Gender is meaningless
I get a lot of criticism for this, mainly due to the fact that some people aren't patient enough to understand my point, so before anyone shares their opinion, please read carefully.
This thread is related to gender identity.
People now are free to identify themselves as the gender they please, man/woman/non-binary. I don't mind that, I favor this and I'm in fact non-binary.
However, what does it mean to be a man or a woman?
We know that biological sex is separate from gender identity. There is no correlation between reproductive organs/chromosomes/hormones and gender identity. Gender identity is a personal/psychological construct.
So, when someone says they are a man/woman, what exactly are they pointing to? Behaviours? Mentality? Likes/dislikes? Because even then, it's still vague.
You say you're a woman because you like to act demure? You like to wear make up? You like pink? You like feminine features? But... are these qualities exclusive to women? Can't a man be those things too?
Can a man be demure and feminine, wear make-up, wear a skirt and like pink?
Let's turn that around, if you say you're a man, do you mean you like being muscular, wear jeans and boots, cut your hair short?
But wait, can't a woman do those things too?
I used to identify as a woman (I'm physically male) mainly because I love being feminine, I wear make up, and feminine clothes... but I like working out too... and I like cars... I also like sports... wait, those are qualities that are masculine...
There's really no hard line between a man and a woman, which is why I decided non binary is the best pick for me.
But I honestly think in a way that everyone is non binary. Almost every person, be it male or female, possesses both feminine and masculine qualities to some degree.
There's really no quality out there that is exclusive to men or women. Qualities are just what they are...
Being demure is not feminine... its just.. being demure.. you know what I mean?
Skirts are just skirts... make up is just make up... they can apply to both men and women...
So really what is a man and what is a woman? Everyone seems to just have their own subjective definition of these terms, and there's really no definite answer.
This thread is related to gender identity.
People now are free to identify themselves as the gender they please, man/woman/non-binary. I don't mind that, I favor this and I'm in fact non-binary.
However, what does it mean to be a man or a woman?
We know that biological sex is separate from gender identity. There is no correlation between reproductive organs/chromosomes/hormones and gender identity. Gender identity is a personal/psychological construct.
So, when someone says they are a man/woman, what exactly are they pointing to? Behaviours? Mentality? Likes/dislikes? Because even then, it's still vague.
You say you're a woman because you like to act demure? You like to wear make up? You like pink? You like feminine features? But... are these qualities exclusive to women? Can't a man be those things too?
Can a man be demure and feminine, wear make-up, wear a skirt and like pink?
Let's turn that around, if you say you're a man, do you mean you like being muscular, wear jeans and boots, cut your hair short?
But wait, can't a woman do those things too?
I used to identify as a woman (I'm physically male) mainly because I love being feminine, I wear make up, and feminine clothes... but I like working out too... and I like cars... I also like sports... wait, those are qualities that are masculine...
There's really no hard line between a man and a woman, which is why I decided non binary is the best pick for me.
But I honestly think in a way that everyone is non binary. Almost every person, be it male or female, possesses both feminine and masculine qualities to some degree.
There's really no quality out there that is exclusive to men or women. Qualities are just what they are...
Being demure is not feminine... its just.. being demure.. you know what I mean?
Skirts are just skirts... make up is just make up... they can apply to both men and women...
So really what is a man and what is a woman? Everyone seems to just have their own subjective definition of these terms, and there's really no definite answer.
Comments (63)
I am not unsympathetic to people who have gender dysphoria and I have no trouble with them identifying themselves differently. For the rest of us - males have penises and testicles and females have vaginas and ovaries, among other things. Healthy adult females can bear children.
Most importantly - children should not be encouraged to modify their bodies by surgery or hormonal treatments. Only in extraordinary circumstances should they be allowed.
As I mentioned above "gender identity is separate from biological sex"
And this thread has nothing to do with transitioning. Stay on topic please.
I did read carefully, but I don't agree with you. I think making a big deal out of gender identity as something different from biological sex is potentially dangerous for impressionable and vulnerable young people. Once you are grown up, you can do whatever you want, call yourself whatever you want, but I don't think society necessarily has any obligation to go along with your self-designation if it is disruptive.
One of my sister's children started identifying as non-binary when they were in high school. I only see them once or twice a year. I hug them with all the rest of the family. I use their new name. I try to be careful about pronouns. They're my family. I love them. On the other hand, it's been a hard few years for my sister and her husband.
Quoting Susu
I think many or most subjects end up being like this - elusive. What does it mean to be strong? What is reality? What is the purpose of living? I can't think of many subjects that don't end up in the zone of contradictions and confusions, so why should gender be any different?
Like race, way too much importance has been and continues to be given to superficial attributes such as these. Human beings are human beings.
From what I can tell, biases such as these are inculcated into very young children as a simplistic way to help them categorize the world around them. Unfortunately many seem to lack the maturity to be to able to gain a more highly developed understanding of the world even as adults.
"This is the way I've viewed the world. Can't people see how wrong it is to view the world otherwise?"
It's as if they perceive it as an attack on themselves. Of course, it couldn't possibly be that their worldview has been overly simplistic from very early in their childhood...
This sounds like the politically correct take perhaps but how do you justify/support it outside of that.
If hormones change facial characteristics and facial characteristics might determine whether others see you as a man or woman, don't hormones then influence gender identity. Why is personal gender identification sacrosanct when so many other aspects of myself are mediated externally by what other people believe. Why do people take hormones to transition (to gain the features associated with biological sex) if gender has nothing to do with hormones?
