Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[spümpkin]

I'd probably call transvestitism more of a lifestyle decision, and thereby, not really a big deal to anyone and should just be 'hey, i like {x} sort of clothes', as flame said.

If someone wants to change someone elses lifestyle decisions, they need a very good reason.

And I think gender can be helpful for people, as in, it can be useful for those who want a sense of 'belonging'. Because, let's face it, humanity is almost never going to belong all as one kinship. That's a hypothetical, and nigh-impossible situation. Gender can help individuals, and it only really becomes a hindrance to wider society when people try to tell each other what it means, and what gender people should be. Basically, when people tell each other what to do.

[SirQuiamus]

...Those are the definitions of the sexes. Males are individuals which produce mobile gametes (sperm); females are individuals which produce immobile gametes (eggs). That is literally what "male" and "female" mean in the biological sense. Any argument otherwise is some flavor of soft-headed social/psych nonsense.

You're talking about things from the biological perspective, i.e. that abstract organisms that produce sperm/eggs fit neatly into two categories etc. etc., but it's not that simple with the social beings called humans. Would you say that women with AIS are "biologically male" or "neuter" because they do not fit into the binary classification of "fertile man/woman" vs. "infertile man/woman"? I don't think that "sex" as it applies to humans is really related to any fine-grained biological details such as gonads---a few centuries ago they had no idea about gametes or chromosomes, but very clear-cut ideas about the two sexes. "Sex" is simply an arbitrary categorization of human bodies according to physiological features, whereas "gender" is an arbitrary categorization of human beings according to social roles and identities---often tightly coupled to the categories defined by "sex." Both are equally artificial as enforced binary constructs, and if we somehow did away with both, we'd be left with nothing but the raw medical details that you'd only share with your doctor---which would hardly serve as a basis for any rigid social gender/sex identities whatsoever, which was the point of my previous post.

People should be free to construct their own identities from what they're given, or from scratch, or from something, or whatever, yeah.

[Reelya]

We can also apply different thinking to the question of whether it's a positive thing to move towards a "no genders" future. e.g. choice theory. Because if we micro-gender everything, we push that decision onto the individual. There is already evidence that the sheer number of decisions that we've basically fobbed off on individuals in the pursuit of "free choice" has become a source of depression. This has got to the point that doctors refuse to recommend any one treatment, but they make the patient pick because of "patient autonomy", but obviously because if things go wrong it's now your fault instead of the doctor. Anyway, if we abrogate the entire idea of identity and make that individual choice as well, it's yet another decision about something major that people are forced to make, and there's no good reason to expect it will automatically make people happier.

If we abolish the "two-box system" of traditional gender, the most likely thing is that a number of new boxes would emerge to replace them. Probably more than 2. "And that's a good thing!" a lot of people might say. Because more boxes means more choice in which box you identify yourself as being in. We use categories to convey information, there will always be categories.

But is more choice always good? If you look at research into complex choices, adding more options rapidly causes people to become more dissatisfied - even if the choice they ended up with is significantly better than what they could have had in the less-choice system.

If we end up with many micro-genders, Tumblr-style, that's many more "choices" compared to now. But the thing is, having exactly two boxes makes it easy to choose, and since the current boxes are so vague, you are basically free to self-define inside the boxes, whereas if we go towards a library catalogue of micro-genders then people will have a very complex choice to make about their "identity" (on paper), and the micro-genders will be so narrowly-defined that they will be even more constraining than the current loose categories.

[Neonivek]

If we end up with many micro-genders, Tumblr-style, that's many more "choices" compared to now

Sort of... One of the appeal of Tumblr is you get to invent your own gender and prescribe characteristics to it.

[Reelya]

But that's the point. Tumblr style gender is a mix-n-match approach. And that means many many parallel decisions to make. By having no rules or guidelines whatsoever, it makes the decision much more complex.

Also, Tumblr genders are niche enough for now for it to basically be a game. Consider the early days of Punk, and how quickly the spirit of experimentation gave way to fashion nazis. If the micro-gender thing becomes some sort of orthodoxy, then it will rapidly morph from a "make up your own shit" game, into a complex rules-based system.

