Comments

1. prae says

   27 August 2015 at 8:25 am

   Can’t we just get away from the whole concept of “gender”? Why does it have to be part of one’s identity? I think it’s about as harmful as “racial identity” and both are as ridiculous as a hypothetical “hairstyle identity” would be.
2. rietpluim says

   27 August 2015 at 8:39 am

   Some thoughts about semantics. Words have multiple meanings. Suppose “male” is defined as “having an XY chromosome pair”. Then we could use “male” for everyone and everywhere we would otherwise use “having an XY chromosome pair”, which makes writing and conversation shorter.
   The problem is that “male” doesn’t just mean “having an XY chromosome pair”. Suppose “male” also means “being good at math” then there’s a problem when someone has an XY chromosome pair and is not good at at math. Of course the problem is with essentialism but it’s easier to put the blame on the deviant.

   In short: gender essentialism sucks. It expects people having XY chromosomes to also have a penis, enjoy beer and sports, feel attracted to people with XX chromosomes, et cetera. And it expects people having XX chromosome to have breasts and a vagina, enjoy tea and chat, nurse the kids and do the household. Or better: it doesn’t expect it, it demands it, and that’s where the real problem starts.
3. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

   27 August 2015 at 8:40 am

   re 1:
   exactly. re “hairstyle identity”: reminicent of the ’60s attempted insults at “hippies” with long hair, “U girl or boy????”

   At least TARGET is heading in the correct direction, by removing the gender labels from their aisles of toys for kids.
   ~
   How many centuries before the clothes depts lose gender labels. (like ‘girl jeans’ vs ‘jeans’)??
4. Thumper says

   27 August 2015 at 8:46 am

   There is also deficiency of logic. If you take any diverse set, divide it in two, and calculate the mean of any given parameter for both, you’ll get…two numbers. This does not validate your initial division as appropriate. It does not mean your artificial dichotomy reveals an absolute truth about the world. It does not mean you have encapsulated the essence of your two groups in a single simple metric. In particular, it’s possible to have a mean that does not describe a single individual in your group accurately.

   This. This is literally my problem with gender essentialism. You know, apart from the fact it’s actively harmful. And the mere fact that it’s an innaccurate generalisation stemming from pre-conceived notions means it’s entirely self-sustaining.

   “There are men and there are women”

   “Well, that’s a little simplistic, but…”

   “Is not! Look, here are some statistics that prove, PROVE, that women have more accidents when attempting to park a car than men do. Because brains.”

   “…what?”

   “Because they’re worse at physics and spacial awareness.”

   “Wait, seriously, what?”

   “Here are some statistics that prove, PROVE, that there are less women physicists and less famous female sports personalities. Ergo…”

   Repeat ad nauseum.
5. Thumper says

   27 August 2015 at 8:50 am

   It’s begging the question, is what I’m trying to say.
6. rietpluim says

   27 August 2015 at 9:22 am

   @prae #1 – Sorry, won’t work. I quite happily identify myself as male. I sympathize with anybody who also identifies as male¹ and whose identity is not accepted by others. Can’t we just accept people the way they are? Methinks that is a better question.

   ¹ or female, or neither, or both.
7. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

   27 August 2015 at 9:57 am

   I don’t think we can get rid of ideas of either race or gender, short of some sort of apocalyptic event forcing humans to change their life styles and cultures entirely.

   We are where we are. Race and gender aren’t just present now, they have a huge complicated past, a past that is influencing lives of pretty much everyone. I can’t even say I hope we make skin color or gender identity about as relevant as hair color – many societies still hang on to a hell of a lot of stereotypes involving hair color. People are assholes. There is no helping us.

   What we need is to work on equality for all, regardless of race, gender, nationality, age… anything and everything.
8. prae says

   27 August 2015 at 10:01 am

   @rietpluim #6: I think getting rid of labels would be an important step in accepting people. And I myself probably wouldn’t even notice if I woke up as a woman tomorrow.

