Poll: There are only 2 genders....right?

[viscomica]

Oh boy, how I love this forum.
The people have spoken!
(Seriously though, there isn't a day the first page of the Off-topic Discussion isn't filled with the words "gender","feminism" or something of the sort. Not saying that there's anything wrong with it, but it's starting to feel like some people would rather create threads that they KNOW will get loaaaaads of comments rather than thinking something original and relevant to say)

 

[Johnny Impact]

Your gender is dictated by the organs you had at birth, regardless of any thought process or surgery you may have undergone since. Of course, you may look at it a different way if you wish. Make it as complicated as you want. It's your life. I really couldn't care less, which is why I keep to simple binaries. It's not worth thinking about.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

There was a FaceBook update about a year ago that allowed for quite a lot of choices with 56 options, but I'm not sure where this 64 was coming from. To be fair, there was only really a few options considering many you'd be able to fit in many different categories. I technically fit 5 categories.

Oh, and disagree.

Wait, all this time of hearing about the infamous 56 gender options ... and that's the list? The vast majority of them are simply double ups, or very slight variations in terminology.

I'd say two.

Not as in two absolutes, but even looking at that Facebook list there's a complete absence of a true third.

Everything is either male with some prefix, female with some prefix, neither with some prefix, both with some prefix or in-between with some prefix.

The very first option on the list is agender, followed closely by androgynous. You didn't read the list, did you?

 

[Eliam_Dar]

I'm curious as to what agendas you specifically mean there.

sorry if I sounded like a conspiracy theorist or something like that, but there are certain movements that are redefining certain words to suit their ideology. Unfortunately most social sciences are prone to this, since the object and subject of study cannot be separated.
As for what agendas I mean, you may be surprised that I was not referring to the LGBT community at all, but to radical feminists (and similar political movements), and lets leave it at that.
I have already stated in a previous post what I think that gender is (for me it is intrinsically linked to the biological function), if anything is really a social construct, that is the gender identity, not the gender itself.
Having said that, I also would like to add that I actually support (as I have stated previously) the idea that anyone has the right to be identified as they please.
To quote myself:

Having said that, if you are a man that feels like a woman, and desires to be addressed in that manner, I don't have any problem, and I will do that. In fact, I don't really mind to use any personal pronoum, and acknowledge any gender identity anyone desires (but don't expect from me to know at first sight).
Marry whoever you like, love anyone you want, as long as you are consenting adults go ahead.

Am I right? I don't know, but so far that is the conclusion that I have. Can it change? yes, nothing is set in stone, I like to consider myself open minded.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'm curious as to what agendas you specifically mean there.

sorry if I sounded like a conspiracy theorist or something like that, but there are certain movements that are redefining certain words to suit their ideology. Unfortunately most social sciences are prone to this, since the object and subject of study cannot be separated.
As for what agendas I mean, you may be surprised that I was not referring to the LGBT community at all, but to radical feminists (and similar political movements), and lets leave it at that.
I have already stated in a previous post what I think that gender is (for me it is intrinsically linked to the biological function), if anything is really a social construct, that is the gender identity, not the gender itself.
Having said that, I also would like to add that I actually support (as I have stated previously) the idea that anyone has the right to be identified as they please.
To quote myself:

Having said that, if you are a man that feels like a woman, and desires to be addressed in that manner, I don't have any problem, and I will do that. In fact, I don't really mind to use any personal pronoum, and acknowledge any gender identity anyone desires (but don't expect from me to know at first sight).
Marry whoever you like, love anyone you want, as long as you are consenting adults go ahead.

Am I right? I don't know, but so far that is the conclusion that I have. Can it change? yes, nothing is set in stone, I like to consider myself open minded.

Oh god radical feminists, yeah, just... Even most regular feminists are weird about transgender people. Like we're taking something away from them.

Yeah you're right enough. Personally I see it this sex as in physical biology and gender as in identity are how I like to separate the terms, that way it can be rather clear which you're referring to. Though with your explanation I will agree that you seem like quite the open minded sort.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Wait, all this time of hearing about the infamous 56 gender options ... and that's the list? The vast majority of them are simply double ups, or very slight variations in terminology.

I'd say two.

