Transgender Thread.

[squadops]

And there is another lame word used, imbalance compared to what balance?

 

[PureAlpha1206]

If gender is an entirely social construct, then I don't see how chemical/hormonal factors come into play at all.

It's not an "entirely social construct". It is mentally (biology...therefore chemicals and hormones) how a person identifies themselves socially and the roles in which they assign to themselves. There is a difference.

@squadops ... Uhmmm compared to any standard balance which are covered WAY to in depth in biology, chemistry, A&P etc. to discuss here. Imbalance is used in any medical discussion, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

 

[squadops]

Let me know when science can figure out what consciousness is and what drives it, then perhaps this conversation would make sense.

 

[Ialyrn]

The part you lopped off is actually pretty important (oh the irony).

Does not change the fact that you are still saying the exact same thing, oh the irony indeed!

I'm not sure it has to do with scientific data @lalyrn, definitions are what they are right? Why should it matter at all what someone might call themselves? I know I don't care, call yourself a clingon aphrodite for all I care. If the reason is all about judgement then I simply say people should take more time looking in the mirror and less time out the window.

This proves you did not open the webpages I linked too (or any pages linked within them), which talk about scientific data with shows there is a physical difference in the brains of transgender people. It has nothing to do with labeling someone, but showing this is a real physical thing. Not some personas delusions.

In the case of nurture vs nature which is also starting to come into this discussion, do a search on John-Joan-John.

 

[squadops]

Why do you need proof, validity is in the eye of the beholder is it not? Do you think data is going to change people's opinions of one another? lol I doubt that.

 

[huskeR32]

It's not an "entirely social construct". It is mentally (biology...therefore chemicals and hormones) how a person identifies themselves socially and the roles in which they assign to themselves. There is a difference.

Society defines gender roles, an individual only controls which one they identify with. And since those definitions aren't genetically determined, I don't see how the act of identifying with one or the other can possibly be a chemical/hormonal function.

--

Let me know when science can figure out what consciousness is and what drives it, then perhaps this conversation would make sense.

What are you on about now?

 

[Danoff]

Does not change the fact that you are still saying the exact same thing, oh the irony indeed!

Let's take a closer look:

In short, unless you adopt the notion that it's wrong for Kaitlyn Jenner to be a man and look and act like he does right now, there's no reason for him to redefine as a female.

it's wrong for Kaitlyn Jenner to be a man and look and act like he does right now, there's no reason for him to redefine as a female.

See how those mean two opposing things? The first quote actually says that you HAVE to think it's wrong for there to be a reason. The second one says it's wrong and there's NO reason. Reversed meaning.

 

[Blitz24]

Would it be fair to say that gender can be thought of as a spectrum (like autism or ph) where on one side is male, the other side is female and any other classification would fall into the spectrum, which may or may not have an adequate name?

 

[PureAlpha1206]

Society defines gender roles, an individual only controls which one they identify with. And since those definitions aren't genetically determined, I don't see how the act of identifying with one or the other can possibly be a chemical/hormonal function.

I see what you're saying. It's almost a case of which came first. I still would argue that there are natural definitions of gender roles due to the presence of Testosterone and Estrogen. Even if we examine early humans and try to remove the extremist society of today for a moment, we would still see men performing the same duties as they do now and women performing the same duties as they do now.

To an extent, it is biological still. But I will agree with you on the society part as well because you are correct there

 

[squadops]

What are you on about now?

http://consciousness.anu.edu.au/

That might help you a bit, it's just about time some of you stop with this "he's crazy and out in left field" already.

Regardless of biology and what the other guy was saying about what is observed in the brain, your consciousness defines who you are and we have yet to figure out what exactly makes us conscious.

 

[Ialyrn]

Let's take a closer look:





See how those mean two opposing things? The first quote actually says that you HAVE to think it's wrong for there to be a reason. The second one says it's wrong and there's NO reason. Reversed meaning.

And then you go on to say this. Either this next line was a mistake on your part, or you are saying that a girl should not be called a girl if they are a guy (physically male) because it is 'bigoted' to do so.

It's implicitly bigoted to insist that you should be called a girl when you "identify" as a girl but are a guy.

So not only are you trying to invalidate Caitlin Jenner and who she is, but you are doing the same with myself and every other trans person past present and future.

