Jump to content

Define Gender...


cobyz

Recommended Posts

Just Somebody
2 minutes ago, TaylorWaffle said:

I'm just saying it's rare to find people with more knowledge about gender than me but you're light years ahead of me. 

I was a confused angsty teen who had a lot of time alone to do "the homework"

 

 

You think so? Haha mom was right I should have gone into anthropology/sociology/gender studies/philosophy instead. Well not too late for me, nor for anyone to learn new things, we aare  always learning,  also, the 2 things you don't stop doing til you're death: breathing and learning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Gender is a massive stereotype.  Enforced on an almost global scale.  You can define your gender however you want, it doesn't stop the fact that it was made up.  Just because there is confusion doesn't mean that it is 100% open for what you do and do not believe.  The difference between gender and gender expression doesn't confuse me.  I find it easy to comprehend.  The field of sociology can clearly define gender and it's implications. There is no confusion except that what you make of it.  Just because you are confused doesn't mean science can't explain it as it already has.

The stereotypes have nothing to do with gender, though.  The stereotypes are all about gender roles and gender expression.  For all I know, maybe all of the gender role stuff is 100% social construction—I'm not disputing anything in that area here.  But there's something else, something that has nothing to do with liking cars or trucks or sports or dresses or makeup or suits, with having a job or staying at home taking care of the children, with behaving a certain way or having a certain personality or having certain thought patterns, with anything that might be considered socially constructed or that sociology might care about; but rather is about the fact that somewhere hidden deep in my brain is hardcoded knowledge that I'm not supposed to be able to grow facial hair or have a penis or have a big bony ridge on my forehead and yet for some reason I do have those things, and that is what makes a person trans, that is what the word gender refers to, and if people stopped trying to use the term gender to refer to the social/behavioral/personality stuff and recognized that these are separate things and actually talked about gender in explicit, literal, non-vague terms more then there would be a lot less confusion overall and I would have realized this sooner.

 

People who don't conform to gender stereotypes aren't necessarily trans, and people who are trans sometimes do conform to the stereotypes of their assigned gender.

 

(Somewhat of a simplification of my views.  There may be some connection between the two, and there's also social dysphoria which does relate closely to gender despite being social.  Also gender dysphoria can be subtle; the existence of such a subconscious belief doesn't mean one is consciously aware of it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
24 minutes ago, chridd said:

he stereotypes have nothing to do with gender, though

You're missing the point.  I am not talking about cars being stereo-typically male.  I am saying male is basically a massive stereotype.  A "social construct" as it were. 

 

27 minutes ago, chridd said:

eocial/behavioral/personality stuff and recognized that these are separate things and actually talked about gender in explicit, literal, non-vague terms more then there would be a lot less confusion overall and I would have realized this sooner.

Yeah, like gender being a social construct which helped me and many many people find out gender is BS and find their gender themselves.  It's almost like if you look up the definition of a word it is non-vague.  Things are as mysterious as you make them these days with the invention of the internet.  You are very much mystifying terms that don't need to be mystifying and vague.  The science behind this isn't vague, for some reason you are trying really hard to make it that way because I am talking in explicit literal and non-vague terms.

 

We can debate semantics all day, but you are making something mystical out of something that a freshmen sociology student should be able to write their second day of class.  Why are you making this hard?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith

I just did a simple search on youtube.  Gender Reveal pulled up over 700,000 results.  At least 700,000 children forced into gender roles before they are even born.  It isn't magical, it's seeing stereotypes the second you are out of the womb.  It's seeing your sister called a "she" before you can even speak.  Gender isn't magical, it isn't mystical.  It's a social construct.

 

Here's the definition according to Wikipedia.

 

A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event.[citation needed] In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society, but may or may not represent a reality shared by those outside the society, and would be an "invention or artifice of that society".[2][need quotation to verify]

 

The subject matter isn't hard but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the most powerful artifices made by humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Yeah, like gender being a social construct which helped me and many many people find out gender is BS and find their gender themselves.  It's almost like if you look up the definition of a word it is non-vague.  Things are as mysterious as you make them these days with the invention of the internet.  You are very much mystifying terms that don't need to be mystifying and vague.  The science behind this isn't vague, for some reason you are trying really hard to make it that way because I am talking in explicit literal and non-vague terms.

