# Why are more and more people identifying as gender neutral?



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

to those who legitimately don't feel a gender, that's one thing, but isn't it pretty dumb that something as serious as gender identification is becoming a trend?


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

When did this trend start?


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Maybe it has to do with the way that people treat you as soon as they see the little pink symbol of femininity. I can attest to the fact that they don't take me half as seriously as they would if I were a man, which is really saying something, since I'm an INTJ to begin with.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

If i knew then what i know now, i wouldn't have exposed my gender or type.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

knittigan said:


> Maybe it has to do with the way that people treat you as soon as they see the little pink symbol of femininity. I can attest to the fact that they don't take me half as seriously as they would if I were a man, which is really saying something, since I'm an INTJ to begin with.


Yeah the whole "hurrrr it's a girl on the internet" thing is really irritating. To give PerC credit though, this is the first forum I've joined where the revelation of my gender wasn't greeted with "tits or gtfo".


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

bromide said:


> Yeah the whole "hurrrr it's a girl on the internet" thing is really irritating. To give PerC credit though, this is the first forum I've joined where the revelation of my gender wasn't greeted with "tits or gtfo".


Agreed. PerC isn't as bad as other places are.

I've gotten into legitimate debates with people only to have them discover that I wasn't a man and then have them dismiss every single one of my arguments with "tits or gtfo" or variations thereof. The amount of misogyny on the internet is utterly revolting.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

bromide said:


> Yeah the whole "hurrrr it's a girl on the internet" thing is really irritating. To give PerC credit though, this is the first forum I've joined where the revelation of my gender wasn't greeted with "tits or gtfo".


Your screen name is very deceiving, bro...mide.

I also agree with others. Then again some male is going to come in here and give his two cents on the topic because that's what happens. It always does, but maybe I countered it by saying this...


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Then again some male is going to come in here and give his two cents on the topic because that's what happens. It always does, but maybe I countered it by saying this...


It's _always_ what happens. :dry:


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

While people have brought up some good points i don't really get it either. I mean if the idea is to not be sexist wouldn't it be better be what you are male or female and then not be judged upon that, saying your neutrel because you don't fit the role is like saying you're not black because you don't fit the racial stereotype(just to give an example). I mean in the coventional sense i'm more feminine than masculine but just don't care, i am what i am regardless of what i appear to be and i don't mind saying i'm male. Also the gender neutrel idk if it's just me but i kind of assume it implies the person is bisexual which i know isn't always the case

edit: oh great now i'm "that guy"


----------



## infinitewisdom (Jan 23, 2011)

I don't relate to the claims of "gender neutral" nor "asexual. When I read it, I start thinking they're claimimg gender neutrality they're meaning I'm human or bi and when it's asexuality I'm thinking they have a broken penis or vagina.

I guess I should research it before commenting but I won't.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

SenhorFrio said:


> While people have brought up some good points i don't really get it either. I mean if the idea is to not be sexist wouldn't it be better be what you are male or female and then not be judged upon that, saying your neutrel because you don't fit the role is like saying you're not black because you don't fit the racial stereotype(just to give an example). I mean in the coventional sense i'm more feminine than masculine but just don't care, i am what i am regardless of what i appear to be and i don't mind saying i'm male. Also the gender neutrel idk if it's just me but i kind of assume it implies the person is bisexual which i know isn't always the case
> 
> edit: oh great now i'm "that guy"


It could have been much worse. You weren't *quite* that guy.

I think that the argument for selecting the neutral gender option for the reasons we discussed has to do with the fact that it really _shouldn't_ matter whether you're male or female in terms of the content of what you have to say, _but people make it matter_. Like has been brought up, there are some sexist men who will completely dismiss what you say if they know that you are female. It's disgusting, but it happens.

My personal reason for not selecting the neutral gender option is that I _am not going to_ play dumb or deny the fact that I'm a woman to have someone take me seriously. Being intelligent and being female are not a contradiction in terms and if someone tries to suggest that they are, I will call them on their sexist bullshit.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

knittigan said:


> It's _always_ what happens. :dry:


"I have a penis therefore I know more about this topic than the rest of you!"

- Some sexist male, probably


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> "I have a penis therefore I know more about this topic than the rest of you!"
> 
> - Some sexist male, *without doubt*


Fixed :wink:


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

Is it only women who are involved in the trend of listing their gender as neutral though? 
Or are there men doing the same?

I have noticed more people listing their gender as neutral, but whenever I see it I assume they're actually some form of non-binary gender and allow myself to feel slightly less alone. *waves tiny GQ flag*


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

SenhorFrio said:


> While people have brought up some good points i don't really get it either. I mean if the idea is to not be sexist wouldn't it be better be what you are male or female and then not be judged upon that, saying your neutrel because you don't fit the role is like saying you're not black because you don't fit the racial stereotype(just to give an example). I mean in the coventional sense i'm more feminine than masculine but just don't care, i am what i am regardless of what i appear to be and i don't mind saying i'm male. *Also the gender neutrel idk if it's just me but i kind of assume it implies the person is bisexual which i know isn't always the case*
> 
> edit: oh great now i'm "that guy"


Hub-bid-whuh?!? That doesn't even make sense in the slightest sense, dear sir. That has nothing to do with it whatsoever I don't even know. If someone has their gender set to neutral, either they don't want people knowing what they are OR they identify as genderqueer or any of its affiliates.


----------



## infinitewisdom (Jan 23, 2011)

I now have a better understanding. From what I read women do not feel respected by men because of their gender. I have news for you, some men will respect you despite you liking the color pink and some men still won't respect your appreciation of the NFL or MMA fighting.

if they don't respect you f*** them.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hub-bid-whuh?!? That doesn't even make sense in the slightest sense, dear sir. That has nothing to do with it whatsoever I don't even know. If someone has their gender set to neutral, either they don't want people knowing what they are OR they identify as genderqueer or any of its affiliates.


 lol, I kinda thought i wasn't right about that anyways so whatever XD


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

infinitewisdom said:


> I now have a better understanding. From what I read women do not feel respected by men because of their gender. I have news for some men will respect you despite you liking the color pink and some men still won't respect your appreciation of the NFL or MMA fighting.
> 
> if they don't respect you f*** them.


This is true also, although for me it isn't so much about gender and more about type. I've had people make ignorant comments to my post many times which would have likely resulted in a different kind of response if my type had been kept private. I joined another forum not long ago that i really enjoy also, i didn't reveal my type or gender and the communication seems easier.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Fitz Cabbage said:


> Is it only women who are involved in the trend of listing their gender as neutral though?
> Or are there men doing the same?
> 
> I have noticed more people listing their gender as neutral, but whenever I see it I assume they're actually some form of non-binary gender and allow myself to feel slightly less alone. *waves tiny GQ flag*


I think that some people definitely do it for that reason as well.

I see you there, GQ flag! :happy:


----------



## infinitewisdom (Jan 23, 2011)

Sexism and typism sucks unless it's directed at SJ's! Jk


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Most people that say stuff like "Because you're a woman" and "tits or gtfo" aren't actually sexist or misogynist, they're just doing it for the lulz. I thought that was obvious. That's why you see tons of racism, sexism, and every other -ism on the internet. Because it's the internet.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

But why do they find it funny?

Why would they turn from discussing things reasonably to bashing differences when those differences are presented? Particularly superficial differences like gender and race.