   But well, I do have trouble understanding transsexuals. From what I overheard it’s really important to them to be called using specific gender-coded pronouns, having a specific gender-coded name, wear specific gender-coded clothes… why?! I would understand it perfectly well if they just would want to have a different kind of body, but those things? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe someone here could explain…?
9. jehk says

   27 August 2015 at 10:13 am

   One of the major benefits of being cis is I don’t have to constantly fucking explain myself.
10. Thumper says

    27 August 2015 at 10:18 am

    … I am a man!

    Sorry. Can’t believe no one’s gone there yet.
11. Saad says

    27 August 2015 at 10:30 am

    prae, #8

    I do have trouble understanding transsexuals. From what I overheard it’s really important to them to be called using specific gender-coded pronouns, having a specific gender-coded name, wear specific gender-coded clothes… why?! I would understand it perfectly well if they just would want to have a different kind of body, but those things? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

    But all those things are true of cis people too, so why single out trans people about it as if it’s something they uniquely do?

    It’s really important for a lot of cis people to be called using specific gender pronouns, having gender-coded names, gender-coded clothes, etc.
12. Rowan vet-tech says

    27 August 2015 at 10:30 am

    Prae, if I woke up tomorrow and my body was now in possession of a penis I would be beyond horrified. I am a woman, and I strongly identify as such, even when much of my behavior is coded “masculine “. A penis would be like those face hugger aliens to me : something terrifying and awful.

    That you don’t understand this is not my problem. Just accept that to some, to many, people gender is important.
13. addicted44 says

    27 August 2015 at 10:31 am

    @6 – The victims of labelization are not the ones empowered to get rid of labels. It’s the people who are privileged and using the labels to discriminate against others that are the ones who need to get rid of labels. Yet, they never do so. However, when the discriminated against group decides to own the label that has been assigned to them, and use it as a source of inspiration and power to negate the discrimination coming against them, that’s when the privileged start whining about how there should be no labels at all. Kinda like the the “All Lives Matter” nonsensical response to the “Black Lives Matter” slogan.

    I’m cis male, and I cannot understand WHY transsexual people would want to do certain things they choose to do. But you know what? As far as I am concerned, my understanding is completely irrelevant, because the stuff they want to do is absolutely their choice and the only justification, if any, they need for it is that they want to do it. Unlike the actions of the people spewing hate against them, their actions don’t hurt anyone else.
14. Gregory Greenwood says

    27 August 2015 at 10:37 am

    Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought @ 7;

    I don’t think we can get rid of ideas of either race or gender, short of some sort of apocalyptic event forcing humans to change their life styles and cultures entirely.

    We are where we are. Race and gender aren’t just present now, they have a huge complicated past, a past that is influencing lives of pretty much everyone. I can’t even say I hope we make skin color or gender identity about as relevant as hair color – many societies still hang on to a hell of a lot of stereotypes involving hair color. People are assholes.

    In the short to medium term on a civilisational timescale, I tend to agree – people like their shorthand means of identifying general groups for convenience if nothing else, and it will be extremely difficult to force them to abandon gender, race or other social identifier words and their associated concepts entirely because that aspect of our system of language is so widespread and entrenched.

    There is no helping us.

    Here, I hope you are wrong. The road will no doubt be long and difficult, but language and social norms have changed in the past, and I believe they can change again. I still think humanity can be more, can be better than it is – we need to have the conviction to strive to take the first small steps on a path toward change, in the full knowledge that none of us, and none of our children or perhaps even our children’s children, will ever live to see the goal realised. That the fight will be long, and that we will all fall before the opening skirmishes even come to a close, does not mean that it is unwinnable. We owe it to future generations to try.

    What we need is to work on equality for all, regardless of race, gender, nationality, age… anything and everything.

    This is the crux of it – as you say, if we can bring forth genuine and meaningful equality for all, then at least that will help take the sting out of the deficiencies of our language as it is commonly used. If we can forge a true principle of practical equality in day to day life, then the conventions of language will most likely follow, hopefully sooner rather than later.
15. mithrandir says

    27 August 2015 at 11:03 am

    Rowan@12: My own anecdotal data point is the opposite – if I woke up tomorrow to find my penis had been replaced by a vagina, I’d… well, I’d be concerned about the practical problems transgender people face when transitioning, like my legal identity, being acknowledged as the same person by friends, family, coworkers, etc. But horror at the personal level wouldn’t be one of them.

