medical fabrication [that would go against pretty much a lot of research and observation], as the concept of the self comes from the self--initially not from external observation, and that's noted within significant areas of one's personality; there are generally 'two' areas which note down characteristics that may be learned from society/other people/your general vicinity, and then there's this area that includes all the unique aspects of yourself which is stratified awaaaay from that. (and all these being mentioned is better covered by speaking to a therapist or professional within that field :I which I suggest you do, and, which I also suggest you ask those follow-up questions to, including any/all questions towards questioning the 'fabrication possibility' of medical terms used towards gender, and their background.)
Besides that, you & medical discourse should be discussed with a professional due to contextual reasons--because all information isn't in one page you read the idea on, as it is thoroughly mentioned in the introduction of the book/preface to avoid misunderstanding :P (And by that I should really note that the second to last sentence may not be really direct in what it's referencing, I can get why that was mentioned but it's not fully applicable; dysphoria isn't or wasn't..."made" that way to pathologize, and that is what is directly mentioned in the italics I mentioned up there in the preface of whatever 'medical book' you may have gotten it from [I infer it's the DSM-V])
E:
All that stuff your dad talks about reminds me how for a few transsexuals they act... Hyper feminine. To the extent that it was a typical way to clue into the fact that they are trans. Not so much that all Trans act hyper-feminine so much that I can't think of a time a woman acted hyper feminine.ONE article doesn't represent the breadth of possible knowledge :P
I am curious as to why this is the case... But I dare not research it because the last time I did I ended up reading a feminist article on how transfemales are a disgrace to womankind and need to stop pretending because they aren't real women.
...Because both content and context matter. That one thing you read...isn't really valid given that (nor is it valid in feminist studies, too o_O).
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 30, 2016, 12:45:53 am
That is not normal feminism.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2016, 12:49:44 am
Dysphoria is not a medical fabrication. The medical technicalities of it (iirc) is that there is literally a difference between the body-map that's structured into your brain and built up over years and is essentially determined at birth, barring severe trauma, and your actual body construction, which causes psychological distress due to the discrepancy in a rather intimate part of your brain. It also happens with people who are missing, say, an arm in their body map, and getting amputations for the affected body parts does in fact improve their happiness and essentially 'cure' them. This map is also responsible for the phantom limb phenomenon. This sense of their body being inexplicably wrong is what can cause the self-loathing. Homosexuality also has biological origins, it's not just a mystical magical difference. And for the record, yes, there is something 'wrong' with you in both cases from the biological perspective. Doesn't mean you're less worthy as a human being; everyone who is not the ubermensch has something 'wrong' with them. I have asthma, eczema, ADD, and need glasses. There's a myriad of things wrong with me. I also won a National Merit Scholarship. Just because you're not the perfect being doesn't mean you aren't worthy of [happiness/fulfillment/other things I don't want to list them all out right now sorry].
Women and men are not the same, that's not what equality means. Equality means that everyone is of equal worth/importance and should be treated with respect. Genetics has an obvious impact on ability and has been found to have links to even how much effort/focus you're able to put in. Men and women have distinct biological differences, which can in fact have effects on behavior (for example; testosterone vs. menstrual cycle). Gender is part social construct (behaviors) and part instinctive categorization(characteristics) (and yes these overlap, the real world is messy). It is not perfect but a binary gender system works 90+% of the time, and while it should not be used exclusively or as a restrictive mechanism, is nonetheless useful.
Not all transgendered or transsexual people had/ve physical dysphoria. Not all trans people have mental dysphoria, though if you have physical usually it extends to mental, I believe, though that might be totally wrong and it's just that people figure if they're changing their bodies their minds naturally follow. Not sure about that. Not all trans people get surgery.
Also, conform if you want to conform. Rebel against the anti-system by boldly choosing not to go along with the herd of 'conformity=evil'. If the behavior that feels right to you happens to fit into modern gender roles, it's nobody's business but yours.
Now, personally, I would say that identifying as a gender is presenting/believing oneself to be a certain gender(which is unhelpful as a definition, but basically identifying as a member of the group ______). The purpose is essentially personal, for one's own comfort, but serves as a vague shorthand for which group you're probably most comfortable with. This obviously does not always hold true, which is why we have about a billion other markers to tell someone's group status, (you know, because that's essentially what we evolved specifically to do). It also usually gives some amount of information as to romantic attraction, though this is especially unreliable if someone is trans. It's a personal decision which essentially amounts to 'what do I feel more like/which sets of weighted characteristics more closely aligns with my own?'
Post by: Neonivek on December 30, 2016, 12:51:55 am
Quote
ONE article doesn't represent the breadth of possible knowledge
It is more that I don't want to step onto hate :P
The only time I read a anti-trans article I thought had genuinely good information in it... Was more about the success rate of gender realignment, which was stunningly low and suggests a larger problem with either gender dysphoria and/or surgery made to help with it and/or expectations surrounding it.
Which I'd also look up... but I have a feeling looking up "How unrealistic expectations cause post-operation depression in trans people" wouldn't get me search results I'd want.
---
Anyhow I'd also chime in, because I need to be overt, that yes gender dysphoria is a thing. So don't worry about it.
My whole "Hyper femininity" pondering was more of an aside as well as wondering WHY that happens.
Heck I know someone with Gender Dysphoria and they aren't really all that feminine as far as how they act. Theirs cannot be cured through hormones or surgery though because it sort of... comes and goes? I don't know what it is called when you have Gender Dysphoria where sometimes you feel like one gender and othertimes you feel like another gender.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2016, 01:02:10 am
Compensation, is my guess. Or celebration. Essentially, now they get to be a woman, and they've been holding that in for a long time, so they're reveling in it. Or they just really like being able to and take greater joy in it than someone for whom it's routine. And, of course, there's some who just are really feminine and it stands out more because it's maybe less expected. A woman being hyper-feminine maybe isn't considered hyper-feminine even if it's the same behaviors, because of the people they're around or because they're used to it and can do it in a way that's not really noticeable.QuoteONE article doesn't represent the breadth of possible knowledge
It is more that I don't want to step onto hate :P
The only time I read a anti-trans article I thought had genuinely good information in it... Was more about the success rate of gender realignment, which was stunningly low and suggests a larger problem with either gender dysphoria and/or surgery made to help with it and/or expectations surrounding it.
Which I'd also look up... but I have a feeling looking up "How unrealistic expectations cause post-operation depression in trans people" wouldn't get me search results I'd want.
---
Anyhow I'd also chime in, because I need to be overt, that yes gender dysphoria is a thing. So don't worry about it.
My whole "Hyper femininity" pondering was more of an aside as well as wondering WHY that happens.
That's called being genderfluid, and it's not as deeply rooted into the core parts of the brain. It's not dysphoria, though, unless they actually feel uncomfortable in their body as-is, and deeply so, when they feel one gender. If I remember right it's something along the lines of switching circuits? I don't know enough on the subject. I'm somewhat genderfluid I just don't care enough either way to really make a fuss about it and I feel comfortable in my body, I just think I'd also be comfortable in a different body (also a lot of it I think was from liking to look attractive and part of me thinking the only way I could do that was by being a girl; once I figured out how to look good as a guy, it basically went away), so I just stick with the default.
Post by: Neonivek on December 30, 2016, 01:10:37 am
Quote
unless they actually feel uncomfortable in their body as-is, and deeply so
Yeah that really was the case.
Post by: Solifuge on December 30, 2016, 02:48:59 am
It is I, Dozebom, back from the undead, nowquestioning their genderI already did that, nowtransgenderunsure if gender is even a thingdenying their own sufferingconfused.
Err... hmm. With respect to your Pop, it sounds like he is very eager to fill your head with ideas he currently has, and is uninterested in hearing your own thoughts or feelings.
Spoiler: Here's some thoughts of my own, for general consideration. (click to show/hide)
Quote
What does it mean to "identify" as a gender? One's concept of femininity or masculinity are just based on stereotypes, right?
It's lazy of me to just link it, but I dug into the meaning of Gender and Identity Stuff (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=160244.msg7274316#msg7274316) a while back. Gender is arbitrary and made-up, yeah. However, it's also a useful tool; the way you dress or look or behave, the pronoun you use, and whether you are cis or trans or whatever... these can all help potential partners know who you are, and suggest who if anyone you are looking for in a partner. By virtue of being in a society that genders things like clothing and activities and goods, you sorta need to interact with Gender; you can play along, or modify it, or be indifferent or reject it entirely, but it's something that's built into our present culture. It's something we're all forced to acknowledge and work around or within. Also, in the case of gender labels like Woman versus Transwoman, or Gay/Bi versus Straight, or Androphilic versus Gynophilic, that will affect some people's interest in you as a partner. Some people are attracted to certain genders and behaviors, some people are attracted to certain body types or compatible reproductive capability, and some people are attracted to both or neither. All these preferences are valid and okay, too. (I talked about this before too; first post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=160244.msg7216639#msg7216639), and another post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=160244.550).)
Quote
Is dysphoria really a medical fabrication?
I'd like to see where your Dad got this factoid. As a transperson who only experiences mild dysphoria, I'm not terribly well-versed. I can say that there are things about my body that don't bug me at all, and other things about my body which I feel tons better about now that they're different. I could draw similarities to feeling dissatisfied with being obese or underweight, or feeling frustrated about your nearsightedness and wanting to get glasses to see better, or wanting to try experimenting with dying or styling your hair differently; it's not perfect, but it's similar for me. Body modification, whether it's aesthetic things, or transhumanist augmentation, or taking control of aspects of our physical sex, it's all not a big deal.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 30, 2016, 03:24:47 am
Spoiler: for doze, responses to the stuff you said your dad said (click to show/hide)
? O_oPost by: Rolepgeek on December 30, 2016, 03:33:02 am
Post by: Solifuge on December 30, 2016, 04:39:54 am
Arbitrary is a very ambiguous word (annoyingly), but that makes it out to be something very different than it is, as if a bunch of tribesfolk sat down on day and decided 'well, the men shall act in this manner and aspire to be such and such, and the women shall act in that manner and aspire to be so and so.'
Spoiler: Derail, but that's actually pretty much exactly what happened! (click to show/hide)
P.S. When I say Gender or Gender Roles, I specifically mean the social customs and expectations put on people based on the Sex they are assigned. I don't mean "Gender" as in the gentle way of saying "Biological Sex". Yes there are genetic and hormonally-mediated differences in behavior, but (at least in my experience pre- and post- transition) the ones I've experienced or observed have been pretty dang insignificant compared to the simple fact of our social training and inculcation.
P.P.S. Gender Roles are generally more strict or extreme in cultures emerging in areas of harsh climates, abundant natural hazards, and limited resources. Given the above information, can you guess why? :Y
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 19, 2017, 01:29:46 pm
Quote
Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's OK to be a boy, but for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading.
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW
I have wondered for ages why it was more acceptable for girls to transgress gender norms than for boys to do so. After all, society's got it out for women, right? So why would they be favored in this situation?
But looking at it from the perspective of masculine/feminine behavior (or presentation), it fits together nicely.
Quote from: society
Masculine is good, feminine is bad. Women should act feminine. (This distinguishes them from the default of masculinity, and reinforces their inferiority.)
Quote from: society now
Masculine is good, feminine is bad. Let's free women by letting them act in a good way, a masculine way!
From this perspective, it seems ridiculous that some feminists would be opposed to women acting femininely - reclaiming femininity as not bad is the only non-sexist solution, as far as I can see.
Yes, this is now the feminist thread.
Post by: TempAcc on January 19, 2017, 01:39:21 pm
I'm ok with hermeticism.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 19, 2017, 01:46:40 pm
Quote from: Hermeticism
Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all planes.
Sounds like a bunch of essentialist nonsense.
Post by: Harry Baldman on January 19, 2017, 02:41:09 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2017, 02:55:28 pm
And he's going around publicizing his talks with posters that say "Trannies are Gay" and "Trannies = Mentally Ill". When you combine that with the fact that he's using the pulpit of the stage to do hate speech against individual members of the audience, I can get why people are protesting against his tour, and it's not because "they hate free speech". I mean if a Neo-Nazi is coming to town to give a speech and puts up posters with swastikas on then that say "Gas the Jews" in big letters, and has a habit of turning the audience against specific Jews who turn up to see the speech, I should hope that you get a posse out to beat those guys heads in. There's a limit to acceptable free speech.
EDITED:
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harasses-transgender-student-stage-milwaukee/
Quote
“‘Man up’ is a big no no for liberals, intent on eliminating masculinity from our culture. Toxic masculinity and rape culture and all the other idiotic things they like to say in their war against men,” Yiannopoulos said. “I’ll tell you one UW Milwaukee student that doesn’t need to man up, Justine Kramer.” He then shared a photo of Adelaide Kramer (Justine is a former name), who was apparently in the audience at the time, on the screen while he proceeded to berate her.He then made some jokes about the student in question being non-passable, to which the audience all laughed.
Quote
“I’m sitting there and I hear him say ‘Justine Kramer’ and I just froze up. I have never, ever, ever been more terrified in my life of being outed. Ever,” she recalled. “And I am sitting there frozen in total terror that somebody around me would recognize me, point me out, and incite the mob of the room against me. Nobody did point me out, thank god. But do you have ANY idea how much power Milo had and how it feels to pray that your ability to ‘pass’ doesn’t fail you now?”
Which the whole thing is basically disgusting. This reminds me of Dinesh D'Souza, he was the Indian protoge of a right-wing intellectual who hated both Indians and blacks, but he was an Indian conservative who also hated blacks, so he was a useful mouthpiece, and thus carved a unique niche for himself in the right-wing blogosphere. Token non-caucasian racist. Milo Yiannopoulos is carving a similar niche for himself. He's a "mincing" flamboyant gay man who is attacking transgender rights. So in other words he's carving a niche in the conservative field, where they hate gay people in general, by being "their man" who is a gay man who will attack other sexual minorities. Very similar niche to D'Souza.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 19, 2017, 03:01:06 pm
But the feminine isn't necessarily culturally bad, mind you.Oh, I know. A few minutes after the initial rush of SEEING THE TRUTH, I can see that this is one piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle itself.
Quote
It's just a much more exacting set of standards. Meeting the ideal of femininity - beauty, purity, chastity and so forth - is rewarded strongly.Ah, but there's a difference between "femininity is bad/good" and "femininity is discouraged/encouraged". Femininity could be encouraged for women, but also considered to be negative.
Quote
Notice, for instance, that transwomen who easily pass are much more kindly looked upon than those who do not - this is because they plausibly meet that feminine ideal and are difficult to distinguish from regular women. The ones that do not are also not beautiful according to the traditional feminine ideal, and their purity and chastity is called into question because they quite literally deviate from sexual norms.Yes! This is very similar to what I have been thinking about the Standard Trans (Woman) Narrative, which I dislike intensely. It's society's way of enforcing the gender binary even while people cross it - this person really is a woman, and the gender binary still works, see? She fits all the stereotypes! ::)
Quote
([And] the traditional view is that a crossdresser, for instance, is just a kind of weird sex pervert, which doesn't help matters at all).In TERF terminology, those people are "autogynephilics." I think I preferred "pervert." It's shorter, and doesn't dress up the hatred in medical terms.
Apparently Milo Yiannopoulos attacked a transwoman on stage at a college and held up a picture of her calling her a sick twisted person basically. And said person was in the audience. Can you imagine how that would feel?This is old news, but yeah. Milo's a piece of shit. And when college students say "get Yiannopoulos out of Minneapolis", the TERFs complain about "muh freeze peaches". We have the right to disallow abusive and hateful speech in our colleges - especially when the speech considered is that of an outsider being invited and given a platform. This isn't some student ranting about the "NIGGERS", this is different. Worse.
Quote
Also, he's advertising his speaking tour with posters that say "Trannies are Gay"Pffffff-
I literally spit out my trail mix. Milo is gay. What in the four hells? Is he out of his mind?
Quote
and "Trannies = Mentally Ill". When you combine that with the fact that he's using the pulpit of the stage to do hate speech against individual members of the audience, I can get why people are protesting against his tour, and it's not because "they hate free speech". I mean if a Neo-Nazi is coming to town to give a speech and puts up posters with swastikas on then that say "Gas the Jews" in big letters, and has a habit of turning the audience against specific Jews who turn up to see the speech, I should hope that you get a posse out to beat those guys heads in. There's a limit to acceptable free speech.This isn't even about free speech though. It's about a free platform. Free speech is free speech, an audience or a platform aren't free.
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2017, 03:10:02 pm
It is no news that Milo's a piece of shit, I'll agree with that.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 19, 2017, 03:17:35 pm
Well the article is 4 weeks old, so I don't think the specific story of him naming a specific transgender person who happened to be in the crowd is "old news", it's certainly not been mentioned here.In the Interwebs, 4 weeks old is ancient.
It is no news that Milo's a piece of shit, I'll agree with that.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 19, 2017, 04:05:46 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2017, 06:23:09 pm
Post by: Tiruin on January 19, 2017, 09:53:53 pm
-snip-In a more foundational sense--it's the connections of concepts being attached to what's being observed. :O hence why there's this feeling going about; there's a thought towards that feeling which gives it sense, but at the speed of thought at the time, it may not be directly apparent...So other than being a feminist thread, it's also a cognitive point. :P
Cognitive, in the same sense in what's going on with people who attack other people by using a label instead of understanding the context (and...being updated with knowledge, but that's another story) like in Reelya's post; it oversimplifies an idea that by itself already stands reasonable. :-\
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 30, 2017, 03:20:35 pm
(I apologize for the inconvenience, but somebody who I know personally has been monitoring what I post, and I'm sick of it. I am fine, though. Wasn't 43.5 (a.b) a good release?)
(Once I can get them to stop it, I'll post the actual content of the message. Until then, the crypto-savvy will know what I said, and someone I know personally will be annoyed.)
(Edit: It's probably been long enough.)
Spoiler: shhhh (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 30, 2017, 03:47:21 pm
Of course it isn't some cipher I'd trust in a real situation though, I'm not trying to make it impossible.
In fact, the key is right here. (http://donotbeafraidforIamwithyouIwillbringyourchildrenfromtheeastandgatheryoufromthewest.com)
Sorry. :P I just really like making puzzles. I remember when I set up this whole mystery in 1st grade, leaving clues everywhere that people would need to work together to decipher...
...and half the clues were just thrown in the trash. *sigh*
Post by: TempAcc on January 30, 2017, 03:54:23 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2017, 03:58:09 pm
Quote
Femininity could be encouraged for women, but also considered to be negative.
More often then not it isn't so much that femininity is considered a negative so much that it is extremely restrictive and considered a negative in most situations.
There is a strong idea, even today, that femininity and, for example, being a soldier are opposing ideas. There is more of an idea that femininity and masculinity compliment each other but are mutually exclusive (Which is easy to see why that ended up being a harmful view overall)
It is uncommon that femininity or masculinity gets a blanket idea of negativity.
Though at the same time... Back when women fashion was incredibly dangerous there was a LOT of criticism put towards it. Then again that isn't that femininity is a negative so much that one aspect of it is.
