Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: Helgoland on March 04, 2015, 04:49:35 pm

Title: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 04, 2015, 04:49:35 pm
If there's been a blanket ban on this sort of thread, please inform me and I'll lock it immediately.
RULES
0) Assume goodwill and sanity on all sides, and don't purposefully misunderstand others.
1) No sweeping general rants. Stick to a specific issue and treat it in detail. Put some effort into what you're saying - this is not a thread for three-line posts.
2) No outright discussions. Every post should be readable on its own, even if taken outside the context of this text. Clarification to the best of my ability. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149065.msg6105665#msg6105665)
3) Related to the above: No quoting other forumites. Period. It tends to take the focus away from the issue at hand and put it on what the other person has said, and that leads down roads I don't want to travel. Antsan's take on it, which I rather like. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149065.msg6113370#msg6113370)
4) Any sensible rule I've forgotten just now.

About this thread
This is a hot topic, and so I'll be moderating fairly tightly, or at least trying to. The thread will only be open while I'm online; since my schedule is kinda messed-up, timezone differences should pose few problems. And if you continue to violate the rules above after being told about it, I'll lock the thread until you go away.
I won't be joining the discussion myself, since that would be unfair for obvious reasons.



Well, here goes nothing...
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 04, 2015, 05:04:51 pm
Well damn.

Here we go again. :P
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TempAcc on March 04, 2015, 05:12:09 pm
My gernder is potato.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 04, 2015, 05:13:20 pm
Aaaaand I'll direct you to line 4 of the OP.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Glowcat on March 04, 2015, 05:30:37 pm
I'm sorry, but you aren't the person to make or run this kind of thread.

Also

Quote
0) Assume goodwill and sanity on all sides, and don't purposefully misunderstand others.

Kinda contradicts itself if you're assuming people are "misunderstanding" on purpose.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 04, 2015, 05:39:04 pm
Let's just... not... I don't even know what this thread is about, but if these threads usually get banned there's probably a reason for it.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: smjjames on March 04, 2015, 05:40:01 pm
I'm not sure about a blanket ban on the subject, but discussions on this subject, feminism in particular, never end up going well.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 04, 2015, 05:41:00 pm
People need to handle this like duck typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing). When interacting with other people, you don't need to make sure that they're of type Boy or type Girl or whatever. It doesn't matter. Just make sure they have implementations of the methods you expect to call, and that these work in the way that your own behavior expects. For example, unless you intend to call thisGuy.fuck(me), you probably don't care whether it relies on Genitalia.penis or Genitalia.vagina, or indeed any other module. Moreover, construct your error handlers in a reasonable fashion - instead of throwing up a giant red warning and crashing the program (that is, your relationship with somebody), try to handle things a bit more gracefully. And keep in mind that you're the one throwing the error - you're not a standards organization, so you just kind of have to live with how everybody else does their thing.

Now, you can certainly implement your own methods and have them check particular attributes. If you want your makeFriends() method to ensure your target has no trans variable set to True, fine, although it's generally poor design and I'll call you kind of an asshole. But that's your own particular implementation, and not the way the entire system ought to work.

I make this post fully aware of the risk that the thread will be locked. I choose to be optimistic.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Cheeetar on March 04, 2015, 05:44:21 pm
If this is not a discussion thread and each post has to stand on its own... Why make the thread? People can individually make their own threads if they want to discuss something related to gender.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: smjjames on March 04, 2015, 05:48:09 pm
I just noticed that the thread title is spelled gernder rather than gender.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: mainiac on March 04, 2015, 05:57:56 pm
I was assigned a gender at birth but I dont seem to make much use for it.  Does anybody need an extra?
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Jelle on March 04, 2015, 06:00:54 pm
Oh boy, I decide to start frequenting these forums again and there's a brand new gender thread, what a treat.  :)

My opinion on gender is...I hate the very concept. True there are significant psychological differences between the genders that set a general trend for each of the two sexes, but I do not see why this needs to be anything more than that. For starters this obsessive classifying and segragating of personality traits into neatly defined genders seems needlessly restrictive, narrow minded and frankly absurd. The social pressure to conform to one of these genders as imposed on an individual by society as a whole just compounds the absurdity of this binary notion of genders.

By extention I can't stand most discussions about what gender people associate with and whatnot. Discussing these things means you must first embrace gender roles, which in my opinion is toxic to begin with. By saying look here's two genders, this is how the male gender acts and does and this is how the female gender acts and does, you're effectively imposing the choice of one of two personality types you expect someone to conform to. Even if you're offering a choice of two, you're still telling people how to be rather than giving them the freedom to let them figure out for themselves who they want to be. I detest this pressure to conform (on things beyond gender too) and simply don't understand why people are so obsessed with controlling others this way.

Wow that sounded better in my head, still as bad with words as ever. I hope you get my general meaning.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 04, 2015, 06:01:56 pm
Just noticed the spelling mistake in the title - fixed it. God how embarassing.

Clarification on the 'discussion' bit in the OP: It's okay to discuss in a loose sense - else the thread would be pointless, that's right -, but there should be no arguing of the type 'You're wrong there, there, and there'. Each post should have an idea that it develops, a point that it makes - each post should be interesting to read by itself, and not just as a response to another post.
Essentially I'm trying to prevent bickering and small-minded arguing - you know the type: The whole post that's being replied to is chopped up into pieces and each piece refuted in mindnumbing detail. Let's not have that.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: MDFification on March 04, 2015, 11:16:08 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/B8llXP5.jpg)

Am I the only one who's really, really annoyed by the whole transtrender thing? I just feel its denigrating to transgendered individuals. I don't think you are truly transgendered unless you have genital dysphoria.
Genders are just a bunch of social mores assigned to an individual, and associated with their sex/orientation. Some cultures have more than two, but I've never read about a culture that has a gender that can be more than one orientation or more than one sex (although some have genders that can apply to multiple sexes of the same purported orientation - for example, Igbo women who were sterile traditionally became men in the eyes of society and took female wives). If you don't want to define yourself as belonging to any existing gender, that's fine by me - I have no problem with people being non-binary. But claiming you're a special mystical gender that society doesn't recognize and then claiming you're trans strikes me as blatantly disrespectful to people who suffer much more than you just grinds my gears. Nobody innately feels that they are a potato, born with the wrong qualifiers to be that gender, because that gender isn't a gender.

tl;dr if your gender isn't present in your society, it's not actually a gender - you're just not conforming with your societies gender roles. I'm ok with you not conforming to your societies gender rules because your life =/= my business, but not with you claiming your identity is the same as people with genital dysphoria. Seriously, make your own identity, don't try to invade someone else's.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 04, 2015, 11:35:21 pm
Oh geez...

Yeah, Helgoland... are you really up to running this kind of thread?  Can you stay dispassionate and detached enough to maintain order in the thread above any personal opinions you may have?  Can you lay down the law on people on all sides of the debate, not just the side(s) you disagree with?  I'm not doubting your ability, but I'd like to know that you're up to the challenge of this thread before I post anything here related to the topic.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 05, 2015, 12:19:06 am
something something tumblr something sjw something ptw something

i'm kind of interested to see what people have to say but if i start posting my opinions please remind me to shut up
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2015, 06:24:06 am
As I said in the OP, I won't join in myself, so I think staying dispassionate won't be too much of a problem - especially since I really don't have any strong opinions on the subject.

I guess I'll leave this open at least until it's picked up some steam - there's no need to nip this in the bud, I think.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Arx on March 05, 2015, 09:06:20 am
I can't think of any good reason for Helgo not to run this thread.

I am concerned about the record of this topic, but Toady hasn't said anything on the issue beyond that a strict OP and rules are necessary.

Finally, so this post isn't entirely meta-discussion, gender is useful insofar as it allows the species to continue. Otherwise I subscribe to the "people" labeling system.
Title: Re: Gernder stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Ghills on March 05, 2015, 10:02:00 am
People need to handle this like duck typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing). When interacting with other people, you don't need to make sure that they're of type Boy or type Girl or whatever. It doesn't matter. Just make sure they have implementations of the methods you expect to call, and that these work in the way that your own behavior expects. For example, unless you intend to call thisGuy.fuck(me), you probably don't care whether it relies on Genitalia.penis or Genitalia.vagina, or indeed any other module. Moreover, construct your error handlers in a reasonable fashion - instead of throwing up a giant red warning and crashing the program (that is, your relationship with somebody), try to handle things a bit more gracefully. And keep in mind that you're the one throwing the error - you're not a standards organization, so you just kind of have to live with how everybody else does their thing.

Now, you can certainly implement your own methods and have them check particular attributes. If you want your makeFriends() method to ensure your target has no trans variable set to True, fine, although it's generally poor design and I'll call you kind of an asshole. But that's your own particular implementation, and not the way the entire system ought to work.

I make this post fully aware of the risk that the thread will be locked. I choose to be optimistic.

I love this.

Re: Gender roles and transgender
Historically, I think gender perceptions were often about responsibilities.  Successful family life required an earlier division of labor, just like running a country required an earlier division of labor, and so a person's gender informed what they were expected to do for the survival of the family/city/whatever. 

Modern US/EU society doesn't have that.  People are much closer to self-sufficient.  But the cultural weight and pressure to conform is still just as powerful as when communities depended on everyone doing their job right.  So we have all this cultural pressure for conformity without any real impetus or reason.  And the pressure is worsened by wider media consumption; before mass media, people only saw how their family/village/city acted. Now, everyone sees the homogenized image of TV and movie stars.  It's a toxic stew of mistaking why we have the roles we have and slimming down the number of available role models.  No wonder people feel alienated from parts of their identity - the ideal isn't anything like them, there's no reason to conform except for the sake of conformity, and their extended family, who would have been relatively like them and also their role models for most of history, often don't live near them. 

TL;DR Modern gender roles are a horrible mess all the way down. We'll have new ones in a generation or 2, but that's not soon enough for all the people growing up now.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2015, 11:45:30 am
Hey, no quoting! This instance wasn't really bad, but finem respice and all that...
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TempAcc on March 05, 2015, 01:07:02 pm
In all honesty the LGBT community has affected society's views of transgendered people very negatively. Both of my actual transgendered friends (as in, people who actualy have gender dysphoria, and had it for most of their lives, and are actualy transitioning, and are definitely not the kind of person who just read a tumblr article and now want to wear skirts and dye their armpit hair or something) feel that way. They frequently tell me how they'd rather just not be a part of LGBT thing mostly because it just warps society's views of them even further.

A large part of the american and european LGBT community just try to fit everyone under the same umbrella of "queerness", and disregard that being transgender has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, and under some warped concept of "pride", often forcefuly "out"  people with gender dysphoria, which ALWAYS ends up causing more harm then good, which can be pretty dangerous in some societies (IE Iran, Turkey, etc). One of them lives in Sweden, which is very open to LGBT issues and gender dysphoria, but often tell me she wishes to not be associated with LGBT groups because they refuse to understand that they might be causing more harm then good, and if you actualy tell them that you do not need their help and do not want to be associated with them, you often get treated like some sort of bigot and sometimes even harassed by them for "not valueing what they've done for transgender people".

In all honesty, I'm bisexual and I dont want to be a part of, or be associated with any LGBT movements in the americas or europe, because I think they're embarassing and I think the sea of tears they've made over the "bisexual visibility" activism thing is hilarious and nobody should really care about it, and I think its hilarious when people absolutely feel the need to tell you about their sexuality.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Criptfeind on March 05, 2015, 01:22:39 pm
Edit: Thinking about this, post is pretty self defeating, I'm going to put it in a PM instead.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2015, 01:23:30 pm
I dont really see that in the US.  The only resentment I see is younger queer folk getting ticked off at the older generation which tends to be gay-male dominated.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: i2amroy on March 05, 2015, 01:37:11 pm
This type of quoting fine? I mean it's what I tend to do with people that don't want to be quoted after all.

And really if we're going to follow the same trends that have happened involving racism, etc. we're only going to be seeing very small steps on this issue for about another 25-30 years, at which point we're going to see massive change because that's finally the point when the congress majority will shift to be mostly people who were raised to be accepting of LGBT people. (Though who knows, maybe we'll find out that their upbringing in the time of social change will make our current/next set of congressmen/women more accepting of those who are different and we'll get our changes early).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on March 05, 2015, 02:03:07 pm
This is likely to be a mess, but good luck to y'all I guess.
PTW.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 05, 2015, 03:03:26 pm
i2amroy: You could also do what I did there, which is what we do on the mafia forums to address people without quoting them directly (since sometimes we're on a device that makes quoting specific portions of something a pain in the ass, like this iPad).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 05, 2015, 03:22:32 pm
If I correctly understand the intent for this thread, we are to post entirely self contained posts that make no references, be they direct or indirect, to any other post, and the subject matter is to be gender.

Hmm, ok.



Gender is a thing.

*angry reaction from some readers*

Well, ok...it might be inconvenient sometimes. If you prefer the aesthetic of viewing a change-process as a unified, single phenomenon rather than examining its components, I won't argue against that.

*what is bucket even talking about reaction from some readers*

Oh, right...when I think "gender" I tend to have different mental associations with the concept than most of you. Ok. You want to talk exclusively about...well, what exactly? "Gender" means different things to different people. To some it's exclusively biological reality. To others, it's various social constructs. To others it's a number of things depending on context. TO me personally it's a basic conceptual "force" or "phenomenon that has application for things like biology. For example, when I say "attraction" I might be talking about gravity, or magnets, or two people who like each other or any of a number of things. The concept "attraction" is a very general thing that is relevant in my areas. My concept of "gender" is similar.

Which, incidentally is the source of a lot of unpleasantness had between me and others on this thread when discussing gender. Frequently we're talking about different things. I apologize for that. Imagine if somebody were to say "like attracts like" meaning that people tend to be attracted to people who who like themselves, and somebody were to respond "what are you talking about? Opposite poles attract, similar poles repel!" talking about magnets. Both people are talking about "attraction" but the context changes things.

So when we say "gender" it's helpful for us to be talking about the same thing. Except that we're not actually talking with each other in this thread, we're talking, well..at each other, I suppose.

So, gender. It's a thing.

*skeptical, but not angry reaction from some readers this time*

Barring technolgical input and unusual cases, the typical biological reproductive process in humans involves male insemination, female impregnation and female internal carrying of fetus.

*reaction from some readers: how DARE you say "typical!" How DARE you imply that there's a "normal" way for this to happen and that anything else is unworthy!!! GRROWRRR! ANGER!!!*

...whoa. Let's relax, please. I'm not attempting to make value judgements here. I acknowledge that the system is somewhat arbitrary. Yes, there are people born with multiple genetalia. Yes, when it comes to seahorses the seahorses who produce the eggs are not the ones who carry them to term. I'm not suggesting this is "inferior" and that we need to go on a crusade to purge the unrighteous. I'm sorry if you have unpleasant personal experiences...but I just have to wonder if you have such a horrible emotional reaction to simple statements like the above, it's possible you might be the problem here, not the people pointing out the obvious.


Moving on.

Societies, tend to develop cultural patterns relating to gender.

*Some people in the audience start munching popcorn*

Well, everyone agrees on this, right? Societies do do this. How anyone feels about any specific part of the patterns is up for debate, but it does happen. I think having someone run into the room and ask you to kill some innocent bug or spider is not part of the typical experience of american females, for example. Whereas this is a thing that happens not infrequently to guys. Some women expect this. You're male. It's your role to kill spiders. Well, no...sorry, I don't like killing things. I'm not going to kill the spider. I'll put him in a jar and take him outside, but I'm not going to kill him just because you expect it.

Ahh, enlightenment.

You see, very often it's that simple. If you're not happy with the gender roles assigned to you by society, consider refusing them. Just do it without the anger and resentment. If I take a spider outside instead of killing it, I'm not usually looked down on for it. People don't shun me for failing to live up to my assigned gender role. Whereas if I were to freak out at every girl who asks me to kill something and deliver an angry rant about gender roles and inequality...yeah, I'd become a social pariah pretty quickly.

So don't do that. Do you own thing. Act like it's ok. It probably is. People pick up on how you feel about things. If you're a guy and you feel like going out wearing a dress is weird and not ok, people will pick up on that and think the same. If you feel like it's completely normal, people are less likely to react to it. If you're a girl and you feel like asking the boy you like to the dance is weird and not ok, well...actually that's just your problem. I doubt many people would have a problem with it even if you did think it was weird. Point being, some things you can change and maybe some you can't. Ask yourself honestly whether the problems you have are created by others or by yourself. Maybe it was somebody else who taught you that whatever it is you want to be or do somehow isn't ok, but if you believed them, own up to it.

Gender has implications in regards to biology. Sometimes these implications might be inconvenient.

Gender has implications in regards to society. Sometimes these implications might be inconvenient.

Don't worry so much about those two right now. Between VR and nanobots and manufactured body parts, a lot of those walls are going to start coming down in the next few years or decades. Be patient.

But the technology isn't likely to change how you feel about gender. That's up to you. Be at peace with yourself. Maybe you can't make other people be at peace with you, but you're not responsible for them. Take care of you. If you believe that what you are and what you want to be is ok, it will be easier for everyone else to believe it too.


Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Ghills on March 05, 2015, 05:35:57 pm
Hey, no quoting! This instance wasn't really bad, but finem respice and all that...

