5 Genders

[Esiris]

Dancehall Hysteria

Esiris

You make a good point, and I did miss that in the wording- but I think that kind of proves what I was saying- how the universal generalizations are part of what's wrong with this system.

Universal generalizations are definitely not fun. But what exactly do you mean by "this system?"

Quote:

Some of that is solved by talking about gender in terms of gender identity and gender express and how they're not the same thing. cat_3nodding

That's true.

When I said "this system" I kind of lumped a ton of things together- like the G-Factor scale, the stuff the OP was talking about and popular (inaccurate) understands about gender.  

[Saint Sims]

Esiris

Der Fluch des Pharao

Esiris

You misunderstand.

By close-minded I mean that any definition of gender that limits how one should view themselves is universally unacceptable.

But declaring that is just as universal- and doesn't that make it unacceptable?

Quote:

It has always been my understanding that most everyone viewed themselves as male or female regardless of the anatomical implications.

Nope- I'm not male or female!

Quote:

Certainly so, that isn't everyone's opinion, but it's one that I hold strong to.

But doesn't that mean you're trying to do just what you said was unacceptable?

Quote:

I feel as though the whole gender debate is similar to the sexuality debate of which I can more easily express my impression in that with sexuality all that matters is that you're "sexual", that each prefix is nothing more than unnecessary.

Wow- that's really undermining a lot of the empowerment that the LGBT community uses though- and it also ignores whole groups because some of those prefixes negate sexuality all together.

Quote:

Equally, I believe that gender is similar in that you define your own gender as you would your own sexuality so that if you see yourself male but are, for whatever reason, deemed by societies standards as otherwise that it really doesn't matter because YOU are the one who does the defining.

I think I understand what you're trying to say here- that we have the right to self-determination, and if that's what you're getting at, then I agree- but it's worded in ways that really are insulting to people who identify as binary and love their gender by trying to erase them. I think those words, like the prefix-seuxality and all the gender terms are amazing and powerful and can help people and trying to erase them or deny them hurts people. I've seen a lot of my friends who are transitioning to from their assigned sex to their gender hurt by people who say the words don't matter and they should just "deal".

Quote:

So, long winded response short, I feel as though any attempt at categorizing an individual into a neat little package is close-minded.

8D

And I know that removing people's right to use language in meaningful ways that supports who they are is just as bad- plus, I don't like people using close-minded as a way of attacking others.

You've completely missed my point.

I see everything objectively and take it in as such and subsequently formulate my own ever changing opinions.

To me it all boils down to simple idealism and ideologies. Defining yourself by a single word is completely ignorant, yes ignorant. To say that you are a "vegan" is to limit yourself in every way shape and form. The same is for sexuality and gender. You have to take these ideals and shape them according to your life, you have to define these things and not let them define you. Otherwise it makes you nothing but a close-minded and a highly disagreeable individual that's no different from the bigots of extreme conservatism. It's a two sided coin and there are always two extremes. You can't sit there and be a liberal and fight for all that is right while slaying anyone who opposes what you've come to believe, it makes you no better than your opposition.

I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not calling names, don't even think that for a second. I'm simply making the strongest point that a perspective doesn't need to be narrow, it doesn't have to be so incredulously shut off to anything that is disagreeable.

That is why I don't believe in gender titles, orientations, or flashy words that people use to stuff themselves into; they're close-minded.

Furthermore, I'm not stripping anyone of their language, words like close-minded should not be feared or written off, they're a matter-of-fact honesty that need to be embraced. In no way does it attack anyone but rather points out the a universal flaw of anyone who shuts off anything disagreeable to them, that is what the words means.  

[loonaboots]

Esiris

Dancehall Hysteria

Esiris

You make a good point, and I did miss that in the wording- but I think that kind of proves what I was saying- how the universal generalizations are part of what's wrong with this system.

Universal generalizations are definitely not fun. But what exactly do you mean by "this system?"

Quote:

Some of that is solved by talking about gender in terms of gender identity and gender express and how they're not the same thing. cat_3nodding

That's true.

When I said "this system" I kind of lumped a ton of things together- like the G-Factor scale, the stuff the OP was talking about and popular (inaccurate) understands about gender.

Oh! That makes more sense. ^^

 

[Esiris]

Der Fluch des Pharao

You've completely missed my point.

I see everything objectively and take it in as such and subsequently formulate my own ever changing opinions.

To me it all boils down to simple idealism and ideologies. Defining yourself by a single word is completely ignorant, yes ignorant.