Sorry just an aside.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 30, 2017, 04:48:20 pm
- Expecting every woman to cut off her legs would be an inherently negative gender role.
- Expecting every woman to dye their hair purple would not. However, if purple is considered to be a negative trait, then the gender role is (componentially) culturally negative.
- Expecting women to never have orange hair, because orange and feminine contradict each other, indicates that orange hair is (gender-specific) culturally negative.
(I have been discussing componential cultural values regarding gender roles - purple is bad, and women should have purple hair. This is distinct from gender-specific cultural values regarding gender roles - orange is good, and additionally, it's okay for men, but bad for women. These are obviously difficult to tell apart in practice, but imagine an androgynous person doing something. Is that thing bad? Then any corresponding gender role will be componentially negative. Otherwise, it will be gender-specifically negative.)
Many gender roles will be "merely" culturally negative at first sight, rather than inherently negative, but they are often related to a deeper inherently negative role. Ferex, submissive is bad, right? Culturally, we consider submissiveness to be a generally bad thing, and objectively, submissiveness means that you're less likely to stand up for your rights, making oppressive gender roles more likely to persist. That is, submissiveness is both culturally negative and inherently negative.
Additionally, we have restrictiveness, which is entirely orthogonal to inherent and cultural negativity. Restrictiveness represents how many choices a gender role conflicts with, the degree to which this conflict is considered negative, and (possibly) the degree to which the conflicting choice is prevented by society, whether coercively or directly.
Indeed, I might agree that the feminine gender role is more restrictive than the masculine gender role. (This has certainly been historically accurate, but I'm less sure of it today. The restrictiveness variable alone could be lower for women than for men, considering that it is a composite of "how many choices are off-limits" and "how bad is 'off-limits' anyway" and "what happens if I go off-limits". A masculine woman would, perhaps, be less ostracized today than a feminine woman. But femininity itself - what does that cover? Is it less inclusive than masculinity? I'm not sure; if it is, then the composite of restrictiveness might still be lower for women.)QuoteFemininity could be encouraged for women, but also considered to be negative.
More often then not it isn't so much that femininity is considered a negative so much that it is extremely restrictive
...and considered a negative in most situations.I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that restrictiveness is considered negative? If so, that's a personal statement of value, which is distinct from my analysis of the cultural values associated with gender roles and their violation. In less compact language, you're saying that femininity is bad because it keeps women from doing things (which somewhat resembles my inherent negativity concept). I'm saying that femininity (or components of such) is considered to be bad by contemporary Western culture (or tends to be).
There is a strong idea, even today, that femininity and, for example, being a soldier are opposing ideas.This has several components: first, we've got the restrictiveness concept present, in that society tends to prevent women from becoming soldiers. Second, we notice that society assigns "woman and soldier" a negative value - . Then we have the general negative gender role ("woman should not fight") which corresponds to the general positive gender role ("woman should be weak and unable to defend herself") which is inherently harmful to women, mostly because it is related to violence and submissiveness/passiveness (i.e., not standing up for one's self).
There is more of an idea that femininity and masculinity compliment each other but are mutually exclusive (Which is easy to see why that ended up being a harmful view overall)Ah, but we can imagine the following scenario: women can do X (so says society). Men can do A, B, C, D, E, ... W, Y, Z. It certainly harms both men and women, but it harms women far more.
It is uncommon that femininity or masculinity gets a blanket idea of negativity.I disagree, although we have the complicated concept of....
This is hard to explain or define. Suppose that purple hair is bad. Everybody knows that purple is associated with passiveness, or sluttiness, or unintelligence, or something like that. But it is more accepted for a woman to have purple hair than for a woman to have brown hair.
So at the same time we have positive values (woman-has-purple) and negative values (purple-is-bad). I'm not sure if this is actually real, but it seems pretty likely - femininity, or aspects thereof, are commonly associated with negative things (stupid, bitchy, slutty, et cetera).
Though at the same time... Back when women fashion was incredibly dangerous there was a LOT of criticism put towards it. Then again that isn't that femininity is a negative so much that one aspect of it is.Ah, so when you say "dangerous" you're referring to inherent negativity.
Sorry just an aside.Sorry, I just wrote a huge analysis only somewhat related to your aside. Still, it was fun and I had a few insights while writing it. (I only added the componential/gender-specific distinction at the end, when I realized that it was necessary to describe the difference between woman-soldier-bad and submissiveness-bad+woman-submissive-good.)
(What in the four hells... over three double-spaced pages?)
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2017, 04:56:43 pm
I mean that femininity outside the limit roles women were prescribed, is considered a negative. If women "shouldn't" be window washers, for example, then femininity is considered a negative trait for window washers.
As for "Dangerous fashion" I mean that in a very literal sense. Back when women's fashion could kill and damage a woman. For example lead based makeup.
Quote
femininity, or aspects thereof, are commonly associated with negative things (stupid, bitchy, slutty, et cetera).
Yes there are a lot of negative associations but the same goes with masculinity (though probably more to femininity)
But there is a difference between that... and a blanket negativity. A sort of "Being feminine is bad for anyone". Which probably has happened before, but not in American history that I can remember.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 30, 2017, 05:00:48 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2017, 05:27:52 pm
Uh no I think masculinity has more negative connotations. Femininity is put on a pedestal, much to the detriment of women and also deprecating men.
It is more situation wise that I refer to it. In the job market.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 31, 2017, 04:16:36 pm
Yes, certainly, there's positive traits associated with it too, some of which are semi-modern reinterpretations of those traditional traits; cooperation, emotional expressiveness, understanding, supportive, humility, nurturing, subtlety. Feminism has done quite a bit to try and portray women in a more positive light and point out the flaws in a traditionally masculine approach, as well as enable women to act in non-feminine ways, and whether any individual interpretation goes too far and begins just degrading men in the name of uplifting women is a case-by-case question.
But for the general case of masculine vs. feminine traits, in the overall/generalized view of our society, still favors masculinity. (Current) capitalism favors ambition, a certain kind of ruthlessness, and pure logic, which is more associated with men, even while serenity rather than anger is more associated with women. Yes, that is contradictory. Individualism favors independence, ambition, and the active rather than passive. Most moral systems dislike manipulation, which is the typical example of how women are portrayed smarter than men in media; by getting one over on them or manipulating them into doing their will, often followed by "men are so gullible/such idiots/so easy to manipulate" with a co-conspirator to drive the point home. We can find it funny because it's usually fairly harmless.
I disagree about most any of these traits being inherently negative. Even things like masculinity and wrathfulness are rooted in honor culture where reputation for vengeance is perhaps one of the only ways to have security for yourself and family. Rationality is perhaps an inherently positive trait in my opinion, but that's because I'm very logically oriented, and being able to express one's emotions/factor in emotions is a very important skill for social interaction, which, in a species like ours, is perhaps the single most useful ability to have.
Post by: martinuzz on January 31, 2017, 04:21:37 pm
http://scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/bsa-addresses-gender-identity/
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 31, 2017, 04:24:39 pm
I checked the Girl Scouts. It seems that they not only allow trans girls in - they turned down $100 thousand dollars because it came with a stipulation of "will not be used to help trans youth". Truly a great sign of alliance, in this capitalist society.
Post by: martinuzz on January 31, 2017, 04:25:35 pm
Woot!Yeah with the girl scouts it hasn't been an issue for some time now.
...I'm not optimistic enough to bet that the GSA has already allowed trans girls in.
Edit: I checked. My faith in humanity has improved somewhat. Woot!
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 31, 2017, 04:41:50 pm
I mean that femininity outside the limit roles women were prescribed, is considered a negative. If women "shouldn't" be window washers, for example, then femininity is considered a negative trait for window washers.Ahh... that's an interesting perspective. So you're saying that there is an expectation for all window washers to be less feminine, whether they're male or female? That seems to indicate a desire for "consistency" or homogeneity in gender traits - society doesn't like the contradiction of a woman having a "masculine" job and presenting as feminine.
As for "Dangerous fashion" I mean that in a very literal sense. Back when women's fashion could kill and damage a woman. For example lead based makeup.Ah, then that's
Oh, indeed, there are a variety of negative gender traits/insults/pejoratives - for men and women, whether they're defying gender or adhering to the stereotypes too much. Feels like Morton's Fork.Quotefemininity, or aspects thereof, are commonly associated with negative things (stupid, bitchy, slutty, et cetera).
Yes there are a lot of negative associations but the same goes with masculinity (though probably more to femininity)
But there is a difference between that... and a blanket negativity. A sort of "Being feminine is bad for anyone". Which probably has happened before, but not in American history that I can remember.Well, that's why I specified componential negativity. Femininity is more than the sum of its parts, or at least that's how society sees it. We can look at more subtle trends by analyzing the most common gender traits for men and women and determining how valuable or negative society sees each to be.
Uh no I think masculinity has more negative connotations. Femininity is put on a pedestal, much to the detriment of women and also deprecating men.This is, naturally, dependent on your experiences. Femininity and masculinity have both been praised and reviled - I'm not looking at the overall feeling of "is this good" people have about masculinity/femininity, I'm looking at the values associated with each component of gender.
Hmm... it might also depend on the situation, yes. I was considering only the individual culture that one experiences (which is, of course, different for people who grow up in different places and times), but the context of the values should not be ignored.Uh no I think masculinity has more negative connotations. Femininity is put on a pedestal, much to the detriment of women and also deprecating men.
It is more situation wise that I refer to it. In the job market.
I wonder if you could measure how much society values jobs/home (ferex) by looking how closely society's values match with the "necessary" traits for success in each situation, or the traits that are associated with each situation.
I also disagree flat out with that assessment, Rolan. The culturally ideal forms of masculininity and femininity, historically speaking, are both lauded. Deviations from such are derided. Furthermore, many of the characteristics associated with femininity are negatively connotated in an indivualistic society. Obviously this varies based on locale and medium, but such traits as dependency, irrationality, submissiveness, manipulation, underhandedness, servility, physical frailty/weakness, and a lack of ambition are all traditionally considered feminine.
Yes, certainly, there's positive traits associated with it too, some of which are semi-modern reinterpretations of those traditional traits; cooperation, emotional expressiveness, understanding, supportive, humility, nurturing, subtlety. Feminism has done quite a bit to try and portray women in a more positive light and point out the flaws in a traditionally masculine approach, as well as enable women to act in non-feminine ways, and whether any individual interpretation goes too far and begins just degrading men in the name of uplifting women is a case-by-case question.
But for the general case of masculine vs. feminine traits, in the overall/generalized view of our society, still favors masculinity. (Current) capitalism favors ambition, a certain kind of ruthlessness, and pure logic, which is more associated with men, even while serenity rather than anger is more associated with women. Yes, that is contradictory. Individualism favors independence, ambition, and the active rather than passive. Most moral systems dislike manipulation, which is the typical example of how women are portrayed smarter than men in media; by getting one over on them or manipulating them into doing their will, often followed by "men are so gullible/such idiots/so easy to manipulate" with a co-conspirator to drive the point home. We can find it funny because it's usually fairly harmless.
I disagree about most any of these traits being inherently negative. Even things like masculinity and wrathfulness are rooted in honor culture where reputation for vengeance is perhaps one of the only ways to have security for yourself and family. Rationality is perhaps an inherently positive trait in my opinion, but that's because I'm very logically oriented, and being able to express one's emotions/factor in emotions is a very important skill for social interaction, which, in a species like ours, is perhaps the single most useful ability to have.
Somewhat related: I talked with my father about this. (He's a sociologist.) He pointed out that I had called certain traits "inherently or intrinsically negative", which was actually very hard to determine; any classification is more likely to reveal my own cultural biases than some fundamental non-cultural value.
When you say "most of these are not inherently negative", it sounds like you're talking about "intrinsic negativity", which I discussed before. (Cutting all women's legs off, et cetera.) But it is preceded by a discussion of cultural values. I'm a bit confused. Do you mean inherently culturally negative or inherently "objectively" negative?
Post by: Kansa on January 31, 2017, 04:44:29 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 31, 2017, 06:25:36 pm
(I'm not any less torn about what to do, what gender I am, if gender is even a thing, etc. I'm just distracting myself with pondering, speculation, analysis, and discussion.)
Post by: Kansa on January 31, 2017, 06:28:56 pm
And yeah I know the feeling, I'm still in the same situation too in that area.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 31, 2017, 06:44:51 pm
Mainly because it was so important to me growing up, then they denied me Eagle over atheism... Not even the gay issue, which was a big deal for them then. I was in denial, but it didn't win them any favors later.
I'm really glad they've improved so much. It's heartening, and it's a really good program for the most part.
Post by: Neonivek on January 31, 2017, 08:04:50 pm
I meant the boy scouts and the girls scouts accepting transgender people, it's just a good sign that it's becoming a bit more acceptable even if it's just a little.
And yeah I know the feeling, I'm still in the same situation too in that area.
Well given that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are drastically different groups... it is more surprising to me that the Boy Scouts caved given their... leanings.
Then again there are two major "Male Scout" groups...
Post by: Rolan7 on January 31, 2017, 08:08:36 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 07, 2017, 11:57:47 pm
It's an interesting point about how the changing demographics may leave a bunch of people, male or female out in the cold in various ways. I think that for a few decades the "women can have it all" mantra has been akin to technological "boosterism", i.e. the idea that anyone with doubts about a big change is a luddite. But I'm more inclined to the "you can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs" philosophy. Radically changing anything is going to break things for a significant minority of people, and you can't really pre-assume who is going to be winners and losers. While I'm certainly not a conservative in any sense, I think what we lack is a clear analysis of the actual pros and cons of every policy that's out there. We normally hear from the booster side, and any caveats or questions are drowned out by labeling the questioner as racist/sexist etc.
Quote
For one, it’s not as if we are holding out for Jake Gyllenhaal, but we do have certain non-negotiable expectations for potential mates that include college degrees and white-collar jobs. Life has always gone according to our plans, so why wouldn’t we land a man with these (reasonable) requirements?
Well you'd better start negotiating that damn quick, because 60% of college graduates are now women. Any imbalance is in fact a problem for both genders, there are no losers and winners here. Women often have the expectation to "marry up" (i.e. "me or me+") whereas men don't see a problem "marrying down". This exacerbates the problem. e.g. 60 female college grads are chasing 40 male college grads (3 women chasing 2 men), but the 40 male college grads are willing to consider 60 other women who aren't college grads as well, so to the man, they see 3 potential mates per 1 competing man, not 1.5 per 1.
Also the imbalance starts in early education. Basically there are ton of well-funded girl-booster programs now, but almost zero boy-booster programs, and in fact boys hear quite a lot of reinforcement that they are the bad-gender now from an early age. I could google around for that but there are tons of resources about this. I'd argue that this is in fact harming (hetero) women themselves later in life. This is why anyone caring about actually improvements for women need to care about nurturing both genders right from the start rather than just boosting one over the other.
Post by: Neonivek on February 08, 2017, 12:04:45 am
Though to admit this is one of the few times I've seen ANYTHING actually blame women for anything (that wasn't trying to be... incredibly sexist at least)
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 12:14:18 am
For example, in the UK now, I read that 85% of medical students are now women, in an area that used to be almost 100% men. So the "marry a doctor" trope is completely dead now - each male medical student has 5-6 doctor babes to himself. Basically each male doctor now has an ultra-brainy-chick harem to pick between.
But "geek chic" is the cool thing in mainstream media and even women-targeted media. Which would be surprising since the proportion of women studying comp. sci has actually fallen, but comp. sci graduates are now a lucrative dating market for college graduate women who don't have the traditional dating pools (law, medicine & finance bros).
Post by: Neonivek on February 08, 2017, 12:16:29 am
You just have to read between the lines a bit there :P
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on February 08, 2017, 09:28:03 am
What.
Post by: Criptfeind on February 08, 2017, 09:35:35 am
Post by: Arx on February 08, 2017, 09:52:57 am
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 12:17:17 pm
Majority and minority have pretty well defined meanings and attempts to redefine "minority" to include women (https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/gender-stratification-and-inequality-11/women-as-a-minority-88/women-as-a-minority-507-10466/) (who make up 51% of the population) based on "privilege" is in fact just poisonous to the language itself in the long run. As the cognitive dissonance over a group who are less of the population being called a "minority" shows. There are less men that women in total.
Women are in fact the majority of the US population. So women are both the majority and a minority. What does that make men then? They're neither the majority and we're not allowed to call them a minority, so we have no label for them in that system.
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 12:43:19 pm
According to the data in that article they only make up 5% of the population but would make up 40% of college admissions if things weren't skewed towards other races a bit. Basically, the SATS are biased towards blacks the most, then whites, then asians. So in other words they're not "disadvantaged" at all - they've implicitly capped how many places they can take to give everyone else a fighting chance at those degrees.
And to be honest it's probably not because they're asian, it's because they favored female applicants and the asian cultures are more pushy of their boys to go to college than white families are. Whites send a 40/60 male/female split to college admissions. Asians would be much closer to 50/50, meaning a pro-female applicant bias would be anti-Asian purely by accident.
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 12:57:01 pm
And later in the article they say that some highly regarded Asian businessmen said:
Quote
High-flying Asian-Americans, like the three authors of the Ascend report, suggest that cultural patterns may contribute to the group’s under-representation at the top. “There’s something in the upbringing that makes Asians shy,” says Mr Gee. “Engineers are nerds, but within that self-selected group of nerds, Asians are even more nerdy.” “We’re brought up to be humble,” says Ms Wong. “My parents didn’t want to rock the boat. It’s about being quiet, not making waves, being part of the team. In corporate life, you have to learn to toot your horn.” “There’s a natural order of human relationships in Confucianism,” says Ms Peck. “You don’t argue, you don’t contradict authority.” Asian-Americans are a large, diverse group exposed to a range of influences, but those who do reflect such patterns may be less likely to bid for leadership, even if they are highly qualified. The comparative prominence of South Asians, who are less likely to be told not to “rock the boat”—for instance, Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo and Ajay Banga at MasterCard—is cited as anecdotal evidence.
So in other words they're saying Asian cultural norms aren't aggressive enough to make it in the cut-throat world of getting to the top in American business, whereas Indians, they come from a much louder and competitive culture, so you see more of those than East Asians busting through and becoming CEOs and even into high levels of government now.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on February 08, 2017, 03:21:31 pm
The label "minority" attached to women never made a whole lot of sense to start with. It was intended for races, because those races were in fact smaller than 50% of the population. In fact, it's going to cease being useful pretty soon, as they're predicting that the non-hispanic white population will drop below 50% by the middle of this century, meaning white people are strictly speaking a minority of the population as well.
Majority and minority have pretty well defined meanings and attempts to redefine "minority" to include women (https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/gender-stratification-and-inequality-11/women-as-a-minority-88/women-as-a-minority-507-10466/) (who make up 51% of the population) based on "privilege" is in fact just poisonous to the language itself in the long run. As the cognitive dissonance over a group who are less of the population being called a "minority" shows. There are less men that women in total.
Women are in fact the majority of the US population. So women are both the majority and a minority. What does that make men then? They're neither the majority and we're not allowed to call them a minority, so we have no label for them in that system.
