Poll: Gender recognition offence

[renegade7]

Ah, the old "I'm no expert, but the expert is wrong" approach.

Why do I have a feeling you do not in fact have a PhD in gender psychology.

Let's see some citations then, Professor.

There are two problems with this, first is the fact that Freud was wrong. As in everything he believed about psychology has been disproved. The only reason his work is still taught is because of its place in the history of psychology, not because of its accuracy. It's like how we still teach Lamarckism in basic biology despite it being wrong.

Freud was "wrong" only insofar as the mechanisms he proposed were incorrect. But he was completely correct in his ideas that behavior is the result of processes internal to the mind, that we may not be immediately aware of what the forces influencing those processes are, that conditioned responses to external factors are what create those forces, and that we respond to the motivators informed by our instincts according to how that conditioning affects our behavior. Saying that Freud was wrong about psychology because of the whole Oedipus complex thing is like saying that Einstein was wrong about relativity because he refused to believe in Heiseinberg's principle.

Second, no, there is quite literally no evidence that gender fluidity is a thing, literally nothing.

Citation needed, Doctor.

Meanwhile there is a body of evidence showing that within a month from birth instinct will make boys and girls act differently, so at best IF it exists (so far there is no reason to assume it does give biology and instinct are the foundation of gender at a young age) it's only for a very short time before we even see distinct personality develop. IF it exists, it's irrelevant as it goes away even when we intentionally try to maintain it. It's definitely not something that someone can just stand up and say "I'm gender fluid" since instinct will take over and you're either one or the other, sexual or asexual, and in a small percentage of cases happen to have the mind and body not match up. Fluidity doesn't last long enough for us to even show it exists due to ethical concerns, should we really humour people who are far too old to possibly have retained it even if we assume it does exist, since we know they do not in fact have it?

That's a statistical difference, not a deterministic one. There will be boys who act in ways more typically associated with girls, and vice versa. That is what is meant when it is said that gender behaviors exist on a spectrum, if you make a chart for intensity of a given behavior or emotional response to a given stimulus, then the typical male subject will fall in one range on the spectrum, and the typical female subject will fall in either the same range or with great overlap (say in the case of stress response to ending a romantic relationship), a nearby range (for instance, how talkative they are in friendly scenarios, how much they like math), or a very different range (for instance, how much they like full-contact sports or wearing a dress). Functionally, a person's gender is how that person tends to appear on spectra for different behavioral tendencies.

What's important to note is that every individual will have at least some behaviors in which they fall closer to the typical range for the gender other than what they identify with. Moreover, behaviors are not static throughout life. They can change with life experiences, social adaptation and conditioning, and biological factors, and it's rarely easy or even possible to determine which factors drove which change. If a person's behaviors begin to shift such that the overall pattern in their various behavior spectra begins to more closely match a typical pattern for the other gender, then functionally that person's gender has changed.

So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that gender is static.

Also, can we also stop disregarding biology in a topic where biology is the driving force?

Can we also maybe crack a biology textbook once in a while so that we could maybe learn when there is and when there is not any explanatory power in invoking biological explanations and the risks of begging the question?

Of course biology "drives" sociology, because humans are animals and therefore are a part of biology. But the argument "Men and women have some biological differences, and men and women behave differently in some ways, therefore behavioral differences in men and women (ie gender) are due to biology so that sex and gender are the same thing" is begging the question because it presupposes that biology is the only influence on behavior.

Moreover, if gender behavior differences were instinctive, then a gender binary and the gender norms we see in our culture would be universal to all cultures. This is not what is observed, so it must be the case that biology is not the only factor responsible for gender and gender differences.

I call people what they want to be called. It's an incredibly simple system that's served me well. If someone wants to be called her but I call that person he, that's just me being a twat. Am I proving anything? No. I'm just making someone uncomfortable.

What are you, some kind of PC radfem SJW? Manners? What?

 

[JimB]

I guess I thought a body/brain mismatch was inherently painful.

No more than wanting to lose weight is inherently anorexic. There are degrees of discomfort and degrees of adroitness in expressing and managing that discomfort.

OK, that makes sense. When you're failing to manage it well personally it becomes the disorder "gender dysphoria."

Or when your symptoms are more extreme for whatever reason, which is a distinction I think is worth drawing. Have you ever heard of phantom itch or phantom pain? Some people who have received amputations can still perceive sensation, almost always unpleasant, in the missing limb; I don't know the specific science behind it, but I'm told that this is because the human brain has kind of a topographical map of the body, and when the body doesn't match that map, it can be anything from an irritant to a source of extreme pain. Whether a given person experiences that pain is dependent on the brain's reaction to the violation of that mental blueprint.