Not as in two absolutes, but even looking at that Facebook list there's a complete absence of a true third.

Everything is either male with some prefix, female with some prefix, neither with some prefix, both with some prefix or in-between with some prefix.

The very first option on the list is agender, followed closely by androgynous. You didn't read the list, did you?

Kind of the impression I got with my look at at the list as well. Redundancy and I think it could be condensed further than 56 separate terms. That and some just don't actually seem related to gender as I understand it. Granted, my understanding probably isn't that great.

And I'm personally wondering whether I'd find a lack of gender identity or an androgynous identity as being genders in themselves. But I should probably stop talking about these things until I've at least tried to self-educate myself a bit more.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Wait, all this time of hearing about the infamous 56 gender options ... and that's the list? The vast majority of them are simply double ups, or very slight variations in terminology.

I'd say two.

Not as in two absolutes, but even looking at that Facebook list there's a complete absence of a true third.

Everything is either male with some prefix, female with some prefix, neither with some prefix, both with some prefix or in-between with some prefix.

The very first option on the list is agender, followed closely by androgynous. You didn't read the list, did you?

Kind of the impression I got with my look at at the list as well. Redundancy and I think it could be condensed further than 56 separate terms. That and some just don't actually seem related to gender as I understand it. Granted, my understanding probably isn't that great.

And I'm personally wondering whether I'd find a lack of gender identity or an androgynous identity as being genders in themselves. But I should probably stop talking about these things until I've at least tried to self-educate myself a bit more.

Possibly one of the stupidest redundancies on it are the trans male/man/female/woman and trans* male/man/female/woman. Trans* male isn't even a thing. Trans* is basically just a short hand for saying trans plus everyone else outside of the binary; it's not an actual identity in itself.

Trans is a prefix that has meaning in terms of gender, trans* is an umbrella term.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

I'm curious as to what agendas you specifically mean there.

sorry if I sounded like a conspiracy theorist or something like that, but there are certain movements that are redefining certain words to suit their ideology. Unfortunately most social sciences are prone to this, since the object and subject of study cannot be separated.
As for what agendas I mean, you may be surprised that I was not referring to the LGBT community at all, but to radical feminists (and similar political movements), and lets leave it at that.
I have already stated in a previous post what I think that gender is (for me it is intrinsically linked to the biological function), if anything is really a social construct, that is the gender identity, not the gender itself.
Having said that, I also would like to add that I actually support (as I have stated previously) the idea that anyone has the right to be identified as they please.
To quote myself:

Having said that, if you are a man that feels like a woman, and desires to be addressed in that manner, I don't have any problem, and I will do that. In fact, I don't really mind to use any personal pronoum, and acknowledge any gender identity anyone desires (but don't expect from me to know at first sight).
Marry whoever you like, love anyone you want, as long as you are consenting adults go ahead.

Am I right? I don't know, but so far that is the conclusion that I have. Can it change? yes, nothing is set in stone, I like to consider myself open minded.

Oh god radical feminists, yeah, just... Even most regular feminists are weird about transgender people. Like we're taking something away from them.

Yeah you're right enough. Personally I see it this sex as in physical biology and gender as in identity are how I like to separate the terms, that way it can be rather clear which you're referring to. Though with your explanation I will agree that you seem like quite the open minded sort.

And I just saw you other thread, I'll read it in detail as soon as I have some time =)

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Biologically speaking there are two genders, with a caveat of a "third" that really is more of a chromosomal fuckup that results in hermaphrodites. But aside from that, yes there are only two genders when it comes to biology.
In terms of gender identity, which is a concept I'm still kind of wary about speaking about since I'm unsure exactly where I fall in that category, apparently there are many different gender identities that people can equate themselves to.
One can have all the cosmetic surgery in the world to "change" their gender's look, and have supplements to make them feel more like that gender, but biologically speaking they're never going to be that gender, just a facsimile.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything against people who want to look more like the gender they feel they should have been born as, but in all honesty one should still recognize that biologically you can't change your chromosomes. At least not yet and thus by scientific terms, there are only two genders.

