Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Lets Have Another Gender Discussion!

20 posts in this topic

Posted

But no really, a weird dream I had just got me thinking seriously about certain things and I wanted to put them down on paper (figuratively) so people can think about it with me and stuff. The topic I have on my mind, in particular, is sex segregation.

 

Now, I know the biggest pervert in hyrule.net (maybe) talking about sex segregation can seemingly only go bad, but I ask that you hear me out because I have muuuuch more in mind here than defending my right to see everyone's junk. (just the opposite in fact)

 

Anyway, this is a pretty big thing worldwide and some people get nuts about it. There are entire schools that segregate biological males and females because poor defenseless girls need to be kept safe from those dirty boys (talk about telling kids at a young age how capable they are to be decent human beings). I would argue that not only this pointless segregation of the mundane, but all sex segregation as it is might have some alarming effects on gender role enforcement.

 

Let's give the pros a fair shot before we move onto the cons though. Sex segregation does cater to men and women who have a natural sense to protect their decency, and just naturally feel that nudity in front of the opposite sex is compromising of that decency. Furthermore, some argue that it gives women a "safe space" against men (http://snowflakeespecial.tumblr.com/post/81691050190/just-wanted-to-add-that-young-women-in-a-womens-locker). But I ask, what is the source of these feelings? By acknowledging and acting on these feelings, are we encouraging ourselves to think that one sex needs to be protected from the other?

 

To summarize my feelings, I am beginning to suspect that sex segregation, rather than providing safe zones for women and men, creates "taboo" zones which entice men and women to violate them, enforce the "sacredness" of the female nude body as an object to be shielded from men rather than being the body of a person that is not an object, and most importantly force trans people into a gender/sex binary that they may not conform to.

 

Now, because I can't reasonably write an essay in one post about this I'll leave those three points alone so you folks can extend on them with your own thoughts, but I'd like to close by pointing out the effects of eliminating sex segregation in certain places. Naturists, for example, do sometimes integrate washrooms (and of course don't  have locker rooms to integrate) and I could probably write a whole `nother essay on the self-esteem and mutual-respect-for-the-opposite-sex-forming benefits of their line of thinking. And of course, we have the Japanese tradition of Onsen which, before western meddling, integrated sexes in a bath environment (Chimetals can probably speak waaaaaay more on this but is by no means obligated to). Anyway, let me know what you think!

SilverAlchemic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think most schools that seperate genders areprivate or catholic organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your first point about taboo zones - I don't think you can criticize a rule or set of rules based on how it makes you want to break that rule. That's a confusing sentence to type. The rule itself doesn't make people want to break the rule. It's human nature to want to break rules in general. (It's also human nature to have rules, don't get me wrong.) I don't think the trans part is "most important", as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think this is a special case for human nature and rule making/breaking; it's impractical to condemn most rules based on how they entice people to break them, yeah, but in this case you have to weigh the consequences of enforcing/removing this rule because the stakes are so high. It's less about people wanting to break this rule and more about how they break it, namely they defy this rule by becoming obsessed with the mystery of the female body. I think it's kind of like the old argument about repressing sexuality and shaming people for sexual activity; those laws actually encourage greater deviance rather than helping anyone, so it's understandable to criticize the law because people will want to break it.

 

About the trans thing, I worded that wrong and apologize. What I meant to say is; In the case of allowing women safe zones vs. letting trans people use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, I think trans people win out. You're definitely asking someone to abandon something they value no matter which side you choose (and that is understandably crummy), but when I weigh the plight of the two it seems like siding with the women means trans people will have to deal with their gender dysphoria just because they're in public and have to go to the bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think this is a special case for human nature and rule making/breaking; it's impractical to condemn most rules based on how they entice people to break them, yeah, but in this case you have to weigh the consequences of enforcing/removing this rule because the stakes are so high. It's less about people wanting to break this rule and more about how they break it, namely they defy this rule by becoming obsessed with the mystery of the female body. I think it's kind of like the old argument about repressing sexuality and shaming people for sexual activity; those laws actually encourage greater deviance rather than helping anyone, so it's understandable to criticize the law because people will want to break it.