I'm confused.
I think that this is intentionally left up to whomever is identifying themself -- there is no one way to be a man or a woman, up to and including the body one is born with, and up to and including identifying as neither a man nor a woman. Our identities are ours, not based on conventional nomenclature or essential properties or duties.
I have watched young people quickly and easily develop a non-binary approach to gender identity, discarding the binary in much the same way as they would shed their belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And Ive noticed how parents and teachers respond with oppressive tendencies when their heuristic devices are exposed as insufficient, and how they justify their attempts to maintain control over these complex ideas such as gender identity using language, definitions and laws.
There absolutely is a correlation between behaviors and identity, so much so that if you listed a person's behaviors I could predict their gender identity with a very high statistical probability. What you mean perhaps is that biology is not causative of gender identity, which is probably partially true, but such is a scientific, not philosophical question. That is, to what extent do hormones cause typically feminine behavior? I don't know, but probably to some degree. It is undeniable that hormone changes affect behavior and personality.Quoting Susu
This is a linguistic issue. The defining line between any two categories is always vague due to definitions varying upon context and usage. The line between cups and bowls is equally vague, for example.
And none of this suggests I have any objection to your personal situation or that I think you ought conform to a standard you're uncomfortable with. I'm not in favor of interfering in another's well being, but it is the case that most do behave in stereotypical ways, and it's likely true that some of that behavior is genetically informed.
It is, indeed, very difficult to convey a general sense for gender or sex. When I speak of women, In the context of gender, Im referring to a human being encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes in proximity with the archetypal female. This is, of course, a mental state, and would only be privately accessible to the individual. Its not infallible, however, it doesnt work as Ben Shapiro puts it You can't magically change your gender, as if to flip on and off. It is simply a part of the general process of learning yourself and figuring out who you are. Gender can refer to gender roles which coincide with public conceptions of femininity or masculinity.
The general sense of biological sex is likewise vague and difficult to understand. I can only convey my sense of biological female or male, which would be A human being with physiological proximity with the archetypal female or male, respectively. The most technically accurate way to convey, say, what a woman is (in the biological sense), would be A woman is a human being with a natural genetic predisposition to produce large gametes. This biological sense aims for objectivity whereas the gender sense is only objective within the mind of the individual, thus subjective and, intersubjective since the concepts of femininity and masculinity are shared between individuals of a society. Again, it is hard to capture a general sense because meanings vary individually within a group, with only relative societal and cultural congruence between groups. For example, the congruence between Hispanic American groups may vary from Black American groups, or Middle Eastern groups from European groups, seniors from youth, etc.
Im not sure if this responds properly with your concerns or not!
I do not understand your example. Are you referring to the fact that the basic sense of gender differs from one ethnic group to another?
Eureka! I propose The Mohini Test (named after the only female avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu) à la The Turing Test.
You are to converse (mental task) with a person X via a computer. If you can't tell whether X is a man/woman from that alone, gender is (as the OP claims) meaningless.
I routinely use señor/señorita, monsieur/mademoiselle, sir/madam (as the case may be) to address forum members. This suggests that people, minds to be more precise, pass The Mohini Test with flying colors. Of course this could be due to poor deductive skills, I'm not much of a thinker.
Between all social groups including but not limited to ethnicity.
Yes, I see your point. But why do you think there are differences between those groups towards the sense of gender?
Are you saying that identity is entirely free choice? Don't we portray ourselves to others in very specific ways precisely because there are standards for different kinds of identities? I can theoretically decide that my identity is all kinds of things but if it doesn't correlate with the expectations of others then I'm just going to be the only person who thinks that way. If I identify as incredibly attractive but I'm not, or as a particular ethnicity that I'm not, or I view myself as a badass but I don't train or exercise whatsoever, isn't that just me being delusional? If identity was simply whatever people thought of themselves, then there shouldn't be any problem, as nobody can force someone to stop describing themselves in a certain way.
The issue is whether others accept the identity you choose, and the question here is the legitimacy of a choice to determine one's own gender or what the prerequisites for being able to make that choice are. We definitely have at least some, gender isn't meaningless because it's recognizable, otherwise nobody would care about being a particular gender in the first place.
As you surely know, one of the problems with the "non-binary" idea is the role of gender in English. It's not just pronouns, many words have male/female variations that we commonly use. To speak everyday English requires us to identify people as male/female, and use the appropriate pronouns and language. Often, people who are non-binary don't want to be either gender, they want to be referred to using gender-neutral terms and pronouns, which requires careful word selection that is fairly unnatural to people, considering it is very rare to interact with someone who considers themselves non-binary.
Besides that, many concepts in society are gendered, such as how areas, activities or services are designated for the exclusive use of a singular gender. Cultural and social expectations are different based on gender, as are many different types of ideas. The vast majority of people do fit into one of the two gender categories, which partly explains why so many things are organised by gender. I'm not saying it has to be that way, just that it is.
Our language and organisation could be less gendered than it is, but so long as it is so gendered, it is impossible to argue that gender is "meaningless". If one is indifferent to their gender classification or agrees with it, then it's not too much of an issue. The difficulty is for non-binary people who resent being categorised by gender, preferring gender-neutral language and gender-neutral treatment. Who resent gender-specific norms or cultural or social expectations, and so on, because now this entire system has become problematic.
