you determine it and you specify it. it is your life after all.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bi/pansexuality for idiots: a Very Useful Guide
- Thread starter pashmilla
- Start date
- Status
you determine it and you specify it. it is your life after all.
Mohonky
Member
From going back and reading the thread some more, what Im getting is gender is not related to physiology, but what someone identifies as?
Sex being what sexual organs someone has.
I was thinking they were the same, which reading more appeara not to be the case, which is why some people might be confuses by my initial question which supposes sex and gender are mutually exclusive.
I think you are missing some serious basic level stuff here ...
Enormous simplification :
Gender is who your brain is
sex is who your body was born with
There are intersex people who were born with mixed sex, there are trans people who are born with gender and sex opposites to each other and there are non binary people who likes to have breasts and beard for example.
Also people can take hormone therapy and change their hormones regardless of their genital/chromossome/whatever
Your gender determines if liking only women is homosexuality or heterosexuality
That is the only relation between gender and sexuality
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
Right. But isn't my gender identification a result of my sexual attraction(s)?
FunkyPajamas
Member
pashmilla educating fools left and right. I've enjoyed your past few threads, they've been educating, thanks. I claim ignorance in most of these topics, being a cis male that literally lives in the woods in the middle of nowhere, so it's nice to learn about this stuff.
In the past I often wondered if I was bi because I've never had an issue seeing a guy on the street (or TV or whatever) and thinking "damn that dude looks good". I don't think I've been sexually or romantically attracted to a guy though, so I don't really know.
In the past I often wondered if I was bi because I've never had an issue seeing a guy on the street (or TV or whatever) and thinking "damn that dude looks good". I don't think I've been sexually or romantically attracted to a guy though, so I don't really know.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
Your sex is your physiology, your gender is what you identify as, and your sexuality is who you're attracted to.
It's not that simple at all.
The love I have for my mother is not the same as the love I might have for my boyfriend or for my friends, nor the love I might feel for humankind or for ice cream! The Greeks, as I mentioned before, recognised this difference and tried to distinguish between such disparate (though related emotions) in a manner which we do not (and for which I would argue we suffer).
Relatedly, how do we define "romance"? Is it an emotional or physical experience? To me the fact that you distinguish "cuddling" as a form of romance but not of lust is curious. Is cuddling not something that is often experienced alongside sex as a form of physical intimacy? I'm not sure I would necessarily call it romantic, as such.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
That's not bi, and that's probably insulting to bi people lol.
That's just being a normal, rational human being with eyes.
No clue. This is the confusing part because I only know 2
umop_3pisdn
Member
I think in the broader sense those terms are just removing lust as the thing being denoted, and not necessarily saying that lust is absent from the equation. Like romantic love might have lust as a component (it probably does, at least most of the time), but it's not necessarily the feature by which it is recognized.
It's a subtle distinction, but let's say you're trying to identify some kind of object, in that case some of the features of the object will be more essential to identifying it than others. If lust is just secondary, then it may still be important, but only in a supplementary way. In that case, maybe you don't want to have it rule over the whole concept by occupying the name. Idk.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
^this
JonnyDBrit
Member
There is a heavy debate about this point, owing to the issue of distinguishing behavioural traits associated with biology (hence there are externally identified genders in almost every species on Earth), and various social presumptions that have been built on top of these distinctions that someone can potentially reject, instead of presuming that association implies them to be a different gender. So someone may express that part of why they feel like a girl instead of a boy is because of their preference for different toys, but another boy may just like those toys and still happily identify as a boy.
For the safest and most practical purposes, gender is a self-determination as affirmed by whatever metrics the person accepts.
TenCentCoast
Banned
Sex is what's between your legs, gender is what is in your head.
I have a dick. However, my gender identity is that of a female. I'm transgender.
I'll be honest, I have no idea of what you are trying to express. It's quite confusing.