 

That's fallacious. If you are restricting sexual activity, and then you have sex with someone, that's considered devious under the new law, whereas before it was just normal. It reminds me of this incredibly skewed report of how gun crime in the UK rose by 500% or so after guns restrictions were established. It's not like everyone was just exploding in violence. In reality, things were pretty much the same, except the law more strict. So people who had owned guns or carried guns in the past were now committing crimes under the new law, hence the "surge" in crime. The 500% increase in gun violence was a result in the reporting of the new laws, not a backlash against the law. I paraphrased and probably skewed details of the UK gun law thing, but the point still stands.

 

I don't agree with your example, but I do actually think that on some level, some people become curious about the taboo subjects and do them out of rebellion. I agree there, but I don't think curiosity versus taboo has anything to do with laws. 

 

 

 

And about your other point: are public restrooms like, a place where you are expressing your uniqueness? Are there people who consider a public restroom some kind of sanctuary? Or some place in which they can feel at home? No, they're puppying gross and provide the bare minimum for people to piss and shit and wash their hands. You don't flaunt your genitals in the restroom, or even look at anyone else really. Many countries don't even have public restrooms. 

 

What if someone has AIDS and they get sick from a toilet seat? What if I have a crippling fear of using a urinal next to someone? Do I get a private bathroom for myself? What if I'm a germophobe and there's not hand-sanitizer?????? God damn, I would feel so oppressed. You have to deal with everything that happens, be it gender dysphoria or whatever. The idea of a public restroom kind of sums up the concept of "deal with it". It's really gross, has the bare minimum with no perks, and is there to provide for some of the most basic human functions. puppy how you feel about it, you'll use it no matter how much it is unpleasant.

Edited by Iargely Iegendry (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If thats the case we may as well just make all restrooms universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Then we could get the couches womens restrooms have. I don't know about you, but sometimes the stress of taking a shit and the smell of human excretions just tire me out. Couches are the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I remember trying to type up a response to this and then I closed my browser without thinking, so sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Personally, I'm not one to distinguish by gender, I think. I am a fan of personalities I find cute though, and I can typically find something cute about anyone's personality.

 

I do think that it's pretty messed up to pretty much tell boys they can't be trusted or that they're too dirty to lay their hands on girls, or whatever. And this really reminds me of the conundrum-- what came first, clothes, or shame? Do we cover ourselves because we feel shame or do we feel shame because we cover ourselves? I really think it's the latter. Like, think about the female breast. It's virtually identical to the male breast except its typically round, protruding shape. And yet we can show any part of the breast on public television that isn't the nipple. The thing that males universally share with females.

 

I heard that breasts didn't used to be a big deal. Other societies get along just fine with exposed breasts. They're not a primary sex organ or anything, and even if we allow public nudism, what about nudity is inherently sexual? We're all naked underneath our clothes. A cloth barrier is not the primary way to say you're not interested in sex. These ideas are all purely sociological. If someone is really disturbed enough to rape you, clothes are just a minor inconvenience. We've also invented the bra, which actually doesn't really serve a purpose other than sexual ones, and their sole purpose is concealing the breast. Studies have shown that they don't prevent sagging. Sagging is inevitable. Their role is sexual--for concealment purposes.

 

Restrooms are an interesting problem. They're typically not the most glamorous places. Making them universal would be a good thing, I think. Then pretty much everybody wins. Maybe malefolk would get access to restrooms with better hygiene. I was on a trip with my band camp once, and we went to this high school for a competition, and the boy's restroom was just completely deplorable. It looked like it only got cleaned once a month. There weren't any dividers between the four present urinals. The stone divider in between the only two stalls was only waist height, so that you could be making eye contact with your very possible pooping partner. One of the bowls was completely dry and caked with feces. My group and I went into the girl's bathrooms instead. Pristine cleanliness, full plastic dividers, at least ten stalls, a full body mirror. Jesus. I've never been so disgusted to look at a clean bathroom. I can't imagine what kind of message this sends to the students.

