Support NeoGAF

[AmaiMask]

Again, we are not talking about all transgender people, but only about subset of them that identifies with neither female nor male gender.


Somewhat relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)



Recognizing them as "third gender" is not accepted by some (I'd assume) many trans people, who want to identify as females (or males).

Okay, but what genitals do these individuals have though?

 

[kruis]

People who are born with balls and ovaries a penis and a vagina, it should be clear there to you that they are intersex right? Like I mentioned before, there are more people born where the doctor can't assign a gender looking at the naked baby than there are people born with red hair.
...

With most things in life, these isn't a clear boundary between X and Y, and in nature this is especially the case. Your worldview that there are just two genders isn't controversial, it's outdated. It used to be the norm and it took surgeons operating on babies to keep that worldview intact.

The many forms of intersexuality doesn't mean that there just as many different genders. There are only two genders and that's a hard biological fact. Intersex people are born with birth defects, they're not proof that gender in biology isn't binary at all.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because your genitals are the proof of your gender, how much more simple can it get? How your brain is wired doesn't change what your body actually is. If you have a penis and balls you're a male, if you have a vagina and ovaries you're a female, if you have some weird mix you're still a mix of either male or female.

The genitals themselves decide that there's only 2 genders, not society. You don't have tentacle humans or some other crazy kinda nonsense, do you? It's either a penis or a vagina, right? Why is this even a debate then? Not even trying to be mean, I just can't understand how I have to even explain this.

Because maybe biology and gender are actually incredibly complicated and we can see in nature that gender is not a binary concept, like, factually. Animals who change their sex in order to make sure that reproduction is possible. Animals who behave in a feminine way in order to get close to females of their species for mating. It's actually incredibly common that nature works in a way that goes against your world view. And yes, variations among men and women vs. other men and women also exist, with their chromosomes being different in a number of different ways (and this does not always mean "intersex").

 

[A Link to the Past]

The many forms of intersexuality doesn't mean that there just as many different genders. There are only two genders and that's a hard biological fact. Intersex people are born with birth defects, they're not proof that gender in biology isn't binary at all.

There are three options for this post:

1. kruis is a biologist
2. kruis is citing a specific biologist
3. kruis is making things up and saying "biology" because it works as an appeal to authority

Biology does not actually relate to gender, as gender is not a physical manifestation of characteristics. You're mistaking it for sex. As far as "hard biological fact," let's quote biologist Grace Ann.

" First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa. Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that shit."

It turns out that biology is actually pretty complex

 

[daniell]

You know what, you're right, daniell. I really ought to be Googling biologists' views on the concept of transgender. Here's what I found

Biology Teacher Expertly Smacks Down Transphobe Who Cited ‘Science'

hm

"what is a birth defect?"
Be born with 7 fingers everyone calls it a birth defect. Be born with two dicks or a dick and vagina or any combination.. suddenly pretend it must be a new gender.
While both happens roughly to the same amount (actually fingers are more likely) as trans especially after you discount the recent attempts at brainwashing and in group creation to suck in children that then play along "to be part of it" and a couple of years later grow out of it again (to the disdain of their "regressive"idiot parents or teachers) as it has happened already mutlible times, this also brings then bullying from the former "friends" with it.
I call people whatever they want i have no problem with that.
BUT as soon as science gets poisoned with this bullshit and poisons children into it which then later fucking kill themselves cause they cant reverse the mistake they made at an age in which they are not even allowed to drive or drink and in some case are forced into the decision before even entering pupberty!! yeah then we have a problem.
Keep your ideologically driven pseudo science out of actual science and the class room or you have no room to speak against when radical conservatives demand creationism to be thought in science because both have about the same scientific basis behind it, none.

 

[AmaiMask]

Because maybe biology and gender are actually incredibly complicated and we can see in nature that gender is not a binary concept, like, factually. Animals who change their sex in order to make sure that reproduction is possible. Animals who behave in a feminine way in order to get close to females of their species for mating. It's actually incredibly common that nature works in a way that goes against your world view. And yes, variations among men and women vs. other men and women also exist, with their chromosomes being different in a number of different ways (and this does not always mean "intersex").

I agree, biology is rather complicated and gender can be complicated at times, as you in fact have people born with both genitals and animals like male seahorses that get pregnant for example, but even the animals that change their sexes only switch between either male or female, ie male sex organs or female sex organs, right? Or both. Even if there was some actual 3rd or 4th gender in animals that's not the case for humans. It's still either a penis or a vagina, and then both in some.

It seems where we disagree is that you think gender is tied to the mental state and whatever other parts of the human anatomy. I think gender is tied entirely to what's between your legs as a human. Animals may have their nuances, and some humans maybe have both, but it's still either a penis or a vagina, never some kind of unheard of reproductive organ, right?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until I start seeing humans born without either a penis or vagina and can reproduce through some kind of weird new sexual organ there's only 2 genders in my book. I won't protest trans people calling themselves whatever, and I'll refer to a trans as either he or she if that's their wish. But I'm not going to play around with "xir" or whatever.

 

[A Link to the Past]

"what is a birth defect?"

Some of what she pointed out were not birth defects but rather natural development that lead to sexual changes in humans.

So since I offered my biologist, who is yours? Because as it is, it seems like you like to talk about biology, but not about the people in the field.

I agree, biology is rather complicated and gender can be complicated at times, as you in fact have people born with both genitals and animals like male seahorses that get pregnant for example, but even the animals that change their sexes only switch between either male or female, ie male sex organs or female sex organs, right? Or both. Even if there was some actual 3rd or 4th gender in animals that's not the case for humans. It's still either a penis or a vagina, and then both in some.