Let me amend something here: The usage of the word "gender" has changed in recent years and has nothing to do with biology anymore apparently, but its tough for someone who grew up being taught that male and female were genders and had to do with what chromosomes you were born with.
I try to differentiate the term by using the additive "identity" so as not to confuse myself and others who grew up with the same knowledge.
In today's world, biology uses the word "sex" to define male or female rather than "gender" but I still have trouble with it because its years of conditioning. I've nothing against anyone who feels they don't identify with the gender/sex they were born as, which to my thinking is called "gender identity". People will probably tell me I'm wrong in my thinking but the concept is one I've always had trouble changing my personal definition of, hence why I try to use "gender identity" rather than just "gender".

 

[Olas]

People here are saying that sex is a biology thing, while gender is a cultural thing, but it's still a cultural thing based on biology.

In roughly the same way a movie like Rudy or The Amityville Horror is "based on" a true story, perhaps.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[NeutralDrow]

People here are saying that sex is a biology thing, while gender is a cultural thing, but it's still a cultural thing based on biology.

In roughly the same way a movie like Rudy or The Amityville Horror is "based on" a true story, perhaps.

What's that supposed to mean?

It means that just as a movie can plausibly claim to be "based on a true story" with a bare minimum of factors having actually occurred in real life (there was a guy named Rudy who played in a Notre Dame football game; there is a house in Amityville), cultural gender definitions can be claimed as "based on biology" from very minimal, broad standards (a tendency towards different muscle distribution, capability of childbirth).

And both tend to be claimed for manipulative reasons, movies because being "based on a true story" drums up more interest than its own merits, and genders being tied to biology in order to claim their essentialist status. Not accusing you of this, of course, but "biology" tends to be claimed by people who believe it to be an equal or near-equal to culture as an influence on gender, while either not realizing or ignoring that even the definitions of "femininity" and "masculinity" vary widely depending on the time period and group of people examined.

In other words, it's technically true, but doesn't say nearly as much as it's trying to imply.

 

[lunavixen]

Biologically there are three sexes (including Intersex), but sex =/= gender. Gender is more to do with how people identify (cisgender, transgender and genderqueer for example), and there are more than 2 gender identities (I can think of at least 8 off the top of my head). This is different again to sexual orientation.

It's a complicated issue, not something that can really be asked as a binary question without clarifying terms.

 

[sumanoskae]

If you want to talk biology, then yes. But people often use gender to refer to sexual self identity, which could be a vast spectrum. As for why anyone feels the need for 64 different ways to describe their sexuality, I couldn't tell you. There exists no perfect summery of you; nobody except you has the context necessary for understanding yourself.

It's like trying to paint a self portrait by assembling scraps of paper torn from other artwork.

I understand that many people feel like society's idea of gender doesn't have a place for them, that it excludes them. But it must be understood that this is a problem inherent in any system of archetypes. You're never going to find someone who has managed to encapsulate you; for all practical ends, it's statistically impossible.

Back to the painting metaphor: How do you expect someone else to paint accurate self portrait of you, when they've never even met you?

Defining yourself and other's with archetypes will make you feel isolated, because archetypes do not describe anyone; they describe the impressions s few individuals have of humanity as a whole; the few surface elements that people have in common, or at least seem to have in common.

People who fit in do not ,in fact, fit in; they're just very good at hiding the things that make them different. They are not surrounded by kindred spirits, they just conform; express to others only the things they have in common.

One thing we all have in common is that we get lonely.

But hey, just because I don't get it, doesn't mean people can't benefit from it. If system with 64 gender archetypes instead of 2 makes you feel more in touch with yourself or makes your life better, that's your business; no harm, no foul.

 

[LetalisK]

Holy shit. I fucking love this thread. For years I thought I was one of the few that drew a distinction between sex and gender this way. To mimic what many people said there are two sexes, but gender is something culturally based that defines one's relationship to societal norms and expectations. While we can probably create a number of gender categories to classify the vast majority of people, that relationship has theoretically infinite possibilities as I see it as less of a check box and more of a totality of our experience. Kind of like how you can classify people by certain personalities, but in reality everyone who is a Red personality, though they may share many traits, don't all act like they're carbon copies of each other.