    However, all that means is that you and I have different levels of emotional attachment to a particular gender – you identify strongly as a particular gender, I don’t. You’re certainly not wrong, any more than a trans person is wrong to strongly identify as a particular gender (which, in their case, doesn’t happen to match their external anatomy).

    Incidentally, I’m also quite aware that I still count as cisgender as far as privilege is concerned – I’m comfortable with publicly identifying as the gender that matches my anatomy, so I don’t have to face any of the problems trans* people face.
16. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    27 August 2015 at 11:18 am

    prae @8:

    But well, I do have trouble understanding transsexuals. From what I overheard it’s really important to them to be called using specific gender-coded pronouns, having a specific gender-coded name, wear specific gender-coded clothes… why?! I would understand it perfectly well if they just would want to have a different kind of body, but those things? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe someone here could explain…?

    No offense, but how hard have you tried?
    Seriously, there is a wealth of information on the internet about this. Have you tried digging any up on your own?
17. scienceavenger says

    27 August 2015 at 11:30 am

    One other factor that leads people to adopt gender essentialism is a kind of innumeracy

    Despite what they may say, most people can only intellectually handle tjhree proportions: 0, 50%, and 100%. This is why you see so many retorts to a general problem, say discrimination against blacks, that reference a single contrary data point (say Obama’s presidency). Since they’ve now proved the likelihood of black success is not zero, it must be 50/50, just like everyone else.
18. Dauphni says

    27 August 2015 at 12:01 pm

    To the people engaging in the “what if I woke up with a penis/vagina” thought experiment, you are reducing the whole of gender to a single anatomical part. It just doesn’t work that way. For example, if as a man you suddenly had a vagina, and that would be the only thing that changed, how does that turn you into a woman? Hint: it doesn’t. You are still the same person, with the same personality, and the same gender identity. Sure, you might or might not feel discomfort with the situation, and you might or might not want to take steps to remedy it, but in the end you’re a man if you’re a man, regardless of anatomy.
19. Bruce Keeler says

    27 August 2015 at 12:07 pm

    …I swear, I think the only statistical measure most people understand is the mean.

    You’re being way too kind. Hardly any could define it, and most couldn’t distinguish it from the mode or median if pressed.
20. rietpluim says

    27 August 2015 at 12:14 pm

    @Dauphni #18 – Interesting thought experiment though. If I suddenly had a vagina, it wouldn’t turn me into a woman, but it would turn me into a trans person. I wonder how that would influence my identity.
21. Rowan vet-tech says

    27 August 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Dauphni, you are right and I apologize. I was attempting to engage a particular point and failed to realize the implications, and that was wrong of me.
22. Caine says

    27 August 2015 at 12:46 pm

    rietpluim @ 20:

    If I suddenly had a vagina, it wouldn’t turn me into a woman, but it would turn me into a trans person.

    There’s a whole lot of missing the point going on in the thread. Early on, importance is placed on genitals, and if I were emperor, this one thing I’d get rid of – the instant association of gender with genitals. Gender is in the brain. If you can’t understand that, you’re not going to successfully understand much at all.
23. unclefrogy says

    27 August 2015 at 12:58 pm

    I am not so sure that it is innumeracy that is the problem as it is a fear of and a reluctance to actually think. It is just too much effort and too risky. The fear of doing it wrong and ending up on the “wrong side” of an issue and being vulnerable.
    In this issue in particular there is also the realization of the personal abuse and sexual abuse are not a rare thing but is something that is usually kept secret. It is twisted at the root all the way down.
    to have all the equality issues resolved favorably will take time how long is the question and probably depends on the level of civilization and its interaction continuing at this level at least. As we see it is starting in some smaller subsets of the population first and by accepting these changes in understanding and what they imply we can foster the spread of these ideas and attitudes.
    And that is not a small feet.
    uncle frogy
24. corwyn says

    27 August 2015 at 1:09 pm

    @1:

    Can’t we just get away from the whole concept of “gender”?