I agree that gender characteristics normally ascribed to one gender can be exhibited by someone of the opposite gender and that this shouldn't be a problem. However, it is wrong to say that there is no correlation between one's gender and one's sex. We know that there are many psychological and behavioural differences between the sexes and this has been proven in many different fields. Most people are comfortable with their gender being defined by their sex. Most people take no issue with their gender correlating with their sex precisely because of this correlation, it is a minority who don't. This difference is not just socially manufactured, it is the naturally occurring difference between men and women. I think it is wrong to try to force people who don't fit into these categories perfectly to do so, and that people should be allowed to express themselves without feeling hindered by gender norms. That's what we've been moving towards, and I think it's great.
Gender is a significant part of our language, culture and the way in which we organise our society. It's part of how we understand people and part of how we think. There is a small percentage of people who are non-binary, who did not easily fit into either category as most do. Based on all these things, leaving aside the issue of what should be or could be, and despite being imprecise, gender is definitely not meaningless.
No.
I'm saying that no one owns a person's identity other than the person whose identity it is. You nor I get to say who Susan or Ryan are. They get to say who they are. And they are the ones who get to say whether they were right, wrong, or somewhere in-between when it comes to their own identity.
Quoting Judaka
"Choice" isn't the right language, as I say in the above. Identity, including gender-identity, is not about epistemic access or moral choices. You simply are not the one I'll consult when it comes to someone else's identity, and I wouldn't consult myself to understand your identity -- I'd ask and listen to you.
And that is as it should be, whatever the point is.
I agree that you're not going to be consulting me when it comes to someone else's identity, but you're not going to be consulting anyone at all. The negotiation for these definitions is much bigger than any one person. Identity is not synonymous with self-perception and you can't simply dictate to others what your identity is, you need to possess the qualities people agree the thing you're wanting to be identified has. If I identify as disabled but I'm not disabled in any way, you'll just accept that as part of my identity? If I tell you I identify as upper-class but I'm completely broke, you'll go forward thinking I'm part of the upper-class? It's one thing to say that gender should be an exception, however, you're arguing that identity as a concept functions on the basis of self-perception and that's just entirely false.
A thing about hypotheticals -- they aren't real. And when discussing the reality of personal identity I think that hypotheticals of the form which compares facts with judgments are wholly inappropriate. We don't go down to the identity-clinic where the trained psychologist runs a brain scan and hands us a paper which tells us who we are. Identity is not an object of scientific knowledge.
A thing about identity -- even if I don't accept your identity, you can continue to identify in that manner. What I think is irrelevant to your personal identity because I don't "negotiate" your identity. Personal identity isn't some object of knowledge which a community of knowers debate which propositions are appropriate. Personal identity morphs and changes over time, and we frequently are saddled with parts of ourselves which other parts of ourselves would rather not were there.
I may have a hard time believing such and such about a person (for whatever reason), but that doesn't mean that my beliefs are determinant of their identity.
Do you accept that disabled status, class, appearance, ethnicity, language, hobbies, skills, occupations, culture, place of living, and way of living, are all valid identities that people have? My hypotheticals illustrate the absurdity of claiming that people can dictate to others what their identity is, without actually having the qualities of the thing you identify as, and having the view that others should go along with that. I'm not claiming that anyone can stop someone else from self-describing as possessing identities of course, anyone can claim anything. But it'd be absurd for you to completely hand over the reins to me to allow me to dictate to you how you should view me. You won't do that, you are going to think of me based on my actual characteristics as you perceive them. That doesn't make you objectively correct, it doesn't mean that I am as you see me. My identity includes things a range of things, some are objectively verifiable, like where I live or my occupation. Some things are more subjective, like whether I'm a good athlete or a kind person, but you are entitled to your opinions on those identities as well.
If identity was just about what someone thought of themselves, gender identity wouldn't have anything to do with the pronouns other people use, what gender-exclusive areas someone can access, or whether someone could participate in a gender-exclusive activity. It's absolutely clear that gender identity includes how someone's gender is perceived by others. That applies to many different identities, because it's not just some form of self-perception, it has real-world, social, cultural, and economic implications. For gender identity, it's not about someone getting to decide what your "true" gender is, it's about the practical implications of being recognised and acknowledged as belonging to a particular gender. I have an expectation that others are going to treat me as a male because I identify as a male and look like a male, I've never encountered any situation where it's been an issue for me. I've never in my life had to tell anyone that I'm a male. For someone who does not appear to be male but identifies as male, they want the "male" identity that I have, they want others to treat them as a male. You telling them that they can call themselves a male and nobody can stop them doesn't help them at all. That's why ssu's question of "what does it mean to be a man or a woman" isn't resolved by explaining that people can just call themselves whatever they want. There needs to be a general discussion to understand this so that we can decide how someone who isn't biologically male could assume a "male" identity, what the rules are for that and how it might work etc.
Why's that?
Quoting Judaka
For practical purposes, I'd say that for almost every part of one's personal identity we don't have to go about proving it to others. Notice your list:
Quoting Judaka
These are aspects of one's social identity. I'd say that "identity" is not singular. When it comes to one's social designation, of course it matters what others say. When it comes to one's personal identity, no one owns that but the person whose identity it is. Necessarily, by the usage of language, our social nature is already imprinted upon our identifying ourself. But these social identities come from our personal identities. After all, disabled status wasn't a thing in the United States until the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. It's not like everyone who was disabled suddenly became disabled after having the social recognition. It's just that people in the world "caught up" to the real facts of disability (itself a social designation only necessary due to our economic model being privitized, and some people not counting as "good enough" for the machine of capital to use, but they certainly would still like to live).