Oh, I totally agree. We need a word for "oppressed group" or "group without privilege" that isn't mathematically inaccurate. The MRA I paraphrased is abusing the weird terminology and conflating "statistical minority" and "oppressed minority."
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 03:34:03 pm
Let me describe some stats about women's vs men's wages and show the double standard about preponderence of evidence:
Women without kids under 30 outearn similarly aged single men by a full 8%. (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html)
One retort to this (an actual one I observed) was that this isn't "everywhere" so it's bullshit. Sure, it's "merely" in the largest 147 out of 150 cities in the USA. Right? So it's not exactly everywhere so at least one feminist commentor dismissed it. What you have there is a clear closed mind to new information that might upset a worldview. Which is way more conservative than liberal in actual thought patterns. It's like arguing with a creationist.
Another retort was that when you adjust for level of education, and job sector etc, then the 8% bonus to women goes away. So it's actually completely fair. But think about it, the female wage gap people usually get angry when commentators do those exact same "adjustments" to show that the female wage gap is much smaller than the headline stats suggest. And they would get angry if someone was to point out that, and say "see, men earning more is fair". In other words, you can use an argument but you have to be willing to apply it with universality, it can never be a double-standard. Either we take the raw wage figures to compare group vs group or we allow all the same adjustments on each side, not one and the other.
But that is also posited on it being fair that women get more degrees than men. When men were getting more degrees, this was taken as proof itself that the system was biased, therefore any benefits earned by men were not really earned. But as soon as women get an overwhelmingly larger share of the pie, they want to point to hard work, and that they earned it, and it's completely fair. Again, you can't have that both ways. If there's a systemic bias then it's either rigged or not rigged, you can't only claim it's rigged when your team is losing.
Another example is IQ testing. Now that women have 0.5 IQ point lead on men they want to say it's biological, but when men were ahead they wanted to say it was social. Jesus, either stick with one or the other, don't flip-flop on nature/nurture depending on who's "team" is ahead. And of course if someone said "blacks low IQ is genetic" then that would be a killing offense, but if you said ... "black women have better genes for IQ than black men" then of course, you're the new hero of the cause. My view is that the new-found female lead in IQ is purely due to the little extra schooling they are getting on average - the Flynn Effect, and no need to assumed gendered IQ genes whatsoever.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on February 08, 2017, 05:22:14 pm
Although if things continue like they are with women getting 60% of the degrees over a generation or two, that might become more of a valid observation.
Let me describe some stats about women's vs men's wages and show the double standard about preponderence of evidence:
Women without kids under 30 outearn similarly aged single men by a full 8%. (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html)
One retort to this (an actual one I observed) was that this isn't "everywhere" so it's bullshit. Sure, it's "merely" in the largest 147 out of 150 cities in the USA. Right? So it's not exactly everywhere so at least one feminist commentor dismissed it. What you have there is a clear closed mind to new information that might upset a worldview. Which is way more conservative than liberal in actual thought patterns. It's like arguing with a creationist.
Another retort was that when you adjust for level of education, and job sector etc, then the 8% bonus to women goes away. So it's actually completely fair. But think about it, the female wage gap people usually get angry when commentators do those exact same "adjustments" to show that the female wage gap is much smaller than the headline stats suggest. And they would get angry if someone was to point out that, and say "see, men earning more is fair". In other words, you can use an argument but you have to be willing to apply it with universality, it can never be a double-standard. Either we take the raw wage figures to compare group vs group or we allow all the same adjustments on each side, not one and the other.
But that is also posited on it being fair that women get more degrees than men. When men were getting more degrees, this was taken as proof itself that the system was biased, therefore any benefits earned by men were not really earned. But as soon as women get an overwhelmingly larger share of the pie, they want to point to hard work, and that they earned it, and it's completely fair. Again, you can't have that both ways. If there's a systemic bias then it's either rigged or not rigged, you can't only claim it's rigged when your team is losing.
Another example is IQ testing. Now that women have 0.5 IQ point lead on men they want to say it's biological, but when men were ahead they wanted to say it was social. Jesus, either stick with one or the other, don't flip-flop on nature/nurture depending on who's "team" is ahead. And of course if someone said "blacks low IQ is genetic" then that would be a killing offense, but if you said ... "black women have better genes for IQ than black men" then of course, you're the new hero of the cause. My view is that the new-found female lead in IQ is purely due to the little extra schooling they are getting on average - the Flynn Effect, and no need to assumed gendered IQ genes whatsoever.
I have a problem with the non-egalitarian feminists, too. As well as the tribal feminists, but that ought to go without saying. And yes, there are problems that men face more than women, and feminism can sometimes minimize those problems. (It doesn't help that "men have problems too" was a staple anti-feminist retort, trying to assert the equivalency of the two, when I just want both problems fixed.)
I might be a little biased, but IMO it's usually nurture.
Quote
you can't only claim it's rigged when your team is losing
Reminds me of Trump. Actually, it reminds me of pretty much every single person. Do we even have a word for this? Does the fish have a word for the water?
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 05:27:09 pm
One TED talk I saw summed this up. If someone does or wants to believe something they ask "can I believe this". Therefore they find that one study that says what they want and stop looking. If someone doesn't want to believe something they ask "must I believe this", and they go and find the one study that says the opposite, and present that as proof.
It's like argument by anecdote but in the most self-serving way imaginable. And lots of people do it. Nobody is perfect, but I always try and do synthesis of multiple sources, so my model of things needs to account for the pro and con sides of any debate. Basically I find any position untenable if there are examples it doesn't account for. You shouldn't be picking between alternate theories if there are any examples that neither can account for - you need a better model.
That's why I'm mostly partial to the pre-natal effects model over the "innate gender (X vs Y chromosome)" model or "blank slate + socialization" model. If socialization is as all-powerful as claimed at shaping our very identity then it can't really explain why some children "go against the trend" on e.g. gender identity so strongly from a young age. And being born male/female clearly doesn't explain a whole lot either. But stuff like pre-natal hormones has actually evidence for it's effect on gender-correlated traits, and it's merely correlated with both socialization and XY chromosome, so it explains outliers too that the older nature/nuture argument couldn't explain.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on February 08, 2017, 05:36:16 pm
Yeah we do have a term for that - confirmation bias.Doesn't quite seem to cover it. It's more like, "when stuff is going bad for me, it's not natural, it's someone else's fault."
Post by: Reelya on February 08, 2017, 05:39:21 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
Post by: misko27 on February 08, 2017, 06:41:34 pm
Blameshifting is the word my mother uses; my father gives her plenty of opportunities to use it. Scapegoating is Wikipedia's recommendation.Yeah we do have a term for that - confirmation bias.Doesn't quite seem to cover it. It's more like, "when stuff is going bad for me, it's not natural, it's someone else's fault."
Post by: Rolepgeek on February 08, 2017, 06:58:37 pm
Well I was looking at your article that says 41% of berkeley and 44% of Caltech students are Asian-American. Since they only make up 5% of the population, that's a massive over-representation.If you look at what CalTech and Berkeley admit people on, and look at who national merit scholarships are given out to, and how that stands relative to Ivy League admission rates, you might notice that Asian Americans get about 40% of NMS Awards as well. Which is purely based on grades and academic ability, as is Caltech. And then Ivy League schools discriminate against them because they aren't considered 'deserving' minorities. To the point where it's becoming significantly more common for half-Asian teenagers to put down their ethnicity as white on college applications.
And later in the article they say that some highly regarded Asian businessmen said:QuoteHigh-flying Asian-Americans, like the three authors of the Ascend report, suggest that cultural patterns may contribute to the group’s under-representation at the top. “There’s something in the upbringing that makes Asians shy,” says Mr Gee. “Engineers are nerds, but within that self-selected group of nerds, Asians are even more nerdy.” “We’re brought up to be humble,” says Ms Wong. “My parents didn’t want to rock the boat. It’s about being quiet, not making waves, being part of the team. In corporate life, you have to learn to toot your horn.” “There’s a natural order of human relationships in Confucianism,” says Ms Peck. “You don’t argue, you don’t contradict authority.” Asian-Americans are a large, diverse group exposed to a range of influences, but those who do reflect such patterns may be less likely to bid for leadership, even if they are highly qualified. The comparative prominence of South Asians, who are less likely to be told not to “rock the boat”—for instance, Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo and Ajay Banga at MasterCard—is cited as anecdotal evidence.
So in other words they're saying Asian cultural norms aren't aggressive enough to make it in the cut-throat world of getting to the top in American business, whereas Indians, they come from a much louder and competitive culture, so you see more of those than East Asians busting through and becoming CEOs and even into high levels of government now.
Post by: Tiruin on February 09, 2017, 05:16:30 am
I'd say it is confirmation bias as the mechanism but it's driven by ingroup/outgroup dynamicsDo note--for cognitive mechanisms and all, that's just a tiny part of the influence :P There is MUCH MUCH more to driving these observations we all see here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
But I lack the time to post about it due to studies >_>
Post by: Gentlefish on February 09, 2017, 06:43:15 am
The label "minority" attached to women never made a whole lot of sense to start with. It was intended for races, because those races were in fact smaller than 50% of the population. In fact, it's going to cease being useful pretty soon, as they're predicting that the non-hispanic white population will drop below 50% by the middle of this century, meaning white people are strictly speaking a minority of the population as well.
Majority and minority have pretty well defined meanings and attempts to redefine "minority" to include women (https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/gender-stratification-and-inequality-11/women-as-a-minority-88/women-as-a-minority-507-10466/) (who make up 51% of the population) based on "privilege" is in fact just poisonous to the language itself in the long run. As the cognitive dissonance over a group who are less of the population being called a "minority" shows. There are less men that women in total.
Women are in fact the majority of the US population. So women are both the majority and a minority. What does that make men then? They're neither the majority and we're not allowed to call them a minority, so we have no label for them in that system.
I think in this case majority/minority refers to who wields power. By and large, governmentally and privately, men wield disproportionately more power than women, and thus have a majority of power, in that regard.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on February 09, 2017, 08:27:33 am
The label "minority" attached to women never made a whole lot of sense to start with. It was intended for races, because those races were in fact smaller than 50% of the population. In fact, it's going to cease being useful pretty soon, as they're predicting that the non-hispanic white population will drop below 50% by the middle of this century, meaning white people are strictly speaking a minority of the population as well.
Majority and minority have pretty well defined meanings and attempts to redefine "minority" to include women (https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/gender-stratification-and-inequality-11/women-as-a-minority-88/women-as-a-minority-507-10466/) (who make up 51% of the population) based on "privilege" is in fact just poisonous to the language itself in the long run. As the cognitive dissonance over a group who are less of the population being called a "minority" shows. There are less men that women in total.
Women are in fact the majority of the US population. So women are both the majority and a minority. What does that make men then? They're neither the majority and we're not allowed to call them a minority, so we have no label for them in that system.
I think in this case majority/minority refers to who wields power. By and large, governmentally and privately, men wield disproportionately more power than women, and thus have a majority of power, in that regard.
Yes, but that's not what the word "majority" means. If 10% of the population owned the rest as slaves, the slaves would be a majority.
Post by: Neonivek on February 09, 2017, 08:49:04 am
But rather that many of the mechanisms that affect minorities affect women to the extent where it is often functionally a minority.
It isn't about "How much power" women have.
Which may I add if there is one thing I sort of hate about the victimization/infantilization of women which women studies and even feminism is often INCREDIBLY SUPER DUPER guilty of is that they treat women like that are completely separate from society with no real word, opinion, or power whatsoever... often to the point where they must think women are ghosts or mythological or something.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 09, 2017, 01:06:12 pm
Post by: Edmus on February 09, 2017, 04:53:02 pm
Like, I mean, if you run with the assumption that both genders are equally capable, which I think is the popular opinion of people advocating gender quotas(and myself), wouldn't you end up with something like this?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Though I have heard a big part of it is getting to a fairly decent threshold of like, 30-40% representation, so that you don't feel as though you are penetrating a gendered culture. That I can certainly understand, especially for politics, or jobs with an equal draw.
Post by: Neonivek on February 09, 2017, 05:51:08 pm
For example trying to get people into programming a sort of "Look at what amazing stuff you can do!" will attract males and repulse females. Women find "for its own sake neato" less appealing then men as a whole.
But honestly don't rag on people for complaining about the "Not perfect 50/50!!! AHHH!" too too much. We all want equality and no one REALLY knows how to obtain it... So often it is all about assumptions upon assumptions. Plus it isn't like even in jobs where men OR women are a rarity that there aren't genuine issues with there being hostility towards one gender or another making that number smaller EVEN IF it would never ever be actual 50/50.
I mean yes... There will never be 50% female miners unless some sort of fundamental societal change happens bordering on alchemy. But from some accounts I heard, male miners are less than helpful towards female miners.
---
You get the same thing in videogames.
Where they treat the 50/50 split to mean that there is a 50/50 core gamer audience, in spite that fact being ridiculous ("All Bike riders are car owners because they are both vehicle owners"). Thus there is a lot of occlusion and fabrication when it comes to how it is treated.
Yet it isn't like there aren't things that couldn't be improved. It just is not the things they are pushing.
---
FINALLY just because of a higher representation doesn't necessarily mean things are biased in their favor. While a high number of Chinese people get far in the maths, this is INSPITE limitations being put on them, rather than there being a lack of barrier. If people want it, they will go for it.
---
Basically just take it like it is observed
1) There is a gender discrepancy in X
2) There is clear sexism or signs of sexism in X
Therefor, could sexism be the cause of the gender discrepancy in X?
and if so, could gender discrepancy itself be a result of sexism?
Thus if gender discrepancy is caused by sexism... Then gender discrepancy is a signifier of sexism.
Doesn't seem so insane does it? :P
Post by: Gentlefish on February 09, 2017, 09:56:59 pm
Scholarships to incentivise and help people who would be a statistical minority in that major is a great idea. Even if it is dudes. It says that it's okay for them to take the degree. In most STEM fields, this is mostly applying to women and racial minorities, but I think it's fine to have scholarships for male veterinarians who need financial support.
and I don't think women necessarily want a 50/50 rep in games. They just want females in games to be handled as people rather than prizes. IE, FemShep, who is a zillion times better than Shepherd himself. Or, say, the supporting females (Except Miranda. Fuck you, Miranda), in the Bioware games. They want to feel like they have some agency in their playing. It's fine to have a male lead, it's just that there are no female leads like, basically ever.
Which is partially why I'm excited for Horizon: Zero Dawn. It's a female character written like a badass that's still identifiably female, and not sexualized like laura croft, or Samus Aran in her last few games.
Post by: misko27 on February 09, 2017, 11:53:21 pm
Well here's an on topic news story (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/sydney-university-defends-new-scholarship-that-favours-men-as-consistent-with-diversity-20170208-gu84l6.html) of diversity rules cutting both ways. Scholarships for rural remote males to get into veterinary courses at the uni in order to promote diversity in the 80% female field. This has rustled a lot of jimmies. As someone from regional/remote Australia, suggesting that these blokes aren't disadvantaged pisses me off something fierce. It's only a preference, though it makes me wonder, what's the point of trying to balance fields where one gender is just flat out less interested? Doesn't that just cut off a good number of talented and ambitious folk in order to balance the scales to a 50/50?I feel like 30%-40% is an important ratio, actually. My highschool and college were both heavily slanted gender-wise in one direction (opposite directions though, interestingly), but because they were around that range it didn't feel like "oh this is a place for mostly men/women". I wonder if there is any research on when the ratio between men and women creates a feeling of there being more men than women or visa versa. Obviously no one can tell if it's between 45%-55%, and it's obvious if it's 10%/90%, but what about 20/80? 25/75? 35/65? It's an interesting question, actually. Hmm... Now that's interesting.
Like, I mean, if you run with the assumption that both genders are equally capable, which I think is the popular opinion of people advocating gender quotas(and myself), wouldn't you end up with something like this?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Though I have heard a big part of it is getting to a fairly decent threshold of like, 30-40% representation, so that you don't feel as though you are penetrating a gendered culture. That I can certainly understand, especially for politics, or jobs with an equal draw.
Post by: Neonivek on February 10, 2017, 01:09:47 am
Quote
not sexualized like laura croft,
Goodness... I am just going to let this thread off because I could have a field day.
Because Laura Croft is incredibly sexualized... In the reboot.
In the classic series, outside one game, she just had big boobs and that was kind of it (and some games toned it down, and one ramped it up). Though as always critics of videogames are huge fans of body shaming! and instead of focusing on sexualized characters they focus on sexual characteristics. So I can only imagine women with naturally large breasts feel only scorn from those criticisms.
Which I did hear one critic address that and say that videogame women have no choice in what they look like and how they dress and that is very true. Except the criticism is being misdirected. You cannot go "UGH! Look at that Bikini, she looks totally overly sexualized in that bikini... Uhhh... But it totally looks good on you Samantha". You COULD have argued that the context and framing is different, but instead it is that there is a problem with it being a Bikini.
Which is odd because Quiet (Or Silence) From the Phantom Pain basically handed them good fruitful criticisms on a silver platter. Her costume is not only inherently ridiculous, terrible for what she does, against her personality, but she also sometimes acts like some sort of weird cat-human hybrid.
Dang it I said I wouldn't go there... Suffice it to say that big problem with critics is they often act anti-sex with one or two examples that are "Well-done". I know they aren't (Ok some... maybe half are), but language is important.
To put it into perspective imagine if a show was criticized for having a Stay at home mother, in fact imagine if almost every single show on TV had a stay at home mother even though only 20% of adult women are such. Now there is somewhat of a problem here clearly so I don't have to highlight exactly what is wrong here. Yet the critics instead focus on how stay at home mothers themselves are terrible.
---
Sigh I said I would drop it didn't I?... ugh sorry about that... *puts up flame protection*
Honestly, I think I like that there's a scholarship for men in a field where there aren't men. I am okay with that.
Yeah definitely.
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2017, 10:14:20 am
Well here's an on topic news story (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/sydney-university-defends-new-scholarship-that-favours-men-as-consistent-with-diversity-20170208-gu84l6.html) of diversity rules cutting both ways. Scholarships for rural remote males to get into veterinary courses at the uni in order to promote diversity in the 80% female field. This has rustled a lot of jimmies. As someone from regional/remote Australia, suggesting that these blokes aren't disadvantaged pisses me off something fierce. It's only a preference, though it makes me wonder, what's the point of trying to balance fields where one gender is just flat out less interested? Doesn't that just cut off a good number of talented and ambitious folk in order to balance the scales to a 50/50?
Like, I mean, if you run with the assumption that both genders are equally capable, which I think is the popular opinion of people advocating gender quotas(and myself), wouldn't you end up with something like this?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Though I have heard a big part of it is getting to a fairly decent threshold of like, 30-40% representation, so that you don't feel as though you are penetrating a gendered culture. That I can certainly understand, especially for politics, or jobs with an equal draw.