The problem is that, unlike physical conversations, it's very difficult to know who someone is responding to without quotes.  No quoting = conversation devolves into people talking past each other.  Conversations need to be a back and forth of ideas. Quoting promotes that by making it easy to track threads of conversation.   Every single thread I've seen that tried to not use quotes devolved into monologues shouted past other posters.

Quoting doesn't prohibit that. People can still be pompous windbags if they want to. But it makes the conversation more coherent by default.

Re: Public Sexuality
Totally agree. Why do people assume that others are interested in who they like to sleep with? Friends are one thing, but do we seriously need to promote the idea that people are solely defined by who they think is sexy?  Seems backwards to me. 
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 05, 2015, 05:53:24 pm
I think that there are some instances where not acting according to societies norms will make you a social pariah whether you speak out against it or not.  This is particularly true in regards to sexuality: a male with limited sexual drive is, at least where I live, often considered "bizarre" or "abnormal", perhaps even "unmanly", and conversely a women who expresses her sexuality is often considered a "slut".  These people aren't outwardly speaking out against the "evils of society", but they are made laughingstock and social pariahs fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: ggamer on March 05, 2015, 06:10:11 pm
this'll be the only post I make in the topic

I don't know anybody with gender issues or whatever. I can literally make no statement on the topic because I have no idea what the topic is supposed to cover. My current position is a staunch "apathy," which is probably disagreeable but it's where i'll stand until it becomes relevant to me or someone I know.

also, helgo, i appreciate the effort but good golly miss molly this is a forum not a collection of manifestos, the name forum literally implies discussion. You're not gonna be able to stop flame wars by stopping discussion, and if you don't think that people can nut up and have a conversation about this controversial topic without going at each other's throats then you shouldn't have started the topic in the first place.

in any case, this is an interesting thread, i'll look every now and again to see what people are talking about.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Flying Dice on March 05, 2015, 08:38:24 pm
Personally I'm intrigued and perhaps slightly thrilled to see what new heights of passive-aggressiveness might be scaled by a room full of people talking with each other about the same topic without directly addressing others' statements.

PTW.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 06, 2015, 12:38:29 pm
I agree with Arx.

Now, why did those words sound off.....? :P

To clarify, I do believe that gender impacts personality, but I also think that doesn't matter and that the fact you're a human is all you need go on.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Jelle on March 06, 2015, 12:52:15 pm
For the sake of the discussion I feel like it's important to point out the difference between sex and gender. Not to answer one post in specific but just to avoid any confusion.

Sex concerns itself with purely physical biological traits, mostly pertaining to the reproductive system.
Gender is a collection of social roles and personality traits and is normally attributed according to a person's sex.

As best I can define it, and if I'm not mistaken. While the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they actually mean quite different things.

Edit: Was looking for a reputable source for the definitions just now and I thought I'd go ahead and put this here.
Short glossary of gender and sex wording from the american psychology association. (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 06, 2015, 01:27:09 pm
IMO gender is sex. Your sex is your gender. Of course, there are boys that identify as women and vice versa, and that's fine. But your gender, for me, is not emotional. And I hasten to add that my view also extends as far as believing that if someone tells me they're a different gender, then of course I shall call them such, given that it doesn't change one thing about them. Likewise, were someone to say they identify as Shelob I wouldn't believe it but I would still apply that label if they really wanted to, given that it costs me nothing andeans everything to them.


This post was made on the assumption that discussion is alllowed
. If not, I'll remove it.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 06, 2015, 02:07:06 pm
I'm going to agree with the people who are telling Helgoland that the thread needs to allow discussion, as otherwise this won't really work.  If people can't ask others to flesh out their ideas or give their opinions context in other people's opinions, it's not a discussion, it's just a place to post your beliefs, which isn't really what the general discussion subforum is about.  Of course, allowing discussion does require additional attention on the part of everyone to avoid it blowing up in everyone's faces.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2015, 02:43:20 pm
Maybe I should've been clearer: Discussion is fine and encouraged - but no discussion that has no merit content-wise. It says 'outright discussion' in the OP for a reason - no posts that have no independent value. 'No outright discussion' goes in the same direction as 'No quoting' - it's meant to keep the temperature low.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 06, 2015, 03:28:17 pm
Yeah but it seems to sort of meet the problem a lot of heavy moderations are. You "allow it" but do not give it the support it requires to actually happen.

Discussions aren't disallowed, but you are not allowed to respond to someone, to quote them, to mention them, to expand on their ideas, or anything of the sort.

All ideas must be self-contained independent thoughts. That isn't a discussion that is just announcing your opinion.

Heck why do you even say people need to support their points if there is no way to ask someone to expand upon their points or to make them clearer?

It is the equivalent of your parents saying you can date, but you can't talk to anyone.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Ghills on March 06, 2015, 03:31:40 pm
Maybe I should've been clearer: Discussion is fine and encouraged - but no discussion that has no merit content-wise. It says 'outright discussion' in the OP for a reason - no posts that have no independent value. 'No outright discussion' goes in the same direction as 'No quoting' - it's meant to keep the temperature low.

There is no part of that paragraph which can be actually used by another person to tell if their post is in line with your rules.

'No quoting' is a bad idea, but is at least possible to comply with.  Saying 'No quoting' and having a bunch of exceptions based on opinions about 'independent value' is a bad idea and impossible to comply with.  Adding subjective exceptions to badly thought-out rules is going backwards.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 06, 2015, 03:33:39 pm
If I had a guess of how to do this kind of thread...

It is to give a topic of discussion and constrain it and say that discussion of outside material is completely disallowed EVEN if it links back to the topic.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2015, 04:02:18 pm
As long as what's being posted is sensible and does not contain quotes (other than quotes from me, pertaining to the rules, I guess) it should be alright.
Even if a post is outside the lines, it's not the end of the world, okay? Just stay sensible and try to comply with the spirit of the rules.

'Self-contained' can also mean 'expanding on a single aspect of a topic', by the way - Jelle's post would be a good example.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 06, 2015, 04:36:19 pm
I expect that you'll be fine as long as you meet two guidelines:

1) Your post includes ideas that are not merely a rejection or agreement to those in the post you're responding to. This includes new arguments that are introduced solely for the purpose of a rejection or agreement - that is, unless there's some new nuance to the conclusion, you shouldn't keep hammering on the same issue in an attempt to convince the same person.

and

2) Your post is self-contained, to the extent that's possible in a discussion. That is, aside from whatever you're specifically responding to, it shouldn't be necessary to refer to other posts in order to understand what's going on. If you want to reuse something already said, you'll need to put forth the effort to mold it into what you're currently saying instead of just hitting Ctrl-C (or Quote, I suppose). Neither should you have a works cited, unless referring to purely factual data such as population statistics.

For example, this post is probably permissible on these grounds. I'm introducing some explicit statements not present before (rule 1). Also, while I'm responding to a particular need the thread has, the guidelines I'm proposing are understandable with no more knowledge than that the need for a standard existed (rule 2).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 06, 2015, 04:49:15 pm
If there's anything Bay12 likes, it's rules.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2015, 04:49:52 pm
What Baug said, pretty much.

(This is an example of how not to do it, by the way :P )
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 06, 2015, 05:26:59 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 06, 2015, 07:01:51 pm
Eh, now that that's been clarrified (Helgo's first response post told me all I needed to know about the rules) I'm fine with it, but I'm a bit of a rules-freak as is (not a control-freak, a rules-freak, there's a difference).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Cthulhu on March 06, 2015, 08:27:07 pm
I think if the only way to prevent a thread lock is to make rules against discussions, it's probably a sign that the topic isn't going to work.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 06, 2015, 09:14:33 pm
I think if the only way to prevent a thread lock is to make rules against discussions, it's probably a sign that the topic isn't going to work.
This.

Religion threads work because people are genuinely interesting in hearing about what other people believe,  and so on. We get problems when people decide that they are correct and everyone else must conform to their ideals. Which is pretty much all that ever happens in a gender thread.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 06, 2015, 09:20:54 pm
I have a question - does anybody really think that, by page 4, we haven't already gone through all the doomsaying arguments? I'm willing to bet Helgo's aware of what you're claiming. If you think it's a problem, report the thread and move on silently.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Criptfeind on March 06, 2015, 09:26:42 pm
On the whole topic of thread stability, I disagree that stilfing desscusion in any way is likely to actually be the end of the thread. Despite what someone has posited earlier in this thread I'm pretty certain that the religion thread that did best and ended most peaceably did so because it had a set of fairly draconic rules and was run by a pretty serious christian who didn't allow any dissent or even real conversation in the thread.

I'm not sure what people expect out of this thread, or even what it's for totally for but if the goal is a stable thread that is a good place to talk about gender I'm pretty sure that stifling rules will help it at least stay afloat.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 06, 2015, 09:34:05 pm
LOLFAIL
Spoiler: original stuff (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 06, 2015, 09:35:54 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 06, 2015, 09:37:22 pm
LOLFAIL
Spoiler: original stuff (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Criptfeind on March 06, 2015, 09:38:28 pm
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this post is about you
Don't you? don't you?

Leaving aside 30 year old song lyrics, I wasn't talking about any religious thread you may or may not have run.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 06, 2015, 09:39:31 pm
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this post is about you
Don't you? don't you?

Leaving aside 30 year old song lyrics, I wasn't talking about any religious thread you may or may not have run.
Erm...

I ran one of the more recent religion threads that was known for its draconian ruleset, so it was a logical assumption.  To which are you referring?

Are you referring to this one, which reached 53 pages and ended peacefully? (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=146543.0)

OHHHHH you're talking about Cryxis Prince of Doom's aren't you lolz.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Criptfeind on March 06, 2015, 09:46:12 pm
Dunno mate. Can't recall all the various threads, and remembering names is far past my ability. I just recall that a very long lasting and peaceful thread was cause by the fact that no discussion could be had. And no, it wasn't yours.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 06, 2015, 10:21:02 pm
Maybe he's talking about k33n's one.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Arx on March 07, 2015, 01:19:39 am
There was a religion thread in the distant past that made it to two hundred pages. Maybe he's thinking of that? The alternatives are it being Cryxis's or Orange's, and neither bans discussion (although Cryxis did threaten to lock every time it got flamey).

Anyway, is anyone going to express a conflicting opinion? We've made it to four pages without anything other than variations on "people are people".
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 07, 2015, 01:52:06 am
I'm tempted to post my take on the whole gender thing but I also remember my promise to not do so.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 07, 2015, 03:44:49 am
I'm not as tempted to take on the whole gender thing. I think it's just not hugely important, and likely to become very much less so in the near future.

Though I suspect the transition is likely to result in a great deal of female unhappiness, as they have the most to lose from the loss of traditional western gender roles. Men will generally benefit, as a lot of the expectations placed on them will start to go away, while at the same time it will become easier for them to get what they want without having to jump through hoops for it.

The biggest winners however, will probably be gays, transgenders, and other people generally caught in the middle of gender issues. Because people will start to completely not care about them at all, which will make their lives a whole lot easier. I suspect some will be unhappy about the loss of their cultural identity, but for the most part that will be made up by losing all the drama and anger and fear that goes with it.

"Hello, Mrs. scary religious nazi conservative person. I'm gay."

"Dear, I just caught my son in his VR headset in a scenario that involved at least twenty tentacles and some sort of space amoeba. At least you're attracted to humans. Would you care for some tea?"

"Umm, yes, tea would be nice, thanks."

Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 06:20:49 am
Fuck, people, the first serious breech of thread rules and it's while discussing another thread? The previous page or so provides great examples of what rules two and three are meant to prevent.

Locking this up for a day or so - I'd better get into the habit sooner than later.

EDIT: Unlocked the thread. Round two - ding!
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 09, 2015, 01:39:17 pm
This entire thread makes me grind my teeth in disgust and frustration. You guys have no idea how mad it makes me when someone says, "You can identify as female but you'll always be biologically male!" or "You can't identify as anything other than male or female! Those are the only real genders!"
I'm not going to call anyone out, but people who think that way make me want to vomit. You know who you are.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 01:43:18 pm
That would be me.
*bow*
Not that I'm being confrontational, just curious. How am I so obviously wrong?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 01:51:35 pm
Unfortunately it is just a straight up fact that you cannot change your biological gender, with possible exceptions but that isn't here nor there. Sex change operations do a lot of things but not that. Perhaps in the future, but not today.

Not that I think sex change operations are pointless, they just don't "change your sex". The only thing they do that is close to an actual gender change, as opposed to cosmetics, is usually they come with hormone therapy.

But to me whether or not someone is biologically a male or female shouldn't matter.

Gender Identity and politics are now a lot more complex now.

I still remember that feminist article I read that I won't state here because it is rather insulting to transgendered people... But suffice it to say the article was about what women pick up as gender identity versus what a transgendered female picks up (in blanket waving motions).
-Yeah I can grab interesting topics from bad articles.

-Note: Sorry if my terminology is incorrect. By Transgendered female I mean a male who identifies as female.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 09, 2015, 02:18:04 pm
First of all, how do you even go about defining "biologically male" or "biologically female" besides what the doctor says when you're born?
Is it what genitals you have when you're born? What about someone who was born with a vulva, but no uterus? Does that make them only half a woman? What about someone who was born with a penis, but no testicles? How about someone who was born with both sexual organs? Or neither? If someone has a penis and they get surgery to turn it into a vulva, does that make them "biologically female" now? Because if not, your little sorting system is completely arbitrary.
Is it chromosomes? Some people who are assigned male at birth (AMAB) have XX chromosomes. Some people who are AFAB have XY chromosomes. If you really want to sort it that way, then what about people who are XXX? Or XYY?

Second off, gender identity is not a binary. It's not a spectrum, either. You can't even map it on a chart. It's nebulous. Sure, most people are comfortable being either male or female, but there are people who don't feel comfortable either way, and we shouldn't discredit how they feel. You can't just say something doesn't exist because you've never experienced it.
Saying "You're either male or female, get over it." is like telling a guy who just got shot "Quit crying, you big baby! I bet it doesn't hurt that much."

As a side note, I am not transgendered, I am transgender. Saying I'm transgendered makes it seem like it was something that happened to me. Plus, transgendered isn't even a word.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 09, 2015, 02:26:44 pm
Quote
First of all, how do you even go about defining "biologically male" or "biologically female" besides what the doctor says when you're born?

XX, and XY. Anything else is an anomaly, a special case.


Quote
Because if not, your little sorting system is completely arbitrary.


Every sorting system is arbitrary, that's why you have to know why you use them, when you can use them, and when they are invalid.


Quote
Second off, gender identity is not a binary. It's not a spectrum, either. You can't even map it on a chart. It's nebulous.

It's optional. That the thing is don't get : gender, race, ... are sort of irrelevant in many of the aspect we thought they were relevant, and in our affirmation of the right to individuality, we reject the very basis of the use of those system to define poeples.

Yet I see peoples discussing them more and more.


I personally thing that gender is usefull to know if it's the pill or the prostate exam that get refunded by social security. For the rest I don't give a fuck, and I think this whole debate is counterproductive.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: scrdest on March 09, 2015, 02:30:09 pm
Is it chromosomes? Some people who are assigned male at birth (AMAB) have XX chromosomes. Some people who are AFAB have XY chromosomes. If you really want to sort it that way, then what about people who are XXX? Or XYY?
That one is actually really easy to answer, if you wanted to make the case for that side - at least one Y, or more specifically the presence of a specific sequence that is normally on the Y (but sometimes deleted - then you get AFAB XYs - or moved - AMAB XXs) means male, because of how hormones are genetically determined.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Arx on March 09, 2015, 02:32:44 pm
The thing that most pegs your biological sex in my opinion would be the gonads you were born with. If you were born with no female reproductive anatomy but the ovaries, you will probably have at least most of the female-dominant hormones which promote development of the mammaries, etc. Likewise, even if for whatever reason you were born with no penis but have testicles, you will probably have at least most of the male-dominant hormones which promote development of bodily hair, etc. If you were born with neither, then you would be sexless, and that's okay too. I'm not sure what ramifications that would have for further development, but otherwise I don't think it has to be an issue.

If you get surgery to have your gonads swapped out, welcome to your new biological sex. Assuming the hypothalamus and pituitary aren't wired to your sex during puberty, I don't think there's any distinction between you and any other person born as that sex any more.

I maintain my stance on gender identity. I don't care what you identify as, as long as you tell me (if it's going to offend you if/when I misgender you, of course; there's no obligation to tell me if you'd rather not) so I know what pronouns to use. I tend to call everyone 'they' these days anyway.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 02:34:07 pm
But we are not speaking of the exceptional circumstances brought about by mutation or what have you. We're speaking of gender change. Perhaps a new gender for two genitalia should be made, but they are so rare as to make such categorisation unneeded. We're speaking of gender change. If you are born a stereotypical male, then you are a male. You may decide otherwise, and that's your own concern, but it doesn't make you a girl. A statue made of wood may look the same as one made of stone, but they're not. A Stamen which is crushed, no matter its resultant shape, is still the male part of the flower.

Goodness, I hate using the phone to type.
Ninjas. Gonna post this, don't care if it has been said already.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 02:37:05 pm
I have three conditions of which one needs to be fulfilled for biological gender

1) You have to have male or female genes: You cannot get your genes changed in real life
2) You must have the male or female reproductive organs: You cannot get these through surgery in real life
3) You must have had those organs at one point in the case of losing them.

