Print

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

[Lord_lemonpie]

I honestly have no idea what gender identity even is, but I know that Lemonpie is describing gender roles and expressions.

Take, for instance, submissiveness. It's considered a feminine trait, and there is an expectation (albeit weaker today) for women to be submissive. This is a gender role.

Somebody might then decide to be submissive in order to communicate that they are feminine. This is gender expression.


I have no idea why anybody would want to do that, and it honestly seems like a "man's view" of femininity... but who am I to say that somebody cannot be submissive? You see TERFs yelling at the trans-women who accrue "feminine, as seen by a man" traits (submissiveness, etc.), but you don't see them yelling at the women who does so. I'd argue that if this is a problem, we'd solve it by decoupling traits from gender (boys can wear dresses and play with dolls, boys can be gentle and thoughtful and emotional), and there's no need to treat trans-women differently from women.


And if gender is defined as "which gender expression do you prefer," then eugh that's some gender-role-enforcing shit.

If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.

I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.

The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.

Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:

If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.

If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.

I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.

Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.

Well, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.

But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.

Why not just treat people like people

"treating them like a man/woman just means using he/she pronouns tbh.

Gender Identity is Male or Female in a general sense, and for those using other terms like Polygender, too.

If the societal vocabulary expands in a way that lets us understand ourselves and others better, it's a good thing. I don't believe that 95% of the new words and terms being thrown around will stick, but of those that do, I believe they will stick because they are useful.

I'm unsure what a 'flamer' is, and how far removed the term is from 'flambo,'(Urban dictionary suggests the difference is how annoying you find them) but knowing gay people of the more ostentatious variety, I can say that they are a very varied group of people and stereotyping them as sex obsessed is not helpful.

The difference between flamers and flambo's is their attitude. Flamers tend to be rude, entitled, and think the world revolves around them. They're like the gay "hyper-SJW's", throwing around buzzwords and thinking all should bend to them because they're gay. Flambo's are different. Sure, it's not how I am, but as long as you're not a total obnoxious cunt about being gay you can behave how you want.

Okay, I don't really want to get involved in the discussion too deeply, but I just thought this was really funny:

If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same.

If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, which is entirely variable, they are a woman.

I'm not saying it is entirely variable, I'm just saying no one is "perfectly" male or female. Gender is not set in stone, it's variable, yet it's clearly still present. There's things that are feminine and things masculine. If you try to be as feminine as possible, you're a woman to me. That doesn't mean you have to be 100% stereotypically female.

Is this regardless of how they themselves identify? I'm thinking of crossdressers as an example.

Well, for me it's more about long term. If someone always dresses, acts and behaves like a woman, i'll treat her like i'd treat a woman. If someone just likes to go full drag sometimes (i've done it when I was younger once for carnaval, it was hilarious tbh), and still identifies as a man all the time, I'll still treat them like a man. If they insist I call them otherwise, however, I'll try to oblige but my memory is not the best so I might not be too consistent.

But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.

I've known a guy that fits the bill in a mundane context, except I never did work out if he was gay or not. Obnoxious arsehole though he was, he did have his moments.
I have also seen a fellow that meets your description even more closely on a discussion hosted by tvo.
Given the thread, here's a hyperlink.
It's quite a solid watch with a wide range of perspectives, but the guy they got to represent the furthest genderqueer argument is... Nyeah.
I do suppose he's more affable in reality though.

And that's a fairly solid approach re: gender. I think I disagree with you in some areas, but if you're being respectful and tolerant it's hard for me to be fussed.

I'm glad you think of me as tolerant. The thing is, I'd rather not mention any of this in public out of the blue at all. Generally speaking it's a non-issue to me, but since I'm "ideologically speaking" in this thread it might seem a bit more "extreme".

I just think people shouldn't be entitled cunts on both sides. Try to call people by whatever they want, and don't get fussy when someone makes a mistake by calling you something wromg.

[Edmus]

-snip-

The trans people I have met are all surprisingly easy going about it actually. The internet prepared me to walk on egg shells, so it feels a strange disconnect from that expectation.

[Shadowlord]

However, my definition of bisexual is "fucks everything", so maybe omnisexual/pansexual would be a better term instead of bisexual.

That makes sense. There are exceptions to "everything," of course, like, say, children.

As for the second part, I don't think I'd call liking particular hair colors more a fetish. It's not really on par with what's commonly thought of as a fetish (feet... stuff... for example). I find some hair colors more attractive and some less attractive. (I've always assumed that everyone does, tbh. Society tries to tell us that blondes are the most attractive, but blond hair makes people less attractive to me)

I agree, I should've said it would've either been a fetish or sexual preference. My point still stands though, it shouldn't be a new sexuality.

Yeah, it would be weird if a person claimed to be pinkhairsexual (as in, only pink hair will do), but in that case that really would be a fetish, wouldn't it?

