- 8,428
- Auckland
- Lazer0pz
Can you please provide an example?So why the hell are soo many people are coming out of the woodwork and calling themselves "experts" on sex and gender now?
Also this:
Last edited:
Can you please provide an example?So why the hell are soo many people are coming out of the woodwork and calling themselves "experts" on sex and gender now?
That would be because of idiots like Matt Walsh, you know, the fascist you like.I think this might've been discussed here before but there have been many cases throughout history of men and women having traits from the opposite gender. I know it may sound derogatory today but the "tomboy" was the best example of this. Girls having boyish traits were never really queried to the degree that they are now, and were more or less accepted by society. The most notable example in mainstream media would have to be Peppermint Patty from Peanuts. I watched several episodes of Peanuts when I was younger because it's what mum watched when she was a kid. Based on my understanding, Peppermint Patty was a beloved character that captured the hearts and minds of millions without being preachy. Everyone knew of her boyish traits but that was part of her as a character and no one gave a damn. There was another story that I read where a girl named Edwina was given the name "Eddie" due to her boyish traits. Sure, it was a little strange but I was able to understand why she was called "Eddie" for short.
Tree'd perfectly by @DanielSo why the hell are soo many people are coming out of the woodwork and calling themselves "experts" on sex and gender now?
Look in a mirror, the person here doing this is YOU!It's like how everyone becomes a horse racing expert during the Spring Racing Carnival when they don't know squat about horse racing. These so-called "experts" spread a lot of BS around and that's exactly whats gong on here.
Misinformation is nothing new but the rate at which it can spread and then be echoed by uncultured swine now is scary.
Then stop citing the nonsense from the likes of Walsh and co.This is the real scourge of social media and we must stamp it out.
I don’t like himThat would be because of idiots like Matt Walsh, you know, the fascist you like.
Not anymoreLook in a mirror, the person here doing this is YOU!
I have stoppedThen stop citing the nonsense from the likes of Walsh and co.
I am not championing people who would harm me. Nor am I confused now.To quote Martin Niemoller...
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
...but you're doing far worse than 'not speak out', you're actively championing those who, given the chance, would do you harm. And you doing it simply because a group of people who have never done you harm, make you feel a bit 'icky' and confused.
Then you may want to make that a lot clearer when posting, particularly given your past posting history.I don’t like him
Not anymore
I have stopped
I am not championing people who would harm me. Nor am I confused now.
Can you clarify who you're referring to when you mention the so called "experts" in your previous post? I genuinely can't tell if you're referring to people who post anti-transphobic sentiment and conspiracy theories, or you're referring to those who just try to "exploit the whole transgender thing"?I don’t like him
Not anymore
I have stopped
I am not championing people who would harm me. Nor am I confused now.
Are you going to point out that it’s an outdated term or what? Is 'gender-affirming surgery' better? It’s the same thing with a different name.
When I say "experts", I mean it sarcastically. I'm not referring to trained doctors and biologists but self-proclaimed experts like political commentators such as Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro. That's what the whole horse racing analogy was about.Can you clarify who you're referring to when you mention the so called "experts" in your previous post? I genuinely can't tell if you're referring to people who post anti-transphobic sentiment and conspiracy theories, or you're referring to those who just try to "exploit the whole transgender thing"?
Ok, do tell me.Pretty much, but the intention behind the meaning is different.
And I’ve already established here that I understand the difference between sex and gender in English—not in detail, but well enough.As I've already established here earlier, sex now tends to refer to the more biological categorisation, while gender can refer to either the social categorisation and attribution.
Both. If a culture or society doesn’t have a word for something, what does it tell you about the subject.I think the confusion is more of a linguistic issue, not a cultural issue.
Do you know what is typed on our ID cards? 'pohlaví/sex,' followed by the letter F or M, which stands for female or male.Am I correct to assume that the only Czech word that was used for any sort of categorisation of a person from a man/woman/someone in-between, (legal, social, personal or biological) -- it's all "pohlaví"? And if you want to clarify what you mean, then you would use an adjective to use, say, "biología pohlaví"?