It seems where we disagree is that you think gender is tied to the mental state and whatever other parts of the human anatomy. I think gender is tied entirely to what's between your legs as a human. Animals may have their nuances, and some humans maybe have both, but it's still either a penis or a vagina, never some kind of unheard of reproductive organ, right?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until I start seeing humans born without either a penis or vagina and can reproduce through some kind of weird new sexual organ there's only 2 genders in my book. I won't protest trans people calling themselves whatever, and I'll refer to a trans as either he or she if that's their wish. But I'm not going to play around with "xir" or whatever.

Gender is not a physical trait, it is a psychological one. That's the simple explanation.

As far as the variations in sex among other species, some species have thousands of sex variations.

 

[AmaiMask]

Some of what she pointed out were not birth defects but rather natural development that lead to sexual changes in humans.

So since I offered my biologist, who is yours? Because as it is, it seems like you like to talk about biology, but not about the people in the field.



Gender is not a physical trait, it is a psychological one. That's the simple explanation.

As far as the variations in sex among other species, some species have thousands of sex variations.

And that's what I meant by mental illness. I'll concede the mental illness and just say mental then. Yeah, I don't agree that gender is psychological, but I'm not going to ever press the issue. Only if I'm forced to comply to using "xir" when I don't agree with gender being anything more than physical. As long as I'm not forced one way or another, then I won't force trans people one way or another.

We can all just allow each other to be ourselves.

 

[llien]

" let's quote biologist Grace Ann...

The problem is, while the author of the quote is a biology teacher (real name Grace Pokela), what you have posted is a Facebook answer to this meme and I, frankly, don't see how it is addressing either first or second point:

 

[A Link to the Past]

The problem is, while the author of the quote is a biology teacher (real name Grace Pokela), what you have posted is a Facebook answer to this meme and I, frankly, don't see how it is addressing either first or second point:

The point is not to dispute either of these things (though physical sex could theoretically be argued to have variables and grey areas), but rather to respond to a notion of humanity and sex/gender being a very binary thing by showing the number of ways that humans can vary (as well as the ways that other species may vary).

"what is a birth defect?"
Be born with 7 fingers everyone calls it a birth defect. Be born with two dicks or a dick and vagina or any combination.. suddenly pretend it must be a new gender.
While both happens roughly to the same amount (actually fingers are more likely) as trans especially after you discount the recent attempts at brainwashing and in group creation to suck in children that then play along "to be part of it" and a couple of years later grow out of it again (to the disdain of their "regressive"idiot parents or teachers) as it has happened already mutlible times, this also brings then bullying from the former "friends" with it.
I call people whatever they want i have no problem with that.
BUT as soon as science gets poisoned with this bullshit and poisons children into it which then later fucking kill themselves cause they cant reverse the mistake they made at an age in which they are not even allowed to drive or drink and in some case are forced into the decision before even entering pupberty!! yeah then we have a problem.
Keep your ideologically driven pseudo science out of actual science and the class room or you have no room to speak against when radical conservatives demand creationism to be thought in science because both have about the same scientific basis behind it, none.

Because sexual organs and characteristics can tie into psychological characteristics, fingers cannot. That's the simple explanation for ya

But all of that out of the way, you're making a number of contentious claims - claims I am sure that you are primed to claim are common knowledge and that I should be ready to disprove any argument that you could theoretically claim, even if said argument does not actually derive from anything. If no such source exists, that kind of creates an awkward position for me, so proper procedure is that you do your own legwork so that I may research the sources used and potentially provide contrary sources. That's, like, a normal thing that normal people do.

Ultimately though, I'm just, I'm citing a scientist at this moment. Like, a proper biologist. You're citing biology, and I think this is a fair assumption to make, but I assume that you lack the qualifications to make any declarations about biology.

Oh, and real quick, let's talk about creationism versus gender theory. The reason why creationism and its inclusion in scientific curriculum is guffawed is because the premise is inherently unscientific. The conceit of creationism is the opposite of what science usually is. Creationism started with a premise, and the legwork they are taking is to find proof of it. Such a scientific method is more akin to cryptozooligy, a similarly discredited pseudoscience. In the case of gender theory, while you may think that the science itself is wrong, the comparison is faulty because the scientific method behind the two are not remotely the same. People on the left do not discredit creationism as an inconvenient science or as a right-wing science, but as a science that seeks to be proven rather than what normally occurs in science, where evidence predates the premise.

 

[daniell]

The point is not to dispute either of these things (though physical sex could theoretically be argued to have variables and grey areas), but rather to respond to a notion of humanity and sex/gender being a very binary thing by showing the number of ways that humans can vary (as well as the ways that other species may vary).



Because sexual organs and characteristics can tie into psychological characteristics, fingers cannot. That's the simple explanation for ya

How confused are you? Fingers was just an example basically any and all extremities have had birth defects some insanely complicated much more so than you junk like entire heads and some less complicated like my missing little toe.
I still would never demand i am now different and special and a new "gender".
And the argument of "i think a certain thing therefore it has to be true even outside my head" without any basis is a joke.
As is the word gender i should not have used that. Gender is a literal "whatever you want" word these days no set definition anymore therefore it has no meaning anymore.

Also i am aware not everyone that sees himself/herself (no offence intended i dont know what the progressive circle pronoun is) as trans even wants to change his junk some "only" want to be "mentally on the other side" of it.
I also dont have a problem with that.

I just pointed out the "birth defect" thingy because when you press hard on this subject it usually ends with one saying "yeah but its in nature too there are examples of people having multiple different genitals, therefore its natural" and then piss off as if they had won the argument .. but thats not how it works and not how it works for anyone else with "birth defects" (harsh word but again no offence intended i have my own defect lol).