Quoting Judaka
Eh, I'd just say that you're the one whose mistaken on how these things work. After all, you say:
Quoting Judaka
Might it be the case that people who have had to deal with being accepted might know a little more than someone whose always been accepted for exactly who they are and who never has to worry about proving who they are to others?
Good response.
Quoting Moliere
Because it'd mean having no thoughts or opinions of your own in favour of just accepting and believing about me whatever I told you? And with that how you interacted with me and treated me? Isn't it clear why would be a problem?
Quoting Moliere
That's a list of subjects that I purposefully picked because they have pretty clear-cut answers, I can easily provide a list of identities that do not have clear-cut answers, such as identities defined by having characteristics such as fashionable, cool, intelligent or belonging to group identities based on interests like being a "gamer" or being a "punk" or a "jock". You're really vastly underestimating how many different kinds of identities there are, not all of them are clear cut and some are quite contentious or hotly debated. And your choices in how you dress or act or what you do can impact whether others accept or reject how you self-identify.
And yes, the "punk" identity did not exist before it was recognised, and someone who acted and dressed and did all the necessary things to be "punk" was not considered one before the identification existed which hapened when people agreed it did. That is how it works.
How we treat people based on their identity also changes over time, partly because we discuss it. As an example, what it meant to be transgender or non-binary has changed dramatically in the last 10-20 years. And people are still discussing it and I expect there will be dramatic changes in the next 10 years also.
Quoting Moliere
Lol, everyone has experienced people not seeing them the way they see themselves. Everyone is relevant to the question of gender identity even if their gender identity has never been an issue to them. Because everyone is involved in recognising and acknowledging and treating people differently based on their gender identity. The rules for how gender identity should be determined, how we need to treat people based on their gender identity, what people are allowed to do based on their gender identity and all these and other related questions impact everyone.
Molieire hit the nail on the head. There are participants in this forum who reflect a widespread cluelessness in the wider culture that we can be born with a gender identity that we didnt choose , but makes us feel like an outcast with respect to our peers. As a gay man , I experienced that sense of being different from most of my male peers growing up, and being treated by some as though I were different (gay acting). It wasnt until I met others in the gay community that I learned there were distinct gender categories beyond the male-female binary , as diverse as these may be within themselves, and in many cases ones gender is inborn, and only the particulars of its expression are socially constructed. Those who never had reason to consider themselves different from their peers in terms of gender behavior in ways they could not control often deny that there is such a thing as inborn gender identity outside of the male-female binary, because they never experienced what it is like.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, but performance in the sense of a purely socially constructed set of choices, or performance in the way that schizophrenia or Downs syndrone or adhd or Aspergers is expressed as a set of behaviors with both inborn and cultural components? Would you agree that the assumption of inborn features of such psychiatric categories is useful, and if so , that perhaps also the acknowledgement of inborn features of both binary and non-binary gender, features that form categorizable patterns, is useful?
What does anything you just said have to do with my conversation with Molieire or anything I said? It just sounds like you're sulking about people disagreeing with you.
Do you agree with my post? I took you to be denying Molieres point that people who have had to deal with being accepted might know a little more than someone whose always been accepted for exactly who they are and who never has to worry about proving who they are to others.
I don't think so. But, then, I don't think of personal identity like you do. I'm not looking to define these things in order to pass judgment on who counts as who. That's exactly what I'm advising against. So where you say
Quoting Judaka
I'm saying we ought not debate personal identity. It's not up for debate because to debate someone's identity is dehumanizing. It puts someone in the position of proving their own existence. How could someone possibly do that?
So where you say:
Quoting Judaka
I'm saying that's exactly what doesn't need to happen. For the most part, we treat others with enough respect that they know things about themselves a little better than I know about them -- this is especially the case with sensitive things, like religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. That's respectful of the person as a person. And that's what is important.
Quoting Judaka
The rules for determining someone's personal identity, usually, is to just ask them, and believe that they're in a better position than myself to ascertain such things. Further, even if I happen to believe otherwise, it's not my place to go about proving it -- After all, they're in a better position than myself to ascertain such things about themself, given they've always been around and I've only been around for however long but much less than always.
The rules, I suggest, is to treat others with enough respect that they need not prove themselves. Asking for proof of someone else's personal identity is belittling -- it says to someone they are so ignorant that you know them better than they know themselves.
Note that this doesn't mean that someone cannot be wrong about themself. It means that the rules we should concern ourselves with is how we actually treat people, and the best way to treat others, when it comes to them speaking on their personal identity, is to respect them. For a discussion to take place, respect first has to be in place. And if we're asking people to prove who they are, then respect isn't really in play. Then we're trying to prove things, or show how I was right or wrong when this is wholly other to how we actually build relationships.
People with nothing but a stereotypical experience of gender make up the norm, we have a right to be part of the conversation about gender identity as it impacts us and involves us. We have the right to think and evaluate the evidence and form our own opinions despite never having and never being able to experience being non-binary. People are capable of having a non-binary view of gender without experiencing it for themselves. If someone has a binary view, it's not just because they have never experienced it, all the reasons that generally apply to why people think what they think applies to this particular belief as they would any. Also, I don't think you're reiterating any point Molieire made.
I'm sure you deny the existence of all manner of things you've never experienced before. Obviously, you don't deny the existence of things you've experienced because you've experienced them. So I'm struggling to see the sense in telling people about how the things they don't believe in, they didn't experience. I agree with your post but I don't agree with posting it.