[SirQuiamus]

We can also apply different thinking to the question of whether it's a positive thing to move towards a "no genders" future. e.g. choice theory. Because if we micro-gender everything, we push that decision onto the individual.

I think this issue was sufficiently addressed in the link posted by Sheb.

Let me quote a bit:

The solution is not to reify gender by insisting on ever more gender categories that define the complexity of human personality in rigid and essentialist ways. The solution is to abolish gender altogether. We do not need gender. We would be better off without it. Gender as a hierarchy with two positions operates to naturalise and perpetuate the subordination of female people to male people, and constrains the development of individuals of both sexes. Reconceiving of gender as an identity spectrum represents no improvement.

You do not need to have a deep, internal, essential experience of gender to be free to dress how you like, behave how you like, work how you like, love who you like. You do not need to show that your personality is feminine for it to be acceptable for you to enjoy cosmetics, cookery and crafting. You do not need to be genderqueer to queer gender. The solution to an oppressive system that puts people into pink and blue boxes is not to create more and more boxes that are any colour but blue or pink. The solution is to tear down the boxes altogether.

Iä! Iä! Judith Butler fhtagn!

[Reelya]

I think that sort of thinking is rooted in the Western idea that unlimited choice gives the maximum happiness. But that idea doesn't hold up empirically.
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice

if you watch the video above on the paradox of choice, as the number of choices increases, the "blame" for bad decisions shifts from the universal to the personal. e.g. if there are only a few choices and you don't make a good one, people blame external forces such as fate, the universe, or society. But as choices become fine-grained, blame shifts inwards. e.g. if you're not happy with your identity in the current system, it's quite easy to blame the system, which reduces feelings of guilt by externalizing the blame for that decision. Whereas if we go to a "be whoever you want to be" system that maximizes choice to the very limits of your imagination - then if you still don't like your identity, then it's only possible to internalize guilt. After all, you made that identity from scratch, nobody made it for you. Who's fault is that if it's not your own?

We need to be careful with the psychological ramifications of what we create. If people are unhappy with the boxes, and going to "sliders" isn't the answer, then deleting the labels altogether isn't going to be some magical panacea for the issue of people being unhappy with their identities. Perhaps like in the choice examples above, people are externalizing the blame to "the system" for their underlying identity issues. If that's the case, then removing the system only removes the scapegoat not the problem itself - now people have to take 100% responsibility for the identity they carve out.

The idea that maximizing choice of identity will maximize happiness or well-being is not backed by any empirical data.

[Neonivek]

Honestly abolishing Gender is kind of more of a fantasy then a realistic solution.

A person knows what gender is as soon as they are born, even if they aren't aware of it.

[SirQuiamus]

"Unlimited choice" is the most ridiculous oxymoron ever. Choice is always within a fixed set of alternatives, if the set is infinite, then the choice cannot be made/has always already been made, so there is no choice. There is no "choice" between several different "genders" because there is no gender i.e. there are no fixed sets of features out of which to choose from. There are only isolated features that stick to one's person according to genetics, prenatal development, environment, whimsy, whatever...

Quoth the Digital Demon:

Really, gender binary can be useful for those who align with it (such as i do, or at least, some aspects of me do. Other parts i can classify on my own.) It can be hell for those who don't align with it. I just call gender and sexuality a cloud of options, really. It's always changing, and it's fuckin all over the place. People will be people, after all.

[Reelya]

if the set is infinite, then the choice cannot be made/has always already been made, so there is no choice.

That logic doesn't hold true for other things. "Infinite choice of different types of food" doesn't equate to "there is no choice". That logic is faulty, unless you can literally be everything at once.

But people still need to define who they are - you haven't prevented people from having identity issues by deleting genders, any more than deleting all the road signs means people aren't lost any more.

