What's Makes A Man/Woman?

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
I want to thank everyone who has posted. I did want to get a wide diversity of opinions on this. I have moved on from this question with a better understanding thanks to all of you.

Signa said:
Your ideas of gender are your own, and for you to decide how to define. I couldn't even tell you what I think makes me a man, but I know I'm a man. If the gear between your legs isn't enough to prove to yourself what you are, then you should get a DNA test done to make sure you're not intersex. If that's not enough, then just remember that whatever you feel is in your head, and it's up to you to figure out how much that actually matters to you to display externally. Just remember, people will treat you as what they see from you, so if they see a man, they will treat you like a man. If they see a man in woman's clothing, they will treat you like that. If you're comfortable with that for your own expression, that's great! I just ask that you don't require others to conform to what is in your head, as I have seen so much of lately. Your head is you, not me.
I have a live and let live attitude about life. So, I understand and agree with most of what you posted. It's the last couple of sentences that made want to respond.

There are a lot of terms and buzzwords that gets thrown around when it comes to the issue of transgender. Most of which I still don't understand. It's just a community trying to understand themselves better, because the science hasn't caught up to explain exactly why they are who they are. At the end of the day, what the community wants is basic respect. For example, if you see someone walk by you in a dress, and you think it's a guy. Please, don't do this...
If you can find that agreeable, then I think we can make some progress.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
953
206
48
Silvanus said:
Finis Rerum said:
Yes, and we call those people intersex. But that wasn't the question.
This is simply factually incorrect. Psychology and law aside, it's scientifically wrong, even if we're talking about biological sex. You don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, really ?

Intersex as term for all kinds of biological sex that doesn't fit neatly into the male/female scheme is nowadays normal usage. It also is used this way by the UN and has found itself in various legal codes. And if i google "Intersex science" i can find lots of papers using the term.

And you claim science tells otherwise ? How does science do it then ? (Only biological sex, only humans and i don't want only a list of all the possibilities, i want a system of classicfication that is used instead)
 

Headsprouter

Monster Befriender
Legacy
Oct 14, 2020
8,662
3
43
A man? Other than a miserable little pile of secrets, I'm not sure.

A woman? I don't have a quote for that one, sorry. It's possible Dracula meant the human race when he said "man", though.

Cishet male, about to dig himself an ignorant little hole, most likely. I had a semblance of a post that went into answering your question, but I've scrapped it because really, what's it worth if I'm just going to go into no specifics, cite no sources and constantly remind people to not hurt me?
Gender is enough of a mindfuck as it is, nevermind people somehow coming up with new ones. I don't think saying you're genderfluid and wearing "boy" and "girl" clothes on certain days is the best way to smash the gender binary, I'll leave it at that.

Congrats on coming to your realisation, OP. I can barely realise what I want to have for breakfast nevermind my identity.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,307
1,928
118
Country
United Kingdom
Satinavian said:
Oh, really ?

Intersex as term for all kinds of biological sex that doesn't fit neatly into the male/female scheme is nowadays normal usage. It also is used this way by the UN and has found itself in various legal codes. And if i google "Intersex science" i can find lots of papers using the term.

And you claim science tells otherwise ? How does science do it then ? (Only biological sex, only humans and i don't want only a list of all the possibilities, i want a system of classicfication that is used instead)
Yes, Intersex is a valid umbrella term. However, people whose chromosomes are not XX or XY can be medically designated as sexually male or female.

Medically, chromosomes are not solely definitive of biological sex, but people seem to have it in their heads that they are.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,110
625
118
Country
United Kingdom
inu-kun said:
I kinda doubt that academies are above that and as long as they don't reply (which they can do in an official capacity) there's no reason to believe the man is wrong.
Oh, academics are not above it. Like people in any profession, academics ***** like champions. However, noone is going to come out "in an official capacity" and talk to the media because:

1) It's extremely unprofessional, and academics have actual careers which could be harmed by displaying any lack of professionalism.
2) Speaking "in an official capacity" would ultimately make no difference without institutional backing. If it helps, I can say that I'm speaking "in an official capacity" right now.
3) Everyone knows that trials by media are unfair. There are already internal disciplinary procedures for handling allegations of misconduct, but these are not matters for public discussion because the potential for misrepresentation or mudslinging is very high. The only people who will go to the media are people who think that they, personally, have something to gain from doing so. In other words, people who are not actually interested in finding out what happened or deciding whether it was appropriate so much as inciting public sympathy and promoting their own name.
4) It's bad media strategy. As it stands, all we have is one lone student crying unfair about a decision which didn't go their way. It blew over pretty fast. Dredging it up again weeks after the fact isn't going to convince anyone, it's just going to put the whole thing back into the public eye.

inu-kun said:
And if it was a point they made it's certinely should be criticized, like if I'd want to enlist there and get the answer that I can't:
1) Because I don't have good enough grades.
2) Because I'm a dirty jew.