There is something in these jokes that is appealing to them. Something primal perhaps that goes beyond our societal training.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Fitz Cabbage said:


> I always find it interesting to talk to people about their gender and why they identify the way they do. I understand completely what you mean about men and women having an essence or vibe that I don't have. It's something that I became aware of as soon as I really started differentiating men and women. I never have the words to explain it though. My gender is non-binary because my gender is non-binary; my gender is not male or female because referring to me as male or female is _wrong_, is about as far as my arguments go because gender identity really is such a self-referential thing, which is something I think that bother binary and especially cis binary people. They've been given thousands of superficial reasons for being binary and no real motivation to examine their gender as an innate part of themselves.
> 
> Would you describe yourself as agender, perhaps? My gender, to me, is a very concrete thing, though it doesn't have its own name (perhaps I should give it one), and there is a body that would match my gender. Unfortunately, it is not the body I have. I remember when I was about seven years old I was watching a documentary on the television about intersex people, both those who had gender assignment surgery at birth and those who were allowed to grow up with ambiguous genitalia, and I cried over the fact that those infants underwent surgery without their consent and immediately felt envy for and a desire to have been born intersex. For a large part of my life I was secretly convinced that I must have been born intersex and been assigned a binary sex, however, that turned out to not be the case.


Agender would be a good word for what I am. I don't feel like I would be any more comfortable in an intersex body than I am in the kind of body people associate with females. It might be closer, but still wrong. Likewise, the kind of body people tend to associate with males would be kind of nice, but even if I had a "male" body, It still wouldn't mean anything about me. Realistically, I don't think I would feel right in any kind of body. I think the idea of calling certain kinds of bodies "male" or "female" can be misleading, because if the person who owns the body is a male, the body is a male's body regardless of whether it has a penis, a vagina, both or neither, and if the person who owns the body has no gender, then the body is not a man's body or a woman's body, even if it has specific genitals. Whenever I refer to my body as a female body, it is only for other people's clarity. The idea itself is nonsensical.




Fitz Cabbage said:


> I find more and more that I have less and less in common with the gender I was socialized as. People in my offline life still largely treat me as one binary gender over the other, but it's an extremely uncomfortable experience for me and I prefer to avoid that in as many places as I can. Unfortunately, even in spaces where I'm allowed to present myself as my actual gender, non-binary genders aren't widely understood or accepted so people tend to assume my gender based on how they perceive me. I've been misgendered as male and female on PerC and equal amount despite having my gender set as neutral and the pronouns I use in my signature.


I guess I don't really mind being called female, or on the occasions when I am mistaken for a transvestite, (as though clothing could have a gender ), being called a male. If people feel the need to see me as one or the other, I suppose there is only harm in it if they impose their rules and stereotypes on me because of the assumptions that go along with the label. If it is convenient for them, I don't have any real aversion to it.




Fitz Cabbage said:


> My presentation is something I've been struggling a lot with lately. I'm uncomfortable in clothes that are perceived as men's clothes just as much as I am uncomfortable in clothes that are perceived as women's, but there are no real alternate options. I understand that clothing is not inherently gendered and I shop equally in the men's and women's sections, but I'm still so uncomfortable in my body that I've yet to find a way of dressing that is comfortable for me. My mannerism and grooming are rather not specifically male or female, nor even a mixture of male or female most of the time, which tends to confuse people I interact with then I have not disclosed my gender to them. Unfortunately, I think until I manage to make my body align more with my gender I won't be very comfortable with my presentation.


It would be easier if we could just run around naked.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

LaLiLuLeLo:2095286 said:


> Most people that say stuff like "Because you're a woman" and "tits or gtfo" aren't actually sexist or misogynist, they're just doing it for the lulz. I thought that was obvious. That's why you see tons of racism, sexism, and every other -ism on the internet. Because it's the internet.


You see it because it's the internet and it's "anonymous" and therefore there aren't any (or few) repercussions to acting like a sexist/racist/homophobic jerk like there are in regular society. Therefore, people expose parts of themselves that they've been taught aren't appropriate for society. There is no "doing it for the lulz." Dismissing women's opinions and presence with a "tits or gtfo" under all non-satirical circumstances perpetuate sexism against women, full stop.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

snail said:


> Agender would be a good word for what I am. I don't feel like I would be any more comfortable in an intersex body than I am in the kind of body people associate with females. It might be closer, but still wrong. Likewise, the kind of body people tend to associate with males would be kind of nice, but even if I had a "male" body, It still wouldn't mean anything about me. Realistically, I don't think I would feel right in any kind of body. I think the idea of calling certain kinds of bodies "male" or "female" can be misleading, because if the person who owns the body is a male, the body is a male's body regardless of whether it has a penis, a vagina, both or neither, and if the person who owns the body has no gender, then the body is not a man's body or a woman's body, even if it has specific genitals. Whenever I refer to my body as a female body, it is only for other people's clarity. The idea itself is nonsensical.


I completely agree. I understand that my body, belonging to a non-binary person, is a non-binary body, unfortunately for whatever reason, it's simply not the right kind of body for me.




> I guess I don't really mind being called female, or on the occasions when I am mistaken for a transvestite, (as though clothing could have a gender ), being called a male. If people feel the need to see me as one or the other, I suppose there is only harm in it if they impose their rules and stereotypes on me because of the assumptions that go along with the label. If it is convenient for them, I don't have any real aversion to it.


I dearly wish I could respond this way, but I think due to some extremely abusive situations I've experienced regarding being perceived as my socialized gender that being misgendered will always be something I react strongly and negatively to.




> It would be easier if we could just run around naked.


It really would.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

i had a close friend in college who resisted "being" a gender. She was ISFP i think. Anyways, she still referred to herself as female, but she had no interest in sex for the most part and she said she wasn't a lesbian. she usually wore men's clothing and tied her breasts up. she wore her hair in a short cut that was neither male nor female associated. 

she faced soooo much gossip and labeling.  people constantly called her a transvestite and a lesbian and rude names. (small town)

I think she was still in the process of discovering herself, she didn't relate to male or female and she considered herself asexual. i hated that she faced so much pressure to label herself....almost like everyone else wants her to have a label so that they can put her conveniently into one of their boxes. 

some people just need time to discover themselves, and others well....they aren't going to fit conveniently into your box. once at a bar a man came up and started groping her and mocking her and saying "are you really a woman?" it was so cruel and disgusting. 

she was such a good wonderful person, gender shouldn't have even been a consideration for people who wanted to get to know her. Why do you have to know the gender to know the person?


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

I will truly never understand why it makes some people so uncomfortable when they aren't able to put someone in a binary category on the basis of sex/gender. Why is ambiguity offensive? Is it because you don't know whether or not you're able to sexualize a particular person due to your own obsession conforming to binary standards? I've always thought that the violence that people are subjected to on the basis of not conforming to these binaries is indicative of the instability of the whole gender issue. If everyone was comfortable with themselves, they wouldn't be threatened by others not willing to conform to male/female genders.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I just read that post. It was weird cause it was like WTF is this, and why would a person want to reveal such info?



Jennywocky said:


> It's not unexpected.
> He tried to start a "bigot" thread on the forum recently, beginning with an anti-transwoman scree.
> 
> I suppose consistency counts for something.
> Or maybe not.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

This is where I thought this thread would go...instead of being stuck on the women exaggerate sexism point. I think people are into defining themselves, so they mark gender neutral, and if they are more high educated, they'll do this as some sort of protest, because it's all about language. I'm fine with calling myself male, but another guy might look at it as man....man has killed the Native Americans and the Jews and has enslaved millions with Jim Crow...so they go with gender neutral. Because Gender neutral doesn't have that same baggage. And that's Beatnik to you. :tongue:



snail said:


> In my case, I am identifying as gender neutral because real women and girls, whether cis or trans, have some kind of essence or vibe that I don't have. I don't have the usual guy vibe either. Mine would be closest to the gay male vibe, but even that isn't quite right. I can't describe it easily. I am not male or female because I am not enough like either group to define myself by it. I am not a part of male culture, which I find oppressive and unfair, nor am I willingly choosing to be a part of female culture, which is oppressive and unfair in different ways.
> 
> In order for my body and my gender to match up, I would have to not have a body at all, because I don't see my body as being part of the self. (This is probably why I am a demisexual.) In a world that is horribly unbalanced to favor masculinity, I value femininity more, but not because I have a womanly essence. I am sensitive and nurturing because those things are who I am as an individual, not because of my gender. I don't identify this self as a gendered thing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

traceur said:


> see this is the part that doesn't make sense to me about transexuality: your identifying with a social stereotype that isn't yours which is fine, but when your saying you want that social stereotype what your really asking for is how you want society to treat you.


