|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2021 23:01:53 GMT
I know enough to know she's a girl who thinks she's a boy. When someone is wrong, only the wicked would cheer them on. That's not enough to actually know her as a person. When someone judges a child without meeting them, that is truly wicked. She thinks she's a boy. What else do I need to know? If she thought she was an alligator, would this conversation be different?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 26, 2021 23:48:34 GMT
Kind of adding to the question here but… Do other people have like a check list in their head on what it means to be a man or a woman? I can’t recall ever really having this. As a man who thinks he’s a man and has no issue on the matter…I just have a hard time understanding what this is…like….I have a lot of traits that define me…but I wouldn’t catalog any of those traits as unique or even particular to men in general. Physically people are what they are but mentally I don’t see any reason to put walls up around what constitutes a man or a woman. Just to be clear I don’t have any issue with a person born a man saying they identify as a woman or whatever…I just don’t understand the lines in the sand outside the obvious physical differences like genitalia. Excellent post. This is the issue in a nutshell. It's like as a society we're going through our awkward 'trying to figure things out' phase, and in the future we're going to look back at the history of 'gender identity' and wonder what the point of it all was. Most of the famous chefs are men, yet cooking is 'women's work?' Men can be nurses, women can fix cars. You can track the history of culture and figure out how most of these gender based roles came to be, but as time goes by we're moving farther away from those rigid gender concepts. As you said, gender is essentially irrelevant beyond the physical sense.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2021 0:51:20 GMT
Kind of adding to the question here but… Do other people have like a check list in their head on what it means to be a man or a woman? I can’t recall ever really having this. As a man who thinks he’s a man and has no issue on the matter…I just have a hard time understanding what this is…like….I have a lot of traits that define me…but I wouldn’t catalog any of those traits as unique or even particular to men in general. Physically people are what they are but mentally I don’t see any reason to put walls up around what constitutes a man or a woman. Just to be clear I don’t have any issue with a person born a man saying they identify as a woman or whatever…I just don’t understand the lines in the sand outside the obvious physical differences like genitalia. Excellent post. This is the issue in a nutshell. It's like as a society we're going through our awkward 'trying to figure things out' phase, and in the future we're going to look back at the history of 'gender identity' and wonder what the point of it all was. Most of the famous chefs are men, yet cooking is 'women's work?' Men can be nurses, women can fix cars. You can track the history of culture and figure out how most of these gender based roles came to be, but as time goes by we're moving farther away from those rigid gender concepts. As you said, gender is essentially irrelevant beyond the physical sense. Problem is, those rigid gender concepts are what we use to determine gender. Oversimplified, if a little boy likes to paint his nails, play with dolls, and wear high heels, we tend to say his gender is female. But it's not acceptable to say painting nails, playing with dolls, and wearing high heels are female activities. It's all so self-defeating. We're using a measuring stick that we condemn.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 27, 2021 1:37:32 GMT
Excellent post. This is the issue in a nutshell. It's like as a society we're going through our awkward 'trying to figure things out' phase, and in the future we're going to look back at the history of 'gender identity' and wonder what the point of it all was. Most of the famous chefs are men, yet cooking is 'women's work?' Men can be nurses, women can fix cars. You can track the history of culture and figure out how most of these gender based roles came to be, but as time goes by we're moving farther away from those rigid gender concepts. As you said, gender is essentially irrelevant beyond the physical sense. Problem is, those rigid gender concepts are what we use to determine gender. Oversimplified, if a little boy likes to paint his nails, play with dolls, and wear high heels, we tend to say his gender is female. But it's not acceptable to say painting nails, playing with dolls, and wearing high heels are female activities. It's all so self-defeating. We're using a measuring stick that we condemn. Agreed, that's the point Marv made that I highlighted. We shouldn't be using those gender qualifiers, and we're on the road to burying them permanently. If someone is unsure of their identity because of their sexual preference or even their general interests, we're doing something very wrong as a culture.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2021 1:43:27 GMT
Problem is, those rigid gender concepts are what we use to determine gender. Oversimplified, if a little boy likes to paint his nails, play with dolls, and wear high heels, we tend to say his gender is female. But it's not acceptable to say painting nails, playing with dolls, and wearing high heels are female activities. It's all so self-defeating. We're using a measuring stick that we condemn. Agreed, that's the point Marv made that I highlighted. We shouldn't be using those gender qualifiers, and we're on the road to burying them permanently. If someone is unsure of their identity because of their sexual preference or even their general interests, we're doing something very wrong as a culture. Yup. I don't blame the girl in the OP for being confused.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 27, 2021 6:17:24 GMT
I'm not being dismissive; I'm being observant. Perhaps "deluded" is a better word. Saying someone is confused or deluded without knowing them is being dismissive. You can't be observant of someone you've never met, seen, nor studied. That goes against the very definition of the word. Deluded is not a better word either because you don't know the kid. She may in fact be right about herself.
