# The End of Gender?



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

You know, it's kind of sad people would be hung up at such trivial topics when there are actually things out there that matter, regardless of the personal position you take towards this particular question.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Erbse said:


> You know, it's kind of sad people would be hung up at such trivial topics when there are actually things out there that matter, regardless of the personal position you take towards this particular question.


Gender is the most pervasive construct in human culture, and many hang ups, experiences and expectations are centered around it, so I suppose it's going to remain a contentious issue. Are you saying that it shouldn't matter so much? and that we should all live and let live? I suppose I share a similar point of view personally, but it's pervasiveness still leads me to see it's significance. 



eQGatsby said:


> *Facepalm*
> For as long as we live, for as long as our grandchildren live, and their grandchildren, etc... there will always be masculine, and there will always be feminine.
> Masculine will always be dominant, feminine submissive. Masculine will always be stronger, feminine weaker.
> These are stereotypes of course.
> ...


Gender role dimorphism may be important for evolutionary reasons, but there is no doubt that the context adaption is played out in, has changed. Humans exist in a different social and physical environment of the past, and gender as a social function has and will continue to change too. "Ending gender" is unlikely, but I think stringent roles are deteriorating to suit modern people and values. Hipster bullshit, as you call it. 

How relevant are _stringent_ gender roles in modern western society today, _really_? they've changed over time, because biological programming as you term it, is only half the story. Sure, there are certain components that are relevant and necessary, but others that are irrelevant constructs because things have changed in western society at least. If a construct doesn't have a function anymore, what's the point of it?. I live in Australia and here it is possible to be self sufficient (have a single income), to opt not to have children, to be a single parent, to choose ones own gender identity, to cohabit with someone of the same sex, to be a CEO if you are female, to be the sole caretaker of a child if you are male. None of these situations are going to necessarily endanger an individuals survival, or impede the survival of the human race.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

susurration said:


> Gender is the most pervasive construct in human culture, and many hang ups, experiences and expectations are centered around it, so I suppose it's going to remain a contentious issue. Are you saying that it shouldn't matter so much? *and that we should all live and let live*? I suppose I share a similar point of view personally, but it's pervasiveness still leads me to see it's significance.


Pretty much.

The topic itself strikes me about as unimportant as the arguments I had during my childhood sandbox times. If you feel like a women trapped in a man's body, or vice versa, good for you. I just don't see the importance of such revelation. Rather than feeling butthurt and limited, or amazingly special you could just go and do what you want instead of wasting mine and other's time.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Erbse said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> The topic itself strikes me about as unimportant as the arguments I had during my childhood sandbox times. If you feel like a women trapped in a man's body, or vice versa, good for you. I just don't see the importance of such revelation. Rather than feeling butthurt and limited, or amazingly special you could just do and go what you want instead of wasting mine and other's time.


I always preferred to do my own thing rather than to think too much about gender as well, but I suppose it's not something you can escape from really, considering it is a social construct and relies on social influence. 

I'm always interested in how people view gender- some having stronger thoughts and ties to it than others. Deviating from the norm or past prejudice often makes people align even more strongly with their identity or views, so I can understand why gender identity (in the same vein as ethnic or religious identity, particularly if they are minorities) is a significant thing. Especially those who have been persecuted because of it. I anticipate that you might think some use it as an excuse or a way to see themselves as victims? again, I can see your point, and that may be true in individual cases where... some things can't be helped and you do have to do the best you can, but to me, in some contexts, it's a matter of being a pervasive and a systematic thing that can be unjust; not something just a single person can effectively combat.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

Kriash said:


> I'm not for the elimination of gender or gender roles- but I do think that if someone decides to live outside of those roles, it should be fine.
> I consider myself gender neutral, but I'm not out to make everyone gender neutral- I think it's good to have differences between us.
> 
> With bathrooms- I use both. Seriously. If they are one person bathrooms like at gas stations and such, I go in whichever has the shortest line. If there is no line, I peek and see which is cleaner. That being said- I hate using public bathrooms and only do when I really need to go- not because I'm afraid of being judged, but because they're usually disgusting.


precisely my point. People should have the freedom to be themselves. Transsexuals and transgenders and androgynous people don't have that much liberty or even acceptance. Cross dressers and asexuals/gender neutral people have people not accepting them quite frequently. 
If you read the article on storm, you'll see people don't play with them since they are dressed in "pink boa feathers". So i think it's a good choice that the parents are bringing Storm up without disclosing her sex. People are free to treat her as a human being before they concern themselves about how to treat him/her based on his/her sex. 
That is all.
end of gender does not mean end of gender literally. it's a more open minded acceptance that should have come about something like a decade ago!
@eQGatsby What about people who are not male or female? They are then not as physically strong as male or emotionally capable as women? that's quite baseless. where are they on the evolutionary scale then? and let's not bring in things we can't shed light on. because clearly clearly clearly we have not had profound breakthrough regarding main differences between male and female psychological processes or even human processes in general. Every person is unique and gender sort of stops you from looking at the uniqueness. This is a psychology site. We are open to discuss stuff. And @The Proof i'm sorry you feel that way. Heaven bless if you ever met someone who was neither male nor female.
@Jennywocky  thank you. i get what you mean. I was illustrating that and yes the article was *very* long but i just found it interesting and had to share it. :happy:


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

@eQGatsby also, women aren't _interested_ in construction work or boxing for the same reason men aren't naturally inclined toward being a house-husband or a nanny. Our gray matter is used differently...whereas we are better at assimilation, men are better at abstract thinking and stuff.. Does not mean we can't do the other. We just have a natural inclination for one.
okay?
Relax. People should just be more open to all kinds of people since this is something that is natural and they are not going through sex change to become androgynous. Acceptance is necessary. @Erbse It's hard to do what you want at times when society is preventing you. Not everyone is Andrei Pejic


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

dizzygirl said:


> @Erbse It's hard to do what you want at times when society is preventing you. Not everyone is Andrei Pejic


Where is society stopping you, though? If you got the skills is takes to perform well, or even outstanding, it's peoples mistake for not taking you and hence their own stupidity. Certainly there will be someone acknowledging your capability, one just has to look around, it's certainly not going to fall into your lap. On the flipside, if you biologically aren't able to perform to the necessary requirements an employer sets you simply have to come to terms with it and move on.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

Come to India. You'll see :happy:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

laurie17 said:


> I don't think anything should be compulsory, so if gender-neutral people want to have facilities that reflect that, maybe businesses could put in a third toilet that has no gender on it? Then everyone wins.


Some do include family/neutral bathrooms nowadays. Obviously, though, to make a regulation about it would be crazy... buildings are not designed for that, unfortunately, so it would be a great hardship on small businesses without much or any space.



Erbse said:


> The topic itself strikes me about as unimportant as the arguments I had during my childhood sandbox times. If you feel like a women trapped in a man's body, or vice versa, good for you. I just don't see the importance of such revelation. Rather than feeling butthurt and limited, or amazingly special you could just go and do what you want instead of wasting mine and other's time.


Idealistically, if everyone in the world was like you, then I suppose it would work that way and we wouldn't need to waste time mulling over it.


----------



## whist (Apr 16, 2011)

I think gender neutrality is an interesting idea as long as we don't have to go out of our way to achieve it. I saw a mother try to force a princess book on her son the other day. He clearly did not want it. XD


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

whist said:


> I think gender neutrality is an interesting idea as long as we don't have to go out of our way to achieve it. I saw a mother try to force a princess book on her son the other day. He clearly did not want it. XD


Gaaa. Yeah, that's not good.


----------



## eQGatsby (Jun 17, 2011)

@_dizzygirl_ Those people are very low on the evolutionary scale because of their hormonal diseases or imbalances. Such as androgen (in)sensitivity syndrome. Or extra chromosomes, such as XXX up to XXXXXX or XXY, up to XXXXXXY. 
These are the people who were supposed to be filtered out at an evolutionary standpoint. Not only for superficial reasons but because _any chromosomal error_ puts people at a higher risk for disease, lowers intelligence, etc. 

Let's not make arguments when we don't already know the answers, shall we?


----------



## eQGatsby (Jun 17, 2011)

susurration said:


> If a construct doesn't have a function anymore, what's the point of it?. I live in Australia and here it is possible to be self sufficient (have a single income), to opt not to have children, to be a single parent, to choose ones own gender identity, to cohabit with someone of the same sex, to be a CEO if you are female, to be the sole caretaker of a child if you are male. None of these situations are going to necessarily endanger an individuals survival, or impede the survival of the human race.