That is pretty much it. There is no way to affect Biological gender with our current technology. It is immutable.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: scrdest on March 09, 2015, 02:46:31 pm
I have three conditions of which one needs to be fulfilled for biological gender

1) You have to have male or female genes: You cannot get your genes changed in real life
2) You must have the male or female reproductive organs: You cannot get these through surgery in real life
3) You must have had those organs at one point in the case of losing them.

That is pretty much it. There is no way to affect Biological gender with our current technology. It is immutable.
That's a bit of a self-serving definition then, since you've literally excluded any possible mean of affecting gender outside of literal magic.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: EnigmaticHat on March 09, 2015, 02:55:07 pm
OK, there's like 5 posts I seriously want to argue against, but since discussion is apparently banned I'll just say what I think.

A lot of times I hear people say things like "gender matter any more", "I don't really care about gender", "just be yourself, whatever".  I'm willing to be that like 90% of the time these people are male identified and have no outstanding issues with gender.

Like you (talking to a hypothetical crowd of people, not necessarily even forumites here) understand that half the population fully and realistically expects to get payed 3/4ths of what the other half gets paid for the same jobs, soley because of gender?  That people with gender dysphoria undergo intense unhappiness for potentially their entire lives, because they identify as a different gender than the one that biology/society gave them at birth?  To say nothing of the countless gay, trans, or whatever people who get murdered every year because of who they are.  Or hell, the men who get raped, or experience any form of intense emotional distress, and then have to hide it around others.

I'm pulling the most dramatic examples of course.  But the point is, those people, they aren't arguing that gender doesn't exist, or that no one cares about it any more.  Because they feel it, every day of their lives, as a fact of their existence.

TL;DR: Gender is real, it has real effects on people's lives.  If you think it doesn't, there's a good chance you're one of the lucky minority who hasn't received any shit because of gender, which is fine, until the moment you presume that's been everyone's experience.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 09, 2015, 02:57:51 pm
Okay, words-definition time. This isn't an opinion so I'm allowed to post it.

Sex, being one's physical or biological gender, their chromosomes, et cetera. Generally, your possession of dangly or lack of dangly bits. Confined to male and female as per our current understanding of biology.

Gender, being one's mental gender, what they consider themselves to be, or the area of society they fit in to.  Normally, this is the same as your physical sex, thus people tend to use them as synonyms.

In this case, the words are not synonymous, and I have a feeling the discussion would be easier to understand if the word sex was used in many cases in the place of gender.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Arx on March 09, 2015, 03:03:39 pm
I'm not sure, but I at least say I don't care about gender not because I don't know that people have difficulties caused by gender but exactly because I know that. They go through enough of hell every day without me adding my insistance on whatever conformity. I say "just be yourself" and "I don't really care about gender" because the alternative is... to care about gender, which pretty much becomes some form of discrimination by default.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 03:04:07 pm
Any time I've heard gender/sex being used they have meant the same thing. At what point do they cease to mean what you say they do?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 09, 2015, 03:08:25 pm
Saying "You're either male or female, get over it." is like telling a guy who just got shot "Quit crying, you big baby! I bet it doesn't hurt that much."
TL;DR: Gender is real, it has real effects on people's lives.  If you think it doesn't, there's a good chance you're one of the lucky minority who hasn't received any shit because of gender, which is fine, until the moment you presume that's been everyone's experience.
I want to reiterate this. This thread is seriously the equivalent of a bunch of white people trying to talk about black oppression. (Which I'm pretty sure also happened on this very forum.) This thread just needs to stop. You can't talk about gender issues like you know everything about them if you've never experienced them. I would be open to a thread where questions can be asked of trans people, but it's clear that pretty much everyone in this thread is talking out their ass.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 09, 2015, 03:10:30 pm
Would just like to reiterate that all of these issues will be going away soon enough. Look at any online game. It's both technically possible and socially acceptable to choose an avatar regardless of how closely it does or doesn't match your own biology or species. And it's largely socially acceptable to engage in relations between avatars more or less regardless.

Hypothetical situation using WoW as an example: biologically male, straight guy plays a female elf. Biologically female, straight girl plays a manly, masculine, male giant cow-thing. Cow-thing makes motions to bend the elf over and have its way with her, biologically male straight guy laughs and plays along in the submissive role. Everyone accepts this. This kind of thing happens regardless of the biology and sexual preferences of the actual human beings behind the avatars, and often, regardless of whether they even know the biology or preference of the other human being behind the keyboard. Knowing that sexy elf or manly cow-thing is "really" a guy or girl doesn't stop people from flirting based on the temporary identity.

Clearly, people are able to identify with, and accept the identity of, people's avatars.

But what can stop it, is portrayal failure. For example, plenty of straight guys will flirt with the female sexy elf they know is really a guy, and plenty of straight guys will play the role of the sexy female elf...because everyone is identifying with the avatars...but as soon as they all get on skype and hear male voices, the flirting stops. Why? Because they're no longer able to fully identify with the avatar. The voice is clearly male.

All that has to happen for all these issues to go away is for human beings to gain better morphological control of their avatars. Be they electronic, or flesh and blood.

That's going to happen.

Between virtual reality, augmented reality, and eventually nanobots (http://www.rawscience.tv/nanobots-fight-cancer-first-human-clinical-trial-in-2015/) able to change your entire body down to DNA (not yet, but probably within our lifetimes) ...it's going be very easy for people to assume any avatar they want, male, female, both, other, and human or not.

Gender issues have an expiration date. It's soon.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: scrdest on March 09, 2015, 03:18:41 pm
You can't talk about gender issues like you know everything about them if you've never experienced them. I would be open to a thread where questions can be asked of trans people, but it's clear that pretty much everyone in this thread is talking out their ass.
First - tone down the aggression, not conducive to... anything, really.

Second - we have science threads where posters are non-scientists, we have religion threads with non-ex-religious atheists, so on, so forth. Being an expert, or even knowledgeable about the subject is not a pre-requirement, implicitly or explicitly, for a person to be able to express their opinion in the thread.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: MorleyDev on March 09, 2015, 03:23:30 pm
I was thinking recently, say there was a...pill or something, that would reversible change your physical body to that of a male or female. No medical risks because magic, keep your current brain and thought processes, just get different bone structure, proportions and 'parts'.

Now, a lot of people may want to take that pill once to 'try it out', or no because they couldn't bare to lose their dangly or lack thereof dangly. And people with gender dysphoria (http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/Pages/Introduction.aspx) would love the pill because it would let them bring their internal world inline with the external easily. I mean, when brain and meat body are outtawack: Meat body is just skin whilst brain is you, meat body is the one it makes most sense to bring innawack. Unfortunately we don't have a magic pill for this.

Personally, from what I've heard when this thought experiment arises: My default response seems to not be the usual one. Or at least not the one most people are comfortable exposing in a social setting. I'd imagine I would just treat physical gender as another item in my wardrobe. "Today I wanna wear the pink dress with the lady body, because it's sunny and I'm really feeling the pink dress and lady body mood today, but male body has scrawny chicken legs so really shouldn't wear a dress". Like, to me it's just skin. A meat container that moves the brain around and lets it interact with the world. But my brain is still male, female or male body.

But I would choose male over female most of the time because it's generally where I'm more comfortable, male would feel like my 'default' and female the 'change'. Now that may be inherent to my biology, or a social construct (always been male body after all), but either way gender dysphoria, as I intellectually understand it (having witnessed but never directly experienced), is often experienced as like being stuck in 'change' mode. The fundamental perception that you were given the wrong default setting.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 09, 2015, 03:34:19 pm
Like you (talking to a hypothetical crowd of people, not necessarily even forumites here) understand that half the population fully and realistically expects to get payed 3/4ths of what the other half gets paid for the same jobs, soley because of gender?  That people with gender dysphoria undergo intense unhappiness for potentially their entire lives, because they identify as a different gender than the one that biology/society gave them at birth?  To say nothing of the countless gay, trans, or whatever people who get murdered every year because of who they are.  Or hell, the men who get raped, or experience any form of intense emotional distress, and then have to hide it around others.

I'm pulling the most dramatic examples of course.  But the point is, those people, they aren't arguing that gender doesn't exist, or that no one cares about it any more.  Because they feel it, every day of their lives, as a fact of their existence.


This is filled with logical shortcuts.


First the "gender gap" is only one of those weird factor that statistically influence income. There is the heigh gap (tall peoples earn more on average), beauty gap, some psychological profiles are overrepresented at the top roles.... a bad start for any arguments.


Second, "hate murder" are a rather low percentage of murders, and not really a widespread problem at the moment. So yeah, that's bad, but pretty much as low as possible.

Quote
But the point is, those people, they aren't arguing that gender doesn't exist,


No their murderers are saying gender exist. They are dead, so they cannot speak, and I don't see why they'd say it exist if they could. 

It's exactly the same for race oppression : it's not the victims of hate crime that say that race exist, it's the perpetrators.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 04:02:16 pm
Saying "You're either male or female, get over it." is like telling a guy who just got shot "Quit crying, you big baby! I bet it doesn't hurt that much."
TL;DR: Gender is real, it has real effects on people's lives.  If you think it doesn't, there's a good chance you're one of the lucky minority who hasn't received any shit because of gender, which is fine, until the moment you presume that's been everyone's experience.
I want to reiterate this. This thread is seriously the equivalent of a bunch of white people trying to talk about black oppression. (Which I'm pretty sure also happened on this very forum.) This thread just needs to stop. You can't talk about gender issues like you know everything about them if you've never experienced them. I would be open to a thread where questions can be asked of trans people, but it's clear that pretty much everyone in this thread is talking out their ass.
Let me guess. Everyone is talking out of their ass... except for you?  ???
Either post something conducive to the argument, or at the very least stop saying "you are all disgusting people who talk shit." That is what you are saying. It is exceedingly rude.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: EnigmaticHat on March 09, 2015, 04:29:48 pm
-snip-
I'm going to be blunt, you have no idea what I'm trying to say.  So instead of responding to you, I'll reiterate my post WITHOUT examples and maybe you can respond to what I said instead of trying to say my specific examples aren't real (which they are BTW).

This is the simplest way I know to explain it: if a person says something to the effect of "poor people just need to work harder", you don't need to ask if they've ever been poor.  You know they haven't, because they're so off base about how poverty works, that the chance they've ever actually experienced it is essentially null.  Maybe they're the one self-hating outlier, but more likely they just have no idea what they're talking about.

That's what it sounds like when people say "gender doesn't really matter any more."
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 09, 2015, 04:41:32 pm
Y'can talk about tone and rudeness and everything, and I encourage doing so, but you'd be better served in your quest to achieve productivity by actually addressing the claims she's making, and doing so in the manner you'd like the thread to proceed. Announcing a refusal to engage unless your standards for discourse are met is at once oxymoronic (your announcement is a form of engagement) and hypocritical (it fails to live up to your own standards, because it fails to contribute anything). With that in mind, I'd like to actually talk about the thrust of the argument.

See, she's got a damn fine point - there's a rash of people, whenever social justice sorts of things get brought up, who like to exclaim that they're not part of the problem because they don't care. This is a problem, because denying that a problem is relevant to you doesn't actually solve the problem. So, let me be clear about one thing - I mentioned duck typing earlier, which boils down to giving no fucks about how somebody is defined as long as they do the things you need them to do. I don't mean by this, "Oh, gender doesn't really matter." What I mean is, people need to accept that there's no Right Way To Do Things. Arbitrary definitions of gender should be allowed, including Null.

None of us are standards agencies. None of us have authority over anybody else. None of us are in a position to dictate definitions. Not me, not AlleeCat, and certainly not Th4DwArfY1. That means you don't get to tell people what does or does not matter. Gender doesn't matter to me. I'm a straight white cis-gendered well-educated American male, to list a whole bunch of labels I don't particularly care about, but have to keep in mind because a lot of people like to be assholes to people who don't have them. There are two boxes I don't check off on the Life Experience Lottery, and that's Christian and Exorbitantly Wealthy. So you can see, I'm not exactly qualified to say what matters to people who aren't that obnoxiously lucky.

Remember when McDonald's gave financial advice (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/) to its employees? If I'm trying to set up a Grand Unified Theory of gender politics, I'm doing the same thing. The company was rightly called crazy and borderline evil, for what, trying to help people? Yeah! Because that's what happens when you behave as though you've got answers to problems you've never so much as looked at. You tend to come off as a callous idiot.

But here's the thing we fast food giants tend to forget whenever we get criticized for this sort of nonsense - there's actually a shitton of things we can do to help, and plenty we can say to contribute. Mostly, they don't involve thinking of brilliant solutions off in our ivory towers. Mostly, they don't involve going out on righteous crusades. No, mostly, they involve listening. Mostly, they involve quiet adjustments. Mostly, they involve introspection and honesty. Mostly, they involve accepting that we make mistakes and need to fix them.

Mostly, they involve treating people like people.

-------

Feel free to quote me, and for the sake of honesty, I admit that I clipped an edited-in paragraph from the end that broke up the flow.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Vector on March 09, 2015, 04:50:33 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 05:01:31 pm
Y'can talk about tone and rudeness and everything, and I encourage doing so, but you'd be better served in your quest to achieve productivity by actually addressing the claims she's making, and doing so in the manner you'd like the thread to proceed. Announcing a refusal to engage unless your standards for discourse are met is at once oxymoronic (your announcement is a form of engagement) and hypocritical (it fails to live up to your own standards, because it fails to contribute anything). With that in mind, I'd like to actually talk about the thrust of the argument.

See, she's got a damn fine point - there's a rash of people, whenever social justice sorts of things get brought up, who like to exclaim that they're not part of the problem because they don't care. This is a problem, because denying that a problem is relevant to you doesn't actually solve the problem. So, let me be clear about one thing - I mentioned duck typing earlier, which boils down to giving no fucks about how somebody is defined as long as they do the things you need them to do. I don't mean by this, "Oh, gender doesn't really matter." What I mean is, people need to accept that there's no Right Way To Do Things. Arbitrary definitions of gender should be allowed, including Null.

None of us are standards agencies. None of us have authority over anybody else. None of us are in a position to dictate definitions. Not me, not AlleeCat, and certainly not Th4DwArfY1. That means you don't get to tell people what does or does not matter. Gender doesn't matter to me. I'm a straight white cis-gendered well-educated American male, to list a whole bunch of labels I don't particularly care about, but have to keep in mind because a lot of people like to be assholes to people who don't have them. There are two boxes I don't check off on the Life Experience Lottery, and that's Christian and Exorbitantly Wealthy. So you can see, I'm not exactly qualified to say what matters to people who aren't that obnoxiously lucky.

Remember when McDonald's gave financial advice (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/) to its employees? If I'm trying to set up a Grand Unified Theory of gender politics, I'm doing the same thing. The company was rightly called crazy and borderline evil, for what, trying to help people? Yeah! Because that's what happens when you behave as though you've got answers to problems you've never so much as looked at. You tend to come off as a callous idiot.

But here's the thing we fast food giants tend to forget whenever we get criticized for this sort of nonsense - there's actually a shitton of things we can do to help, and plenty we can say to contribute. Mostly, they don't involve thinking of brilliant solutions off in our ivory towers. Mostly, they don't involve going out on righteous crusades. No, mostly, they involve listening. Mostly, they involve quiet adjustments. Mostly, they involve introspection and honesty. Mostly, they involve accepting that we make mistakes and need to fix them.

Mostly, they involve treating people like people.
Er, my "behave yourself" comment was specifically directed at the post in which the sole points raised were "you are like whites talking about blacks" and "you are all speaking out of your asses."

Any valid points raised, I've tried to address.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 05:17:07 pm
I'm going to speak from my experience, which apparently according to AlleeCat means that I'm not allowed to talk here, but whatever.

I am, from a romantic standpoint, a heterosexual male.  While I occasionally enjoy the company of other guys (when they're not just talking smack and telling tales of their sexual escapades), I'm only romantically interested in women, and am fine with that.  I don't look down on people who are different from me: I see our difference as one more thing to talk about, and that's good because I'm not a very good conversationalist.  I identify as male and was declared male at birth, and have never had any doubts about how I identify gender-wise.  With all that said, I find that in movies, anime, whatever, I tend to identify far more with female characters than male ones, and can draw more parallels to my own experience.  I find myself drawn towards roles where I help others, whether with homework or emotional problems, and often find myself solicited for advice on emotional subjects because people trust me not say something callous.  In general, I find myself completely unattached to male stereotypes and see them as a burden, identifying much more with the female stereotypes in many areas.  I think there are other guys like me at my school, who find themselves more drawn towards concern for others and emotional connection rather than the callous, sex-driven appearances most of the guys at my school put on, but the nature of society is that they have to put on a disguise to avoid ridicule.  I have the advantage that I am already an outcast, on account of my social awkwardness around people I don't know and my math-science proficiency (for reference, I was one of 5 people out of over 300 in my class who was finished with calculus (A, B, and C) by the end of my freshman year).  This gives me more freedom from judgement with regards to my actions, since I'm already judged for being who I am.

I refuse to say anything else on this thread, but suffice it to say you all would probably label me a SJW due to my views.