 

We can debate semantics all day, but you are making something mystical out of something that a freshmen sociology student should be able to write their second day of class.  Why are you making this hard?

I'm not mystifying anything, I'm not trying to make anything hard.  I'm saying that in addition to everything you call gender, there's also a (mostly) completely unrelated medical problem that some people have where a person's brain doesn't accept the person's body, or doesn't accept parts of the person's body; its symptoms can vary, but often include disliking sexually dimorphic parts of the body, wishing those parts were different, disliking being referred to as a member of the sex a person was born as; its treatment is medical transition to another sex.  A trans woman is someone who literally wants to be seen as a person with a vagina and breasts.  I don't think freshman sociology students are likely writing about medical issues on their second day of class; they're probably writing about something completely different, but unfortunately using the same word for it.

 

Like... imagine if baseball wasn't very well known, and every time a discussion about (baseball) bats came up, a bunch of biologists started talking about flying mammals, not realizing that the baseball players were talking about something completely different.  That's what I think is going on with "gender".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
1 hour ago, chridd said:

I'm not mystifying anything, I'm not trying to make anything hard.  I'm saying that in addition to everything you call gender, there's also a (mostly) completely unrelated medical problem that some people have where a person's brain doesn't accept the person's body, or doesn't accept parts of the person's body; its symptoms can vary, but often include disliking sexually dimorphic parts of the body, wishing those parts were different, disliking being referred to as a member of the sex a person was born as; its treatment is medical transition to another sex.  A trans woman is someone who literally wants to be seen as a person with a vagina and breasts.  I don't think freshman sociology students are likely writing about medical issues on their second day of class; they're probably writing about something completely different, but unfortunately using the same word for it.

 

Like... imagine if baseball wasn't very well known, and every time a discussion about (baseball) bats came up, a bunch of biologists started talking about flying mammals, not realizing that the baseball players were talking about something completely different.  That's what I think is going on with "gender".

Believe it or not, I know all this. There have been times where I sat in bed considering cutting off certain parts of my body, peacefully bleeding to death, free of things I hate about myself. Or I have too much hair. Or when I am agender, knowing full well many cis women sweat a lot, sweat makes me dysphoric or the color pink makes me hate myself for being alive. 

 

Yes there is a medical component, but what taught me these things were normal for these genders?  Was it something more as you say, or society that taught me what to associate with each gender?

 

Gender isn't something more, it's made up. When a biologist is talking about gender and a sociologist is talking about gender they are talking about the same thing. A more apt metaphor would be, gender is the rules to the baseball game and the biology side is the physics behind it. Each team is a different gender. The rules for baseball are just as made up as gender. (The metaphor game is something you're going to lose, I am really good at distorting truth into metaphor, and I'm really good at turning everyone else's in my favor)

 

 Biologists aren't talking about anything different, they're talking about the same equation on the other side of the equals. Just like physics is described through mathematics, gender cannot be studied without biology. 

 

That something more is making your argument into mysticism. Gender is made up by society and can be described through biology. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Somebody
On 11/01/2018 at 7:08 AM, chridd said:

The stereotypes have nothing to do with gender, though.  The stereotypes are all about gender roles and gender expression.  For all I know, maybe all of the gender role stuff is 100% social construction—I'm not disputing anything in that area here.  But there's something else, something that has nothing to do with liking cars or trucks or sports or dresses or makeup or suits, with having a job or staying at home taking care of the children, with behaving a certain way or having a certain personality or having certain thought patterns, with anything that might be considered socially constructed or that sociology might care about; but rather is about the fact that somewhere hidden deep in my brain is hardcoded knowledge that I'm not supposed to be able to grow facial hair or have a penis or have a big bony ridge on my forehead and yet for some reason I do have those things, and that is what makes a person trans, that is what the word gender refers to, and if people stopped trying to use the term gender to refer to the social/behavioral/personality stuff and recognized that these are separate things and actually talked about gender in explicit, literal, non-vague terms more then there would be a lot less confusion overall and I would have realized this sooner.