That is why, ideally, quotation should only happen when the applicants are on equal level of qualification. For a lot of fields/work this ideal situation is pretty impossible (such as manager positions not having a strict set of qualifications that is better), but for education it is a bit more straight forward since they already have a formal listing system in the shape of your grades. So how I'd prefer it in the vetucation context is women not having to step aside for men with lower grades/qualification than themselves, but men being promoted over women with equal grades up to a 50% point.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 10, 2017, 01:54:03 pm
Quotenot sexualized like laura croft,-snoop-
Not in the context of the game she wasn't in the originals (Hoo boy that reboot), but basically immediately sexualized in the culture because they left in those extra-large funbags. And to be fair, that is society and not the publisher doing that; I'm pretty sure Samus Aran was the same way, but I wasn't really around for that to comment on it. All I know is what happened to her in the Prime series. Poor thing.
And I was talking, in this case, about protagonists. MGS is a whole other can o' worms with objectification in video games. Almost quite literally sometimes, heh.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on February 10, 2017, 07:53:13 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 12:11:13 am
Also, if you look at the college where this is applied, 80% of vet science people are women, and the anti-scholarship people say "but what about all the other fields where women are a minority", yet the total undegraduate intake of University of Sydney as a whole is 55% female (http://www.universityrankings.com.au/gender-balance-ratio.html), and for post-graduates the bias is bigger, 58% female. And they do in fact have scholarships that are already female-only. So they have a female majority which gets more pronounced as you go through that college, and they have programs designed to boost that lead. Yet a single scholarship which is for men in an overwhelmingly-female-dominated area is patriarchy? I don't buy it.
One of the girls in vet science did point out that male vet science people earn more after graduation. But there's a straightforward reason for that. If only a small percentage of one gender goes into the field, then they're drawing from a more selective pool in the first place. e.g. a man who had grades which barely scraped through is less likely than a woman to pick "vet science" as his number one choice of field. Basically being a vet is not as many men's fallback career idea compared to women, so the ones that do are the highly motivated ones. It's the same with engineering. Only a select few women choose to become engineers, but the ones that do are really, really good at maths and wanted to do that thing, specifically. So female engineering graduates out-earn the average male graduate by quite a bit. Purely because less women wanted to do it.
Post by: George_Chickens on February 11, 2017, 12:37:42 am
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 12:41:10 am
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 12:43:14 am
I'm sorry how was Croft sexualized in the 2013 reboot?
Well there was the whole manufactured controversy.
Last I remember pre-2013 reboot Lara never tried to shore up sales by pulling that.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 11, 2017, 12:55:23 am
I mean, her helpless pretty friend did spend the game tied up in "ceremonial" attire. Also I think a few of the early QTE's implied attempted rape, though obviously they ended in brutal death instead.
But no, Lara really wasn't sexualized at all that I can remember. It was pretty great about that.
Post by: Starver on February 11, 2017, 07:40:28 am
The use of a female protagonist was new. To me. I was never a beat-em-up player, where they (if not abounded) had at least a plurality of choosable female player-protagonists, it seemed, in any decent implementation, and Miss Pacman barely counts. For my own part, playing as Elizabeth I (i.e. the English) in Civilization was the main example, where it was obvious.
And I recall complaints (that, in the depth of difficult gameplay, I would not have considered a factor in my concentration) that the "running into a wall" Ooomph! of Lara was much like the apparently distractingly 'orgasmic' Wimbledon Grunts of the Ladies' singles matches. But I never disconnected enough from the gameplay to succumb myself to the alleged deliberate repetition for personal gratification, because I was always trying to play the game. (I'm fairly sure.)
Lara being female was, to me, more a sign that this was not a gung-ho rush-game. Capable of attacking (or speeding, helter-skelter, upon speedboat or snowmobile or even on foot through a 'collapsing' cave) when necessary, that still wasn't the main focus of the game all the time. Maybe an Indianna Jones-like male character could have embodied this philosophy, too, but we were plainly discouraged from barging (possible) or wrestling (not part of the movement/interaction possibilities, outside of cut-scenes) or punching (I think) in ways that the Doom Marine did not, even where similarly code-limited.
From the cut-scenes, I never really thought that there was any weakness in her character, just 'different strengths'. Her first main adversary (Pierre?) was smart, but not Lara-smart, and used ruthlesness to cover the deficiencies. The wildlife enemies cared not one jot that this walking foodsource was female (whatever their normal prey, in the absence of intruders!), and the mystical stuff had no care (the thing that mirrored Lara across that platform just made sure that it was exactly like Lara, down to making tit-for-tat projectile shots as they circled each other in a psychically-synchronised dance of death, until you discovered the means to make them take a fall and thus you to triumph). The environment was generally unforgiving (though I suspect Lara may have somehow had a better lung capacity, despite her pinched rib-cage, by reasons of plot).
And, at least until me and the franchise departed company, for the reasons I already stated, I never really noticed any exploitation of the character (maybe some backplot relationship hints, but mostly to show how she was now her own woman) that weren't actually fem-positive things that I expect the girl videogamers would have found endearing.
Of course, I was a boy (or, rather, a man, whether that's better or worse), so I can't be sure I was entirely unlinked from my own biases and misconceptions, and subconciously prefered the sound of Lara falling heavily off a ledge or being struck by a projectile, to that of Doomguy in similar circumstances.
And, while writing this, I also recalled that the Carmageddon driver could be set to a woman's head, in the Doomguy-like 'what are you like' portion of the decorative console surround. I probably played as her a few times. Took effort to change, and didn't change gameplay (car colour, maybe, from red to yellow?), and didn't consider it necessary. (But it seems that was afger Lara, anyway, and she was 14 (http://wiki.carmageddon.com/wiki/Prat_Cam)?)
And I've no idea what happened in 2013. Do I want to know, above the small hints already given?
1 Having been there at the begining but as a non-consoler been deprived of games that never (or only after the hype) came to PC, then stopped being a bleeding-edge gamer. I think GTA: San Amdreas marked the point where I started to wait, and my other computing interests (leisure and professional) drowned out the need...
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 12:15:53 pm
The Controversial long and short is... They advertised the game by making it seem like a jaunt through sexualized violence town in order to manufacture controversy to advertise the game.
Though... The game was a commercial failure anyhow so take that as you well (doesn't help that it KIND of played... like a Uncharted Lite game... where many of the additions were to its detriment. Hilariously when Uncharted copied them, they did it better... That and it doesn't matter how many times you go "Look! Lara is not sexist anymore!" before people will ask you for the gameplay....... THAT and the game was very expensive to make so it sold well for a much cheaper game)
---
Ehh my major issue with new Lara has more to do with two major points
-1) She is another jumper on of the "Female protagonist" bandwagon where in order to make a female lead plausible they have to make her as helpless and out of control of her emotions as possible. Coming off of Other M doesn't help. This when previous videogames had no issue with the concept of female = competent.
-2) This constant referral that the old Lara was somehow super duper sexist and the new one is as female positive as humanly possible *barf*.
The next game will probably not have her cry in a corner for minutes on end this time given this is supposed to be a sort of prequel reboot "before she was amazing". This is ignoring... THE OTHER issues.
Post by: Starver on February 11, 2017, 02:50:16 pm
Hmm, what was the last film I saw with memorable female lead? Well, The Force Awakens, I suddenly realise, even as I'm just about to say it was as far back as Gravity. Maybe the ultimate commendation, that I didn't think of it as being female-led (at least in part), it was just a strong chatacter, or maybe that's actually a bad thing if I think of it the other (correct?) way. But not gratuitous, at least1. Or "token team-member" like the Avengers franchise has with Black Widow and whoever else might be there for some or all of a particular filmic episode (Hill, Maximoff, Sharon Carter, honorary mention to Peggy Carter), but that's somewhat influenced by historic source material, ditto the X-Men, though I think. (Though Storm and Jean could have been done worse, Rogue gets introed as per Jubilee in the animation... And Mystique's a troublesome one to classify, for several reasons.)
But is that really the best thing to talk about, here. Film (and other fictional) characters of spectral-range gender identities and/or sexualities would seem to be more on-topic, but it seems I've laid down some thoughts here, almost unbidden, that deal only with the 'classic' polarisation of the sexes.
1 Which leads me onto saying that I have no opinion on the new Ghostbusters, I never actually saw it, due to time. I was shown the trailer by someone who saw it as proof of "SJWs taking over" (not my words...), but I was too busy laughing at the obvious homages to the original. In a good way! I think he was disappointed that I seemed not to entirely share his POV.
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 03:28:48 pm
But ultimately it all came down to one question: "Was it good?"... and the answer was kind of no.
And sometimes that is the only answer people need.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 11, 2017, 03:44:23 pm
Like to be clear, I think the producers really latched onto the controversy as a way to increase sales... And that's pretty scummy.
But I think after the "controversy" started, haters and supporters were really just building off each other.
And then the movie actually came out and it was meh. Not even that awful, just meh.
I really don't see why the haters OR the supporters even cared much. I mean, I passionately hate Other M, but that's specifically butchering an established character. This was new characters. The franchise was dead and also ludicrous (...much like Metroid), so who even cares about it being a "bad" Ghostbusters title.
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 03:53:13 pm
The Supporters remember a time when female representation was spotty at best and are desperate for a shift in Hollywood to the point where female protagonists is something that could be expected.
The Haters have to constantly endure this diatribe over and over about how sexist everything is and whenever something with even a small 'claim' of progressivism comes out it is either paraded like it is the greatest movie ever! OR it is still paraded as sexist anyway because no one is ever happy ever.
Still on Haters but another dimension: Not to mention this whole "Change it for the sake of progressivism" where absolutely nothing is sacred, it often sucks, and if you even question it your called out on it as if you committed a major sin... but that is ok because it is vaguely "progressive".
So basically the supporters are desperate to latch onto anything... and the Haters are desperately sick and tired of that attitude... OR they saw it as a very cheap attempt at "Progression" that is cheap and hallow and they are tired of it.
---
Frankly I dislike both those groups.
The supporters for being so easily placated that they will jump on anything... But also for being absolutely brainless and only accepting the veneer of progressivism and booing what came before blindly.
And the Haters for latching onto everything as some sort of attempt to be "Progressive".
Basically because both groups are stupid... and yeah I am not mincing words they are both stupid... which sucks because I feel like I am between them...
I really dislike "Pseudo-progressivism" ("I think we should make George Washington Chinese in this movie because there aren't enough Chinese Americans on TV" or "Look, she is wearing a suit, that means she is a progressive female character") AND I wish things were more progressive.
The new Star Trek movies are the best example of this. They have "Progressive Vanier" but they aren't progressive... But they are touted as so, because of that vanier.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 11, 2017, 04:03:11 pm
I'm sorry the haters are so upset over a few exceptions in a sea of movies which subtly, obviously, or gratuitously push women as passive prizes like they expect.
It must be so hard for them?? Seems really thin-skinned to me.
I used to complain about it a lot, now I don't. Doesn't mean I'm okay with it, just that I got bored of whining about it pointlessly. Still going to vote with my dollars.
Again, the movie was pretty mediocre though. Really not a good example (which is probably why they hyped up the controversy for extra sales).
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 04:05:44 pm
If it was just men who hate movies because women are in them or because there were men and now there are women... The numbers would be few.
But notice how your specific statement is: "Movies before Ghostbusters were bad, and Ghostbusters is more progressive now!... Cry more haters CRY!"
You are demonstrating exactly what sort of opposition CREATES the haters on mass... and that sentiment is everywhere! You get fists full of it every single time a TV show or movie has a woman...
Wait a minute... Women are being used as ways to get a piece of media to seem "progressive" regardless of their thoughts of feelings... Almost like they are being used as props or objects.
-Note: People have caught onto it. A big reason why some feminists are quick to point it out. Though it does often come off as "Complaining for the sake of complaining", but I appreciate the voice of dissent between the 50th essay on how Uhura is the most progressive woman alive because she is Spock's Girlfriend.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 11, 2017, 04:17:05 pm
I know that the people who passionately hate GB2 thrive on arguments about this stuff. In any such argument, a few progressives will say stupid things, which "justifies" all the hate. So I decided it wasn't worth arguing... Just act.
Just saying though, they're being crybabies over having almost everything cater to them. Which is ironically what they call the other side - oversensitive crybabies. It's pathetic.
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 04:23:03 pm
But I'll just assume for now.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 11, 2017, 04:25:48 pm
We need to disregard governmental competence, personal and professional ethics, respect for truth and science, and the laws and foundational documents of the nation, and this is because SJWs are trying to "tell me what to think" (actual quote). SJWs are omnipresent and unstoppable, more powerful even than my beloved patriarchal god.
[/s]
Post by: Rolan7 on February 11, 2017, 04:31:37 pm
Oh I know what you think I said:
But notice how your specific statement is: "Movies before Ghostbusters were bad, and Ghostbusters is more progressive now!... Cry more haters CRY!"It's just unrelated to what I was saying. How many times do I have to say Ghostbusters wasn't a good movie, or that it profited on manufactured controversy?
As for "Cry more haters CRY!", I disengaged. I hope they grow up, but I haven't been baiting or debating them for a while now.
And then I share one heavily-mitigated opinion, and BAM I've supposedly justified their existence. Nonsense.
I guess appeasement rarely works, though.
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2017, 04:40:33 pm
What's really important isn't what people think or feel; it's that we use an extremely simple dichotomy created to be politically expedient for medieval nobility.
We need to disregard governmental competence, personal and professional ethics, respect for truth and science, and the laws and foundational documents of the nation, and this is because SJWs are trying to "tell me what to think" (actual quote). SJWs are omnipresent and unstoppable, more powerful even than my beloved patriarchal god.
That... isn't as unreasonable a quote.
Remember they did want to make women protection laws that amount to "Get person behind bars first, THEN have them prove they didn't do it". So it isn't like this sentiment amounts to nothing. (though I'd probably tell them that people ALWAYS fight for those law changes when a tragedy happens. This is why we don't let victims or their loved ones sentence the presumed guilty... and it rarely happens UNLESS they are child protection laws... Seriously what is with child protection laws?)
They attribute it to SJWs and that is... Actually that wouldn't be entirely inaccurate I guess... though it would be stretching the definition.
I'd go one step further and say even IF they managed to pass that law... It would be turned down in supreme court just like all the other "Unfair social justice" laws (ignoring a few exceptions... but law is a process). Heck even Canada took down its "Child protection" Cyberbullying Law the moment it hit the supreme court.
To put it in perspective. Every time there is a big murder case in Canada and the criminal is punished... There is always a push to bring back the death penalty. Just one of those things that will happen, sort of like clockwork really. Sometimes something good comes from it, for example there are laws that state that police MUST take restraining orders seriously.
Quote
Oh I know what you think I said
You didn't say it in those exact words, but that is what they will take.
It doesn't matter WHAT else is in there... Language doesn't allow one to skirt aside a lot of the time... because you chose to antagonize them and create that opposition unwittingly.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on March 07, 2017, 03:28:43 pm
Seriously, Reddit feminists on /r/Can'tRemember, what the hell? You just spent the last few years yelling at every person, man or woman, who didn't agree with the minutia of your philosophy. Then along comes a man who lists every detail of his philosophy, and nervously asks if you approve. You proceed to yell at him.
Why? Because he's looking for "gratification" or "pats on the back" from them. So we can't really know whether we meet your requirements, we just have to live with the possibility that we might be Literal Hitler. And of course, if we are Literal Hitler, the proper response is to insult us vitriolically.
And that's only one example of the Morton's Forks devised by these dastardly, devious demons. But there's another angle to this. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have yelled at this dude [quite as much] if he had been a woman. I'm pretty sure that these feminists find the worst possible interpretation of whatever a man does.
How is this any better from the scum of the MRA movement? I mean, yeah, it's not "structural oppression," but have you looked at what these feminists are saying? Some of them want a public, legally mandated and enforced, required, absence-punishable-by-death Day of Castration for all men. Have they no self-perception? Can they not see how similar this is to the reproductive rights movement? Bodily autonomy is a thing, and for men too.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 07, 2017, 03:30:30 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on March 07, 2017, 03:34:02 pm
It's a dogmatic tribe sometimes. If you disagree, you are a sexist.
This is true even when you have facts to back you up. If you say that a feminist is wrong, you are sexist.
This is true even when you are giving a review of a feminist. If you say that a feminist professor is Not The Best Professor Ever, you are clearly biased.
Now, of course, Not All Feminists. And this is Not As Bad As the outgroup. See those evil MRAs? They're even more dogmatic! But I'm not an MRA, and I'm not saying this to support a conclusion of "feminazis are evil, let's go rape all women now."
I am criticising feminism because I care about it. Because I have seen its scum in more detail than most other tribes. Because I don't want it to fail. Because I still consider myself to be a feminist.
This is why we need to self-police. Because otherwise, we will become a totally dogmatic tribe, and then women will suffer.
No. They can't.
I guess they're simply an instance of an all-too-common type of person - they're just channeling their hatred through a more socially-acceptable movement.
Post by: Neonivek on March 07, 2017, 03:41:20 pm
---
But... as for those specific Feminists. (And I am SERIOUSLY getting close to the point where I think we should retire that term... Because in many ways who doesn't qualify as a feminist? Even Donald Trump technically qualifies... and no I am not stretching the definition. So when it is used, what does it typically mean? Right it is someone labeling themselves as "Progressive" far too much. But alas that would be punishing Feminists and they are NOT responsible for every iteration of their philosophy)
Destroying dissent isn't anything unusual, not to mention creating an intentional outgroup to be not so much the scapegoat but the punching bag is VERY common as well.
Basically what is the opposite of a feminist? a man!
-Note: Because I have to be obvious... I mean in terms of how they constructed their group... Men are the polar opposite and what must be resisted.
Liberals have Conservatives...
Quote
It's a dogmatic tribe sometimes. If you disagree, you are a sexist
That... Ok... that is entirely fair... and I have a feeling feminists notice that as well. (Then again the Feminist groups are fighting one another for dominance... NO I am not joking. but that is a lot like any political party)
Though as I said... political groups polarize intentionally.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on March 07, 2017, 03:48:54 pm
Not As Bad As.
While I was pondering away on one of my walks one day, I considered the opaque mess that is high school romance. And I considered what I would do if somebody asked me out. Probably run away - but I might also feel guilty that I am letting them down.
"Aha!" thought I. "Is this not similar to what some girls might go through? I can now empathise better with the plight of the womenfolk." (Not really; I wasn't quite as ridiculous in my speech.)
But then I immediately felt a strong sense of shame, and a compulsion to add - "Not As Bad. My problems are Not As Bad as those girls."
Well, duh! First of all, they're actually being asked out and I'm not. Second, blah blah structural oppression and contextual blah. Yes. I know that. Not on the explicit-thought level, but on the conscious-background level.
And anyway, why does it matter? It's not like I'm going around and saying "I survived a thought experiment in which I was asked out, therefore sexism isn't really a problem." Why would I feel the need to say that?
After a few moments of pondering, the answer seemed obvious - because of my peers.
There is not a significant difference between "make a speech in your head" and "talk online to people." There's no such thing as interruption, so the minor difference between "headspeech" and "RLspeech" is gone. So it is quite plausible that the same policing tendencies might be present in both.
Why couldn't I say "this is similar to what girls experience" on Reddit without the qualifier of NAB? I can't really imagine how somebody could misinterpret it, but I'd bet a grand someone would. (If I had a grand, which I don't.)
But why is that necessary? If I have slipped on the ice and fallen on my posterior and hurt myself, I will say "ouch." I will say "we should clear this ice." I will get the salt. I will not say "but of course, this isn't as bad as poor John who sprained his ankle on the ice."
Well, it's necessary because some people seem to enjoy interpreting men in the worst light that they possibly can.
Quote
Since just because you have a point, it doesn't mean you are right.
What?? I kind of get the rest of your post, and I agree; also keep in mind that I was not responding directly to you. You probably inspired me, that's all.
Yes, this isn't just about social justice. This is a general problem for all groups. But social justice is something I know quite a bit about, and something that is getting general support.
Social justice in general has some bigger flaws than "some feminists are corrupt". Take, for instance, how any CEO/manager/whatsit who criticizes gay marriage gets pressure to resign. Take the mayor who accidentally seemed slightly racist, and subsequently resigned. Take the motte-and-baileys. We have some big problems, and they won't get fixed if criticism is suppressed.
A vote in favor of not-suppressing-criticism, and instead suppressing prejudice!
Post by: Reelya on March 07, 2017, 04:16:36 pm
This is why we need to self-police. Because otherwise, we will become a totally dogmatic tribe, and then women will suffer.
I can cite research suggesting the dogmatic male/perp <> female/victim dichotomy in fact creates more female victims.
For example, read up the wiki page for the Duluth Model of treating domestic violence, it's based on the "patriarchy made them do it" model so they focus entirely on "deprogramming / re-education" of the male's patriarchal attitudes. And proponents of the model are actively hostile to things such as teaching anger management, conflict resolution skills, and other psychological bases for why people are aggressive or violent. Because to admit that other factors exist would be to admit that the "patriarchy made them do it" argument isn't 100% the truth. e.g. if you admitted that anger management could reduce wife battering, then you're admitting that there's some actual trigger that caused the man to get angry, not just "wanting to control his woman", which the Duluth people are all about.
Even one of the main creators of the program now calls the entire thing out as bullshit. She says now that almost zero % of men were professing attitudes that they were "supposed" to, but the proponents of the model only saw what they wanted and decided that 100% of the men were lying or in denial, and were really getting violent in an attempt to control the women, and not the actually multitude of reasons the men said were the cause. But "the program" cannot be questioned, and that founders's doubts are now taboo, they only selectively quote her when promoting "the program".
The Duluth model has one of those trick self-selection issues when they report the "success" of the program. People who attended every meeting were less likely to re-offend than people who didn't. But the problem is that when you conduct a controlled trial, participants in the Duluth Model are no less likely to re-offend than those who never participated in any program. People who are less likely to re-offend just attend more sessions on average. They have the causation backwards. So in fact it's a convoluted pile of bullshit which has come to completely dominate how people try and deal with domestic batterers that has an overall zero % success rate, and is actually hostile to proven clinical approaches that actually work.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 07, 2017, 04:25:15 pm
Same way as AA does it...This is why we need to self-police. Because otherwise, we will become a totally dogmatic tribe, and then women will suffer.
I can cite research suggesting the dogmatic male/perp <> female/victim dichotomy in fact creates more female victims.
For example, read up the wiki page for the Duluth Model of treating domestic violence, it's based on the "patriarchy made them do it" model so they focus entirely on "deprogramming / re-education" of the male's patriarchal attitudes. And proponents of the model are actively hostile to things such as teaching anger management, conflict resolution skills, and other psychological bases for why people are aggressive or violent. Because to admit that other factors exist would be to admit that the "patriarchy made them do it" argument isn't 100% the truth. e.g. if you admitted that anger management could reduce wife battering, then you're admitting that there's some actual trigger that caused the man to get angry, not just "wanting to control his woman", which the Duluth people are all about.
Even one of the main creators of the program now calls the entire thing out as bullshit. She says now that almost zero % of men were professing attitudes that they were "supposed" to, but the proponents of the model only saw what they wanted and decided that 100% of the men were lying or in denial, and were really getting violent in an attempt to control the women, and not the actually multitude of reasons the men said were the cause. But "the program" cannot be questioned, and that founders's doubts are now taboo, they only selectively quote her when promoting "the program".
The Duluth model has one of those trick self-selection issues when they report the "success" of the program. People who attended every meeting were less likely to re-offend than people who didn't. But the problem is that when you conduct a controlled trial, participants in the Duluth Model are no less likely to re-offend than those who never participated in any program. People who are less likely to re-offend just attend more sessions on average. They have the causation backwards. So in fact it's a convoluted pile of bullshit which has come to completely dominate how people try and deal with domestic batterers that has an overall zero % success rate, and is actually hostile to proven clinical approaches that actually work.
Post by: Reelya on March 07, 2017, 04:37:04 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-david/aa-saved-my-life-and-i-get-why-you-hate-it_b_7978690.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-david/aa-saved-my-life-and-i-get-why-you-hate-it_b_7978690.html)
Quote
I fully understand why people would hate the meetings, detest the steps, balk at the idea that they’ll end up in an institution or dead if they don’t follow the program, flinch at the pressure they may feel to identify themselves as alcoholic before they’ve even had time to process what’s going on and rail against the idea that God is mentioned.
But that's enough on that other than to point out that it's weirdly similar to how the "anti-patriarchy" batterers treatment programs justify themselves. The other similar thing is that AA isn't quite a religion, but it might as well be, and the Duluth Model proponents are also equally as dogmatic as a religion. Both deny the attendees own words and experience and try and pigeonhole them into a "model" of how things supposedly work: "born alcoholics" on one side and "patriarchy-trained abusers" on the other side. Both expect the attendees to give up whatever opinions they have on the matter and simply repeat the mantras they're told to repeat, and mirror the beliefs of those running the program. They say AA forces you to reshape how you view your history to fit "the model" and Duluth sounds similar.
Post by: misko27 on March 07, 2017, 05:48:42 pm
Spoiler: Addressed to Dozebom (click to show/hide)
I'm annoyed because you do have a point you are trying to express (as opposed to just killing time), but you've taken away my ability to discuss it because there's no complete argument connecting it, only "seems" and "should"s and "plausible"s and "obviously"s. Even your thought experiment is entirely about your own theoretical mental/emotional reaction to a certain situation, which none of us can share if we don't have that same reaction in a thought experiment; nor have you proved that if we do have the same reaction, it's for the same reason. Personally if someone did ask me out, I would be quite pleased and say yes! (unless it's a man; in which case I'd be flattered, but would politely decline). But if I wanted to argue that my reaction says anything about anyone else or about the world in general, I'd have to explain why I thought so. So why does your reaction explain anything?
Put another way, I'm not arguing that your point is wrong, but that whatever your point is, you haven't actually argued it yet.
Post by: Neonivek on March 14, 2017, 04:23:35 am
Both Men AND Women have an idea of their own personal ideal sexuality.
Or let me say that in a way that is hopefully clearer.
The male ideal of male sexuality... Is different and often contrary to the female ideal of male sexuality.
The same likewise applies to women. Their idea of ideal female sexuality... is different and often contrary to the male ideal of female sexuality.
---
I find it perplexing on some level that as a species that we aren't a bit more compatible
Actually... Why is it that we aren't more compatible? Is there a reason why this is beneficial?
Post by: Edmus on March 14, 2017, 07:00:33 am
People tend to be more flexible when you get to know them though.
Post by: Solifuge on March 14, 2017, 09:10:59 am
Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.
I'm not sure I follow what you mean. You're saying that Men collectively have commonalities in their sexualities (as do Women), which are somehow opposite when divided along biosex / gender lines or something? Can you explain what these ideals are in your mind? Or I guess, provide examples of what they might be if you meant this as an individual thing with common themes based on someone's sex? Also, are you talking about what kind of people are attractive to them, or the ways in which they want to have sex, or what?
I think I disagree with part of the argument, but I want to be sure I understand the point you're making first.
Post by: Reelya on March 14, 2017, 09:19:13 am
Sure, it might suck for us if our expectations are always unrealistic, and we're "settling" for the "best that actually exists" but that drive is a good thing from the genes' point of view. Genes don't care about us being happy with what already exists.
Post by: Tiruin on March 14, 2017, 09:27:27 am
Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.Beep boop :P Cultural context I believe is western? It all feels very applicably generalizing if seen overall but there's a lot of differences that don't make it as it seemed when first said in cultural contexts.
Both Men AND Women have an idea of their own personal ideal sexuality.
Or let me say that in a way that is hopefully clearer.
The male ideal of male sexuality... Is different and often contrary to the female ideal of male sexuality.
The same likewise applies to women. Their idea of ideal female sexuality... is different and often contrary to the male ideal of female sexuality.
---
I find it perplexing on some level that as a species that we aren't a bit more compatible
Actually... Why is it that we aren't more compatible? Is there a reason why this is beneficial?
Seems like you're going about with a cognitive structure/construct there. :O Deconstruct and specify further; you can't apply something too general as it'll only seem applicable in impressions.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 09:39:18 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 14, 2017, 10:07:06 am
Post by: Neonivek on March 14, 2017, 06:58:20 pm
Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.
I'm not sure I follow what you mean. You're saying that Men collectively have commonalities in their sexualities (as do Women), which are somehow opposite when divided along biosex / gender lines or something? Can you explain what these ideals are in your mind? Or I guess, provide examples of what they might be if you meant this as an individual thing with common themes based on someone's sex? Also, are you talking about what kind of people are attractive to them, or the ways in which they want to have sex, or what?
I think I disagree with part of the argument, but I want to be sure I understand the point you're making first.
Goodness judging by your and everyone elses posts I did not make myself clear at all.
What I mean is that if you take what men consider to be "Super Sexy" in terms of men (What men are the sexiest and what are the sexiest men)...
It will not be the same traits women would consider to be super sexy male traits...
In fact... What men to find super sexy in other men... are often turn offs in women.
---
In fact... Why even have this as a trait?
Why have men find certain male traits attractive and desirable... If women find them abhorrent?
And likewise why have women find certain female traits attractive and desirable... If men find them abhorrent?
Yeah men and women have commonalities... But why is there such a difference between the two?
---
The one thing I can guess... judging by these traits is...
Competition within the genders (Not for mates).
And finding traits that would be considered "sexy" or "attractive" in yourself means you will actively seek it out in order to one up your peers who would typically be gender segregated anyhow in nature.
And the fact that these traits aren't shared could be a way to limit it in some way.
Post by: Tiruin on March 14, 2017, 10:47:10 pm
It's what is broadcasted that seems or is figured to be 'appealing', rather than what is being told to you is what is.
You've to be a lot more specific there because from my viewpoint, while I can assume what you're talking about given my access to media from other places, it can be REALLY off the mark! :P
Post by: misko27 on March 15, 2017, 01:18:15 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on March 15, 2017, 01:19:43 am
Post by: Neonivek on March 15, 2017, 01:19:59 am
If you could provide a specific example, Neo, it would help a lot. Like... beards or something.
Dang thread... and sexuality parts.
Like for example... nope too embarrassing... I can't.
Obviously this is all solved by simply being attracted to the same gender!
Honestly this clears up so many problems.
Post by: Solifuge on March 15, 2017, 12:21:17 pm
I'd suggest it's not so much a trait or a pattern common to all humans, or common to groups based on sex or gender... but rather, it's based on cultural upbringing (what we're taught is Attractive by peer interactions and whatnot), and our personal preferences. If you see shared attraction among groups of guys or gals, that could well be them reinforcing it with eachother. Because of the way society tends to segregate people socially based on sex, during our developmental years (guys are encouraged to hang with guys, gals with gals, and ne'er the twain shall meet), you're going to end up developing pockets of similar opinions, which don't necessarily agree with the opinions of other social micro-groups.
Post by: TempAcc on March 15, 2017, 12:44:23 pm
On the other side, lack of initial segregation between boys and girls diminishes the chance of kids feeling anxious around the oppositive gender, allows them to forge stronger bonds and likely diminishes objectification, but one could argue that it also makes forming gender roles harder, and gender roles aren't necessarily a bad thing, given gender roles aren't a human only phenomenon, despite what some believe. Lack of gender identification likely causes a fair bit of problems by itself.
What does all of this mean? Probably nothing, I just wanted to steal the topic to procastinate for a few minutes. I will now go back to hiding under your bed and drinking your beverages.
Post by: Neonivek on March 15, 2017, 04:40:47 pm
Just in brief, I'm not sure we can generalize attraction like that. Preferences and such are pretty personal. Any two Men who are attracted to other Men are not necessarily going to be attracted to the same things, you know? Same goes for any two hetero folks who share a sex or gender.
It isn't QUITE what I mean... but given that I can't explain what I mean for both my lack of vocabulary and COMPLETE embarrassment to even give examples (and fear of getting it wrong with women) I can't blame you.
UUUUGH!!! me soo much!
---
I mean... if you got a bunch of men and women in the same room...
And you asked them "Which of these men are sexy, and which of these men are not sexy" and showed them a bunch of pictures. Not in terms of "I'd bang them" but in terms of "I recognize that this person is an attractive person" and "This person is unattractive"
The men would be attracted to things women would find unattractive.
As a whole (there are exceptions though apparently very uncommon).
Post by: Grim Portent on March 15, 2017, 04:53:24 pm
It's been explored in pop culture a bit with how male/female characters are portrayed in most media. I can't find it anywhere, but there's a comic talking about the basic idea:
Guy and a girl are talking about how he thinks batman is designed to be a woman's fantasy as a counterpoint to many female characters being sex symbols, woman says he isn't and draws a version of batman she would be attracted to, guy has no idea why she'd be into it, because it doesn't play into his understanding of what he thinks an attractive man is supposed to look like.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 15, 2017, 04:55:31 pm
Edit: Oooh, 5-year-old Disqus arguments
Post by: Grim Portent on March 15, 2017, 05:01:51 pm
Oh neat, I found the thing you're referencing (or something like it) http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/
Edit: Oooh, 5-year-old Disqus arguments
That is exactly the one I was thinking of.
Post by: Helgoland on March 18, 2017, 10:18:27 am
Post by: Reelya on March 31, 2017, 05:45:27 pm
Quote
The demand for employees in STEM careers (science, technology, engineering and math) is particularly high, as corporations compete to attract skilled professionals in the international market. What is known as "curriculum intensification" is often used around the world to attract more university entrants -- and particularly more women -- to these subjects; that is to say, students have on average more mandatory math courses at a higher level. Scientists from the LEAD Graduate School and Research Network at the University of Tubingen have now studied whether more advanced math lessons at high schools actually encourages women to pursue STEM careers. Their work shows that an increase in advanced math courses during two years before the final school-leaving exams does not automatically create the desired effects. On the contrary: one upper secondary school reform in Germany, where all high school students have to take higher level math courses, has only increased the gender differences regarding their interests in activities related to the STEM fields. The young female students' belief in their own math abilities was lower after the reform than before. The results have now been published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.
I wonder how this plays into all those "learn to code" type programs for younger girls. People often act like if you just implement that kind of thing that it automatically has some benefit, and if you just keep doing more of it then it's bound to get results. That may or may not be true. Everything should be suspect, no program is "good" until you have the actual scientific data in your hands, showing that it actually achieved some outcomes that you wanted.
In the German school study shown above, they found that forcing everyone into AP maths regardless of interest causes a higher gender disparity of outcomes than otherwise. Basically cramming more maths in doesn't seem to be helping whatever the underlying causes are.
It should be kind of obvious that if someone is less maths inclined than someone else (regardless of the cause) that throwing more maths at them isn't a fix-all situation.
Post by: Starver on March 31, 2017, 05:47:58 pm
Post by: Reelya on March 31, 2017, 06:16:00 pm
And this actually fits with articles I've read about the worldview difference in shonen battle vs magical girl manga/anime. In shonen mangas, if you can't punch through a mountain, you just haven't punched enough and need a training montage of more punching. Whereas in shoujo mangas if you can't beat the monster you just need to tap the "power that was within you all along" and you get an automatic powerup. But they lack the idea of training to overcome the challenge: the powerup is an all or nothing boost in talent.
Yeah, so I'd like to research more about that but there do seem to be measurable differences in how people respond to difficult tasks and related media. But it's a chicken and egg thing. Are the differences in popular shonen vs shoujo there because those resonate with the gender differences in their audiences, or do they create the differences? Both types of media are about empowerment / beating monsters, but different ideas of empowerment resonate with each gender.
Post by: Starver on March 31, 2017, 06:48:51 pm
(Not the thing I was looking for, and a decade old so may have been countered, but...)
Post by: Neonivek on July 15, 2017, 09:32:47 pm
Do you think Male Sexuality is demonized?
I know sexual females are often demonized but not female sexuality, which is considered acceptable (And yes I know the difference between those are... seemingly unimportant).
Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way... I was just watching a lot of feminist videos. One of the older ones involved a woman who dived sort of head first into male sexuality and her opinions were originally that of typical feminist thinking for the time (Remember this was the time period where, for example, Porn was considered anti-feminist) but she later saw it as fulfilling a need or desire that was different yet similar to that of a woman (Porn, for example, fulfilled a man's sexual drive while not requiring intimacy).
There was other things involved... but it got me thinking.
Why is it that men's sexuality is vilified at all?
Is it that both men and women are vilified for their sexuality but men have few advocates? Is it that men sexuality is so pervasive that the fact that women are often victimized is considered a product of male sexuality?
Post by: Cthulhu on July 15, 2017, 09:42:09 pm
These comments. It's the first time in ages that I've seen SJWs out in the wild, as opposed to in the rantings of right-wing forumites.
They don't show up often outside of their own enclaves. It's well-known now that the internet lets you close off your episteme, but a less obvious component of that is that most people only engage with easy targets when they do venture out. People with half an idea what they're talking about never fight on enemy territory, which means starting arguments naturally selects for idiots. And going into enemy territory and seriously challenging someone is a great way to get blocked or banned.
Post by: PTTG?? on July 16, 2017, 02:23:39 am
These comments. It's the first time in ages that I've seen SJWs out in the wild, as opposed to in the rantings of right-wing forumites.
Which ones are the SJWs?
Post by: Neonivek on July 16, 2017, 02:35:41 am
I think I'll start being more active here to get the derp out of my system... But the current topic is very dry and seems to be about the causes of why women seem to not be as interested in STEM courses as men are.
Remember that women's choices in careers are typically more "practical" than men and more "socially conscious". Another reason why a lot of courses often do not appeal to women is because they are very "For their own sake".
A lot of this also has to do with perception. Engineering, for example, becomes a much more attractive course for women when the focus is on what they can do with engineering as opposed to being about engineering itself.
Perception changes have been observed and there are many careers that have switched to and from male and female dominance to the genders being about equal. This could represent a shift in the consciousness of either gender OR a shift in how they perceive a certain job.
---
As for SJW you are REALLY going to need to be specific here. That term is overused and misused.
Heck THIS POST, even though it contradicts pop feminism, could be considered SJW speak.
Post by: Caz on July 16, 2017, 05:39:28 pm
In fact... What men to find super sexy in other men... are often turn offs in women.
