Print

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

[chaoticag]

I think it's more the more you simplify it the more awkward it gets to use, and the more you complicate it the harder it gets to understand. I mean, I'm trans, so trans woman. Then we have the complication of surgery stuff later on, so someone might be in that situation a male woman then a female woman... but well, being trans is a bit different than your plumbing. So it's as much a specific social experience. Then of course, there's people who obviously would rather not talk about their equipment because it's really really awkward being asked about it constantly, and frankly, it shouldn't be anyone's business.

Then there's a matter of degrees, because, lets say someone is in between being a man or a woman in terms of expressing their gender. What does that mean? Do they like to tone down manly and feminine things? Do they like doing both in equal regards? Both would fall in between somewhere if that's all we're interested in, but it's not really impossible for a bodybuilder to join a knitting circle.

But yeah, prolly gonna put it down as complicated.

[TheBiggerFish]

Gender:
Identify male
Identify female
Genderfluid
Nonconforming
Agender

That seems simple enough, yes?

And just leave biological sex out of it.

[Tiruin]

Am backing up Solifuge's notes on not merely biological stuffs, but lack the time to write a response.

I just have to say that that dog gif is...there's some kind of photo-manipulation o_o I just noticed the lower right area of the stick pass through whatever the pole was.

Spoiler: Check the lower right area, or the 'bottom' portion of the stick. It seemingly passes through. (click to show/hide)

Anyway yeah--that notice of intelligence that you're posting about, 74s, isn't merely biological It's part of the biological-emphasis that was done decades ago that also had other emphases on other aspects coming about (ie Cognitive, etc) because of how limited it was in its scope in actually explaining a broader viewpoint given the mere limitation of physiology and its affects.

There's also a lot of theoretical notes on intelligence that I'd love to bring up but I lack the time :I

[Rolepgeek]

Look, I'll just say it plainly.

ANIMALS LACK THE WETWARE.
Humans have brilliantly faceted and intricately developed minds, formed from tens of thousands of years of contemplation on "nature" "virtue" "music" "art" "logic" and "self" as well as many more things. Our brains are just plain different and made that way through thousands of years of a specific burning curiosity that is found nowhere else. It is imprinted, burned on our minds, the thoughts and deeds of our ancestors, which, even then, were far beyond the musings of any ape by at least 100 thousand years difference in evolution.

Citation. Needed.

Like, I don't think I can be much simpler than this. You're not presenting any evidence. Hell, at this point you're basically saying Lamarckian evolution caused it. You think your typical peasant in ancient egypt was musing about the meaning of life and self? The poets and shit back then aren't your everyday people. And that curiosity is found in a lot of places, actually. Yes, there is a significant difference between dog and human. There is also a significant difference between dog and spider. Or between dog and elephant. Humans make fucking stupid decisions and we solve problems in extremely inefficient ways at times. Defining that as 'smarter' means you may as well just define smartness as 'resemblance to a human' and then declare humans the smartest because they resemble themselves best. Humans will sacrifice themselves for the group far more than they will for a cause devoid of people attached to it. Animals will do that too. Hell, for that matter, the fact that we have causes to sacrifice for is as a result of technology, not intelligence. You don't think animals can be conflicted? Hell, my goddamn dog will be conflicted about things when it has competing desires. "Make pack-leader happy" and 'Get belly-rubs' conflicting with 'eat the tasty cat-poop' and 'really excited that new person is here must lick face'.

Like, you don't have any basis for this. The only thing you can say is that you haven't seen animals do that, and no shit, because we can't yet communicate with them effectively enough for them to be psycho-analyzed via language. Humans aren't more intelligent, we just have better tech. Tech includes language, in this instance (although interestingly enough knives are built into the homo sapiens genetic code in a similar fashion to how dams are built into beavers).

[Catmeat]

I disagree with all of it.
We are slaves

[Cthulhu]

The problem with animal psychology is like the problem with evolutionary psychology.  The targets of your study can't communicate with you and therefore their psychology is whatever confirms what you already believe.  The easy example with animal psychology is the study on giraffe sexuality where almost any male-female contact was reported as sexual while two males fucking to completion was dominance behavior.  I'm listing this because it's relevant to the thread topic.  Animals are probably much more sexual than we tend to think.  Christian high school taught me, both intentionally as an argument about deep history and unintentionally through watching them do the exact shit they're complaining about, how easy it is to miss things because you're not looking for them.  If you assume a priori that animals are purely heterosexual and mate only for reproduction and that they have no sense of self or logic then naturally you're not going to see any evidence otherwise.

