Poll: Gender recognition offence

[ThatOtherGirl]

The problem you are having is that you are conflating a simple binary question about primary sexual traits with an extremely complex question about personal identity. No matter how much you believe them to be the same or want them to be the same they are not. 50 years of peer reviewed research into gender has demonstrated this.

Why use such vaguehoods, which can also be proven wrong? Are there no arguments behind the SJW rhetoric?

I admit it is hard to find arguments you will accept when you say the following:

By the way, gender studies hasn't existed for that long, much less has had respectable scientific literature. It's rare to find any publication from that field which holds up to the scientific standards.

That is a massive blanket statement designed to invalidate any argument made by dismissing the entire scientific discipline that has to do with it.

Do you have any real reason to dismiss an entire discipline of study embraced by the scientific community? There are over 900 respected universities with gender study programs. It is a respected field. Why do you say the conclusions of this field are not valid? Are you an expert in scientific rigor? Can you demonstrate how the peer review system is place is no good?

Because if not, I am going to side with the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists working on the issue.

I am not a gender studies scientist. I am a computer scientist/biologist, so I admit it isn't my field of expertise. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think gender studies is a nonsense discipline.

This is exactly the forcible shoehorning I meant. You're trying to muddy the water by refusing to talk about gender, and instead talking about an entirely different subject, that of identity.

Gender is, by definition, identity. I admit I got my conversation threads mixed up when I initially responded to your post, you guys were talking about assigned sex, I made a mistake and injected about gender. Sorry about that.

But since you have now indicated that you were indeed asking about gender, gender is a matter of identity by definition. It is an intrinsic part of the actual meaning of the word in formal study. This is why we keep on returning to this point, because that is what it is. You might as well ask that we discuss chemistry without discussing molecules or atoms. It doesn't make sense. If we are going to discuss gender, we have to discuss identity. Because that is what gender is.

This is why we "use such vaguehoods" as you put it. Because people refuse to accept the basic and well established premise of the scientific discipline. We can't talk about calculus if you wont accept algebra. I can't walk you through the university course worth of education that it will require for you to understand the most basic principles in a forum post, and double so because I myself have not completed the educational requirements to have any actual authority or real understanding of the subject.

Let's not do that. If you ask me what the weather is, you'd also find it annoying if I responded with "the stock market of the CAC 40 is forecast to boom in the coming weeks".

If we were to extend your analogy, the actual problem is that people insist that stock prices are the same as weather. Since you have indicated you are indeed talking about gender, a closer analog to what is going on is you are asking "How is google doing?" and then complaining when people give you an answer about stocks instead of telling you if it is sunny at google headquarters.

Unfortunately, that is an easy mistake to make. The language of gender and the language of biological sex are mixed up to point where they are not up the task of properly explaining the ideas involved, and especially the vital points of separation, in a clear and concise way that a layman can easily accept.

 

[HybridChangeling]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

I'll tell you this is the best kind of attitude I see on this sort of subject. Too many people are just willing to invalidate the identities of others, just when it comes to trans men and trans women, especially when they don't "pass". I have a friend who now passes far better than they did a couple of years ago, at this point no one questions him on his gender, no one refuses to treat him as a man, because he know "looks the part". I've experienced similar on the opposite end, but it's fuzzier to me, because I transitioned earlier. Still it's not an uncommon a story, some trans folk I know who don't pass still get that treatment too.

The reason "It" is considered so demeaning is because that using "it" is dehumanizing language. Referring to a person as a thing, like an inanimate object, rather than as a person.

But yeah, respect is the rule, the golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated.

 

[Politrukk]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

I'll tell you this is the best kind of attitude I see on this sort of subject. Too many people are just willing to invalidate the identities of others, just when it comes to trans men and trans women, especially when they don't "pass". I have a friend who now passes far better than they did a couple of years ago, at this point no one questions him on his gender, no one refuses to treat him as a man, because he know "looks the part". I've experienced similar on the opposite end, but it's fuzzier to me, because I transitioned earlier. Still it's not an uncommon a story, some trans folk I know who don't pass still get that treatment too.

The reason "It" is considered so demeaning is because that using "it" is dehumanizing language. Referring to a person as a thing, like an inanimate object, rather than as a person.

But yeah, respect is the rule, the golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated.

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

 

[Politrukk]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

I'll tell you this is the best kind of attitude I see on this sort of subject. Too many people are just willing to invalidate the identities of others, just when it comes to trans men and trans women, especially when they don't "pass". I have a friend who now passes far better than they did a couple of years ago, at this point no one questions him on his gender, no one refuses to treat him as a man, because he know "looks the part". I've experienced similar on the opposite end, but it's fuzzier to me, because I transitioned earlier. Still it's not an uncommon a story, some trans folk I know who don't pass still get that treatment too.

The reason "It" is considered so demeaning is because that using "it" is dehumanizing language. Referring to a person as a thing, like an inanimate object, rather than as a person.