What you are describing is not really transsexuality, which is increasingly seen as more and more a medical condition and not some quasi-fishing around for social affirmation. People don't change their bodies just to fit social gender stereotypes; and the desire/need to adjust one's body would still be present regardless of the surrounding society. It's also not really related in origin/motivation as the gender neutral/genderqueer concepts that are being discussed in this thread.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

bromide said:


> Yeah the whole "hurrrr it's a girl on the internet" thing is really irritating. To give PerC credit though, this is the first forum I've joined where the revelation of my gender wasn't greeted with "tits or gtfo".


Tits or gtfo

Only kidding, but honestly, 4chan is one of my favorite things, it's just a bad idea to say you're female.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

And in response to the op, coming from someone who is around people like this all the time; there are various reasons. Some are legit, like you said. I actually could possibly be one of these, but I don't even like identifying with these groups because there's no need to identify as one thing or the other in the first place.

Now, others (a lot) are depressed, and they kinda figure it out, feel abnormal, but can't determine the cause. They find others out there who identify as whatever, and subsequently convince thenselves that they are one of these.

Others are just attention whores, and love to flaunt their 'uniqueness', stirring up drama of some sort to get attention.

Then, some people are just bandwagoners, they call themselves whatever their friends do.

And finally, others are just fucking insane.


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> What you are describing is not really transsexuality, which is increasingly seen as more and more a medical condition and not some quasi-fishing around for social affirmation. People don't change their bodies just to fit social gender stereotypes; and the desire/need to adjust one's body would still be present regardless of the surrounding society. It's also not really related in origin/motivation as the gender neutral/genderqueer concepts that are being discussed in this thread.


are there actual non-behavioral symptoms? anything that shows up in a biochemical lab result? at least in the brain's biochemistry? something concrete that will show up in a diagnosis regardless of behavior and even suggest gender identity disorder before the subject opens up about it, being a medical condition with medical causes? if the answer is no, then as affirming as tagging it as a medical condition might be and as useful as it might be to try and get premium health insurance to include hormone treatments and surgeries in the package, it says nothing about actual medical causes and does nothing to explain the phenomena.

now if your telling me that even in a world without any sexual stereotypes they would still want to be the oposite gender, that this really has nothing to do with wheather they find their natural behaviors accepted with their own gender stereotype and whether they are looking for that affirmation, if your teeling me that its just a matter of wanting something different to pee with... so badly that it defines every other aspect of their communication... then i will need more then 'just because'.

actually if you've read the OP you might realize that this is about why people identify themselves as gender nutral when they aren't transexuals or anything that would otherwise be considered 'in the middle' (because the transexual OP writer finds it frustrating).... so me saying that transexuals reason for doing so are no more valid then anyone else's is sort of releavent.


----------



## bread1969 (Jan 10, 2011)

Fizz, to fulfill your prediciton, I will give my two cents as a man  I find the binary use of gender in western culture a house of cards, and maybe that is why there is a trend toward gender neutral. I don't know the reasons behind women wanting to be neutral, but as a man...there is shame, at least for me, being a part of the dominant construct run by men that justify their sexist norms by saturating our culture with multiple forms of misogyny and then laughing away the idea that there is anything wrong with it.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

traceur said:


> are there actual non-behavioral symptoms? anything that shows up in a biochemical lab result? at least in the brain's biochemistry? something concrete that will show up in a diagnosis regardless of behavior and even suggest gender identity disorder before the subject opens up about it, being a medical condition with medical causes? if the answer is no, then as affirming as tagging it as a medical condition might be and as useful as it might be to try and get premium health insurance to include hormone treatments and surgeries in the package, it says nothing about actual medical causes and does nothing to explain the phenomena.
> 
> *now if your telling me that even in a world without any sexual stereotypes they would still want to be the oposite gender, that this really has nothing to do with wheather they find their natural behaviors accepted with their own gender stereotype and whether they are looking for that affirmation,* if your teeling me that its just a matter of wanting something different to pee with... so badly that it defines every other aspect of their communication... then i will need more then 'just because'.


I'd probably be more willing to invest energy in such a discussion if I had the idea that you'd actually bother to self-educate before talking as if you know something about the topic; when I actually care about a topic, I do some research on my own first (books and Google, and it's clear you have Internet access), but you don't even seem to care enough to bother to do that much. (I mean, both the APA and the AMA, after the last twenty years of research, openly endorse the syndrome as a "medical condition" and something that can be resolved via medical means, so there must be "something" to this idea, wouldn't you think? Go check it out.)

And the bolded part actually has nothing to do with "science," all you need to do is ask some transsexuals whether this is true or not. Pretty basic self-education there.



> actually if you've read the OP you might realize that this is about why people identify themselves as gender nutral when they aren't transexuals or anything that would otherwise be considered 'in the middle' (because the transexual OP writer finds it frustrating).... so me saying that transexuals reason for doing so are no more valid then anyone else's is sort of releavent.


Here is the OP:



> Subj: Why are more and more people identify as gender neutral?to those who legitimately don't feel a gender, that's one thing, but isn't it pretty dumb that something as serious as gender identification is becoming a trend?​



Would you care to explain again how this relates? Gender identification is a pretty broad terms, but you keep fixating on transsexuals any time you get a chance.

Considering you recently tried to start a "bigot" thread on the forum that could have focused on ANY topic (anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-poor, anti-Green party, anti-young, anti-broccoli, anti-dog, anti-yogurt, etc.) and you chose to open it as a way to bitch about transsexuals, and the way you drag transsexuals into topics regardless of what the specific topic / focus of the topic is actually about, it's clear you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder... you seem more obsessed about the topic than transsexuals are.​


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> to those who legitimately don't feel a gender, that's one thing, but isn't it pretty dumb that something as serious as gender identification is becoming a trend?


People need to be special, dontcha know?!

I find the 'People don't take me serious due to that pink icon' argument amusing.

Because if men were always right (granted, we do have a penis, thus we must be) and thus pick a blue icon, that still only leaves women to either pick the pink or neutral. Illusionary choice! It's a massive trap.


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> all you need to do is ask some transsexuals whether this is true or not.


 i was - Swordsman of Mana - that's why i was quoting him. he thanked the post without saying anything and that left me even more confused.

as for the rest, really not worth responding too. all i can say is that next time i avoid intelectual discussions with you it has nothing to do with you being a woman and everything to do with the fact i like deep interesting conversations with reason and intelect and a capacity to question the status quo, and not redicules ed hominems from people priding themselves at reading the wiki, all of whch many women other then yourself are fully capable of.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

traceur said:


> as for the rest, really not worth responding too. all i can say is that next time i avoid intelectual discussions with you it has nothing to do with you being a woman and everything to do with the fact i like deep interesting conversations with reason and intelect and a capacity to question the status quo, and not redicules ed hominems from people priding themselves at reading the wiki, all of whch many women other then yourself are fully capable of.


Sorry you're unwilling to actually research the topic and would rather insult my intelligence, since this is one of the topics I actually have been studying for 25 years or so. As I've said, I've learned not to waste a lot of time trying to convince someone of anything when they already haven't shown a prior investment _by doing their own homework_ before engaging. 

I mean, even at a basic level, there are observable brain structure differences in transsexuals (both types) that exist _before _the administering of HRT; brain areas are activated differently in m2f transsexuals when smelling certain types of steroids; etc, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I suggest Googling the actual research being done on the topic. 

There's also the reality that counseling is extremely _ineffective_ in readjusting someone's gender identity; the best results occurred with young children who were rewarded when conforming to social gender expectations and otherwise punished when not; however, as those children reach adulthood, we are hearing more and more stories about how those children are emotionally screwed up. The APA and AMA are only supporting a medical approach, after 50 years of observation, because it seems to be extremely effective in resolving the psychological issues, as long as patients are properly screened.