Ah, but youre not strictly binary. That is, I subscribe to the view that we all occupy unique positions on a gender spectrum. What we call the gender binary is an abstraction or idealization resulting from an averaging that flattens all the individual differences. What it shows is that there are large groups that fit into categories like male and female gendered (or effeminate gay or butch lesbian) even though such categories are not an exact fit for any actual person.
More importantly, I view individual gender as a mixture of inborn and cultural features. The inborn features to me are the most fascinating, because they consist of a neural organization that I call a perceptual-affective style
This style globally , but often subtly, affects behavior including bodily comportment , speech pronunciation , sexual attraction, posture, emotions and many other aspects of our engagement with the world.
What being born with a sharply different gender than ones same-sex peers can teach one (but it isnt guaranteed to do so) is that all of us ( not just the non-binary) are behaviorally shaped in this global fashion, all of us have a perceptual-affective gender style unique to us but usually close enough to those of our same-sex peers that it is invisible to us. When it is no longer invisible to us , due to a sharp enough difference in our gendered behavior with respect to our same-sex peers, we are given an opportunity to notice the way that gender sweepingly affects human behavior in general. Of course, one does t need to be different in this way in order to come up with such insights, but it certainly helps.
Quoting Judaka
I think my point about the uniqueness of individual gender agrees with Molieres ( perhaps for slightly different reasons) about the advisability of letting each individual publicly define their own gender. And it agrees with his assertion( again for slightly different reasons, and specifically with regard to gender) that the person who has had to deal with challenges to having their gender behavior accepted might come to know a little more about the nature of gender than someone who never was accused of behaving in a gender-nonconforming way.
Quoting Moliere
Do you agree that characteristics are part of someone's identity? Even things like being good-looking or intelligent can be part of one's identity. Do you make your own decisions about how good-looking people are or do you ask them to tell you what to think? Not only would that be strange and silly but it'd also be totally impractical. We have to actively demonstrate to others our identity by our actions, dress, words and the information we give them. How many people have you even had conversations with where they dictate to you all their various identities? Does it take hours?
Quoting Moliere
Because if anyone can be any identity then no identity even means anything anymore. If anyone can belong to a group because they say they do, without meeting any qualifications whatsoever, then being part of that group no longer means anything. I don't think you understand what you're saying, there's no way someone can go about life with the expectation that others are going to believe everything they believe about themselves. My talents and skills make up a big part of who I am, of my identity, but I don't expect people to believe I have those skills or talents without having given any proof that I have them. I don't feel dehumanized by people forming their own opinions about me, that's necessary for them to think. I might feel dehumanized by people saying I can't have my own opinions and that I need to believe whatever they tell me.
Quoting Moliere
If you want to be viewed to have or be of a particular characteristic then in most circumstances, you need to demonstrate that you have it. Sometimes people will give you the benefit of the doubt, it depends on the context. People put great effort to display their gender identity, would your advice be that they shouldn't need to do that? They shouldn't need to dress, act or speak in a way that communicates their gender. Instead, they should just explain to every single person they meet what their gender is. That's so impractical! That's why people demonstrate it through other means, and why explaining it to others will never be an alternative to that.
I really want to emphasise this, your proposal is completely impractical. When I say prove, I don't mean by providing a logical argument and laying out the evidence. We do it without words, we demonstrate it. Gender identity is communicated in less than a second, and only in exceptional or rare circumstances will there ever be a conversation about it. How can you make this process redundant by just asking people to believe what others say about themselves? Even if everyone agreed that it was the right thing to do, it couldn't be done.
I agree with you.
Some people want to discard certain concepts because they don't fit precisely within their view of reality, then they want to impose their conceptual view on the rest of us. Guess what, many of our concepts are like this, that's just the way language is.
Focusing here, because this is something I agree with.
I invoked the notion of asking because it's basically the golden standard for determining some one person's identity, in my view -- and talk of wanting standards for categories to determine identity runs counter to the notion of simply listening to a person talk about themself. I agree that we don't go about using the golden standard, however. We just glide along, barely without even a belief formed, accepting people's identity before it's even face-value, before its even named.
My thought is that who we are isn't really chosen by us. So "girding" that conversation isn't important. It's not something which needs to have intersubjective agreement, nor does it need to be an object of knowledge. The very reality of our identity takes care of itself, and so self-identification doesn't undermine identity. That is -- I take statements of one's identity to be truth-apt, I just think that the person whose best situated to make judgments about their truth is the person making the statement (EDIT: about themself, that is).
But then there's the other side of identity, how you interpret others. But this doesn't have to do with features or aspects of others, in my opinion. As you noted, we don't ask people for their identity. It happens before we're even really cognitively engaged. We glide along, accepting the identity we see and interacting with it before really judging whether the identity we perceive is right or wrong or whatever.
So given these two features -- that a person is better situated to judge whether something is true of themselves, and the lack of cognitive engagement in ascertaining others identities on a regular basis -- I'd say that a general conversation is exactly wrong headed. We don't need sets with specified traits to make judgments of others with. We just need to listen to what others have to say about themselves.
You are non-binary. Perhaps there do exist people who are not like you in that respect. They would be binary and not non-binary. They might be quite certain that they are binary and they might resent any hint of denying their binary identity. Some of them may deny that non-binary people exist and think that in a way everyone is binary. And in that respect - thinking that everyone is in some way really like themselves - they would be just like you. You are non-binary and you think in a way that everyone else is too. They would be binary and they would think in a way that everyone else is too. There seems to be no shortage of binary and non-binary people who talk just like that. I think we need more people who recognise that others might be profoundly and disturbingly different from themselves rather than trying to convince everyone that they are the norm.