FunkyPajamas
Member
Oops, sorry. I know I can't play the "I'm ignorant" card but it was honestly not my intention to insult anybody. Truly sorry.
cyborgnumberblue
Member
This is like the four humours, but with love.
Are there modern equivalents or contemporaries to these concepts?
Milksheikhs
Member
I don't like the implication that people in non-monogamous relationships aren't committed and slutty.
Yeah, you use the Greek system. Because no one has come up with anything that would actually replace them. At least, i don't think anyone has, the Greek system is what i was taught in philosophy and psychology classes.
That wasn't my intention. I was merely trying to shoot down some of the most common biphobic opinions. I honestly know very little about polygamy and I genuinely didn't mean to offend. Sorry! >//<
Reminds me of middle school
"I'm a guy. Therefore, I can't tell if other guys are good looking or ugly" - insecurely heterosexual 12-15 year old male #1 to #3456646467
EDIT: Women have always had less of an issue admitting what we all know is the truth if we are honest. You can find someone of the same sex attractive without actually having any desire to have sex with them (or any sort of romantic relationship).
JonnyDBrit
Member
I believe their confusion is on what metric a distinct gender identity separate of sex or sexual attraction would be measured by. Ie, if being a boy isn't about having a penis or being nominally attracted to women, then what is it based on? Otherwise, why not just base it on the prior two metrics for sex and sexual attraction?
This is something of an issue where gender theory has run up against feminism on from time to time, particularly in the 90s.
cyborgnumberblue
Member
Well, that seems funky to me, to be using words, of a liberal estimation, to be over 1400 years old. Also, regarding Agape, what about people like myself that weren't raised religious and don't believe in it? What does that become? Am I unfulfilled in the love spectrum?
Probably off topic, but just seems weird to me.
Milksheikhs
Member
No worries, just pointing it out. As someone who is queer and polyamorous. I get a lot of shit from both straight people and other lgbtq people in mostly monogamous relationships.
Just trying to get people to realize that because you're in open marriage/relationship..doesn't mean you aren't committed or slutty.
I agree with everything else!
I mean, with non-monogamous relationships, it's really just down to each partner being chill with the other sleeping around. With Polygamy, everyone in the group shares some form of attraction for the others, although polygamous relationships can often run into problems because attraction + affection are hard to maintain equally among multiple people. (not that there's any need for equal affection among all members of a polygamous group, just that problems can arise when one person feels less cared for than the others)
edit - I kind of like non-monogamy because it encourages each partner to be that much more honest with the other. Can lead to a tighter relationship as a result.
TenCentCoast
Banned
This is something that I've struggled with myself, honestly. I imagine it's somewhat common for transpeople to worry that they are perpetuating gender roles. For me, the topic is somewhat hard to talk about because it is a breeding ground for TERFs and TERF dialogue, which I have no tolerance for whatsoever. Second-wave feminism can get fucked in general, really. That's maybe a bit hostile, but still. For real. I'm biased by my hatred of TERFs.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
With that being said, me saying "I'm a woman" is enough (even though I look like a man, have a wife, have male sexual organs, etc.), and you have to accept my gender identity. Is that right?
I don't think it's really an issue. Being a boy or a man implies far more in societal terms than if they have a dick or not. Meaning I could describe a person and make you think they are a man without ever talking about their genitalia.
Yes.
Agape is unconditional love, no? At least, i wasn't taught it being associated with Christianity or religions in general.
Like, if you were to sacrifice your life for someone else, that would be ultimate expression of agape. (At least in minds of others, don't think your corpse would think of it that highly.)
EDIT or if you give someone money who needs it (regardless of whether you need it) because it is a decent thing to do? Agape. Or whatever. Mind you, this is my interpretation of agape and unconditional love. It kinda transcends normal use of term "love"
Milksheikhs
Member
I think polygamy is dealing more with marriage and being married to multiple people at once. And usually it's within a patriarchal hetero normative framework (ie one man married to multiple women).