I didn't say this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I didn't say it shouldn't happen. I said that there will always be male and always be female, and always be masculine and always be feminine. You bringing stereotype breakers into it _and_ unintentionally broadening my argument to things I wasn't even talking about proves my point that these are not going away. See, to break a stereotype you have to believe a stereotype. 
Edit: Cliffnotes version, if but two points are to be drawn from my post, they are "Don't put words in my mouth" and "piss off". 

Have a nice day!


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

eQGatsby said:


> @_dizzygirl_ Those people are very low on the evolutionary scale because of their hormonal diseases or imbalances. Such as androgen (in)sensitivity syndrome. Or extra chromosomes, such as XXX up to XXXXXX or XXY, up to XXXXXXY.
> These are the people who were supposed to be filtered out at an evolutionary standpoint. Not only for superficial reasons but because _any chromosomal error_ puts people at a higher risk for disease, lowers intelligence, etc.


"Other mutations result in males that have an extra Y chromosome and a genotype of XYY. These males were once thought to be taller than average males and overly aggressive based on prison studies. Additional studies however have found XYY males to be normal."
source: http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/a/aa110504a.htm
Stop acting like an eugenesist out of the 60s who thought intelligence was hereditary. :dry:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

eQGatsby said:


> @_dizzygirl_ Those people are very low on the evolutionary scale because of their hormonal diseases or imbalances. Such as androgen (in)sensitivity syndrome. Or extra chromosomes, such as XXX up to XXXXXX or XXY, up to XXXXXXY.
> These are the people who were supposed to be filtered out at an evolutionary standpoint. Not only for superficial reasons but because _any chromosomal error_ puts people at a higher risk for disease, lowers intelligence, etc.


Wait a moment, can you clarify what you are actually suggesting here? 
Because it really sounds like you are endorsing active eugenics.

This discussion is about social gender issues.
Instead, you're dragging in AIS people and discussing how evolution should weeding them out.

That seems entirely irrelevant in regards to society dealing with AIS people (and others) who have already been born and who want to live the most fulfilling life possible now that they're already alive.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

eQGatsby said:


> I didn't say this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I didn't say it shouldn't happen. I said that there will always be male and always be female, and always be masculine and always be feminine. You bringing stereotype breakers into it _and_ unintentionally broadening my argument to things I wasn't even talking about proves my point that these are not going away. See, to break a stereotype you have to believe a stereotype.
> Edit: Cliffnotes version, if but two points are to be drawn from my post, they are "Don't put words in my mouth" and "piss off".
> 
> Have a nice day!


Read my post again, and see that I agreed with you; I said there would be no end of gender, just that the lines would blur. I _extrapolated_ from that into my own argument, I wasn't wholly responding to you. Broadening _your _argument? haha... 

A whole 1 minute of my life wasted explaining that right there...


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

It's sort of hard to draw any conclusions on the issue of gender because its inherently biased by social conditioning from the start - whoever investigates it experienced their own form of social conditioning and subjects of studies can be investigated only in one direction how they are conditioned because it's nigh impossible to escape conditioning to the extent of examining what the differences in gender would be _without_ conditioning.

In my opinion people buy too much into external systems of thought, ideas about gender are basically yet another one of these scenarios. Raising kids is difficult, knowing what is best for your children when you have nothing to draw upon is scary, consequently a lot of people buy into the ideology of gender so they have something to tell them how to treat their kids, this is the part that's the problem. Gender should not be used as an 'excuse' for certain behaviour and treatment because nobody should ever feel obliged to adhere to an assigned gender role if they don't want to. People should be seen as people, not as their gender followed by a few characteristics individual to them, this is something I don't see the point in disagreeing with on, even if some people conform to their assigned gender it _never_ follows that everyone should, because if just one or two people don't fit the criteria then it shows that not everyone fits it.

In the end it is meaningless to say that gender matter because some people will always break your expectations and it is far healthier to abandon stereotypical beliefs that to persecute them simply because they don't live up to your predetermined judgments.


----------



## eQGatsby (Jun 17, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> Wait a moment, can you clarify what you are actually suggesting here?
> Because it really sounds like you are endorsing active eugenics.
> 
> This discussion is about social gender issues.
> ...


@_dizzygirl_ 
47,XYY boys have an increased risk of learning difficulties (in up to 50%) and delayed speech and language skills.[1][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] In comparison, a national survey of US children conducted in 2004 for the CDC found that 10% of all boys had a learning disability.[15]
As with 47,XXY boys[16] and 47,XXX girls, IQ scores of 47,XYY boys average 10–15 points below their siblings.[7][8][10][12][13]


These intellectual and physical difficulties increase or multiply exponentially with monosomy 45 (XO), trisomy, getting increasingly worse up to 49, XXXXXXY or 49, XXXXXXX.


Oh and by the way, I didn't say or imply intelligence was hereditary. I did however, say or imply that intelligence takes a drop when you have *a goddamn motherfucking chromosomal disorder. 
*


Q.E.D. 















@_Jennywocky_ She asked me where they stand on the evolutionary scale, and I gave her an objective answer. Whether or not it looks like I endorse anything is irrelevant. She wanted her answer, she got it. They have a weakness from an evolutionary standpoint, they would have been weeded out in a world where natural selection actually worked. 
What isn't irrelevant, however, is an answer to her question.

Edit: One last thing, people with AIS are sterile. Who knew? Natural selection _does_ work kind of.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

eQGatsby said:


> Edit: One last thing, people with AIS are sterile. Who knew? Natural selection _does_ work kind of.


Well, I knew, and I thought you did too.

I mean, by definition, they've got female outsides and (typically) female identity and attraction to males; but they have undescended malformed testes and no womb. Not a great combination for expecting someone to be capable of reproduction.

So yeah. Natural selection does try to weed it out from the species. It says nothing about the person currently living or what they deserve as a human being within a fair standard legal setting.


----------



## Pendragon (Dec 31, 2010)

While I'm fine with the entire idea of gender neutrality (I actually think it might do some good), I don't agree with what the parents are doing here. If your child has red hair, and you oppose the bullying of redheads in schools (or something), you're not going to make it wear a hat everywhere it goes. You're actually going to talk over the issue logically and try to resolve it, rather than saying 'Oooh, look at us, aren't we clever?' Forcing this on a child is also not the way to go. If your child decides later that they want to do it (I'm not ever talking about 18, I mean from the moment they can talk, and actually express what they want), then they can go ahead - nothing's stopping them. I object to this idea that they're giving Storm 'freedom' while selling her story to the newspapers - which will undeniably restrict it's freedom far more than a gender marker would. If you want to raise your children in a genderless environment - raise them in a genderless environment! Ever hear the expression 'lead by doing'? Once the media gets hold of it, people seem inclined to simply view it as a gimmick.

Can we find a new pronoun? Referring to it as 'it' all the time is fun, but gets old quickly.


----------



## TheOwl (Nov 3, 2010)

Pendragon said:


> Can we find a new pronoun? Referring to it as 'it' all the time is fun, but gets old quickly.


This article: 'Choice' for Baby Storm isn't so simple says the parents refer to Storm as "Z", not he or she.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Pendragon said:


> Can we find a new pronoun? Referring to it as 'it' all the time is fun, but gets old quickly.


Yeah, I've seen the "ze" thing used a lot in gender-variant circles.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

@eQGatsby i find your username ironic. EQ???really?? :|
And on a more post related note, the natural selection thing example is hardly valid. after all in heterosexual couples, men/women are often incapable of reproducing too. 
and from the same wiki article that you cited- here's an excerpt: "Developmental delays and behavioral problems are also possible, but these characteristics vary widely among affected boys and men, are not unique to 47,XYY and are managed no differently than in 46,XY males.[8][10][14] Aggression is not seen more frequently in 47,XYY males."