Edit: Reading over this, I realized I'm not making the point I'm trying to make very well.  Basically what I'm saying is that while I consider myself a male, gender-role and gender-stereotypewise I generally find myself far closer to the female end of the spectrum.  Unlike some other people like that, though, I'm already a social pariah, so people who follow such stereotypes don't proverbially crucify me over it.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 09, 2015, 05:21:17 pm
-snip-
I'm going to be blunt, you have no idea what I'm trying to say.  So instead of responding to you, I'll reiterate my post WITHOUT examples and maybe you can respond to what I said instead of trying to say my specific examples aren't real (which they are BTW).

This is the simplest way I know to explain it: if a person says something to the effect of "poor people just need to work harder", you don't need to ask if they've ever been poor.  You know they haven't, because they're so off base about how poverty works, that the chance they've ever actually experienced it is essentially null.  Maybe they're the one self-hating outlier, but more likely they just have no idea what they're talking about.

That's what it sounds like when people say "gender doesn't really matter any more."

I have no idea of what you're trying to say either, actually. I really don't see any parallels between what you says and what I said.

Please feel free to quote me.

Here's what I don't understand. Hello everyone, I'm non-binary. To some of you, I don't exist. I am not sure exactly what you think I am instead--a very masculine woman? Someone in denial about my inner drive for passive nurturance or whatever other gender-essentialist thing is expected?



For me you're someone who's trying to see herslef through the "len of masculinity or feminity" and fail because you cannot be described by more or less arbitrary standards of behaviours that are half faked by everyone anyway.


"Manly men" are yearning to let their emotions go and "womanly women" often dream of freedom.


Peoples like to be told what to do, and hate/admire those who dare to break those standards. All those "proud straight American marines" would be chasing the boys's skirt and laughing at the unmanly men that only lays with women if they lived in the army that insipre many of their traditions aka the Roman legion.


You're a human being who wonder why the fuck she's supposed to love babies when what you like are mathematics. Well you don't have to, and a fair share of those "womanly mothers" secretly hate those children they didn't dare not to have.


That's the origin of the 60's revolution in Europe. At the time everything was decided for you : what you'd like, how you'd dress, who you'd love, and compliance wasn't optional.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 05:28:30 pm
Phmcw: what he's saying is that by denying that a problem exists, you often unwittingly reveal that you are a member of a group who isn't affected by the problem.  Because to people who have lived that experience, who live that on a daily basis, the problem is all too real and apparent to many of them.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 09, 2015, 05:45:28 pm
Yes, because when I say almost everyone, I just mean everyone. Good job with that.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 09, 2015, 05:47:15 pm
Okay. Who isn't talking out of their proverbial donkey?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 05:50:10 pm
Okay. Who isn't talking out of their proverbial donkey?
Depends on what you consider their proverbial donkey.  I was talking about my own experiences.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 09, 2015, 05:52:35 pm
Donkey being a language joke in that ass != arse.

AlleeCat accused most of us of talking out of our arses/asses. I want to know who they think is actually being reasonable.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 05:54:23 pm
Donkey being a language joke in that ass != arse.

AlleeCat accused most of us of talking out of our arses/asses. I want to know who they think is actually being reasonable.
I know what it meant, I was just wondering how you defined it lolz.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 09, 2015, 05:57:09 pm
Ask me whatever the hell you like, provided you've got an open mind to the answer. I'd really just like to be seen, and heard.
Right, okay - do you have a preferred pronoun? If not, I'll alternate, unless you'd prefer that I not.

Reading a different thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=48718.msg6089967#msg6089967) has actually answered this exact question, because coincidences are nothing if not coincidental. It pays to range over a wide stretch of forum, apparently!
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 09, 2015, 06:02:10 pm
I think Vector is qualified to speak about gender, having experience problems with gender identity themselves, to give an example.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 06:03:43 pm
I think Vector is qualified to speak about gender, having experience problems with gender identity themselves, to give an example.
I see.  And so nobody else is allowed to give their own personal opinion unless they have some form of difference from the mainstream?

So what about me?  I'm closer to stereotypical girl than stereotypical guy when it comes to gender roles and behavior (without the gossiping that is "stereotypical" here), and while I didn't share in my post I do get mocked for it, I'm just enough of a social pariah already it's not as bad as it could be.

What you're basically saying is that anyone who isn't within the realm of different isn't allowed to speak.  That's like saying men aren't allowed to be feminists or the the Christian majority isn't allowed to talk about their faith in religious discussion threads.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Willfor on March 09, 2015, 06:08:17 pm
Will everyone kindly stop misreading what AlleeCat is saying. This is fucking embarrassing to watch.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 06:10:06 pm
Will everyone kindly stop misreading what AlleeCat is saying. This is fucking embarrassing to watch.
I know what the essence of what she's saying is, I'm pushing her because it isn't a dialog if the people who aren't the minority can't talk about thier views.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 06:10:55 pm
Quote from: Th4DwArfY1 ūlink=topic=149065.msg6089840#msg6089840 date=1425934936
Yes, because when I say almost everyone, I just mean everyone. Good job with that.
Or, more to the point, it doesn't apply to you or anyone who agrees with you fully.

As for "you must have experience in order to speak of something"it is utterly preposterous. If you haven't had an abortion you aren't allowed to speak of it? Experience does not lead to sole right to speech. You can't exclude people merely because you don't think them qualified to speak to you. I'm not a politician,  so I can't speak of politics?
Will everyone kindly stop misreading what AlleeCat is saying. This is fucking embarrassing to watch.
It might help if you explained it to the peasants.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Willfor on March 09, 2015, 06:13:59 pm
Can you please explain to me why you decided that I am trying to talk down to you?

E: somehow broke the quote and can't fix it.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 06:15:38 pm
Alright everyone, cool your jets.

Remember, peaceful discussion.  That means everyone, including me.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Willfor on March 09, 2015, 06:21:25 pm
Will everyone kindly stop misreading what AlleeCat is saying. This is fucking embarrassing to watch.
I know what the essence of what she's saying is, I'm pushing her because it isn't a dialog if the people who aren't the minority can't talk about thier views.
This hasn't been a dialog. This has been a bunch of people saying what their opinion on what genders are. There's been a lot of people trying to erase the existence of anyone who isn't the majority, and some have been trying to present their own views as science. AlleeCat, as one in the minority, is really frustrated that there are so many voices so quick to say that she shouldn't exist, that she doesn't exist. I don't really blame her. And then when she voices her opinion, she's given a tone argument for her troubles, and people push at her to make her feel uncomfortable for being angry about the fact that her whole life is being relegated to the garbage heap in so many people's minds.

So basically, have some empathy maybe?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Vector on March 09, 2015, 06:29:18 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 06:36:29 pm
Regardless of who deserves empathy, I refuse to cow tow to someone saying I'm speaking shit.

Full stop. Perhaps this makes me sound petty or insensitive, but that's just how it is. If Allee wants rational discourse, she needs must be reasonable.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: misko27 on March 09, 2015, 06:40:55 pm
Plain speaking and clear understanding everyone.
Will everyone kindly stop misreading what AlleeCat is saying. This is fucking embarrassing to watch.
Let me see what it is that has caused the issue then. I haven't, actually.
I want to reiterate this. This thread is seriously the equivalent of a bunch of white people trying to talk about black oppression. (Which I'm pretty sure also happened on this very forum.) This thread just needs to stop. You can't talk about gender issues like you know everything about them if you've never experienced them. I would be open to a thread where questions can be asked of trans people, but it's clear that pretty much everyone in this thread is talking out their ass.
I can see the issue here. It does seem an awful lot like you are trying to imply that certain other people's opinion doesn't matter, or rather that they lack the grounds on which to speak. Now, speaking for most people (and please, correct me if you don't agree), people don't like when someone makes that implication, and they've made several arguments against it.
I'm pushing her because it isn't a dialog if the people who aren't the minority can't talk about thier views.
This seems to me a good argument.

This hasn't been a dialog. This has been a bunch of people saying what their opinion on what genders are. There's been a lot of people trying to erase the existence of anyone who isn't the majority, and some have been trying to present their own views as science. AlleeCat, as one in the minority, is really frustrated that there are so many voices so quick to say that she shouldn't exist, that she doesn't exist. I don't really blame her. And then when she voices her opinion, she's given a tone argument for her troubles, and people push at her to make her feel uncomfortable for being angry about the fact that her whole life is being relegated to the garbage heap in so many people's minds.
Also a good argument. One that is not irreconcilable with the previous argument.

I think Vector had a thoughtful response. I'd like to remind everyone not to say whatever they damn well please, which goes for both sides.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Redzephyr01 on March 09, 2015, 06:47:32 pm
^
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 06:58:09 pm
Let's put this all behind us with a joint determination. To be more moderate in thinking, and more prone to listening over killing. Also, on my part, I think I could have used less sarcasm. I'm feeling inclined towards it today.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 07:02:39 pm
It is unlikely, hence why I think discussions like this need a ban list, mostly because people are passionate about their opinions and take it as personal offense to have someone say one that is contrary to their own.

It is why you can't tell people "listen over killing" because when a contrary opinion is taken as a threat... It falls apart.

It is more important that people stop quoting and mostly just ignore people trying to elevate the heat of the topic.

So I think people should do less listening and less killing at the same time. This isn't supposed to be a discussion, so you shouldn't care what people put down.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 09, 2015, 07:07:55 pm
Heh, point taken.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 08:16:28 pm
Vector: about the whole cis trans thing: I think there is a difference between your physical gender and your emotional self.  If you have male parts, you are physically a male, but all that says about you is what sex organs you possess.  What you choose to identify as is an entirely different matter and is up to each individual, and your physical gender may or may not have anything to do with it.  That's my personal opinion, obviously, but I think we need to draw a distinction between what you have and what you are, because those are entirely different things.  One depends solely on genetics, the other is more difficult to pin down.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 09, 2015, 08:20:51 pm
Postin' to watch thread
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: XXXXYYYY on March 09, 2015, 08:24:50 pm
Postin' to watch thread
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Glowcat on March 09, 2015, 08:35:14 pm
If you're reducing "physical gender"/sex down to genitalia or chromosomes you're engaging in some pretty crass reductionist reasoning that only serves to delegitimize trans peoples' genders while simultaneously ignoring intersex people to make your argument. I'm not even sure what people mean by "emotional self" or "identify as" since these often do not describe the experiences of trans people, who can end up conflicted for most of their lives trying to sort out their dysphoria against everything society is telling them. Certainly there is room from a perspective of transhumanism to transition due to less internalized reasons, but overwhelmingly what trans people communicate something that goes beyond a conscious decision - their gender (or at least the parts of it demanding transition socially/physically) is something that is internal and natural to them (and by extension their bodies)

Furthermore taking the discussion along lines of "biological gender" is a farce. Trans sexual people are least aren't merely taking onto themselves a set of alternative gender roles. To remove that dysphoria they fix their bodies with HRT and surgical measures to overcome the (unwilling) direction their starting hormones took them. "Biologically" a trans person's body isn't merely what it was assigned at birth, and I think a lot of posters here cannot get past that association of birth-gender somehow being more natural or vital to one's definition than the changes possible. I suspect even if transhumanism is pushed towards new heights of potential that people will still pretend there was something sacred about the gender forcefully assigned to one at birth, no matter how complete the physiological transformation, because at its heart the opposition to recognizing trans peoples' identities in a non-patronizing manner is about normative boundaries being superseded rather than petty claims of overly simplistic scientific truth.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 08:41:20 pm
I wasn't making myself particularly clear, Glowcat.  What I meant by "emotional self" is EXACTLY what you're saying (although significantly less verbose and in-depth because I'm not transgender, haven't done a huge amount of research on the matter, and thus don't have a full picture of what it would be like).  I'm trying to split physical gender from your emotional/subconscious identity even though it isn't relevant to this discussion because that's how I think of it: sometimes, although rarely, physical gender becomes important, mostly because of medical conditions and whatnot (for instance, someone whose physical gender is exclusively female wouldn't get penile cancer, and similarly someone whose physical gender is exclusively male wouldn't get ovarian cancer).

Also, this conversation isn't just about transgender and things, it's also about gender roles and other gender-related topics.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 08:52:37 pm
biological gender would certainly be able to be altered when science develops some form of gene alteration or when it is finally able to transplant sexual organs from one gender to another.

It is a shame that it means that until our technology reaches that point, that one cannot change biological gender. Yet unfortunately people's feelings cannot change the cold reality of life.

It is more important not to uphold someone to biological sex, except when it comes to sexual preferences. then to just consider biological sex to be mutable by cosmetics and hormone therapy.

Or better yet to simply not use biological sex at all in these kinds of discussions.

Though if one is going to go the route that saying that sex change operations really and truly alter your sex, with current technology. Then you are also, at the same time, deciding that only certain people have the privilege of changing their gender, namely people with the money to do so. Thus it becomes a class issue.

---

Ok rhetoric aside.

It is TERRIBLE, monstrous, that men and women cannot fix their biological gender. But it honestly isn't a political issue to me, it is just "This is what a sex change operation actually does". It is expecting a change from an operation that just doesn't happen.

Sex Change operations help and are needed... But they aren't at the level where I'd say they have complete biological gender altering ability.

Well, I assume... it has been a while since I've seen what they do. I mean they don't have to give you a working womb or productive testicles.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Glowcat on March 09, 2015, 08:58:51 pm
Overall the thrust of my argument was these attempt to separate is in itself flawed since it fails to account for the full nuance of reality, and that trying to do even that is only a method of invalidation since it necessitates a "real female" or "real male" by the body parts you're targeting as symbolic of the sex ideal. *Channels Judith Butler* What is often erased from these attempts is recognition that our conceptions of sex are, like gender, largely constructed without recognition that they are not in fact universalizing. People (trans or intersex) are constantly being forced into narrow categories which are then doggedly protected by the ideological belief structure which permeates societies as reality. No matter how many exclusions it has to make for people who do not conform to these criteria that formed the heterosexist/reproduction-oriented societies leading up to the now. This ancient system needs to be dismantled. People are no longer merely defined by their roles in a system of breeding, where infertility is a grave sin or curse. Neither should we continue to hold onto outdated restrictions in the way we can understand the world based on these systems, not without recognizing that the lack of nuance in these matters is hurting people in the now.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 09:04:50 pm
Can one truly get rid of "Biological Gender" when it is an important system for sexual preference?

While certainly there are people who do not care about it and as long as someone currently resembles a gender they will go for it.

Others only care about biological gender, and that for them a simple operation to make someone "Look like" another gender just doesn't work for them.

By removing that as a concept you are forcing them to constrain to a viewpoint because it is more convenient for people who are mostly subjugated. Yet perhaps that isn't the source of their subjugation but rather this over importance towards biological sex.

Or are we just going to create another word to replace "biological sex" that means the exact same thing... over and over again in order to be politically correct because we have to avoid this uncomfortable idea that people actually will always care that the person they are having sex in might actually be a "biological gender" that they do not want to have sex with.

No one is applying Biological sex to the ability to reproduce, that would be silly. Plenty of people were born genetically incapable of reproduction.

---

I'll stop posting for a bit, I am raising heat too much.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 09, 2015, 09:18:43 pm
Allegory time!

Guy person walks into a bar. Bartender offers him that person a drink.


B: "Hi, what can I get you?"

P: "Nothing, you jerkwad! Do you realize there's no parking spaces available for me?!?!?"

Bartender glances out the window. There are 5 parking spaces in clear view.

B: "I see five spots from where I'm standing."

P: "Oh, right...rub it in you miserable waste of flesh. I hope you die in a fire. slowly. ALL FIVE OF THOSE PARKING SPACES ARE FOR CARS!!!"

B: "Umm, yes? Why is that a problem?"

P: "OMG, are you SERIOUS?!?!!? No, I shouldn't even be surprised. This is the establishment at work, trying to keep me down!"

B: "I'm sorry, are you disabled? We do have a reserved parking space for that. I'm sorry if it was taken."

P: "'Disabled?' How DARE you!!! Just because I drive something different, you think I'm somehow BROKEN?"

B: "Look, I'm sorry...I honestly don't understand what the problem is. We have parking spaces. Why are you yelling at me?"

P: "Because all your parking spaces are for cars!"

B: "We also have a bike rack."

P: "Oh, sure...you accommodate people driving cars and people driving bicycles, but inconsiderate asshole that you are, I don't see any SEGUEWAY parking spots."

B: "Segueway?"

P: "YES! Don't pretend you don't know what they are. And you don't have one single spot to accommodate me and mine! I should sue you!"

B: "Of course I know what a segueway is. I've just never seen one. Why would you expect me to make parking available for them?"

P: "BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS TOO! We DEMAND equal time!

Guy person leaves the bar in an angry fit and goes home to post angry messages online. Bartender is left confused. The end.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 09, 2015, 09:37:34 pm
Yeah, that's a pretty dishonest presentation of the situation. It's almost as though you think people are complaining about not getting special privileges.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 09, 2015, 09:39:37 pm
Can we agree on simple definitions?
Gender: the state of being a man or woman with respect to social differences rather biological ones.
Sex: the state of being male or female with respect to biological differences.

This way when we talk about sex change operations they are a means of changing sex, not gender.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 09:40:41 pm
Yeah, that's a pretty dishonest presentation of the situation. It's almost as though you think people are complaining about not getting special privileges.
This.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 09:43:56 pm
The thing is Urist is that we aren't talking about Gender right now.

We are talking about whether Sex change operations do change your sex and if we should count is as doing so.

At least I think so. That was at least what I was talking about.