 

[RainblowDash]

I think they're mentally ill to think they're anything other than a boy or girl, yes. But whatever, live and let live or however the saying goes. That goes both ways though, don't come at me crazy because I don't agree with you on there being multiple genders, or me refusing to go by whatever pronoun you or whatever other trans wants. That's my argument. Now, I'm likely to just go ahead and call a trans who identify as the opposite sex male or female because whatever. However, I'm not going to play along with that "xir" bullshit. I shouldn't get in trouble for that.

Isn't this a fact already? Like, recognized by the medical community?

 

[Yeoman]

"Gender" is about as meaningful as "race".
They are both human constructs with very little scientific value.
There are two human sexes that is what truly matters.

 

[Relativ9]

The point is not to dispute either of these things (though physical sex could theoretically be argued to have variables and grey areas), but rather to respond to a notion of humanity and sex/gender being a very binary thing by showing the number of ways that humans can vary (as well as the ways that other species may vary).

Because sexual organs and characteristics can tie into psychological characteristics, fingers cannot. That's the simple explanation for ya

Reading the debate for the last two pages I'm not entirely sure I agree with the people arguing against you, nor do I agree with you, as with most things it seems to me that the truth is somewhere in between. There seems to be some conflation between sex and gender, a person's sex is purely physical, that's how it's defined, pure and simple. One can either be male or female. This is because your sex is in relation to your reproductive role.

Gender, on the other hand, is defined as a being more in relation to cultural and social differences. So chiefly masculine or feminine traits. It's still binary, but it's more open to interpretation and future manipulation. If we were to define what these "other" traits are, like what traits are characteristic of the so-called "xyr" gender, and how aren't they also found in masculine or feminine archetypes? If it's just that they have a mix of feminine and masculine traits then that doesn't warrant us making up new genders for them...cause we all have that.

This whole thing might actually be related to society perpetuating unrealistic gender roles. Men are supposed to be rough, emotionless and conscientious. Women are supposed to be nurturing, fragile and agreeable. While these stereotypes exist for a reason, studies have found that they're only about 70% more likely in one sex over the other, so you have 30% of men who exhibit dominant characteristics more commonly found in women. Having someone be gender fluid, for example, would form a psychological perspective drastically shift their personality back and forth each day (or however long the period lasts), typically we'd call that someone with a split personality disorder. But since the personalities aren't distinct separate people but rather separate expressions and rapid gender-based changes of the same personality it's a bit muddier. None the less, it hasn't been ruled out that this isn't a psychological disorder.

Now lastly, if you believe sex and not gender can be added to and new sexes can be defined and is based on "state of mind", then that's different. Then I'd like to know exactly what the difference would be between sex and something like race, or age. If someone is a black 20 year old man, can they identify as a white 30 year old woman? Can they do that just some of the time? Should we have a new race name, new way to count age(prefix?) as well?

Edit: Also I couldn't find that many examples of colleges shutting down biology professors for gender issues (though Bret Weinstein does predict that it won't be long). But here's a handy list of shit that's fucked up related to this whole "leftist PC culture on campus" topic:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...mpus-political-correctness-2016-worst-moments

And here's the article on Biologist Bret Weinstein dealing with a simliar case only this time in relation to race:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html

 

[Punchpudding]

This thread just makes me feel more strongly that we should be able to have discussions about this issue without being fined for hate speech.

 

[A Link to the Past]

This thread just makes me feel more strongly that we should be able to have discussions about this issue without being fined for hate speech.

If you researched the subject, you would be aware that Bill C-16 does not put people at risk for being fined merely for misgendering.

 

[YourMaster]

The many forms of intersexuality doesn't mean that there just as many different genders. There are only two genders and that's a hard biological fact. Intersex people are born with birth defects, they're not proof that gender in biology isn't binary at all.

You're just mincing words. What's the difference between a 'form of intersexuality' and a 'gender'?
A birth defect is a matter of perspective. One creatures birth defect is another creatures origin. One 'defect' turns to a stillborn baby, another to a baby with three arms or a double pair of genitals and a third gives you immunity to malaria. Call it what you want, millions upon millions of people are not born 'plainly' male or female.

Nonsense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD6h-wDj7bw

What do you want to say with this movie? I've skipped through it a bit, but it does not reference this issue at all. If humans are born with XXY, XXX, XYY or XY an the Y does not 'work' that means you're not 'simply' male or female, but intersex.

How many of the people demanding pronouns are actually intersex and have both genitals? Even then a person who has both or a combo of genitals is still a mix of either a boy or a girl, not some 3rd gender.

What's in the brain is irrelevant, either you have a male genitals, female genitals, or both male and female genitals. There's no "zir" or whatever the hell else gender where you're born with a tentacle or something. This is where I part ways with trans people, call yourself whatever you want and think whatever you want, but there's still only 2 genders and a combo of the 2 in a rare number of people.

Of course you're a combo of the two genders (or even doubling up of one), simply put if you have genders 1 and 2, all numbers between 0 and 3 are possible. And yes, some people are born with 'freaky genitals'. It's not all that rare actually. Being 'intersex' in the very meaning of the word implies that you're an 'intermediate' between the sexes, not an alien. We as a society find it difficult to accept people who are inbetweeners, even those that do not judge. Nature might not be binary, but we humans find it very convenient to categorize everything to understand and handle.

And the brain is not irrelevant. There's quite a bit of difference in development between males and females in almost all parts of the body. Just looking between the legs and ignoring what's in the stomach, head and DNA is silly. Those are part of sexual development.

 

[Relativ9]

If you researched the subject, you would be aware that Bill C-16 does not put people at risk for being fined merely for misgendering.

Well he repeatedly brings up that it's so vague, that it's hard to know where the line is drawn, and where a judge or jury might draw it in the future.