Maybe you're unaware of this, but even twenty years ago, the "status quo" was that transsexualism was a "psychological illness" and could be resolved through behavior modification and therapy. It's only in the last twenty years that, with more research being done, that there seems to be far more indication of genetic and biological roots being involved; the APA and AMA support for this did not occur until something around 2008-2009. 

So actually, I'm supporting the "cutting edge" of this discussion, and you are the one who seems to be lost in misguided, old-school "status quo" issues. Do you get where I'm coming from yet, or do you prefer instead to continue to peddle your prejudice?

EDIT: Continuing, just to tie this together, "gender neutral" people seem to be coming at their end of things far more from the social end, and a sense of who they are and aren't and how they chalk up to the social standard. Which is why I really don't see transsexuality and "gender neutral" behavior as related from a motivational standpoint, and thus am wondering why you continue to insist they are.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

traceur said:


> when i had problems with general relativity i went to a forum full of physicsts and astronomers and asked them my questions to me and they did. most of them didn't need to show me their cradentials and say "believe me because i've done 25 years of research", they used their cradentials to actually provide answers. when i questioned the given answers in genetic research and cellular biology i did the same, and while some where morons just showing their cradentials without reasonable explenations, there where a few people bright enough to actually provide answers.
> 
> i questioned the current understanding of aphenomena and yet after 25 years of research you are incapable of answering simple questions or reasoning against my doubts. if your anserstanding of the phenomena actually had any credibility beyond paperwork, it would have taken less affort to answer my questions and provide reasonable arguments then the effort you've put in kissing your own ass throughout the last few posts.


Gee, I wish I was skinny enough to "kiss my own ass."

Let's go back to the beginning:
You brought this topic into this discussion, you are the one pushing your view first, you are the one who seemingly has issues. 

I also explained this once: That, in my experience, I've found over the years that it's a waste of my time to argue a point that someone was already predisposed NOT to accept. Do you think I want to waste a few hours scouring my sources when I have other things to do, and then have you just brush them all aside without careful consideration and just because you're seemingly too lazy to do it yourself? 

Basically, you're just some random anonymous guy on an Internet forum I do "for fun" and not for money; some guy I will never meet, have no obligation to, and wouldn't recognize if I saw him on the street; some guy who might not even be on this forum in a year and who I will quickly forget. Contrary to your belief, I don't really care what YOU decide to believe about this topic because it's clear you never cared enough to actually study it before pushing your agenda; I put out just enough that any reasonable person would see I know what I'm talking about, and then if they actually wanted to discuss a particular bit of research, I'd be willing to invest in that (which I do actually do).

Sorry you had a crappy time of it with your physicist and astronomer buddies, but you don't have to drag your baggage into here. If you were a professional colleague and we were on the clock, then perhaps I would invest time in "educating" you; but this is not a professional venue, I come here for fun, and you can't expect someone to invest you when you haven't yet invested anything. I've even dropped a few possible lines of inquiry for you in previous posts, and (as expected) you skipped right over them without a word.



> and if that's the intelectual value you bring to something your supposed to know something about, what could you possibly bring to any intelectual discussion that you aren't an expert in?


You don't have to be an expert to engage intelligently in a discussion (or, heck, even spell "intellectual" correctly). But as far as I can tell from what you've posted so far, you haven't even done an hour of research in an opposing viewpoint on this topic. Your argument right now just seems to be some "logical" conclusion starting on assumptions based on your feelings, without any engagement of the case data. As such, you are just supporting what is essentially the "status quo" position on this topic, a position that has been losing ground for years.



> on what basis would you expect people to see value in you?


Intelligence, humor, rational thinking, kindness, directness when appropriate... but also I'm a part of the community, someone who gives as well as takes. What basis would you expect people to see value in you?



> the only reason i'm not telling you "tits or gtfo" is because your not even demonstrating the tits are connected too anyone worthwhile.


:laughing: Hey, look, another insult. You're on a roll!

I don't know which is funnier: Your unwillingness to actually educate yourself before discussing this (insisting that I "teach you" and that if I don't want to, suddenly it's my fault), or your inability to see how this thread is ruining your reputation rather than improving it.

... anyway, real life calls. Have a blast.


----------



## prplchknz (Nov 30, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> Sorry you're unwilling to actually research the topic and would rather insult my intelligence, since this is one of the topics I actually have been studying for 25 years or so. As I've said, I've learned not to waste a lot of time trying to convince someone of anything when they already haven't shown a prior investment _by doing their own homework_ before engaging.
> 
> I mean, even at a basic level, there are observable brain structure differences in transsexuals (both types) that exist _before _the administering of HRT; brain areas are activated differently in m2f transsexuals when smelling certain types of steroids; etc, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I suggest Googling the actual research being done on the topic.
> 
> ...


 let me ask you this, if i blind armless legless person asked you questions on the topic would you answer them knowing that they probably didn't do research?


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> snip


hey gen xer, i haven't being around as an adult to absorb the "status quo" position before it established itself as the politically correct norm, i grow up with that political correct norm and that's what i question. and you again misunderstood the part of physicists and biologists - i was explaining that people with cradentials can usually back them up with reasonable arguments.

if you can't provide them that's fine, if you can and don't want too because you wont bestaw your wisdom without being paid to do so that's fine too, but claiming for wisdom about a subject, not to mention intelligence, and then not backing that up by showing it, is simply making a claim for the sake of what exactly? whats the point? do you geuninely think people will believe a random person about their knowledge and intelligence blindly? would you give someone who spent 3 walls of text writing about how they know better without even trying to present what they actually know the benefit of the doubt? if the answer is yes, good for you. i don't.

arrogance comes with the price of having to back it up. right now all you have is accumilated debt.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I have no idea why this phenomena began, but it drives me nuts to think about, since it's so confusing...Has the term "tomboy" become outdated suddenly (or whatever male-equivalent word there is)? I definitely mean no offense by this, but I've thought about this subject until my brain hurt, and I still can't make sense of it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Also, do gender-neutral and transgender necessarily have to go hand-in-hand with each other conceptually??


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Is there a transgender spectrum, perhaps?


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Also, do gender-neutral and transgender necessarily have to go hand-in-hand with each other conceptually??


To my understanding, no. They can, but they don't have to. The trans community is incredibly diverse. Some trans people identify as the opposite gender (either/or) and some trans people identify as neither (neither/nor). It depends entirely on the person you're talking to; I've met trans people who have fallen on both sides of the line.

Regarding this:



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I have no idea why this phenomena began, but it drives me nuts to think about, since it's so confusing...Has the term "tomboy" become outdated suddenly (or whatever male-equivalent word there is)? I definitely mean no offense by this, but I've thought about this subject until my brain hurt, and I still can't make sense of it.


I think that the argument goes that a tomboy is still a girl. To identify as a tomboy (or any other kind of masculine _woman_) is not to challenge the status of the gender binary that (perhaps oversimplistically and fallaciously) states that people have to be either female or male, that there is no in between... which is quite interesting since there has been a fair bit of research suggesting that there is as much variation within "each" sex as there is between them. I don't have a link handy, but Anne Fausto-Sterling has written a lot about this with regard to intersex (which is not the same as transgender since it pertains to biological sex, but her point is that there is a huge amount of variation within bodies and that the idea of a two-sex system is actually that does not exist naturally); Thomas Laquer has written on it as well.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Because we live in some fucked up society where being an androgynous man-boy retard is seen as "attractive". Our collective western Oedipus complex and daddy issues mean that woman isn't seen as gender it is seen as what society should be, completely. In addition, women are more sexually ambivalent than men, generally, and there for, men who seem feminine are more likely to fuck women, but women who look like men are just seen as weird. And I know all the over-idealised, uneducated pseudo-feminists on this forum are going to come at me, bro, but women are women and men are men, get the fuck over it ladies.

