Gender, gender identity, expression and all that gender stuff.

[Shodan]

Alright, just what the ♥♥♥♥ is going on here?

No, this is not your usual garbage like "GOD ONLY MADE MEN AND WOMEN!!! YOU WOKE!!!" or some ♥♥♥♥ like that. I'm trying to get philosophical here. Key word: trying.

Here goes:

Why would there be such a thing as gender identity / expression? What exactly is this supposed to mean? Why not simply identity and expression? What has this got to do with being male or female? Adding "gender" in front of identity / expression makes it sound like you support gender stereotypes, like if you identify a certain way, then you must be male / female, as if it's an exclusive thing based on what you're born as. I thought the whole point here was to end such stereotypes?

Gender is a separate thing from sex, right? What exactly is it then? How could gender, gender identity and expression even be a thing if they're not even consistent throughout history and in different cultures around the world? If it's not universal and constant, then how can it be a gender thing rather than just a matter of changing trends and different cultures?

What exactly is it even supposed to mean to "feel" and "identify" as male or female? How would you even define feeling and identifying as male or female? What kind of a feeling is it and what's the difference, keeping in mind what I said in the previous paragraph?

Apparently, I'm someone whose gender identifies with the sex assigned at birth or the other way round, whatever. As someone like that (apparently), I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean and I have never seen a clear explanation for it, just people stating that this is simply the way it is and that's it, deal with it. So, what is it that I'm supposed to feel? What does that even mean? How would I know if they do or don't align, based on what? What is there to even align or not align anyway? Why does it matter what I'm born as? Either way, I have my own interests, preferences, personality and so on. This has nothing to do with what I'm born as.

How would you even define gay people anymore? Is it people with penises who are attracted to people with penises? People born male who are attracted to people born male? People who express and identify as men who are attracted to people who express and identify as men?

If it depends on what someone chooses to identify as, which pronouns they choose and so on, and it's offensive to "assume" these things based on however we "assume" them, then how come no one questions the same thing about, say, historical figures who aren't alive to confirm what they identify as and what their pronouns are? How come it's universally agreed that Adolf Hitler (pardon the example) was a man / male and that he / him pronouns are appropriate for... him, yet in other cases, doing such a thing would be an offensive assumption?

If you want to wear different clothes, why not just wear them? If it fits you and you like how it looks, so what? I have some "women's" socks which are the most comfortable and warmest I've ever worn, plus they look perfectly normal and they're perfectly fitting. So, why not? Does this suddenly make me less male and more female now? It's an entirely artificial label. The socks are made from the same materials as "men's" ones, in the same factories and by the same people.

Basically, why can't you just do whichever things you wish to do differently (I'm all for that and I do the same thing myself), but by leaving out the whole gender aspect out of it? Just how is gender relevant to any of that? I've seen "feminine women" at races and I've seen "masculine women" at races, as well as "masculine men" and "feminine men", so, again, why would this be a men's, male or masculine activity, for example? What has gender got to do with it? Isn't that just stereotypical?

If everyone has different interpretations of these things, such as my example of defining a gay person, and no one can provide clear answers, then something is clearly very wrong with this vocabulary, don't you think? Don't you think something is wrong when it's too confusing to answer even the most simple and elementary things like what is a gay person?

When it comes to this entire topic, I've only ever seen nonanswers which just state these things as facts without ever actually explaining them at all. Some people just brush you off and others actually write long "answers" which, in the end, still don't actually answer a single thing at all, instead they just list a bunch of claims and that's it.

I probably forgot about some points I wanted to make, but this should be way more than enough. Oh, by the way, today I watched Barbie and thought it was great, better than I expected. The day before, I watched a movie about rallying and enjoyed that too.

[ImSoCool599]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHBmdHnINA&ab_channel=mathisnotmything

[Shodan]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

Yeah, but that's exactly the problem I'm talking about here:

I shouldn't have to read an entire book to be able to answer what should be the most simple and elementary things. Like, my example about defining a gay person with this new vocabulary.

"you shouldn't have to read an entire book?"

are you for real?

why did you write an entire essay in your OP about this if it were simple? Get some perspective buddy, and go read those books. You will have answers to your questions if you read them.

Because there's much to address, not my fault.

Publicado originalmente por Triple G:

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

I shouldn't have to read an entire book to be able to answer what should be the most simple and elementary things.

It´s always as complicated as You want it to be.

You don´t need to define gay, when You can say homosexual - if that matters for anything to distinguish from other sexual preferences. Outside of the web, or to make something clear in rare cases IRL, You don´t need a word to describe specific things, because You´re not confronted with it, or affected by it.

If anything fails we´re all people. And love what or who we love.

No book needed - and some people have read too many books it seems, so they like to over complicate things. Also if You read books to get certain definitions - You would need to make sure that everyone has read the same books. Wouldn´t work like that in practice.

There isn´t much new vocabulary in it really, and the people who want to define something very specific probably know the "correct" terms. Like how many trans people are there really? And is it important to specify that they´re trans? And if You have a trans friend they can probably tell You about the details. If You don´t have a trans friend, You don´t need the terms.

Yeah, that sounds fair enough. It's just that this stuff seems to be everywhere these days and it's honestly really confusing, weird and often contradicting. More on that right below:

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

I have some "women's" socks

Not to relegate your entire post to this statement, but according to the "texts" you are an abomination slated for eternity in hell.

Good thread though. Basically, in regards to creation, we must create with what we already have. Therefore, gender expression has evolved out of a general expectation for sex based identity. I do believe that you are right when you say that identity and expression should lose their "gender". That is the "war" so to speak. The battlefield is amending these sex-based identities to include people who don't express themselves or identify according to stereotype.

Publicado originalmente por MinionJoe:

It's only confusing if you still think words actually have specific meanings.

Indeed.

First there's talk against outdated and limited gender stereotypes and then there's... well... turning your entire life into a stereotype, just not the one "assigned" to you at birth, but the other one. I don't know, but that doesn't seem like much of a step forward to me. Feels like there are even more stereotypes than before, just more flexible adoption of them, that's all.

Publicado originalmente por Triple G:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

no.

it's ignorance.

No, it´s not.

(You have to say now: "Yes, it is." And i would say: "No, it´s not." And then You would say that i´m ridiculous to make my point like this. And i would say: "No U". Then You would say: "Liar." and i would say: "You´re dumb." to which You would reply: "You´re dumber." and i would say: "You´re the dumbest." and then You would say: "You´re so dumb, that i can´t even tell how dumb You are." and i would ask if insults would solve problems, and You would say that i have started, and i would say that this isn´t true...)

Yeah...

My entire problem here, which I also mentioned in the original post, is that I've only ever seen nonanswers when it comes to this topic. Nothing gets properly explained, some people either just list a bunch of claims which doesn't actually answer anything and others just instantly dismiss any discussion as inherently this and that. That's exactly why I made this thread to ask these questions and my point about nonanswers is being proven. Still no clear and specific answers to specific questions.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

"you shouldn't have to read an entire book?"

are you for real?

why did you write an entire essay in your OP about this if it were simple? Get some perspective buddy, and go read those books. You will have answers to your questions if you read them.

Because there's much to address, not my fault.

it is your fault. you wrote it. but i can see this is just another troll post about gender on OT. you're not serious.

[livinggg]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

I didn't dismiss gender, I acknowledged gendered expression as a product of sex-based identity.

gender is not a product of sex-based identity

Sure it is. Gendered expression comes in two flavors just like biological sex does. The ideal situation would be, as op stated, for gendered expression to become just expression. A person's identity is much more than just sex and gender though, so it makes sense that such a binary existence would be less necessary as such restriction falls under the arena of a person's personal choice.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

gender is not a product of sex-based identity

Sure it is. Gendered expression comes in two flavors just like biological sex does. The ideal situation would be, as op stated, for gendered expression to become just expression. A person's identity is much more than just sex and gender though, so it makes sense that such a binary existence would be less necessary as such restriction falls under the arena of a person's personal choice.

no.

and no, the OP is not expressing an ideal vision of gender.

[Shodan]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

Because there's much to address, not my fault.

it is your fault. you wrote it. but i can see this is just another troll post about gender on OT. you're not serious.

Great, just dismiss it as "just another troll post" and "you're not serious" because you said so and ignore the actual topic because you said it's ignorant, so it has to be. Well, if I said something so stupid, wrong and ignorant, it should be easy enough to counter it which you could've done already instead of making all these completely pointless and dismissive replies to all 3 of us who didn't even say anything bad about anyone or anything unlike some others on this forum and in other places.

