Print

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

[Jude]

So wait, you make a big point about 'no society has more than two genders' and then when handed some evidence go 'oh, well, I didn't mean THAT'?

If you read my original post I wasn't saying there couldn't be more than two genders

I WAS insisting there couldn't be less than two but while my first reaction was "three or more genders" I then proceeded IN THE SAME post to consider possibilities and concluded that it becomes fuzzy and questionable after a while without stating "There can't be three or more genders"

Of course so is the whole concept of "gender" as an analyzable notion, but NO operational definition of gender could ever be such that a society only had one. Unless there was literally only one sex in that society. I'm sure there are anthropologists who have spent their entire life longing to find such a place just to prove once and for all that human nature is infinitely mutable or whatever dogma they wanted to justify, but they're SOL

Anyway to elaborate on my original point, if it makes sense to refer to, say, transsexuals or eunuchs as a different gender, then wouldn't it also make sense to have multiple genders even for the traditional senses? Shouldn't homosexuals be considered a different gender than heterosexuals of the same sex? Transvestites? Men who are into sports and bodybuilding versus "metrosexuals" versus men who choose chastity except in marriage? The point is if you're using "gender" to mean "people's ideas and self-identity related to sexuality" then there's no basis for having less genders than there are people in the world, since no two people have exactly the same concept of their own gender.

In any case, it's a definitional argument that I don't really care about, but to go back to the one-gender thing, for there to be a society with only one gender, you'd have to have men and women that had completely the same conceptions about their own sexuality, and as men and women are wired up to think think and behave differently in a number of crucial ways, that has never happened and probably will never happen among humans (barring massive and creepy genetic engineering campaigns, of course)

[G-Flex]

for there to be a society with only one gender, you'd have to have men and women that had completely the same conceptions about their own sexuality, and as men and women are wired up to think think and behave differently in a number of crucial ways, that has never happened and probably will never happen among humans (barring massive and creepy genetic engineering campaigns, of course)

You're making an extremely common mistake here.

Even if biological men and women have significant differences due to their sex, their sex is only one of an uncountably large number of influences upon their personality. Splitting society into two different halves with different traits and responsibilities expected of them based on this one parameter is extraordinarily arbitrary. We don't do it based on height, or weight, or ethnicity (or at least we hopefully don't), and there are fewer reasons than ever to do it based on sex.

In other words, having a unigender society doesn't mean that everybody has to have the same conception of their sexuality. That's silly, and isn't even true within the same genders today. If I consider all the males I know, or all the females I know, there is a startling amount of variation even in those groups regarding their sexuality, and personalities in general, including a lot of overlap between them, and that's despite the fact that gender expectation plays an undoubtedly large role in driving those people towards traditional gender roles in the first place.

So no, having unigender society doesn't require everyone to be the same sexually. It's simply a matter of not generalizing their social roles based on a single, relatively arbitrary, parameter.

This doesn't mean that biological sex is not, in itself, important; of course it is. However, there's no reason to delegate social roles or expectations on it at all, except in those cases where it's directly relevant, and those cases are surprisingly few.

[Hungry]

Meh, gender is always going to be a confusing thing, its so tangled in sexuality and self image and social influence that just getting to the point where you can understand whats going on is a milestone...

I put myself in the "I dont care for gender, I'll just leave it blank" group, and or "I'll just put my sex even though it says 'gender', because thats what it wants" group...

Gender is a undefineable thing since we are all unalike in how we place ourselves on the line between the extremes, if at all.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Akroma]

no, the reasonable think is to simply not ask about that in official documents


sure, so crash statistics indicate some random stuff, blah blah, it's just a way to find justifications for discrimination


random statistic: 9 out of 10 serial killers are white males

gee, I wonder if you are white and male

[Kitpup]

random statistic: 9 out of 10 serial killers are white males

gee, I wonder if you are white and male

And were abused. Horribly. And are psychopaths or sociopaths. You?

no, the reasonable think is to simply not ask about that in official documents


sure, so crash statistics indicate some random stuff, blah blah, it's just a way to find justifications for discrimination

Right. The gov't is just LOOKING for ways to discriminate. And so are companies. And businesses.
"About 2 out of every 3 teens killed in car accidents in 2008 were male."
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/teen/statistics.html
Wouldn't you take that into account when selling a teen something like auto insurance? No, you wouldn't, because that would be discrimination.

t was a clear question for your biologial gender, and lo and behold, there are 3, male female and herm.

I think "intersex" is a fair and descriptive tone. The issue with hermaphodite is that it's a specific kind of affliction that doesn't apply to every intersex. That's like calling everyone who's black "African" whether they're from Africa or not.