There are many cultures that have, or have had, a third gender, or more than three, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#India

If someone behaves and dresses like a woman, it is a woman for me. As mentioned before, no woman or man is the same. You can still be a man and like cooking (like me!) or dolls. Gender terms aren't something you should strictly adhere to, and someone that's different should'nt need a different gender assigned to them.

I think I get what you mean, but it's a little confusing. "Behaves and dresses like a woman" sounds like gender roles, but so does "liking dolls" (or being submissive, a female-associated trait that is practically required in Japan, or so I have read).

Isn't this the same sort of argument that was used against gay marriage? (Answer: yes, in the form of "marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman, and has been for all of history," which is an argument which relied not on actual history but on appealing to people who saw their way of life as somehow being under attack)

The difference between this and gay marriage, is that everyone has to change for this. Everyone would have to memorize a bazillion pronouns and new genders, whilst for gay marriage only some laws have to change. Gay marriage only influences those who choose to be influenced.

That makes sense.

I support gay marriage, but I vehemently oppose gays wanting to marry in/for a church/mosque/temple that is anti gay. I think that's disrespectful towards that religion, be it a minority or majority religion. Gays should freely be allowed to marry for the state, and pro gay religious organisations though.

I agree with this completely.

"I don't think your identity really exists, no disrespect."

I don't think your gender identity really exists, but you're a great person so I don't care if something else about you isn't as I'd want it because I'm not a narcissist.

Not ignoring the fact that I'd never bring it up in the first because I don't hang out with people who let their gender/sexuality define them, I don't care that much and I don't think their gender is all of their identity.

Thanks. About not bringing it up normally, yeah, this is where we talk about things we don't normally talk about, I think.

Edit: Whoops, screwed up the quote tags.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalės]

treating them like a man/woman just means using he/she pronouns tbh.

Oh, that's fine.

Gender Identity is Male or Female in a general sense, and for those using other terms like Polygender, too.

No, but... that's like if I asked you "what is a coordinate plane" and you said "x and y", except "x and y" have a dozen other meanings.

What is gender identity, and is it different from "I prefer this set of gender roles/expressions"?

Nonbinary: I guess that's what happens when you try to take a PERSON and then wedge them into a box. Sometimes you need more than one box, and sometimes one box fits better one day, and another box the next.

don't be entitled cunts

Hey, another expression of:

Rules of Internet Discussion
1. Don't be a dick.

[Shadowlord]

Nonbinary: I guess that's what happens when you try to take a PERSON and then wedge them into a box. Sometimes you need more than one box, and sometimes one box fits better one day, and another box the next.

Nobody wants to be cut up and put in two boxes. D:

[ECrownofFire]

I'm going to take a different stance here.

There are over 7.5 billion individual genders. One for every person on Earth. This is because it's an individual identity. Society labels and lumps together different genders together for various reasons, but just look at the various cultures that have recognized genders other than "male" and "female". Look at the variations in what "male" and "female" even mean to different cultures. Can you even really say that all these different ideas of what man and woman really mean and say that they're universal? The idea of assigning gender labels to people based on their sexual characteristics is nothing unique (but not universal), and it's not universal in what those gender labels mean. Almost every culture has some notion of "man" and "woman", but what that

What you are talking about when say "somebody who dresses and acts like a woman" is strictly talking about gender roles, which are a completely separate thing. Less than a century ago, a woman who wore pants wasn't considered a "real woman". Men who stayed at home to take care of kids weren't "real men" (and many people still have issues with that).

A huge hint is that "male" and "female" are entirely based on exclusion, not inclusion. Is there any way to define "man" and "woman" that's not circular? Their entire basis is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The entire purpose of gender roles is to exclude and send people into this mysterious "other" group (look up the concept of "othering" if you want more on that).

“They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.” - Eddie Izzard


The same also applies to sexuality, by the way. I do think that the "main four" are a good basis, and apply to most people to some degree. But there are plenty of other aspects to it...

[Starver]

But, if I were to see a crossdresser on the streets that identifies as a man, I'd still call them she, unless they correct me, just to be sure.

This is like Canadians/New Zealanders, right?  Without any obvious clues as to true nationality, you just assume every North American relates to the maple leaf and every Antipodean is a Kiwi - the ones that are will be pleasantly surprised at your ability to correctly place them, whilst the ones that actually aren't will be amused but normally not at all upset by the error you just made.

[spümpkin]

-snip-

The trans people I have met are all surprisingly easy going about it actually. The internet prepared me to walk on egg shells, so it feels a strange disconnect from that expectation.

Yeah, we don't bite, much

I don't actually know really any trans people who get super (apologies for the meme) ~triggered~ about it. I calmly note it to people, but I don't really care.

[Reelya]

Well that might be because "triggered" and "microaggressions" both seem to be partly political concepts. Basically I see a wide gulf between (1) stuff that could reasonably upset people and (2) the "approved list" of Official Triggers^tm.

It's honestly not surprising. How many regular women you know, even ones who call themselves feminists seem to get in a spin about even a fraction of the stuff that outrages the feminist blogs? A lot of things that have the "internet" in an uproar don't seem to even be on the radar of most regular people. That includes most LGBT people, feminists etc as well. They're not all busy being outraged constantly about minor things, because they have lives.