Polyamory has a more loose definition of just non-monogamy. Whether that's a triad, or one partner is seeing others. Or both are seeing others (casually or seriously).
TenCentCoast
Banned
"Looking like a man" is subjective as all fuck.
Women can marry women.
I'm a woman, and I have male sexual organs.
No, you don't have to accept it, not accepting it just makes you fucking asshole.
cyborgnumberblue
Member
How are we supposed to infer this from normal stereotyping in a purely communicative aspect?
When you say accepting it, what do you mean? What does it matter to you if somebody doesn't accept it? What part of this concept requires others to accept something that appears to be purely asserted in your own mind?
I imagine you would say "I identify as a woman" in that case...although I guess it doesn't really matter.
just do your best and if they correct you, change
if they are an asshole about it, well, that is unfortunate, but there are always assholes in the world. dont gotta like everybody out there...but maybe empathize a little that they have that happen to them constantly, probably
The polyamorous group of people I know are made up of one genderqueer female and two males (possibly one more person that I don't know?). I don't think polygamy is really restricted to any sort of heteronormativity nowadays, unless we're referring to some religious stuff.
edit - huh, for some reason I thought both paragraphs there were talking about the same term (ie, polyamory). Didn't realize you were also referring to polygamy as its own separate thing.
Do your best to not assume and, if it comes up, listen to what they say.
Doesn't that make it all sort of meaningless? As time goes on I become more and more convinced that gender doesn't exist.
Like, there's traditional masculine and feminine traits. But there's nothing inherent about them. You can say "I'm a woman" and have a full beard and chop down trees out in the mountains. Or "I'm a man" and wear dresses and do ballet. I mean, why not? It's a bit regressive to box any traits or activities into either side. Even a spectrum feels sort of primitive ever since women's liberation.
But then there's the physiological fact that men and women (including trans men and women) have certain brain shapes and patterns and what not. So there's clearly something there. But we can't just say "women are women because they think/act like women" without claiming that women have to act a certain way.
Frankly it's a mess, wake me up when humanity figures all this out.
JonnyDBrit
Member
It is an issue insomuch as how those not versed enough on these matters try to understand it. And even those who are, as TenCentCoast brings up, run into the issue of whether or not the way in which they determine their identity is at odds with the systems in which others identify theirs. It's not a clear cut conversation, but then, that's why some general trust and leniency is important.
Pretty much. Thing is, while it's theoretically possible for someone to merely 'say' they're transgender, reality is most people would not manage to consistently maintain that facade, and honestly very few people do it at all. If someone genuinely tells you they're a woman, however much they may look male to you, trust them. If they proceed to reveal they're faking, call them a (proverbial) dick who's making it harder for people for whom gender dysphoria is an actual thing.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Do you feel like if you just took someone at their word you'd be vulnerable to having a joke played on you or something?
Because if you can step out of that perspective you might see that that's pretty unlikely and maybe not a great reason to not extend courtesy.
cyborgnumberblue
Member
Seen.
This is what I default to, but was unsure if there was some sort of collective unconscious wave of info I didn't pick up on or something.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
No.
I'm simply asking clarifying questions to understand this fully.
Is that not allowed?
yes. it is meaningless in a vacuum. many things are!
however in reality there is hatred and prejudice and stuggling people use these labels for a sense of community and self empowerment, so it is best to try and respect each other
Great thread. Those posts this thread is responding to was... something. Didn't know about the romantic stuff, so that's interesting too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgaRd4d8hOY
To a degree, yes, but the Greek cultural context was different from our own. The Greeks, after all, did not theorise sexuality in any way similar to the manner we do.
We after all have a term "amorous" which would fall somewhat between "eros" and other forms of love.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Um of course it is, I was doing the same thing with you.
Maybe I seemed more critical than I intended, but I think the sort of feeling or sentiment I expressed is somewhat understandable or relatable (no one wants to seem credulous), it's just something that you might see is irrational from an outside perspective.
- Status