---
In fact... Why even have this as a trait?
Why have men find certain male traits attractive and desirable... If women find them abhorrent?
And likewise why have women find certain female traits attractive and desirable... If men find them abhorrent?
Yeah men and women have commonalities... But why is there such a difference between the two?
---
The one thing I can guess... judging by these traits is...
Competition within the genders (Not for mates).
And finding traits that would be considered "sexy" or "attractive" in yourself means you will actively seek it out in order to one up your peers who would typically be gender segregated anyhow in nature.
And the fact that these traits aren't shared could be a way to limit it in some way.
Examples please. I think you are considering "men" and "women" as monolithic entities also.
Why have this as a trait? I'd counter "Why not?"
Post by: Cthulhu on July 16, 2017, 06:51:27 pm
I know lots of women into musclegut and bears for example, something you'd typically associate with gay men. You also have to consider that the media portrayal of sexuality doesn't reflect actual sexuality.
To answer the title, I've still got that backwards and archaic shitlord mentality that gender is the set of sociocultural expectations and norms attached to biological sex. Some of them are derived at least partially from actual biological differences I'd guess it goes both ways to some extent
Post by: Neonivek on July 16, 2017, 09:13:06 pm
----
ALSO damn Gender research... Now I learned I was wrong >_<
Post by: Solifuge on July 17, 2017, 03:07:05 pm
I'd argue a lot of the "Men are Stupid" and "Women are Impossible To Understand" garbage comes from being discouraged from spending time with people with a different biosex or gender than you. Same for "What is attractive". Lack of communication, due to clannishness/cliquishness, and all that.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 03:11:31 pm
So it is possible that it is supposition that only men like muscles.
Or rather what people think they want and what they, or other people, actually want are often different.
Post by: TempAcc on July 17, 2017, 03:34:47 pm
But ye, while a lot of stuff we take for granted of either gender is in no small part cultural programming, one has to ask if cultural programming of that kind isn't itself a natural manifestation of the human condition. After all, in the crushingly larger part of all human cultures, there's a significant divide between male and female roles, to the point that said divide seems pretty much natural.
What seems to change from culture to culture are the ideas of what should either gender strive for, and what makes one or another gender attractive.
Post by: Fniff on July 17, 2017, 04:08:54 pm
Why have so many of you murdered your avatars? Are you all slowly morphing into faceless, amorphous and asexual monstrosities? Should I learn to build a flamethrower, just in case?It's the latest avatarfad. It's like No Wave, except No Avatar.
Post by: Solifuge on July 17, 2017, 04:47:27 pm
TempAcc, I could launch into the Obstetrical Dilemma, the historical invention of the Gender Role, my usual diatribe on Cultural Evolution behaving similarly to biological evolution, despite being intentionally designed, etc. But I have done it like a billion times by now, and the people who remember are probably sick of it. But I will say that forces similar to convergent evolution caused similar Gender Roles to emerge in many cultures the world over, particularly in areas where living is harder and mortality was higher. Gender Roles were about recuperating lost population quickly, in the days before medicine, hygine, and you know... most tools.
P.S. I just haven't drawn a new avatar in a while, and I wanted to retire the one I had. I'll have one again some time.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 04:52:47 pm
Quote
Gender Roles were about recuperating lost population quickly, in the days before medicine, hygine, and you know... most tools.
Well... That would be Female gender roles.
That wouldn't explain male gender roles (Except maybe the multiple wives thing, or the inferred stud I guess.)
Post by: Solifuge on July 17, 2017, 04:58:00 pm
Males: Do the risky things that can expend your energy, get you wounded, infected by disease, and/or killed.
Females: Do the less energy-intensive things that expose you to less risk of death, so you can bear kids this year.
Sexual dimorphism in humans reflects this a LITTLE bit (and traits we think of as Male or Female), but we've not been living in societies for long enough for it to go to extremes. And we're not tournament species really, so our dimorphism is way less than in other species.
Female population count is the maximum number of children that can be born to that tribe/settlement/society that year. Keeping women alive, and risking men, makes sense, when you're struggling against mortality all the time. Anyway, that's why genders exist, and why modern medical advances, bathing and hygiene, etc. make them obsolete.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 05:49:31 pm
Quote
Anyway, that's why genders exist, and why modern medical advances, bathing and hygiene, etc. make them obsolete
But they don't. There is still a need for mothers and fathers to name the easiest example that comes to mind.
Modern advances has made strict adherence to gender roles obsolete. Yet we still need those very roles and if you actually look at the job market you will see that we have many gender roles that only exist because of modernity.
As well Feminism itself considers the role of Mother in society to be a protected role.
Post by: Tawa on July 17, 2017, 05:53:08 pm
There is still a need for mothers and fathers to name the easiest example that comes to mind.There's a need for caregivers, yes, but who says that one of them has to take a distinct "homemaker" role and one of them has to take an "educator" role? And for that matter, why does the homemaker have to be female, and why does the educator have to be male?
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 05:54:46 pm
There is still a need for mothers and fathers to name the easiest example that comes to mind.There's a need for caregivers, yes, but who says that one of them has to take a distinct "homemaker" role and one of them has to take an "educator" role? And for that matter, why does the homemaker have to be female, and why does the educator have to be male?
Did I say that? I don't think I did.
Post by: Tawa on July 17, 2017, 05:57:20 pm
Well, I can't see what else you mean by a need for mothers and fathers. If you're referring to biologically, that's entirely separate from gender roles.There is still a need for mothers and fathers to name the easiest example that comes to mind.There's a need for caregivers, yes, but who says that one of them has to take a distinct "homemaker" role and one of them has to take an "educator" role? And for that matter, why does the homemaker have to be female, and why does the educator have to be male?
Did I say that? I don't think I did.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 05:59:31 pm
Well, I can't see what else you mean by a need for mothers and fathers. If you're referring to biologically, that's entirely separate from gender roles.
A Mother and Father are both primary caregivers and in many ways equivalents... But they are not the same thing.
Post by: Tawa on July 17, 2017, 06:07:00 pm
So then, define "mother" and "father".Well, I can't see what else you mean by a need for mothers and fathers. If you're referring to biologically, that's entirely separate from gender roles.
A Mother and Father are both primary caregivers and in many ways equivalents... But they are not the same thing.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 06:11:34 pm
Post by: Tawa on July 17, 2017, 06:16:59 pm
Quote
1. a mother in relation to her child or childrenMost experts agree the tautological argument is deeply flawed.
Post by: smjjames on July 17, 2017, 06:19:03 pm
Quote1. a mother in relation to her child or childrenMost experts agree the tautological argument is deeply flawed.
To be fair, you did ask for a definition.
Post by: Tawa on July 17, 2017, 06:27:37 pm
You have a point, but I figured it was implied that he would tell me what the important distinguishing features between a mother and a father are, outside of the mother being a woman and the father being a man.Quote1. a mother in relation to her child or childrenMost experts agree the tautological argument is deeply flawed.
To be fair, you did ask for a definition.
I'm sorry if that last remark came off as rude, Neo, but what I mean is that thus far, you've said "mothers are women and fathers are men" and "mothers and fathers are important" without establishing a connection between these two statements.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 06:29:58 pm
I was like "Wait, are you making me define it so that to make some sort of statement on how men can be mothers and thus because they can take up that role that means the role doesn't exist? Or are you setting me up for another statement?"
Post by: Tawa on July 17, 2017, 06:32:23 pm
So anyway, in what crucial ways outside of biology are mothers and fathers are different from one another?
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 06:39:14 pm
I mean for example the mother's cooing and oscillation during the early years actually trains the babies ability to distinguish pitches. Though I guess that is biological (though I guess a guy could REALLY pitch his voice up)
The mother and the father also the first informants of femininity and masculinity. Deprivation of this has WAAAY exaggerated results mind you, but it is still important.
But even if that role is biologically informed, it is still a gender role nonetheless.
Post by: smjjames on July 17, 2017, 06:42:54 pm
Goodness you REALLY cannot unhinge mother and fatherhood from biology so easily...
I mean for example the mother's cooing and oscillation during the early years actually trains the babies ability to distinguish pitches. Though I guess that is biological (though I guess a guy could REALLY pitch his voice up)
The mother and the father also the first informants of femininity and masculinity. Deprivation of this has WAAAY exaggerated results mind you, but it is still important.
But even if that role is biologically informed, it is still a gender role nonetheless.
Even then, there is a huge difference in how feminity and masculinity is viewed accross different cultures, and I don't mean just the modern world.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 06:43:38 pm
Quote
Even then, there is a huge difference in how feminity and masculinity is viewed accross different cultures, and I don't mean just the modern world.
Indeed, but the first informants are still the mother and father. If those standards change, so do the parents.
Quote
everywhere you look, you'll find that the word for 'mother' or 'mama' is pretty similar throughout, same for 'father' or 'papa'. So, the roots of those words go all the way to the very origins of the Indo-European language family tree
Father has a rather large variance in what it can sound like in different languages.
What has a interestingly similar sounding word in, what I am going to risk being wrong, MOST languages is Mother, Mom, Moma (These are just three examples not... The three ones :P)
People speculate the reason why "Mom" is a very similar word even in unrelated languages a lot of the time is because it is similar to a specific sound a baby makes.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 17, 2017, 06:46:53 pm
Orphanage and adoption as well as divorce and remarriage make this more complicated.
Post by: smjjames on July 17, 2017, 06:55:40 pm
The mother is the one the baby comes out of. The father is how the baby was inside the mother in the first place.
Orphanage and adoption as well as divorce and remarriage make this more complicated.
Culture as a whole makes it more complicated. Historically, across cultures, views on homosexuality were as varied as they are today. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality) Though wikipedia being wikipedia, it doesn't list past cultures aside from Abrahamic religions that were anti-homosexual, so, I don't know how much of an anomaly it appears to be.
For things on parent roles (which we're currently discussing), you'd have to look at specific cultures.
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 07:01:11 pm
Even next to Chinese mysticism where people exchange life force via sex... Does the Abrahamic religions obsession with sex stand out.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 17, 2017, 07:11:09 pm
Post by: TempAcc on July 17, 2017, 07:13:24 pm
Er, they can't exist without each other. It's about division of labor.
Males: Do the risky things that can expend your energy, get you wounded, infected by disease, and/or killed.
Females: Do the less energy-intensive things that expose you to less risk of death, so you can bear kids this year.
Sexual dimorphism in humans reflects this a LITTLE bit (and traits we think of as Male or Female), but we've not been living in societies for long enough for it to go to extremes. And we're not tournament species really, so our dimorphism is way less than in other species.
Female population count is the maximum number of children that can be born to that tribe/settlement/society that year. Keeping women alive, and risking men, makes sense, when you're struggling against mortality all the time. Anyway, that's why genders exist, and why modern medical advances, bathing and hygiene, etc. make them obsolete.
Heard the argument before, would be ok with hearing it again since I never saw your take on it, but am also ok on keeping the gender thread from being repetitive, a feat we have yet to achieve, I guess.
I can see the reasoning there, but I still do think there's enough natural elements (IE not born purely out of human behavior or environmental aspects) behind gender. The differences we observe in humans can also be observed in most higher mammals. Yes, one could argue that the gender divide is born out of stuff like preservation of females = preservation of the species, since females are generally more valuable due to being able to give birth, and to perpetuate a species you basically only need one male and lots of females. However, since that is something that arises from the fact that females can give birth, and that is a natural factor, then gender could be thought as a consequence of said natural factor, and thus natural itself.
PS: I guess my preferences are very similar to yours, altough I do have a specific preference for people that aren't terribly taller than me, for both genders. I generally like people of my size or smaller, and given that I'm not the tallest person ever, THAT CAN SOMETIMES POSE A PROBLEM. BUT I CAN DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE I'M ACTUALY A TENTACLE MONSTER
I'M NOT INTO FAT PEOPLE THOUGH, BUT THATS MOSTLY BECAUSE I'M A JERK. I DO APRECIATE THE TASTE OF THEIR FLESH, HOWEVER.
Post by: smjjames on July 17, 2017, 07:16:30 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 07:17:39 pm
Post by: TempAcc on July 17, 2017, 07:20:38 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 17, 2017, 11:21:47 pm
So, when was the last time you were privileged?
Post by: Starver on July 18, 2017, 01:38:54 am
So, when was the last time you were privileged?5th April, 1923, when I breathed my last breath as the 5th Earl of Carnarvon. Nine months later, I was born once more, but this time to an unwed mother who was 'temporarily' residing in a Glasgow workhouse. I bounced back, the next lifetime, but have not yet gained again the heady heights of aristocracy... Ah well, you win some, you lose some. Here's hoping for the next circuit on the everchanging rollercoaster(/occasionally watersplash) of Fate!
(In other words: I have no clue what to say to this, but I'm feeling I need to be whimsical, to balance a bit of a rant that I just made elsewhere.)
Post by: Sheb on July 18, 2017, 01:50:31 am
The mother is the one the baby comes out of. The father is how the baby was inside the mother in the first place.
Orphanage and adoption as well as divorce and remarriage make this more complicated.
So a female doctor who practice IVF is a father? :p
Post by: Kansa on July 18, 2017, 02:33:00 am
So I am ticked off. (Not from anyone here)
So, when was the last time you were privileged?
Awareness of privilege is only really going to come after something changes to take it away.
You aren't an evil person for having it but everyone does have it in some respect and I think it's an important thing to realise to try and understand other people.
This doesn't completely apply to me any more as I've been going through some confusing stuff :p. But for the most part of my life I could go into the same bathroom that matched what I thought my gender identity was. It's quite a small example but one I only realised after I started questioning my own gender. There's also some other things like I was born into a family that's quite well off.
There are some people who use it stupidly, but I think trying to understand it is important for understanding other people and the hardships they go through.
Post by: Neonivek on July 18, 2017, 10:16:41 pm
So I am ticked off. (Not from anyone here)There are some people who use it stupidly, but I think trying to understand it is important for understanding other people and the hardships they go through.
So, when was the last time you were privileged?
By some you mean the vast majority of its use. It is used as a nebulous thing.
Because whenever someone tells you to check your privilege they do not know you, they can only make broad strokes. They don't know your struggles, the things you have to deal with, or what things you even agree with. In fact the last point is a big one, they are assuming to be mind readers and know exactly what is and isn't important to you.
---
Actually checking your privilege is kind of a flawed system when I think about it. It isn't about understanding other people, "Walk a mile in someone else's shoes" it isn't about Empathy. You are supposed to try to understand someone else and through that lens or mirror see what it is about yourself that is so advantaged.
Yet the CYP system eliminates that step... on purpose. It was always terrible and was always about being an Evil Person.
Quote
You aren't an evil person for having it
Your right you aren't an evil person but
-1) You do not have the right to speak, except to echo
-2) You do not have the right of aid
-3) You do not have the right of a platform
You are a criminal, you are evil. You just aren't "Evil". Which is why I think so many people take it that way... But I am just bringing it up because it requires HUUUUGE ASSUMPTIONS about the person.
To the extent where even the most disadvantaged dregs of society or even outright victims... Are "Privileged" because of nebulous advantages that are not quantifiable as to that person's life experience.
Post by: alway on July 18, 2017, 11:52:03 pm
So I am ticked off. (Not from anyone here)I got my current job through a connection I made during my last job, in social circles not everybody realistically has access to.
So, when was the last time you were privileged?
At my last job, a highly qualified programmer was denied a job specifically because they were transgender. For an opening which was both in desperate need of filling and which took months to find another qualified candidate for. A fact so banal and uninterestingly normal it was simply chatted about by the individual responsible for doing so as if it were the weather. So, not having companies turn me down for no damn reason definitely counts. Particularly in a capitalist system where unemployment = death.
Before that, I went to a top 10 university in my field; funded in part by the government, in part by the university, and in part from a 529 plan with well over $10k in it (probably several times that amount, but it was never really a low enough number for me to need to care about specifics, aside from it not being enough for a masters). Also supplemented a by jobs I got very specifically through networking with people in the university.
In highschool, I completed a 2 year degree through the post-secondary options my state had, entirely for free. This also gave higher level coursework than was available in the highschool, as well as free time to do programming on my own time freed up from a usual highschool schedule. Which itself started even earlier, when my parents bought me intro programming books in middleschool.
All that leaves out the dozen or more little things that fed into and enabled all those listed.
A more apt question is: when wasn't I? Cause that's what privilege looks like. Not some particular event, but a series of things building on one another over the course of a lifetime, one following the next in a completely logical progression where opportunities not afforded to others are able to be taken and built upon. Pretending everyone starts out on equal footing in all they do is intellectually dishonest, as is the entire 'meritocracy' lie people like me tend to build up on top of that in order to feel superior. tldr version, this: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
Post by: Neonivek on July 18, 2017, 11:57:54 pm
Quote
Pretending everyone starts out on equal footing in all they do is intellectually dishonest, as is the entire 'meritocracy' lie people like me tend to build up on top of that in order to feel superior.
Yes, that is right... It is almost like "Check your privilege" is completely bananas and fictitious.
Because it relies on the idea that people of a certain race of gender have the same footing. That they all have access or denial to the same privileges. As well as boiling down all privilege to gender and race and orientation rather then opportunity and social standing.
Post by: Kansa on July 19, 2017, 01:47:03 am
There are some things I can never understand though and that's where I think it's important. I'm not ever going to understand what it's like to be a black person or a muslim or any number of things. So I don't think it's really fair for me to speak like I do know what it's like.
Privilege is not good for vast judgements about someone, it is however good to realise when you are talking about a certain subject. If I came into a conversation where I had never lived with it and start telling people that have that their experiences are wrong I would expect people to tell me to shut up. Just as if I went to a chemistry lecture and said that everything there was wrong. Sometimes it's better just to listen.
Not everyone in the same race or gender or anything have the same experiences and as I said before it's not good to have it as a sliding scale of worthiness. But it's important to realise that there are some things that I am never going to experience just because of the way I was born and it's better to let those people talk on that subject instead of me
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 02:01:45 am
But it's important to realise that there are some things that I am never going to experience just because of the way I was born and it's better to let those people talk on that subject instead of me
If we are talking about personal experiences you are somewhat correct, no one can experience something for you and you are the best advocate for said experiences. Empathy suggests that there is leeway but it is a decent rule of thumb for most situations.
If we are talking about a particular subject, one that personally affected you, then the answer is emphatically no. This is where the "Check your Privilege" because caustic for not only shutting down criticism but it perpetuates a sense of victimhood.
If I am talking about how I was shot on the subway, Only "I" could talk about how it felt to be shot, even other people who were shot didn't have "My" experience. I am not, however, a expert on gun violence, victimization, or a psychologist NOR is my viewpoint a collective viewpoint. When you extend my experience outside of a personal experience you are creating problems.
Finally just because I said I was shot and it felt a certain way it doesn't mean that you must take my personal account. I might be lying, I might be mistaken, I might have come to the wrong conclusions, my experience could be extremely niche. As well how much people value my Point of View is up to them as well.
