Thank you, everybody, for recovering from the flames licking at the thread. You guys handled that well.
=======
I didn't explicitly say that I was asexual.
Boys: blahblahblah fuck blah
Me: Stop that. It's not camp appropriate.
Boys: blah blah fuck blah
Me: Seriously, don't talk about that here.
Boys: We're just talking about fucking. Don't you like fucking?
Me: No, I don't. Now stop or I'll report you to the counselor.
Boys: What do you mean you don't want to fuck? That's the dumbest thing ever!
...and more of that
I joked to myself that it might be hard to distinguish between "asexual" and "not an awful person" at my age. I mean, you might not be talking about fucking because that's not what you like to do,
or you just might be a good person who doesn't discuss things like that in front of small children.
=========
Also, more pondering and reflection has led me to come up with this:
Whatever gender I may be, I don't really care. My gender is not important to me. When I do things, I neither try to do "masculine" nor "feminine" things. I don't divide the world into gender. I'm
me, and if some of myself falls into a particular gender, I really don't care. This way of thinking is not a gender
per se, but my brain doesn't divide itself to correspond with people's models. It's
related to gender, which is what was confusing me, because I thought that "gender" would include all gender-related things.
Because of this, I wouldn't mind being female, but I wouldn't particularly want it either. That's why I was thinking I was agender - without previous knowledge, the word appears to mean "without gender," which would be an approximation of my way of thinking. But the word has a subtler meaning than that, and so does not apply to me.
I don't know if there's a word for my way of thinking, but I don't really care. If someone wants to know, I can explain. If not - well, I appear cis, and that's what I probably technically am.
I think that I have finally figured out my gender and gender-related things. That feels good. (No, I did not create this thread for the purpose of having a place to write this. Nor did I do it because I wanted to see a traincrash. Because of my explorations in gender, I'm interested in gender. That's why I made this thread. (I titled it "let's get this traincrash started" as a wry response to everyone who said this would crash and burn. "Well, then, I'll get the train going then," was what I was thinking.))
=======
If you are a baby and got big wood, you are a boy. If you are a baby and you don't, you're not. And until science finally transcends the pesky ethical boundaries of human lands, and allows people that are switching branches with their sexuality, to give birth or make babies in their modified body, they are still the sex they were born as. Those changes are just aesthetics, and to me you are just a man without wood, or a woman carrying a conspicuous log. Yall agree?
You are a man to me, doesn't matter if you wear a pretty dress or your hair looks really lofty. I don't know why you would attribute that to be a negative thing. It's what your body has been shaped like since you were born, but I get the feeling you interpretate that as being called ugly, violent and above all stupid, am I correct? In advance, I want to clarify, a man to me is far from these, quite often spread by feminists, negative stereotypes. To me, it is someone that carries passion with him, and hardship. It is someone that treads a path of learning and growth in character. Someone that learns sacrifice, comradeship, to stand up for others, and ultimately, stand up for himself. Someone that knows the weight of tears and smiles.
I refuse to think you are destined for anything less. These things cannot be meaningless to you, so why not pursue them?
Hey, loudly talking about fucking next to uninvolved bystanders is always a provocation. That's what a bunch of teens that discovered logtube for the first time do, usually to bully and disrespect someone. That's not masculinity, that's not manly at all. I consider these people cowards, unworthy of being called a man, or masculine.
Caroline, I'll talk to you later, I hate writing on mobile, but I want to say gender roles MUST exist, to make familys and relationships work properly.
BillyTheKid, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that you're saying that transgender people aren't actually transgender. There is actual scientific evidence that transgender people have brains more like the gender they say they are (as opposed to the assigned gender).
In addition, you're being inconsistent. First, you're saying that gender is whether or not you have a penis. (That's sex.) Then you're saying that it's "someone that carries passion with him, and hardship. It is someone that treads a path of learning and growth in character. Someone that learns sacrifice, comradeship, to stand up for others, and ultimately, stand up for himself. Someone that knows the weight of tears and smiles." That's gender
roles. In addition, you say that in the case of genetic eunuchs, whichever gender they more closely resemble would be their gender.
Now you surely will admit that women eventually lose the ability to have babies. Does this make them any less of a woman? No. If I was injured and could no longer produce sperm, that would not mean that I was any less of a man. Combined with the knowledge that transgender brains are qualitatively different from cisgender brains, I can confidently state that "sperm or uterus" will not cut it for gender. (Also, that's sex. Gender is identity.)
But then you state that masculinity is [a bunch of traits commonly associated with men, quoted above twice]. But surely women can do those too, right? Women can be passionate. Women can withstand hardship. Women can learn, and grow in character. Women can sacrifice. Women can be comrades, and stand up for others and theirselves. Women have known both tears and smiles. Anything a man can do, a woman can also do. Except make sperm.
So if someone resembles a woman's gender role in every way, except the ability to carry a fetus in their belly, according to your "eunuch rule", they should be assigned to the gender that they most closely resemble. And you yourself stated that masculine traits matter quite a bit. So either you're saying that penises are more important than everything you said up there about men, or your own argument, when taken to its logical extent, supports transgender people.
And besides, what does it matter? No matter what you think, you should respect other people's identities. It's not affecting anybody else but themselves.
=======
Just found this post:
The lot that try to justify sexism with biological differences between the sexes are full of shit, frankly.
I've used this example before, because it's a good one: A group of people are trying to become firefighters. On average, a lower percentage of the women will be able to meet the physical requirements. Does that mean that women shouldn't be allowed to become firefighters? Fuck, no; it means that hiring should be based solely on the competence of candidates and their ability to perform the labor required by the job.
You'll find that the "biological-dimorphism therefore sexism = okay" types very quickly retreat into discussing gender while claiming to be talking about sex, mostly because the actual differences between the sexes are relatively minor, not entirely understood (because a lot of them are more neurochemistry and less physical composition), and subject to a fairly wide degree of individual variation. In other words, it's difficult to make meaningful generalizations based on them, so they're largely worthless. Ultimately it's circular reasoning, "Gender roles exist because of significant differences in the sexes, which we know exist because of gender roles."
Are you me? Because that's seriously the same argument I use against sexists who say "women are weaker than men, ergo they shouldn't be allowed to do X." Like in sports - just put the strong women and the strong men on one highschool team, and the weak men and the weak women on the other. The upper team will have more men. That's fine. But don't keep the strong women out of the higher team.
=====
Hey, only some bits of the States are transphobic :x
Depends. The general aura of disapproval? Varies from region to region. But I'm fairly sure it's present almost everywhere. Maybe deep blue states escape the brunt of it.