How about the idea that the norm is an averaging, and thus flattening of individual differences?Perhaps as a culture were just beginning to explore these differences rather than ignoring them or being oblivious to them.
Quoting Joshs
I agree.
My language can be clumsy when it comes to this topic so correct me if I'm wrong. When someone calls themselves "non-binary", they are saying they don't fit neatly into either male or female categories, abstractions or not. When I said experiencing being non-binary, I meant this experience, as opposed to having a view that gender is binary or not.
Quoting Joshs
I've spent a lot of time listening to people with such experiences to better understand the topic of gender identity because I believe that perspective is important for me to understand when considering this topic. But ultimately I decide for myself what to think, even in cases where people with better qualifications than I exist.
The issue of gender identity is not limited to classification, but covers a range of topics about gender-exclusive areas, gender-exclusive activities, legal rights, language, social and cultural norms, obligations and expectations, manners and many other topics. Also, it includes many different views in the fields of biology, psychology, philosophy and so on. It is a much bigger topic than someone freely describing their gender and avoiding resistance. Gender is significant in culture, religion, social norms, politics, philosophy and the list goes on. We can consider questions about social etiquette and norms for inclusivity, pronouns using new words or terms like ze/zir, the preference for using gender-neutral pronouns and words, gender norms, assumptions about people based on gender and even the act of assuming someone's gender. These issues and many others are too big for any one person to decide, do you not agree?
I'm not sure if it was a misunderstanding or if you've appreciated some of my points but your latest description of how identity is communicated and received is more agreeable than what I understood you to think in previous posts. Though I still disagree with your insistence on deferring to a person's description of themselves. My freedom to describe the world as I see it is invaluable to me. I recognise what others say as a valuable source of information, as opposed to just taking the view that they know themselves best, I think they know things about themselves that only they know, so I take what they say into account. Sometimes I will trust them because I've no reason to doubt them I offer no objection because I don't want to offend. Sometimes I'll go along with a request as a courtesy, this is how I approach the issue of being asked to refer to someone as a specific gender, absent of any glaring absurdity.
Can you clarify, could you be describing something more like doing someone a courtesy or giving the benefit of the doubt as I have here, as opposed to believing whatever you're told regardless of your own personal views? Because surely you do have your own personal views about how gender is determined and expressed and yada yada... right?
Quoting Judaka
I do, and I've been laying them out -- I haven't been saying "do not discuss" or "have no opinion" or something along those lines. Here we are discussing! :D And I'm not trying to say "Do not post again!" or something along those lines. We cannot help but to have an opinion, a lot of the times.
My belief is that these things aren't very clear cut, that there is no one definition for identifying as such-and-such, there are multiple ways to be a man or a woman or neither, and so the type of philosophy which lays out definitions and counter-examples in a dialectic simply will not come to an understanding of gender, at least as I understand these things. Who we are is softer than the tools of analysis which are meant for reaping and harvesting of intellectual products.
Metaphorically, we are flowers and turtles -- and the harvest kills both while it pursues maximizing wheat germ.
Does that make any kind of sense?
I will try to simplify the issue ...
If someone says to you, "I am a man", would you ask him "What do you mean by that?"
Asking such a question woul only have a meaning if women had everything in common with men, i.e, if there would be no difference between them. Which is absurd.
***
Behavior, mentality and likes/dislikes are not criteria. Differences in them exist within both groups of men and women. However, these elements are developed in a person, who is influenced by one's environment --family and society-- since the day one is born and throughout one's life.
It is my opinion that hormones and hormone receptors do matter. However, with what we know today our sexuality is not as simple as being this or that. We now think of terms of a spectrum.
Quoting Medically reviewed by Emelia Arquilla, DO By Tim Newman on May 11, 2021
I can tell you're a kind person, and that your motivation is to be kind and respectful to others, and I appreciate the need to be flexible and deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I always advocate for dealing with things on a case-by-case basis, and emphasise flexibility and taking context into account. In this matter, since people who struggle with gender identity have to face a lot of shit, I'm especially concerned about how a small action justified when viewed in isolation, can add up when it occurs regularly to create something very unpleasant. So, it's completely reasonable to factor into the equation all types of concerns and a general discussion should also include these concerns. In fact, it is precisely these considerations that merit a greater discussion about gender identity, to increase awareness and organise an appropriate response.
Your "golden rule" might be fine in isolation, it might work well for you but as a solution in general it's not feasible. Gender identity is communicated in less than a second, and it is communicated to every single person one meets, this may be several or dozens of people each day. Our expectations for how others treat us are communicated by our expression of our gender identity. Ideally, gender identity is communicated without words, and also ideally, everyone is informed of how they are to treat someone based on their gender identity and sex. To avoid awkward situations and to ensure everyone is treated fairly.
We're pretty far away from that right now, most people don't even understand what it means to be non-binary or transgender. Let alone appreciating how this changes how they're supposed to interact and what the rules are. There are all kinds of opinions about what is appropriate behaviour when it comes to gender identity, the rules are extremely unclear. It's not really good enough to "treat with respect" or "treat as you'd like to be treated". It's valuable for everyone to agree on what the rules are and to know them without having to ask every person they meet.