    Doesn’t seem likely. We care about the gender of our (neutered!) pets.
25. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    27 August 2015 at 1:15 pm

    @rietpluim #6: I think getting rid of labels would be an important step in accepting people. And I myself probably wouldn’t even notice if I woke up as a woman tomorrow.

    But well, I do have trouble understanding transsexuals. From what I overheard it’s really important to them to be called using specific gender-coded pronouns, having a specific gender-coded name, wear specific gender-coded clothes… why?! I would understand it perfectly well if they just would want to have a different kind of body, but those things? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe someone here could explain…?

    Assuming you’re genuinely coming from the same place I was, and not just “never thought about it before, what’s the big deal?!”…

    Not everyone experiences gender the way you do. Even people who have ever, in their lives, given a single critical thought to societal gender messages. “Degree of gender identification” is another trait that varies among people at what appears to be a deep neurochemical level. It’s as important* for people who have a weak sense of gender identification (or “attachment” per mithrandir’s rendering) to understand this and not try to project their own feelings onto others as it is for people who have a strong sense of attachment.

    *to a first approximation.

    But all those things are true of cis people too, so why single out trans people about it as if it’s something they uniquely do?

    It’s really important for a lot of cis people to be called using specific gender pronouns, having gender-coded names, gender-coded clothes, etc.

    I’ve had responses like prae’s, before I educated myself. It was the part where trans people had clearly actually thought about gender messages, rather than unquestioningly accepting the societal messages as I assumed cis people with a strong gender attachment had, yet (apparently) embraced a slight varient of gender essentialism*, just decoupled from physical anatomy, that baffled me.

    *that is, the idea of “maleness” or “femaleness” as A) coherent and B) a “package deal” C) whose content, for the most part, was consistent with The Societal Messages.
26. rietpluim says

    27 August 2015 at 1:18 pm

    @Caine #22 – I think that is exactly the point of this experiment. Dauphni already argued that gender is not defined by genitals. Many people think it is. Asking them “if you woke up tomorrow…” may help them see differently.
27. rietpluim says

    27 August 2015 at 1:21 pm

    @Caine #22 – For clarity: I wholeheartedly agree with you, I just think the thought experiment is interesting nonetheless.
28. ragdish says

    27 August 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Neural beings are we, not this crude genital matter.
29. ChasCPeterson says

    27 August 2015 at 2:03 pm

    come on. I have no problem with the vast majority of that article (though I could quibble). Certainly no problem with the conclusion that “The way we treat people based on their gender is a stronger force in the perpetuation of sexism than evolution. Let’s not contribute to it. ”

    But come on. This:

    intersex, transgender, and otherwise gender non-conforming people challenge the notion that gender expression is tied to chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, and other physical characteristics often cited as the basis for femininity and masculinity.

    is true enough of “gender expression”, but to say that it means that “There Are More Than Two Sexes” is just stupid, if the concept of biological sex has any meaning at all (as, it is universally acknowledged for all sexually reproducing organisms except by some sometimes for humans, it does).
    There are two (2) functional biological sexes in mammals (as in almost all other sexually reproducing organisms). There are rare-to-rarish individuals that are difficult to categorize phenotypically, and rarer individuals that simply cannot be categorized into either sex, but these people do not constitute third or fifth or whatever sexes. There are still just the two that can (and must) function together in reproduction,, and then people who don’t fit into either. The distribution of biological sex is not a smooth spectrum at all; it’s massively and overwhelmingly bimodal. I’m not talking about ‘gender’ in any of its meanings. The author conflates the concepts.
    So some unfortunately ideology-over-reality hyperbole there imo.
30. mithrandir says

    27 August 2015 at 2:11 pm

    @18: To the extent that my discussion of the “anatomy change” thought experiment might have reinforced the societal tendency to reduce gender to anatomy, I apologize for that. I’d also like to apologize for any other errors I have made in that post that I lack the understanding to articulate.