 

People who don't conform to gender stereotypes aren't necessarily trans, and people who are trans sometimes do conform to the stereotypes of their assigned gender.

 

(Somewhat of a simplification of my views.  There may be some connection between the two, and there's also social dysphoria which does relate closely to gender despite being social.  Also gender dysphoria can be subtle; the existence of such a subconscious belief doesn't mean one is consciously aware of it.)

It sounds away more exact the other way around,  gender identities were created based on gender roles AND stereotypes, without gender roles and stereotypes, it's very unlikely that gender identities would exist as how they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Couldn't define it for myself, while for all that's read and defined anywhere, does not apply outside what the physical body is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Believe it or not, I know all this. There have been times where I sat in bed considering cutting off certain parts of my body, peacefully bleeding to death, free of things I hate about myself. Or I have too much hair. Or when I am agender, knowing full well many cis women sweat a lot, sweat makes me dysphoric or the color pink makes me hate myself for being alive. 

 

Yes there is a medical component, but what taught me these things were normal for these genders?  Was it something more as you say, or society that taught me what to associate with each gender?

You mean, what taught me that having a penis and facial hair was normal for people who expected to have penises and not normal for people who expected to have vaginas?

 

I mean, my point is, there's no inherent reason a person feeling their body is wrong would have anything to do with wanting a certain role.  A person can wish their penis and facial hair were gone, but prefer roles that society says belong to males, or want their breasts gone and their hips narrower but prefer roles that society says belong to females; conversely, a person can feel strongly that their penis should stay but prefer roles society says belong to females, or want their breasts to stay and prefer roles society says belong to males.  You could argue that those are related or tend to go together, but they're clearly not the same thing.  Out of those, are the people who hate their bodies but not their assigned roles trans, or are the people who hate their assigned roles but not their bodies trans?  My understanding is that the former is trans, and the latter is cis but gender non-conforming.

 

There's nothing mystical or vague about defining a trans woman as a person who wants their penis gone.  It's a huge simplification, but I think it's at least closer to what trans people actually are than defining a trans woman as someone who prefers female gender roles or norms.  But I think a lot of discourse that says it's about trans people is actually talking about gender roles, not about people who want their penises gone, and that results in confusion when some people are talking about gender roles and others are talking about people hating their body and they don't realize they're not talking about the same thing.  And I don't think freshman sociology students are likely to know much about people feeling their penis shouldn't be there; they're probably going to be talking about gender roles and norms.  And I think stereotypes and social constructs also relate more to gender roles than wanting penises gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
4 hours ago, chridd said:

You mean, what taught me that having a penis and facial hair was normal for people who expected to have penises and not normal for people who expected to have vaginas?

 

I mean, my point is, there's no inherent reason a person feeling their body is wrong would have anything to do with wanting a certain role.  A person can wish their penis and facial hair were gone, but prefer roles that society says belong to males, or want their breasts gone and their hips narrower but prefer roles that society says belong to females; conversely, a person can feel strongly that their penis should stay but prefer roles society says belong to females, or want their breasts to stay and prefer roles society says belong to males.  You could argue that those are related or tend to go together, but they're clearly not the same thing.  Out of those, are the people who hate their bodies but not their assigned roles trans, or are the people who hate their assigned roles but not their bodies trans?  My understanding is that the former is trans, and the latter is cis but gender non-conforming.

 

There's nothing mystical or vague about defining a trans woman as a person who wants their penis gone.  It's a huge simplification, but I think it's at least closer to what trans people actually are than defining a trans woman as someone who prefers female gender roles or norms.  But I think a lot of discourse that says it's about trans people is actually talking about gender roles, not about people who want their penises gone, and that results in confusion when some people are talking about gender roles and others are talking about people hating their body and they don't realize they're not talking about the same thing.  And I don't think freshman sociology students are likely to know much about people feeling their penis shouldn't be there; they're probably going to be talking about gender roles and norms.  And I think stereotypes and social constructs also relate more to gender roles than wanting penises gone.

The person making this about gender roles is you.  I tell trans people to break gender roles all the time.  What exactly do you want me to say for you to understand?  I'm a little bit at a loss as to why you don't understand.  I currently am a trans woman.  There are several things that are quintessentially feminine that I despise, like flowers and pink and perfume.  Not my jam.  I've told people over and over that they don't have to do feminine things to be a woman.