Not that long ago, most people weren't sure what the rules were or how to treat someone based on their sexuality. The responses used to be very different than they are today, and completely inappropriate by today's standards. I'm not saying that conversation is over but it's come a long way, gender identity is still in the dark ages comparatively. The question of "what makes someone a man or a woman", for example, isn't just about deciding who's opinions are invalid, it's about creating rules for how people should be treated. Right now, it's something like the wild west, it seems everyone has their own opinions and operates by their own rules. This makes things incredibly difficult for everyone, don't you agree?
OK. Would it be a good start and a move in the right direction? I think so. Then, when everyone is treating everyone else with respect, we could think about where to go from there. Think how far we have to go before we reach even that modest goal.
Quoting Judaka
Some people find it very easy. There are many who do not recognise any genders except male and female and will happily assign every person to exactly one of those. They don't have a problem and they have all the rules they need. I think you mean that we should have rules that agreed by all. I doubt whether that is possible. It may be possible to minimise harm resulting from discrimination. Even that is limited. Gay and lesbian equality has been the law for many years and yet two lesbians kissing on the bus may be physically attacked.
I don't think one can expect people to have unconditional respect for others, I'm sure you don't have that because if you did it would mean you're unable to think and express yourself. You have reasons for when and why you treat people with respect, based on a mix between your personal beliefs and understanding, and your knowledge of how the rules of your culture. If you were told to respect or tolerate something you disagree with, or a law was made to compel you to accept something you found intolerable, you wouldn't be happy about it, and may not go along with it, right? That's not a call for you to empathise, I'm being more cold and practical about this.
One of the points I'm trying to make is that this is a social and cultural topic, not just a personal one. The types of comments, jokes, teasing, behaviours, gestures, etc that are acceptable change over time. Some people are assholes who will do what they're going to do, but what the people around this person are willing to tolerate or go along with can be impacted. There are many issues to be worked out, many different problems that the average person is not able to navigate effectively. Let me also be clear that although some people treat 2020 as the end of history, I think this is the dark ages in many areas. I'm sure we will not be viewed favourably by future generations, this is a work-in-progress. When such a significant part of the population is part of the problem, it is a cultural and societal failure. So, no, not everyone needs to agree on the rules, and I'm not saying any set of rules would do. I have my opinions about what the general rules should be, but they're not the same as yours and I'm not sure what we'll get. I think currently that most people are so clueless and inexperienced with regard to gender identity that most views and actions are more of a product of ignorance than some well-thought-out alternative.
People have concerns and questions when it comes to gender identity, some due to gross misunderstanding, some questions that make a lot more sense to me. The solution is not "be nicer" or "be respectful", these issues need to be worked out. As the average citizen becomes better educated or experiments with alternatives on the what, why, how and the rules of what is acceptable and what is expected from all parties etc, we'll see change. I think this change will be defined by the evidence available and a general desire to improve the quality of life for everyone. The trend has been positive and I expect it to continue.
It is meaningless. Remove the make-up, the clothes, the act, and well see the reality of it all, and whether ones identity conforms with it or not. This inescapable reality must bear heavily on the gender bender, I imagine.
I don't expect people to have respect for each other, let alone unconditional respect. I expect lesbians on busses to continue to be afraid for years to come. My expectations are very low. That's why, when you say a principle of 'be respectful' is not enough, I said I think it's actually quite a big ambition. But now you think it's too much?
Maybe I could refuse to obey a vile law and also not attack the person who made the law for being gay or Black. Respect does not mean compliance. It doesn't even mean I approve of lesbians. It means merely that if I see two lesbians kissing I refrain from abusing them or beating them up.
You are right. It's only a modest start. And you dismiss the modest start before we've even started.
You want rules. Beyond the law, there are no rules in this area or in any other. There is only the restraint of our good manners, as far as that will go. Many people feel quite well educated enough and are happy in their own opinions which differ profoundly from yours. They are not going to go to the education sessions. They've signed up for an entirely different class. That's why restraint and respect are a source of hope. Agreement will not be within our grasp.
I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion. They tend to dismiss contrary opinions as invalid, being fully sure of their own. People will readily admit to being clueless about maths or French and inexperienced in making crochet blankets. But gender identity - nobody's going to get educated, they all have their degrees already. The problem is not lack of experience. It's difference of viewpoints and opinions.
Keep in mind that you are the one who has introduced the context of people being assaulted, that was not what I had in mind at all. I condemn violence or aggression regardless of the reason. I don't think our society condones violence for any reason either, and again, some people are evil and do evil, but that's a different subject, I think.
Quoting Cuthbert
I'm unsure of what you think I'm referring to now, because it was never acts of violence or bullying, anything that would be wrong because it falls into the category of some other condemned act. If we're talking about bullying, harassment, violence, rudeness, vandalism, assault and things of this nature. Those things are not ever justified, the reason for it is irrelevant, especially in the case of one citizen harming another for who they are or what they say. I am talking about things of a much less severe nature than this.
Quoting Cuthbert
Really? Even on this forum, some people are completely clueless lol.
Quoting NOS4A2
I know it's nos but I don't even need to leave this page to find an ignorant opinion. I'm really surprised to hear you think that the average person is well-versed in what it means to be transgender, non-binary or such. For how long have these concepts really been in the public consciousness? LGBT is now LGBTQIA and the list of ideas and concepts surrounding gender continue to change every single year.
I realise that. You suggested that 'be respectful' is just not enough - we need more. I pointed out that we have not achieved even the respect that you think is not enough. Example: people are assaulted for being gay. That's my argument and that's why I brought it up. You dismiss 'respect' as not enough - then you claim it's too much, because people can't have unconditional respect.