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

What is a hindrance? If they wish to live their lives as a "xyr" and want to be treated a as one, is me calling them "he" or "she" a hindrance?

4 Subparagraph 718.*2(a)*(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) evidence that the offense was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor.

What is bias or prejudice in this case? If my bias was that there were only two biological sexes and I based my pronouns on those rather than gender identity, would that be grounds for my pronoun usage to be classified as hate speech? Does this law guarantee that a jury in the future won't interpret it that way?

For the record I'm against hate speech laws in general, I believe free speech should be absolute and in the natural marketplace of ideas the good ones will float to the top while the bad ones will be ostracised.

 

[daniell]

Too much and downright insulting, sry

 

[Harlock]

Jordan Peterson podcast are very interesting if you are like a good academic talk. Very hardcore into subjects like god, myth, beliefs.

https://jordanbpeterson.com/category/podcasts/podcast-episode/

 

[YourMaster]

Maybe you learn more by not "skipping through it" but by actually watching it?
Also it kinda does to the point where the separation is literally visible on certain animals fur and would be probably visible on humans too if we had fur.

It is a biology video for small kids that talks about normal gender differences and epigenetics. I'm not sitting there and watch an entire video, I was looking for whatever point you were trying to make, but I'm not finding any reference to intersex humans/animals at all. Just type down whatever argument you want to make. A human with XXY chromosomes, is that a male, female or intersex and why?

Not just you, but in general in this topic I find it annoying that people are trying to mix facts and principles. The topic was started on principles: "How should we deal with transgenders", something that can be argued about. Sure you have the conservative/religious people on one side that say 'my god only allows two genders' and the hardliners on the other side that state that society has to cater in a very specific way to each and every variation in gender-expression and identity, but even more to the middle there's valid arguments in laws and social norms.

Now people are suddenly trying to make this a factual discussion, but reality does not support religious dogma and even if it would it would be a different discussion altogether. In nature there are many, many variations of with which bits and pieces humans are born. You can't argue that, you can't discuss that, you can simply learn more about it if you want. If you want to argue that you don't think having 10 different gender-pronouns is a good idea (which I agree with) don't try to argue on facts that among the over 6 billion people there aren't 10 different combinations in biological gender expression, but argue about principles on why you think even though some people are born with 2 vaginas, or a vagina and balls, or a penis and ovaries, or a penis and a vagina we should still stick to 2 or 3 or whatever pronouns and why that's best.

EDIT: You edited after I quoted:

OK? People and animals both have birth defects from time to time no one in their right mind would make up new categories for a three legged dude and force speech codes on everyone else by freaking including it in law and education curriculum all because of "I identify as three pedal humanoid and you are only allowed to refer to me by what i choose".

No one would bother that much for the 3 legged dude because its such a fleeting minority its not even funny anymore.
Yet have a birth defect with genitals and only the most insane crap straight out of a mental asylum is the line for society to draw for some fucked up reason.
AND the crazy thing about this is, its not even the genuine trans people that demand this insanity for the most part, its white colleague educated perfectly healthy people being offended for others sake (but in reality for their ego/it gives them a excuse to attack people)

No, the speech codes are silly, I agree. But you underestimate how common it is to have such a 'birth defect', like I mentioned several times here, it happens more frequently than people being born with red hair. Certainly more than people being born with three legs.

It is quite common actually. When you are born with a functioning penis and a functioning vagina, it's an adult decision to decide to operate one away or live with both and enjoy both if you can. Society needs very little changes for that beyond saying 'well, this is a freeky baby lets start cutting' and 'well, lets wait until he/she is old enough to decide.

And you are right, there are many people, people trans- or otherwise intersex that do decide to stick to one gender, and that's fine, that's their choice. If they don't want to but prefer to stick in between, that's also fine, their choice.
That's not about the demands about other people starting using pronouns in specific ways for specific choices.

 

[daniell]

It is a biology video for small kids that talks about normal gender differences and epigenetics. I'm not sitting there and watch an entire video, I was looking for whatever point you were trying to make, but I'm not finding any reference to intersex humans/animals at all. Just type down whatever argument you want to make. A human with XXY chromosomes, is that a male, female or intersex and why?

Not just you, but in general in this topic I find it annoying that people are trying to mix facts and principles. The topic was started on principles: "How should we deal with transgenders", something that can be argued about. Sure you have the conservative/religious people on one side that say 'my god only allows two genders' and the hardliners on the other side that state that society has to cater in a very specific way to each and every variation in gender-expression and identity, but even more to the middle there's valid arguments in laws and social norms.

Now people are suddenly trying to make this a factual discussion, but reality does not support religious dogma and even if it would it would be a different discussion altogether. In nature there are many, many variations of with which bits and pieces humans are born. You can't argue that, you can't discuss that, you can simply learn more about it if you want. If you want to argue that you don't think having 10 different gender-pronouns is a good idea (which I agree with) don't try to argue on facts that among the over 6 billion people there aren't 10 different combinations in biological gender expression, but argue about principles on why you think even though some people are born with 2 vaginas, or a vagina and balls, or a penis and ovaries, or a penis and a vagina we should still stick to 2 or 3 or whatever pronouns and why that's best.

EDIT: You edited after I quoted:


No, the speech codes are silly, I agree. But you underestimate how common it is to have such a 'birth defect', like I mentioned several times here, it happens more frequently than people being born with red hair. Certainly more than people being born with three legs.

It is quite common actually. When you are born with a functioning penis and a functioning vagina, it's an adult decision to decide to operate one away or live with both and enjoy both if you can. Society needs very little changes for that beyond saying 'well, this is a freeky baby lets start cutting' and 'well, lets wait until he/she is old enough to decide.