If that is the case, then I would probably say that -- English -- "sex" has started to become analogous to "biología pohlaví" while "gender" became analogous to "sociální pohlaví".
So it's more accurate to call it something like gender affirmation surgery, because it supports/affirms the patient's pohlaví that might be in their brain, as well as makes it easier for them to fit in with the sociální pohlaví they've chosen.
Not much. Loanwords are found all across the world and the fact that a word hasn't appeared by itself naturally doesn't give it any less validity.If a culture or society doesn’t have a word for something, what does it tell you about the subject.
Do you know what is typed on our ID cards? 'pohlaví/sex,' followed by the letter F or M, which stands for female or male.
True, but not under our current laws.And if you wanted to clarify that, it would be legal sex. Because someone's biological sex wouldn't have changed.
Don't ask me, I'm not writing these laws. Let's see how the legislation changes. The easiest solution, which might not cause too much fuss, could be adding an "X" option, as is done in some other countries.What then happens in cases where someone changes their legal sex but doesn't get surgery (like other countries where surgery is not required)?
ChatGPT will agree with you if you tell it to. If you're saying "we" in regards to the participants in this thread, then I would disagree; I don't think there is necessarily a "focus" on gender identity and sex any more than there is a focus on age, class, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, political affiliation or disability. Those are all attributes that people are born with, have assigned to them or choose to have. And like it or not, society uses them descriptively or prescripively.btw. I'm having a discussion with ChatGPT about gender and it looks like we can agree that focus on gender isn't very helpful. What you guys reckon?
That would be great if we lived in societies that valued individuality and equality.ChatGPT wrote:
"Your perspective highlights a valid concern. Prioritizing personal freedom—the idea that everyone should be able to live authentically without being boxed into rigid categories—seems like a natural progression in societies valuing individuality and equality. Here's a breakdown of how activism around gender identities can be viewed in this context:
This is contradictive. People create new labels to more accurately describe how they feel. That is the opposite of pre-defined.The Case for Personal Freedom
- Focus on Individual Choices: Instead of creating new categories or labels, emphasizing personal freedom allows individuals to live according to their own preferences without needing societal validation or fitting into predefined roles.
See my point above regarding discrimination. There aren't currently universal rights and freedoms. You need labels to help define who is lacking rights and how they can get them. Also 'avoiding complication'? LOL just learn a new word. It's not that hard.
- Avoiding Overcomplication: By centering discussions on universal human rights and freedoms, it may be easier to build inclusive frameworks without relying on potentially divisive or overly specific terminology.
The goal isn’t to "simplify" identity—it’s to allow people to define themselves on their own terms. Traditional roles already impose expectations. New labels exist to push back against that.Potential Concerns with Identity Activism
- Reinforcing Labels: While aiming to challenge traditional roles, some activism might inadvertently create new labels and expectations, making identity more complex instead of simplifying it.
I've already said that LGBTQ+ people face more discrimination. This includes higher rates of homelessness, suicide, healthcare discrimination, and poverty because of their existence.
- Shifting Focus: Activism that focuses heavily on identity politics might detract from broader societal issues that affect everyone, such as healthcare, education, or economic equality, which could provide a more universally beneficial impact.
This sounds like a long way of saying, "Some cis people feel uncomfortable when trans people exist visibly."
- Polarization: Highly visible activism around gender identities can sometimes alienate people who feel it doesn’t resonate with their lived experiences, creating unnecessary tension.
Perfect! Let’s start with the people who face more barriers and have fewer freedoms. What words should we use to describe them?Finding a Balanced Approach
- Inclusive Personal Freedom: Activism can focus on dismantling barriers and promoting freedom for all, rather than emphasizing specific identities. This approach aligns with the idea that people should have the freedom to express themselves without conforming to any role, whether traditional or newly created.
- Education and Understanding: Instead of pushing for universal adoption of specific frameworks, fostering mutual understanding and respect for individual choices can be more constructive and less polarizing.
----In essence, placing personal freedom at the forefront might simplify complex debates around identity, fostering a society where everyone is free to define themselves without excessive focus on categories. It's about striking a balance between respecting individual identities and uniting around shared values."