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.

[MinionJoe]

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

[Azor]

You are asking good questions in the wrong place.

[Triple G]

It can also be because it´s an international community. We don´t have two words sex and gender. Sex is the actual sexual activity, and gender is sex. So we say gender identity to say gender. And gender neutrality is hard to reach here, as we don´t have only "the" but a male, female and neutral variant for things. So a door is female, a chair is male, and bed is neutral. while certain job titles can obviously be both, so they try to combine it to reach "neutrality", which doesn´t sound good and very artificial - also makes it more complicated and longer than it needs to be. You can´t use the neutral version either, as it would mean anyone is an object. The English language doesn´t have this problem, as it´s a lot more gender neutral by default.

[Holografix]

引用自 Shodan：

I'm trying to get philosophical here. Key word: trying.

if you're serious, you need to read some important philosophical texts, particularly:

Subjects of Desire & Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality by Sigmund Freud

there are other books, but this should get u started.

[Shodan]

引用自 Triple G：

It can also be because it´s an international community. We don´t have two words sex and gender. Sex is the actual sexual activity, and gender is sex. So we say gender identity to say gender. And gender neutrality is hard to reach here, as we don´t have only "the" but a male, female and neutral variant for things. So a door is female, a chair is male, and bed is neutral. while certain job titles can obviously be both, so they try to combine it to reach "neutrality", which doesn´t sound good and very artificial - also makes it more complicated and longer than it needs to be. You can´t use the neutral version either, as it would mean anyone is an object. The English language doesn´t have this problem, as it´s a lot more gender neutral by default.

Yeah, "sex" is universally (as in, not just in English) known as the act and as far as I know, English is the only exception where that exact word has another meaning on top of that universal one, so gender makes a lot more sense and that's actually why the word gender was used instead... until it recently became an issue. Another stupid thing like that is using "cis" and "trans" on their own because these are just universal prefixes and not actual words. I remember learning about "cisalpine" and "transalpine" at school, for example.

引用自 Holografix：

引用自 Shodan：

I'm trying to get philosophical here. Key word: trying.

if you're serious, you need to read some important philosophical texts, particularly:

Subjects of Desire & Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality by Sigmund Freud

there are other books, but this should get u started.

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.

This one:

引用自 Shodan：

"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?"

Again, it really shouldn't be this complicated and up to interpretation. Many LGBT people would have a different answer to this question, including just the T people themselves, so yeah, something must clearly be wrong then.

[Holografix]

引用自 Shodan：

引用自 Holografix：

if you're serious, you need to read some important philosophical texts, particularly:

Subjects of Desire & Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality by Sigmund Freud

there are other books, but this should get u started.

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.

[Triple G]

引用自 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.

[dyinggg]

引用自 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.

引用自 MinionJoe：

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

Indeed.

[Holografix]

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 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.
.

No.

Don't disparage education or intellectual pursuits please. Ignorance is not a virtue, and it's not a legal defense either.

Love is love, that's true, but don't diminish someone's identity just because you decide to ignore learning or education.

[Holografix]

引用自 bisder：

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.

No. This is wrong. I highly suggest you read and learn about 'gender' before dismissing it so readily.

[Triple G]

引用自 Holografix：

No.

Don't disparage education or intellectual pursuits please. Ignorance is not a virtue, and it's not a legal defense either.

Love is love, that's true, but don't diminish someone's identity just because you decide to ignore learning or education.

If You don´t know about someones existence You don´t need to have terms for their identity.

That is not ignorance. Ignorance would be that You know about the identity of the other, but refuse to accept it, because it doesn´t fit Your worldview. Like saying "in Your fantasy setup it would be like that" when talking about concepts. But apparently no amount of books can fix that.

[Holografix]

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 Holografix：

No.

Don't disparage education or intellectual pursuits please. Ignorance is not a virtue, and it's not a legal defense either.

Love is love, that's true, but don't diminish someone's identity just because you decide to ignore learning or education.

If You don´t know about someones existence You don´t need to have terms for their identity.

That is not ignorance. Ignorance would be that You know about the identity of the other, but refuse to accept it, because it doesn´t fit Your worldview. Like saying "in Your fantasy setup it would be like that" when talking about concepts. But apparently no amount of books can fix that.

no.

it's ignorance.

[Triple G]

引用自 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...)

[dyinggg]

引用自 Holografix：

引用自 bisder：

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.

No. This is wrong. I highly suggest you read and learn about 'gender' before dismissing it so readily.

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

[Holografix]

引用自 bisder：

引用自 Holografix：

No. This is wrong. I highly suggest you read and learn about 'gender' before dismissing it so readily.

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

but that's wrong. gender is not a product of sex-based identity. that's why you need to read about it before understanding it.