Now that I've given the thread topic suitable time I'll talk about the subtopic we're on now.  One of my favorite examples of human/animal similarity was originally brought up in a seminar at the school I taught for a while.  Fighting was endemic at the school and reasonably smart kids were flunking out because they were suspended half the year for fighting.  The discussion was on the nature of human aggression and violence and one interesting topic was how "lower-level" aggression between humans is almost identical to same between chimpanzees and similar primates.

The most surprising was that raiders almost exclusively targeted noncombatants, and traveling warbands would often ignore each other in favor of attacking noncombatants.  I have heard that noncombatants were more prized as trophies in some cultures because it indicated the taker had gone into the heart of enemy territory to claim them.

You could also tie this back to above because evidence of this kind of conflict is often ignored or downplayed because it doesn't jive with narratives about human nature and especially the nature of modern human conflict.

[Starver]

Spoiler: UK Facebook Gender List (click to show/hide)

Female to male - Unspecified trans, or transitioning, or aspiring

Female to male trans man - Unspecified trans, or transitioning (more than aspiring?)

Female to male transgender man - Specifically transgender (transitioned/transitioning?), i.e. wishes to think and be thought of as male

Female to male transsexual man - Specifically transsexual (transitioned/transitioning), i.e. wishes to have physical relations with others as male (perhaps also in other social/business circumstances?)

F2M - abbr. of first unspecified example (handier/more subtle?)

FTM - abbr. of first or second unspecified examples (ditto)

what's the difference between these? facebook has them on its gender list, but aren't these all expressions of maleness?

For what it's worth, inserted my interpretations. Not authoritative. Probably all there by demand (or perceived demand, once the first few descriptions were being added by request) because whatever slots are imposed are going to be overflowed from by those who don't quite like how their position in the spectrum(/plane/N-volumetric/etc) is limited by somebody else's preconceived ideas of 'options'.

ETA: As far as later discussions are concerned,  I've long since gone by gender, sex and sexuality being three separate axes (or even complex, possibly wrap-around and potentially dynamic, planes of their own), but given that the three labels are rarely (and usually shouldn't be) asked to be specified independently of each other, when faced with a single field for "sex" you may feel the need to go beyond "male, female, androgynous, asex, <other ambiguity, let's sort it out later>)". And a single field for "gender" having just a sliding scale (capable of assigning sepearate extremity and median points, and probably an "idunno?!?" tickbox that greys out the scale entirely) probably leaves something wanting, for a lot of people, too...

[scriver]

(although interestingly enough knives are built into the homo sapiens genetic code in a similar fashion to how dams are built into beavers).

Citation needed!

But not because I am challenging your statement but because it sounds very interesting and I would like to know more

[spümpkin]

Spoiler: UK Facebook Gender List (click to show/hide)

Female to male - Unspecified trans, or transitioning, or aspiring Think this is more of just a vague term for people who don't want others to know or something. I dunno, it mostly seems like an aesthetic choice of words.

Female to male trans man - Unspecified trans, or transitioning (more than aspiring?) This just means the same, I think. Just more specific, but not quite as specific as the two below.

Female to male transgender man - Specifically transgender (transitioned/transitioning?), i.e. wishes to think and be thought of as male This is when someone identifies as male, but hasn't gone through the surgery required to make them biologically male.

Female to male transsexual man - Specifically transsexual (transitioned/transitioning), i.e. wishes to have physical relations with others as male (perhaps also in other social/business circumstances?) No. This is when someone has performed the surgery required to become the other sex biologically (obviously when I say this chromosome editing isn't a thing, so take it with a grain of salt).

F2M - abbr. of first unspecified example (handier/more subtle?)

FTM - abbr. of first or second unspecified examples (ditto)
Pretty sure both of these mean the same thing, just shortened.

what's the difference between these? facebook has them on its gender list, but aren't these all expressions of maleness?

Clarified with my opinions, and my knowledge having looked into the subject and being trans myself.

[Skyrunner]

in my opinion, all of those things are indicating the same thing and it's folly to distinguish between them using those terms, because most people also think they all indicate the same thing.

also that yellow text is incredibly hard to read.

[Starver]

Clarified with my opinions, and my knowledge having looked into the subject and being trans myself.