This idea of genderless future freeing people from having to think about identity, it's basically a utopian fantasy land that wants to find a simple thing to blame for all the problems - so it blames gender. People are still going to have gender dysmorphia related to their bodies after we "eliminate gender". People say they were born "in the wrong bodies" not "in the wrong clothes". To me it's sort of a stretch to blame all of that on socialization.

[Sheb]

We can also apply different thinking to the question of whether it's a positive thing to move towards a "no genders" future. e.g. choice theory. Because if we micro-gender everything, we push that decision onto the individual. There is already evidence that the sheer number of decisions that we've basically fobbed off on individuals in the pursuit of "free choice" has become a source of depression. This has got to the point that doctors refuse to recommend any one treatment, but they make the patient pick because of "patient autonomy", but obviously because if things go wrong it's now your fault instead of the doctor. Anyway, if we abrogate the entire idea of identity and make that individual choice as well, it's yet another decision about something major that people are forced to make, and there's no good reason to expect it will automatically make people happier.

If we abolish the "two-box system" of traditional gender, the most likely thing is that a number of new boxes would emerge to replace them. Probably more than 2. "And that's a good thing!" a lot of people might say. Because more boxes means more choice in which box you identify yourself as being in. We use categories to convey information, there will always be categories.

But is more choice always good? If you look at research into complex choices, adding more options rapidly causes people to become more dissatisfied - even if the choice they ended up with is significantly better than what they could have had in the less-choice system.

If we end up with many micro-genders, Tumblr-style, that's many more "choices" compared to now. But the thing is, having exactly two boxes makes it easy to choose, and since the current boxes are so vague, you are basically free to self-define inside the boxes, whereas if we go towards a library catalogue of micro-genders then people will have a very complex choice to make about their "identity" (on paper), and the micro-genders will be so narrowly-defined that they will be even more constraining than the current loose categories.

A lot of the points made in the article I posted earlier (read it, it's good!)

I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.

[Neonivek]

I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.

And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.

[Grimlocke]

The solution is not to reify gender by insisting on ever more gender categories that define the complexity of human personality in rigid and essentialist ways. The solution is to abolish gender altogether. We do not need gender. We would be better off without it. Gender as a hierarchy with two positions operates to naturalise and perpetuate the subordination of female people to male people, and constrains the development of individuals of both sexes. Reconceiving of gender as an identity spectrum represents no improvement.

You do not need to have a deep, internal, essential experience of gender to be free to dress how you like, behave how you like, work how you like, love who you like. You do not need to show that your personality is feminine for it to be acceptable for you to enjoy cosmetics, cookery and crafting. You do not need to be genderqueer to queer gender. The solution to an oppressive system that puts people into pink and blue boxes is not to create more and more boxes that are any colour but blue or pink. The solution is to tear down the boxes altogether.

This kind of sounds like a feminist who slipped and fell into some Marxism. Actually, I think that's what I will call this genderedless society philosophy: Gender Marxism!

The constant references to gender being some sort of evil hierarchical oppression mechanism really add to the revolutionary manifest tone.

I very much doubt the agitators will get very far though, gender is a pretty important thing to the vast majority of people. And we have also already figured out that gender being any kind of hierarchy is a bad idea, just like we figured out that ethnicity should not every be used as a hierarchy.

The solution to any kind of harmful discrimination is not to just pretend really hard that humans have no factors they could discriminated by, but to realize said factors are not worth discriminating over.

Not tying gender to a bunch of arbitrary, unrelated properties like 'Man cannot like frilly pink stuff' or 'Woman should not enjoy zombie shooters' would go a long way too.

[Sheb]

I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.

And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.

I am not sure what you're referring to.


Grimlocke: Indeed, I find it a weakness of the article that she doesn't discuss the possibility of equal treatment of genders, keeping the boxes while treating them equally.

[Neonivek]

I think that even if we don't move all the way to a genderless society, there is value in making the boxes as vague and permissive as possible, a process that has been going on.

And yet there is an even stronger push right now to make gender even more strict and restrictive as possible... And not for reasons you are thinking of.

I am not sure what you're referring to.

Well who are the worst kind of people in the universe?