Even if 1 is correct it is still an (in this case) antisemitic answer and deserve to be called out and explained.
Well, if you got that answer, then someone is probably going to lose their job. Universities have very, very strict anti-discrimination policies, far stricter than most employers (because of their role in dealing with young people). Hatespeech is also a crime, so you could also go to the police if you so wanted, although they will probably be less effective than just reporting the problem to the institution.

I mean, you could call up your publicist straight away and go to the media with that, sure, but it would make no difference other than potentially prejudicing the internal or police investigation which would inevitably occur. Now, if you went through the internal investigation and at the end the institution did nothing or didn't go as far as you'd like (which has happened, I know a staff member who racially abused a student and kept their job - albeit with greater oversight and mandatory anti-racism training) then going to the media might be a good idea because at that point it is an institutional problem.

But running straight to the press is not even going to get you an explanation, because at that point there is nothing to explain. All they can tell you is that they're investigating.

inu-kun said:
Again, bring me the proof.
Proof of what. I'm describing basic generalisations about masters degrees and research and explaining how an ethics board things. I have a masters degree, I've taught masters students as a GTA, I know people who have served on ethics boards and I've even heard anecdotal stories of actual misconduct on the part of ethics boards (like male academics questioning whether someone can do a piece of research because they're a woman and they might be too emotionally fragile) so I'm not even ruling that out as a possibility. That's why we have internal oversight.

But Masters students do not have the training (or more importantly the time) to do a piece of research of the scope being described. Like, it is so out of line with the scope of what is possible for an MSc research project that I'm amazed I would have to explain this even to people without a background in research. It's PhD level research at least, and as mentioned PhDs take years to complete and then months or years to edit for publication. Your MSc is not the place to change the world, and every year many, many students have to be talked down from trying to do Masters dissertations which are far too ambitious or impossible. The vast majority listen and take that on board, and in doing so they learn an important lesson about managing a piece of research.

Secondly, there are very clear and obvious ethical concerns with researching people who are emotionally vulnerable, and when noone wants to take part in your research because they're traumatized that kind of suggests it might be a valid concern.

Thirdly, yes there is a clear risk of damage to the institution. As mentioned, universities often take the risk of reputational damage on the chin when research is clearly important or making a contribution, but it's proportional to the ammount they get back. With a taught masters student, they get nothing back. Worse than nothing, in fact, because by letting them do a project which is utterly impossible within the timeframe they are setting that student up to fail, which also reflects badly on them.

inu-kun said:
I can bet you would have changed your tone if it wasn't aligned to your favour. Nobody is asking for full free speech (which is a strawman), but there is a sane limit to how far people can thought police and this is a case of it.
"Aligned to my favour". Lol, wut.

I have no objection to people doing case studies on people detransitioning. Ideally, those people should have some kind of background or long term commitment to studying trans issues more generally and a willingness to develop the requisite contextual knowledge. What's not acceptable to me, and actually kind of bullshit, is someone with no research experience deciding on the basis of a single conversation with a surgeon who has performed SRS reversals that detransitioning is some kind of escalating phenomenon which demands we overturn a best practice founded on decades of research into transgender people. True, on one hand I have a political problem with that because it's recognisably dangerous, it's stigmatising to a very vulnerable community and dog whistling to people who want sticks to beat trans people with, hence why Caspian's academic defenders and "friends" are mostly conservative Jungians who think that trans people are delusional and TERFs who think that trans people are sexual deviants. However, my biggest problem with it is that it's just bad practice. It may meet the standard of free speech, but it doesn't meet the standard of accurate, complete and relevant speech, and speech which doesn't meet that standard has no place in an academic setting.

It took me 2.5 years before I knew what the conclusion of my research was going to be. Before that, I had a vague idea or hypothesis but I didn't have the knowledge to apply it as a direct claim and know that I could justify it every step of the way back. Deciding ahead of time that detransitioning is some kind of escalating threat which will blow our whole understanding of the medical ethics of treating transgender people out of the water is not exhibiting any kind of responsibility to the truth or the kind of restraint I would expect as a researcher (and bear in mind, in research terms I'm still a baby).