I can't speak for anyone else though. Did I completely misunderstand the conversation?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 09, 2015, 09:49:07 pm
The thing is Urist is that we aren't talking about Gender right now.

We are talking about whether Sex change operations do change your sex and if we should count is as doing so.

At least I think so. That was at least what I was talking about.

I can't speak for anyone else though. Did I completely misunderstand the conversation?
That's certainly not what I was talking about, but it is what you were talking about.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2015, 09:56:36 pm
To me you can switch Gender on the fly if you wish. You are whatever Gender you say you are.

Though the fact that gender is so fluid now means that people need to re-evaluate what it means. Gender specific activities might need to be done away with altogether.

Yet I know this is an odd thing to bring up. I am not sure how they are going to do it... Given that we as a society build up how victimized women are... that the idea that someone with a "male parts" can just walk into a women's bathroom because he identifies as female, seems so contradictory to this constant paranoia.

I just don't see it being an issue that will resolve anytime soon, at least not with my current faith in humanity.

Personally they should just make all bathrooms unisex. Eliminates the problem immediately... and gender means so little, is so fluid, and has no actual integrity that logically what is the point of engendered bathrooms? Especially when you factor in sexuality.

But ultimately I don't know, I have no idea how things are going to resolve themselves.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 09, 2015, 10:04:38 pm
Look, it's just two things.

1) Remember you're fallible. You can make guesses about other people based on what you do know, but you shouldn't reject facts based on your suppositions.
2) Don't project what's important to you onto other people. Not everybody has to be like you, so if something you give 0 fucks about turns out to be the very keystone upon which some other person's identity turns, why should you give a fuck about that?

You can take an engineering mindset if you want, just remember that good engineers are still empiricists. They aren't the sort to insist that their heuristics are universal after they accepted them on the premise that they're merely usually good. Shit, that's why I keep trying to couch this in programming terms. A shitty engineer is the one who insists the data is wrong because it doesn't fit the model.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 09, 2015, 10:05:31 pm
Yeah, neonivek, I know we're talking about sex change operations changing sex, but some people have then said gender. If we can maintain our definitions it'll be easier to converse without talking past each other.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: ArKFallen on March 09, 2015, 11:24:53 pm
The way we (my past and occasionally present self included) act about sex based on gender assumptions are so utterly malicious.
I live in the part of the USA's state of West Virginia close to Washington D.C. and have been repeatedly ridiculed for having long hair. People who come to my door either avoid using pronouns upon seeing me or identify me as female straight off. WTF are people doing using long hair as an identifier of women? If you can grow top hair it can get long! And facial hair, if your mum goes through menopause she will get a mustache and I know plenty of young girls who (would) have lighter ones (if they didn't shave)! Sewing, plenty of men do it! Especially the hyper-masculine survival types! You don't think something is manly or feminine? That's because you it doesn't match your personal definition and it is child's play to find people who (at least) slightly disagree and there are hundreds of millions of people in 1 country on this earth.

Hanlon's Razor would apply but when those people come forward they are shamed or the "exceptions that prove the rule" so the definition doesn't grow to include them or their disagreeing actions/appearances.

The first is outright considering your standards/ideas more important than living humans and putting them down might protect your ideas (for yourself anyway) but is certainly malicious.
The latter is misusing an old adage which actually means in modern speech "exceptions test the rule" as in they directly challenge it!

The latter is also clinging to an idea of a category and is in itself is harmless. But this is a category being used in everyday interaction with just about every person you meet. It is often the most basic descriptor and our brains don't store memories but descriptors used to recreate memories. By making sex and gender a synonym you place undue expectations on the people you are remembering when you interact again. Say if they then have "long" hair or brightly painted nails when they didn't before. This also is not their problem but you are putting yourself in a situation where your expectation must face their exception and you have already given yourself a precedent to favor your expectation with a mind that values consistency. I.E. you expect your son to be attracted to females and they are more gay than a parade. How does that often turn out in America again?

How people react to challenged expectations depend entirely on the person and the expectation. For Christian bible-thumps and a few actual believers being gay is the sort of thing to revile a person for. For high-handed athiests and some people who've had horrible encounters with theists being religiously inclined either means your are a simpering twit or evil incarnate. For what was probably a grand majority across the board (and still might be) not having sex and gender as a synonym is a thing to be disgusted by to outright loathe someone for.

If your categories are inclusive (based on certain things present) and you disagree whether some of the included should be you fucked up. If they are exclusive (based on certain thins not being present) you will find they are far less descriptive (not racist, not >=5ft, not >300lbs) and ridiculous amounts of them are required to be so. And if you are mix-and-matching them for your world view (black, white, neither) you are promoting an Us-Vs-Them mentality which is Bigotry's bread and butter. If you don't mind that last part may you have the wisdom of the Almighty, the perception of the KGB, and the love of Mahatma Ghandi so you don't become an oppressive hateful fuck.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 10, 2015, 01:44:10 am
Quote
exceptions that prove the rule
That is so incredibly stupid I can't even
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Mlamlah on March 10, 2015, 03:56:12 am
So i pretty definitely identify as a non-binary individual. I even try to forge it as a little piece of my online identity, though it's not actually that hard to determine my biological sex if a person wants to be nosy, it's just way more comfortable for me to not have to struggle online with the things i have to struggle with in RL on a daily basis.

For me, this is not a whimsical decision. This is not something i merely decided one day in order to create a more interesting persona, either online or in my personal social circles. I've always struggled with gender, not the genitals i was born with but rather with the expectations and identity it comes framed with. It is in our culture ENTIRELY unavoidable for the social expectations of other people to not effect you greatly as you begin to grow up, it is a large part of the development of our social skills to absorb a lot of that. Yet Gender has always been alien to me, an idea i've failed to fully absorb, not for lack of trying from my father and other important figures in my development as a person.

Into adulthood it can still cause me great discomfort to be called male, despite over two decades of attempts by my culture to help me internalize some of the most basic social concepts of our society. It's not my genitalia i'm uncomfortable with, i honestly don't give a fuck what genitalia i have, it is in fact a sexual fantasy of mine to be able to willingly switch back and forth between the types of genitalia.

So try to understand how laughable it is to encounter people who have not lived your experiences, who have not struggled to understand why they are not just a *normally* gendered person, and who yet are willing to tell you that they know better about your own experiences than you do. That you don't *really* feel how you think you do, just that you've been confused. For twenty odd years. If you can imagine that, you might understand why some here have attempted to tell others here that their opinion isn't as valuable, because... it straight up isn't. When a person lives with something, has worked to understand it both academically and personally, their whole life, and another hasn't of course it is the former who has more context. That isn't to say objective thought isn't useful... because it is, but that's what academia is for, a person who hasn't lived something isn't inherently objective because with them comes their own baggage and understanding of the world. So in this situation, on an informal discussion board, the people who have lived experiences have better context than the people who do not.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: DemonOfWrath on March 10, 2015, 05:02:02 am
Ok, but if you're telling people they aren't allowed to contribute to a discussion, I don't think you can also expect that they should care about the result of it. Being told you aren't allowed to try and contribute to a discussion because (reasons) simply makes it feel like the other parties aren't interested in actually talking about whatever issue is at hand, but just want to preach their own views about it to you and that the only way you're allowed to participate is to sit there and accept them as correct. And I really doubt that's an effective path to getting people to agree with your viewpoints, rather than see you as a pain in the arse, at least when it comes to those kinds of discussions with you.

That isn't to say there aren't times where it's a valid thing to do (I'm a physicist, and I'll definitely tell someone talking nonsense about physics to be quiet), but it's something that has to be done very, very carefully, and it almost never is, and often just comes across as a way to invalidate dissenting opinions, rather than actually addressing them (as an aside it's utterly infuriating when you see someone told to not contribute because of X, but someone else who fulfills X is conveniently ignored because they happen to agree with the person doing the shutting out, I see it happen a bunch offline).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 05:04:23 am
In this thread, people who are members of a socially protected group lament how terrible it is that nobody understands their hardship.

"Hahaha, look at little short dude! Daww, such a cute little baby!"

Nobody cares.

"Hahaha, hey baldie, put a cap on you're blinding me!

Nobody cares.

"Hahaha, dude is like 30 and still a virgin! What a beta."

Nobody cares.

"Hahaha, faggot!"

BURN THE HERETIC!


"Oh, woe is me life is so terrible! You CIS people can't possibly understand what it's like to not fit in and have people be mean to you for no good reason!"



Consider your position very carefully before you become too attached to this idea that nobody can understand how hard you have it. Humans are often cruel. They rarely need good reason to express their cruelty. Even a thing as trivial as not wearing the socially expected clothing or wearing glasses or having a lisp, any number of things can result in ridicule and ostracism, and many of them are things that are not by choice and that don't easily go away.

The differences between your situation and that of others are:

1) It's not socially acceptable to ridicule people with gender issues. Oh, yes...it does happen. And when it does, others will step up and defend you. When was the last time you saw anybody defend a short guy, or a virgin, or any other not-socially-protected group?

2) In addition to other people being uncomfortable with you, many of you are not comfortable with yourselves. Many gays and transgendered and various other assorted "gender issues" people have a streak of self loathing. Not all, but many. And that is not anyone else's problem. It is "collectively" your problem. Don't blame it on us. The average person will step up and defend you when you're attacked. You personally struggling with something inside your own head is not our problem, and not our fault. I recommend you clean your own house.

Let me tell you a story. It's a fun story. When I was 14 or so I met the boyfriend of a guy who worked for my father. They showed up as a couple together at an office party. We'll call them Adam and Bob. Adam was shy and embarrassed, and I suspect probably needed prompting to even bring his boyfriend to the party at all out of fear how others might react to it. Whereas Bob was unabashedly and enthusiastically flaming. I remember him very loudly and cheerfully proclaiming to the world at large how awesome it was to suck cock, and enthusiastically recommending it to everyone. Adam was so embarrassed he left.

But you know what? Everybody loved Bob. He was fun, he was funny, and most importantly, he was comfortable with who he was. And that made it very easy for everyone else to accept him.

Will that work in all cases? No. Will there will still be people who will be mean to you because of whatever personal issues they have of their own? Probably. But there isn't a lot you can do about that. What you can do is become happy with who you are.

Don't build an identity of victimhood out of your situation. That leads to an unhappy place.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Mlamlah on March 10, 2015, 05:07:43 am
Well, i'm not saying those people shouldn't feel allowed to participate in discussion. What i am saying is those people should probably try to recognize that they probably arn't as reliable a source of information on a topic if their personal life includes only limited or tangential source of context and information about that topic, in comparison to people who live a reality day in and day out. When it gets to the point of someone saying, "No, you're wrong about yourself." which people more or less *have* done on this thread, that's when it starts to get really frustrating and, i don't blame people for getting angry or dismissive of people who start to talk that way without really good reasoning and context backing them up.

Edit: Lived experiences are contextual. Everyone has different experiences, different hardships, and needs to face different kinds of prejudices. But just because someone has faced harship, does not mean they understand the hardship of another person, that's a false equivalence. It's also laughable to compare the struggle of say... being bald in a culture that values hair, to something that can literally get you violently assaulted by people who have surely faced their own hardships, and yet do not understand yours.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 05:20:25 am
So your particular flavor of victimhood is special and nobody who hasn't experienced it can possibly understand?

I reiterate my advice: don't build an identity out of that. It leads to an unhappy place.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Mlamlah on March 10, 2015, 05:25:22 am
I'm not "building an identity" out of victimhood, i'm suggesting that those with no learned experience about a demographic's life experiences cannot speak with any authority about that demographic, because they lack the context to understand them. All i'm suggesting is that a demographic understands their own experiences better than those outside that demographic do, and therefore should have their own knowledge respected rather than condescended upon by those who lack either the academic objectivity of research or the learned context of lived experience.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 10, 2015, 05:42:33 am
I want to clarify my position here : I'm not, like lord bucket, denying that you don't fit the mold. I am saying that molds are a bad idea and that recreating one is a rather bad idea.

Without venturing into trans* stuff, which I'm not qualified for and, judging solely by its co-morbidity, isn't something I'd dare to speak of lightly, what I'm saying is that using "womanhood" and "manhood" as an universal norm was a bad idea, and adding "asexual" "agender" "bigender" won't fix it.

Same for gay and bi. History shown that for 80% of individuals at least (statistic pulled out of my ass but it isn't supposed to be accurate) , you'll fuck and be romantically involved with what society tell you to fuck and be romantically involved with.


I think that a big part of the problem is that peoples are confused by what statistics mean. I saw peoples saying that, because XXX demographic is YY% less likely to YY that mean ZZ for all of their individuals. For instance women are less likely to be strong then they shouldn't do some works.

Well no. Yes, you can make accurate generalisation, but that doesn't mean that individual will conform to it. In general, if it's multifactorial (like gender) every single individual will differ from the norm in some way. Therefore those generalisation are only usefull at first glance, and shouldn't be used neither to judge an individual nor yourself.


Yes, I'll expect any girl I meet to be much weaker than me (because it's reasonable) and I'll act according to that (because else I may injure them), no I won't be shocked/frustrated/sad/hurt in my manhood if it happen not to be true.

You don't fit the molds because the molds are a leftover of Europe's history. There is no reason why you should be ble to fit them, and those who do let go a big part of their individuality to fit in.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Mlamlah on March 10, 2015, 06:04:33 am
I mostly agree with gender and sexuality being very difficult concepts to pin down, Phmcw, with it meaning more or less a different thing for everyone. Where i disagree with you is what that means for people. People can find it very rewarding and helpful to specify their own identity with terminology, even if the terminology itself applies to some pretty nebulous concepts that's really only a launching point for better understanding yourself and other people. I would be content to live in a world that was totally unconcerned with gender and whatever meaning that may have to people as individuals, but we do live in that world, and we kind of have to deal with it.
Exactly what gender identity is biologically, psychosocially and academically debatable, but it's still a part of people in this culture. It's simply that that means a lot of different things for a lot of different people, and distinctions do exist. I don't think we should ignore those distinctions because they are difficult to accurately define and understand.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 10, 2015, 06:14:05 am
I don't say "difficult to pin down" I say, "harmfull when used the way it's usually used".
Quote

I don't think we should ignore those distinctions because they are difficult to accurately define and understand.


This, for me, strongly indicate that it's actually an bad model. There is no gender, just peoples trying to  act according to random expectations.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Mlamlah on March 10, 2015, 06:26:51 am
In a sense i agree. For me personally i would be much happier without any of the trappings of gender in my life. But does that apply to everyone? Well, i'm not so sure about that. Mentally i shuffle the benefits and ills of gender itself as a concept under a "needs more study" category, because as someone who's more harmed by it than helped i'm not really a reliable narrator. Others seem deeply fulfilled with gender however, and i hesitate to take that from other people.

Speaking simply for myself? I agree, gender sucks, get rid of it. But the truth is that it as a social phenomena is not fully understood, and the scientist in me is unwilling to judge it as a concept so harshly when the information available to me is so mixed and confused. I am totally willing to say that *binary* gender is crap because it as a model is unable to deal with the realities of humans, but gender itself? It's hard to say.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tiruin on March 10, 2015, 07:51:02 am
Err, LordBucket, one glaring thing with your post back there.
It contains a lot of generalizations and personal definitions of behavior used to characterize and detail the reasons why things happen, as the cause of why it happens.
Quote
Humans are often cruel. They rarely need good reason to express their cruelty.
Firstly on this point.
You cannot credibly say such a thing when you attempt to generalize a whole subset of attitudes and traits within behavior--especially from a standpoint as this. It commits the same mistake your point in your post has, as its essence. It assumes from personal experience, which thus personally validates its credibility.

Especially when you try to explain dysphoria with comparisons or additions to other types of crisis or negative connotation, what was mentioned there are superficially related but inherently completely different subjects. Using discrimination as an basepoint does not make a credible idea when put in how you word it.
Especially when you use extremes of description. 'Nobody cares' is no way to put forward understanding of a point. Especially when you deliver a post that doesn't keep the openness of its discussion at the heart of the message. Doing so may lead to unethical delivery, given the rigidity of detail.

On the issue of gender, as related there and in general: the problem is in-between the lines (as inferred from the previous posts) and how it is treated. Society/Culture/Environment of an individual also affects how they treat themselves, but its the personal factor which is mostly what is described--this depends on the person's knowledge of their environment and of how they may utilize knowledge to understand (themselves or otherwise).

Now in regards to gender identity--is it wrong? This isn't 'wronged', so to speak, in many societies and cultures, nor on how people identify themselves as, but more on how a person deals with the situations as well as how their environment is--not putting in the factor of our personal uniqueness there--is where the 'wrong' may come from, in others' perspectives. This usually stems from an appended idea making it wrong, giving it a negative meaning, or limiting [the capabilities of people under] said gender. The idea of a 'binary' gender is, to refer an origin, more a western idea (coupled and intertwined with gender roles), and which is the basic and theoretical definition of such {with the three descriptions of gender being male, female and trans}. Its a social construct, in part.
The problem is in how it is treated. In the 'how', and not the idea that the construct exists.