    I guess the thing I most wanted to do with that post was to emphasize that one should not tell other people how they should define gender for themselves, what aspects of themselves (anatomical, psychological, social) they consider important to their gender, or how important their gender identification should be to them.

    Also: that one of the many cis privileges is that we cis people don’t usually have to think about how we define our own gender or how strongly we identify with our gender, much less how other people define it for us.
31. scienceavenger says

    27 August 2015 at 3:00 pm

    If I suddenly had a vagina, it wouldn’t turn me into a woman, but it would turn me into a trans person.

    If I suddenly had a vagina, it wouldn’t turn me into a woman, but it would turn me into a hermit.
32. Lady Mondegreen says

    27 August 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Gender is in the brain

    So what is it?

    When Studies Do Find Gender Differences, They Are Often Too Weak to Serve as the Basis for Generalizations

    The tension between those two blockquoted statements deserves honest exploration.
33. prae says

    27 August 2015 at 3:58 pm

    Hm, basically what I’m meaning is: there is no f*cking way there is some gene which makes you to want to wear dresses or being called Carl instead of Charlene, so why does it matter?

    Hypothesis: a mechanism which didivdes people into “male” and “female” has to be present in the human brain, otherwise monosexual orientations wouldn’t work. So, could there be some kind of a “role model orientation”, which forces you to aquire behavioural (and other) patterns from a specific gender from your social group? Could I be on to something with that?
34. Rowan vet-tech says

    27 August 2015 at 4:37 pm

    Shorter Prae? : “I don’t get find it important, so it’s stupid that you do.”

    Per your hypothesis, no, because those behavioural patterns are explicitly taught and enforced based upon genitalia. When I was in grade school, I wanted to do the things that boys did. I did not display any of the stereotypical behaviours that girls are trained to exhibit, because my parents actively encouraged me to do whatever activities that I *wanted* to do. I wasn’t told “no, you can’t play in the creek you’ll get your dress dirty.” I wasn’t told “no, you can’t climb the tree.” I wasn’t told “no, frogs are icky.” At least, I wasn’t told those things by my *parents*. And I have enough of a native stubborn streak that when teachers tried to have me sit quietly and do ‘girl things’ that I absolutely refused. I was told I was acting like a boy, as if that was a bad trait for a girl to be having.

    So… no. Your hypothesis is point blank incorrect.
35. Rowan vet-tech says

    27 August 2015 at 4:37 pm

    All hate Tpyos, go get that get, oh greatest of dogs!
36. chris61 says

    27 August 2015 at 5:56 pm

    @18 Dauphni

    For example, if as a man you suddenly had a vagina, and that would be the only thing that changed, how does that turn you into a woman? Hint: it doesn’t. You are still the same person, with the same personality, and the same gender identity.

    I don’t think a vagina/penis would do much either. Functional ovaries or testes though would likely be a different matter.
37. IMPERATOR XANTHIOSA says

    27 August 2015 at 6:12 pm

    chris61, you might want to think about the implications of that answer – plenty of people don’t have functional ovaries or testes yet we don’t deny them recognition of their gender. For the most part, I would have absolutely no idea if an adult of young to middle age I meet is fertile or infertile, without knowing much more about a personal history.
38. chris61 says

    27 August 2015 at 7:09 pm

    @37 IMPERATOR XANTHIOSA

    I wasn’t thinking of fertility but of the effect of hormones produced by functional ovaries and testes. Not that hormones define gender but that the sudden presence of unfamiliar hormones would likely have an effect, both physical and possibly mental.
39. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    27 August 2015 at 7:59 pm

    prae @33:

    Hm, basically what I’m meaning is: there is no f*cking way there is some gene which makes you to want to wear dresses or being called Carl instead of Charlene, so why does it matter?

    Clearly it does matter to some people. Now go find out why. It seems like you’re expecting people to spoonfeed you rather than doing a bit of work on your own.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply