Print

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

[scriver]

I can't argue with people because I'm too contrarian.

[Bumber]

I can't argue with people because I'm too contrarian.

No you aren't.

[Egan_BW]

There are a lot of conversational stances you can use, and trying to find common ground and point out nuance is a good default. Just always stay mindful of when you might have to slip into a more sledgehammer tack. Brutality can be a form of elegance, after all~

[feelotraveller]

Brutality can be a form of elegance, after all~

~his hands can’t hit what his eyes can’t see.

[methylatedspirit]

If someone was assigned the gender of "X" (which I guess is the bureaucratic equivalent for nonbinary/intersex/whatever) at birth, and they decide later on that they wish to be male/female, does that, in the most technical sense, make them trans? I'm not really one to scrutinize whether someone's trans or not, but I think it's an interesting edge case. If "trans" refers to biological sex, then it's a 50/50 most of the time, but if "trans" refers to assigned gender at birth, then it's technically the case that they are trans.

[scriver]

Looking at the biweekly government and it's corona infodump, the best part of hand language interpreters is how clear their facial body language is.

[Rolan7]

@methylatedspirit
It's an interesting question, and the answer is yes they are trans.  The reason people go by "gender assigned at birth" is because "biological sex" is poorly defined, with many edge cases.  Most people have XX or XY chromosomes, sure, but not everyone.  Some people's genitals don't "match" their chromosomes.  You already know about intersex people, but I'm just over-explaining this for those who don't know.

So that's why people compare against "gender assigned at birth" instead.  Honestly I wasn't aware of people being assigned "X" at birth, maybe that varies by country. 

[methylatedspirit]

It's more of a hypothetical, just trying to see at what point certain definitions start breaking down and start producing results that would be considered odd. Is it not odd that someone assigned "X" at birth, but later transitioning to male/female would still be considered trans? I dunno, that's a bit odd to me, even if that's literally the definition. I'm more worried about the stigma associated with being trans for such a person, more than anything else. Personally, I'd just ignore the "trans" part entirely, because people are more complex than if their current gender matches their birth gender.

I mean, that idea isn't completely out of nowhere; I've heard of parents who raise their kids gender-neutral. The idea that someone may be assigned "X" some day might come some day.

I do disagree with either of those, though. I hate the gender binary as much as the next enby, but I'm not sure if that's the way to go about it. A bit too revolutionary for my tastes. It's one thing for teens and adults to be nonbinary, but to force that onto young children? I mean, the same argument could be applied regarding assigning binary genders to children, but still. Personally, I'd rather just assign male/female to children first, but change society itself so that transitioning in the general case is considered perfectly normal, rather than an unusual "thing" that only "certain" people do.

[Egan_BW]

Clearly we should use nanomachines to edit everyone's minds in real time and simply edit out any references to gender.

[Rolan7]

Oh hello frustrated me from ~2017

@methylatedspirit
The theoretical case I was imagining was a non-intersex person born with an apparent sex, whose parents for some reason assigned them the opposite gender - and that gender happened to be correct.  Pure fiction of course, but I too like probing edge cases - my software dev background, probably.

I decided that that person, assigned the correct gender at birth, would not be trans.  Obviously they would still need trans-associated medical care, but I strongly stand by the idea that medical transition is not a requirement of being trans.
I'd *like* some, but that's neither here nor there.
No acts of transition are required for someone to be trans.  People staying stealthy are valid.  People without proper health care are valid.  Assigned Female At Birth people are valid (they tend to get drowned out in some spaces, which is a shame).

I suppose I am very "revolutionary" about this.  But adults forcing any gender on their children, including NB, isn't revolutionary.  It's totally fine to raise one's kids according to what seems to be their gender, while being supportive of their gender exploration.

In other words I think we agree - transitioning, gender exploration, should be normalized. 

[Vector]

I literally thought a gender reveal party was a party thrown by the parents of someone coming out as trans. I also thought "ACAB" stood for "assigned cop at birth."

. . . whoo!

[methylatedspirit]

No acts of transition are required for someone to be trans.  People staying stealthy are valid.  People without proper health care are valid.  Assigned Female At Birth people are valid (they tend to get drowned out in some spaces, which is a shame).

Then what is universal within trans people, then? Gender dysphoria? I couldn't be bothered to change what I look like, since that part of my brain's basically fried, but I do get annoyed if you gender me directly with he/him or she/her pronouns. Indirect gendering through "dude", "man" (don't tell me I'm a man, though) and others, I'll allow. The idea of me having any gender that isn't "No." doesn't sit well with me.

[scriver]

Number what, though?

[methylatedspirit]

"No.", as in a sentence with "No" and ".". The period's for emphasis, because I do not want to be gendered at all.

[scriver]

I know, I was just trying to be funny. I thought you would answer I AM NUMBER ONE!!! or something similar