And you are right, there are many people, people trans- or otherwise intersex that do decide to stick to one gender, and that's fine, that's their choice. If they don't want to but prefer to stick in between, that's also fine, their choice.
That's not about the demands about other people starting using pronouns in specific ways for specific choices.

I get you now i think and yeah i overreacted quit a bit, sorry.

 

[Dude Abides]

Jordan Peterson podcast are very interesting if you are like a good academic talk. Very hardcore into subjects like god, myth, beliefs.

https://jordanbpeterson.com/category/podcasts/podcast-episode/

Well, neither good nor academic. Just a talk by a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice.

 

[Dunki]

"Gender" is about as meaningful as "race".
They are both human constructs with very little scientific value.
There are two human sexes that is what truly matters.

Race is a definition to explain differences. Example there are various aspect that are different within the biology of a while or black person. For example there is a reason why we have medication especially for black people.

It only becomes racist when you try to argue that one is superior than the other.

Same with Gender: Gender is just for scientific purposes to differentiate findings, results etc.

 

[Harlock]

Well, neither good nor academic. Just a talk by a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice.

Ok, you are allow to not agree. We are not in a university.

 

[TTOOLL]

This thread just makes me feel more strongly that we should be able to have discussions about this issue without being fined for hate speech.

You can thankfully do it now without getting that ban hammer.

 

[YourMaster]

Race is a definition to explain differences. Example there are various aspect that are different within the biology of a while or black person. For example there is a reason why we have medication especially for black people.

It only becomes racist when you try to argue that one is superior than the other.

Same with Gender: Gender is just for scientific purposes to differentiate findings, results etc.

Actually, no, race is also a social construct. There are genetic differences between individuals and groups of people, and those relate very highly with origin and geography, but skin color is just one of many factors.
And yes, it's easy to see that a black person is most likely not really closely related to his white neighbor.
But this is a very wide spectrum, if you look purely at the genes you can't see two or three or four distinct groups but every human just has some differences from his closest relative. Skin color is a very visible distinction, so we define races through that. But it is perfectly possible for black people originating from north Africa to be more closely related to some white west Asians or south Europeans than they are to black people from southern Africa.
Where we draw boundaries is arbitrary. Especially so when you consider that people can have ancestors from multiple different branches of humanity.

 

[Dunki]

Actually, no, race is also a social construct. There are genetic differences between individuals and groups of people, and those relate very highly with origin and geography, but skin color is just one of many factors.
And yes, it's easy to see that a black person is most likely not really closely related to his white neighbor.
But this is a very wide spectrum, if you look purely at the genes you can't see two or three or four distinct groups but every human just has some differences from his closest relative. Skin color is a very visible distinction, so we define races through that. But it is perfectly possible for black people originating from north Africa to be more closely related to some white west Asians or south Europeans than they are to black people from southern Africa.
Where we draw boundaries is arbitrary. Especially so when you consider that people can have ancestors from multiple different branches of humanity.

I think I did not state myself correctly. Yes they are constructed but these definitions are used to explain differences As for Origins back then we had I think 3 Main Groups. One From Africa, one from Europe and one from Asia. These were our ancestors and the combination of these build the homo sapiens the modern man.

While these are constructed words I think they are very helpful to understand the world, differences and try to actually find out more about the history of mankind.

 

[YourMaster]

I think I did not state myself correctly. Yes they are constructed but these definitions are used to explain differences As for Origins back then we had I think 3 Main Groups. One From Africa, one from Europe and one from Asia. These were our ancestors and the combination of these build the homo sapiens the modern man.

While these are constructed words I think they are very helpful to understand the world, differences and try to actually find out more about the history of mankind.

Gendered words also help us to understand the world.
But your point is exactly what's the downside, having white/yellow/black or european/asian/african as words will lead to thinking that there are three main groups. They used to believe that 20 years ago, but that's simply not true. There are no three main groups, there are no groups period. And within Africa there's more genetic diversity than in the rest of the world put together.(Ignoring migrations).

On a related note, did you know salmons are more closely related to humans than they are to sharks? We call both sharks and salmons fish, but fish have existed for so long that the time between when the first amphibian originated and evolved to reptile and then to mammal is not as significant. Same with black people, all humans originated from Africa, and there's a lot of diversity there. The tribes that split up to partly migrate away from afrika are still more closely related to the people that lost some skin pigment than to the tribes they've lost contact with far longer ago.

 

[Relativ9]

Gendered words also help us to understand the world.
But your point is exactly what's the downside, having white/yellow/black or european/asian/african as words will lead to thinking that there are three main groups. They used to believe that 20 years ago, but that's simply not true. There are no three main groups, there are no groups period. And within Africa there's more genetic diversity than in the rest of the world put together.(Ignoring migrations).

On a related note, did you know salmons are more closely related to humans than they are to sharks? We call both sharks and salmons fish, but fish have existed for so long that the time between when the first amphibian originated and evolved to reptile and then to mammal is not as significant. Same with black people, all humans originated from Africa, and there's a lot of diversity there. The tribes that split up to partly migrate away from afrika are still more closely related to the people that lost some skin pigment than to the tribes they've lost contact with far longer ago.

Are you saying that because someone's physical appearance can be deceiving and our socially constructed category for that appearance is misleading to what the actual science is; it's meaningless and we shouldn't use it at all?

Or are you saying that because the categorizations are based on the physical appearance of people (or animals) and not actual genetics (or biology or whatever) it can be redefined without encroaching on the realm of science?

It would seem to me that that's an argument for defining gender by "sexual parts" more than anything. If we've already conceded that it's based on physical appearance more than physical fact, then one could even argue that a pre-op transsexual who identifies as a woman should still be referred to as a man because she looks like one. (I don't actually agree with this btw, just trying to deconstruct your argument).