But yeah, respect is the rule, the golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated.

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

The reason that bending the language bends only one way is because we're talking about a group defining themselves. Personal identity simply isn't a topic for majority debate.

When it comes to using the word "it" to refer to people, it's not just demeaning, using "it" to refer to a person is dehumanizing language no matter how you slice it. The primary reason behind this is because when you refer to something as an "it" you're referring to an inanimate object. This means referring to a person as an "it" is a way of removing agency and removing value from someone as a person. Then you throw into the mix the fact that "it" has continuously been used as a transphobic slur, you end up with a word that when used to refer to a person is a dehumanizing slur. The time for a logical debate on weather it's okay to refer to someone as an "it" was before the word became a slur. Really that's the same argument as to why terms like "negro" and "******" are never okay to use when referring to a person. The word has become too toxic as a reference to another person. This is also the reason you never refer to someone's baby as an "it", because that's referring to the baby as an object, not a human being. So it applies regardless of age and gender identity.

Besides "they/them" has never been a grammatically incorrect singular pronoun, people use it all the time when there is a question as to the gender of the person they're referring too. This also applies to gender when it's non-specified, or specified as other. There is only a problem with using "they/them" as pronoun in the singular when people think they know the gender of the person in question. At best that's a double standard, at worst it's open discrimination, because people are leaning on what they think grammar is correct gender, because they think they know something about the person they're talking to. That's the whole problem, people use the grammar correctly until they think they know something about the person in question, in this case it's the thought that gender automatically changes the use of grammar. In English that isn't true, all gender does is potentially change pronouns, but the factually correct pronouns to use are the ones you're asked to use, not the ones that you personally decide are correct.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

It's fairly well understood how identity works, and there is no place for SJW rhetoric in that debate. The idea that your (biological) gender is a social construct is an activist assumption that has no basis in reality. The real component is still a matter of quite some debate.

Merely the fact that gender dysphoria is itself influence by biological gender with far more man -> woman than woman -> man patients showing up, deals a fatal blow to the idea that it's a social matter instead of a biological one. Brain differences in patients with or without gender dysphoria also debunk the idea of gender as a social construct.

That assumption is much like what solipcism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism] is to our ideas about perception and reality: An extreme assumption that is invalid, but can occasionally be usefull as a method of analysis.

I don't really care what the final word on that matter is, or if such a word will even ever exist, I just resent the use of SJW rhetoric in matters of science. It's like inserting 'race theory' (that nazi stuff) into discussions about physical characteristics, you just don't do it because it only confuses things.

First of all, one bad study in an already shaky field like gender studies doesn't invalidate a hypothesis, or in this case a functional theory about society. When it comes to gender identity however, that's not in the realm of "gender studies", instead it's a subject of neurological science and psychiatric science.

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics. Since you dove into wikipedia for the definition of solipsism, I'll counter with their article on the distinction between sex and gender:

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).

Source:Sex and gender distinction. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction]

 

[Politrukk]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Not picking sides but in response to this argument and wether you may find it ridiculous or not personally :
this thread has proven that yes sir/madam you may consider yourself a god and that is perfectly normal, at least it should be.

That's the stance there is.... apparently.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Yes because taking my quote out of context and ignoring a source with lots of citations is proof of self-justification...

Also with evolutionary biology being directly tied to gender role? Especially complicated gender roles and identities that humans have, while it's debatable more instinct driven animals share such gender identity and role concepts? Citation needed! Well it would be needed if I were going to pay anymore attention to what you post, because you're not citing sources, while demanding others cite sources, and that's a double standard I'm not going to play.

 

[Politrukk]

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

Actually it in and of itself is what refers to an unspecified quantity or identity.

I don't know if you've ever seen this but in Europe we teach verbs (including English in this format :

I -verb-
You -verb-
He/She/It -verb
They(plural) -verb-
We -verb-

example:

in this pronoun setup of verbs and pronouns they has always meant the plural unknown quantity whilst it refers to the singular unknown quantity.

 

[Politrukk]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Yes because taking my quote out of context and ignoring a source with lots of citations is proof of self-justification...

Also with evolutionary biology being directly tied to gender role? Especially complicated gender roles and identities that humans have, while it's debatable more instinct driven animals share such gender identity and role concepts? Citation needed! Well it would be needed if I were going to pay anymore attention to what you post, because you're not citing sources, while demanding others cite sources, and that's a double standard I'm not going to play.

I might be misunderstanding it myself but :
I think you misunderstand this poster, I think he/she is purely trying to point out that you can't claim something is science when it obviously doesn't qualify as such.

He then tries to illustrate this by the poor manner in which the research has been conducted.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

Actually it in and of itself is what refers to an unspecified quantity or identity.