Thanks to how sensitive people are we actively encourage young boys to dress in women's clothing when they, say, walk around in mommy's heels (whether motivated by their sexuality or not) because we're afraid of hurting their wittle feewings. I read an article someone posted (don't remember the link and I'm not gonna go hunt for it) where a lesbian couple encouraged their son--whom they had kept the sexuality identity hidden from, even though having a gender-indentity _*is fucking central to developing an identity at all*_, so they're obviously fucktards and don't deserve to have a child-- to wear feminine clothes like sparkling pink one-piece swimsuitsw, but wouldn't let _*HIM*_ wear _*MASCULINE*_ clothes. That is over-sensitive, sexist, selfish child grooming at its fucking finest; this pair of thundercunt moms is worse than those bitchy, old, vicarious piles of shit who lost their virginity at eleven on Toddlers in Tiaras (the moms, not the kids. The kids'll probably grow up to be whoey bitches, too, but that's not their fault). 

Not saying that's the sole reason for trannies (yes I'll call them fucking trannies because it means the same fuckign thing as "gender neutral", fuck you), some people legitimately feel as though they are the opposite gender, or don't have a gender. Fine. Live the way you want, don't bother me and we'll get along swimmingly. But this nurturing, this _training_ of gender neutrality through political correctness and purposefully blurring the line between the sexes is both unethical, slowing progress and causing problems. I'm sure women also identify as "gender neutral" but it makes for a less appealing rant. 

Another reason would be because "men" and "women" are too mainstream man, and these people were gender neutral because it's obscure and you've probably never heard of it. 

I hate everyone.

_*"In a thousand years, there'll be no more guys or girls, just wankers. Sounds great to me"*_

--Mark Renton, Trainspotting (movie)


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

ProfessorLiver said:


> [Long as hell post]


Nice rant, bro.

It's good to get the hate out every once in a while otherwise who knows what might happen. :dry:


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Elyasis said:


> Nice rant, bro.
> 
> It's good to get the hate out every once in a while otherwise who knows what might happen. :dry:


Notice I wasn't saying anyone was a retarded jackass unless they were being retarded jackasses. You obviously took the twelve seconds out of your busy day of being the person people compare themselves to to make them feel better to read about a paragraph and then just figured the rest was predictable. 

You, ma'am, is what is wrong with the world.

Also, y u mad tho?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

ProfessorLiver said:


> Because we live in some fucked up society where being an androgynous man-boy retard is seen as "attractive".


Firstly, don't use words like "retard". It's not only offensive, it's tacky.

Secondly, society has a lot of strange ideas about what makes a person conventionally attractive, but why are you so angry about society seeing androgynous men as attractive, when we all know what society thinks of women and their appearance?



> Our collective western Oedipus complex and daddy issues mean that woman isn't seen as gender it is seen as what society should be, completely. In addition, women are more sexually ambivalent than men, generally, and there for, men who seem feminine are more likely to fuck women, but women who look like men are just seen as weird. And I know all the over-idealised, uneducated pseudo-feminists on this forum are going to come at me, bro, but women are women and men are men, get the fuck over it ladies.


What makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man? Is a transman any less of a man than a biological male, and is a transwoman any less of a woman than a biological female?



> Thanks to how sensitive people are we actively encourage young boys to dress in women's clothing when they, say, walk around in mommy's heels (whether motivated by their sexuality or not) because we're afraid of hurting their wittle feewings.


What is so wrong with boys wanting to play with their mother's shoes? It's not going to turn them gay and it's not going to turn them into transsexuals. Yes, some boys may want to put their mother's shoes on because they feel more like a girl, but generally that isn't the case. Or should we enforce strict segregation, where boys and girls are required to only wear blue or pink respectively, where boys can only play sports or with toy guns, and girls can only play with dolls or toy kitchens?

I read an article someone posted (don't remember the link and I'm not gonna go hunt for it) where a lesbian couple encouraged their son--whom they had kept the sexuality identity hidden from[/quote]

Sexuality identity? It's a small child! Do you mean biological sex, because I really hope that a toddler would not already be aware of their sexuality. 



> even though having a gender-indentity _*is fucking central to developing an identity at all*_


_*

Seeing as gender roles are mostly societal, that is absolute rubbish. How do you account for tomboyish girls or feminine boys that grow up to be societally "normal", cisgendered and fitting well within the roles of their biological sex?




so they're obviously fucktards and don't deserve to have a child

Click to expand...

Because you know for sure from a few articles, most of which were probably written by closed-minded individuals who fear anyone or anything that doesn't fit into their safe little boxes.




-- to wear feminine clothes like sparkling pink one-piece swimsuitsw, but wouldn't let HIM wear MASCULINE clothes.

Click to expand...

I am going to agree with you on this point. Being gender neutral does not equal adopting the gender roles, societal expectations and gender expression of the other biological sex. If they were truly bringing up their child to be free of gender roles, they would let the child choose.




That is over-sensitive, sexist, selfish child grooming at its fucking finest

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's misguided, but it's no different to forcing a gender role onto a child who may not want that gender role.




this pair of thundercunt moms is worse than those bitchy, old, vicarious piles of shit who lost their virginity at eleven on Toddlers in Tiaras (the moms, not the kids. The kids'll probably grow up to be whoey bitches, too, but that's not their fault).

Click to expand...

I just looked that up, and it sounds like a programme a paedophile would watch, or create. It's bad enough that girls and women are under huge pressure from society as it is regarding their appearance, without this obvious child abuse.




Not saying that's the sole reason for trannies (yes I'll call them fucking trannies because it means the same fuckign thing as "gender neutral", fuck you)

Click to expand...

You lose all credibility when you use words you know are derogatory. Like your use of the word retard, it's tacky.




some people legitimately feel as though they are the opposite gender, or don't have a gender. Fine. Live the way you want, don't bother me and we'll get along swimmingly. But this nurturing, this training of gender neutrality through political correctness and purposefully blurring the line between the sexes is both unethical, slowing progress and causing problems. I'm sure women also identify as "gender neutral" but it makes for a less appealing rant.

Click to expand...

How is it in any way different from how everyone else is brought up? We're all trained and forced into a gender role, you just don't like it because it's a male being forced into a feminine gender role (it's not gender neutral, I do agree with you on that point). It would probably be more acceptable to you if it was a girl being forced into a masculine gender role, wouldn't it?




Another reason would be because "men" and "women" are too mainstream man, and these people were gender neutral because it's obscure and you've probably never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Yet you've stated this on a thread where people are wondering why it's apparently so popular nowadays.




I hate everyone.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with it?*_


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

gender ≠ sexuality. gender ≠ sex. _what i look like __≠ who i am._



SenhorFrio said:


> I mean if the idea is to not be sexist wouldn't it be better be what you are male or female and then not be judged upon that, saying your neutrel because you don't fit the role is like saying you're not black because you don't fit the racial stereotype(just to give an example). I mean in the coventional sense i'm more feminine than masculine but just don't care, i am what i am regardless of what i appear to be and i don't mind saying i'm male.


 in an ideal world...

people don't always see beneath the surface. sure, we'd like everyone to be a bit less shallow, but humans are ignorant, assumptive, lazy beings by nature. how can you make them "not judge" you? y'can't. i've asked someone what music they're into and they replied, in complete seriousness, "not what you are, sorry, i just really can't stand Britney Spears"...

lololol please eradicate yourself from existence asap.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

ProfessorLiver said:


> Notice I wasn't saying anyone was a retarded jackass unless they were being retarded jackasses. You obviously took the twelve seconds out of your busy day of being the person people compare themselves to to make them feel better to read about a paragraph and then just figured the rest was predictable.
> 
> You, ma'am, is what is wrong with the world.
> 
> Also, y u mad tho?


AW YEAH.

Breaking out the memes to troll me so hard.

I'm impressed by your obvious grasp of my personality.

Did you want a serious response to your opinions? I could only conclude you didn't by reading the wall of text in full and realizing how poorly thought out it was. Not to mention the wording lacked any finesse at all. It's only a minor point.