Rather good point about gender

So ask for their sex. Their physical sex. Male, with dangly bits. Female, with baby-making bits. And Other (Intersex), with something in between or neither.

the only official places where you are asked to check a m/f on a document are hospitals, and you know well why it is necessary there.

Apparently other governments like their superfluous data.

[Akroma]

point is that being forced to wear a yellow st.. I mean to print something like "intersex" on your driving license, is an invite for discrimination.


we all know that among police officers, there are some mighty conservative ones

imagien the situation

a transexual is slightly speeding, gets stopped. he/she is in normal clothes, so it is in no way obvious.


now the police officers could either be very lenient, and let you off with a warning, or with the minimal penalty that is required in such situations


or he could read "intersex", think to himself "what the hell, a fucking fruitcake"
then he shall proceed to give you the maximum penatly, make a thorough drug search on your car, take you to a cell for the night "because you were resisting the law enforcement" and whatelse he has at his disposal


or, lets say he is at least dutiful enough to treat you fair, but still, as he happens to "hate them fruitcakes", he could very well give you a nasty remark, or at the very least the kind of look that..

well, everybody would usualy say "oh I don't care what some silly bigot things"
but it hurts. no, seriously.



the right of keeping private things private is a very important one, and while some tiny info on your ID and driving license is not necessarily as bad as publicaly visible marks, it is still more or less something that leaves you open to bigoted discrimination.

not only talking about policeofficers here, but hey, you want a loan and mark "intersex" ?
have fun, try not to run into someone who just happens to hate faggots.



the german basic laws clearly say in the first few paragraphs "the dignity of a human is inviolable" and "in front of the law everybody is the same" and "a human has the right of privacy"


so heeeyyy, the decision "lets make transexuals feel recognised" that's fine
making it something that is to be written on legal documents however, now that is a bullshit idea


so it was a very good decision that, as Siquo said, the sentence has been reverted


edit: if they want statistical data, they always have brith certificates. it's unlikely that a baby is going to be marked as "intersex" right after birth.
that should be enough

[cganya]

ITT: dictionary definitions vs common understanding of terms vs idealism

its a battle royal.

I'd like to point out here though that intersex has nothing to do with sexuality
neither does the word transsexual

SURPRISE!

the word "sex" in both words refers to physical sex as opposed to attraction.

Intersex refers to someone who's physical gender does not conform with the standard "two gender" system and is an umbrella term. Probably why it was used in the case of Australia.
Transsexual refers to a person who's physical sex does not match their mental sex (again, nothing to do with attraction. the brain does have it's own defined sex and it really sucks when it doesn't match the rest of your body)

people really need to stop mixing gender/sex with attraction. [bold]They are not bound together![/bold]

gender refers to mental sex which simply boils down to what gender role the person "feels" they are. it does not take into account what people think they should be are what they actually are "physically"

sex is of course what someone is physically which is only mostly either male or female.

when someone "thinks" they should be male or female it is because they have been raised to think that sex/gender predetermines attraction.

[Kitpup]

Thank you for making that distinction, cganya. I knew I was forgetting a point.

[Huesoo]

Akroma I have lost respect.

[Armok]

I forgot to mention, as a gender neutral pronoun I tend to use 'e or 'er. Actually;
ve/vis for things like AIs and golems, 'e/'er for hermaphrodites and intersex or unknowns (such as on the net). I relly need to spilt up that last category, seeing it like this its a bit to inclusive.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

far more serious replies than I thought would come.

I thought the ouwha? factor would outweight that.



anyway, in my opinion, this is less a question of actual wings wangs, but a question of sexuality altogether.


the boxes you check on legal documents, where you either mark m or f never asked for your personal sexuality, else g and l would have joined them long ago. it was a clear question for your biologial gender, and lo and behold, there are 3, male female and herm.

if the australian government had decided to mark a little box with h, then the decision would be nothing out of the ordinary.


but instead, they now ask for "intersex", which clearly is not your biological gender, but your mental sexuality.

let alone the fact that suddenly transexuality is recognised as a gender of it's own, while regular homosexuals are still just something mental, is a very difficult distinction to make, this is not why this decision annoys me.


here in germany, no official document I've seen in the last 10 years ever asked me for my gender.
apart from my photo, neither my official ID, nor my driving license, nor my university ID, heck not even my library card or my card for DVD rental bear any indication of my gender.


and you know why ? because it does not matter at all.
beaurocracy in germany does not give a fuck about who and what you are, neither biologicaly, nor mentaly.

the only official places where you are asked to check a m/f on a document are hospitals, and you know well why it is necessary there.

you know, this is what they call "all equal in front of the law"


when the australian government was confronted with this issue, they should have simply abandoned checking your gender on official documents, because it is no information needed to pay your taxes or get a driving license or whatever.