If I were to propose this piece of research, I would simply propose to investigate the self-perceived life histories of a small number of detransitioners (like, maybe two or three depending on the precise length of the project) with the goal of figuring out what they feel led them to make a bad decision. From there, it should be easy to identify questionable factors in their treatment which might be worth following up in future research. Achievable within the timeframe, much less ethically risky, less blatantly politically motivated and consequentially less likely to call the institution into any kind of disrepute. It's not going to change the world and blow all our minds with radical mind bullets, but unless you're an established researcher with several published books you aren't going to regardless.

Part of why masters students are there is to learn how to properly frame and propose a piece of research. I just did it, because I have a masters and I learned a lot from doing one. Students who aren't willing to learn in this way are not going to do well.

inu-kun said:
They have the ability to respond, especially to what they did and did not say. All you do is engage in victim blaming.
Not really. There is nothing to respond to while the internal investigation is in progress.

And lol @ victim blaming. Sorry, but if being subject to procedure is victimhood, then I'm a victim too. I've gone through an ethics board. Heck, I had to spend a summer doing some pretty fundamental corrections after my upgrade viva before being approved. I didn't realize that muh free speech was being so cruelly trampled, otherwise maybe I would have gone to the media and got some free self-promotion out of it!
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Mr Companion said:
A man is pride, power, stoicism, independence, recklessness, lust
A woman is tenacity, wisdom, control, soul, willpower, caution, creation

I've always enjoyed being a man so I can't comment on being trans but I'd recommend picking the traits you like from either.
....Uh.

I'm a rather cautious man who enjoys writing. And I'm rather shit at being stoic. And, you know, I'd like to think that I'm fairly smart.

So...what does that make me?
 

Delicious Anathema

New member
Aug 25, 2009
261
0
0
Assuming there's no intersex disorder:

-Do you have a penis and testicles?

-Do you have a Y chromosome?

-Can you drive well?


If yes to the above, congratulations, you're a man. Embrace it, it's a great thing.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,474
2,277
118
Country
United States
Delicious Anathema said:
-Can you drive well?
Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.
 

Delicious Anathema

New member
Aug 25, 2009
261
0
0
altnameJag said:
Delicious Anathema said:
-Can you drive well?
Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.
How did it become a thing? Do you even drive?

Men usually are in the most devastating car crashes because of drunk driving/high speed, but the most frequent (harmless but annoying) day-to-day driver stupidity and bad parking is almost a female monopoly.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,474
2,277
118
Country
United States
Delicious Anathema said:
altnameJag said:
Delicious Anathema said:
-Can you drive well?
Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.
How did it become a thing? Do you even drive?

Men usually are in the most devastating car crashes because of drunk driving/high speed, but the most frequent (harmless but annoying) day-to-day driver stupidity and bad parking is almost a female monopoly.
See, I generally count the dude careening down the street at 8 miles above the speed limit , switching lanes like he was in a Furious movie to be a worse driver than the gal that made me wait a few more seconds at a stop sign because they didn't signal their right turn.

I take annoying well. I mean, I hang out with gamers.
 

Delicious Anathema

New member
Aug 25, 2009
261
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Delicious Anathema said:
altnameJag said:
Delicious Anathema said:
-Can you drive well?
Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.
How did it become a thing? Do you even drive?

Men usually are in the most devastating car crashes because of drunk driving/high speed, but the most frequent (harmless but annoying) day-to-day driver stupidity and bad parking is almost a female monopoly.
And how does that get simplified into "women can't drive" when in reality no one can drive but you'll probably live another day with a female driver

I mean, should we add "ignore your own faults and blame women" to your list of "you might be a man if" items
Serious accidents happen less than the everyday bickering, that's my explanation for why the stereotype exists.

Also, it was a joke. Way to make a big deal out of nothing.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
altnameJag said:
Delicious Anathema said:
-Can you drive well?
Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.
There was a myth that women are exceptionally bad in terms of spacial awareness and driving was the task that requires a lot of it. The reality is that while yes, there is a difference, it is negligible. Women tend to be more "careful drivers" and less road rage which is what the insurers reflected.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,474
2,277
118
Country
United States
Delicious Anathema said:
Also, it was a joke. Way to make a big deal out of nothing.
Jokes have punchlines. That was a stereotype based on nothing you got called out on.
 

man2man

New member
Nov 10, 2017
8
0
0
I'm transgender.

Genetically I am a man. I cannot change my genetics. My shoulders will always be broad, my bones will always be more dense than a womans bones, I dont have "hips" I dont have real lady parts.

I have recently accepted that the way I feel is in defiance of genetic and biological reality. Also I was ok with being a boy until the age of around 17.

As good atheists and science based human beings, we must face the biological reality. And I do, which means that I am in denial and that is ok. It is not worth going against my core values and against science to make myself feel better aboutg myself.