@Helgoland: You should really clarify the #3 point in quoting other forumites and the reason which makes it a rule to make mention of--using an assumption, personally made, does not give detail on why it is a rule when 'quoting other forumites' has no wrong at all with how it works. Its neutral. What is done when quoting other forumites//by the quoter is where it may go wrong, as in what may be said (and how it is continued).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: pisskop on March 10, 2015, 07:54:43 am
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 10, 2015, 08:24:50 am
I'm not saying that no one have the right to act according to gender roles, I'm saying that often "peoples that are XXX act this way" become "peoples that are XXX have to act this way".


Any identity is becoming opressive once you're bound to it, and forced to act according to it. Actually I think the problem largely lie with how our brain process identity.


I believe that it try to make us part of a "tribe" using mechanism usefull to define a pack and assure its survivial, and that it cause problems in our societies. You have to identify with your "tribe" or be rejected by it, and you have to otherise the other "tribes" often with tragic consequences.

Instead of just using it to have something to work with during first contacts.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 10, 2015, 09:49:56 am
Here's a couple of provable trends in human biology and behavior:

People whose physical gender (see my earlier definition for what I mean by this) is female TEND to be physically weaker than those whose physical gender is male.  This is easily provable and is a generally acknowledged fact: it doesn't make women less than, it's simply due to biological differences.

People whose physical gender is female have a greater proclivity towards being better at communication and empathy than those whose physical gender is male.  This can be seen by looking at tendencies on the Myers-Briggs test.

I believe that most of our gender roles have their roots in these two facts.  The problem is when we force people to define themselves by those roles or face social exile.

LordBucket: Just because other people are also subject to ridicule doesn't give you the right to say that their claims are invalid.  That's like saying the civil rights movement was invalid because of [insert other marginalized group here].
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 10, 2015, 10:21:20 am
Can we please use gender to discuss social differences and sex to discuss biological ones? It really well make this easier. It can be difficult to see people as having a different gender identity than one of the easily accessible binary options when we confuse gender and sex, but when we define them separately understanding becomes easier.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 10, 2015, 10:43:19 am
I think that the world would be better off if no one cared about what gender you were and that people weren't so prone to being assholes in general.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: pisskop on March 10, 2015, 10:55:50 am
I think that the world would be better off if no one cared about what gender you were and that people weren't so prone to being assholes in general.
I agree mostly.


Equality means normality means not special means no special treatment.
As with all cases of 'inequality', you can't be equal by asking for different treatment.

Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 10, 2015, 12:17:31 pm
I'm gonna have to call bullshit on the notion that special treatment is an inherent evil, actually. President Johnson had the right idea when he said, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "You are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." Because we live in a world that includes all sorts of conditions that cripple the notion of freedom of opportunity, it is necessary to treat people unequally in order to treat them equally. Do you honestly believe, for example, that financial aid based on need is inherently evil because the poor have just the same opportunity to pursue a higher education as the rich?

Here's the thing - I'm not saying that people ought to get free shit because they're trans or something. That's just a different extreme. I'm saying that insisting on a standard of "equality" that erases genuine differences between people is absurd. At least the bigots have the decency to acknowledge that people are different. Here, you wind up treating people unequally by treating them equally, because everybody will (in reality) vary from your assumed standard. Some people will happen to largely conform to it, and you wind up treating them better than the people who don't, because your society tolerates them. Is the argument that gay people have the same right to heterosexual marriage as anybody else a convincing one?

Maybe we ought to focus less on having objective, universal standards in a universe that objectively defies standardization.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 10, 2015, 01:17:08 pm
I don't necessarily believe that everyone should be uniform or held to the same standard, just that everyone would chill about it and not be so obtuse about allowing people to hold themselves to whichever standard they want.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on March 10, 2015, 01:20:14 pm
Indeed, I've always felt that the whole idea of 'equality doesn't mean justice' is something that one should always keep in mind in these sorts of matters. Sure, in theory, a man and a woman(or any similar comparison between the majority and minority) should have the same opportunities as one another, but life doesn't always work out that way. So let's do what we can to try and nudge stuff a bit more in that direction, eh?

Basically, all in all? Affirmative action is pretty baller, yo. Only problem is that we don't apply it to enough stuff.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: 4maskwolf on March 10, 2015, 01:43:36 pm
Equality isn't justice because people aren't carbon copies of each other.  I am not the same as Tiruin who isn't the same as Urist McScoopbeard who isn't the same as Bauglir.  Different people are have different strengths and weaknesses.  Some people are easily emotionally hurt, some can easily bounce back from things that would emotionally devastate most people.  Are either of these things inherently bad?  No, it's just how these people are.  So how we treat people has to take this into account.  But we can't play to the lowest common denominator either, as education very well shows: if you teach to the slowest learners, the kids who can learn at a rapid pace get bored and hate school (that was me in elementary school).  And even in the case of the emotional resiliency thing, the person who is easily injured is going to be hurt emotionally sometimes, because everyone experiences suffering during their lives.

In general, trying to act in the world is a difficult balancing act, and inevitably some people will be dissatisfied.  On the one hand, people don't want to have to spend their whole lives tiptoeing around other to avoid setting them off, because then they are the ones who are being shut down and made to not matter.  On the other hand, we can't simply ignore the differences people have, because saying that their differences mean nothing is insulting and untrue: it's a part of who they are, and you are simply dismissing that.  This is particularly true re: Gender Identity.  I'm not sure where the optimal line is where the fewest people are dissatisfied, but I know that what we have now is not the optimal line.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Vector on March 10, 2015, 03:11:24 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 05:57:51 pm
@Tiruin: if I understand you correctly, you're obecting to the character of my post rather than the content.

Ok. Allow me to rephrase:

It seems to me that there's a tendency to perceive gender issues as being somehow special and sacrosanct. I don't particularly think they are. This same phenomenon happens routinely with racial issues, and I don't see those as special either.

If somebody punches you in the face for being gay, I don't see that as somehow "worse" than somebody punching you in the face for having a lisp, or for not being on the football team, or whatever "you're not one of us" characteristic isn't popular that day.

The basic phenomenon I see at work here is the same as the "chicken with one red father" experiment. Take a group of chickens, paint a feather on one of them red, and the other chickens peck that chicken to death for being different. It wouldn't matter if you paint the feather blue instead of red. They're still going to pick the chicken to death. And being pecked to death for having a red feather isn't somehow magically worse than being pecked to death for having a blue feather.

And yet if somebody is beaten up for being gay instead of beaten up for wearing glasses, or if somebody makes less money for being female rather than makes less money for being short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination#Employment_wage_and_social_experience_discrimination), somehow the people with exactly the same problems are perceived as having it worse, and their problems are perceived as more valid...solely because of the gender angle.

I look at this, and conclude that the people with gender-issue related problems don't have it worse. They are a socially protected class. This is trivial to demonstrate. It is illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference or status (http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm). You can hire and fire anybody you want for having a speech impediment, or being ugly, or any of a number of other traits you like. Not only legal protections, but cultural protections as well. It's not at all socially acceptable to make fun of gays, for example. There are stereotypes about "every girl wanting a gay friend" for example. Because having a gay friend is some sort of special thing that is valued and sought after for some reason. There are movies about this, songs about it, a quick google check reveals wikihow to guide for finding gay friends...it's so pervasive it even has a Tvtropes entry (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GayBestFriend). Being gay or bisexual is considered cool and trendy (https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=cool+to+be+gay&oq=cool+to+be+gay&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30l7.690862.692442.0.692661.14.13.0.1.1.1.128.1222.8j5.13.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.serp..1.13.1116.YJoquaDSDBY) in a lot of places. I once heard a teenager introduce himself by telling me he was bisexual. Like, before he gave me his name he threw that out there. Wasn't sure how to respond, so I asked if he preferred being on the giving or receiving end of gay sex. He was shocked and horrified at the thought, and as it turned out he wasn't bisexual at all. He was simply pretending to be because it was the trendy thing to be.


And yet still these communities insist that their particular form of victimhood is more horrible than that of others.  And many people agree with them. Which tells me that the entire premise that society views them more critically is simply false.  Consider the fact that we're even having this discussion. People care about gender discrimination. If somebody makes less money because they're a woman, society will go on a crusade over it. If a gay man is murdered, it's perceived as a horrible travesty that is somehow worse than if he'd been heterosexual.

People care about gender issues. And yes, people care about racial issues and a few others. If somebody beats up a guy in a wheelchair, that will be perceived as a greater injustice than somebody not in a wheelchair being beaten up. People with gender issues are not the only protected class. But they are are a protected class. Have a problem because you're gay, or had a sex change, or female, or whatever...and people will shower you with sympathy and crusade on your behalf. The treatment you will receive will be better than somebody who has the exact same problem for other reasons.



@Vector
Well, sorry that you're not one of the fortunate ones. The tides of culture are fickle. When I was a kid it was socially acceptable to make fun of gays. Now they're a protected class. So are women in general, but I think masculine women are not, right now. Maybe next year. Maybe next decade. Hard to say.

I will reiterate what I've said previously in the thread: these problems may be real, but you having difficulty because of gender issues is not particularly more holy and sacrosanct than people who have the same issues for other reasons, and gender issues in particular are very likely to go away in the next decade or two. There is an expiration date on these problems. People insisting that people who've had sex changes are not "really" changed will have a very difficult time maintaining that view once the technology improves to the point that the new bodies are indistinguishable. When MTF people can get pregnant and give birth it's going to be very difficult to say they're not female. When couples are popping sex change pills, and fraternities are making "hey dude, tonight you're the gang bang girl for all twenty of us" part of their new member initiations, when anybody can put on their AR and VR headsets and "try out" being a different sex for the night and when it becomes commonplace to do this...I think an inevitable result will be that everybody is going to have a lot more understanding what it's like for everyone else. People will be more accepting of other people's situations. A lot of current gender lines and social expectations are going to blur. And as a result, the people in the weird places in the middle between binary genders are likely to find themselves becoming the new normal.

It might not be tomorrow. It might not be next year. But it's going to happen.

Your difficulties might be real, but they will come to an end. You're not stuck with this. None of you are. It will end.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 10, 2015, 06:18:02 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2015, 06:19:10 pm
It would be if transhumanism isn't like... "Not do distant future" technology.

I mean with flying cars, we didn't have flying cars.

With transhumanism we already have the building blocks and can do pretty dang impressive things.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 10, 2015, 06:30:09 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 06:31:33 pm
The VR stuff in particular is already happening. Do a search for 'vr gender swap experiment' for example.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2015, 06:36:29 pm
Ok ok...

Pills that do that is like flying cars.

But surgery that can genuinely change your gender and possibly even make you reproductive at the same time, isn't that far off.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 10, 2015, 06:50:50 pm
What do you mean by surgery that can "genuinely change your gender?"
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 10, 2015, 06:51:07 pm
LordBucket, I'm going to need you to clarify what you mean, there. Do you object to the notion of protected classes? Do you think that Asians should be grateful for being assumed good at math? Do you mean to argue that people should stop practicing medicine because we'll eventually outgrow these meaty sacks of frailty?

EDIT: To be clear, these are all separate questions, and you can have whatever answer you want to them. It's just, if any of them are "yes", then I think our notions on the whole thing are so distant that I won't be able to convince you of anything or vice versa.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: misko27 on March 10, 2015, 07:31:29 pm
Any identity is becoming opressive once you're bound to it, and forced to act according to it. Actually I think the problem largely lie with how our brain process identity.
Show of hands: Who here has read Invisible Man?
Maybe we ought to focus less on having objective, universal standards in a universe that objectively defies standardization.
But let's say I don't follow some groups subjective standards. Now, they criticize me for some action (or non-action), but I feel like I'm in the right so I argue back (and let's say others who think similarly back me up). And of course, the subjectivity of standards for appropriate arguing inevitably leads to what might subjectively be termed a shit-storm. You know where that gets us? Right where we are now. That Utopia is now. Now, you might say that that subjectivity comes alongside a sort of acceptance of other's viewpoints. But what if I, subjectively, think that's wrong and judge as I please (as I am doing right now)? And I might argue that you have no right, by your own standards, to condemn me.

But the Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism debate is long and hard and goes nowhere. Let's avoid it if we can.
Do you object to the notion of protected classes?
Would you mind elaborating to me a little on protected classes? I feel I may have missed the part where we covered it.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2015, 07:47:22 pm
Actually I think the problem largely lie with how our brain process identity.
Clearly then the only solution is to research into how to manipulate our brains. Clearly.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 10, 2015, 08:00:04 pm
The claim I was making had nothing to do with Absolutism vs Relativism. It had everything to do with humility and empiricism. I'm saying people should experience the world more, and judge it less. Let the people around you be who they are without being required to label themselves. I can argue for that all I like without running afoul of the ol' Intolerance of Intolerance malarkey. See, I'm not saying criticism ought be outlawed. As a matter of fact, I'm saying rather the opposite. Be willing to consider criticism, and to address it, as I'm doing here. I don't have to stand by and let people impose their abuses on unfortunate bystanders because "Oh, helping would only be imposing my views." You can have all the internal standards you want, provided they're not used as a crutch to absolve you of the necessity of thinking, as they become when people start promoting them to external Facts. The claim is not internally consistent because I permit everything, it's consistent because I permit things that aren't problems, and this doesn't seem to be a problem.

As for protected classes, that's any time you get social or legal protections built in to handle harm being done to some group. For example, and I apologize for bringing up race but it really is the primeval example, the United States forcibly integrated public schools some decades past. Doing so required the law to specifically address race, and to create laws that treated people differently based solely on that category.  If they'd stood by the principle that the law must treat groups absolutely equally, it would only have served to perpetuate inequality and unfairness in actual fact (and, incidentally, it's not as though the job is done, but I don't want to elaborate too much on racism here).

For what it's worth, by the way, I have read Invisible Man, although too long ago to remember much.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 08:16:29 pm
@Bauglir

"Do you think that Asians should be grateful for being assumed good at math?"

If you need a literal straight answer, I would say no. But "should be grateful" is missing the point. If the asian guy lamenting that everyone assumes he's good at math starts complaining that nobody can possibly understand his pain and that people who aren't asian aren't qualified to talk about it...do you think maybe a little perspective is in order?

"Do you object to the notion of protected classes?"

The question requires context. Certainly the phenomenon is abused in our society, and very often the people most loudly complaining about injustice are the ones creating problems despite others trying very hard to accommodate them. But at the same time, if somebody has a deeper emotional reaction to an 80 year old blind woman in a wheelchair being mugged than to a 20 year old male weight lifter being mugged...I'm not going to object to that greater reaction. Again, context is required.

But when somebody is a member of a protected class, I think it's reasonable to point out their status to them. And when members of a protected class are complaining more loudly than other people who are not protected and who are experiencing similar problems, I think it's reasonable to point that out too.

Imagine a guy with broken legs. He has a real problem. And imagine that people give him a wheelchair and offer to push his wheelchair so he can get around. And now imagine that he lashes out at the people pushing his wheelchair. And so the guy pushing the wheelchair says nothing because, the guy's in a wheelchair. And so the guy in the wheelchair whines about how people keep staring at him because he's in a wheelchair. So people walking around nearby avoid looking at him. So he complains that people are avoiding his gaze, which just confirms that everyone sees and treats him differently. So people go out of their way to talk to him and be nice to him. And he responds by insulting them.

Yes, his problem is real, but at what point is it ok for somebody to tell the guy in the wheelchair he's both being a jerk and creating problems for himself? I think people in the gender issues crowd frequently skirt that line. A lot of their problems would go away if they'd just stop making such a big deal out of them. Yes, the guy in the wheelchair will still have broken legs even if he stops being a jerk, and people with gender issues will still have gender issues even if they stop making such a big deal out of them...but their behavior is nevertheless counterproductive.

"Do you mean to argue that people should stop practicing medicine because we'll eventually outgrow these meaty sacks of frailty?"

This one is so off base that I don't even know how to clarify my response other than to simply say no, that's not what I meant, and I don't understand how you got there.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Cheeetar on March 10, 2015, 08:21:46 pm
The problem with analogies is tying them into the reality of the situation. I don't know if you can discuss issues like this in a forthright and understandable manner without discussing the issue itself.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 10, 2015, 08:39:05 pm
Well, then all I can say is that you're conflating members of the protected class in question. You're creating a situation in which anybody who offers comment supporting people on the receiving end of abuse is in the same boat as people who're blowing their own problems out of proportion. If we build wheelchair ramps and that happens to help a guy on crutches, should we really be that upset that he could've got by with stairs? Should we suggest that disabled people of any degree are whiners because that same guy is occasionally a dick?

And if that isn't what you're saying, what are you saying? Because the only alternatives I can see are a bunch of non-statements, like "Sometimes people don't act in good faith, although gender issues are not a special example of this". I admit, it's certainly possible that you're saying nothing in a very wordy fashion in an attempt to get people to expose their own biases and projections, but here I've been assuming there was an actual exchange of ideas attempted.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 08:59:32 pm
what are you saying?"


In which post? Many ideas have seen an attempt to be conveyed over the past 40k or so of typing I've done in this thread.

For example, in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149065.msg6089678#msg6089678) the general idea I was attempting to convey was "Cheer up! It will get better! Lots of people who give you a hard time about gender issues now will mellow out once they have broader experience, and we're moving in a direction where they're probably going to get it. Not only that, for those of you whose problem is that your body disgarees with your mind, technology is probably going to solve that too, so outlook is good. Yay!"

Whereas in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149065.msg6091220#msg6091220) the general idea I was attempting to convey was "you don't have it as bad as you seem to think. Yes you have issues, but at least people care about them and are willing to try to make them better. Some of the problem you're having, you're creating yourselves. Don't do that."