Am I mad? If I am it's like a hatter.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

ProfessorLiver said:


> I'll use whatever words I damn well please.


As long as you keep within the rules of the forum, I guess you can.



> It's a source of dissatisfaction for me.


Why is it?



> Uh, scientifically a penis anda vagina, respectively


Scientifically? Why do you think that scientifically having a penis or a vagina makes someone male or female respectively?



> but I don't give a solitary shit about people who genuinely feel that they aren't the gender they were born. That's whatever. I'm talking about people who pretend to be neutral or tanssexual because it's cool, that's bullshit, and the point of this post that apparently no one got.


There's people who pretend to be almost anything in existence, so why are you so angry over those who pretend to be neutral or transsexual. Also, it may be "cool" to some people, but it's still not socially acceptable in most of the world to be transgendered/transsexual.



> Didn't say anything was WRONG with it. You have the comprehension faculties of a four year old. I SAID we shouldn't ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE IT, or ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE IT, and leave it up to the child.


And you would be OK with a boy wearing girl's clothes and girls wearing boy's clothes?



> The whiteknighting here is stating to piss me off even more.


How are you using this term and why?



> I never said it would turn them into anything, a gay guy is going to be gay no matter what and a transsexual is going to be transsexual no matter what, it just depends on the level of repression, but if we (again) ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE crossdressing, et cetera, no matter the intentions, the child is going to grow up thinking that it's he right thing to do even if it's not necessarily how they feel. Again, let the child decide.


The right thing as opposed to what? Dressing according to accepted societal norms?



> I never said it was.


I know, I was simply stating a fact.



> Is that what I said? Because I don't think that's what I said. I believe that if a boy wants to wear masculine clothes he shpould be allowed to, and if he wants to wear feminine clothes, well...that's up to the parent. Personally, I would ask my son if that's really what he wanted to wear. Not because I want to repress him, but because I would rather gently ask him to put something else on than have him be ridiculed at school, and think that it's morally wrong. Children can be very cruel. But, agian, I'd let him wear waht he really wants.


Fair enough.



> That was a typo, sorry, I can see how that would be misunderstood. But a gender is usually the very first thing we are aware of and is key to developing our own identity.


Why is it key?



> You can't tell me that you would be the same person, for better or worse, if you hadn't known your gender from an early age.


Why not? Gender is mostly societal anyway. 



> No idea what you just said.


I think you answered the question in your later post anyway.



> I cannot express my frustration at this. No, there was one article that I was using as an example. Written by soemone at Yahoo! News, which, as far as I know, isn't known for being overtly close-minded.


Everyone at YN is open-minded and accepting of people who don't fit into the gender roles and societal expectations that society places upon them?



> Oh, okay, you're not hopeless, then.


I would think most people would agree on the point that gender neutral is neutral and not the opposite gender role of that individual's particular biological sex.



> Forcing a CHILD to do anything is unethical.


Whilst I mostly agree, there are some exceptions. For example, a child cannot choose to not go to school, and a child cannot choose not to have a necessary operation.



> They make fun of it alot on the Soup.


I don't really know what that is, but that tiaras programme is disgusting.


----------



## rednet2 (Jun 25, 2010)

Fitz Cabbage said:


> Is it only women who are involved in the trend of listing their gender as neutral though?
> Or are there men doing the same?
> 
> I have noticed more people listing their gender as neutral, but whenever I see it I assume they're actually some form of non-binary gender and allow myself to feel slightly less alone. *waves tiny GQ flag*


I noticed this trend a while ago - even if you mark your gender as 'Unknown', it's usually pretty easy to pick up from context, particularly if you don't bother to hide it. These days I just assume that all the unknowns are actually women, unless there's some indication otherwise. My heartfelt apologies to those who actually fall outside the gender binary, but they are the majority here. And that's not good for anyone.

I believe it's more important for the atypical men and women to identify as such, because otherwise it merely reinforces the stereotypes. The perception of having others out there who are similar to them is of immense importance to people who don't fit in. In fact, it reinforces the very idea of needing a gender identity. If men who enjoy things which are considered feminine say they are not men, that only strengthens the stereotypical idea of masculinity. But if men who enjoy feminine things still assert their identity as men, then it dilutes the concept. And dilution is a good thing, because if the concepts become truly meaningless and indistinguishable, society as a whole will be free from the pressures of the alleged gender binary.

Please note I don't mean this as an attack of any kind on any one - I realise that it takes a lot of strength to go against the flow and identify as someone different to those around you. But I do believe that it does more harm than good to try and hide from a judgemental few like that. 



knittigan said:


> You see it because it's the internet and it's "anonymous" and therefore there aren't any (or few) repercussions to acting like a sexist/racist/homophobic jerk like there are in regular society. Therefore, people expose parts of themselves that they've been taught aren't appropriate for society. There is no "doing it for the lulz." Dismissing women's opinions and presence with a "tits or gtfo" under all non-satirical circumstances perpetuate sexism against women, full stop.


This is sometimes known as the Greater Internet ----wad Theory. And while I agree that it happens, I would say its more a mixed blessing than an outright evil. After all, homosexuality, some unpopular beliefs (regardless of their veracity) and other somewhat controversial topics have been regarded as inappropriate for society as well. 

I'm also inclined to disagree with your stance, which strikes me as somewhat extreme. Rather than a perpetuation of sexism, I think that (at least on /b/) it's merely an assertion of selfish, self-centred desire, similar to the statement 'Feed me now!'. I recognize that you find it offensive and upsetting, but it's an inescapable truth of human society that you cannot avoid being offended without living an extremely restrictive lifestyle. Besides, online, as in reality, people who do socially unacceptable things are ostracised. (e.g. banned from forums)

I'm not saying that it's right, just that people shouldn't hide from it. Hiding from injustice instead of facing it is an acceptance of it.



bromide said:


> I will truly never understand why it makes some people so uncomfortable when they aren't able to put someone in a binary category on the basis of sex/gender. Why is ambiguity offensive? Is it because you don't know whether or not you're able to sexualize a particular person due to your own obsession conforming to binary standards? I've always thought that the violence that people are subjected to on the basis of not conforming to these binaries is indicative of the instability of the whole gender issue. If everyone was comfortable with themselves, they wouldn't be threatened by others not willing to conform to male/female genders.


I don't think it's about being comfortable with oneself (though I could be wrong). I think the problem is that people have inflexible world-views. They build up these models of how the world works based on weak inductive logic and unfounded beliefs (e.g. all swans are white), and when they run into a black swan, they can either change their entire world-view to match this new fact and accept that they don't have all the answers and could be wrong, or they can ignore it completely so that they don't have to deal with the ramifications of its existence. Things which don't fit into their model imply the unknown, and the fear of the unknown is deeply engrained into the human mind.

Addendum: On reflection, lack of comfort with oneself is probably more explanatory of outright rejection and hostility to people of non-traditional genders/sexualities, where as inflexible world-views are more explanatory of a lack of acceptance and understanding.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I have no idea why this phenomena began, but it drives me nuts to think about, since it's so confusing...Has the term "tomboy" become outdated suddenly (or whatever male-equivalent word there is)? I definitely mean no offense by this, but I've thought about this subject until my brain hurt, and I still can't make sense of it.


The word 'tomboy' seems restricted to prepubescent girls, and I can't think of a male equivalent that lacks negative connotations. In the past it may have been accepted as a foible of youth that was discarded as one matured, but the increasing presence of non-traditional gender identities espoused by adults means that that perception has been discarded.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Is there a transgender spectrum, perhaps?


I'm fairly certain that gender falls on a spectrum, if you're willing to accept the assumption that you must fall somewhere on it. Amusingly, given the controversy surrounding this topic, it's well recognized that people who identify as one gender but have traits of the other are more well adjusted, rather than merely being one extreme.