 

Many of our sociological views are self-fulfilling prophecies. You provide a mold for them to fit, and the easiest thing to do is fit it. Children typically don't have enough motivation and complex analytical skill to do something about our dumb double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, I didn't really touch on the practical side of things (ie doubling the cost of installing bathrooms and quality disparity) but it's a valid point. Also, and this isn't a judgment on anyone in particular, I didn't want to make it about men having to deal with lower quality bathrooms because I didn't want anyone crying misandry; that would open a whole different can of worms.

 

LL, about the thing with crime and statistics, in your example the press did indeed goof and that proves my argument can be fallacious in other circumstances. However, I'm talking about a rise in sex crimes that were illegal even before stricter laws were passed (such as the increase in rape and the rise of characters like Jack the Ripper during the Victorian Era of England).

 

As for the bathroom argument, there is a definite significance played on the gender of the people allowed in it. It does seem like a minor thing, especially when you consider places like bathrooms in cities and stores. However, think about segregated bathrooms in schools; men's and women's bathrooms are designed very differently to suit tastes (guys usually have minimal decoration and are more practical whereas girls have slight decoration and pretty wallpaper). I dunno if you've seen that one episode in the first season of "Community" about the social scene in the girl's bathroom, but consider stuff like that. Yeah, it's a joke in the show but it's based off something very real; the idea that girls like to be girls in the bathroom. There is a definite mystique to the women's restroom in many public places and I think it's understandable that trans people would desire to be affiliated/unaffiliated with that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bras do have a purpose. Imagine running down a flight of stairs with breasts. Saying bras were invented for sexual purposes is the exact same as saying that a girl is asking to be raped by dressing a certain way.

The nebulous term "gender dysphoria" is really confusing and annoying. Just because a group of people give it a name and a description, people think it has become more real. Where does "gender dysphoria" end and where does low self esteem begin? What's the difference between a crippling anxiety and something that you should just get over? I think that giving power to words like these takes the responsibility from the individual, so that they don't have to grow up. They can pull the "dysphoria" card whenever they want, and in situations in which people have to just deal with things. I think we as a culture kind of celebrate diagnoses more than the cure. We want an excuse to feel a certain way, an excuse to which we can attribute our shortcomings, and an excuse to not deal with things.

I feel this way about many topical psychological ailments, not just this topic.

Edited by Iargely Iegendry (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For support purposes when running, yeah. I hear running without a bra can be painful, but at the same time, I hear that you have to hold them when running down the stairs anyway. But I mean, on the whole, bras are something that were created to meet a need that they invented. Also, details of the recent French study are here.

 

What I mean with sexual purposes is, they are now viewed as sexual, so we invented something to cover them up; at the same time, they've always been used to make breasts more prominent. The precursor to the modern brassiere is the corset, after all, and it is absolutely not for running purposes. It's not the same as saying a woman is asking to be raped for her clothes. I'm saying that the general population has projected onto a common clothing item because they make what's underneath taboo. Meaning, a woman doesn't have to think of the bra existing for sexual purposes, but someone is inevitably going to think so anyway, because we have invented shame for the lack of a bra.

 

Women have existed braless for millennia. The "need" for them is a recent thing. Telling women to cover up in a specific way is a way they are objectified. Even those who are too flat to benefit from a bra can't show their nipples in our society, so just that in itself shows the bra is not entirely for a practical purpose, but a sexual one as well. Society projects the idea that there is a lewd, sexual nature associated with them, to the point that we will deny women the right to breastfeed in public, when breastfeeding is actually the whole point of breasts existing.

 

Just reading the Wikipedia article makes the concept of bras sound really wishy-washy. I guess I'm not really saying their entire purpose is sexual; there are practical sides to binding breasts, but I do think that it's part of a more complex issue than running with larger cup sizes. It's a sociological thing first and foremost, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I made a thread once about asking you guys if buttholes were sexual. What did you guys say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think you mentioned you put ice cubes in your girlfriend's butthole just to see what would happen and we all decided that was a sexual thing to do. I haven't been paying attention to this thread and I don't know what context that question is in, I'm just saying. Okay bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was totally clothed though

I didn't mean to like just not acknowledge your post, Allen. I think you're right, after you elaborated.

Sahaqiel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.