"Gender issues" is a relatively large subject. If you're asking for a single-sentence summary, I don't think I can give you one.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 10, 2015, 09:26:15 pm
Well, fair enough then. I can argue all I want about how people ought to treat others, but I don't know shit about the actual experiences that trans people (or anybody else suffering from prejudice with its roots in gender assumptions) have, except what I'm told. As much as I disagree with you, any argument I could make would have to be rooted in the nature of their experiences, not the philosophical notions I've been expounding upon this whole time. That is to say, I couldn't argue with you without putting words in their mouths about their hardships, and I ain't prepared to do that today.

I apologize for the miscommunication, because I did misunderstand the thrust of what you were getting at.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 10, 2015, 10:04:27 pm
No worries. Big topic, lots of people with extremely different experiences from which to draw conclusions, lots of emotion, a fair amount of historical baggage from previous, similar threads...and some peculiar quoting rules in this specific thread which we're not all even sure how closely to follow.

Thread is a recipe for miscommunication. We're doing well.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2015, 10:36:57 pm
You know what, fuck you guys. And gals. And whoever does not feel included by the previous two sentences.

Some people (you know who you are) apparently got what the rules in the OP were meant to achieve. Some people (you know who you are) apparently lack either the necessary intellect or the nessary attention span for remembering the very simple rule of:


No quoting other forumites. Period.

I stopped reading on page seven, because I'm kinda drunk right now and there's actually a fair bit of interesting discussion in there, so apologies to anyone who tried to, y'know, smother the flames. I don't get home for a couple of hours, and this thing explodes so badly? I'd've thought it would go better. Bay12, I am disappoint.


Locking this again for about 24 hours or so, I guess. Let's see how it goes next time.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 15, 2015, 05:48:39 pm
Huh, it seems things got better right at the point where I stopped reading... I guess you should take the first sentence of that last post to be a reaction to what happened up to page seven.


So with more optimism than before: Round three - ding!
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 15, 2015, 07:27:10 pm
I'm curious - how far do ya'll think gender comes into personality? How far is what we observe societal, and how much nature? That's been niggling me for a while.

Edit: wait... Is this post against the rules? I only now read Helgo's infamous butt print analogy.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 15, 2015, 07:40:49 pm
I think it does a lot. I emphasize it that way because reality includes all the social feedback and expectations and role models and so on. It's not as simple as saying "This slice of a personality is due to sex, this one's due to social influence, etc..." If you want my opinion of how much is purely biological, I'd say quite a lot, because biology is a complicated beast and most humans seem to have strong biological urges toward social interaction, which means the "social" stuff isn't as separable from it as people like to think. If you want my opinion of how much is purely genetic, I'm not sure, but I suppose very little of it based on my (limited) understanding of development in general, and similar problems do arise as in the general biology case.

If you want my opinion of how much of it ought to be based on gender, I'd say much less, at least on a social level, but that's personal preference and nothing more. But people are extraordinarily complicated, personalities are extremely fuzzy notions, and I think the nature vs nurture paradigm is played up for more than it's worth. For example, how much is nature and how much is nurture can vary from person to person! Certainly, whether a given behavior falls under one classification or the other, it shouldn't really have any impact on how you treat individual people you meet.

So, I guess I'd say, gender comes into personality a lot, and there's a lot of nature and a lot of nurture, and that there are surprisingly few situations when it actually matters what answers anybody has to those questions. I'm not one to discourage learning for the sake of learning, of course, I'm just aiming to bring some perspective.

EDIT: I choose to waggle my ass ever deeper into this couch. We'll have it broken in by the end of the week! And I'll be appearing in the OoC thread by the end of the hour!

Apparently that didn't happen.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Antsan on March 16, 2015, 11:58:01 am
PTW

Maybe I'll come up with something worthy later.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 16, 2015, 01:45:30 pm
In response to the question "how far do ya'll think gender comes in to personality?" (If that counts as quoting another forumite I frankly don't give a damn my dear Helgoland) I say that it is a significant contributing fact, but not the end-all-be-all. I've read a myriad of reports, and they all appear to indicate that, from a psychological standpoint, women are generally more gentle, emotional, and neurotic then men. However, in my personal experience I have found men to be the more loyal and the better friends. Of course, this is all skewed by the fact that i'm 18 and male.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2015, 02:47:55 pm
Mentioning what question you are responding to is in fact highly encouraged, since it allows your post to be read more independently from the thread as a whole.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tiruin on March 16, 2015, 08:15:40 pm
Err, Helgo...you could please edit the rules in the OP. They are, honestly, not that clear, unlike the forum guidelines with the reasoning behind it being present. :-\
That could help a LOT on how to understand what to post, in the least.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Jelle on March 17, 2015, 03:53:15 am
Spoiler: "Discussion stuff" (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tiruin on March 17, 2015, 03:57:50 am
Gender roles, in my opinion, are social constructs--and are thus far subject to any stigma the localized society in question, perceives them as. (which...primarily speaks about pretty much every 'wrong' problem in society--localized social stigma, or the prevalence of an ideology, continued in culture and belief).

Quote
I don't know, is this an interesting topic to discuss regarding gender?
It is.

...But I can't quote you, or continue speaking on that topic you bring up...for reasons I cannot exactly understand. ._.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 17, 2015, 05:22:10 am
It says 'no outright discussion' in the OP. I really don't know why people keep forgetting that middle word.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Jelle on March 17, 2015, 05:47:15 am
Very well, I'll spoiler my previous post for those who would still like to read it. I'll also be retiring from the thread.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Antsan on March 17, 2015, 06:34:16 am
Tiruin, of course you can elaborate on the topic. You just cannot use a style of answering that is personally directed at Jelle instead of generally everyone.

I think what Helgoland is trying to get you guys to not do is more about who you are talking to and not where you get your ideas from, that is, you aren't allowed to direct criticism at anyone, thus the "no quoting" rule, as then anything you write is implicitly directed at the one you are quoting.
If that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 09:15:04 am
It says 'no outright discussion' in the OP. I really don't know why people keep forgetting that middle word.

I'm somewhat confused by this honestly. I really, REALLY don't want to beat a dead horse here (which I think I might be doing anyhow), but it just seems superfluous. Can you at least define outright discussion in a more detailed manner in the OP? I mean, what the rules SEEM to want to do is make the thread a collection of loosely related, but not directly correlating, posts on peoples opinions on gender. Which... is fine? but what would anyone be gaining out of it? Is that your intention?

Of course, I get we're desperately trying to avoid derailment and flame wars, but it seems to me that you are alienating... a fair amount of forum goers from this thread. After all this forum is formatted as a DISCUSSION board. Again, I don't want to seem overly critical here... just... my two cents.



Now, to contribute something to gender discussion, based on what Tiruin said, I would like to state that I too believe Gender Roles to be mostly a social construct, although they evolve in many other species, and change over time. In modern times however, gender roles are a bit of a bit burden on the average western person (not to discount the rest of the world, but given that many places in Africa/Middle East/Asia are even more steeped in annoyingly antiquated and superfluous tradition than the US, which itself is still quite steeped in tradition depending on where you live, i'm not sure how to even go about instituting change or talking about social/gender problems there). Of course, people have a right to live however they want to, but I believe in gender equality and that both genders should possess EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 17, 2015, 10:04:22 am
I'll point to the ass print analogy above: There's no way to make the 'no outright discussion' rule rigorous in any sense of the word. I firmly believe however that we can and will find a modus operandi of discussing while abiding by the spirit of that rule.
Maybe an example would help? Pp 5-7 are a violation, while most of what came afterwards was pretty awesome (and not at all not a discussion, by the way).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 17, 2015, 10:34:12 am
I'll point to the ass print analogy above: There's no way to make the 'no outright discussion' rule rigorous in any sense of the word. I firmly believe however that we can and will find a modus operandi of discussing while abiding by the spirit of that rule.
Maybe an example would help? Pp 5-7 are a violation, while most of what came afterwards was pretty awesome (and not at all not a discussion, by the way).

The thing is : they followed each other for a reason. Everyone said things in pages 5-7 that they clarified in subsequent pages. I just read it again and a lot of hostility in those pages are caused by misunderstandings cleared later.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 17, 2015, 10:40:56 am
I'd also like clarification on what we are using discussion to mean, and why it's a bad thing.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 17, 2015, 11:26:23 am
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: ArKFallen on March 17, 2015, 11:43:01 am
I would like clarification on which page 5-7 we're talking about, because there's really not anything that comes after that from my perspective. Unless you think this current discussion is awesome.
Reply #60 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149065.msg6089423#msg6089423) - Reply #104 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149065.msg6090311#msg6090311) presumably.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 12:15:44 pm
I mean there were some... controversial opinions expressed there. People being pedantic and, contrary reply #61 entirely confrontational. You really can't talk about this issue without being passionate about it, especially considering that we have a number of (very polite, upstanding, and exceptional) transgender people on Bay12. Bay12 is a relatively calm section of the internet, but i'm very surprised that the reactions were as... 'tame' as they were. Most likely out of fear of a censure from Toady.

EDIT: To further clarify, this is a (relatively) new, heated, and 'controversial' (to some I guess) topic and you attempted to bring the debaters to heel. Needless to say, that would be like telling the Pope not to call a crusade (in a medieval manner of setting of course).
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 17, 2015, 12:17:06 pm
Lemme try this once more:

As far as I can tell, previous threads with a similar focus failed because people started bickering. It's a natural consequence of arguing passionately for a controversial statement: At some point, a bite reflex sets in and you attack anyone who objects to your statement. You attack them, not their arguments. The two rules in the OP everyone's been bitching about are meant to inhibit that bite reflex, to force everyone to argue against ideas and not against people. That's why there's a rule against outright (!!!) discussion - you're not supposed to show that what the other person said was wrong, you're supposed to show that the abstract idea that they put forward is incorrect and, if possible, provide a better one to take its place. That's hard to enforce, of course, and meant more as a guideline anyway; but that's why there's the no quoting thing, which is rather easy to enforce and should curb the worst excesses simply by forcing participants to post texts that are at least somewhat independant of what the person they responded to said.



And if that still is not sufficient to show what the OP is meant to do, I guess we can still let this turn into the place where gender discussions go to die.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 12:28:09 pm
I agree entirely with your reasoning. Don't think I am criticizing your intentions. Unfortunately, I think you might be barking up the wrong tree. From what i've seen 99% of all the problems with gender related discussion are caused by someone expressing that gender is male and female and there's no way around that. Unfortunately, these same people also have a... less than diplomatic way of expressing their beliefs. I'm not saying the fault is all theres, not at all, but it seems to me you are trying to deal with the problems post facto rather than cutting the head off beast, so to speak.

Also, don't think i'm taking a side. I'm just saying that sometimes people can easily offend others without realizing it. Usually, the types of posts i'm talking about aren't even technically offensive or roughly put. They generally just leave no room to consider alternatives. The debates that follow are usually what consume the threads, with one side trying to sway that opinion and the other very stoically, and with what appears to be little reconsideration or new argument defend the alternative. I've noticed that it IS generally binary gender arguments that start this. So take that how you will.

In the end I just think these rules are easily circumventable/don't deal with the root problem. Unfortunately, I feel like i've done more to derail this thread by arguing this then actually talking about gender issues, and for I apologize. Indeed, I think I'll leave it at this for now if you don't mind to get past it?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 17, 2015, 12:31:16 pm
Don't feel bad, half this thread so far has been rule discussion - I really should work on my communication skills.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 17, 2015, 01:18:14 pm
I think the problem is the difference between discussion/debate and ad hominem/arguing/responding to tone. When you say no discussion I think we perceive you as saying "don't respond, state your stance and leave," when what you actually seem to be trying to avoid is not discussion but something else.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 19, 2015, 01:26:13 pm
Helgo, I think no one dare to post anymore because no one really understand your rules.

Also discussing without quoting is rather tedious.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 19, 2015, 03:48:39 pm
No. People aren't posting because they have nothing they want to say. We are not so tame nor so timid as you would make us out to be, heh.

I do have something to say though. Why all the labels for gender? Trans(abillionthingscangohere)
Why not limit it to male, female, asexual, pansexual, etc. instead of grouping everything under trans*. By my understanding trans applies to transmale/female.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 03:51:08 pm
I like females, I am a male.
Potato is pretty sexy, especialy during sprouting.
I find these topics always degenerate into a fight because we all have different ideas about gender.
But if you take a potato as an example, potatoes dont care about another potatoes gender, they only care about having enough room to grow, I will state that the extremist Nadine potatoes are turning the Agria into chips. Dont get me started on baked potatoes, just sitting there baked all day. Lazy shits
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Morrigi on March 19, 2015, 04:18:14 pm
The no quoting thing is obnoxious. The reason these threads spiral out of control is because you have two minority factions with the belief that the other is not only morally wrong, but so morally wrong that insulting the opposition is seen as acceptable to those of like mind to themselves.

More simple rules would be as follows, and yes there's some overlap.

1. Be civil.
2. Don't misrepresent opposing arguments.
3. Don't be an asshole.

I see 2 all the time here and across the rest of the internet, and all it ever does is piss people off. It's not smart, it's not funny, it's just flamebait, and not only flamebait, but flamebait that's popular on places like tumblr, twitter, and 4chan. Shouldn't Bay12 be above that?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 19, 2015, 04:59:21 pm
Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 19, 2015, 05:11:25 pm
Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?
Stop asking stupid questions and get back in the kitchen! I need a fukken sammich!

EDIT: That's why. :)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TempAcc on March 19, 2015, 05:17:03 pm
Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?
This. Its not like gender roles are exclusively a human social construct, but actualy a rather prevalent phenoma among mammals, too.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 05:22:08 pm
Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?

Because in the past and in some countrys and religious movements certain genders have been discriminated against.
Obviously people rose up to confront this and many took it to far in both directions leading to general negativity on the topic.
Women dont get paid equally as a man in the same job position and thats not right. One should only be penalised pay if they are doing terrible at the job.
We should have equality but we dont.
I generaly hate both sides of the argument. Its about equality and If you take a side be it femanisim or masclunism (correct words?) then you are not being fair and equal.
Any one should be able to report rape and it be taken seriously. There have been cases where people have lied and ruined lives however. Its generally a tricky subject and thats why its a hot topic and prone to arguments.
Just remember I will ignore your right/left winged corrections directed at me.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 05:32:17 pm
Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?
Stop asking stupid questions and get back in the kitchen! I need a fukken sammich!

EDIT: That's why. :)

Oh comon babe, cook the man some eggs...
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 19, 2015, 06:04:12 pm
Gender roles are treated as a bad thing largely because not everybody fits neatly into their assigned box. This results in discomfort for those people. This phenomenon is not at all unique to gender. The same basic theme can be found in "country folk have a child who wants to live in the city" for example. Race and gender issues simply happen to be in fashion right now.

Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 19, 2015, 06:09:14 pm
@Grapefruit Sorcerer
Because people tend to treat them as external realities to which people need to conform, rather than nebulous concepts to which people may choose to attain. For example, "You're the woman around here, how do we bake a pie?" is not a reasonable thing to be saying to people in general. On the other hand, I certainly don't want to deny to a trans woman the option of wearing dresses in order to feel more feminine. The difference in the latter case is that the notion is intimately tied to what she understands to be womanly, instead of what she's told is, and her choices are motivated by her own agency. Moreover, the whole business lacks larger implications for everybody else; there's no need to object to her notion of femininity because it conflicts with your own, for example.

At least, that's my take on it.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: ArKFallen on March 19, 2015, 06:14:51 pm
Women dont get paid equally as a man in the same job position and thats not right. One should only be penalised pay if they are doing terrible at the job.
Not exactly accurate if we are talking USA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html). The gist of this a numerous other articles out there is that there a total pay gap (all money from both sides while not accouting at all of location, employer, or education) and not a wage gap. This means that their is either a disparity in who has the jobs with higher base pay or women work less hours on average (http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=7996) (note how much higher the male hours chart goes).

Just remember I will ignore your right/left winged corrections directed at me.
I'm not entirely sure what the underlined means.


Gender roles are treated as a bad thing largely because not everybody fits neatly into their assigned box. This results in discomfort for those people. This phenomenon is not at all unique to gender. The same basic theme can be found in "country folk have a child who wants to live in the city" for example. Race and gender issues simply happen to be in fashion right now.
Aye. Part of the reason of course for its fashionable-ness right now is the total amount of people who have a disproportionate response to those expectations being challenged is high compared to almost every other individual category. It also helps that that group has also paradoxically lessened its deathgrip on an influential continent between the Altantic and Pacific oceans so the affected have more moderates to appeal to.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 06:31:35 pm
ArKFallen: Underlined words usually mean you are placing ephasis on the words, or if caps isnt enough.
To be honest you used it pretty well.
:)
I meant any argument that is favoured in any of the extremes.
I will say that genders can fit specific roles nicely, but it shouldnt be forced or expected.
I dont hate Islam... but I hate the fact that women have to cover themselves up.
I dont hate christianity.. but I do hate how it plainly states men are superiour.
Etc.. general bullshit.
But I think you knew what I meant in the first place, you just wanted some regurgitated meat to feed upon
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 19, 2015, 06:36:07 pm
I would generally be hesitant to assume that the social problems of any particular era are somehow "specialer" than similar social problem of other eras. Seems like there would be a strong tendency for bias.