ProfessorLiver said:


> Not saying that's the sole reason for trannies (yes I'll call them fucking trannies because it means the same fuckign thing as "gender neutral", fuck you), some people legitimately feel as though they are the opposite gender, or don't have a gender. Fine. Live the way you want, don't bother me and we'll get along swimmingly. But this nurturing, this _training_ of gender neutrality through political correctness and purposefully blurring the line between the sexes is both unethical, slowing progress and causing problems. I'm sure women also identify as "gender neutral" but it makes for a less appealing rant.


There was a lot of vitriol in this post, enough so that I almost didn't reply to it. But I wanted to address this point.

First of all, gender neutral is not the same thing as transgendered at all. Let's say that the average (cisgendered) man is 90% masculine and 10% feminine. Someone who is 90% masculine and 10% feminine but was born with a female body is transgendered. Someone who is 50% masculine and 50% feminine is gender neutral. People who fall outside this binary spectrum can also be considered gender neutral, because they are as masculine as they are feminine (which is to say, not at all). (This example is greatly oversimplified, given the ambiguity inherent in any definition of masculinity or where one would draw the line in defining gender identity on that spectrum. I just needed an example to illustrate the point.)

However, I do agree that any form of interference in the development of someone's gender identity is wrong. People should be able to be who they want to be, regardless of whether that's gender neutral or not, or whether it conforms to someone's preconceived notions or not.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

rednet2 said:


> I noticed this trend a while ago - even if you mark your gender as 'Unknown', it's usually pretty easy to pick up from context, particularly if you don't bother to hide it. These days I just assume that all the unknowns are actually women, unless there's some indication otherwise.


I'm biologically male myself, but my gender is neutral.



> My heartfelt apologies to those who actually fall outside the gender binary, but they are the majority here.


Actually, gender neutral members are the minority - 

13,427 members are female (as of the time I wrote this post)
13,083 members are male 
693 members are gender neutral


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I'm biologically male myself, but my gender is neutral.
> 
> Actually, gender neutral members are the minority -
> 
> ...


I think that @rednet2 was suggesting that the majority of people who identify on this site as gender neutral are non-neutral gendered women (not females) rather than individuals who chose/practice a non-binary form of identification.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

rednet2 said:


> I believe it's more important for the atypical men and women to identify as such, because otherwise it merely reinforces the stereotypes. The perception of having others out there who are similar to them is of immense importance to people who don't fit in. In fact, it reinforces the very idea of needing a gender identity. If men who enjoy things which are considered feminine say they are not men, that only strengthens the stereotypical idea of masculinity. But if men who enjoy feminine things still assert their identity as men, then it dilutes the concept. And dilution is a good thing, because if the concepts become truly meaningless and indistinguishable, society as a whole will be free from the pressures of the alleged gender binary.


It's such a Catch-22, isn't it?

I think exposure is good as well. Many times stereotypes persist because other elements of the group are not visible/vocal. Yet at the same time, it's a pretty lonely place for one to be, and somewhat of a sacrifice -- to put oneself out there and feel like a rare voice, vs having a place/designation within which one does feel comfortable at last. I think that only certain people can generally endure in that environment; and only a few can endure for a very long time; most can only deal with it for a certain length of time and then need to find another place to position themselves.

I usually fall back to the idea that it's a choice on the part of the individual as to how much and how long they decide to stick it out as the black sheep amid the herd and make that sacrifice, vs finding a new way to designate themselves.



> I think the problem is that people have inflexible world-views. They build up these models of how the world works based on weak inductive logic and unfounded beliefs (e.g. all swans are white), and when they run into a black swan, they can either change their entire world-view to match this new fact and accept that they don't have all the answers and could be wrong, or they can ignore it completely so that they don't have to deal with the ramifications of its existence. Things which don't fit into their model imply the unknown, and the fear of the unknown is deeply engrained into the human mind.


Good description. I do think that's a big part of it. I was immersed in one homogenous group (religious) for much of my life, and that's very much what I experienced going on... it wasn't even necessarily personally directed at the black swan, it was just that to change one's entire view of the world was too big a task for that level of anomaly. I think a lot of the culture wars that are occuring right now (and that have become heated) are due to what you've just described.

... I would have Thanked your entire post, for its clarity and level-headedness, but for some reason I'm not getting the option... oh well.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm going to preface this with the fact that I agree with a lot of your post and I don't mean for this to come off as abrasive but it probably will unintentionally, so please bear with me if I sound rude.



rednet2 said:


> This is sometimes known as the Greater Internet ----wad Theory. And while I agree that it happens, I would say its more a mixed blessing than an outright evil. After all, homosexuality, some unpopular beliefs (regardless of their veracity) and other somewhat controversial topics have been regarded as inappropriate for society as well.


I wasn't suggesting that the internet and anonymity serve no other purpose than to simply acts as a cesspool for the dregs of society. I actually agree that at its best, it can be a really great place place for democratic and perhaps unpopular intellectual dialogue. But the flip side of that coin is that the "anonymity" is reassuring and does sometimes lead to behaviour online that the same individual would _never_ act on in their real life.



> I'm also inclined to disagree with your stance, which strikes me as somewhat extreme. Rather than a perpetuation of sexism, I think that (at least on /b/) it's merely an assertion of selfish, self-centred desire, similar to the statement 'Feed me now!'.


I was angry when I wrote that and my wording was probably a bit extreme so I can understand why it might strike you as such. However, and this is not aimed at you personally, I don't think that people inhabiting the privileged side of any binary (whether that be male/female, white/non-white, able-bodied/disabled, straight/gay, cis/trans, etc.) are necessarily always in the best position to identify what counts as perpetuating discrimination and what does not since they inadvertantly tend to benefit from discrimination against others; as someone who is white and therefore benefits from belonging to the most politically powerful group in my country, it isn't really my place to tell people of colour what does and does not constitute as racism.

The reason why I say that a "tits or gtfo" comment under all non-satirical circumstances perpetuates sexism against women is because a great many of my day-to-day experiences, _as a woman_, include instances of having my opinions dismissed because I'm not a man. This isn't a matter of my being too sensitive or reading things into otherwise innocent and innocuous situations; this is something that I experience all the goddamn time. This is a matter of raising my hand and contributing to a discussion, having my contrary opinion brushed off, and then having it repeated almost verbatim by a male classmate (either minutes or days later) and having it exalted for its brilliance while I'm sitting there going, "it wasn't brilliant when I said it?"

It's kind of like the fact that I can talk to men until my brain feels like it's melting about sex- and gender-related issues and they refuse to take me seriously until a man comes along and agrees with me. There is a certain degree of privilege that comes along with being a man and part of that privilege entails having people naturally respect you in an authoritative role. (You can read more about it here, if you like). Women are rarely afforded that same privilege. That this is the case does not mean that all of the men I encounter daily are misogynistic or sexist. What this reflects is a deep-rooted and insidious attitude in most formerly patriarchal societies that women do not have anything to contribute on an intellectual level (which has traditionally been an arena within the masculine sphere), that they're somehow not as rational as men are, and therefore that they are better suited for other kinds of 'feminine' activities, whether that be raising children, taking care of a home, or having sex with a man.

So when someone discovers that I'm a woman online and says "tits or gtfo," it absolutely is perpetuating sexism against women because it is evoking the exact same logic that I just finished explaining. It's yet another case of a man telling me that I do not have intellectual value and that the purpose of my entire existence is to be a sex object, to show them my tits or get the fuck out of the conversation and let them speak (to other men). Whether or not that is what the man is intending to communicate to me is irrelevant; that is the effect that it has and it is not trivial.



> I recognize that you find it offensive and upsetting, but it's an inescapable truth of human society that you cannot avoid being offended without living an extremely restrictive lifestyle. Besides, online, as in reality, people who do socially unacceptable things are ostracised. (e.g. banned from forums)


Thank you for recognising that.

Just because something is the case does not also mean that it ought to be.