 

Why are you making this so hard on yourself?!  The abstraction you are adding is that there is some magical influence on the world that makes trans people trans.  There isn't.  There is no magical influence that makes cis people cis either.  What can I say to make the magic go away?  Where is your lack of comprehension.   I didn't come to this forum to yell and scream and prove my nonexistent superiority.  I came here to learn and teach.  I have helped 10s of people find their genders, I've snatched at least 3 from the jaws of death by dysphoria.    I'm not trying to make this hard or even sound condescending.  It's obvious when you make the final leap.  What do you want me to say?

 

Bold point 1:  If there were experts in gender, you would be reading from one.  I am a trans woman, please do not insult my intelligence or assume that I don't wake up every day and say "That's not supposed to be there".  You're making something magical that isn't and making assumptions you most definitely shouldn't.


Bold point 2:  A sociologist could easily write a paper about gender as well as gender roles, just like if a computer programmer programs in C++ should still be able to script in python.

 

Blue point:  Seriously though, what do you want me to say.? I have literally explained this like 3 times at least.  It's getting exhausting and it is definitely at this point, a complete and utter waste of time.  We're talking in circles and you aren't listening to a single thing I say.

 

**NOTE: If you want to get in an argument that trans = dysphoria we are going to have a discussion about truscum.  It's a naughty word for people that define trans by dysphoria that  effects several of my friends.  If you want to make that argument I will not hesitate to destroy you in argument.  A mild mannered argument I am cool with, invalidating my friends is something I an most definitely not. <- That would be a warning, one that it would be very wise of you to heed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I misunderstood you?  I don't know.

 

If you weren't talking about gender roles, then what were you talking about when you said gender is a stereotype?  When I think gender and stereotypes, I think of things like "Boys like cars", things I would classify as gender roles, but you seem to mean something different...?  It's a stereotype that people with penises are... people who expect to have penises?  That they consider themselves the same type of person as others with penises?  That they like to be referred to with terms that normally refer to people with penises?  Are you saying that it's a stereotype that penises, facial hair, etc. go together?  If there's a stereotype, to me that suggests that people think X and Y go together (e.g. X=asian Y=smart, X=boys Y=cars), so what in concrete terms are the X and Y of the stereotype you're referring to?  I'm having a hard time figuring out how to interpret "gender is a massive stereotype" in a way that isn't about gender roles or something similar.

 
Or are you using "gender" to refer to something unrelated to being trans, such that the gender of a trans woman isn't by definition female and/or an AMAB person whose gender is female isn't by definition trans?

 

1 hour ago, TaylorWaffle said:

**NOTE: If you want to get in an argument that trans = dysphoria we are going to have a discussion about truscum.  It's a naughty word for people that define trans by dysphoria that  effects several of my friends.  If you want to make that argument I will not hesitate to destroy you in argument.  A mild mannered argument I am cool with, invalidating my friends is something I an most definitely not. <- That would be a warning, one that it would be very wise of you to heed.

...even if I say that people who say they're trans but not dysphoric are most likely wrong about the "not dysphoric" part and right about the "trans" part?  From what I understand, dysphoria can take on many forms and can be subtle, so a person who has only heard of strong, obvious dysphoria and experiences subtle or indirect dysphoria might think they don't experience dysphoria (although there may be a semantics issue here—the people I've heard this from have a very broad definition of dysphoria).  That said, my understanding would make gender the thing that causes dysphoria, which leaves open the possibility that the thing that often causes dysphoria in some cases doesn't cause dysphoria (i.e., non-dysphoric trans people can exist).

 

In any case, even if not all trans people are dysphoric, the idea of gender dysphoria probably should be part of an explanation of gender, and it was lacking in most explanations I'd read before a few years ago, causing me to be really confused what the heck this was all about, and I doubt I was the only one.  The idea that gender means gender roles is the misconception that I had at that point, so I'm somewhat inclined to assume that others have the same misconception.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith

By a stereotype I mean, all things male go in this category, facial hair, penises, flat chests, masculine personality traits like aggression, and dominance. All things female in this one vaginas, breasts, compassion, empathy feminine things. You are putting together racecars and flowers. The actual stereotype is the body part and traits associated with that gender. That's the construct, relegating certain behavior and body parts to something that has nothing to do with body parts. 