If gender is a purely social construct to reflect on the physical differences of people (however minor those might be on the genetic level), surely it makes sense to adhere to that logic then and keep whatever the majority opinion (which after all is what determines social constructs) on what constitutes which gender. This would likely be "people with a penis are men, people with vaginas are women". (Again, don't agree with this).

 

[RastaMentality]

Listen man, if you're trying to argue that there are a number of scientists that have some kind of scientific proof that there are more genders than just being a boy or girl then I'm just not going to buy it. Like, you either have a penis or you have a vagina, and that determines whether you're a boy or girl.

Gender isn't rooted in any scientific knowledge. Sex is. Sex is not the same as gender.

It's difficult to have these discussions when people like you aren't operating on the same knowledge base the rest of us are.

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Well, neither good nor academic. Just a talk by a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice.

I cannot even stand the guy's raspy, sleep deprived voice, yet can't stop listening to his interviews and lectures because of the content. Apparently 22 million youtubers can't either...I know what you mean about the "academic" bit, that term gets to be thrown around so loosely these days.. When it should really be reserved to the scholar types that say...?!? Taught and researched at Harvard?! Maybe with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology or something?!

 

[Relativ9]

I cannot even stand the guy's raspy, sleep deprived voice, yet can't stop listening to his interviews and lectures because of the content. I know what you mean about the "academic" bit, that term gets to be thrown around so loosely these days.. When it should really be reserved to scholars say... who taught at Harvard and maybe with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology or something.

It's like Kermit the Frog had a PhD and was more manic than usual

 

[CannonFodder52]

Well, neither good nor academic. Just a talk by a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice.

Jordan is awful. It's really too bad he's gathered such a huge following.

 

[Dunki]

Gender isn't rooted in any scientific knowledge. Sex is. Sex is not the same as gender.

It's difficult to have these discussions when people like you aren't operating on the same knowledge base the rest of us are.

Yes but there is a reasonable debate and then there are people who think there are like 70 different types and everyone should be forced to know them, to adrdess them the right way etc. And all through the force of law. I have seen definitions which describes a person who sometimes feel like a women and sometimes as a man.

Again make one more pronoun try to implement it for years and future generation but then also stop.

 

[Dude Abides]

I cannot even stand the guy's raspy, sleep deprived voice, yet can't stop listening to his interviews and lectures because of the content. Apparently 22 million youtubers can't either...I know what you mean about the "academic" bit, that term gets to be thrown around so loosely these days.. When it should really be reserved to the scholar types that say...?!? Taught and researched at Harvard?! Maybe with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology or something?!

None of his dumb hobbyhorses are related to his degree in psychology. He’s just a twitter troll with tenure. He was a nobody until he figured out there’s good money in putting a quasi-respectable face on stuff MAGA morons Like to hear.

 

[YourMaster]

Are you saying that because someone's physical appearance can be deceiving and our socially constructed category for that appearance is misleading to what the actual science is; it's meaningless and we shouldn't use it at all?

Or are you saying that because the categorizations are based on the physical appearance of people (or animals) and not actual genetics (or biology or whatever) it can be redefined without encroaching on the realm of science?

It would seem to me that that's an argument for defining gender by "sexual parts" more than anything. If we've already conceded that it's based on physical appearance more than physical fact, then one could even argue that a pre-op transsexual who identifies as a woman should still be referred to as a man because she looks like one. (I don't actually agree with this btw, just trying to deconstruct your argument).

If gender is a purely social construct to reflect on the physical differences of people (however minor those might be on the genetic level), surely it makes sense to adhere to that logic then and keep whatever the majority opinion (which after all is what determines social constructs) on what constitutes which gender. This would likely be "people with a penis are men, people with vaginas are women". (Again, don't agree with this).

I'm saying we have categories for convenience. We humans need to categorize the world, there's nothing wrong with that. How to best do so can be argued. The natural world does not have these categories, it's just billions upon billions of creatures, and many of share similarities.
Defining 'black' as a race makes sense, because they have a separate social role in society and face different challenges from non-blacks. Purely from a genetic point of view, the races do not exist as we define them. Although there is a gene for skin color, that does not determine historical family ties and biological and medical similarities.
Sex and Gender (that in the common tongue really is the same thing, only in academic circles are they defined differently) are very important categories for us. Agree with it or not, but men are treated differently from women and some different rules and laws apply.

This only becomes an issue when we try to force the world into these categories. When 1 in 2000 people are born in a way that does not fit neatly in one category, that translate to quite a few people when you have a country with half a billion people. The solution is to realize that our categories are just that, constructs for convenience that allow us to sell tampons to just the females, stand up urinals for just males and dating sites that cater to our preference. We can continue to do so, as long as we don't get upset when somebody comes along that disturbers our ordering a bit, that doesn't fit.
In this particular case we could use a category for 'other', it needs a proper name still.

 

[Dunki]

I'm saying we have categories for convenience. We humans need to categorize the world, there's nothing wrong with that. How to best do so can be argued. The natural world does not have these categories, it's just billions upon billions of creatures, and many of share similarities.
Defining 'black' as a race makes sense, because they have a separate social role in society and face different challenges from non-blacks. Purely from a genetic point of view, the races do not exist as we define them. Although there is a gene for skin color, that does not determine historical family ties and biological and medical similarities.
Sex and Gender (that in the common tongue really is the same thing, only in academic circles are they defined differently) are very important categories for us. Agree with it or not, but men are treated differently from women and some different rules and laws apply.