(Changed to red.  You probably use a Darkling-type theme for this half/all of the fora, but yellow on pale blue needs a lot of work to read.)

Note that those were all Female To Male (of whatever kind), which I think you misread as Male To Female.

Agree with first two of your interpretations (although you still tell a lot with the first, just not the whole story). I know of "transitioned" individuals who would (by choice or necessity, according to circumstance) say they are Transgender because "they have transed", not give up the term because they only used it "while transing".  But different isolate 'populations' may well employee different standards to the word.  And "transsexual", apart from the usual confusion between (sex, sexuality, gender)¹, tends to refer more to behaviour than presentation.

And then we agree on the abbreviations, more or less, except for the possibility of nuances.

¹ The old maxim is "Gender is what is between your ears, sex is what is between your legs, sexuality is who is between your legs", and I've found that pretty much accepted by my own cadre of non-binary aquaintences, so as a not-(significantly)-non-binary person myself I'm happy to pass it on until someone complains and gives a decent alternative.

[spümpkin]

Clarified with my opinions, and my knowledge having looked into the subject and being trans myself.

(Changed to red.  You probably use a Darkling-type theme for this half/all of the fora, but yellow on pale blue needs a lot of work to read.)

Note that those were all Female To Male (of whatever kind), which I think you misread as Male To Female.

Agree with first two of your interpretations (although you still tell a lot with the first, just not the whole story). I know of "transitioned" individuals who would (by choice or necessity, according to circumstance) say they are Transgender because "they have transed", not give up the term because they only used it "while transing".  But different isolate 'populations' may well employee different standards to the word.  And "transsexual", apart from the usual confusion between (sex, sexuality, gender)¹, tends to refer more to behaviour than presentation.

And then we agree on the abbreviations, more or less, except for the possibility of nuances.

¹ The old maxim is "Gender is what is between your ears, sex is what is between your legs, sexuality is who is between your legs", and I've found that pretty much accepted by my own cadre of non-binary aquaintences, so as a not-(significantly)-non-binary person myself I'm happy to pass it on until someone complains and gives a decent alternative.

Yeah, changed to red, I was introduced to the forum on Darkling, so I kinda forget that the default theme exists. But anyway, I mostly just wanted to clarify that being transsexual- as far as I'm aware -has nothing to do with sexuality.

And Skyrunner, honestly I agree with you, which is why I just call myself trans, but I find people also asking for more clarification, because people (mostly my mother) seem to not understand trans=transgender.

[Infinityforce]

I never said that humans are smartEST just smartER.
Also, why only stop at ancient egypt? that was only 10 or 20 thousand years ago, and those humans were clever enough to obey orders, live in a society, speak fluently, buy, sell and trade, understand concepts like law and property, commerce and markets, build complicated structures to live in, express themselves in some way or another?
They were all able to consider their own destiny, life, situation etc. and had self-awareness (albeit, not as much as, for example, Buddha)
Self-Awareness is not a merely inherited trait: we inherit the hardware only, the software which makes use of it is memetically passed on, for example, through society, parents and family.
Keep going back a couple of 100 thousand years and you'll see what makes humans SO different from animals:

-tool use + tool creation (logic and abstract problem solving)
-fishing and agriculture (time, seasons, plant biology)
-complex tribal society, primitive language, body language (social complexity)
-reflection/meditation, worship, mysticism or shamanism (trance, concentration)
-mastered fire (understanding, overcoming fear and danger)
-drawings in ochre, creation of accessories such as necklaces, rudimentary clothing (art, creativity)
-medicine, drugs, rituals (biology, psychology)

How can anyone compare animals to humans? We've come so far, and we'll go even further. Humans are made of meditation and tantra.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about human brains versus apes

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Encephalization
Brain size and tooth size in hominins.