 

You're putting together racecars and gender roles?? I'm saying "compassion is feminine" is the stereotype you should be focusing on. That's where gender begins, is enforcing THOSE behaviors that start at birth, ENFORCED by the toys you give children and the associated actions with the toy. 

 

You are very much grazing the surface of what's being preached to children. I'm not talking toys, I'm talking the metaphysics associated with them. 

 

To address your last point, don't ever tell people what they do or do not feel. Drop it and we'll be done. Continue and we'll have to have a chat. You have no idea what goes on in other people's heads. Dysphoria does not equal transgender. It doesn't work like that. I have friends that are very depressed because of this. They want to go from where they are, with no suffering, to where I am where I sometimes have to wait for hours just to take off my shoes because bending over reminds me of parts I shouldn't have.  Because of people like you that believe dysphoria is required to be transgender people want to suffer to feel valid. That bull shit you're spreading is dangerous. Can you imagine, self harm and suicide because you don't feel any pain? That you want to feel the unending awfulness that is dysphoria?  If you do care about the trans community never let that BS out of your mouth again, don't even type it. That "trans = dysphoria" reinforcement kills people. Stop. Just stop. Truscum is an awful awful word and shouldn't be something you're proud of. That is your explanation as well as your final warning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TaylorWaffle said:

By a stereotype I mean, all things male go in this category, facial hair, penises, flat chests, masculine personality traits like aggression, and dominance. All things female in this one vaginas, breasts, compassion, empathy feminine things. You are putting together racecars and flowers. The actual stereotype is the body part and traits associated with that gender. That's the construct, relegating certain behavior and body parts to something that has nothing to do with body parts. 

The problem is that that excludes people who are aggressive and dominant and not compassionate yet feel like they should have breasts and vaginas and not facial hair and a penises.  For me, I worried a lot about whether I had feminine characteristics when I thought that was what gender was about, but it's clear that I dislike my facial hair and seem to have some sort of subtle, subconscious issue with my genitals; in fact, I think I might have/have at one point had dysphoria about testosterone making me too aggressive.

 

5 hours ago, TaylorWaffle said:

To address your last point, don't ever tell people what they do or do not feel.

I think the disagreement isn't so much about what people do or don't feel, but about terminology.  I'm not saying that people have to absolutely hate their body to be trans, or that all trans people hate their body; I'm saying that kind of sort of maybe preferring to be called "she", or kind of sort of sometimes preferring not having facial hair over having it, counts as a type of dysphoria under some definitions.  I'm referring to things like this (the paragraph under "And for your questioning"), and this.  Under narrower definitions like the one you describe, yeah, trans ≠ dysphoria.

 

Edit to add (since I can't sleep): I guess perhaps part of my issue is that I feel like the "social construct" stuff is invalidating my identity.  Realizing that I don't have to be feminine or unmasculine by any standard in order to be a trans woman, that I don't even have to accept masculinity or femininity as meaningful things to be trans, but rather just wanting to not be seen as male is enough to make me trans, was important to me figuring out who I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chridd said:

I feel like the "social construct" stuff is invalidating my identity.

This. Gender matters for me and a lot of other people whether or not they are in the binary or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
10 hours ago, chridd said:

guess perhaps part of my issue is that I feel like the "social construct" stuff is invalidating my identity

Sorry that you feel that since gender isn't some magical pervasive force it has less meaning.  To both you and @Copal_0.  Science is science, the only thing invalidating your identity at this point is you.  A transphobe can invalidate you identity via denying it to you.  I'm not doing that, science isn't doing that, you are doing that.

 

Look at it this way, many people find comfort in religion.  Lots and lots of comfort.  Is religion intrinsic in this universe?  No, probably not.  Do people get enjoyment out of it?  Most assuredly, yes.  Religion is also a social construct.  A label on the institution of religion really isn't effecting anyone.  There's nothing wrong with finding great comfort and meaning in something because it is  classified under something that is easily classified scientifically.