Again, I was perhaps unclear in my rage-wording since I do recognise that there are some repercussions to behaviour, but my main point is that the ramifications of acting inappropriately online do not equal those offline, particularly when they are anonymous. Saying "tits or gtfo" to a woman online may end up getting you infracted or kicked out of an online community, but it does not necessarily result in you losing your job and getting charged with sexual harassment the way it might in the real world -- I mean, obviously it depends on where and how you are saying it online, but the point is still valid.



> I'm not saying that it's right, just that people shouldn't hide from it. Hiding from injustice instead of facing it is an acceptance of it.


I'm not certain if you were directing this at me or not, but it seemed from the formatting of your post that you were, so I'll respond to it anyways. If not, disregard the following. I agree with you and I actually already stated my personal opinion on the matter here in this post but I'll quote myself for easy reading:



> My personal reason for not selecting the neutral gender option is that I _am not going to_ play dumb or deny the fact that I'm a woman to have someone take me seriously. Being intelligent and being female are not a contradiction in terms and if someone tries to suggest that they are, I will call them on their sexist bullshit.


Or, as you put it, more eloquently and less angrily: 



> I believe it's more important for the atypical men and women to identify as such, because otherwise it merely reinforces the stereotypes. The perception of having others out there who are similar to them is of immense importance to people who don't fit in. In fact, it reinforces the very idea of needing a gender identity. If men who enjoy things which are considered feminine say they are not men, that only strengthens the stereotypical idea of masculinity. But if men who enjoy feminine things still assert their identity as men, then it dilutes the concept. And dilution is a good thing, because if the concepts become truly meaningless and indistinguishable, society as a whole will be free from the pressures of the alleged gender binary.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Fitz Cabbage said:


> Is it only women who are involved in the trend of listing their gender as neutral though?
> Or are there men doing the same?
> 
> I have noticed more people listing their gender as neutral, but whenever I see it I assume they're actually some form of non-binary gender and allow myself to feel slightly less alone. *waves tiny GQ flag*


Well, I'm a biological male .. I have a male lifestyle .. I'm straight demisexual .. and in a relationship with a bi-sexual female. But I just cannot identify myself as "masculine" ... there's no such thing as "purely masculine", or "purely feminine" as far as I'm concerned. 

I personally took the gender neutral tag on PerC for three reasons:

1. I had a bit of a mishap with a female poster early on who got too close for comfort and over-stepped my boundaries. During the times I had the "male" tag, I was getting flirted with and it became a little uncomfortable after a while. 

2. I like to be viewed as gender neutral because that's one less tag to worry about influencing how my views are perceived. It allows me to empathise equally with those individuals who perceive themselves at either end of the dichotomy as well as those who are neutral. 

3. I personally don't believe that gender is a dichotomy. I believe that we all fall along different points on a continuum. Mentally I fall bang smack in the middle and these tags to me represent 100% female, or 100% male. I may be 50% male, or 50% female .. or 30% female, or 70% male .. How does one empirically quantify their gender identity? It's impossible as far as I'm concerned - hence the nuetreality.

Also, my "gender" depends on the roles I "choose" for myself - not how others view me. It's deeply personal. The body is a moveable closet for the soul ... the soul is the embodiment of my views, personality, brain-power, thoughts, ideas, feelings. It's a symbiotic relationship - but how much of my body influences who I really am? I don't think enough. I'm also disabled .. so I know very well that I rely on my body as a vehicle to allow me to function in the world .. but now that it's partially broken, I've realized just how useless it is to project that body as my whole being. It's only a part of who I am .. and not entirely who I am.


----------



## NekoNinja (Apr 18, 2010)

ProfessorLiver said:


>


Interesting that you seem to like Justin Beiber, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with the topic.



> Because we live in some fucked up society where being an androgynous man-boy retard is seen as "attractive".


Is it? I haven't been informed of this clearly ground breaking study. I must ask though, by what numerical criteria are we judging "retard" and "attractive?" Are we using IQ and individual subjective opinions of "attractive?" Id be curious as to where this study was taken at and what controls were put in place here. I'm also wondering by what exactly qualifies as a "man-boy."



> Our collective western Oedipus complex and daddy issues mean that woman isn't seen as gender it is seen as what society should be, completely.


You seem to have a very Freudian view of things. I must then ask what empirical evidence you have to back these claims up. Sigmund Freud was at it happens wrong about a lot of things. 



> In addition, women are more sexually ambivalent than men, generally, and there for, men who seem feminine are more likely to fuck women, but women who look like men are just seen as weird.


Sounds quite plausible, but again, I would like to see the studies on this.



> And I know all the over-idealised, uneducated pseudo-feminists on this forum are going to come at me, bro, but women are women and men are men, get the fuck over it ladies.


Please do enlighten me with this educational evidence. I am sad to say that I haven't seen it.



> Thanks to how sensitive people are we actively encourage young boys to dress in women's clothing when they, say, walk around in mommy's heels (whether motivated by their sexuality or not) because we're afraid of hurting their wittle feewings.


Wow, now this definitely sounds like a decent study. Personally, I haven't seen or heard of such a phenomena myself, so I would quite interested in this one. I am curious as to how they came to find that it was sensitivity that has caused this behavior among some parents. What are the proposed social reasons for this behavior developing? 



> I read an article someone posted (don't remember the link and I'm not gonna go hunt for it) where a lesbian couple encouraged their son--whom they had kept the sexuality identity hidden from, even though having a gender-indentity _*is fucking central to developing an identity at all*_, so they're obviously fucktards and don't deserve to have a child-- to wear feminine clothes like sparkling pink one-piece swimsuitsw, but wouldn't let _*HIM*_ wear _*MASCULINE*_ clothes. That is over-sensitive, sexist, selfish child grooming at its fucking finest; this pair of thundercunt moms is worse than those bitchy, old, vicarious piles of shit who lost their virginity at eleven on Toddlers in Tiaras (the moms, not the kids. The kids'll probably grow up to be whoey bitches, too, but that's not their fault).
> 
> Not saying that's the sole reason for trannies (yes I'll call them fucking trannies because it means the same fuckign thing as "gender neutral", fuck you), some people legitimately feel as though they are the opposite gender, or don't have a gender. Fine. Live the way you want, don't bother me and we'll get along swimmingly. But this nurturing, this _training_ of gender neutrality through political correctness and purposefully blurring the line between the sexes is both unethical, slowing progress and causing problems. I'm sure women also identify as "gender neutral" but it makes for a less appealing rant.


This seems to be a personal value judgement here. Not really of interest to me. 



> Another reason would be because "men" and "women" are too mainstream man, and these people were gender neutral because it's obscure and you've probably never heard of it.


Ah, the idea of anti-conformism. A decent hypothesis. 



> I hate everyone.


I wouldn't consider this a very healthy opinion to have. Therapy is always an option for anyone with problems. Sometimes its even just good to simply be able to talk.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> to those who legitimately don't feel a gender, that's one thing, but isn't it pretty dumb that something as serious as gender identification is becoming a trend?


Perhaps the trend is due to the fact that, in an increasingly global community, what is considered gender is more readily being recognized as a social construction or convention of classification rather than a biological fact. The information is more readily available. Also, people who don't necessarily feel they fit into their proscribed gender role are now able to speak with similar-minded people and say, for example, "Hey, I don't feel like I fit the traditional binary gender typing promulgated in the Western mind."

For instance (more information being available), take a look at the concept or construct of gender in, I believe, upper-class women in the Ottoman Empire (where 'gender' proscribes a socially acceptable role based on sex and age). Or, take a look at the four-gender system of the Navajo (biologically male taking on the male role, biologically female taking on the female role, biologically male taking on the female role or biologically female taking on the male role), where technically a person can take on the socially constructed role of the opposite sex but their attraction to the same or opposite biological sex isn't necessarily based on their social gender.

The above are just examples of gender differences in different societies to illustrate that point.

That said, I'll agree with a lot of folks that the "gender neutral" option for Personality Cafe is potentially liberating. That said, to other people, being able to identify themselves as feminine or masculine when their biological sex doesn't quite match -- that, too, is liberating.


----------