 

[Hattingston]

There are more than two genders. Gender and sex are two entirely different and distinct things, and while society typically pairs having a vagina with being a woman and having a penis with being a man, that is frequently not the case. There are also people who are agender (don't identify as any gender) people who are genderfluid (shift between different genders), as well as many other genders. I don't know how many genders there are, but they do not necessarily correlate to sex. Gender is a psychological thing that has to do with brain chemistry, and from what I understand most psychologists acknowledge that there are more than two genders.

 

[Hagi]

I'd say two.

Not as in two absolutes, but even looking at that Facebook list there's a complete absence of a true third.

Everything is either male with some prefix, female with some prefix, neither with some prefix, both with some prefix or in-between with some prefix.

The very first option on the list is agender, followed closely by androgynous. You didn't read the list, did you?

There's nothing on that list that can't be described in terms of male and female.

Imagine a graph with two axes. One male. One female.

Everything on that list is on that graph. Agender is at 0, 0. Androgynous is at 5, 5. Male is at 0, 10. Female is at 10, 0. Most real people probably at a point with a heck load of decimals.

All the same there's no third axis. No third gender. Merely combinations of the two.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'd say two.

Not as in two absolutes, but even looking at that Facebook list there's a complete absence of a true third.

Everything is either male with some prefix, female with some prefix, neither with some prefix, both with some prefix or in-between with some prefix.

The very first option on the list is agender, followed closely by androgynous. You didn't read the list, did you?

There's nothing on that list that can't be described in terms of male and female.

Imagine a graph with two axes. One male. One female.

Everything on that list is on that graph. Agender is at 0, 0. Androgynous is at 5, 5. Male is at 0, 10. Female is at 10, 0. Most real people probably at a point with a heck load of decimals.

All the same there's no third axis. No third gender. Merely combinations of the two.

Well if you think about it being genderless/agender in personality is a gender from identity stand point having no gender, which makes it a hard to grasp concept. As is Bigender which is actively identifying as both, then you have androgynous which identifies and projects as both and neither at the same time. The you have genderfluid people who switch gender identity internally not on a whim, but because suddenly their brain tells them they're female that day, or male, or really neither, or both. Genderqueer people who identify outside of established gender norms, despite their birth sex, and their gender identity is fluid and/or nonconforming. Genderneutral who consider all gender ideals to be equally valid for them, but that identity is not actively applicable to either sex in particular.

With gender being an active state of mind and identity, it can get very existential in concept. While the binary exists, many people fall outside the norms of the binary, even cisgender(gender identity matching biological sex) males and females don't always conform to all standards of their birth gender. Purely binary gender is a western concept, and it's strict in the sense that it allows no deviation from norms conforming to birth sex. Where as in many cultures around the world, and many through out history consider people who don't conform to be outside the sex binary, thus a third/fourth/etc gender.

 

[Ishigami]

The statement is correct. There are only two genders.
The gender may differ from the sex but there are still only two valid options.

 

[Hagi]

Well if you think about it being genderless/agender in personality is a gender from identity stand point having no gender, which makes it a hard to grasp concept. As is Bigender which is actively identifying as both, then you have androgynous which identifies and projects as both and neither at the same time. The you have genderfluid people who switch gender identity internally not on a whim, but because suddenly their brain tells them they're female that day, or male, or really neither, or both. Genderqueer people who identify outside of established gender norms, despite their birth sex, and their gender identity is fluid and/or nonconforming. Genderneutral who consider all gender ideals to be equally valid for them, but that identity is not actively applicable to either sex in particular.

With gender being an active state of mind and identity, it can get very existential in concept. While the binary exists, many people fall outside the norms of the binary, even cisgender(gender identity matching biological sex) males and females don't always conform to all standards of their birth gender. Purely binary gender is a western concept, and it's strict in the sense that it allows no deviation from norms conforming to birth sex. Where as in many cultures around the world, and many through out history consider people who don't conform to be outside the sex binary, thus a third/fourth/etc gender.

I don't really see any of these as genders much as I don't see red with blue spots as a color.

It's a valid answer to the question what color your cup is. But it's not a color in and of itself. It's a mix of colors.

You only mention mixes of male and female, sometimes changing. Your own language reflects that. You only mention male, female, neither and both. There's no distinct third, let alone more.

 

[Sandjube]

Maybe some time ago I would have answered differently but I frankly no longer care and just agree with people these days.