If someone thinks they are Napoleon, or that Ted Danson is an alien lizard person, I don't need to know them to know they are deluded. How can a female child know she is a male inside when she's never been a male? I listened to a medical doctor try to answer that question for 20 minutes before giving up and saying, "It's just too complicated, you have to take their word for it." So is that how we do medicine now? We just take people's word for it. Ludicrous. We don't allow children to vote or use alcohol because their brains aren't fully developed, they lack practical life experience and good judgement, they go through all sorts of hormone fueled phases, but we are to allow them to permanently alter their physical bodies because they feel like something they have never before experienced? I agree with the people who say that's child abuse. Exceptions would be those children who have a physical or genetic birth defect relating to gender.
Medical science used to think a woman's uterus wandered around her body. We learn and improve. As do all sciences. There are scientists who think the world is flat. Being in an expert in one field does not make you an expert in all the fields. A biologist does not study gender. It'd be more believable if it weren't for the fact gender fluidity had been going on for hundreds of years long before our increasingly overstimulated modern world developed. It'd be like saying being gay is a product of celebrities coming out.
1. You're being ridiculous, this is 2021 not 1421, we've mapped the human genome. There are popular papers written on gender fluidity by people who have never cracked a biology book and currently hold no PhDs. Let that sink in.
2. Scientists haven't believed the world was flat for about 2000 years.
2a. Biology is a hard science, it studies lifeforms and processes of life.
3. Gender fluidity has nothing to do with being gay, which is a sexual preference. Some people get off on feet, some get off on the same sex, some like fat girls, some like dad bods, some like big butts, some like an athletic figure, some like pain, etc. I always thought it was weird people spend so much time worrying about what makes someone gay, or worrying about a gay gene. Homosexuals are just people who like the same sex.
3a. Overstimulation isn't new, it's been written about for over 150 years and is not unlike some forms of torture, like being locked in a cell and forced to listen to loud music which was done in Guantánamo to break prisoners. Today we are almost constantly stimulated (if you allow yourself to be) and people immersed in it become open to suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 27, 2021 13:07:25 GMT
That's not enough to actually know her as a person. When someone judges a child without meeting them, that is truly wicked. She thinks she's a boy. What else do I need to know? If she thought she was an alligator, would this conversation be different? You need to know the child. You'll find that with a few minor differences, an alligator is not a human being.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 27, 2021 13:11:37 GMT
1. Indeed. Because we learned and accepted new findings. We didn't stick to outdated ideas. As you said, this is 2021. Join us.
2. Some do. It's sad.
2a. Indeed it is. And that's why I don't look to biologists for advice on gender studies than I do chemists for advice on social phenomena. It's not their field of study.
3. The point being that gender fluidity is nothing new and isn't some fad born of the modern world.
3a. None of which has anything to do with gender fluidity having been around far longer than 150 years.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 28, 2021 6:23:01 GMT
1. Indeed. Because we learned and accepted new findings. We didn't stick to outdated ideas. As you said, this is 2021. Join us. 2. Some do. It's sad. 2a. Indeed it is. And that's why I don't look to biologists for advice on gender studies than I do chemists for advice on social phenomena. It's not their field of study. 3. The point being that gender fluidity is nothing new and isn't some fad born of the modern world. 3a. None of which has anything to do with gender fluidity having been around far longer than 150 years.
You wouldn't have to ignore biology if you didn't believe irrational ideas about gender. Gender is in your genes, sorry. You need to get over the obsession with labeling everyone and everything and just be who you are. (and psst, there is no such thing as recovered memories either)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 28, 2021 6:37:24 GMT
She thinks she's a boy. What else do I need to know? If she thought she was an alligator, would this conversation be different? You need to know the child. You'll find that with a few minor differences, an alligator is not a human being. I did indeed find that. Thanks. During the search, I also found that a girl is not a boy.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 28, 2021 13:21:12 GMT
You need to know the child. You'll find that with a few minor differences, an alligator is not a human being. I did indeed find that. Thanks. Then why did you bring up an alligator if you know it's not a human being? Hyperbole doesn't help.
Depends on whether you're discussing gender or sex. And even then, one can still become the other.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 28, 2021 13:24:24 GMT
1. Indeed. Because we learned and accepted new findings. We didn't stick to outdated ideas. As you said, this is 2021. Join us. 2. Some do. It's sad. 2a. Indeed it is. And that's why I don't look to biologists for advice on gender studies than I do chemists for advice on social phenomena. It's not their field of study. 3. The point being that gender fluidity is nothing new and isn't some fad born of the modern world. 3a. None of which has anything to do with gender fluidity having been around far longer than 150 years.
You wouldn't have to ignore biology if you didn't believe irrational ideas about gender. Gender is in your genes, sorry. Incorrect. Gender is not in the genes. It's a social construct. You're confusing gender with sex. The two are not the same thing.
I'm not. I'm the one who says we should get to know the child before labeling them, so they can be who they are. You're already trying to slap on a label without even having met them.
Psst. I never said that. Please stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 28, 2021 14:13:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 28, 2021 15:07:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 28, 2021 17:26:05 GMT
You wouldn't have to ignore biology if you didn't believe irrational ideas about gender. Gender is in your genes, sorry. Incorrect. Gender is not in the genes. It's a social construct. You're confusing gender with sex. The two are not the same thing.
I'm not. I'm the one who says we should get to know the child before labeling them, so they can be who they are. You're already trying to slap on a label without even having met them.
Psst. I never said that. Please stay on topic. You are behind the times with your "gender is a social construct" assertion. The current orthodoxy in gender "science" is that gender is hard-wired in the brain, independently from the genitals one might have.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 28, 2021 18:36:30 GMT
Incorrect. Gender is not in the genes. It's a social construct. You're confusing gender with sex. The two are not the same thing.
I'm not. I'm the one who says we should get to know the child before labeling them, so they can be who they are. You're already trying to slap on a label without even having met them.
Psst. I never said that. Please stay on topic. You are behind the times with your "gender is a social construct" assertion. The current orthodoxy in gender "science" is that gender is hard-wired in the brain, independently from the genitals one might have. Actually, according to recent Masters in Sociology textbooks, gender is very much a social construct, at least the expression of it. Though if it is hardwired in the brain, independent of the genitals, it adds still a very strong argument that it's not only not related to sex, it can in fact be fluid.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 29, 2021 1:52:33 GMT
You wouldn't have to ignore biology if you didn't believe irrational ideas about gender. Gender is in your genes, sorry. Incorrect. Gender is not in the genes. It's a social construct. You're confusing gender with sex. The two are not the same thing.
I'm not. I'm the one who says we should get to know the child before labeling them, so they can be who they are. You're already trying to slap on a label without even having met them.
Psst. I never said that. Please stay on topic.
I suspect I've read more about gender in the last week than you've read in your life, judging by the (lack of) content in your posts. Yesterday I read an article by a self-described transgender woman who doesn't identify as man or woman. Her proof there are more than two genders are that not all men can grow bushy beards, not all men are taller than women, not all men are faster or stronger than women. That's the metric she used to decide she is not a woman. I assume because she is stronger or taller than some men (she plays rugby and doesn't have a beard) so she assumes she's not a woman. How sad is that. The woman needs counseling to accept herself. She's no different than girls who puke after meals to look like waif fashion models. This woman hates herself, and you are enabling and justifying that hate by reinforcing ideas about gender that are based in nonsense. Gender is biological, gender dysphoria is a mental health issue.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Oct 29, 2021 4:06:58 GMT
I don't understand why it's so hard for people these days to fathom that we all have *both* masculine and feminine sides. I think very few people are 100% completely macho man, or dainty girly girl. If they are, then they're probably pretty boring and not very well rounded individuals. I think it's good to explore both so we better understand ourselves, and humanity as a whole. For the life of me, I can't understand why people are so fascinated with the boxes and labels they create for themselves. Boxes only serve to constrain us. You can be a girl and be good a mechanics. You can be a guy and enjoy ballet. Who cares.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 29, 2021 5:01:46 GMT
I don't understand why it's so hard for people these days to fathom that we all have *both* masculine and feminine sides. I think very few people are 100% completely macho man, or dainty girly girl. If they are, then they're probably pretty boring and not very well rounded individuals. I think it's good to explore both so we better understand ourselves, and humanity as a whole. For the life of me, I can't understand why people are so fascinated with the boxes and labels they create for themselves. Boxes only serve to constrain us. You can be a girl and be good a mechanics. You can be a guy and enjoy ballet. Who cares.
My wife is a mechanic. She is not girly, trans, queer, manly, on a spectrum, or anything else except herself. She doesn't sit around whining that men won't let her be equal ... she goes out and does her work very well because she's smart, educated, capable, personable, and has had rapid career advancements because she gets shit done right and doesn't need to fuck over other people to stand out.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 29, 2021 13:21:22 GMT
Incorrect. Gender is not in the genes. It's a social construct. You're confusing gender with sex. The two are not the same thing.
I'm not. I'm the one who says we should get to know the child before labeling them, so they can be who they are. You're already trying to slap on a label without even having met them.
Psst. I never said that. Please stay on topic.
I suspect I've read more about gender in the last week than you've read in your life, judging by the (lack of) content in your posts. Yesterday I read an article by a self-described transgender woman who doesn't identify as man or woman. Her proof there are more than two genders are that not all men can grow bushy beards, not all men are taller than women, not all men are faster or stronger than women. That's the metric she used to decide she is not a woman. I assume because she is stronger or taller than some men (she plays rugby and doesn't have a beard) so she assumes she's not a woman. How sad is that. The woman needs counseling to accept herself. She's no different than girls who puke after meals to look like waif fashion models. This woman hates herself, and you are enabling and justifying that hate by reinforcing ideas about gender that are based in nonsense.
I suspect you haven't, at least not anything credible, judging by the quality of content in your posts. What you read sounds like an opinion piece article, not exactly a peer reviewed journal or accredited text book. It's like the flat earthers who think they know more about science because they watched a youtube video. Actual scientific articles go far more into detail.
Those are not mutually compatible. If it's biological, then that author is a man in his genes as well as mind and has no mental health issues because being a man is in his genes. Again, don't confuse gender and sex. They're not the same thing. People used to think homosexuality was a mental health issue. We learn and move on. We don't stubbornly try to slap mental health issues labels on people just because we don't understand them. It's pretentious.
|
|