I don't know if you've ever seen this but in Europe we teach verbs (including English in this format :

I -verb-
You -verb-
He/She/It -verb
They(plural) -verb-
We -verb-

example:

in this pronoun setup of verbs and pronouns they has always meant the plural unknown quantity whilst it refers to the singular unknown quantity.

I understand what you're getting at here, too bad that it's not exactly correct, because of a long history of they being used as a singular pronoun. This is specifically because English lacks a gender-neutral singular pronoun, thus the words they, them, their, and themselves are pressed into service: Source. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they]Soruce. [http://grammarist.com/usage/they/] These words have been used with singular pronoun since the 14th century, specifically because the lack of a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

Now you might not agree linguistically, but there are a couple of things to remember: The first is that the word "it" used as a pronoun for humans is far too corrupted by prejudice to be of any use, at least anymore. People have constantly referred to ethnic minorities as "it" as a method of dehumanization via use of the English language. The second thing is: Gender-neutral, genderqueer, and agender folk can be seen as having an unspecified gender, because they identify outside the binary. Because the gender of such persons is ostensibly an unknown quantity, even if you know their biological sex, based on the fact they identify outside the binary.

I still think the most important consideration is this: Us trans and non-binary folk aren't asking much when we ask to be identified by preferred gender pronouns. Keep in mind that we go through constant questioning of our genders, both externally from other people, and internally because of gender dysphoria. It's a lot less stressful for both parties in this case if the pronoun preference is accepted, rather than having a long protracted argument over weather a pronoun is strictly "correct". It's such a small trivial concession to make, that literally hurts no one, that arguing over it ceases to be about correctness and becomes about erasure of identity.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Yes because taking my quote out of context and ignoring a source with lots of citations is proof of self-justification...

Also with evolutionary biology being directly tied to gender role? Especially complicated gender roles and identities that humans have, while it's debatable more instinct driven animals share such gender identity and role concepts? Citation needed! Well it would be needed if I were going to pay anymore attention to what you post, because you're not citing sources, while demanding others cite sources, and that's a double standard I'm not going to play.

I might be misunderstanding it myself but :
I think you misunderstand this poster, I think he/she is purely trying to point out that you can't claim something is science when it obviously doesn't qualify as such.

He then tries to illustrate this by the poor manner in which the research has been conducted.

(Point of order, we don't know the gender of the sheppie. It isn't listed on their profile. Hence my use of gender neutral pronouns.)

No, they try to illustrate it by the poor manner in which a single study has been conducted. And they completely fail to do so.

A lot of their complaints are nonsense (Breach of Ethics for collecting observed behavior data in a public setting? Really?) but I am going to ignore all of that and get to the key point: This study was not conducted by gender studies experts. This was a attempt to explain observed social behavior with principles of biology. No one involved was an expert in gender studies. The authors are a biologist (specializing in sexual traits) and a technology communications expert. The key hint should have been, you know, the entire thing is about evolutionary developed traits. At the absolute best this study touches on gender studies and was conducted by people not properly trained to do so.

The poster has literally no idea what they are talking about. This is a person so misinformed they read an entire study about evolution by a biologist and thought "Yeah, this is totally gender studies!" cause, you know, it said male and female a lot in it, so that's gotta be gender studies, right?

This is fairly typical of people opposed to gender studies. The reason why this study was chosen is almost certainly because it caused a few waves in the gaming community back in July. No one actually bothered to think about it then either. Sheppie was probably just parroting arguments against it that were made back in July.

So yeah, overall a pretty bad and ridiculous argument against gender studies.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snipped-

You just disregarded the entire concept that gender and sex aren't the same thing, which isn't an unrelated topic. The fact is that gender role and expression are very complicated social dynamics of human nature, ones that go far beyond the confines of sexual procreation.

With your horse analogy, you also mis the point, the horse's behavior is designed to A) Protect it's own offspring, and B) secure it's breeding rights with females. Those are both traits of sexual procreation, not a gender role or identity. The mares have a vested interest in not fighting intervening in the quarrel of the males, who ever wins mates with them and is obviously the superior genetic stock.

Point of fact evolutionary biology idea you're spouting is a myth of man the hunter [http://harpers.org/archive/2015/06/shooting-down-man-the-hunter/] that roots back to the socioeconomic environment of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The evolutionary picture you're trying to paint is very inaccurate biologically, socially, and environmentally.

A much bigger issue that you've ignored is that human women specifically are prone to secondary infections after birth, that up until the mid-late 19th century were one of the leading causes of death in women. With high infant mortality rates and the potential of post birth death, losing a woman wasn't as huge a deal as you're trying to make it, because a tremendous number of women died during and after child birth, and more than half of all children died before adulthood. Humanity's communal social nature is what provides for the rearing of young, not some bizarre evolutionary biology theory that holds less water than a screen door on a submarine. Especially because in tribal communities that exist to this very day women contribute to both hunting and gathering, along with defense from other groups of humans and predators.