----------



## Fantastic Fantaseer (Apr 9, 2011)

I just got 2 things to say here. if this is about girls haveing the same rights as guys, and not being limited to house work while guy go out to do real work, then I like the idea. girls already get tot do the same work as boys do obviously, but getting rid of the, you can't do this cause your a girl, or you can hang with us cus this is girls only, then I'm al for it.

now as for the second thing. gender does matter. if you're a guy who is straite, and the worl comes to where you can't tell wh's a guy and who's a girl, then does the term strait even mean anything anymore? you date some one who you think is a girl, then one night you find that you were wrong. so yes it knowing wether someone is a guy or a girl does matter.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Fantastic Fantaseer said:


> I just got 2 things to say here. if this is about girls haveing the same rights as guys, and not being limited to house work while guy go out to do real work, then I like the idea.


Great, it's certainly a good idea that benefits everyone, especially women. There's still a long, long way to go before women around the world will be truly equal, though.



> girls already get tot do the same work as boys do obviously, but getting rid of the, you can't do this cause your a girl, or you can hang with us cus this is girls only, then I'm al for it.


You mean that you are opposed to gender roles and societal expectations?



> now as for the second thing. gender does matter. if you're a guy who is straite, and the worl comes to where you can't tell wh's a guy and who's a girl, then does the term strait even mean anything anymore?


Firstly, you're mixing up gender with biological sex. Gender is what you are inside, it's who you are, whilst biological sex is what you are on the outside and in some parts of the inside, such as the reproductive system.

Secondly, the removal of gender roles and societal expectations would not remove men who looked masculine or women who looked feminine, as such people form the majority and such people will always be around. Having a neutral gender identity does not mean that someone has to look neither male or female, as these are two separate qualities.

Thirdly, the removal of gender roles and societal expectations should not have an effect on most people's sexuality, although people may be more open-minded, therefore allowing more GLBT people to be more open about their identities and sexualities. There will always be straight men who like women, there will always be straight women who like men, and there will always be gay men who like men, always be gay women who like women. There is also bisexual people who like both men and women, and pansexuals, who don't really consider the gender of a person, although they may still have a preference for male bodied people or female bodied people, people with a masculine gender identity or people with a feminine gender identity and so on.



> you date some one who you think is a girl, then one night you find that you were wrong.


How would this happen, unless the woman in question was a pre-op transwoman (male to female transsexual) - such a woman, by the way, may not be too comfortable with being open about such a fact too soon as there is a lot of prejudice against transsexual people.



> so yes it knowing wether someone is a guy or a girl does matter.


To some extent it does, yes, but only if you are looking to have a sexual relationship with that person and your sexual orientation means that you are straight or gay or bisexual or pansexual or asexual or any other sexual orientation.


----------



## Fantastic Fantaseer (Apr 9, 2011)

well I ment it depends on what you mean here. it was a
so if what you're saying, (that is the person reading this,) means to get ride of the whole gender thing as in, there are no moe boys or girls, just people.
VS
so if what your saying, is to get ride of the social boundries.

in other words, I was saying wether I'm for or againsts this depends on how you're interpreting this.


----------



## Kelly617 (May 25, 2011)

This is taking things a little too far. I'm all for anyone of any gender being as feminine or masculine as they feel suits them, but this feels a bit like we're starting to demonize the idea of gender altogether. Gender isn't optional at birth. If a baby is born a boy, it's a boy. If it's born a girl, it's a girl. If it grows up and later discovers it would rather be the opposite of what it was at birth, or somewhere in between, then so be it, but for parents to intentionally withhold that information seems...extreme?


----------



## tuna (Jun 10, 2010)

Kelly617 said:


> This is taking things a little too far. I'm all for anyone of any gender being as feminine or masculine as they feel suits them, but this feels a bit like we're starting to demonize the idea of gender altogether. Gender isn't optional at birth. If a baby is born a boy, it's a boy. If it's born a girl, it's a girl. If it grows up and later discovers it would rather be the opposite of what it was at birth, or somewhere in between, then so be it, but for parents to intentionally withhold that information seems...extreme?


_Sex_ isn't optional at birth. Gender is generally _assigned_ at birth by society -- there's nothing inherently "male-gendered" or "female-gendered" about a baby.


----------



## Kelly617 (May 25, 2011)

tuna said:


> _Sex_ isn't optional at birth. Gender is generally _assigned_ at birth by society -- there's nothing inherently "male-gendered" or "female-gendered" about a baby.


Okay, I meant sex. Sex isn't optional at birth. So yes, informing others of the child's sex could lead to society assigning it a gender role, which I'm assuming the argument is that this is a negative thing. I still think it's extreme. There's nothing wrong with being born female or male, hiding it suggests otherwise.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Kelly617 said:


> This is taking things a little too far. I'm all for anyone of any gender being as feminine or masculine as they feel suits them, but this feels a bit like we're starting to demonize the idea of gender altogether. Gender isn't optional at birth. If a baby is born a boy, it's a boy. If it's born a girl, it's a girl. If it grows up and later discovers it would rather be the opposite of what it was at birth, or somewhere in between, then so be it, but for parents to intentionally withhold that information seems...extreme?


I'm not sure how I feel about that either. I feel society just swings back and forth on issues like this. For a few decades, people were "blank slates" and environment made them into who they were. Then in the mid 80's or so, there was a shift back towards bio-influence. From what I can see, both work together and feed off each other to shape people. It's also interesting to remember that men and women start with the same basic template from the egg, and are differentiated in the womb by hormonal washes based on genetic blueprints; some structures appear in both men and women, just differentiated into the appropriate gender form. We're made from the "same stuff" so to speak.

In this situation, I can appreciate that people want to protect their children from being molded into unnecessary shapes by society. Gender is the most immediate thing I can think of that is imposed on a child, even before birth -- the very first question ANYONE asks when someone is pregnant is "Is it a boy or a girl?" The immediacy of our need to gender someone seems almost ludicrous. On the other hand, there are sexual differences reflected in bio and sexual programming that do differentiate the two genders, and those can't really be denied either. I typically see this as needing to walk some sort of middle line, acknowledging what is true without overly restricting one's self-expression and/or opportunities.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

I guess I'll be more direct. The concept of "ending gender" is beyond idiotic. That's not the same thing as ending discrimination (which likewise will never be truly achieved - people are ingenious at identifying and exploiting differences) but to "end gender" is to biologically redefine humanity. You may as well say that people are becoming amphibious. 

It's based upon some wannabe utopian, pop psychology bullshit dreamworld where someone's superimposing their ideology, disguised as the Next Novel Idea upon the world rather than taking facts from the world and developing a framework that represents reality. Oh sure, they try to cast it as the opposite, but it's a thin veneer.

Of course, it could also be the well-known tactic of coming up with something "shocking and revolutionary" with which to obtain grants from others who are inclined to be wishful thinkers along those lines.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> I guess I'll be more direct. The concept of "ending gender" is beyond idiotic. That's not the same thing as ending discrimination (which likewise will never be truly achieved - people are ingenious at identifying and exploiting differences) but to "end gender" is to biologically redefine humanity. You may as well say that people are becoming amphibious.


You're confusing gender with biological sex. 



> It's based upon some wannabe utopian, pop psychology bullshit dreamworld where someone's superimposing their ideology, disguised as the Next Novel Idea upon the world rather than taking facts from the world and developing a framework that represents reality. Oh sure, they try to cast it as the opposite, but it's a thin veneer.


Why is it that when people want humans to have more personal freedom, the traditionalists always scream about someone superimposing their ideology on others? It's like some religious people who can't come to terms with the fact that some gay people might want to get married.



> Of course, it could also be the well-known tactic of coming up with something "shocking and revolutionary" with which to obtain grants from others who are inclined to be wishful thinkers along those lines.


Grants?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> *You're confusing gender with biological sex. *


Nope, but it would be convenient for you to say I am. After all, you wouldn't have to actually argue something that makes any sense. BTW, where was that argument?



skycloud86 said:


> *Why is it that when people want humans to have more personal freedom, the traditionalists always scream about someone superimposing their ideology on others? It's like some religious people who can't come to terms with the fact that some gay people might want to get married.*


Don't worry, your whine is misplaced - I'm not taking away your freedom. Believe what you want. I just will criticize a silly notion when I encounter it. Ain't free speech great?



skycloud86 said:


> *Grants?*


Sure, funding grants. These often come to those in academia, which tends to be a cloistered breeding ground for this sort of nonsense. Of course, this stuff also sells books, gets you speeches, etc. The point is that there's lots of money to be had in ridiculousness that staged as "scientific discovery", as we saw with Andrew Wakefield, just as one example.


