Gender

[Chase 390]

Alright, so bear with me. This is complicated shit.

We have male and female, masculine and feminine, respectively. People can associate, in varying degrees, with both or only one, or, apparently, neither. To add complexity to the mix, we are assigned, not by choice, either one of these sexes at birth (and in some extreme cases, both). Only male and female can reproduce, but some males have feelings for other males, while some females have feelings for other females. We even have males that want to be females that are attracted to males. The possibilities could get even more stressful when you consider the vast amount of fetishes, status quos, and social/ethical/moral ramifications entailed in any of these relationships.

Let me ask you this. How can someone (male or female) identify themselves as a girl without first having some idea of what a "girl" is and what a "girl" likes? Cas identifies himself as a female. Okay. But what is a female? Is it just junk between your legs? Or is it more than that? If it IS more than that, then gender roles don't seem like such a bad idea. Whereas segregation due to race was illogical, since biologically we're all the same regardless of color, separation of males and females makes a lot of sense, due to different feelings, different bodies, different identities. You'd want those who associate with girls to be, well, girls, right? And you'd want them to do things that girls would do. If you believe that we're all equal, you can't have it both ways. Either you are just a "person" and your sex and gender mean nothing at all, or you are a "man" or a "woman" at heart, and your sex/gender make all the difference.

But we can't have little boys going and changing clothes with little girls just because they consider themselves to be girls, can we? Herein lies the problem, and ultimately why I don't think society will ever come to terms with transgender. It's not that they necessarily don't want to; I mean, sure, there are dickheads in the world who just want to be assholes to you, but I don't think, as a whole, people want you to be unhappy. I just think it would confuse the puppy out of everyone else, because everything we know and believe about psychology and sociology is so grounded in gender.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Roles are part of stereotypes. I don't believe in either, but I know you do. So I'll let you do what you believe, even if I think gender is something no one should have to worry about, because the shape of man or woman isn't up or down triangles. It's not set in stone like that, because by default, we're talking about the gender roles and stereotypes when we discuss gender, and they're shaped by societies which are different all around the universe. What you believe is womanly has no bearing in my head, and there might be societies that think the same way. Ultimately, it's not up to what you think is in the now, but what is reality in the future. It might go one way or the other, we don't really know. It depends on your faith in people. I can't really argue against how there will always be people who think like this, but sociology and psychology also have many racial components and at the moment it's taboo to be racist. And people like reality television and Ke$ha. Society can do anything that can seem impossible now.

But if you want my opinion on the changing room, probably the most valid point in there, I think that there is a limit to things like this. Waiting until a certain point in their life where if you're sure you're transgendered, you know? Children are different than adults, developmentally and comprehensively. It takes time to know what you want to do.

Sahaqiel

[Aethix 129]

That's like saying that music and musicals are interchangeable if you don't take band.

No. The argument I made was ironclad, and you cannot defeat it with such misplaced analogies. Sex is a definition of gender. Music is not a definition of musicals. Musicals is not a definition of music. These are simple facts of the English language.

[2356 23]

How do you know the English language is ironclad? How do you know definitions are ironclad?

I can define the word "chicken" to mean the number 10. Does that make it true?

[Chase 390]

But Cascade obviously believes in gender differences or he couldn't relate to women in the first place. It wouldn't even be an issue. He wouldn't want to be considered female, because what is "female" is just a bunch of crap.

I don't think this is true, Saha. That doesn't make any sense. Either Cascade is disillusioned or you're wrong.

[2356 23]

Are we limited by pre-determined definitions? Is there even such a thing as pre-determined definitions?

So I'll let you do what you believe...

Yeah....

Already stated. Kind of.

In any case, belief doesn't necessarily mean "know."

I believe in faeries. Do I know they exist? Not really.

I believe I exist. Do I know that to be true? Not necessarily.

Belief isn't something that is necessarily true.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

No. The argument I made was ironclad, and you cannot defeat it with such misplaced analogies. Sex is a definition of gender. Music is not a definition of musicals. Musicals is not a definition of music. These are simple facts of the English language.

Your argument was based on a misconception definition. For instance, we've come to use the term viral when the real term is virulent, and the phrase "I could care less" is accepted even though it makes no sense. Sex is physical, gender is sociological. My analogy was iron clad. Musicals are based around music just as gender is based around sex. But they're two different things and are obviously treated as such. Transsexual and transgender wouldn't be two different things if gender and sex were the same thing. If you want reassurance, look up the dictionary.com definition of the two.

1. (noun) person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.

(adjectives) Also, trans·gen·dered.

being, pertaining to, or characteristic of a transgender or transgenders: the transgender movement.

1. person having a strong desire to assume the physical characteristics and gender role of the opposite sex.

2. a person who has undergone hormone treatment and surgery to attain the physical characteristics of the opposite sex.

On transsexual, also, don't cite that they talk about gender roles. It says physical characteristics and gender roles. If you're going to be all literal and argue syntax, that's pretty much how it goes. Also, transgender people are defined as being some of the people that seek transsexuality, not automatically as transsexual. Sex is physical, gender is psycho-social. No one gets a "gender change operation", because saying so in the medical field would get you laughed at.

I don't think this is true, Saha. That doesn't make any sense. Either Cascade is disillusioned or you're wrong.

I'm saying I don't believe in gender differences. I respect Cascade's belief in them and I see them as useful to society in order to minimize confusion, and I also support her if she feels more comfortable defining herself by something I don't believe in, just as many people define themselves by their religion (ie - "I'm a Christian" vs. "I'm a person") In truth, I would rather everyone just treat each other as people and not by their sociological labels, but if there are labels that people fit more into and are more comfortable in, I won't complain. I will love Cascade and all of you no differently.

Sahaqiel

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

No offense, but a lot of terms in sociology class are pure fluff.

Thank you.

[Skippy 82]

They aren't so much fluff, as very specific to certain situations, they have been defined in such a way as to cover both the biological and psychological aspects of a person. In this case, sex being a biological designation of male or female, gender being a psychological designation for standard wo/man traits. They are, generally, unnecessary for the normal person.

[Aethix 129]

I never said that gender couldn't refer to the sociological definition of gender, just that it doesn't have to. Looking back on it, I also should have refuted GMP's argument, and that was a failure of objectivity on my part, for which I apologize.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

No offense, but a lot of terms in sociology class are pure fluff.

I would think it's more the things we learned in there? At the end of the year, I was asked on an assignment if I had any real life applications I could do with sociology. I wrote no, because even our sociology teacher told us it's just common sense. Most of what I learned in there was just what some of the stuff I already knew about and identified myself were called, and knowing what something is called doesn't change the scenario at all for me. We also learned some big names in the sociology field, and different groups of theorists and whatever.

However, it's made a point to differentiate between sex and gender. True, it's not convenient for the "regular person" to use them both correctly per se, but it's still as incorrect to me as saying "would/should/could of" even though vocally, there's no difference between "would/should/could 've".

Sahaqiel

[Teto 2609]

They are, generally, unnecessary for the normal person.

oh skippy

Also I believe people should be allowed to identify themselves as whatever they like. I'm betting the only reason a lot of you are fighting this so furiously is because you've lived your whole life thinking what you think and that you're convinced by that whole lifetime of being wrong, which is OK.

[Teto 2609]

I will show you the light

I will uncover your dark secrets

[Sahaqiel 1232]

I was actually confused about the differences between gender and sex until only recently, and that's the only thing I'm making an argument about.

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

This is off topic now. Back on track: these parents are idiots.