The rhetoric of activism is often at odds with the lives of the supposed people that activism is speaking for. e.g. marxism has often been middle-class intellectuals "speaking" for blue-collar workers - while often disdaining everything about working-class culture, then wondering why all the "ignorant uncultured" workers are so stupid that they're not supporting your party, when you clearly know what's best for them.

Seriously, if you were to say you were triggered by seeing people getting shot in movies, people would look at you funny, because we know that's not how 'triggered' is meant to be used. It's not actually a means of preventing people being exposed to stuff they might get distressed by, we have very few controls on any of that, it's about controlling interpersonal dialogue, and it's even limited in that: you can only claim to be triggered about an official list of triggers. Saying you're triggered by anything not on that list just comes across as ludicrous, no matter how reasonable it is.

One interesting angle on the whole thing is to look at the history of interpersonal cultures. Honor cultures gave way to dignity cultures, now people have identified a new trend of victimhood cultures. Hint: it's pretty new and it seems to be appearing on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/

[Tiruin]

Man, I remember talking with Skyrunner about these terms and the note of triggered being used in or coming from the context of PTSD...now it's being widespread into areas where it doesn't necessarily even apply (considering the cognitive background as rather more 'this causes this to happen because of a predisposition on my end' rather than something coming from trauma or an external source).

Well that might be because "triggered" and "microaggressions" both seem to be partly political concepts. Basically I see a wide gulf between (1) stuff that could reasonably upset people and (2) the "approved list" of Official Triggers^tm.

It's honestly not surprising. How many regular women you know, even ones who call themselves feminists seem to get in a spin about even a fraction of the stuff that outrages the feminist blogs? A lot of things that have the "internet" in an uproar don't seem to even be on the radar of most regular people.[...]

I'd REALLY love to know more about that highlighted bit though >_< because it doesn't seem a healthy place for many who browse the internet who are new to most things (like the ever-growing # of young people accessing the internet and stuff) given the quality of content in some parts which cause all those...things. o_O

[Reelya]

It's honestly not surprising. How many regular women you know, even ones who call themselves feminists seem to get in a spin about even a fraction of the stuff that outrages the feminist blogs? A lot of things that have the "internet" in an uproar don't seem to even be on the radar of most regular people.[...]

I'd REALLY love to know more about that highlighted bit though >_< because it doesn't seem a healthy place for many who browse the internet who are new to most things (like the ever-growing # of young people accessing the internet and stuff) given the quality of content in some parts which cause all those...things. o_O

Well it's just a personal observation. I almost never come across most of the attitudes and issues from the internet from people I meet in normal life.

For example, the whole "manspreading" thing. There was a big campaign about it based on tumblr stuff. Then because of that, the NY Metro (and other transit systems), instituted public awareness campaigns about it. Yet, they also said they'd never received a single complaint about it. In fact, they said the most common complaint was about people taking up excessive seating space with bags. And notably, it's mostly women shown doing that in images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

[Tiruin]

Huh o_O Y'know we could've had that thing here, given all the jeeps we have (it does happen, but not in that way mentioned in that article), but other than there being a biological thing to spreading legs in situations like that (which includes temperature), one could say excuse me and then the other person bunches up. That's been what has happened since all I've experienced (and that covers a lot of other people's experiences too )

So...could I ask the point there than what seems to be only implying assumption (Like, I see a dude spreading his legs...so THAT MUST MEAN {reasoning}), when you could just...talk to people? That doesn't seem like it has been mentioned at all there. ._.

[Reelya]

Also, really interesting point there: a researcher showed images of sitting men to lots of women. The women rated the manspreading-men as sexier 87% of the time. I'm certain the men aren't consciously aware of that: nobody gives advice to young dudes: "spread your legs when you sit, the chicks really dig that". So it's clearly arisen by itself from other means (e.g. women selected for the men who have sexier body language).

[Tiruin]

It's pretty much in research to denote the limitations of such--so given that sample population, it's to err to say 'this can be applied to the general population' or as a general thing.

...Also that biological bit really matters too. As in temperature via body heat when the legs are closed in a sitting position.

That's pretty much more on why there's 'not consciously aware of that' because it's not necessarily a conscious phenomenon.

[wobbly]

For example, the whole "manspreading" thing. There was a big campaign about it based on tumblr stuff. Then because of that, the NY Metro (and other transit systems), instituted public awareness campaigns about it. Yet, they also said they'd never received a single complaint about it. In fact, they said the most common complaint was about people taking up excessive seating space with bags. And notably, it's mostly women shown doing that in images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

That's actually something that's pretty annoying in a car if your trying to fit 3 people in the back seat on a long trip. On a bus or train it pisses me off, but you just can tilt so your legs are in the aisle. Possibly you don't hear about it in real life because it's annoying but not worth bitching about? Where as on the net you can bitch anonymously about every little thing?