Sure, you could say that being homeless is easy and contradict an actual homeless person. You would be wrong and people would be bound to point that out, but the way you don't handle it is to say "Hey, that homeless person had it rough, your privilege disavows you from speaking". (Still remember that guy who as an experiment was homeless for a day and said it was easy)
Second Finally. The point of speaking of your experiences is to relate them to other people. They hear what you are saying, they ask questions, and they come to their own conclusions, conclusions that they might tell other people. What "Check your Privilege" wants is for you to take their conclusions and not to ask these questions.
Post by: Kansa on July 19, 2017, 02:19:10 am
I don't really see it as stopping you from completely speaking in that area. In the gun example it's more like people denying that you got shot at all, it's not helpful to the situation doesn't add to the conversation and you are still going to bleed out despite them denying it.
Saying being a homeless person is easy does not add to the conversation either and doesn't help the situation at hand. If they actually asked legitimate questions I would agree with you, but if they just keep denying what is really the point of having them as a voice anymore about this person's suffering.
If you don't believe in global warming you aren't going to be a valuable voice in the conversation about how to stop it
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 02:21:39 am
In the gun example it's more like people denying that you got shot at all, it's not helpful to the situation doesn't add to the conversation and you are still going to bleed out despite them denying it.
No one is trying to stop me from getting medical attention and my bleeding wound is pretty good evidence.
Quote
If you don't believe in global warming you aren't going to be a valuable voice in the conversation about how to stop it
If you don't believe in global warming there is a sizable body of evidence set against you. No one needs to shut you down.
As well even if we ignore that it suggests we should shut down dissenters (Intellectual Inbreeding hurray!)... Someone who doesn't believe in global warming can still have very valid points on environmental protection, pollution standards, economic concerns AND can offer a valuable insight that you will not get from a zealous supporter of global warming.
Post by: Kansa on July 19, 2017, 02:25:36 am
Like I said this is the situation where privilege is a problem, if you ask legitimate questions I don't think you should be silenced. If they deny you have a gunshot wound however they are never going to take you to a hospital no matter how much you plead to them.
They can offer good points but if they just repeat there is no global warming despite the evidence and say that we don't need a fix it's not really going to help the problem
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 02:30:40 am
Maybe you just smeared blood on yourself though, maybe you are lying about the pain.
Like I said this is the situation where privilege is a problem, if you ask legitimate questions I don't think you should be silenced. If they deny you have a gunshot wound however they are never going to take you to a hospital no matter how much you plead to them
Except that even if "Only I" had a valid opinion, If everyone around me was an idiot and doesn't believe me I am not going to the hospital anyway.
As well they can still deny I have a gunshot wound and still take me to the hospital for emergency treatment.
Creating a mob mentality in order to ensure I am taken to the hospital isn't going to help anyone. To suggest privilege on its own is a barrier is not to understand what privilege is.
Quote
They can offer good points but if they just repeat there is no global warming despite the evidence and say that we don't need a fix it's not really going to help the problem
Yes, unhelpful people are not helpful.
Yet that is a quality that they are not helpful or that they won't stop interjecting. It isn't a quality of them not believing in Global Warming.
A cultish attitude towards Global Warming doesn't help anyone and it genuinely stops criticisms that help aim it correctly. Remember that a lot of information about Global Warming was outright fictitious which outright hindered its adoption and continues to, to this day (some of it intentionally spread).
Heck global warming has been commoditized with many fixes and cures that are outright scams. Yet criticism of them is taken as criticism of Global Warming which is linked directly to how you are handling the subject.
Which... given the subject you are opening a LOT of unfortunate implications.
Post by: Kansa on July 19, 2017, 02:38:23 am
Privilege is a barrier in understanding, it's one you can overcome though. If you are actually trying I don't think you should be silenced, I don't think it's helpful in a conversation though to have people just deny it.
It would be like in this conversation instead of talking about what it means to both of us just me saying again and again no one misuses the word privilege and you are an idiot for saying so. That doesn't help at all and isn't going to lead to new understanding when I don't even listen to what you have to say.
What I'm saying is exactly that, unhelpful people are unhelpful.
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 02:47:07 am
No you aren't but if you move on to people who actually listen instead of continuing to plead to the people who aren't even trying then you might get to the hospital. It's not about people being idiots it's about them not even trying to understand.
Privilege is a barrier in understanding, it's one you can overcome though. If you are actually trying I don't think you should be silenced, I don't think it's helpful in a conversation though to have people just deny it.
It would be like in this conversation instead of talking about what it means to both of us just me saying again and again no one misuses the word privilege and you are an idiot for saying so. That doesn't help at all and isn't going to lead to new understanding when I don't even listen to what you have to say.
Privilege is privilege. It is fluid, very specific, but doesn't necessarily impair empathy or understanding. Someone who has money hasn't always had money, and someone with no money doesn't necessarily have problems with money. Yet even within that there are shared common experiences. IF I took what you said at face value then explaining my injury would be pointless altogether regardless of what cult you created to help me.
Yet when you are suggesting is that outright "Denial" should be shut down. Which is set up to mean "Wholly denial" but actually means "Any contradiction" because any part of what someone says and what they mean can be contradicted.
This is what creates the ideological cult.
This "Conversation" is what it important. Don't contradict the "Conversation" it isn't helpful to do so. If you contradict the "Conversation" Then you are against it.
If your point is so important and so worthy of attention then why does this contradiction scare it?
Post by: Kansa on July 19, 2017, 02:53:58 am
Saying that a black man doesn't face discrimination because you are a white woman and only women face discrimination is a problem too and does happen. You only really realise the similarities between your situations if you take some time to understand them.
I'm not really sure why you are putting this cult stuff on me though. My only problem is the denial with no attempt to understand and never even really meaning to have a conversation. It's not even solely about privilege, that's just one of the factors that can cause someone to act like that.
Like I said before if you listen and try I don't think you should be silenced, there are ways to disagree on details while still trying to understand. I'm sure there are some people who do use it that way, but there are people like that for every term in existence. I'm arguing that the concept of privilege is important to understand and apply rather than argue that everyone who is using it is using it correctly.
Just because some people use it poorly doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed.
Also of course it's not the only factor, there are thousands upon thousands of things that make you up as a person and shape your worldview. But just because it's not the only factor doesn't mean that you should just ignore it, it's important to understand as much about the things that make you as possible.
I think this is kind of edging out of the purpose of this thread though, so this is probably going to be my last post on it. If you want to continue I'm fine with responding over pms
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 04:17:13 am
Privilege is privilege. It is fluid, very specific, but doesn't necessarily impair empathy or understanding. Someone who has money hasn't always had money, and someone with no money doesn't necessarily have problems with money. Yet even within that there are shared common experiences. IF I took what you said at face value then explaining my injury would be pointless altogether regardless of what cult you created to help me.
That fluidity doesn't readily apply to race, gender, disability or lack of thereof, etc though.
Post by: hops on July 19, 2017, 05:13:30 am
Goodness you REALLY cannot unhinge mother and fatherhood from biology so easily...TIL children of gay men are tone deaf.
I mean for example the mother's cooing and oscillation during the early years actually trains the babies ability to distinguish pitches. Though I guess that is biological (though I guess a guy could REALLY pitch his voice up)
The mother and the father also the first informants of femininity and masculinity. Deprivation of this has WAAAY exaggerated results mind you, but it is still important.
But even if that role is biologically informed, it is still a gender role nonetheless.
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 10:22:44 am
Privilege is privilege. It is fluid, very specific, but doesn't necessarily impair empathy or understanding. Someone who has money hasn't always had money, and someone with no money doesn't necessarily have problems with money. Yet even within that there are shared common experiences. IF I took what you said at face value then explaining my injury would be pointless altogether regardless of what cult you created to help me.
That fluidity doesn't readily apply to race, gender, disability or lack of thereof, etc though.
Yes it does. Lets ignore the racism and sexism involved with this line of thinking and instead just go with someone in a Wheelchair.
One person who is in a Wheel Chair might not suffer the hindrances that another person does. They might not perpetually be confronted by the same limitations or the same benefits of being in a wheelchair. Ramps might be more available in one town, not available in others, people might be more helpful in one place, or it might not be in another, one person might be good at working their wheel hair, another might have weak arms. As well there are benefits to being in a wheelchair as well that not everyone in a wheelchair might have access to.
Privilege is only the same if everyone has the same experiences and same life.
You really should ask separated twins if their lives were exactly the same.
Quote
Just because some people use it poorly doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed.
It is never used correctly. NEVER! You cannot tell someone to check their privilege without creating that flaw. This is because it can only be used correctly on yourself and not other people, but it is created to be used on others.
And some other stuff you posted but I just woke up...
Quote
TIL children of gay men are tone deaf.
Nah. Men oscillate too and not all women oscillate (In fact there was a fad a while ago that told women not to oscillate or baby talk at all).
If there is an effect developmentally it would probably only be that they don't have perfect pitch... But only like what? 30% of people have perfect pitch?
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 10:41:41 am
That fluidity doesn't readily apply to race, gender, disability or lack of thereof, etc though.
Yes it does. Lets ignore the racism and sexism involved with this line of thinking and instead just go with someone in a Wheelchair.
One person who is in a Wheel Chair might not suffer the hindrances that another person does. They might not perpetually be confronted by the same limitations or the same benefits of being in a wheelchair. Ramps might be more available in one town, not available in others, people might be more helpful in one place, or it might not be in another, one person might be good at working their wheel hair, another might have weak arms. As well there are benefits to being in a wheelchair as well that not everyone in a wheelchair might have access to.
Privilege is only the same if everyone has the same experiences and same life.
[/quote]
That's really pushing it too far. Yes, of course, no two persons face exactly 100% the same life. But that doesn't mean that some group don't have it better than others. In your exemple, the wheelchair guy in town A might have it better than the wheelchair guy in town B, but that's not really relevant. The point is that being stuch in a wheelchair will put them at a disadvantage vs. people that aren't stuck in a wheelchair.
It just sounds like you're trying to split the problem to have a good excuse to ignore it, TBH. Just imagine if you used the same approach to other field of policy (Do we need food stamp? Let's not generalize, every poor person is unique, we shouldn't force a solution on all!)
Quote
QuoteJust because some people use it poorly doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed.
It is never used correctly. NEVER![citation needed] You cannot tell someone to check their privilege without creating that flaw. This is because it can only be used correctly on yourself and not other people, but it is created to be used on others.
...
More seriously, I don't get how that argument even make sense. Why can't you tell people that they should try to realize the ways in which their life can be privileged compared to others?
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 10:46:20 am
How many sources DO you need here? I can find all the sources you need (though I assume it will never be enough)
No really. 36 Questions Women have for Men a good enough video?
"Why do men hate when you tell them to check their privilege? Just check it, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" (Which by the "Do something about it" is the immediate... misuse. Then again "Just check it" also assumes the conclusion as well.)
Quote
Why can't you tell people that they should try to realize the ways in which their life can be privileged compared to others?
-1) Because you are making assumptions about their privilege based on superficial characteristics.
-2)You are making judgements based on the privilege to create a heigharchy (Dang spell check, I give up!) of validity and need. Hmm... A line of thinking where some people are better than others based on the color of their skin... hmm...
-3) You aren't asking someone to understand someone elses POV and through that lens understand what they truly have. You are asking someone to come to vague conclusions about their privilege based on vague notions that often cannot be defined, quantified, or don't even apply.
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 11:04:44 am
OHHH citation needed Sheb? Ok... This is fun!
How many sources DO you need here?
No really. 36 Questions Women have for Men a good enough video?
"Why do men hate when you tell them to check their privilege? Just check it, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" (Which by the "Do something about it" is the immediate... misuse)
1) You said it was NEVER (emphasis yours) used properly. Now, you can't prove a negative, so in fact you can't prove that statement, I was being tongue in cheek. More seriously, the way to go would be to find some authority in the field and see what definition they use and how they use it, but I'm not sure who to consider one.
2) How is the "Do something about it" misuse? I mean, if for exemple you are white and live in Western Europe and the US, you do have some race-related privilege (like my ability to talk myself out of minor offense easily, which I know for sure my browner friend finds impossible). It makes sense to me that I should, when possible, try to dispel racists stereotypes and the like that lead to those advantage.
Quote
QuoteWhy can't you tell people that they should try to realize the ways in which their life can be privileged compared to others?
-1) Because you are making assumptions about their privilege based on superficial characteristics.
-2)You are making judgements based on the privilege to create a heigharchy (Dang spell check, I give up!) of validity and need. Hmm... A line of thinking where some people are better than others based on the color of their skin... hmm...
-3) You aren't asking someone to understand someone elses POV and through that lens understand what they truly have. You are asking someone to come to vague conclusions about their privilege based on vague notions that often cannot be defined, quantified, or don't even apply.
1) Well, mate, I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you're a man, it makes sense to assume that you don't suffer from everyday sexism the way a woman does.
2) I totally don't see how that follows from the first, at all. Like, I'll just tell you that you should check your privilege, right now. You really should given the way you seem unable to understand that some forms of systemic prejudice exists in our societies.
Now, where did I create a race-based hierarchy (You're welcome for the spelling) of need?
3) I simply don't get that statement. Are you again complaining that we attempt to draw more general conclusions relating to power relations?
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 11:12:00 am
Quote
1) Well, mate, I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you're a man, it makes sense to assume that you don't suffer from everyday sexism the way a woman does
Now you just made an assumption based on the experiences of all women and all men. So you are talking for all women and men and are delegating out traits that will apply in all situations.
Goodness is checking your privilege just the overflowing font of equality in that: It is equally sexist to both genders.
But how about you list those Privileges that a MAN has? Not "Men", a Man.
I mean let me think of things I experienced: I've been objectified, I've been cat called, I've been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, I've been denied consent, I am scared to go outside at night, I have to dress and act a certain way if I want to be taken seriously, things built for the majority do not suit my needs, the media doesn't represent me.
Quote
How is the "Do something about it" misuse?
I have a chocolate bar, I should do something about it. I am homeless, but I am a man... I should do something about it.
The way it is positioned is hilarious! Because she says you aren't a bad person for being privileged, but goes on to essentially say that your privilege should be dealt with as if it is a disease or some mortal sin.
At BEST it could be that you should use your advantages to help others. Yet that isn't the way it is positioned, because it is an accusation.
---
Which I guess is the ultimate problem with "Check your Privilege" as you proven... it isn't an exercise it is an accusation, and assumption.
Perhaps it can't be used correctly period.
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 11:19:05 am
Quote
I have a chocolate bar, I should do something about it. I am homeless, but I am a man... I should do something about it.
The way it is positioned is hilarious! Because she says you aren't a bad person for being privileged, but goes on to essentially say that your privilege should be dealt with as if it is a disease or some mortal sin.
Well, yeah, that's the entire point. The underlying system that means that some group have privileges over other should be dismantled, but that doesn't mean that you are a bad person for being in one of the category that benefits. It's not like you chose to be part of them most of the time.
Surely the distinction isn't hard to understand? To take an exemple of blatant race privilege, think of white people in the Deep South in the 50's. Sure they have privilege over black folks. And sure, they're privileges over black folks were unjust and had to be dealt with. That doesn't mean that you're a bad person for being born white in Mississipi in the early 20th century.
Quote
Now you just made an assumption based on the experiences of all women and all men. So you are talking for all women and men.
Goodness is checking your privilege just the overflowing font of equality in that: It is equally sexist to both genders.
But how about you list those Privileges that a MAN has? Not "Men", a Man.
I really, really don't understand your point. Can you try to rephrase it?
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 11:24:30 am
You are making an assumption based on the life experiences of all men and all women and deeming it is true in all situations.
So what privileges does a man have?
Not "Men" so you can point out that CEOs are mostly male (something that benefits only a fraction of a fraction of men... Men who are sociopaths)
Quote
The underlying system that means that some group have privileges over other should be dismantled
I am smart, I have a privilege over dumb people. I should have my intelligence dismantled.
That is why that assumption doesn't work wholesale.
IN FACT IT HAS A DOUBLE ASSUMPTION!
I am smart, therefor I am the only person or group who is smart.
WAIT! Triple assumption
I am smart, therefor I am purely advantaged over people who are dumb.
It isn't like smart people have higher rates of depression than people who are dumb and thus we cannot look at it as purely advantage or disadvantage.
WAIT!!! FOURTH assumption
They are dumb, therefor they are purely disadvantaged over people who are smart.
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 12:03:33 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 12:14:14 pm
Just checking, but you're still arguing in good faith and not being purposefully obtuse, right? Or maybe it's just your style of writing I have trouble understanding.
Horrible style of writing. I write the way I think without enough filtering. Let me just massage this a bit
QuoteThe underlying system that means that some group have privileges over other should be dismantled
I am smart, I have a privilege over dumb people. I should have my intelligence dismantled.
That is why that assumption doesn't work wholesale.
IN FACT IT HAS A DOUBLE ASSUMPTION!
I am smart, therefor I am the only person or group who is smart.
WAIT! Triple assumption
I am smart, therefor I am purely advantaged over people who are dumb.
It isn't like smart people have higher rates of depression than people who are dumb and thus we cannot look at it as purely advantage or disadvantage.
WAIT!!! FOURTH assumption
They are dumb, therefor they are purely disadvantaged over people who are smart.
The requirement for someone to do something about their privilege requires quite a few assumptions:
-1) That it is a privilege that can be changed, should be changed, and is just to be changed
-2) That the privilege is uniquely theirs and isn't shared or experienced by anyone else
-3) That the privilege is entirely positive without any sort of drawbacks or negatives that might make it a mixed bad and cannot be thought of as purely putting one over someone else.
-4) That the opposite, the "disadvantage" is purely negative and that there are no positives or perks associated with it.
-5) (I am adding this), that the Privilege is theirs to deal with and is something they affect. A Child isn't responsible for their protected status.
A example that is often cited, for example, is that women feel intense anxiety walking around at night. This is not only an anxiety shared by men, but statistically men have more to fear. This is to say nothing of the fact that "Check your Privilege" focuses on men exclusively for night anxiety as perpetrators, instead of arming women.
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 12:28:40 pm
-1) That it is a privilege that can be changed, should be changed, and is just to be changed
Maybe it's because I'm French-speaking, so for me privileges means stuff like the privilege of the nobility, but for me those three things are part of the definition of privileges. Privileges are advantages that you get from belonging to a given group but didn't do anything to deserve.*
-2) That the privilege is uniquely theirs and isn't shared or experienced by anyone else
I don't see why. If it is shared by other groups too, then it just mean that this other groups should also loose the same privileges.
-3) That the privilege is entirely positive without any sort of drawbacks or negatives that might make it a mixed bad and cannot be thought of as purely putting one over someone else.
Well, 1) A privilege is by its definition positive. Now, if membership of a group gives you some advantage but also expose you to discrimination what does that change? Both should be challenged.
-4) That the opposite, the "disadvantage" is purely negative and that there are no positives or perks associated with it.
Again, why is that a requirement?
-5) (I am adding this), that the Privilege is theirs to deal with and is something they affect. A Child isn't responsible for their protected status.