Transgenderism, to the best of my knowledge, is related to this map the brain has of the body, and thus the discomfort scales just as does phantom pain. Some people experience the pain, some don't. For some people the pain is bad; for some it's more of an irritant. I've never been able to find someone who can describe to me exactly what this trauma feels like, at least not in terminology I feel I comfortably understand, but I've never personally encountered someone whose experience with being transgendered has felt physically painful. It's always been more...existential, I guess. A sense of wrong-ness.

But you shouldn't take my testimony about how it feels to have a condition I don't possess. I really just added that last bit because I'd feel bad if it sounded like I'm saying being transgendered is physically painful when, to the best of my personal knowledge, it's not.

 

[Darkmantle]

I call people what they want to be called. It's an incredibly simple system that's served me well. If someone wants to be called her but I call that person he, that's just me being a twat. Am I proving anything? No. I'm just making someone uncomfortable.

I agree up to a point, but there's people who want to be called "bun/buns/bunself"

Nope, I'm not going to do that. Calling transgender people by the gender they identify as is one thing, inventing new pronouns whole cloth is another

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I call people what they want to be called. It's an incredibly simple system that's served me well. If someone wants to be called her but I call that person he, that's just me being a twat. Am I proving anything? No. I'm just making someone uncomfortable.

I agree up to a point, but there's people who want to be called "bun/buns/bunself"

Nope, I'm not going to do that. Calling transgender people by the gender they identify as is one thing, inventing new pronouns whole cloth is another

Yeah but that's otherkin. Not transgender people.

 

[mrdude2010]

If you have no way of knowing, it's ridiculous of them to get offended. If they correct you and you continue using the wrong term, they're perfectly right to be upset.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

The problem is with someone wanting to be identified as what they are not, is that doing so is literally impossible for a rational human being. It's not a matter of needing to be more open minded and accepting, its asking people to do something that is logically impossible for them to do.

Imagine I showed you a tomato and said "from now on, I want you to call this thing a bicycle". It is possible that you might start calling the tomatoes bicycles. Maybe because you want to humor me or because you're afraid of me. But in your mind you will think, "I'm calling tomatoes a bicycles now". The most you can do is say the words, the concept is impossible for you, or any rational person, to fully accept.

 

[JimB]

The problem is with someone wanting to be identified as what they are not, is that doing so is literally impossible for a rational human being.

Words do not have objective meanings. Their meaning is defined by general use; see also that one of the definitions of the word "literal" is now "not literal." Anyone who finds it genuinely impossible to assign a new meaning to a word either has a neurological impairment of some kind or else is trying to avoid responsibility for their choices by claiming that objective universal forces prevent them from doing so.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

Ah, the old "I'm no expert, but the expert is wrong" approach.

Why do I have a feeling you do not in fact have a PhD in gender psychology.

Let's see some citations then, Professor.

There are two problems with this, first is the fact that Freud was wrong. As in everything he believed about psychology has been disproved. The only reason his work is still taught is because of its place in the history of psychology, not because of its accuracy. It's like how we still teach Lamarckism in basic biology despite it being wrong.

Freud was "wrong" only insofar as the mechanisms he proposed were incorrect. But he was completely correct in his ideas that behavior is the result of processes internal to the mind, that we may not be immediately aware of what the forces influencing those processes are, that conditioned responses to external factors are what create those forces, and that we respond to the motivators informed by our instincts according to how that conditioning affects our behavior. Saying that Freud was wrong about psychology because of the whole Oedipus complex thing is like saying that Einstein was wrong about relativity because he refused to believe in Heiseinberg's principle.

Second, no, there is quite literally no evidence that gender fluidity is a thing, literally nothing.

Citation needed, Doctor.

Meanwhile there is a body of evidence showing that within a month from birth instinct will make boys and girls act differently, so at best IF it exists (so far there is no reason to assume it does give biology and instinct are the foundation of gender at a young age) it's only for a very short time before we even see distinct personality develop. IF it exists, it's irrelevant as it goes away even when we intentionally try to maintain it. It's definitely not something that someone can just stand up and say "I'm gender fluid" since instinct will take over and you're either one or the other, sexual or asexual, and in a small percentage of cases happen to have the mind and body not match up. Fluidity doesn't last long enough for us to even show it exists due to ethical concerns, should we really humour people who are far too old to possibly have retained it even if we assume it does exist, since we know they do not in fact have it?