And what I meant is that the original post is long because there's much to address. The entire original post is pretty much just addressing things, it's not like I've only been writing an entire long "theory" of my own.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

it is your fault. you wrote it. but i can see this is just another troll post about gender on OT. you're not serious.

Great, just dismiss it as "just another troll post" and "you're not serious" because you said so and ignore the actual topic because you said it's ignorant, so it has to be. Well, if I said something so stupid, wrong and ignorant, it should be easy enough to counter it which you could've done already instead of making all these completely pointless and dismissive replies to all 3 of us who didn't even say anything bad about anyone or anything unlike some others on this forum and in other places.

if it's wrong, it's a 'no' from me. because why would i waste my time arguing with a troll? i find it baffling that when presented with real information on the subject you'd rather argue in ignorance, speculation and conjecture instead of scholarship. and that tells me everything i need to know.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

Great, just dismiss it as "just another troll post" and "you're not serious" because you said so and ignore the actual topic because you said it's ignorant, so it has to be. Well, if I said something so stupid, wrong and ignorant, it should be easy enough to counter it which you could've done already instead of making all these completely pointless and dismissive replies to all 3 of us who didn't even say anything bad about anyone or anything unlike some others on this forum and in other places.

if it's wrong, it's a 'no' from me. because why would i waste my time, arguing with a troll?

It would be more of a "two of a kind" situation.

[livinggg]

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

First there's talk against outdated and limited gender stereotypes and then there's... well... turning your entire life into a stereotype, just not the one "assigned" to you at birth, but the other one. I don't know, but that doesn't seem like much of a step forward to me. Feels like there are even more stereotypes than before, just more flexible adoption of them, that's all.

I agree with you. In the quest to invalidate stereotypes, people that don't fit those stereotypes will embrace them. It's very circular in nature as often is with matters of the mind.

[Triple G]

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

Yeah, that sounds fair enough. It's just that this stuff seems to be everywhere these days and it's honestly really confusing, weird and often contradicting.

Somewhat. Nowadays people want to make certain statements, and make clear on which side they stand, to simply be part of some group - instead of just living their life.

One can now philosophize about it for decades, or just lean back and occasionally say something about it, if ever. Perhaps people now lack identity, confidence, feel just like a number, or not important or needed at all, and feel they´re replaceable - but they somehow want to be special.

I for myself - if i would meet a person who says i need to read certain books to get some definitions right, to know how to address them correctly, or else the person is offended - that would be too complicated for me and i would move on. Perhaps i would listen if either the person is super interesting, funny - or if i´m bored.

[livinggg]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

Sure it is. Gendered expression comes in two flavors just like biological sex does. The ideal situation would be, as op stated, for gendered expression to become just expression. A person's identity is much more than just sex and gender though, so it makes sense that such a binary existence would be less necessary as such restriction falls under the arena of a person's personal choice.

no.

and no, the OP is not expressing an ideal vision of gender.

You aren't doing anyone a service with this style of communication. If I'm wrong I want to know why, so please if you don't mind...i don't mind.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

Publicado originalmente por Shodan:

First there's talk against outdated and limited gender stereotypes and then there's... well... turning your entire life into a stereotype, just not the one "assigned" to you at birth, but the other one. I don't know, but that doesn't seem like much of a step forward to me. Feels like there are even more stereotypes than before, just more flexible adoption of them, that's all.

I agree with you. In the quest to invalidate stereotypes, people that don't fit those stereotypes will embrace them. It's very circular in nature as often is with matters of the mind.

thinking of this kind, is what happens when you're not grounded in actual scholarship.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

no.

and no, the OP is not expressing an ideal vision of gender.

You aren't doing anyone a service with this style of communication. If I'm wrong I want to know why, so please if you don't mind...i don't mind.

He will just say to read books. It's all he can do.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por bisder:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

no.

and no, the OP is not expressing an ideal vision of gender.

You aren't doing anyone a service with this style of communication. If I'm wrong I want to know why, so please if you don't mind...i don't mind.

im not your teacher.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por Triple G:

One can now philosophize about it for decades, or just lean back and occasionally say something about it, if ever.

you mean published books don't count as "saying something about it?"

this is what happens when you argue from ignorance about a subject.