----------



## Kelly617 (May 25, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about that either. I feel society just swings back and forth on issues like this. For a few decades, people were "blank slates" and environment made them into who they were. Then in the mid 80's or so, there was a shift back towards bio-influence. From what I can see, both work together and feed off each other to shape people. It's also interesting to remember that men and women start with the same basic template from the egg, and are differentiated in the womb by hormonal washes based on genetic blueprints; some structures appear in both men and women, just differentiated into the appropriate gender form. We're made from the "same stuff" so to speak.
> 
> In this situation, I can appreciate that people want to protect their children from being molded into unnecessary shapes by society. Gender is the most immediate thing I can think of that is imposed on a child, even before birth -- the very first question ANYONE asks when someone is pregnant is "Is it a boy or a girl?" The immediacy of our need to gender someone seems almost ludicrous. On the other hand, there are sexual differences reflected in bio and sexual programming that do differentiate the two genders, and those can't really be denied either. I typically see this as needing to walk some sort of middle line, acknowledging what is true without overly restricting one's self-expression and/or opportunities.


This is basically my opinion too. It's definitely important to support the individual's right to choose thier identity on their own, but how early can one tell? When I was 6, I wasn't particularly feminine or masculine. I was a bit of a tomboy, but I had typical female qualities as well. However, I was aware that I had girl parts while boys had boy parts. It becomes unavoidable after a while. Honestly, young kids aren't thinking "I wonder what gender I identify with", they're just being kids, but they're aware of the physical differences between genders. I think masking their biological gender, or attempting to hide it could just serve to be more confusing for children who are still developing an identity. If they feel the need to implement some kind of change at 16 or so, that's great. But young kids should just be taught to be themselves, whether they're female or male.


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

I see how some people think that humanity is sexist with separate bathrooms, clothes, et cetera. But if we ended the social concept of gender, then people--as in men or women--would not understand, or respect, the physiological, psychological, and social differences that men and women have. If we learn about the sex we are born with, then we can educate the same, opposite, and transgender sexes so there can be less idiots in the world who discriminate other sexes through means of bullying, like peer pressure, sexual harassment (at home or in the workplace), name calling, et cetera. Ending the concept of sex in our society, at least to me, seems unfeasible.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> I guess I'll be more direct. The concept of "ending gender" is beyond idiotic. That's not the same thing as ending discrimination (which likewise will never be truly achieved - people are ingenious at identifying and exploiting differences) but to "end gender" is to biologically redefine humanity. You may as well say that people are becoming amphibious.
> 
> It's based upon some wannabe utopian, pop psychology bullshit dreamworld where someone's superimposing their ideology, disguised as the Next Novel Idea upon the world rather than taking facts from the world and developing a framework that represents reality. Oh sure, they try to cast it as the opposite, but it's a thin veneer.
> 
> Of course, it could also be the well-known tactic of coming up with something "shocking and revolutionary" with which to obtain grants from others who are inclined to be wishful thinkers along those lines.


"End of Gender?" is the name of the article and what Linton Weeks is posing as a question. You can surely see that the article itself is not about end of gender. It's about trying to discourage gender discrimination as you so succinctly put. Surely you can appreciate this enough that people of neutral or undecided gender should not be considered freaks?
And there has to be wishful thinking and action to bring change about. In an otherwise world, we'd never have set foot on the moon. or had the Surrealist movement. 
This is a worthwhile thing they are doing. Society _should be_ more lenient and accepting.
@benfoldsfive dude this is NOT about ending gender or ending sex. Those are impossible concepts. And as far as educating the masses go, I'd just like to point that it's the 21st Century and despite knowing a lot about homosexuals, there are still a LOT of people who don't support them. There are eugenesists among us still and racists. Education can only do so much when people are close minded. and unlike the actual ideal, education doesn't always open up people's minds. Sometimes it just provides them with proof to back up their rigid views.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

dizzygirl said:


> "End of Gender?" is the name of the article and what Linton Weeks is posing as a question. You can surely see that the article itself is not about end of gender. It's about trying to discourage gender discrimination as you so succinctly put. Surely you can appreciate this enough that people of neutral or undecided gender should not be considered freaks?
> And there has to be wishful thinking and action to bring change about. In an otherwise world, we'd never have set foot on the moon. or had the Surrealist movement.
> This is a worthwhile thing they are doing. Society _should be_ more lenient and accepting.
> @benfoldsfive dude this is NOT about ending gender or ending sex. Those are impossible concepts. And as far as educating the masses go, I'd just like to point that it's the 21st Century and despite knowing a lot about homosexuals, there are still a LOT of people who don't support them. There are eugenesists among us still and racists. Education can only do so much when people are close minded. and unlike the actual ideal, education doesn't always open up people's minds. Sometimes it just provides them with proof to back up their rigid views.


What makes you think that my comments were directed at Linton Weeks, as opposed to some of the people he was quoting? 

And you're comparing gender identity to a physics and engineering feat (landing on the moon) or an art movement (Surrealism)? What's the relevance of either of those, either literally or as analogies?


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> And you're comparing gender identity to a physics and engineering feat (landing on the moon) or an art movement (Surrealism)? What's the relevance of either of those, either literally or as analogies?


The analogy was drawn because you brought up wishful thinking. That is the subject matter i was emphasizing on..not physics nor art. it was an illustration of the fact that wishful thinking is a necessity for progress.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

dizzygirl said:


> The analogy was drawn because you brought up wishful thinking. That is the subject matter i was emphasizing on..not physics nor art. it was an illustration of the fact that wishful thinking is a necessity for progress.


Again, I fail to see where the sort of wishful thinking that gave rise to the physics and engineering marvel of the moon missions, or the art of Surrealism, is comparable to what we're discussing. 

Also, since when is wishful thinking a guarantee of anything? I mentioned utopian thinking, and history is filled with various versions of utopia and searches for it, whether it be searches for the Fountain of Youth or the end of the rainbow, or political systems like Marxism-Leninism, or turning lead into gold, etc. 

We're also almost at the 100-year anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the spark that touched off the events immediately leading to WWI. The irony is that a century ago it was widely thought in the Western World that wars were a thing of the past because scientific advances and the Great Powers' treaties with each other guaranteed peace. This was of course followed by the two greatest wars in human history . . .

Traditional gender will always overwhelmingly predominate because . . . well, it's the overwhelmingly predominant mindset of human beings.


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

> @benfoldsfive dude this is NOT about ending gender or ending sex. Those are impossible concepts. And as far as educating the masses go, I'd just like to point that it's the 21st Century and despite knowing a lot about homosexuals, there are still a LOT of people who don't support them. There are eugenesists among us still and racists. Education can only do so much when people are close minded. and unlike the actual ideal, education doesn't always open up people's minds. Sometimes it just provides them with proof to back up their rigid views.


While reading the article, that's the idea I got about gender. Yes, I do agree that there are people who do not like homosexuality, but in my original post, I'm not trying to discuss a sexual relationship between a man or woman, man or man, and woman or woman. My post was meant to talk about men and women learning the differences of their sexes, so that learning to accept the gender differences rather than letting children grow up without a given sex, like the Toronto parents. 
Hypothesize this. Imagine when the kid, Storm, starts to go to school, the schoolmates will make fun of Storm (let's say Storm is a male) because he plays with dolls, or if Storm is a girl, Storm will be made fun of because she may like sports. When Storm grows up, Storm may have a hard time wondering what gender he or she (since the parents aren't telling what sex the kid is) is mentally. That can cause many years of wondering what sex Storm belongs to. 
So, in order to circumvent this gender crisis, the child (let's say if it is a boy) should be exposed to what his father's male side, _as well_ as to his mother's female side. Having seen both the masculine and feminine side, the child can grow to accept both sexes, which can cause the child's respect for men, as well as women because the parents were open minded to showing the boy both sexes during childhood. 

I hope that may clear things up a bit.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> Again, I fail to see where the sort of wishful thinking that gave rise to the physics and engineering marvel of the moon missions, or the art of Surrealism, is comparable to what we're discussing.


Welllll... it's because I think she was using the concept very generally ("wishful thinking" AKA imagination and hope wrapped up in one concept, drives change of any sort), while you're making a far more nuanced comparison and thus seeing all the ways in which they are NOT similar. 

It's primarily a scope issue. Don't make the comparison so granular.



> Also, since when is wishful thinking a guarantee of anything? I mentioned utopian thinking, and history is filled with various versions of utopia and searches for it, whether it be searches for the Fountain of Youth or the end of the rainbow, or political systems like Marxism-Leninism, or turning lead into gold, etc.


It's not a guarantee of anything. But if no one even bothers to challenge calcified gender roles (i.e., has "wishful thinking" for things to be different), then the amount of change that is possible = zero. You have to see and hope for change in order for it to have the opportunity to occur. I think that is all that was being said.



benfoldsfive dude said:


> So, in order to circumvent this gender crisis, the child (let's say if it is a boy) should be exposed to what his father's male side, _as well_ as to his mother's female side. Having seen both the masculine and feminine side, the child can grow to accept both sexes, which can cause the child's respect for men, as well as women because the parents were open minded to showing the boy both sexes during childhood.


yes, if I'm reading this right... I think rather than expunging gender, people should just have more freedom toward exploring and being themselves rather than being crammed in a box of gendered expectation. Part of that exploration needs to involve seeing what actually is already there and learning to accept one's own inclinations that might align in a gender-predictable fashion, as well as being able to deviate from the explicity social gendered roles when appropriate.



Kelly617 said:


> This is basically my opinion too. It's definitely important to support the individual's right to choose thier identity on their own, but how early can one tell? When I was 6, I wasn't particularly feminine or masculine. I was a bit of a tomboy, but I had typical female qualities as well. However, I was aware that I had girl parts while boys had boy parts. It becomes unavoidable after a while. Honestly, young kids aren't thinking "I wonder what gender I identify with", they're just being kids, but they're aware of the physical differences between genders. I think masking their biological gender, or attempting to hide it could just serve to be more confusing for children who are still developing an identity. If they feel the need to implement some kind of change at 16 or so, that's great. But young kids should just be taught to be themselves, whether they're female or male.


With official "gender-variant" AKA trans-kids, pretty much as soon as they can talk and function with some autonomy (age 2-3). That's what I've seen on news clips and videos and in my reading; and it's also what I experienced with one of my kids. 

By that age, without any prompting from us and without even a sister of his own to trigger such modeling, my one son fit the criteria for "GID in Children" from the DSM. Since he is very extroverted, the behavior was very blatant and persistent. (I think introverted kids can bury it more easily.) This period lasted until age 6-7. I felt like I was dealing with a histrionic teenage girl. We tried to give opportunity to explore while keeping reins on things, but it only seem to become more drawn-out and overblown as time passed... had to have girl presents, had only girl friends, efforts to establish some boy friends were always rebuffed / never panned out, kept emulating girl behavior around the house, always was wearing a towel around the house and to bed to emulate long hair. 

And then it stopped. At age 6-7. Now he doesn't like to talk about that... but he's still retained feminine-oriented behaviors he's probably not even aware of from his perspective, even while looking and acting male in many ways. And typically such gender-varient behavior results in expression of homosexuality tendencies when puberty kicks in, and that is essentially what has happened -- he's still working it out his exact preferences and what he wants and what it means for him -- but in any case, that kind of gender-variant behavior _driven by the child _happens early, is resistant to change on anyone else's time schedule, and typically signifies something enduring.

The gender variant behavior we're discussing here though is not being driven necessarily by the child, it's driven more by the adults. These aren't really transkids who identify strongly with the other gender, they are kids not stuck in any frame of reference at all, gender-wise. Are the kids being benefited by such a measure, or are they missing some foundational sense of self by being denied it? I dunno.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redmanINTP said:


> Nope, but it would be convenient for you to say I am. After all, you wouldn't have to actually argue something that makes any sense. BTW, where was that argument?


How exactly, then, would it redefine humanity, especially as gender roles and societal expectations tend to be quite different in different societies and cultures. Some cultures even have multiple sexes and gender identities that have been part of that culture for millenia.



> Don't worry, your whine is misplaced - I'm not taking away your freedom. Believe what you want. I just will criticize a silly notion when I encounter it. Ain't free speech great?


So, who is trying to avoid arguing now? I was saying that the people who usually oppose people being less restricted by gender roles and societal expectations are often the same people who feel it is being imposed on them in some sort of PC conspiracy to take over the world.



> Sure, funding grants. These often come to those in academia, which tends to be a cloistered breeding ground for this sort of nonsense. Of course, this stuff also sells books, gets you speeches, etc. The point is that there's lots of money to be had in ridiculousness that staged as "scientific discovery", as we saw with Andrew Wakefield, just as one example.


So? There's people who take such grants who advocate almost anything. That doesn't make them the originator of such ideas, nor does it make them the main advocate for those ideas.


----------



## DarklyValentine (Mar 4, 2010)

I find myself in a bemused state although in a lovely pair of sandals today ladies *winks

let me explain heres what i got from post

end of gender by not revealing it

help this thicko to grasp..as his net can be slow and he cant read all 10 pages

therefore No

unless its a question about raising a child as mixed wrong trans hypo

which is it OP

*signed a boy named sue


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

Amusing article @dizzygirl

It's a well known fact that 1billion+ muslims believe that gradually, ''Men will begin to look like women and women will begin to look like men''. This is one of the signs that are given by prophet Mohammad(pbuh) 1400years ago. 
Signs Before the Day of Judgment

I guess it's quite an unusual perspective but I just wanted to let you know :0


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

@absent air
Thank you. Finally a not confrontational or conflicting post. I had just wanted to share the article!! THANK YOU!!! <3


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

dizzygirl said:


> @absent air
> Thank you. Finally a not confrontational or conflicting post. I had just wanted to share the article!! THANK YOU!!! <3


Why would people confront/contradict your post when it is 100% true?
I found your article very refreshing and openminded, smart dizzgurl :3


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

Jennywocky said:


> yes, if I'm reading this right... I think rather than expunging gender, people should just have more freedom toward exploring and being themselves...


I agree with this. But when the person is a small child, he/she should be raised the sex he or she was born with, and when he or she gets older, he/she should learn more about his/her sex, as well as the opposite sex in order to have a full understanding of both sexes. 


> ...rather than being crammed in a box of gendered expectation.


I am not trying to say that the person should be expected to be a certain gender. If a man has more feminist inclinations than masculine, and women vice-versa, we as a society, and an intelligent species, should have the intelligence to respect a person's characteristics, no matter if he or she has personality traits that do not reflect the role of his or her biological sex. 



> ...as well as being able to deviate from the explicity social gendered roles when appropriate.


I'm not sure if this what you mean, but here's what I got from it. Let's say if a woman (Lisa will be her name) finds herself to have more masculine then feminine traits, then Lisa should understand that her lifestyle--which she accepts and likes--is risqué in a society that finds lifestyles like hers taboo. If that's what you're saying, then I agree because there are some people in America who would want her dead because she is going against traditional values. 
I hope I read your response right.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

benfoldsfive dude said:


> I agree with this. But when the person is a small child, he/she should be raised the sex he or she was born with, and when he or she gets older, he/she should learn more about his/her sex, as well as the opposite sex in order to have a full understanding of both sexes.


It depends on what you mean by "raising as the sex you were born with." I think children should be taught to accept who they are. Yes, there is some degree of conformity to society in a lot of areas (not just gender) in order to learn the give-and-take of community, but I feel like the gender rules are too rigid. There should be a lot of variety, rather than two cookie-cutter versions of human beings -- one the ideal man, one the ideal woman, and all based on forcing people to pretend they like things they don't and hate things they don't.



> I am not trying to say that the person should be expected to be a certain gender. If a man has more feminist inclinations than masculine, and women vice-versa, we as a society, and an intelligent species, should have the intelligence to respect a person's characteristics, no matter if he or she has personality traits that do not reflect the role of his or her biological sex.


Okay. And yes, we should see diversity as a gift, not as falling short. People who are outside the two binary boxes have unique perspectives and abilities to communicate with people on both ends of the spectrum. We should recognize and support that.



> I'm not sure if this what you mean, but here's what I got from it. Let's say if a woman (Lisa will be her name) finds herself to have more masculine then feminine traits, then Lisa should understand that her lifestyle--which she accepts and likes--is risqué in a society that finds lifestyles like hers taboo.


I said exactly what I meant. Lisa should simply feel free to be herself, whether it aligns more with femininity or masculinity.

The angle you are taking is interesting, but not what I said.


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

Jennywocky said:


> It depends on what you mean by "raising as the sex you were born with."