The human species developed a much larger brain than that of other primates—typically 1,330  cm3 in modern humans, over twice the size of that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.[71] The pattern of encephalization started with Homo habilis,[72] which at approximately 600 cm3 had a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees, and continued with Homo erectus (800–1,100 cm3), reaching a maximum in Neanderthals with an average size of (1,200–1,900 cm3), larger even than Homo sapiens. The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony) and allows for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in juvenile humans. However, the differences between the structure of human brains and those of other apes may be even more significant than differences in size.[73][74][75][76]

The increase in volume over time has affected areas within the brain unequally—the temporal lobes, which contain centers for language processing, have increased disproportionately, and seems to favor a belief that there was evolution after leaving Africa, as has the prefrontal cortex which has been related to complex decision-making and moderating social behavior.[71] Encephalization has been tied to an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet,[77][78][79] or with the development of cooking,[80] and it has been proposed that intelligence increased as a response to an increased necessity for solving social problems as human society became more complex.[81] The human brain was able to expand because of the changes in the morphology of smaller mandibles and mandible muscle attachments to the skull into allowing more room for the brain to grow.[82]

The increase in volume of the neocortex also included a rapid increase in size of the cerebellum. Traditionally the cerebellum has been associated with a paleocerebellum and archicerebellum as well as a neocerebellum. Its function has also traditionally been associated with balance, fine motor control but more recently speech and cognition. The great apes including humans and its antecessors had a more pronounced development of the cerebellum relative to the neocortex than other primates. It has been suggested that because of its function of sensory-motor control and assisting in learning complex muscular action sequences, the cerebellum may have underpinned the evolution of human's technological adaptations including the preadaptation of speech.[83][84][85][86]

The reason for this encephalization is difficult to discern, as the major changes from Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis were not associated with major changes in technology. It has been suggested that the changes have been associated with social changes, increased empathic abilities[87][88] and increases in size of social groupings[89][90][91]

tldr: human brains are twice the size of gorilla or chimpanzee brains and specially developed for exploratory intelligence, not just problem solving some random shit they happen to come across.

Although everyone is quite right that animals have feelings, consciousness, thoughts, etc. there is just no comparison between them and humans.
They lack the WETWARE.

[Starver]

I think the 'local' preference is that "transexual" has overtones of the business-card-in-phone-boxes with text "pre-op transexual looking for fun, call 01 811 8055¹" thing printed atop a photo of suspiciously natural looking busty lady that is probably not the person you'll eventually meet up with².

So even though they aren't changing their actual gender ("what's between the ears") in any way, presenting as their chosen 'apparent gender/sex' without being full on 'screaming-queen' or 'touchy butchy' was better described with the unloaded term of transgender than 'transsex(ual)' confusable with 'transsexuality' and of course from 'merely' being a transvestite.

But, like I said, that's just what I get from those I know best.  There is no totally homogonous trans society (or homogonous homosexual one, for that matter! Because homogonous homo sapiens often aren't in agreement over much in the first place...), so it could easily be a term that other (and certainly more internet-age) groups disagree with and have alternate/conflicting views upon .

And that may be why so many different terms available for 'roughly the same thing'.  "F2M" for the 'txtspk' generation, especially, but then why no "7|24|\|563|\||)3|2 |V|4|_3" for the 133t-5p34k crowd?


¹ Bonus points for anyone who remembers that number...   Also gives a clue as to my era. As if the qctual existence of phone boxes didn't edge you that way already...
² Unless you get to do glamour shots of actual 'glamour' models far from the capital, with or without their husband's permission while he's toiling down t'pit, in which case why are you even spending your time trolling round reading cards in Soho telephone boxes..?  You probably know which exclusive clubs to go to, already...

[Solifuge]

We probably don't need words or labels for every combination of personality traits that exists, but I still think we could use a good, simple, easy to understand language for talking about Gender, Sex, and Attraction, especially one that works both in and outside the Binary. Here's some food for thought, and a critique for clearing up how we talk about non-binary identities:

• When referring to Gender: we're talking about a person's social behavior, style of dress, and the titles or pronouns we'd address them by (...at least unless Social Roles go completely out of fashion in the next few generations). We can use Woman (She), Androgyne (They, One), Man (He), or Agender (They, One), and others as necessary. This would be where Pronouns and Titles come from (Mr./Mister, Ms./Miss, plus something like Mx./Micks), and where any expectations of femme/feminine or butch/masculine dress or behavior or presentation would go (if people really still think it's important at this point).