Of course you don't condone violence! Me neither. I'm asking you to remember that violence is there and that dismissing the principle of respect also (unthinkingly) dismisses the principle of restraint of our worst behaviour. I'm speaking up for that principle.
Quoting Judaka
You theory is that other people are ignorant and educating them will relieve them of their ignorance. But it's not like French or crochet. What you call 'ignorance' is merely a different opinion from yours. That's no way to get people to come to classes to learn what the strings of letters stand for. And even if they did, many would still walk away calling it all nonsense. The best we can hope for is that they walk way without committing the kind of violence that you rightly pointed out I brought into the debate and that I brought into the debate for a reason and to make an argument. (Not, to say again, to smear you with collusion with violence, which is clearly not on your agenda or mine.)
Quoting Cuthbert
I don't remember saying that "we need more"...
Quoting Judaka
I said respect isn't something you can order people to have, it's not enough to just tell people to be respectful. But even if you could order people to be respectful, it would still be insufficient and impractical, because people don't even agree on what is respectful, what the correct etiquette is and what the rules are.
Quoting Cuthbert
I don't think that violence should be okay even if you don't respect someone, so I don't understand this. Even if you absolutely hate someone and think they're the scum of the Earth, you're still not permitted to act violently. Why would restraint require respect? If it requires any respect then isn't it respect for human decency or the law and not how someone self-identifies their gender?
Would you see them as confused, attributing qualities they have to 'the other sex.'` when in fact they are just non-binary like everyone else?
It doesnt take much to assume dysphoria and contempt for ones own body must be harrowing. Dysphoria is the antonym to euphoria, after-all. Its ignorant to assume otherwise.
You stated it yourself. Gender identity is a mental construct. Sex has to do with physical characteristics and potential reproductive function. What you do with your parts is your business.
It seems apparent that different groups (generations, cultures, classes, etc.) associate different things to gender. For example, older generations tend to see the gender male as the breadwinner, head of household, and dominant role within the traditional nuclear family. Gender is socially constructed, and since various social environments differ from one another, it seems likely this is due to differences between social groups.
Gender / sex has three aspects :
1. the biological sex of a person. There are exactly two of them (male and female), you are born with it, you can't change it (no mammal can do this) and it is as objective and real as the five fingers of a hand or your blood group- (or can anybody change their blood group via self-ID?).
2. the gender role, also called 'gender': it is socially constructed, it is fluid, there is a spectrum (masculine vs feminine) and there are no limits to the imagination.
3. the legal sex. This usually coincides with the biological one, except in those rare cases where someone suffers from gender dysphoria, and thereupon applies to be allowed to make a transition. Or if someone is intersex, in which case they can ask to become non-binary (or 'diverse', as it is called in Germany)
I find it curious that so many people say there is confusion but very few people seem to believe that they are themselves confused. It is a topic on which most people who offer any opinion at all hold forth with the greatest clarity and confidence, often dismissing contrary views as harmful nonsense. That would seem to be a sign of division and disagreement rather than confusion. I have heard the views of many people who would dismiss those three categories and who would be quite clear, forthright, and consistent and in their opinions.
Quoting Cartesian trigger-puppets
That's myself and I'm a faux gender-bender extraordinaire like so many from the gay-not-gay walk-on-the-wild-side 1970's. So it's difficult to generalise.
You don't think individuals can BOTH be "confident" and be "clueless"?
You don't think individuals can BOTH believe themselves "well versed" and be "clueless"?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742150
Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not mainly about difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook. It's mostly about knowledge, awareness and information. It's a common view in arenas where views about the topic are expressed. Only tell the trans folk about biology and they will quickly see their error. Educate the terfs about trans rights and they will understand. It doesn't seem to work. Sure, there is ignorance, too, although few people who offer a view lay claim to it. But it's mainly about outlook. Offering people more experience or information does not suit the case. People may have equal knowledge, experience and information and still disagree.
One could make a similar argument about rival scientific paradigms. But if a new paradigm , by organizing experience in a new way, can solve more puzzles as Kuhn put it, than the paradigm it replaces, even though it is not simply a matter of a linear increase in information, then perhaps we can say that grasping the idea that we each are born with a global perceptual style that subtly shapes all of our interactions with others offers an enriched understanding an aspect of human behavior that is missing from those for whom the concept of gender is non-existent except as a male-female binary, even though grasping this gender paradigm is not simply an accretion of information. Word-views , including notions about sex and gender, are very resistant to change, precisely because they are such complex organizational structures. But this doesnt mean that once we have transitioned from one framework to another we dont feel that we have gained in understanding, even though we know also understand differently than before.
Let's try this a different way. Consider critical thinking skills:
Critical thinking skills are also on a spectrum: from poor to excellent. Given the same information: an individual with excellent critical thinking skills forms sound beliefs while an individual with poor critical thinking skills forms unsound beliefs. A bigot with otherwise good critical thinking skills will also form unsound beliefs.
Individuals who forms unsound beliefs will "disagree" with the sound beliefs. Many of them will try to assert that it is merely a "difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook" or whatever other disingenuous rationalizations that they may dream up.
On the other hand, one could argue that the accusation leveled against another of unsound critical thinking skills is often a convenient way to blame the other for our failure to understand their framework for interpreting a situation.
C'mon. You seem to have taken a portion of what I wrote out of context and created a straw man. Try considering the entirety of what I wrote within the context of the post it was in response to.