This only becomes an issue when we try to force the world into these categories. When 1 in 2000 people are born in a way that does not fit neatly in one category, that translate to quite a few people when you have a country with half a billion people. The solution is to realize that our categories are just that, constructs for convenience that allow us to sell tampons to just the females, stand up urinals for just males and dating sites that cater to our preference. We can continue to do so, as long as we don't get upset when somebody comes along that disturbers our ordering a bit, that doesn't fit.
In this particular case we could use a category for 'other', it needs a proper name still.

Great post. Thank you for saying the things I could not say because of my language barrier ^^

 

[Relativ9]

I'm saying we have categories for convenience. We humans need to categorize the world, there's nothing wrong with that. How to best do so can be argued. The natural world does not have these categories, it's just billions upon billions of creatures, and many of share similarities.
Defining 'black' as a race makes sense, because they have a separate social role in society and face different challenges from non-blacks. Purely from a genetic point of view, the races do not exist as we define them. Although there is a gene for skin color, that does not determine historical family ties and biological and medical similarities.
Sex and Gender (that in the common tongue really is the same thing, only in academic circles are they defined differently) are very important categories for us. Agree with it or not, but men are treated differently from women and some different rules and laws apply.

This only becomes an issue when we try to force the world into these categories. When 1 in 2000 people are born in a way that does not fit neatly in one category, that translate to quite a few people when you have a country with half a billion people. The solution is to realize that our categories are just that, constructs for convenience that allow us to sell tampons to just the females, stand up urinals for just males and dating sites that cater to our preference. We can continue to do so, as long as we don't get upset when somebody comes along that disturbers our ordering a bit, that doesn't fit.
In this particular case we could use a category for 'other', it needs a proper name still.

Yeah I agree with that, some sort of "other" gender would be useful. I wouldn't put it into law though.

 

[AmaiMask]

Gender isn't rooted in any scientific knowledge. Sex is. Sex is not the same as gender.

It's difficult to have these discussions when people like you aren't operating on the same knowledge base the rest of us are.

Damn right I'm not operating on the same knowledge, because I'm not going out of my way trying to invent new rainbow colored genders. And how is gender not literally the same thing as sex? Is it a psychological thing as well? If so we'll end the discussion right here.

 

[Dunki]

Gender isn't rooted in any scientific knowledge. Sex is. Sex is not the same as gender.

It's difficult to have these discussions when people like you aren't operating on the same knowledge base the rest of us are.

I would argue that EVERYTHING is rooted in scientific knowledge. That how people explain the word around us. Thats how our language, mathematics etc were created. Its all based r rooted in scientific knowledge.

 

[YourMaster]

I would argue that EVERYTHING is rooted in scientific knowledge. That how people explain the word around us. Thats how our language, mathematics etc were created. Its all based r rooted in scientific knowledge.

People that define 'gender' and 'sex' as two different things talk about 'sex' as the biological aspect, and 'gender' as a social role. Where indeed the person himself or their surroundings can assign a person a gender - unrelated to the biological sex and thus the world around us.

 

[Dunki]

People that define 'gender' and 'sex' as two different things talk about 'sex' as the biological aspect, and 'gender' as a social role. Where indeed the person himself or their surroundings can assign a person a gender - unrelated to the biological sex and thus the world around us.

Then Gender for me is rather a feeling and nothing else. You feel like this because of society etc. And these can change at anytime so why should this be even considered being forced into our law.

I can totally see the need and support to include Trans people into these systems. Gender however should not be included here. It is great that you feeling like this more power to you. But I also do not have to respect your feelings I do not even know unless I am a friend. You can be what you like in gendr terms but do not force this on other people.

Now I also Understand the Attackhelicopter memes with this topic.

 

[AmaiMask]

Then Gender for me is rather a feeling and nothing else. You feel like this because of society etc. And these can change at anytime so why should this be even considered being forced into our law.

I can totally see the need and support to include Trans people into these systems. Gender however should not be included here. It is great that you feeling like this more power to you. But I also do not have to respect your feelings I do not even know unless I am a friend. You can be what you like in gendr terms but do not force this on other people.

Now I also Understand the Attackhelicopter memes with this topic.

Essentially gender is subjective while sex is objective. As you said, if gender is subjective then why the FUCK do we need laws forcing people to identify a person the way they want to be identified? It's way too diverse of a thing because anybody can claim they believe they're whatever the hell and it's equally valid.

Refusing to comply with identity isn't the same as restricting a person because of their born sex, race, or hell even religion. Trans gender people enjoy the same rights as everyone else, but that doesn't mean everybody else has to go along with their perceived gender because it's not as set in stone as a persons race or sex. You can lie about being whatever gender, but you can't lie about having a penis, vagina, or your very visible skin color.

A black person can't say they're white, and a Penis can't say it's a Vagina. These things aren't up for debate, but gender is, hence Attack Helicopter.

 

[RastaMentality]

Damn right I'm not operating on the same knowledge, because I'm not going out of my way trying to invent new rainbow colored genders. And how is gender not literally the same thing as sex? Is it a psychological thing as well? If so we'll end the discussion right here.

Sex refers to biological characteristics. Gender is behavioral.

 

[Airola]

Well, neither good nor academic. Just a talk by a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice.

Are you sure this judgment is based on his knowledge instead of you just disagreeing with him in some subject?

I mean, "just a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice" doesn't really mean anything and is there to just slam the guy without giving a real criticism to anything he said. Very often people give this types of opinions about someone when they strongly disagree on something with the person and want to put down everything else the person says without having to listen to the other things because it's often easy to dismiss everything else a person says if their opinion in one subject is too far from one's own opinion.

I personally think Peterson is hard to follow and I have found it hard to understand what he means and haven't been that interested in listening to him. But oh boy, I bumped into his Bible lectures and I'm glad I continued listening to them because they are really REALLY good. He approaches the subject with such an insight that is very rare to hear. He doesn't claim the Bible is metaphysically correct or if God exists, but he goes very deep into the Bible's internal logic and uses current psychological and biological knowledge to find layers from the Bible I was never able to find before listening to him. Absolutely brilliant and sharp stuff.