yet instead, they just chose to put in a third box you can check, thinking "hurr, we are so clever and so political correct and tolerant"

bullshit.

prior to that, they only asked for bilogical gender.

now they ask for the state of your mind, which is a very personal and private question.


this is not a step forward, but a step backwards.

in a tolerant world, neither biological gender nor sexual orientation should play any roll.

and making your sexual orientation required information, which will then be printed on your drivers license, now that simply goes to far.



hey, including me there are plenty of homosexuals on this forum, right ?

remember when you publicaly came out, the news reached your school, and immediatly afterwards you always had eyes on your back ?

sure, officialy it's always "I don't care, let them think what they want", but in truth, nothing is more bugging than people you have known for years suddenly stare holes into your back.



now imagine your are stopped for speeding, a policeofficer checks your driving license, and then, maybe just for a small second, he has this funny surpised look in his eyes.


sure, "you don't care", but I still do not want anybody to look at me that way.
it's an entirely private matter, and has no place on my official documents, because I CHOSE who needs to know that and who doesn't



now imagine you are a transexual, disguised properly enough to pass as whatever gender you want to pass right now (that is to say, normal clothes, not that dragqueen outfit), the police asks you for your lisence and BAM, there it is, in black on white letters.


something like that takes away from you the right to be incognito when you want to be incognito.


sure, by law we are all the same.

then why print a yellow sta...excuse me your sexuality on your official documents ?

nobody should care, riiiight?



point in case:

recognise them as official gender: questionable, but fine if they incist

make that required info on your documents: bullshit. this is a private matter, and writing "intersex" on a driving license is pointless




Warning - while you were typing 18 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

ouwhaa

ouwhaa...

Really good points.

no, the reasonable think is to simply not ask about that in official documents


sure, so crash statistics indicate some random stuff, blah blah, it's just a way to find justifications for discrimination


random statistic: 9 out of 10 serial killers are white males

gee, I wonder if you are white and male

This is what you call a bad example. These are the DF forums, remember the mermaid thread?

[Kitpup]

I forgot to mention, as a gender neutral pronoun I tend to use 'e or 'er. Actually;
ve/vis for things like AIs and golems, 'e/'er for hermaphrodites and intersex or unknowns (such as on the net). I relly need to spilt up that last category, seeing it like this its a bit to inclusive.

I actually did a report on this last year for my English class. Found 'ou'. It was supposedly middle English and genderless, but I haven't been able to do any further research. Regardless, it fell out of use and that's the purported meaning, so that's what I stick with. Sounds like 'you' to me, and 'you' is genderless as well.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Just making a comment because I didn't read the whole thread.

Thailand's had places with 3 different types of bathrooms for years. Men, women, and "whatever". When I was over there I laughed off being hit on by ladyboys/I-don't-even-know. There are some that started hormones from an early age/had surgeries I've heard you can't tell the difference even with pants dropped. (Ever want to burn an image into your mind look up that surgery which removes the male sexual organs and replaces it with a female's)

I'm pretty confident in my sexuality/gender so it's no big deal. Some of my friends are genderbending as well and I don't particularly care. Wish more people would leave other people alone about it as well.

EDIT: Then again I've lived in the Netherlands, Thailand, and near San Francisco. I'm a social conservative's waking nightmare.

All I'm saying is that gender (and sexuality) is much more fluid than most people make it out to be, it's not necessarily black and white/man and woman anymore. We'll certainly see more of this in the future.

[Forumsdwarf]

So what term can we assign to all persons whose duploid cells carry two X chromosomes?

And the obvious next question, what term can we assign those with an X and a Y?

It cleverly reduces all the confusion when the definition is genetic; one might mentally belong in many different categories and orientations, but one's DNA can only be one or the other or we slip into medical terminology like "Klinefelter's syndrome".

So what we've done here is make an easily-identifiable physical distinction, like a fingerprint; for official purposes you're either an XX or an XY, whichever politically correct terms we assign to those immutable cellular states, or you have a genetic disorder that puts you into the category of "disabled".  Whenever you are queried for your "sex" (or whatever politically correct term etc.) the meaning is simply "which set of chromosomes do most of your cells have?"  This distinction doesn't speak to the myriad ways people self-identify, it's just a convenient means of classification.

Am I naive in thinking we can cut the Gordian knot here?  Instead of asking how a person self-identifies, a complicated question for which new answers emerge every day, simply ask -- if a distinction must be made at all -- what the composition of their DNA is, a simple question for which the possible answers haven't changed since our species began.

[cowofdoom78963]

Having Y at all makes you male. Otherwise you are female, thats how the scientists do it.