I can see how that comment I made can be confusing. Here's another example: there is a male child (call him, let's say, Will). Will is a newborn (here's where I really agree with you), and exposing Will to be a certain way in society (sex, personality, etc.) is useless for a newborn, as the newborn (I'm not trying to sound shallow when I say this) only requires basic needs like food, care, love, attention, etc. But when Will becomes a toddler, I think that the parent should try to expose him to things that boys like. Then, if he likes masculine things or not, then it's up to him.

Now I'm thinking, why should this matter to me? I'm almost a young adult, and I don't know or care if I have kids.:laughing:

But I'll continue.



> I think children should be taught to accept who they are.


Totally Agree.


> ...but I feel like the gender rules are too rigid.


Now, I don't feel like gender rules, in a sense of interacting with the other sex, are extremely rigid, but I would say that the "rules" are traditional (i.e. Husband and Wife). This may be a whole different issue, but I think that there is a lot of rigidity between people of the same sex--when I mean rigidity, I mean competition. 



> There should be a lot of variety,...


I feel like that there is a lot of variety. If you don't think so, I feel like this generation, Generation Y, will bring (more) variety compared to X and (especially) Baby Boomers.



> ...rather than two cookie-cutter versions of human beings -- one the ideal man, one the ideal woman,...


When you say cookie cutter, do you mean the "nuclear family" stereotype (i.e. Man works, woman stays at home, 2 kids, a dog, a house, 2 cars)? I feel like that's what you mean. 


> ...and all based on forcing people to pretend they like things they don't and hate things they don't.


I feel like this also relates to the "nuclear family" in the suburbs. If you mean gender in the suburban lifestyle, I do see what you mean about some couples showing (in some fashion) that they are living the right lifestyle as a man and woman (husband and wife) and want to shove it down everyone else's throats through means of having kids, updating their homes, buying expensive cars, or even putting their own children on a pedestal.
I know that that is an extreme example, but I see this kind of "sexism" all over where I live, and it's absolutely ridiculous because these seem to be people who live their lives to impress others in the neighborhood in order to show that they are successful. That mentality does not necessarily represent people who live in the "real world." Sorry for that rant.


> People who are outside the two binary boxes have unique perspectives and abilities to communicate with people on both ends of the spectrum. We should recognize and support that.


I wouldn't say that they are "unique," but rather, they have an understanding of both sexes and want equality through means of accepting the diversity of both sexes and learning the ways males and females live through means of education (<- what I believe), or (from what I got from the article ->) eliminating the concept of different sexes by neutralizing the concept of gender. I guess what I'm saying is that we need to learn about issues rather than sweeping issues under the bed.




> The angle you are taking is interesting, but not what I said.


Thank you, and even though we have conflicting views, I do respect your views. I'm sorry that it seem like I'm getting off track with my views, but I want to get to the bottom of the issue by seeing what you and I think.


----------



## Beyond_B (Feb 2, 2011)

redmanINTP said:


> I love how these sorts of discussions seem to assume that gender differences are fundamentally cultural rather than biological. Garbage in, garbage out.


Thank you, and nice signature BTW.


----------



## Beyond_B (Feb 2, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I personally think the "gender is what is in your head, sex is what is between your legs" layman's argument popularized nowadays is very sloppy. It does the job of slapping someone into realizing that there are gender constructs vs sex-based instincts, which is positive; but taking it as a hard rule, it fails to acknowledge the interaction between the two.
> 
> Just because something is being taught in class in regards to social issues doesn't mean it's true. For a good 20-30 years (from 1950-1980 or so), we were being taught that everyone is a blank slate and children could be totally changed by how they were raised. Minority opinions were shouted down and/or dismissed, until enough evidence accrued for the large bodies to start to change their mind. Nowadays we know that some of the experiments used to support the Blank Slate theory were built on faulty data.
> 
> ...


 Thanks for that post.

Don't know, but doesn't hiding the babies' gender make it look like an issue? It doesn't matter if you are a boy or a girl, you should just be yourself and accept being a boy or a girl. A lot of people think I am tom-boyish, I am just a girl with specific interests who is being herself. So it shouldn't be a problem to say a babies' sex as long as you accept them and support them to be themselves.Hiding the babies' sex only makes it look like there is a big difference.I think it is just confusing and not necessary at all.I even think it is not good for the babies' health.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

benfoldsfive dude said:


> I can see how that comment I made can be confusing. Here's another example: there is a male child (call him, let's say, Will). Will is a newborn (here's where I really agree with you), and exposing Will to be a certain way in society (sex, personality, etc.) is useless for a newborn, as the newborn (I'm not trying to sound shallow when I say this) only requires basic needs like food, care, love, attention, etc. But when Will becomes a toddler, I think that the parent should try to expose him to things that boys like. Then, if he likes masculine things or not, then it's up to him.


I don't even think you need to actively do that, it just happens. As I said elsewhere, the world (not just parents) immediately tries to push a male/female agenda before we're even born. It's the first question people ask. We are assigned colors to distinguish gender. As soon as a baby is old enough to have toys, people buy gender-specific toys. I don't think it's really an issue for parents to have initiate -- send a child to preschool, where they have access to any variety of toys, and you'll figure out quick which ones they prefer.



> Now I'm thinking, why should this matter to me? I'm almost a young adult, and I don't know or care if I have kids.:laughing:


And I have three kids who are now all teenagers. 
They seemed to figure out fine what they were without anyone ACTIVELY pushing something on them. 



> Now, I don't feel like gender rules, in a sense of interacting with the other sex, are extremely rigid, but I would say that the "rules" are traditional (i.e. Husband and Wife). This may be a whole different issue, but I think that there is a lot of rigidity between people of the same sex--when I mean rigidity, I mean competition.


I guess so, but that's a tangent discussion.

And the "traditional" rules were rigidly applied when I was growing up, and I also happened to grow up in a conservative/religious area, and yes, they're enforced pretty rigidly. Considering conservatism still has a strong voice in the USA, the bulk of the map is Red (vs Blue), and America is still inundated by Judeo-Christian values that reinforce the gender divide (go down into Jesusland/Baptist south, if you don't believe that -- EDIT: well, it looks like you're from Alabama, so maybe you've noticed), the gender differences in the professional world, and the fact people flip out about male/female bathrooms among other things, yes, I'm still going to disagree with you and say the gender boundary is enforced. 



> I feel like that there is a lot of variety. If you don't think so, I feel like this generation, Generation Y, will bring (more) variety compared to X and (especially) Baby Boomers.


I agree about Gen Y. I'm Gen X and progressive, and am involved in groups that have a large number of Gen Y's. One thing I notice is the sheer diversity, the openness to diversity, and the tribal mentality of sticking together despite differences. The Boomers in the culture I grew up in seemed more divisive to me and with strong opinions about what was "right" vs "improper."



> When you say cookie cutter, do you mean the "nuclear family" stereotype (i.e. Man works, woman stays at home, 2 kids, a dog, a house, 2 cars)? I feel like that's what you mean.


I meant it in the broadest way possible, the nuclear family is just one portion of what I was describing.



> I feel like this also relates to the "nuclear family" in the suburbs. If you mean gender in the suburban lifestyle, I do see what you mean about some couples showing (in some fashion) that they are living the right lifestyle as a man and woman (husband and wife) and want to shove it down everyone else's throats through means of having kids, updating their homes, buying expensive cars, or even putting their own children on a pedestal.


That sounds like a different discussion to me, not even necessarily centered on gender.



> I know that that is an extreme example, but I see this kind of "sexism" all over where I live, and it's absolutely ridiculous because these seem to be people who live their lives to impress others in the neighborhood in order to show that they are successful. That mentality does not necessarily represent people who live in the "real world." Sorry for that rant.


That just sounds like materialism and snobbery, which has been an issue for decades.



> I wouldn't say that they are "unique," but rather, they have an understanding of both sexes and want equality through means of accepting the diversity of both sexes and learning the ways males and females live through means of education (<- what I believe), or (from what I got from the article ->) eliminating the concept of different sexes by neutralizing the concept of gender. I guess what I'm saying is that we need to learn about issues rather than sweeping issues under the bed.


That seems kind of obvious and even what we're doing in the thread... unless I'm missing some nuance of your comment here.



> Thank you, and even though we have conflicting views, I do respect your views. I'm sorry that it seem like I'm getting off track with my views, but I want to get to the bottom of the issue by seeing what you and I think.