 

[squadops]

@Ialyrn

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...2-genders-or-more.345206/page-2#post-11330981

??

 

[Danoff]

Would it be fair to say that gender can be thought of as a spectrum (like autism or ph) where on one side is male, the other side is female and any other classification would fall into the spectrum, which may or may not have an adequate name?

No. Not biologically or socially. You could maybe create a hormone spectrum, but it would be wrong to associate that with gender.

For there to be a spectrum you have to have a clear identification of one extreme and the other. That's not clear at all, biologically or socially. What is ultra-female biologically? I kinda know what strong reproductive hormones look like, but female? Not so sure. Heterosexual men generally seem to think that the most attractive females (those who are models for example) actually have a fair amount of male features. This is one of the reasons I posted the Miss Tiffany contestant earlier. Socially it's very much the same. Women are often attracted to gay men for both appearance and mannerism.

 

[squadops]

Women are often attracted to gay men for both appearance and mannerism.

And that is what I was trying to say about myself although I am not gay. Masculinity comes into play more so in social value rather than sex, such as physical labor, protection of women and children, hunting and grunting lol I have all of that too.

Of course a women is ultimately attracted to a man she believes can give her strong healthy children I believe.

 

[Danoff]

And then you go on to say this. Either this next line was a mistake on your part, or you are saying that a girl should not be called a girl if they are a guy (physically male) because it is 'bigoted' to do so.


So not only are you trying to invalidate Caitlin Jenner and who she is, but you are doing the same with myself and every other trans person past present and future.

It's implicitly bigoted to insist that you should be called a girl when you "identify" as a girl but are a guy.

It's not mistaken, and i'm not trying to invalidate who anyone is. I'm trying to say that by declaring yourself "female" or "male" you're forcing a social construct on those words that shouldn't be there. You're implicitly accepting that it's not correct to call the Miss Tiffany contestant male, and why? What's wrong with a man looking like that? Nothing. There's no reason to declare a gender, just be yourself.

 

[Blitz24]

No. Not biologically or socially. You could maybe create a hormone spectrum, but it would be wrong to associate that with gender.

For there to be a spectrum you have to have a clear identification of one extreme and the other. That's not clear at all, biologically or socially. What is ultra-female biologically? I kinda know what strong reproductive hormones look like, but female? Not so sure. Heterosexual men generally seem to think that the most attractive females (those who are models for example) actually have a fair amount of male features. This is one of the reasons I posted the Miss Tiffany contestant earlier. Socially it's very much the same. Women are often attracted to gay men for both appearance and mannerism.

The problem is that the way people associate gender has less to do with the actual biological makeup of their bodies and more to do with what they feel. From a biological standpoint it's either A or B (I am going on the notion that hermaphrodites, while born with both pairs of sexual organs, are not both functional).

 

[PureAlpha1206]

No. Not biologically or socially. You could maybe create a hormone spectrum, but it would be wrong to associate that with gender.

For there to be a spectrum you have to have a clear identification of one extreme and the other. That's not clear at all, biologically or socially. What is ultra-female biologically? I kinda know what strong reproductive hormones look like, but female? Not so sure. Heterosexual men generally seem to think that the most attractive females (those who are models for example) actually have a fair amount of male features. This is one of the reasons I posted the Miss Tiffany contestant earlier. Socially it's very much the same. Women are often attracted to gay men for both appearance and mannerism.

When you are speaking of the preferences Heterosexual men and women have, where are you getting this information? I ask because it coincides with what I've always learned and known where men seem to take more interest naturally in women who display wider hips and other motherly characteristics; to where women are naturally more attracted to rugged and broad due to their protector/gatherer relations.

 

[Danoff]

From a biological standpoint it's either A or B

Nothing is ever so clear in biology. From a biological standpoint, it's never A or B. @Famine is usually the authority on biological blurring.

 

[squadops]

Rumors can be a bit rude eh?

 

[Cole Brown]

View attachment 538447

Ima dolphin

If gender is an entirely social construct, then I don't see how chemical/hormonal factors come into play at all.

Don't use science! You'll scare'm!

 

[Ialyrn]

It's not mistaken, and i'm not trying to invalidate who anyone is. I'm trying to say that by declaring yourself "female" or "male" you're forcing a social construct on those words that shouldn't be there. You're implicitly accepting that it's not correct to call the Miss Tiffany contestant male, and why? What's wrong with a man looking like that? Nothing. There's no reason to declare a gender, just be yourself.