It isn't objective if you rely on name calling and insults, it's as bad as what you're accusing everyone else of because you're defining them by a single word- ignorant.
To me that shows that your opinion isn't objective, because it's inconsistent- your position isn't based on facts and objectivity because it's not impartial which is one of the foundations of ethical behavior. By labeling people who use labels as ignorant, you create a paradox.

Quote:

To say that you are a "vegan" is to limit yourself in every way shape and form. The same is for sexuality and gender. You have to take these ideals and shape them according to your life, you have to define these things and not let them define you. Otherwise it makes you nothing but a close-minded and a highly disagreeable individual that's no different from the bigots of extreme conservatism.

But everything you just said applies to your use of labeling others.
cat_confused

Quote:

It's a two sided coin and there are always two extremes. You can't sit there and be a liberal and fight for all that is right while slaying anyone who opposes what you've come to believe, it makes you no better than your opposition.

That's part of my point- because that's what I see you doing when your reaction to people using language effectively is to call them names.

Quote:

I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not calling names, don't even think that for a second. I'm simply making the strongest point that a perspective doesn't need to be narrow, it doesn't have to be so incredulously shut off to anything that is disagreeable.

I don't see that in your posts- your actions, your willingness to call people who empower themselves with language "ignorant" is exactly opposite of what you're saying.

Quote:

That is why I don't believe in gender titles, orientations, or flashy words that people use to stuff themselves into; they're close-minded.

This isn't objective perspective though- it's completely subjective.
In McIrony and Craig's study they showed being aware of the use of these labels is really important to the health of Multi-ethnic sexual minority youth (1).
This gets even more important when you look at "duel identity" groups like in the Hopkins study (2),

And it's useful for people outside of the identifiers too because they can provide greater understanding and treatment (3)!

The Neurolinguistics involved are a useful tool in psychology- if you want to be objective, then you have to look at the scientific data (though I think the Hopkins study was 2 patients short of offical data points) and see that when someone's opinion is backed by scientific reresearch that has been peer reviewed that it is more objective than a personal opinion that doesn't have that research.

Quote:

Furthermore, I'm not stripping anyone of their language, words like close-minded should not be feared or written off, they're a matter-of-fact honesty that need to be embraced. In no way does it attack anyone but rather points out the a universal flaw of anyone who shuts off anything disagreeable to them, that is what the words means.

Removing labels strips people of their language- and the scientists I cited have shown that calling someone closed-minded and ignorant because they don't agree with you means they're the ones being objective.
To me that means you're implying that people who are objective are closed minded and ignorant because that's all you've said about them and you haven't really shown you're right about that.


1: McInroy, L., & Craig, S. L. (2012). Articulating identities: Language and practice with multiethnic sexual minority youth. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 137-149. doi:10.1080/09515070.2012.674685
2: Hopkins, N. (2011). Dual Identities and Their Recognition: Minority Group Members' Perspectives. Political Psychology, 32(2), 251-270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00804.x
3: Ecklund, K. (2012). Intersectionality of Identity in Children: A Case Study. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 43(3), 256-264. doi:10.1037/a0028654  

[The Sweet Irony]

In Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, the alien Tralfamadorians say that humans only see one plane and see two sexes, the Tralfamadorians have identified seven human sexes that are all required in procreation. He says that, for example, a baby cannot be made without women over the age of sixty-five, but that a baby can be made without men above the age of sixty five, and so on and so forth.

I can't find my copy at the moment, and I don't remember whether he said babies could or could not be made without male homosexuals and female homosexuals (they were listed separately, so I think it was one or the other), but I think it followed the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child," but from the Tralfamadorians' view, it sounded like these seven sexes were a literal biological requirement to procreate, and that humans just didn't consciously know that they were participating in conception.

I assume that the women-over-65 indicated menopause, and that if I went back and looked the other sexes would be other states of sexual identity. Not strictly relevant, but the idea of the five genders reminded me of it. Just thought I'd throw it in.

 

[Wear Sunscreen]

So this entire thread is inspired by what Anne Fausto-Sterling posited in "The Five Sexes." Basically that there are five sexes, men, women, pure hermaphrodites, masculine hermaphrodites, and feminine hermaprhodites. Only she realized this is bullshit and refuted herself in "The Five Sexes revisited."

What you really need to read is Gender Trouble by Judith Butler, which will not only settle your problems a la sex and gender, but show you the power of discourse, which this thread is tapping into. PM if you wanna know more.  