I'm not sure our views are that conflicting, per se, at least on the broad scale; and some of your responses suggest you did not really grasp my original points, so I hope I have clarified them.


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

> As I said elsewhere, the world (not just parents) immediately tries to push a male/female agenda before we're even born. It's the first question people ask. We are assigned colors to distinguish gender. As soon as a baby is old enough to have toys, people buy gender-specific toys.


Yes, because parents don't think that their baby girl is going to first want to play with a toy gun, and I don't think that a baby is not going to understand the difference anyway until she interacts with others. 


> I don't think it's really an issue for parents to have initiate....


I don't really understand what you mean by initiate. 



> -- send a child to preschool, where they have access to any variety of toys, and you'll figure out quick which ones they prefer.


I'm not disagreeing with you that toys are not gender-specific, because they are, i.e. Barbies are seen only for girls and Transformers are seen only for boys. I know that you and I know that there isn't a law against girls playing with Transformers or boys playing with Barbies, but some parents who, at first, find their boy playing with a girl's toy would want to try to correct the matter. I will be honest (quick tangent). If my kid was doing it, I would tell them that "this is a girl's toy, not a boy's toy," but if he is persistent, then I would let him play with the toy because it currently makes him happy. 



> I guess so, but that's a tangent discussion.


That's what I thought about when I wrote that post.



> And the "traditional" rules were rigidly applied when I was growing up, and I also happened to grow up in a conservative/religious area, and yes, they're enforced pretty rigidly. Considering conservatism still has a strong voice in the USA, the bulk of the map is Red (vs Blue), and America is still inundated by Judeo-Christian values that reinforce the gender divide...


I do agree with you that America has a socially conservative voice, but our society has become more liberal compared to fifty/sixty years ago. To be honest, I'm glad that society has become more liberal.



> ...(go down into Jesusland/Baptist south, if you don't believe that -- EDIT: well, it looks like you're from Alabama, so maybe you've noticed)...


.
I know that you're saying this as a broad generalization, but you saying that is offensive because that statement is stereotyping, and comments like that further divides America socially and culturally. There are more things to the South than religion. 



> ...the gender differences in the professional world, and the fact people flip out about male/female bathrooms among other things, yes, I'm still going to disagree with you and say the gender boundary is enforced.


I see gender boundary enforced through social interaction during childhood, adolescence, and (thinking about it now) adulthood. But I don't think things like separated bathrooms help promote people reinforcing their gender, and that's how I've felt ever since I read the article.



> I agree about Gen Y. I'm Gen X and progressive, and am involved in groups that have a large number of Gen Y's. One thing I notice is the sheer diversity, the openness to diversity, and the tribal mentality of sticking together despite differences. The Boomers in the culture I grew up in seemed more divisive to me and with strong opinions about what was "right" vs "improper."


I never thought about "tribal mentality." Good point. I've grown up being around Baby Boomers (my mother, and her five siblings, and my father), and I agree with you about their opinions.



> That just sounds like materialism and snobbery, which has been an issue for decades.


Of course it's always been an issue, I think that extreme materialism somehow relates to extreme sexism, and I thought the two issues (materialism and sexism) would tie together intuitively.



> That seems kind of obvious and even what we're doing in the thread... unless I'm missing some nuance of your comment here.


What I'm saying is that I see different positions that people may take from that article. One side, which to me seems to be the majority from posts I read, is getting rid of gender in order to be equal. Another side, which I think, is educating the differences and similarities of the sexes.



> I'm not sure our views are that conflicting, per se, at least on the broad scale; and some of your responses suggest you did not really grasp my original points, so I hope I have clarified them.


I do agree that we agree that there should gender equality (the broad issue), but we disagree on how equality should be achieved. And, I do understand the points that you have stated in our conversation. When I give my responses, I try to express that I understand your points, but it's hard (at least for me) to write it out; it would be different if we were talking face-to-face. Your points have been clear, I just thought my responses were clear when I typed them out.

*I like this conversation we are having. It's thought-provoking.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

benfoldsfive dude said:


> I don't really understand what you mean by initiate.


It means they don't have to do anything first, AKA "initiate" -- the world initiates the process, the world does it for them even if they do nothing. 



> I'm not disagreeing with you that toys are not gender-specific, because they are, i.e. Barbies are seen only for girls and Transformers are seen only for boys. I know that you and I know that there isn't a law against girls playing with Transformers or boys playing with Barbies, but some parents who, at first, find their boy playing with a girl's toy would want to try to correct the matter. I will be honest (quick tangent). If my kid was doing it, I would tell them that "this is a girl's toy, not a boy's toy," but if he is persistent, then I would let him play with the toy because it currently makes him happy.


I only had issues with my child when he was went through that phase because he was obsessive about girl things, and when in the throes of it, his maturity level seemed to drop. (he became more irresponsible, more histrionic, less balanced, etc.) My daughter was always a girl in her self-perception but she never acted that way, she was balanced even if more typically "girl-ish" in her interests. So I was fine with him playing with dolls if he wanted to, but I didn't like the way he exclusively focused on just girl stuff; if a boy focused on just boy stuff to the same degree and freaked about anything girlish, I would have been concerned as well. It was too extreme.

I think I remember one bit of research where they saw that boys tended to use girl toys like boy toys (i.e., fighting with dolls or using them to shoot people), whereas the girls tended to use boy toys in girl ways (making the toys play together, talk to each other about day-to-day things, etc.). That's kind of amusing.



> I do agree with you that America has a socially conservative voice, but our society has become more liberal compared to fifty/sixty years ago. To be honest, I'm glad that society has become more liberal.


It's getting there. I've seen big changes in the course of my life. Living through the 80's in a religious area (where everything was about being Republican, protesting abortion and homosexuality, putting God back into schools, etc.), I'm glad to see that a lot of that craziness has ebbed in some places of the country, even somewhat in the places where I grew up. People are more relaxed, open, and less judgmental now that they see culture isn't going to hell because of the changes.

Some of this discussion, of course, is because some people feel it has gotten too liberal, though, and now is veering away from reality.



> I know that you're saying this as a broad generalization, but you saying that is offensive because that statement is stereotyping, and comments like that further divides America socially and culturally. There are more things to the South than religion.


What? The term "Jesusland?" I used it because I thought it was dryly funny and apropos; and since I still am anchored in Christian spirituality and spent my entire life in the church, I figured I had the ability to say it; my other Christian friends joke about it as well, and meanwhile just look at how the South typically votes in a presidential election, and who the candidates cater to... Bush won the nom' in 2000 because he catered to Bob Jones to beat McCain, it's where the schools exist that try to put creationism into the textbooks, you have the Young Earth Creationist museum down there, I can go on and on with all that...

I could even say that that block of voters are the ones who are divisive and USE Jesus to divide people rather than bringing people together, it sure isn't me who is doing the dividing; they want to change the actual rules of this country into a more theocratic one, they do typically control the outcomes of voting in the south, etc... (see my point?)

... but whatever. I'll avoid the term for the rest of this particular discussion. Obviously the south is known for other things as well. (Oranges and DisneyWorld and bad butterfly ballots in Florida, for example. :laughing: j/k)



> I see gender boundary enforced through social interaction during childhood, adolescence, and (thinking about it now) adulthood. But I don't think things like separated bathrooms help promote people reinforcing their gender, and that's how I've felt ever since I read the article.


Anything that enforces such a hard line that people freak if someone uses the wrong bathroom is "promoting people reinforcing their gender." And don't tell me that's not true. The bathrooms are private sanctums, especially the woman's room; a guy goes in there, for whatever reason, and I can guarantee he'll be thrown out and/or booked for some sort of violation.

I saw on FaceBook a few thousand people are planning on a "use the wrong bathroom" day later in July, to protest. 900 people had so far agreed to it when I looked; another 800 had declined. Interesting.



> Of course it's always been an issue, I think that extreme materialism somehow relates to extreme sexism, and I thought the two issues (materialism and sexism) would tie together intuitively.


Meh. I think that's a real stretch. People can be materialistic without being sexist, although I suppose extremely materialistic people will be extremely self-absorbed and thus prone to the sort of misjudgments and stereotyping of others that encompass sexism.



> What I'm saying is that I see different positions that people may take from that article. One side, which to me seems to be the majority from posts I read, is getting rid of gender in order to be equal. Another side, which I think, is educating the differences and similarities of the sexes.