In the specific case of gender...I assure you that people are way less inclined to "disproportionate response" to those expectations being challenged now than they were, say...20 years ago.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: ArKFallen on March 19, 2015, 06:51:24 pm
In the specific case of gender...I assure you that people are way less inclined to "disproportionate response" to those expectations being challenged now than they were, say...20 years ago.
It also helps that that group has also paradoxically lessened its deathgrip on an influential continent between the Altantic and Pacific oceans so the affected have more moderates to appeal to.
Agreed.
I don't think that the "better, greater" portion of "better, greater, or otherwise different" in the definition of special applies to anything we have covered today. 2010+ has simply been the most ripe time for addressing this social problem in respect to the average individual's risk/support.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2015, 07:50:50 pm
Again, what part of 'no quoting' is so hard to understand? Quoting whole posts is kind of a borderline case because it usually just signifies a reply to that person, but even there you can substitute the quote by a mention of the other person's username.

Looking at you, Ark.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 07:58:06 pm
Why?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2015, 08:01:13 pm
The rules have been discussed to death already; I'd be glad if people coud stop beating the dead horse.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tiruin on March 19, 2015, 08:11:54 pm
You could just edit the OP and make it a lot clearer, by adding why you exactly think its something to be limited, so we can really get why such a neutral thing would pretty much lead into something bad. :P
That's the thing that's missing, which leads to all this 'dead horse beatings' or such. The 'how' and the 'why', translated into details, which are pretty much mostly personally implied in the OP.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: LordBucket on March 19, 2015, 08:21:51 pm
I don't think there needs to be a 'why.' It's the premise of the thread. Arguing with an OP about the purpose or motivation for a thread rarely ends well.  If you don't like it, don't participate.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tiruin on March 19, 2015, 08:24:57 pm
Not arguing on 'why this thread exists' or the purpose and motivation, silly. :P Just giving a note here, that its very unclear. This vague clarity creates misunderstandings, and misunderstandings are pretty much a foundation of many problems...which the rules are supposed to prevent: problems.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: That Wolf on March 19, 2015, 08:29:36 pm
I agree with Tiruin.
You seem to let some quoting slide but others offend you.
Thats 'why'

The rules have a few loop holes in them.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tack on March 19, 2015, 08:49:06 pm
Quoting is pretty ingrained into this forum culture, after all- so I'm not entirely sure how well we do in a situation where it's forbidden- social experiment


So when I first came into the gender threads, I was tentatively expressing my personal, "far-right left wing views". Coming here I can see that it's opened up the discussion to both sides of the table thankfully, rather than one side be cowed by social pressure- but after skimming through the last however-many 50-post-pages, It's getting pretty noticeable that the Other side is beginning to be downtrodden.
This forum is primarily left-wing and I've noticed that whilst Vector continues to fight the good fight, Alleecat has seriously lagged under the pressure. Sure, the "you have no right to speak on something you haven't experienced" tag is harsh, but in specific circumstances that's true, especially with LB's constant regurgitation of "fighting words".

But everyone gets the right to ask and share.

The basic idea of what this kind of discussion should achieve is Learning. Those who don't know ask, and those who do know answer. I think most people here (after the distinctions between sex and gender) are on similar sides- really the crux point comes down to a single thing- rights.

Do we think that a minority should have less rights because they take up less of a population share than everyone else?
Do we think that a disability entitles someone to More rights than a person without? If those rights are necessary for them to function in society?
DO WE see non-polar gender, gender confusion, and dis... Whatever; as a disability?
Disability is loosely defined as someone who has a physical or mental handicap which inhibits their actions.
What about social handicaps? The majority has railroaded the genders- not as an act of oppression but in passive, herd movements.
How much extra effort Should the majority give to make the minority live an easier life?
Should it be relative?
How Much Is One Life Worth?

These aren't rhetorical questions, and I'm not gonna say "there's no wrong answers".
As a counterpoint, there is a Lot of right ones, sometimes mutually exclusive.

I've said before, Ethics is not one thing. It's not. It's insanely complicated.
We're an incredibly strange breed of animal which operates as a herd but still is loathe to give up anything for the greater good.

I don't know what point I had, I started writing this an hour ago, but I hope I made it.
Feel free to quote me.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 20, 2015, 08:41:13 am
Tack, I have never met anyone with more confusing viewpoints.

EDIT: Which is to say, could you please clarify them? I mean, half of the time you seem very "left-wing", to use your wording, and the other half of the time you seem "right-wing".

EDIT: Damnit, I might as well reply to them.

Everyone gets equal rights, specifically in equal of opportunity situations, not opportunity of outcome.

Disabilities generally make life harder, and while society tends not to impart more rights on a disabled individual, it does do what it can to ease their burden.

No. Fucking Christ man. Non-polar gender is not a disability. If you went up to a person who had  sex change and told them they were disabled you are liable to be beaten up. To take it further, if a teenager, say, is female and identifies as a male it is expressly not ok to categorize them at disabled physically or mentally.

Indeed, that is how disability is defined. So how could it be applied to trasngenders?

There are definitely social handicaps. Although, America is starting to get a little more accepting. It's a little slow from the legal standpoint.

Not that much.

No.

Depends on the life, especially if you're going to cast that one life in to the limelight and highly publicize it.

In order of appearance.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 20, 2015, 08:43:56 am
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 20, 2015, 08:54:29 am
Yeah, Tack. Pick a side. You're either with us or against us.

I hardly care which SIDE he takes. However, some of his point seem contradictory. Although I get the feeling he's mostly very right wing and just hasn't expressed it in full. (Don't take that the wrong way, it seems to be what you're hinting at!)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 20, 2015, 08:58:57 am
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tack on March 20, 2015, 10:42:57 am
I've stated myself as conservative left-wing many times. On a left-left forum like this it can come out pretty right-wing, but in terms of society in general I wouldn't see myself that way.
But quantifying politics like that is also a problem, I guess. Who knows.

Looking back on it objectively, I just seem to be backing the underdog.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Vector on March 20, 2015, 03:44:57 pm
.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 20, 2015, 07:17:32 pm
Re: gender roles

So, some people assume roles are rules rather than guidelines, therefore the guidelines must be scrapped? I don't really follow the logic here.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 20, 2015, 07:27:53 pm
The above.

Feminists scaring children in Berlin by setting things on fire and running riot over a barby house is rather stupid. If they wanted true equal rights ( in which girls can go to a barby house if they want) they would not do that.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Bauglir on March 20, 2015, 07:39:50 pm
I might be bending the rules here, but I said something relevant to this very red herring just last page.

I certainly don't want to deny to a trans woman the option of wearing dresses in order to feel more feminine. The difference in the latter case is that the notion is intimately tied to what she understands to be womanly, instead of what she's told is, and her choices are motivated by her own agency. Moreover, the whole business lacks larger implications for everybody else; there's no need to object to her notion of femininity because it conflicts with your own, for example.

At least, that's my take on it.

Incidentally, I want to ask - have I actually been helping anybody here? I think I've been advocating strongly on the side of trans people to be allowed to be who they understand themselves to be, but I'm starting to wonder if that's what I'm managing to communicate. If there's some way I could do a better job of that, I would love to hear it. Cause if I'm messing up, I should fix it!
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: SirQuiamus on March 20, 2015, 07:45:35 pm
^^^
The distinction between rules and guidelines is only applicable when it's convenient. Guidelines are interpreted as inviolable rules within social groups, and "ought" becomes "must" whenever there's some serious gender-policing to be done.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tack on March 21, 2015, 12:15:41 am
Barbie house.
Barbies have always been a symbol of unrealistic expectations of femininity, so feminists use them as a strawman for the patriarchy.

That being said, Ken gives off some unrealistic expectations too, and men don't seem to complain (Even though at least he's far more proportionally correct)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 21, 2015, 01:30:41 am
Gender roles are treated as a bad thing largely because not everybody fits neatly into their assigned box.
"not everybody" meaning "nobody." I'm pretty sure nobody in the world actually completely fits their gender stereotype (and feels comfortable doing so)
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tack on March 21, 2015, 01:57:03 am
I'm pretty sure nobody in the world actually completely fits their gender stereotype (and feels comfortable doing so)
You would be quite surprised.
Why else would 'man (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvgwhbMW4) cards' (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Man+Card) exist?
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: AlleeCat on March 21, 2015, 02:01:49 am
Why else would 'man cards' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvgwhbMW4) exist?
Because there's stigma attached to defying gender roles. Just because some people don't want to be outside the tiny gender box, it doesn't mean they aren't.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tack on March 21, 2015, 02:13:05 am
Just because some people don't want to be outside the tiny gender box, it doesn't mean they aren't.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's funny, but it doesn't help make my point.
Which is yes, people like that do actually exist, but they are a minority. You denying their existence is the same as them denying yours.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Orange Wizard on March 21, 2015, 02:54:29 am
No culture has an exhaustive list of Features Men And Women Are Required To Have, or whatever. That's just silly.
I was poking at the idea whereby men generally prefer to study engineering over nursing, or women generally stay at home to look after the kids instead of going out and working a billion hours a day. And wondering why people think it's bad, aside from "some people are dickwads and tell me I'm not a real woman because my hair's short", or some crap.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: misko27 on March 21, 2015, 04:10:09 am
I truly struggle to address issues when I must pretend I'm arguing with a phantom, replying to comments that no one made. No quoting is a bad rule, one that actively works against it's stated goal. You cannot prevent arguments by removing one way they transmit, and the cost of trying so is significant.

Anyway, as to whether or not people fit stereotypes (in any situation, ever, period), remember statistics: There are 7 billion people out there. The human mind reels as it struggles to comprehend such a vast number, a number so large that it is functionally meaningless to us. Even if it's a one in a million, that's still hundreds of thousands of people who fit. Any standard that can be tested against even a fraction of this population would surely find someone, and most likely many more then just one, who fits like a glove. "Never" and "Always" tend to accompany inaccurate statements.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Antsan on March 21, 2015, 04:49:07 am
I think this is exactly why Helgoland didn't want quoting. There is no need to comment on some answer by anybody else just to say "I think this is stupid". Just leave it alone and if you have got a point on why it is stupid, just post that point without pointing out what it is meant to be a counterargument to. People are probably smart enough to figure that out on their own while you are less likely to write in an aggressive style.



The point of a role is to create implicit in-groups. These are useful for people to not feel alone, to know that other people have got something in common with them and to have an idea of where to look for problems related to the properties that define the role.
This can be quite useful, but it carries the danger that forming in-groups implicitely means two things: out-groups and peer pressure. For gender roles the ramifications of the latter outweigh the benefits of implicit in-groups, as far as I can tell – I've never met anyone whose life was better because they found solace in being a man/woman.

I once read something about how the removal of gender roles diminished the diversity of our modern society, making men and women equal, removing all the differences which make life colorful and fun.
This assumes that removing gender roles means creating one large role for everyone instead of actually removing roles.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2015, 10:08:18 am
I put that in the OP - very well said, Ant.

And I'd like to remind Tack and Allee (as well as everyone else, of course) that the OP should be followed, even if it's a bit difficult breaking with habits sometimes.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: TD1 on March 21, 2015, 10:44:15 am
@Tack:

The Barbie house may be the symbol of patriarchy to the feminists, but that hardly matters. They're supposedly fighting for equal rights, not to make girls stop playing with dolls. You're only making a matriarchy if you try to enforce merely the opposite of what the previous enforcers were enforcing.

Equal opportunity means that if a girl wants to go see a barbie house, it's none of your business, and she can. Much like if a boy wants to go see....eh...I dunno, a stunt man or something.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 21, 2015, 11:20:30 am
@Tack:

yes it is funny, though I would hardly consider Ron Swanson to be the "modern man", if that's what you're going for. I guess he's stereotypical? Not to me. i've never met anyone like that. I have a grandfather who's living in the 40's but that's another matter entirely.

Gender roles are essentially gender stereotypes. There's no problem with people falling in to that category if they want, but I imagine that the number of people who identify with the archetypal man or woman are few and far in-between.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Tack on March 21, 2015, 11:34:05 am
"modern man".
Is 'Modern man' different to the 'New-Age man'?

I think by their nature, the 'Manliest man' is hidebound and conservative. Which is an issue.

Much like if a boy wants to go see....
Tonka Trucks. Only ever Tonka Trucks.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 21, 2015, 11:41:10 am
I am unsure of any difference of the "modern man" or "new-age man". I guess I mean more the "stereotypical man". The real problem here is in two different men's opinions of the "Manliest man". When I think of the "Manliest man", I do not think of hidebound conservatives. Not to seem... offensive? but I associate conservatism with cowardice. Cowardice in this sense being afraid of progressive thought and action for fear of losing your personal gains.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: misko27 on March 21, 2015, 11:51:16 am
(Hey, it's a text wall! Those are fun. And one without quotes to break it up, oh joy) I disagree completely about the quotes. I believe the intended purpose is basically that advice "'I' statements, not 'you' statements" e.g. what I've been doing, but banning quotations doesn't make that happen. I do that anyway, but then with resentment at Helgo *cough* the moderator *cough* for creating a silly rule which would cause a backlash, then not enforcing it much at all. People who speak aggressively still do (or at least will when they are angry), and those who didn't, still don't. And as the ghost I'm conversing with just said, people are smart enough to figure out to know whether something is directed at them, which includes hostility. If someone is going to be mean, they can follow all the rules and still show their anger in their post; I'll speak for myself: If it gets to the point where I am mean to someone, I will be very mean and lacking quotes won't stop me. And I think this entire paragraph is it's own example: I'm increasingly upset with the rule, and the only reason I'm not more vocal (read: angry) about it is I'm the sort of person who isn't vocal to begin with. I'll leave my argument here in any case (and note I end my argument because I'm the sort who does that, not because lack of quotes leave me impotent to express my frustration), but I hope I've made my objection to the rule clear: Quotes don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Anyway, first I want to go ahead and speak for myself and say I am pretty comfortable with my gender. I am. I'm not the spitting image of everyone's personal understanding of a stereotype by any means (not that it matters: We really shouldn't agree on such a high barrier as to be included. I don't agree with everything my representative in Congress says, but at least 90% of the time I agree, and I for one will not jump ship over 10%. And I don't agree with everything my countrymen say, but I do agree the most of the time, and I can say I prefer to be associated with them than to not be). I'm more comfortable in it than out of it. And my experiences are as real as those of the people who aren't comfortable. We can't deny that any group exists merely because we believe (or prefer) that they didn't, and I think that's the whole point of the discussion.

Furthermore, I think it's somewhat strange to speak of gender as a grouping that that can simply be decided as bad (I disagree with that anyway, but I digress). There are far more social issues then the ones just mentioned that come out of groups, but all must be made in light of the fact that grouping is just inherent to humanity, and mitigating the difficulties that they create does more good then trying to tear them down: you can reform a clique, but tearing apart helps no one (not that gender is a clique of course). I remember a of mine teacher who was arguing (as a devil's advocate) for a world where everyone is the same race (although you could make the same argument for same ideology, or same whatever), asking "Is diversity inherently good? If we had a choice, would we have it?". I had several arguments in favor of diversity, but one thing that really got him was how hypothetical it was: that world will never exist, even if it is ideal. Favoring such a world entails so many assumptions as to be a waste of time: Where did that world come from?

Now unlike everything else I've said, this is an absolute truth: There is no blank slate, where we can create our ideal person or our ideal society without resistance or an imprint of what was. Anything we do stands on the ashes of what came before and is changed by them. Going back to the world without race example, how did this world develop? Did it just develop in such a way that race didn't exist? Or did it come from a world where it did? What are the legacies of that? Was it violence, racial miscegenation, what? Is everyone merely one race, or truly uniform? And if I instead imagine instead a world where race doesn't matter (ignoring that there will always be something left over from before), what prevents it from returning? Some sort of mass social engineering? My answer is that we don't have a choice to be in that world without race.

Regardless of how much damage something may do in society, there are some things which simply cannot be dealt with in a final matter as a whole and must be dealt with through individuals. We can make things less likely, but we cannot hope to always prevent their issues. We can help people who struggle with gender (or conflict, or peer pressure, or what-have-you), but we can't rely on trying to stop it.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Phmcw on March 21, 2015, 12:53:01 pm
@orange wizard

I'll start with the problem of forum communication. Properly diiscussing this topic would require a reasonable amount of time and beer in a quiet bar, forum only allow for a limited conversation, both because I'd bore you if I wrote a wall of text, and because writing said wall of text would be boring.

Gender roles, and roles in general are helpfull because they allow you to position yourself in the wolrd and simplify decision making, and harmfull for a variety of reason, both historical and systemic.


First, establishing a standard will inevitably lead to peoples enforcing this standard as holly. That's nothing new.

Second when peoples tend to blindly follow standard and when they are arbitrary that lead to missed opportunities. And gender roles are in a large part arbitrary, as proved by the fact that they can vary a lot among cultures.

Third I think that arbitrary standard lead to peoples trying to rationalize them, which make them waste time and may even damage their mental well-being.


The solution I advice and to say out loud that gender roles are arbitrary and that anyone is free and welcome to breach them wheneve they like.
Title: Re: Gender stuff - Let's try this again
Post by: Angle on March 21, 2015, 03:12:15 pm
So much text... PTW