That's a statistical difference, not a deterministic one. There will be boys who act in ways more typically associated with girls, and vice versa. That is what is meant when it is said that gender behaviors exist on a spectrum, if you make a chart for intensity of a given behavior or emotional response to a given stimulus, then the typical male subject will fall in one range on the spectrum, and the typical female subject will fall in either the same range or with great overlap (say in the case of stress response to ending a romantic relationship), a nearby range (for instance, how talkative they are in friendly scenarios, how much they like math), or a very different range (for instance, how much they like full-contact sports or wearing a dress). Functionally, a person's gender is how that person tends to appear on spectra for different behavioral tendencies.

What's important to note is that every individual will have at least some behaviors in which they fall closer to the typical range for the gender other than what they identify with. Moreover, behaviors are not static throughout life. They can change with life experiences, social adaptation and conditioning, and biological factors, and it's rarely easy or even possible to determine which factors drove which change. If a person's behaviors begin to shift such that the overall pattern in their various behavior spectra begins to more closely match a typical pattern for the other gender, then functionally that person's gender has changed.

So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that gender is static.

Also, can we also stop disregarding biology in a topic where biology is the driving force?

Can we also maybe crack a biology textbook once in a while so that we could maybe learn when there is and when there is not any explanatory power in invoking biological explanations and the risks of begging the question?

Of course biology "drives" sociology, because humans are animals and therefore are a part of biology. But the argument "Men and women have some biological differences, and men and women behave differently in some ways, therefore behavioral differences in men and women (ie gender) are due to biology so that sex and gender are the same thing" is begging the question because it presupposes that biology is the only influence on behavior.

Moreover, if gender behavior differences were instinctive, then a gender binary and the gender norms we see in our culture would be universal to all cultures. This is not what is observed, so it must be the case that biology is not the only factor responsible for gender and gender differences.

I call people what they want to be called. It's an incredibly simple system that's served me well. If someone wants to be called her but I call that person he, that's just me being a twat. Am I proving anything? No. I'm just making someone uncomfortable.

What are you, some kind of PC radfem SJW? Manners? What?

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

And then I think you are critizing zontar for saying that biological factors can be involved, when you even admit to biology being a possible route.

This is not what is observed, so it must be the case that biology is not the only factor responsible for gender and gender differences.

I just don't think its fair to lambast zontar for a point that at least you, him and I are in somewhat of agreance with. Unless I misunderstand completly, in which case feel free to lambast me for it, since it is rude of me to interject.

 

[Lightknight]

If they aren't presenting then no, they don't have a right to be mad. It's simple math. If they aren't presenting as the gender they identify with then the only alternatives are that they're either presenting as their sex or presenting neutral. The gender norms are to be assumed unless indicated otherwise as to avoid offending cis people as well whose feelings and desires to be seen as what they identify as are just as valuable.

So you refer to cisgender men who are feminine as women and cisgender women who are butch as men? I think not. People have the right to complain if you misgender them, you don't agree, but insisting on referring to someone counter to their wishes isn't about being correct... It's being an arsehole, plain and simple. Some trans women work in construction, some trans men are seamstresses, some cis men like to wear skirts, some cis women dress like lumberjacks. Treating someone different than their wishes because of their presentation isn't right, it's not being correct, it's being exclusionary, because you're violating them as a person. So yeah, a trans woman who presents like a man has every right to be mad at you, if you treat her opposite her identity. This is because you're actively invalidating her as a woman. Presentation is not identity, period.

No, the OP stresses that the conditions here are if they look like their sex and present as their sex. I am merely stating that anyone who is presenting as anything other than their preferred gender has no right to be offended when a stranger doesn't correctly identify their preferred gender.

Ask my FtM husband for example. When he was presenting as his female sex he did not expect to be called sir or any masculine terms because he was presenting as female. Once he started presenting as male, that is when he began to feel offended with feminine terms going his way. If a cis individual is presenting as a trans individual then that is the same risk they are running. Please understand that it would be less harmful to confuse a cis individual with a trans individual than vice versa due to the depression that comes with body dysphoria that encourages presenting. You've got to see this from the perspective of a stranger, either they're looking at a butch female or they're looking at a transman. While I would generally use a gender neutral term in that scenario until new information exists, I am personally talking about someone who is presenting as a sex opposite their gender or as a neutral/ambiguous sex. At which point the stranger not knowing your sex isn't an unexpected result given no evidence to the contrary and the gender/sex norms being vastly established experientially in society. It's not like there's a special hat all trans people wear that labels exactly what pronouns we should be using. And even then, the premise of this thread would be if they weren't wearing said hat or were wearing a hat that used opposite pronouns.