[Saint Sims]

Esiris

I'm not going to continue this argument with you because you're obviously never wrong.

Simply put, you dissect what everyone has to say, removing everything from context, and exclusively implement your own bias making everyone else wrong for not agreeing with you.

Please be more careful of how you interact with others because it's rather insulting and demeaning.  

[CheizLord]

Gender is fluid. There are too many kinds of people in the world that dress, act, feel and look different to categorize them all neatly. Whether it be two genders or five, there simply aren't enough labels in the world to define everyone.

You'll need 6,894,594,844 gender labels- that's how many people are in the world. otherwise, more labels will only confuse and further mold the stereotypes we've already set and in my experience bring more walls up then they do down.  

[Esiris]

Der Fluch des Pharao

Esiris

I'm not going to continue this argument with you because you're obviously never wrong.

Simply put, you dissect what everyone has to say, removing everything from context, and exclusively implement your own bias making everyone else wrong for not agreeing with you.

Please be more careful of how you interact with others because it's rather insulting and demeaning.

I don't think it's fair that you insult people, call them names and make all kinds of wild claims and then say your position is objectively right and when met with someone who disagrees and supports their opinion with research you make the argument about me as a person instead of the facts. By implying that it's all about my ego and not about the effort I put in to finding sources that support what I was saying, you're doing the very thing you attack. Then you comment on how I respond to posts- which is a way of attacking a style instead of showing that the message is wrong?

All after calling other people closed minded?
You seriously are calling me insulting and demeaning?! cat_rolleyes

Maybe this is an education gap thing- but it really seems like you're projecting a lot of your personal insecurities and the problems with your own self onto me.  

[Saint Sims]

Esiris

This is done with.

We're not going to agree.

This no longer pertains to the subject of this thread.

The end.  

[Esiris]

Der Fluch des Pharao

Esiris

This is done with.

We're not going to agree.

But if you're really as open minded as you say you are, you'd at least look at the evidence that I posted showing that labels are useful and healthy and those tools can help people on the gender spectrum and outside of it which is why its relevant.  

[Shanna66]

why cant a masculine female just be a female? i mean, i would qualify as bigender but i would never want to be called a masculine woman. im just a person who has lady parts and enjoys wearing dresses as well as men's swim trunks

idk, i sometimes feel that all these terms to define our sexual orientations and our sexualities is a waste of time. it just makes dating a little easier and thats it imo  

[Tumble13]

Now, I might be a little influinced by being raised a bit of a redneck. But I'm not so fond of this theory.

I understand the extending of the view on the matter, where as these days as far as the law is concerned, there is just male and female. legally, transgender isn't really a separate gender as far as I know.

But extending the list isn't going to do anything for the hate. And there are plenty of femme males who would not appreciate being considered such. And plenty of masculine females who'd be the same. And this really wouldn't help anything. If anything, it'd only add a lot of confusion.

Now, of course, this is only my opinion on the matter. But I think we're better off trying to remove the problem at it's core, by ridding the hate for people's lifestyles. Because even if this was able to help anything...no...wait, actually I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. We should worry about, rather than makeing more labels, getting rid of the ones we have.  

[Esiris]

Tumble13

Now, I might be a little influinced by being raised a bit of a redneck. But I'm not so fond of this theory.

I understand the extending of the view on the matter, where as these days as far as the law is concerned, there is just male and female. legally, transgender isn't really a separate gender as far as I know.

Most laws acknowledge biological sex and not gender- however, many laws have come to recognize Transgendered individuals as worthy of legal protection as a protected class. cat_3nodding

I think it's important to know the difference between biological sex and gender and all the different genders out there.

Quote:

But extending the list isn't going to do anything for the hate. And there are plenty of femme males who would not appreciate being considered such. And plenty of masculine females who'd be the same. And this really wouldn't help anything. If anything, it'd only add a lot of confusion.

I think this is where self-identification becomes a major factor.

Quote:

But I think we're better off trying to remove the problem at it's core, by ridding the hate for people's lifestyles. Because even if this was able to help anything...no...wait, actually I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. We should worry about, rather than makeing more labels, getting rid of the ones we have.

Why are you sure? What research have you done to draw your conclusions? I showed several scientific studies that show labels and identifiers help people earlier in this very thread.  

[Buttery Biscuit Face]

No... just no. There is no need for labelling. Just be who you want to be, no one should give a s**t.