10 hours ago, chridd said:

saying that kind of sort of maybe preferring to be called "she", or kind of sort of sometimes preferring not having facial hair over having it

Some cis males don't like facial hair, or I could say I really don't want to wear green today.  That isn't dysphoria.  It's personal preference.  If dysphoria were that easy, I would probably die a peaceful pleasant life.  What you just brought up is different terminology than you were using.  Until now all I believe you have brought up are trans amab problems, never afab definitely not intersex but that's incredibly uncommon for anyone to bring up anyways.  All I ever saw you bring up was facial hair and penises or lack of vaginas.  It's kinda hard to know that we are using different terminology when you are using what is commonly seen in transphobe propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Somebody

@chridd

 

 

Well, the idea  gender as a social construct doesn't invalid your identity,  In fact it shows how nonsensical and made up is everything regarding gender, it shows that the identity of a man is as made up as the identity of somebody who is "wafflegender" and is so imprecise in general, and always changing, and matters so litttle, matters so little, people should be allowed to be happy,  also show how unnecessary and nonsensical are all sorts of sexism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith

Government, economics, religion .... are all made up by humanity to make things easier.  Humanity would not be able to function without government. Without money no one could really eat.  Communism fails in subsets greater than 100 people and crashes and burns.  How many billions of people do you think have died or have killed for religion, or were saved by it for some reason.

 

Language is a a social construct too, how well would you be able to communicate without it?

 

All of those are made up, all of those are social constructs.  Are they less powerful because they have a two word label that can be used to group them?  No, most certainly not.  Something doesn't lack meaning because it can be described in two words. More powerful words can be described in one.  Just because it has a scientific definition doesn't make it less important either.

 

Gender is the exact same.  It doesn't lack importance because it was made up.  Every book you have ever read was an imagining in a novelists brain, every video game, every piece of art.  Something isn't less poignant because it doesn't exist in nature or any less powerful either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Sorry that you feel that since gender isn't some magical pervasive force it has less meaning.

I never said anything about a pervasive force.  You're the only one in this thread who has said anything at all about a magical pervasive force.

 

I do think gender is a real psychological thing—an instinct, a piece of information encoded in the brain.  But psychology ≠ magic, instincts ≠ magic, information encoded in the brain ≠ magic.

 

1 hour ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Science is science, the only thing invalidating your identity at this point is you.  A transphobe can invalidate you identity via denying it to you.  I'm not doing that, science isn't doing that, you are doing that.

If you're saying that a woman is someone who is compassionate and a man is someone who's aggressive and dominant, then you are saying that a non-compassionate trans woman isn't a woman and a non-aggressive/non-dominant trans man isn't a man, which does mean that you're invalidating the identities of such people.

 

If this were about personality types, we probably wouldn't have trans people.  We'd probably just have people saying that men can be and should be allowed to be compassionate and non-aggressive, and that women can be and should be allowed to be aggressive and dominant and non-compassionate.  I don't think people who are ignorant of trans issues are using the term "woman" to mean "person who's compassionate"; they (or at least some of them) are using the term to mean "person with breasts, vagina, etc." (body parts) and then assuming that this means they're compassionate.  If this were about personality, using "woman" to mean "person with breasts, vagina, etc." but then saying that women don't have to have any particular personality would be a valid solution.  The fact that people are rejecting more than that—that trans men are no only rejecting the idea that they can't be aggressive but also rejecting the idea that the label "woman" even applies to them at all—means there's probably something more going on.

 

I rejected the idea that people with certain body types have to have certain personalities before I'd even heard about trans people.  If this were about personalities, then I would be perfectly okay being a person with facial hair, brow ridge, penis, and feminine personality, but I'm not.

 

1 hour ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Some cis males don't like facial hair, or I could say I really don't want to wear green today.  That isn't dysphoria.  It's personal preference.  If dysphoria were that easy, I would probably die a peaceful pleasant life.

Words can refer to things of varying strengths.  Mild hay fever and life-threatening peanut allergies are both allergies.  The fact that hay fever is an allergy but is generally just a minor annoyance in no way invalidates the seriousness of peanut allergies.  There's no reason "dysphoria" can't similarly refer to both mild, subtle feelings of preferring something to be different and also to super-strong, debilitating feelings, and anything in between.