Those lectures are way lengthy though, and it's hard for him to ever be able to finish his subject in each 2,5 hour video and he usually has to continue them in later videos. And he flies around the subject most of the time, but I think that's why the lectures are so meaty.

The guy really goes very deep in whatever he is talking but I admit he is often hard to follow. And to dismiss his talks as him just being a guy who loves his voice is amazingly ignorant and/or stupid.

 

[YourMaster]

Refusing to comply with identity isn't the same as restricting a person because of their born sex, race, or hell even religion. Trans gender people enjoy the same rights as everyone else, but that doesn't mean everybody else has to go along with their perceived gender because it's not as set in stone as a persons race or sex.

Sex refers to biological characteristics. Gender is behavioral.

And this is exactly why it's a complicated issue. When in discourse a gap is created between gender and sex, what follows naturally is a disconnect between behavior and biology where non exists. We are biological creatures and our behavior, our thoughts and feelings are linked to what we are. Sure we can make decisions, and for example we can choose when to eat or when not to eat, but in general when we are hungry we eat.

Now, being intersex is a purely biological condition, to put it crudely to be part male, part female. And your sex does not merely determine the dangly bits, but also hormones, brain structures, thought patterns etc. In short, your sex also affects your behavior.

We've had our first working head-transplant this month, on a corpse, but what if next year you were kidnapped and your head would be transplanted on the body of the opposite sex, what would that mean for you? At the very least new hormones would alter your behavior. I think I would still see myself as a man, just stuck on a woman's body. My brain would still be that of a male. If you'd give me a brain-scan you would see that my brain is structured like the brain of other males. That's no social construct, no feeling, that's actually there.

Now, I've been a male my whole life, so I know what this is like. Now consider people being born with a brain like mine, but either with a mixed set of genitals or purely female genitals. I can imagine - like I would - they would like a male body instead.
But it gets more complicated,... being intersex is never clean-cut. Sure you could have an all male brain and all female genitalia, but usually when intersex it's not as clear cut. Brain development could be a mix from both sexes, looking unlike either one, just like is often the case on the development on the genitalia.
I can imagine that is very confusing, how can you identify as either male or female being unable to experience being either? Some people might easily feel like either one, pick one and be happy with the choice and the world would be non the wiser that their brain has characteristics of the other sex. Some people might feel that they are neither, and might or might not later still decide for convenience sake pick a gender.
What they do here, and how they decide to handle their condition might not be set in stone, but the brain you are born with you are very much stuck with. It's easier to change the color of your skin or the genitalia you have than it is to restructure the brain that is developed in the womb and throughout your childhood.

TLDR: This is an actual biological condition, and academics discussing it like a soft-science are making it sound like people just feel stuff and feel whatever they want. Sex and gender cannot be separated and that doesn't mean everybody is either a boy or a girl, some people are born in between.

 

[Harlock]

Lindsay Shepherd is going to have a interview in the Rubin Report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4

 

[Dude Abides]

Are you sure this judgment is based on his knowledge instead of you just disagreeing with him in some subject?

I mean, "just a guy who really loves the sound of his own voice" doesn't really mean anything and is there to just slam the guy without giving a real criticism to anything he said. Very often people give this types of opinions about someone when they strongly disagree on something with the person and want to put down everything else the person says without having to listen to the other things because it's often easy to dismiss everything else a person says if their opinion in one subject is too far from one's own opinion.

I personally think Peterson is hard to follow and I have found it hard to understand what he means and haven't been that interested in listening to him. But oh boy, I bumped into his Bible lectures and I'm glad I continued listening to them because they are really REALLY good. He approaches the subject with such an insight that is very rare to hear. He doesn't claim the Bible is metaphysically correct or if God exists, but he goes very deep into the Bible's internal logic and uses current psychological and biological knowledge to find layers from the Bible I was never able to find before listening to him. Absolutely brilliant and sharp stuff.

Those lectures are way lengthy though, and it's hard for him to ever be able to finish his subject in each 2,5 hour video and he usually has to continue them in later videos. And he flies around the subject most of the time, but I think that's why the lectures are so meaty.

The guy really goes very deep in whatever he is talking but I admit he is often hard to follow. And to dismiss his talks as him just being a guy who loves his voice is amazingly ignorant and/or stupid.

More likely you’re just easy to impress. He has no expertise in theology. It’s kind of funny you’re whining about no real criticism when you offer nothing but empty praise because you’re both Christian.

 

[Airola]

More likely you’re just easy to impress. He has no expertise in theology. It’s kind of funny you’re whining about no real criticism when you offer nothing but empty praise because you’re both Christian.

So you haven't listened to those lectures then because if you would have you would know he admits he isn't a theologian and that he tackles the whole thing from a completely different angle. And that's where it gets interesting.

I wrote:
"he goes very deep into the Bible's internal logic and uses current psychological and biological knowledge to find layers from the Bible I was never able to find before listening to him"
That's the angle. He has 15-ish videos, each clocking at over 2,5 hours. I think that quote is the best way to give a super short summary of what that nearly 40 hours of material is all about. To explain it any further I would have to write a super lengthy article about it. And I'm not going to do that.

He calls his lectures "Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories" and says he doesn't claim the Biblical stories are true. His angle is something like even though these stories might just be stories with no historical truth in them, they are absolutely significant in human life from psychological standpoint and are really valuable as such.


Besides, I already criticized him of being hard to follow and even said I haven't been that interested in listening to him, but that in this subject he has been brilliant. So I don't really understand why you say I'm just giving empty praises.