• When referring to Sex: we would be describing the Current state of a person's Physical Body, taking Intersex Conditions or Surgery or Hormones or whatever else into account (...at least until gonad-level sex-transdifferentiation is possible in Humans, and Sex is fully mutable). We can use Male (Primarily Male-Bodied), Trans-Female (Male-Bodied, with Female Secondary Characteristics), Intersex (Equally Male- and Female-Bodied), Trans-Male (Female-Bodied, with Male Secondary Characteristics), Female (Female-Bodied), or Asexual (Undifferentiated or Neuter-Bodied) to describe it, and others as necessary. Sex doesn't have to be public knowledge, but it should at least be reported on personal documents for medical reasons; Trans-folks who undergo body or hormone modification share different amounts of Female and Male health concerns based on their mix of Primary and Secondary Sexual Characteristics. Also Note: Sex doesn't factor in with the Pronouns we use to describe someone, the same way Eye Color or Hair Color doesn't; it's just a physical characteristic.

• When referring to Attraction and Orientation: we'd split it up into words for both the Sex and the Gender you're attracted to, since different things matter to different people. Honestly, people would probably come up with their own terms anyway, but we could use Latin for the formal equivalents; Androphilic (Likes Male-Bodied People), Masculophilic (Like Masculine-Gendered People), Gynophilic (Likes Female-Bodied People), Feminophilic (Like Feminine-Gendered People), Panphilic (Likes People), Aphilic (Ace/Asexual). These could be paired up as necessary, for more specific kinds of attraction (Andro-Feminophilic for being into Girly Boys, Gyno-Masculophilic for Butch Girls, etc.). Also, we ought to avoid orientation words that are relative to your Physical Sex (Gay, Straight) since they don't apply for non-binary people, and don't take Gender into account.

In that model, my personal profile would list me as an Androgyne Trans-Female, with a Gyno-Masculophilic Sexual Orientation. It sounds pretty medical (totally would need shorthand or common parlance words) but it's a huge improvement over having to explain (and sometimes defend) my particularly brand of "Genderqueer" to anyone who asks, since Male or Female, or Gay or Straight don't apply. Categories like this are great in helping potential partners know my whole situation quickly, and they also describe my medical situation to any doctors treating me, so I don't have to explain exactly what's going on with all my parts every time.

Also, since that information is personal, all the average person in public needs to know is that I'm Androgyne, with a Female-of-Center style of presentation. In a world that was used to this system, "They" is a safe introductory pronoun if someone looks non-binary and you don't want to misgender them, while "They" or "She" works if they're judging by my clothes and appearance.

Spoiler: Here's a more wordy rationale for that: (click to show/hide)

Our body's Sex is important for health care, and for potential partners who really want to reproduce. You probably know at least one person who would date a Cis-Person, but not a Trans-Person, for that reason. Their preference is still valid.  Alternatively, some people are into Girly Cis-Guys, but not Masculine Cis-Guys. Also valid. Consider someone who is attracted to Male-Bodied people regardless of their Gender Expression, or someone who would date people of any Body-Morph so long as their Gender is on the Feminine side. Consider someone who was specifically into Physically Intersex people who have a mix of Male and Female physical characteristics. Consider someone who was specifically into people with an Androgyne or Fluid Gender Expression outside the Masculine/Feminine Binary. Those are all valid,  but we don't have good words for these concepts.

Instead, the words we use for Attraction and Orientation refer to the Physical Sex of the person you're interested in, relative to your own Sex; Gay, Straight, Bisexual, Asexual, etc. This idea doesn't work outside the binary; an Intersex-Bodied or Male-Bodied person with a "They" Neutral Gender can't really be Gay or Straight, so how would they refer to who they're interested in when looking for a date? Some people use Androphilic (They Like Males) or Gynophilic (They Like Females), but even that focuses on the Body of the person, and ignores the Gender... and Gender is just as important as Sex is when talking about attraction.

Personally, I'm sexually attracted to relatively Butch/Masculine or Androgynous Female-Bodied people, and romantically interested in Feminine People whatever their body type. By current models, I'm Genderqueer and don't strongly relate to binary genders, but that doesn't really answer the questions potential partners might have. When people would ask me "Are you Gay?" I never knew how to answer... "Gay about some things, but not always? Unless we're talking Romantically, in which case I'm Bi but not always? Does that answer your question?? :<"

Also, when we talk about Sex, we really ought to define what it really means. Is Sex strictly about reproductive roles but not about what Secondary Characteristics you have? (and if so, are infertile people Sexless)? How does Body Modification play into it; do Trans-People who undergo hormones and surgery change their Sex, even if they don't gain reproductive ability?  Are Trans-People Intersex if they keep their old reproductive organs, despite being on new hormones and physical features? We ought to clear this up, for medical reasons, and to potentially make that conversation easier. People are more complicated than Male or Female.