I half agree with that one. Juste because you are not responsible for the existence of the privileges doesn't mean you shouldn't try to abolish them (see my previous exemple being white in the 50's in the Deep South).
*Actually one of the reason I'm not that fond of the term privilege, because it seems to imply that the goal is to bring the privileged groups down rather than brings the other one up, but that's the term that stuck so well, gotta roll with it.
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 12:54:26 pm
Quote
Actually one of the reason I'm not that fond of the term privilege, because it seems to imply that the goal is to bring the privileged groups down rather than brings the other one up, but that's the term that stuck so well, gotta roll with it.
One of the same reasons I don't like it. Yet as it keeps being used the unfortunate implications keep seeping in.
Quote
Maybe it's because I'm French-speaking, so for me privileges means stuff like the privilege of the nobility, but for me those three things are part of the definition of privileges. Privileges are advantages that you get from belonging to a given group but didn't do anything to deserve
This isn't your fault.
Yet one must beg the question: Is that advantage real? Universal to that group?
For nobility it is easy to see what privileges they have access to because they are codified.
Quote
Well, 1) A privilege is by its definition positive. Now, if membership of a group gives you some advantage but also expose you to discrimination what does that change? Both should be challenged.
Wasn't the entire basis of Checking your Privilege was that privilege itself prevents you from understanding those without it? Sounds like by that definition a privilege IS a disadvantage as well.
Also I am not talking about entire groups I am talking about singular "privileges"
Quote
If it is shared by other groups too, then it just mean that this other groups should also loose the same privileges.
What if that group IS the "Disadvantaged" group?
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 01:05:28 pm
Quote
Quote
If it is shared by other groups too, then it just mean that this other groups should also loose the same privileges.
What if that group IS the "Disadvantaged" group?
Uh? By definition when discussing a given sets of privileges, the one that benefits from it aren't the one that are disadvantaged by it.
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 01:10:13 pm
What I mean is: What are you changing if both groups contain the same privilege?
Edit: An example of an advantage that is also a disadvantage would be Diplomatic Immunity. Having it also means you MUST act in accordance with being a diplomat and often means you earned it in some capacity. Being a diplomat, a requirement for diplomatic immunity, isn't anything anyone but diplomats do.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 19, 2017, 04:57:38 pm
Anyway, how's it - oh, look, an argument! How neat. jumps in
QuoteThe underlying system that means that some group have privileges over other should be dismantled
I am smart, I have a privilege over dumb people. I should have my intelligence dismantled.
This conversation is rather hard to follow, so I might be misinterpreting this, but - seriously? Privilege is not synonymous with success. Do you really not understand this? Privilege is a modifier on success. Men's success and women's success are both distributions, but the men's distribution is higher than the women's distribution. This variance is also higher than biological theories can explain, as experimental results like "identical job applications are more likely to succeed if a male name is on the application" demonstrate.
If someone is saying "all successful people got that way through privilege," then your response is a decent rebuttal. If not, it's just clueless.
Quote from: neo
Wasn't the entire basis of Checking your Privilege was that privilege itself prevents you from understanding those without it? Sounds like by that definition a privilege IS a disadvantage as well.
That's hardly a meaningful disadvantage. Even better, it lets you think of your success as being solely dependent on your own traits and effort! That's an advantage, right? (Two can play at this "advantages have associated disadvantages and vice versa" game.)
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 05:10:14 pm
Quote
This conversation is rather hard to follow, so I might be misinterpreting this, but - seriously? Privilege is not synonymous with success.
I am very VERY hard to follow so I don't blame you.
My words was a counterpoint that any advantage someone has over someone else "needs to be dealt with".
So I gave an example of an advantage that not only cannot be dealt with, but would be oppressive if it could.
As well if an advantage doesn't lead to success, you are no longer advantaged. As well an advantage that isn't accessible isn't an advantage either
Quote
That's hardly a meaningful disadvantage.
I think your drawing a lot more from what I am saying than what I intended, but let me try to catch you up to the conversation. Yes it isn't a meaningful disadvantage, well it is sociopathy if taken to its logical conclusion, but I was simply laying the ground work that just because something is an advantage it doesn't mean that advantage cannot come with sizable or even overwhelming disadvantages that might make it impossible to gauge.
I was simply calling back to an earlier point in the conversation where it was outright said that "Privilege" comes with that disadvantage, therefor one cannot say that privilege is always pure advantage.
---
Or rather my goal is to challenge the precepts that "Check your Privilege" is based on. That it requires a lot of assumptions about a person, society, their gender, their race, the color of their skin, their orientation. That it requires assumptions about their lives and how the advantages present themselves.
It requires an assumption of perpetual victimhood and eternal victimizer.
To say nothing of how it is actually used "Do something about it!" Vs. What it actually means. (At which I have yet to see it used properly once)
Which is why I am going through this conversation.
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2017, 05:51:10 pm
QuoteThis conversation is rather hard to follow, so I might be misinterpreting this, but - seriously? Privilege is not synonymous with success.
I am very VERY hard to follow so I don't blame you.
(1) My words was a counterpoint that any advantage someone has over someone else "needs to be dealt with".
So I gave an example of an advantage that not only cannot be dealt with, but would be oppressive if it could.
(2) As well if an advantage doesn't lead to success, you are no longer advantaged. As well an advantage that isn't accessible isn't an advantage eitherQuoteThat's hardly a meaningful disadvantage.
(I added number to make my answers easier to follow)
(1) Did I say that? Because I certainly didn't intend to say that.
(2) That's not true. Success depends on many factor, from your intrisic quality to how much your work to blind luck to, well, yeah, privilege. Just because other factors (including luck) meant you didn't achieve in a particular case doesn't mean there is no advantage. My +2 on my roll still is there even if I failed the roll.
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 05:59:34 pm
An advantage that cannot be used is no longer an advantage.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on July 19, 2017, 06:17:42 pm
There is a difference between fighting for the equality owed to you by society and simply hating, slandering, or otherwise demeaning those more fortunate than you.
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2017, 06:25:07 pm
Devaluing your own worth and overvaluing the worth of others.
Both which are equally harmful.
-----
Wait wait wait O_O I just saw this...
Apparently a study was made and...
It seems that Men have a larger desire for cuddling, and women the stronger desire for sex?
Huh, just goes to show you can't take stereotypes for granted if this is true. Then again it also makes a lot more sense given other stereotypes.
You know the one where men lack sentimentality in sex and women do? Under this stereotype it makes a lot of sense.
I should find that source and post it...
Post by: hops on July 20, 2017, 12:58:12 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 01:09:39 pm
What age demographics are we talking about?
According to what I read...
Middle age and older.
Post by: hops on July 20, 2017, 01:13:31 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 01:19:11 pm
Here is one... but if you want to fish around for articles here is my google search
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=webhp&q=Man+value+cuddling%2C+women+value+sex&oq=Man+value+cuddling%2C+women+value+sex&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1403678.1408734.0.1408866.35.34.0.0.0.0.146.3346.11j19.30.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.17.1843...0j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.IMGuxAgOVF8 (https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=webhp&q=Man+value+cuddling%2C+women+value+sex&oq=Man+value+cuddling%2C+women+value+sex&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1403678.1408734.0.1408866.35.34.0.0.0.0.146.3346.11j19.30.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.17.1843...0j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.IMGuxAgOVF8)
Post by: hops on July 20, 2017, 01:29:54 pm
I still find it surprising that women value sex more than men when they're married, though. It sheds some interesting light on abstinent couples. My parents became sexually abstinent not long after my birth (I asked, and I doubt they had any reason to lie) and sometimes they can have trouble relating to each other.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 01:32:46 pm
Hmm, it stands to reason in a marital environment. Actually, I think that the concept that men only like sex is really just based on the idealized male fantasy, anyways.
I still find it surprising that women value sex more than men when they're married, though. It sheds some interesting light on abstinent couples. My parents became sexually abstinent not long after my birth (I asked, and I doubt they had any reason to lie) and sometimes they can have trouble relating to each other.
It is based on a lot more than the idealized male fantasy (a thing that has been demonized to hell and back), but for a general idea it is acceptable as it doesn't matter where the idea came from.
Remember that biologically women have a greater sex drive and they reach their sexual peak later than men (assuming that info is still true)
So in many ways this is just putting together info we already knew free from the "Men are Satyrs" stereotype.
(Lets also add that Men seek out sexual stimulation but do not seek out intimacy through that stimulation. A man who watches porn isn't emotionally cheating on anyone)
Post by: hops on July 20, 2017, 01:34:40 pm
Well, I mean that in a more mature company I think it is already taken for granted that healthy, mature males aren't sex-hungry pick-up artists. It's just that those minority resonate more with media.Hmm, it stands to reason in a marital environment. Actually, I think that the concept that men only like sex is really just based on the idealized male fantasy, anyways.
I still find it surprising that women value sex more than men when they're married, though. It sheds some interesting light on abstinent couples. My parents became sexually abstinent not long after my birth (I asked, and I doubt they had any reason to lie) and sometimes they can have trouble relating to each other.
It is based on a lot more than the idealized male fantasy (a thing that has been demonized to hell and back), but for a general idea it is acceptable as it doesn't matter where the idea came from.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 01:38:40 pm
Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.
Which means they are more observable.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 20, 2017, 03:26:23 pm
Spoiler: over if Neo wants it to be (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 03:31:02 pm
I was hoping that conversation was over! It is so semantic and it is my own fault!
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 20, 2017, 03:34:19 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 03:36:59 pm
I like it when I have a second person... It might be because a chorus is calming but it also helps me feel like I am not the only one carrying the load or that I am not tunneling straight ahead.
Post by: hops on July 20, 2017, 04:40:12 pm
It is a topic worthy of speaking on its own given the whole "Men are rapists" thing gone out of dang control and reached a serious boiling point.I don't think this has more than a tangential relation to the behaviors of sexual deviants. The beliefs that men are rapists are a product of fear of men, which in turn is caused by machismo. Society is doing well so far to disassociate controlling behaviors from gender.
Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.
Which means they are more observable.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 04:48:17 pm
It is a topic worthy of speaking on its own given the whole "Men are rapists" thing gone out of dang control and reached a serious boiling point.I don't think this has more than a tangential relation to the behaviors of sexual deviants. The beliefs that men are rapists are a product of fear of men, which in turn is caused by machismo. Society is doing well so far to disassociate controlling behaviors from gender.
Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.
Which means they are more observable.
It is caused by a strong belief in Rape Culture and the perpetuated insistence of constant female victimhood... And having ALL of this target exclusively men.
If you want to do "Well so far" then just look for "Teach men not to rape"
As for Machismo (AKA: Masculinity) You are right that society often considers masculinity itself to be bad.
It is why society has pathologized masculinity and why many schools had to follow suit with that belief.
Which is a shame to be honest since we actually saw this problem as far back as the 90s but for some reason the whole "Masculinity is bad" has been doubled down? I don't exactly understand.
---
So no, I do not hold the belief that society is handling it well. Anymore then I'd believe Salem caught witches. At least in terms of how we treat males.
Edit: Changed a few of the Feminisms. Even though the main issue is that a vocal minority (Assuming it is even that) and thus Feminism can be thought as "The overall effect" I still don't want to vilify Feminists or even all forms of Feminism. Only to suggests that the ideologies, that are currently being used as a whole and proposed, as well as the zealously in which it is being followed out is harmful and that it isn't being strongly resisted within feminist lines due to suppression from within its own community. The solution is more that it needs to be looked at critically and more importantly is needs to be ABLE to be looked at critically especially from outside that ideology among other things.
And that isn't even a problem individually held within Feminism itself, even though it actively polices those outside of it, but in how ingrained feminism is in our society that we have put it on a pedestal and gave it the near monopoly. That is why if Feminism says "This group is bad" very few sources will contradict that, or if the leaders of Feminism shut down certain "dissenters" that they are no longer considered of critical worth (such was the fate for the Feminist who said "Women are just as violent as men are") and should be barred, and there is no one with the authority to contradict it (and if it does occur, often times it leads to strong resistance, protests, bomb threats, vandalism, assault)
Actually that is an interesting discussion into itself about the differences between the leaders, the people within it, what it preaches, and how it acts.
I wonder if the solution I put is even the solution. I dunno too complicated for me at the moment... Nor if I even know if this is the proper way to address it, nor if I did the groundwork that is usually required for people who might not be well versed in the topic.
-Edit Edit: There, that should be enough to kill this topic dead!
Post by: Solifuge on July 20, 2017, 08:57:58 pm
Assuming you do though, be cautious about conflating statements about "People who are Toxically Masculine", and seeing them as statements about "All People who are Male-Identifying". Because that's fucking absurd. And is probably what leads to the majority of the "Feminists think Men are Bad" arguments you hear out of various internet asshats.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 09:26:02 pm
Quote
Such "toxic" masculine norms include dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions.
Quote
Assuming you do though, be cautious about conflating statements about "People who are Toxically Masculine", and seeing them as statements about "All People who are Male-Identifying". Because that's fucking absurd. And is probably what leads to the majority of the "Feminists think Men are Bad" arguments you hear out of various internet asshats.
Actually looking at the definition it seems like it is an inference that these ARE male norms. Yet ignoring that it also includes a demonization of domineerance and emotion suppression.
The problem with Toxic Masculinity is two fold
-1) It is an accusation onto men and an insistence of societal norms that are harmful to women but cannot be proven: You know like the "I am a stud" parade men have.
-2) It makes a value judgement as to what personality traits and mechanisms a man should and should not have.
Toxic Masculinity when it was first explained to me makes perfect sense. It was about men who are stuck in a world where they must be tough so constantly that it eats them up inside and makes them incapable of coping and that the toxicity towards women was more a result of being unable to even open up to a woman and seeing that influence as dangerous. THAT I can agree with.
The problem is Toxic Masculinity has more than overreached those bounds... Once again Wikipedia can you tell me traditional male norms?
Quote
risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, disdain for homosexuality, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status
But those are traditional male roles... But what about Toxic ones?
Quote
"toxic" masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity or "playboy" behavior
Men who are self-reliant and men who like sex.
So Toxic Masculinity uses an appealing shell to make you agree with its basic premise but the full idea is anything but. In fact looking at the sources a lot of its studies were performed in Prisons.
So what happens when you apply this idea to say: Elementary school children?
---
So now what is Toxic Femininity? Wikipedia... Hmm no article.
The reason why so many people pick up "Feminists think Men are Bad" is because there is a lot that is said but not acted upon... Or that is said but contradicted. Or the fact that men are used as a straw man a disproportionate amount of the time or where simple male activities are demonized or a bunch of other legitimate reasons where one could come to that conclusion.
This is why a common phrase you will here is: "I have nothing against Feminism, just Third Wave Feminism" or "Modern Feminism"
---
Mind you this was all at the top of my head. I can dip further into this Toxic masculinity issue. I wish I could find another article I once read that outright debased the idea that "Controlling your emotions" was a bad thing.
For example I haven't found a statistic for how many men are toxically masculine... Or official psychological papers on it... Or even the studies that were performed.
And hey maybe I am wrong and it is perfectly legitimate in everyway and this pathology is unrelated, maybe this problem is overblown, or maybe some idiot took the idea of Toxic Masculinity and used it VERY incorrectly.
Post by: Solifuge on July 20, 2017, 10:02:30 pm
This is gettin' silly. I'm checking out of the thread.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 10:05:06 pm
I'm trying really hard, Neonivek, for a good while prior to now. But I keep getting the sense there's facets of this discussion that you balk at, or preconceptions just don't want to step back and examine.
This is gettin' silly. I'm checking out of the thread.
We just started talking! and I was about to apologize for my last post too because I don't think I was well informed enough to correctly identify the issues of Toxic Masculinity outside just highlighting the Wikipedia page.
Though... "Your silly, Bye" I guess is fine.
Post by: Solifuge on July 20, 2017, 10:17:50 pm
That's all I care to say further, on that.
EDIT: I slightly lied. Adding that the pattern of discussion that seems to happen is very much one where you argue in favor of the status quo, cheerfully defend gender bs, borrow the arguments of Men's Rights Activists and Radical Feminists to make your points (generally at the expense of Feminism), etc. And the constant discussions or counterpoints don't seem to change any of that at all? So yeah, hence checking out.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2017, 10:47:11 pm
Few people would want to touch that with a 10 foot poll and I was relenting how much I was making people uncomfortable.
Post by: TempAcc on July 21, 2017, 08:35:39 am
Pls do not kill the thread, this is like one of the threads I can comment on things and be ignored. It helps me to pretend Im an internet ghost, at least until solifuge ruins my immersion.
Post by: hops on July 21, 2017, 08:37:09 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 21, 2017, 08:39:51 am
I treat soli as the sole sane woman of the thread at this point.
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2017, 11:22:54 am
Neo's posts tend to vary between tumblr MRA and radfem copypasta and background noise, so I rarely comment. No offense to neo, as I treat him as a forum mascot of sorts.
I treat soli as the sole sane woman of the thread at this point.
Yay! I am none of those things!
I just plunged into gender studies recently, again. My mind works by keeping myself geared entirely towards that until it gets sidetracked.
Post by: Edmus on July 21, 2017, 06:39:31 pm
Youtuber Contrapoints posted an interesting artsy video trying to capture her experience of gender dysphoria. Worth a watch! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayuqizp4fyY&t=55s&ab_channel=ContraPoints)
Post by: Caz on July 22, 2017, 02:13:45 pm
. Success depends on many factor, from your intrisic quality to how much your work to blind luck to, well, yeah, privilege. Just because other factors (including luck) meant you didn't achieve in a particular case doesn't mean there is no advantage. My +2 on my roll still is there even if I failed the roll.
I enjoy this metaphor.
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2017, 02:45:30 pm
. Success depends on many factor, from your intrisic quality to how much your work to blind luck to, well, yeah, privilege. Just because other factors (including luck) meant you didn't achieve in a particular case doesn't mean there is no advantage. My +2 on my roll still is there even if I failed the roll.
I enjoy this metaphor.
I wasn't quite arguing the same thing at the time... Because I am a very unclear person.
Though you are right it is a good metaphor.
Edit: Ok, I HOPE this is the best version of this post I can make. I had to edit this 4 times.
---
Edit: Deleted this part because honestly it isn't important... Or at least less important than topic peace.
Edit 2: Then again perhaps I should bring it up later since it does show the exact problem protecting an ideology with blanket protections is that people will abuse the same protections and that such protections have been abused. Perhaps the antagonism towards being critical is at its heart the problem.
The fact that someone will blanket demonize another group, but then go on to say that their group deserves special consideration and understanding might be inviting irony.
---
I can't really tell what you guys were talking about in the end there, so this is unrelated. :P
Youtuber Contrapoints posted an interesting artsy video trying to capture her experience of gender dysphoria. Worth a watch! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayuqizp4fyY&t=55s&ab_channel=ContraPoints)
How Cringe is it? Or more specifically how sad is it?
I can only take soo much sadness.
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2017, 10:17:35 pm
Post by: Edmus on July 23, 2017, 03:22:12 am
Post by: hops on July 23, 2017, 04:58:58 am
Post by: Toady One on July 23, 2017, 08:29:24 pm