I am not referring to someone who knows your gender identity and just refuses to acknowledge that. We've had multiple friends refuse to call my spouse by the new name for example, which has made our regular home parties kinda awkward. I am a little bit wary of calling him by the new name too only because of five years of using the female name and how bad I am with names in general. I've messed up a few times accidentally and at least he recognizes I'm not trying to be a dick. But it has led to me using names far less in the relationship.

(Yes, my life has changed a lot since we last spoke on transgender issues. It has been incredibly stressful to learn that my wife had entered marriage with me without revealing at the time that she wanted to be a he. He is also bisexual which explains the continued attraction and desire to remain married to me. I'm only three weeks into this knowledge and am struggling to determine what this means for our marriage, particularly if it means a refusal to bear children and also the fact that I have no homoerotic orientation. It would be horrific for this to mean my best friend and I are ipso facto incompatible. I already know the importance of supporting him but I'm terrified of the idea that not only could he not meet my needs due to this but I may not be able to meet his since on some level I'd always have to view him as a her due to my orientation. I've maintained an air of focusing on his depression rather than on the extreme pain of betrayal a five year lie has caused me. So um... any advice there would be much appreciated, I have waiting long enough to discuss the topic so as to no longer be in panic mode. I still desperately want to avoid HRT and any surgery and desperately want children, the children more than anything, but if presenting isn't enough for him then I have no right to ask him to deal with depression for the rest of his life just because I want to keep the body of the wife I married in my life)

 

[happyninja42]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

 

[Lightknight]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

HRT stops ovulation but from what I've read you can stop it and ovulation returns.

Yes, surrogates are an alternative. It would cost me something like sixty thousand dollars to six figures (ugh) and that's regardless of whether or not a child is born. Not only that, but I don't just want a child, I want children. Plural.

So I can either go into financial ruin, my spouse would have to undergo significant distress, or we'd have to part ways and roll the dice that we could ever find anyone we love as much as each other again. I mean, we're that couple, the one everyone thinks is just perfect for each other. And we have been, so the third option would be devastating but may be necessary for a chance of mutual happiness.

 

[01189998819991197253]

The problem is with someone wanting to be identified as what they are not, is that doing so is literally impossible for a rational human being.

Words do not have objective meanings. Their meaning is defined by general use; see also that one of the definitions of the word "literal" is now "not literal." Anyone who finds it genuinely impossible to assign a new meaning to a word either has a neurological impairment of some kind or else is trying to avoid responsibility for their choices by claiming that objective universal forces prevent them from doing so.

I got the sense he was talking about someone's internal thoughts and resulting sincerity, not their behavior. I'll call someone whatever they want to be called, and respect them as that gender or non-gender. I believe they have an incurable and basically untreatable (except by making accommodation with it) disorder with a neurological basis. If I had a condition like that, equally incurable, I'd hope that people would make some (what is really minimal) effort to meet me halfway too.

What I wouldn't expect is that people should believe all of the things I do about my condition, as a prerequisite for acceptance.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

HRT stops ovulation but from what I've read you can stop it and ovulation returns.

Yes, surrogates are an alternative. It would cost me something like sixty thousand dollars to six figures (ugh) and that's regardless of whether or not a child is born. Not only that, but I don't just want a child, I want children. Plural.

So I can either go into financial ruin, my spouse would have to undergo significant distress, or we'd have to part ways and roll the dice that we could ever find anyone we love as much as each other again. I mean, we're that couple, the one everyone thinks is just perfect for each other. And we have been, so the third option would be devastating but may be necessary for a chance of mutual happiness.

I don't know what to say friend. I don't envy you your situation, for either of you. I'm sure it's not an easy time for him either. I...yeah, I got nothing. I hope it works out for you both.

 

[Siege_TF]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck I'm going to call it a ****ing duck.
If it insists it's not a duck I'm liable to refer to it as 'creature' if I'm not at work, because I'm not obligated to humor creature's neurosis.

 

[Politrukk]

The poll doesn't seem any connection to the thread.