That is much better worded than what you put in your first post, so I will back off as I can see where you are coming from much easier.

And I agree, we could really do with @Famine in here; as they know a hell of a lot in regards to biological aspects.

 

[Danoff]

When you are speaking of the preferences Heterosexual men and women have, where are you getting this information? I ask because it coincides with what I've always learned and known where men seem to take more interest naturally in women who display wider hips and other motherly characteristics; to where women are naturally more attracted to rugged and broad due to their protector/gatherer relations.

Yea, it's a good question. I dug around a little and am not quickly finding the kinds of articles that I've read years ago that I was basing that on. There's a well known (but apparently not well documented) aspect female modeling that a lot of male characteristics, especially facial characteristics, are present in some of the most attractive women. The jawline especially ends up a bit wider and more clearly defined in female models than what would normally be considered feminine. A lot of times male models and female models even start to blurr. Here's Milla Jovovich, one of my favorites:

She has decidedly male facial characteristics, and yet:

She's one of the most prolific models out there.

 

[PureAlpha1206]

Yea, it's a good question. I dug around a little and am not quickly finding the kinds of articles that I've read years ago that I was basing that on. There's a well known (but apparently not well documented) aspect female modeling that a lot of male characteristics, especially facial characteristics, are present in some of the most attractive women. The jawline especially ends up a bit wider and more clearly defined in female models than what would normally be considered feminine. A lot of times male models and female models even start to blurr. Here's Milla Jovovich, one of my favorites:

She has decidedly male facial characteristics, and yet:

She's one of the most prolific models out there.

Very well. I do think that this probably tends to be a personal preference in today's society especially and preference probably depends heavily on region as well. I appreciate your trying to dig up the info though!

 

[squadops]

Whatever happened to the mind or even pheromones? I could tell you what I am attracted to but that would be a bit personal. I can spot a lady I know would drive me crazy a mile away, not sure why. It has to be based on reproduction in some fashion though.

 

[Lizard]

To me this question screams one thing that I get told over and over at uni.

Define your concepts.


Personally I think there are only 2. You can have traits from both but wouldn't say that is a new gender just a mix of the 2, or you can be fluid and flip between the two, but unless you believe that you should have been born to lay eggs and dress like some alien then I don't think there are any more.

I also agree that gender is what is upstairs and sex is what is downstairs and I fully support transgender people.

 

[VolkswagenX]

I would post a link with all the genders that exist in 2016, but I'm afraid the website may give some members PTSD.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There's a well known (but apparently not well documented) aspect female modeling that a lot of male characteristics, especially facial characteristics, are present in some of the most attractive women.

Attractive to the fashion industry perhaps. It's interesting to consider how much of what is portrayed as female beauty is defined by homosexual men.

 

[huskeR32]

http://consciousness.anu.edu.au/

That might help you a bit, it's just about time some of you stop with this "he's crazy and out in left field" already.

Regardless of biology and what the other guy was saying about what is observed in the brain, your consciousness defines who you are and we have yet to figure out what exactly makes us conscious.

I know what consciousness is. What I'm unclear on is why it has any bearing on being able to talk about gender.

 

[Danoff]

Attractive to the fashion industry perhaps. It's interesting to consider how much of what is portrayed as female beauty is defined by homosexual men.

Milla is a staple for hot.

 

[Joel]

*Mayonnaise*

I believe you can identify yourself as what ever you want to be, however the constructs of biology severely limit any sort of real shout of defining what your 'sex' is.

Personally, I'm with Sonic on this one: *attack helicopter*

Wow more hilarious and totally original jokes about attack helicopters, dolphins, and tumblr!

This thread is about gender identities, human gender identities and we're getting tired old jokes about mayonnaise and attack helicopters. I'm not fooled for a second that you're only talking about "crazy tumblr people". Even if you were, we're talking about a site where literal teenagers are growing up and finding their identity. Think about why your innate response to the very idea of transgendered people is "LOL tumblr" and a straw man of people identifying as inanimate objects.

I don't want to live in a world where we chastise 15 year olds for saying something a little silly while they're trying to figure out who they are.