|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah, the process which determines your genitals in vitro usually, but not always, sets up hormonal and neurological pathways that conform more or less to a traditional gender. this process is unreliable enough to produce atypical results with enough frequency such that there it is in a free society's interest to recognize gender fluidity Well, a traditional sex, I don't think hormones really make you wear dresses, join the army, become a secretary, drive a truck, like flowers, or wear trousers.
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think it's pretty safe to say there's some kind of inborn gender because humans are sexually dimorphous and we see largely consistent concepts of gender across human societies. it's just that this inborn gender can be disconnected from your biological sex, and the way that gender interacts with society is also complicated, such that ultimately one can't assume a connection between sex and gender There may be an inborn gender but most of the things associated with the two traditional genders are rather difficult to credibly associate with our biological makeup. There's nothing biologically that requires men to have short hair and be paid a lot and wear male clothes and like male colours and drive loud and/or fast cars and never show feelings, but those are all aspects of the traditional male gender.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You're being simplistic to avoid what's been said to argue further for some reason. Cars are just one of any number of loud, dangerous things that people with high levels of testosterone and low risk avoidance are into. And again, being "stoney-faced" is a social construct, while increased aggression is not (entirely). However, masculinity is not tied solely to loud and dangerous things, there are specific things which are associated with masculine prestige, merely being loud and noisy is not sufficient, which suggests that the behaviour remains heavily socialised. Biology as a basis for gender roles does not stand up to criticism beyond a vague suggestion that maybe some behaviours might somewhere have a basis in something biology related sometimes mumble mumble fart. It's a dumb idea and is not really worth discussing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's a good thing then that nobody suggested that masculinity is solely tied to anything. I disagree entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Hormones as a dictator of human behaviour is infinitely less interesting and worth discussing than simply the end behaviours themselves. Start from what a person feels and what affects their mental wellbeing and work backwards. An obsession with the physical bases for such behaviors and feelings is almost invariably an attempt to delegitimize them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
What you are asking me to do is akin to saying "no, ignore the societal implications of eugenics for a moment, I'm just really interested in the theory, honest." The majority of people who talk about the innate biological basis for behaviours are people trying to find justification for why we shouldn't accept any behaviours other than their pet ones. I have little patience for them or their arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Trans gendered individuals demonstrate the innate nature of gender. LGBT rights in general are legitimized by recognizing the innate nature of sexual orientation and gender. No, LGBT rights are legitimized by the notion that allowing a person to exist harmoniously with themselves is important, regardless of why any discord may exist. If a person believes wholeheartedly that their body does not fit them, the best thing for them is to either change their mind, or their body, so that they no longer have to feel that. All that matters is that people feel at peace with themselves and happy in their bodies and their lives, no proscription against body modification should stand in the way of that, and there is no requirement for a "legitimiate" biological basis for that, looking for one with the hope of justifying people's feelings is to completely miss the issue. Same with gay conversion therapy, it's not wrong because homosexuality is unchangeable, it's wrong because there's no reason why a person shouldn't be homosexual. The same is true of trans people. Changing your body to match your gender is exactly as legitimate as not doing so. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:All surgery is dangerous because it carries the risk of severe complications, and should not be taken lightly. The choice for surgery however should remain between patient and doctor, as with all medical procedures. Depends on why they want to. If it's because people are being twats to them then I would suggest that conformity probably wouldn't help, if they have a personal preference and want to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the process simply did that, then sure. I'm not going to say "yes if gay conversion therapy worked it would be OK" because gay conversion therapy carries way too much associated baggage for that to be a precise statement but I have no particular aversion to people changing aspects of themselves to become what they think is a better person.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
I am curious how "get pregnant even if it literally kills you" is supposed to work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Ok I should rephrase, I understand mechanically how getting pregnant and it killing you works but I am having difficulty understanding the rational basis for why it is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:God said be fruitful and multiply, and that is the greatest thing a woman can do with the gifts God has given her. I feel there is a mathematical issue with the notion of multiplying by dying in childbirth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But here's the twist: how do you tell the difference between the desire to conform and the simple innocent fascination? Either way, they'll say up and down it's what they want, but you can't be sure about what their motivation, the real motivation, is. The same way you would with anything else, talk to the person and figure it out. A practitioner of some hypothetical sexuality conversion therapy should have it as part of their qualification for the job, that they determine whether or not the process is likely to help the patient.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
I think the problem with eating disorders is that the person is trying to be something which is physically impossible for a human to be while being healthy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Jebediah Kerman posted:no need to complicate things, most people are male or female, with a few intersex folks. That's all the definition that's necessary. It's not complicating things, it's a basic fact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Defending your right to have an opinion rather than the opinion itself is the last recourse of the desperate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
No, if you're biologically male or female you are biologically male or female, whether you are a man or a woman is entirely separate from that though it often correlates, and this is not a belief even remotely unique to people with a grounding in trans theory.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:If being a man or a woman is not connected to biology (chromosomes, hormones, sex characteristics), and it's not connected to gender roles (men as breadwinners, women as housewives, etc.), then what does it mean to be a man or a woman? Nobody has a straight answer. It's not due to some innate congenital "brain gender", since that's been pretty much debunked. It's not due to social roles, since everyone agrees those are restrictive and artificial. So what is it? What makes some a man or a woman? It means whatever it means to the individual. You do not require a consistent cause, or even any cause, to understand that gender exists, in some form, and affects human behavior. Sometimes it affects it in ways which are very deleterious to individuals. All you are required to do is be aware of that and try to offset the damage it causes to the best of your human ability.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I would like to reiterate this in a different way. Gender norms are arbitrary, thus anyone should be able to be whatever gender they want to be, or not be a gender, or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
wiregrind posted:So they're transphobic bigots; just like the anti-feminist sexists? TERFs generally believe something along the lines that people who are born sexually female and live female lives are uniquely oppressed by society, and that that experience is what defines them as women, at least to an extremely significant degree. Which, arguably, is correct. I imagine there's a lot of variance and not all women would necessarily like being categorized like that, but you can see why people would think that about themselves and you can certainly apply the idea in feminist theories. The objectionable part is that when you have people who identify as female but lack female sexual characteristics and may spend the majority of their lives passing for male, and thus receiving male privilege, TERFs have a bit of a problem because some of them don't like the notion that their theory of womanliness doesn't apply to all women, and they get really... weird about people identifying as women without having lived as women all their lives. This is very much at odds with a lot of third wave feminism and especially feminism as it relates to trans issues which tends to favor the idea that gender roles are damaging to everyone as far as they are enforced by society, and that while women are generally on the lovely end of the stick as far as gender roles go, the overall goal should be to liberate everybody from them and that ideally, the TERF method of self-identification would stop being valid because women would not have a unique experience characterized heavily by oppression. And further that trans people are arguably a vanguard of breaking down that strict, prescriptive form of gender roles and that should be celebrated as an achievement, even quite apart from the benefits to the individual from being able to present as the gender they identify with.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 02:12
|
|