The poll is talking about someone's sex. If someone has the physical characteristics of a certain sex (as evidenced by their DNA and hormone levels, for example), it's obviously not wrong to call them being an example of that sex.

The thing is, you generally don't even have this information, and I personally couldn't care less for it unless I'm trying to produce offspring with that specific person (which for any random person you can safely assume I don't).

Then the OP continues to talk about gender instead ...

You're misinterpreting this on purpose?

The point is that obviously there is a difference between sex and gender these days, but how can one identify someones gender if they in every way look and approach you as part of the original binary(that is based upon their sex)?

 

[Lightknight]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

HRT stops ovulation but from what I've read you can stop it and ovulation returns.

Yes, surrogates are an alternative. It would cost me something like sixty thousand dollars to six figures (ugh) and that's regardless of whether or not a child is born. Not only that, but I don't just want a child, I want children. Plural.

So I can either go into financial ruin, my spouse would have to undergo significant distress, or we'd have to part ways and roll the dice that we could ever find anyone we love as much as each other again. I mean, we're that couple, the one everyone thinks is just perfect for each other. And we have been, so the third option would be devastating but may be necessary for a chance of mutual happiness.

I don't know what to say friend. I don't envy you your situation, for either of you. I'm sure it's not an easy time for him either. I...yeah, I got nothing. I hope it works out for you both.

To be fair, this is the response that literally every person I've asked for advice has had. So don't feel about coming up short on this. I think I'll make a thread for it myself, it could help me adjust. If I get what I want he doesn't get what he wants and vice versa.

 

[Politrukk]

The problem is with someone wanting to be identified as what they are not, is that doing so is literally impossible for a rational human being. It's not a matter of needing to be more open minded and accepting, its asking people to do something that is logically impossible for them to do.

Imagine I showed you a tomato and said "from now on, I want you to call this thing a bicycle". It is possible that you might start calling the tomatoes bicycles. Maybe because you want to humor me or because you're afraid of me. But in your mind you will think, "I'm calling tomatoes a bicycles now". The most you can do is say the words, the concept is impossible for you, or any rational person, to fully accept.

I think you have the right of it sir/madam.

Perhaps my reactions in this thread are a bit loaded but yours is a pretty clean cut view.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Edit: moving this comment to the thread for this.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

Only in the sense that that is definitively correct. If something were not "propagated by social factors only" but rather by the hormonal processes of sex differentiation, it would not be gender, it would be sex. The shape of a person's genitals, for example is not propagated by social factors only, so when we talk about the shape of a person's genitals we are describing their sex, specifically their morphological sex (which may not conform with their gonadal sex).

I will admit that I find the notion that complex patterns of human behaviour or detailed cognitive processes like thoughts and desires are predetermined by what kind of cells predominate in a person's gonads is kind of laughable. Anything which relies on substances within the body possessing seemingly magical properties or being able to produce extremely complex structures from incredibly simple coding causes my cynicism glands to start firing. But I have always said that once the mechanism for biological determination of sex typed behaviours can be demonstrated in its entirety, once it moves beyond simply "this behaviour exists, therefore biology" then I will freely admit my mistake in this regard.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

Only in the sense that that is definitively correct. If something were not "propagated by social factors only" but rather by the hormonal processes of sex differentiation, it would not be gender, it would be sex. The shape of a person's genitals, for example is not propagated by social factors only, so when we talk about the shape of a person's genitals we are describing their sex, specifically their morphological sex (which may not conform with their gonadal sex).

I will admit that I find the notion that complex patterns of human behaviour or detailed cognitive processes like thoughts and desires are predetermined by what kind of cells predominate in a person's gonads is kind of laughable. Anything which relies on substances within the body possessing seemingly magical properties or being able to produce extremely complex structures from incredibly simple coding causes my cynicism glands to start firing. But I have always said that once the mechanism for biological determination of sex typed behaviours can be demonstrated in its entirety, once it moves beyond simply "this behaviour exists, therefore biology" then I will freely admit my mistake in this regard.

Well, you are reducing an extremely complex thing down to a binary question, which is virtually never justified. We do know highly complex social behaviors can be instinctual, we have frequently observed such outside of humanity, and we have no real reason to suppose humans are special.

Complex expression of traits is based on a combination of both inherent type and environmental influences. This is true of virtually every other trait expressed in an animal (including humans), I see no reason why it should be different for mental processes.

You want to draw a clean line with gender on one side and sex on the other, social influences vs biological influences. Chances are that clean line does not exist.