 

Besides, I'm not the one who started using this broader definition.  The broader definition seems to be common in r/asktransgender, which is where I've gotten a lot of my information about trans issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Somebody
53 minutes ago, TaylorWaffle said:

Government, economics, religion .... are all made up by humanity to make things easier.  Humanity would not be able to function without government. Without money no one could really eat.  Communism fails in subsets greater than 100 people and crashes and burns.  How many billions of people do you think have died or have killed for religion, or were saved by it for some reason.

 

Language is a a social construct too, how well would you be able to communicate without it?

 

All of those are made up, all of those are social constructs.  Are they less powerful because they have a two word label that can be used to group them?  No, most certainly not.  Something doesn't lack meaning because it can be described in two words. More powerful words can be described in one.  Just because it has a scientific definition doesn't make it less important either.

 

Gender is the exact same.  It doesn't lack importance because it was made up.  Every book you have ever read was an imagining in a novelists brain, every video game, every piece of art.  Something isn't less poignant because it doesn't exist in nature or any less powerful either.

I have mixed feelings about the existence of gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith

 

17 minutes ago, chridd said:

Words can refer to things of varying strengths.  Mild hay fever and life-threatening peanut allergies are both allergies.  The fact that hay fever is an allergy but is generally just a minor annoyance in no way invalidates the seriousness of peanut allergies.  There's no reason "dysphoria" can't similarly refer to both mild, subtle feelings of preferring something to be different and also to super-strong, debilitating feelings, and anything in between.

False equivalence.  You're trying to prove that dysphoria is a requirement via physical illness.  Doing it this way makes transgender an illness.  You are part of the problem if you try to prove trans through illness.  An embarrassment to the trans community.  I get hate specifically because people like you try to prove trans via illness.  It's not an illness.

 

21 minutes ago, chridd said:

f you're saying that a woman is someone who is compassionate and a man is someone who's aggressive and dominant, then you are saying that a non-compassionate trans woman isn't a woman and a non-aggressive/non-dominant trans man isn't a man, which does mean that you're invalidating the identities of such people.

^^^^ this right here is you trying to get the blame for your own problems off of you and onto me.  It's stuff I am not going to take, because I am not invalidating you, science isn't invalidating you, nobody here is invalidating you other than yourself.  I have no idea what your gender even is.  I never told you what it was, I never invalidated it, I never even assumed.  You are looking for invalidation in you in everything else other than you.  I've seen it before.

 

Seriously @chridd, I'm about done.  You are putting words in my mouth I never said.  Making illogical leaps to disprove my logic.  We are about to get in a flame war I am not interested in.  You are not grasping the concept and I am about done.  I never said anything about personality types, nor that I agree with the concept that compassion is feminine.  I never lumped everyone together.... ever ...I already told you I encourage people to break gender roles.  I even more-or-less said I think vaginas being grouped together with women is ridiculous.  The person dwelling on the problem here is you, not me.  I know my gender, it's important to me.  It's about time you figure yours out for yourself.  Stop putting your problems on me.

 

I never said anything about body types.  never said anything about agreeing with personality traits being associated with genders in fact I very heavily hinted that I didn't.  Stop doing this to yourself.  Stop making gender something it's not.  Figure yourself out and move on.  I am not here for you to take out your aggression on, nor am I a punching bag that'll just take your anger because you can't deal with it yourself.  You're identity is your problem.  Not mine.  I never once invalidated you.  You are feeling invalid and looking for a place to put it.  Putting it on me is the wrong place to try.  I didn't invent gender, I'm not the one who hurt you.

You never said anything about magical, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I... can't even tell if we agree on everything substantial and are just each conveying it in ways the other person are likely to misinterpret, or if we have such fundamentally different views that we can't understand each other, but yeah it's probably not worth continuing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
19 minutes ago, chridd said:

I... can't even tell if we agree on everything substantial and are just each conveying it in ways the other person are likely to misinterpret, or if we have such fundamentally different views that we can't understand each other, but yeah it's probably not worth continuing.

agreed. Unfollowing this thread now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...