Yes.



> I do agree that we agree that there should gender equality (the broad issue), but we disagree on how equality should be achieved.


How do you think it should be achieved? I doubt we're even far apart there, except you seem to think parents should take a more active role in promoting someone's bio-gender, where I think it just happens naturally even if the parents do nothing.



> *I like this conversation we are having. It's thought-provoking.


Well, I'm glad you feel that way. I'm having mixed feelings. I'm pretty sure a lot of my comments have been straightforward, yet you haven't read them in the most obvious interpretation, and so I have to reexplain points that seemed verbatim already.


----------



## benfoldsfive dude (Nov 24, 2009)

Jennywocky said:


> It means they don't have to do anything first, AKA "initiate" -- the world initiates the process, the world does it for them even if they do nothing.


Okay, I thought you were using the word in some strange connotation. 



> I only had issues with my child when he was went through that phase because he was obsessive about girl things, and when in the throes of it, his maturity level seemed to drop. (he became more irresponsible, more histrionic, less balanced, etc.)...So I was fine with him playing with dolls if he wanted to, but I didn't like the way he exclusively focused on just girl stuff;if a boy focused on just boy stuff to the same degree and freaked about anything girlish, I would have been concerned as well.


So, did you let him go through his phase, or what?



> I didn't like the way he exclusively focused on just girl stuff;if a boy focused on just boy stuff to the same degree and freaked about anything girlish, I would have been concerned as well.


I agree with you on this. And this is what I've been meaning this whole time, I think there is a certain balanced way to raise a child, but whatever "balanced" means to one parent (or parents) may mean a polar opposite to another parent (or other parents). And what I thought was "polar opposite" in some posts before, I see that it is similar.



> I think I remember one bit of research where they saw that boys tended to use girl toys like boy toys (i.e., fighting with dolls or using them to shoot people), whereas the girls tended to use boy toys in girl ways (making the toys play together, talk to each other about day-to-day things, etc.). That's kind of amusing.


I find that research to be true, as when I was a small kid, I would play house with my little cousin (female), and we would create melodramatic, cliche situations (like the father left the mother, etc.). I mean, we didn't use toys in that game, but we would pick weeds to pretend that we were preparing food.



> It's getting there. I've seen big changes in the course of my life. Living through the 80's in a religious area (where everything was about being Republican, protesting abortion and homosexuality, putting God back into schools, etc.), I'm glad to see that a lot of that craziness has ebbed in some places of the country, even somewhat in the places where I grew up. People are more relaxed, open, and less judgmental now that they see culture isn't going to hell because of the changes.


So much has changed in the past ten years as well, at least in terms of equal rights.




> What? The term "Jesusland?" I used it because I thought it was dryly funny and apropos


Okay, I'm sorry, my comment was really harsh, and I took it too seriously (I think it's because of this serious conversation we're having). It's just that when I hear people from other regions think that the South is only full of backwards people who seem to think that we're a region of only "super conservative Christians," it makes me become defensive. That's my reasoning. Please take understand from where I come from.


> ; and since I still am anchored in Christian spirituality and spent my entire life in the church, I figured I had the ability to say it...


You have the ability to say whatever you want (1st Amendment), and I didn't know you were a Christian. I didn't take your comment about Judeo-Christianity offensive; it's just whenever I hear Christianity and the South put together, it usually turns out to be something negative, thus offensive.



> ...It's where the schools exist that try to put creationism into the textbooks, you have the Young Earth Creationist museum down there, I can go on and on with all that...


You don't have to say anymore, because that is such a huge issue, and from the diction and syntax in your statement, I'm pretty sure we both think the same way.roud:



> I could even say that that block of voters are the ones who are divisive and USE Jesus to divide people rather than bringing people together.


This is very sad, but it is so true.


> ...it sure isn't me who is doing the dividing


I know it's not you who's doing it. And I do apologize that I had to make you explain yourself.


> ...they want to change the actual rules of this country into a more theocratic one, they do typically control the outcomes of voting in the south, etc...


Quickly getting off into a tangent, one of the reasons why Alabama does not have a lottery, which would help with the education systems in the "Black Belt" counties, is because it is "immoral." I'm sorry, but education is very important because it breaks the cycle of poverty.
--Off tangent--



> ... but whatever. I'll avoid the term for the rest of this particular discussion. Obviously the south is known for other things as well. (Oranges and DisneyWorld and bad butterfly ballots in Florida, for example. :laughing: j/k)


Ah, it's alright. :laughing:



> Anything that enforces such a hard line that people freak if someone uses the wrong bathroom is "promoting people reinforcing their gender." And don't tell me that's not true. The bathrooms are private sanctums, especially the woman's room; a guy goes in there, for whatever reason, and I can guarantee he'll be thrown out and/or booked for some sort of violation.


I do see what you mean. It's okay if you're a small boy and go into the women's restroom with your mother. But if you're 10+, then you're seen as a pervert. Ah, paradoxes. I still feel the same way sense our conversation started, but I don't see that as an immediate issue compared to other issues in our community, country, and the world. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, as you're free to think what you think, and I do respect what you believe in, it's just I don't see it as a huge issue.



> I saw on FaceBook a few thousand people are planning on a "use the wrong bathroom" day later in July, to protest. 900 people had so far agreed to it when I looked; another 800 had declined. Interesting.


Hey, more power to them.



> Meh. I think that's a real stretch. People can be materialistic without being sexist, although I suppose extremely materialistic people will be extremely self-absorbed and thus prone to the sort of misjudgments and stereotyping of others that encompass sexism.


That's what I thought when I was typing it.:laughing:



> How do you think it should be achieved? I doubt we're even far apart there, except you seem to think parents should take a more active role in promoting someone's bio-gender, where I think it just happens naturally even if the parents do nothing.


No, I was saying all that if someone happens to have a child who plays with toys that most kids their gender does not necessarily play with. I feel like educating people (whether kids or adults) about respecting others, whether the same or opposite sex, is important. The way I see it (<--That usually means "for example"), if you educate a woman about the emotional baggage men carry, women then may not think of men being emotionless beings. On the flip-side (sort of), if you educate men on how slapping a woman's rear in the workplace is sexual harassment (and how you can lose your job as well), then men might less likely do something like that. Am I saying it's a quick, 100 percent solution? No, not at all, as I've seen that we, as humans, are ignorant, selfish, and closed-minded species. Respect should be something taught at home to children, so there is less-likely-hood chance that society will deal with issues like sexual harassment (in or out of the workplace). 

Of course, there is a lot more, like different circumstances, etc., but I feel like this would be the cornerstone to gender equality. And, I feel like we have gotten very far from fifty/sixty years ago--especially with female sexual harassment since the seventies and eighties, as well as women who worked during the fifties and sixties. I have a great respect for men and, especially, women, who have stood up to sexual harassment. 



> Well, I'm glad you feel that way. I'm having mixed feelings. I'm pretty sure a lot of my comments have been straightforward, yet you haven't read them in the most obvious interpretation, and so I have to reexplain points that seemed verbatim already.


Hey, I've had mixed emotions as well. And I feel like I have to re-explain my points as well, as what concept/idea is obvious to one is oblivious to another.


----------



## Esilenna (Jul 10, 2011)

Gender is something that I do not care about. I'm comfortable being female, but sometimes I like tapping into my masculine side, or play-acting at being a " prettyboy". The same goes for potential partners. I actually prefer more feminine guys and somewhat masculine girls, or people who are completely androgynous. Why should it matter, after all? We're all human.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

@Esilenna


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

I don't see anything wrong with this idea, then again, I don't value the idea of gender and don't see why someone should. Why is gender so important? I definitely agree that always being so aware of our differences and not focusing on our similarities is a bad thing. Which is why I love this video so much:






Why is it so important to keep them upheld anyway? Marriage isn't natural for humans and that's a long running tradition, it's more social than it is biological, obviously, so I wouldn't have the confidence to say "gender is purely biological like one's sex is". People aren't going to throw away marriage any time soon either. I think a lot of people are too scared to say this, lest they be seen as a dumb hispter. 

Typically aspies don't seem to follow any sort of gender and that's because they're mostly unaware of cultural or societal things, you can make of that what you will and you can value what someone looking in from the outside of all this has to say if you want as well.


----------

