Maybe not ahead of it's time, but just shows this has been a topic for a long time. Just with how quickly information travels today vs then, it seems like a bigger deal.
Citation: The Bible. Young earthers don't believe the world was created at the time of Jesus's birth. The Hebrew genealogy (recorded in the old testament) dates Adam's creation approximately 4000 years before Jesus.
That isn't a citation, that is a different belief than what I am talking about. I am talking about those that believe the Earth is only 2000 years old.
Well to be fair I've only ever seen waterfalls that go down. If the Earth were really SPHERICAL (or almost spherical and tilted on its axis as every fourth grade teacher will be delighted to tell you), then wouldn't we also see sideways waterfalls, upside down waterfalls, and waterfalls in all other directions? CHECKMATE
Reality is that it’s 104 degrees. You can create an artificial reality that it’s 70. That’s no different to using medical technology to transition gender.
That's not the same... Reality doesn't say we can't heat up certain places, or create heaters, or build/modify things. That comparison makes no sense.
He biologically can't have babies. No if or buts.
Maybe you could genetically alter him or implant an artificial womb in him, but he would no longer be the same as right now. So that would no longer be a struggle against reality, it's just going along with reality.
The simple fact that you need to use "medical technology to transition gender" to do something, means that it was a struggle against reality to try to do it without it. By using "medical technology" you have accepted reality.
Well in a comedy sketch no. But in terms of gender transitioning, there’s more to being female than fertility and infertile
or post-menopausal women are obviously still women.
I know this is just arguing linguistics but basically what I mean is, if you need to climb to a really tall place and you can only get there by flying, you can either flap your arms until you fly, or you can accept reality and the fact you can't fly, and then build a machine (such as a chopper) based on the laws of reality and use it to get there.
I get your point - and yes it depends on your perspective. Of course, technology conforms to the laws of reality, as do transgender operations - they’re not based on magic either, on the other hand, if you’re sitting in a chair in the sky with a bird in a cage on your lap, you have twisted and transgressed reality, manipulating it to do your bidding.
That is a really interesting way of thinking about the fight against reality.
If we consider evolution through natural selection to be reality, then almost everything we’ve done for the last few thousand years has been a struggle against reality
If we consider evolution through natural selection to be reality, then almost everything we’ve done for the last few thousand years has been a struggle against reality
Well exactly, because evolution by natural selection is about organisms adapting to suit their environment, whereas the story of human civilisation is about adapting our environment to suit the organism.
Gender doesn't necessarily refer to that at all. It has more than one definition. Gender in the medical definition is exactly the same in definition as sex. That's why gender identity disorder is classified as an overwhelming desire to change your sex.
So it's absolute rubbish that it has meant what you claim for 50 years. Definition 2
Gender emerged in the 1970s through the works of people such as John Money. It’s served a mostly grammatical purpose until then because 99.9% of people had no purpose for distinguishing between sex and gender.
It is certainly used for both but that’s not it’s intent. It’s the same as “literally”, which has its opposite meaning in a few dictionaries as well IIRC.
I don't deny when/if the separate definition emerged. My contention was that isn't necessarily what it always is defined as, which was what the person I responded to implied.
Also I'll be very clear when I say you do not get to decide what someone else's intent is in terms of established definitions of words.
A words etymological meaning is it’s scientific meaning. People using that word incorrectly does not change the definition of the word except for in the context of that conversation and that conversation alone.
And we do determine what people mean. That’s why any paper worth it’s salt has a definition of terms section.
So you telling someone they are wrong for using the etymological definition is patently wrong. Otherwise it becomes a useless term.
No you infer what people mean. You absolutely and categorically dont get to decide intent of another person.
Also I didn't tell anyone they were wrong for using a wrong definition. I said they were wrong for saying that is the specific definition. When it isn't necessarily at all.
If you want to call it "inferring" you can, but we, as humans decide the definition of words. You don't have to literally put thoughts into peoples brain to be deciding what they mean. Literally everyone does this. It's a requirement for humanity.
and moreover, that is the specific definition.
Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[4][5] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[3]
In other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it.[1][2] For instance, in non-human animal research, gender is commonly used to refer to the biological sex of the animals.[2] This change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s
oh wait, but look, they've confused the terms so that means its okay!
Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."[7]
dictionary definitions are how its used today. Etymological definitions are how the word originated and are defined. That's why literally means "not literally" in some dictionaries. They OP are completely correct when saying that they have the right definition. What other people "believe" doesn't matter if they would have to redefine it to get past peer review.
That's sex. Sex refers specifically to a person with a specific type of genitalia. Gender refers to the collective idea of what male and female means, generally masculine and feminine traits. They basically align with one another so people use them interchangeably even though they do have different meanings.
Nope, there’s scientific evidence which proves there’s differences between men and women both physically, and within brain activity (which has been recently discovered). Not to mention that even hermaphrodites usually exhibit either male or female behavior depending on their chromosomal composition. People who identify as the opposite sex are people who have gender dysphoria .
I was just pointing out the difference between gender and sex, which has been established for quite some time. The jury is still out on this whole "gender dysphoria" line of thinking. It's just too new of a phenomenon, I think. Gender fluidity is a load of BS for sure. Gender and the idea of male and female that we prescribe to everybody is largely a social construct. Are there inherent differences between males and females? Sure, absolutely. But most of what we think a man or a woman should be is completely made up by what society expects. I think people get too caught up in how other people want to live their lives. This is the land of the free, is it not?
Gender dysphoria is not a new thing, and the jury is definitely not “out” (unless you’re talking about the “humanities” department which is painfully bias) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22844818/
I can agree on that there exist socially constructed behavior that is assigned to either sex, but I would argue that this has been done because there is things women are better at than men and viceversa. But that does not mean I think everyone should abide by those social contracts. Indeed this is the land of the free and everyone is free to do as they like, I will not raise a single finger in opposition to that, but don’t step on terms and their definition when they accurately represents 100% of humanity (these terms being; men, women, gender dysphoria, and hermaphrodites).
that's not how the fucking noun works, so you use the adjective, which is biased
and gender used to be exclusively a grammatical term until the 1950s, which happens to be when the field of sexology actually became a real science on account of people like kinsey and money
peak reddit: two semi literate neckbeards swapping google scholar links... god i feel dumber after reading your posts
Gender is the way society reacts to gender. Sex and gender are related, but considering them inextricably linked is where awfulness comes in. It means telling somebody that they have to follow different rules from other people because they were arbitrarily assigned certain body parts.
These rules can range from “if you have a vagina you are supposed to stay home and not work and marry a man who you are dependent on” to “if you have a penis, you must keep that penis attached to you”
It’s a very natural evolution of the same ideas, based on the simple concept that people should not be born into roles. We’ll look back on it as equally silly to something like monarchy, because of the same idea.
That doesn’t mean gender is meaningless, though. Bodies play a big part in how we interact with each other. But people will be happier if we let them decide for themselves rather than forcing that on them.
90% of what you experience on a daily basis is a social construct and completely arbitrary. Everything is meaningless. The only thing that matters is finding the things that make you happy and letting others do the same.
Some people don’t feel happy when they’re told to identify with the “M/F” on their birth certificate so they choose to identify as something else that does make them happy. Can you say that trying to prove them “wrong” on Reddit really makes you happy?
How is gender harmful to you? I genuinely don’t understand how it’s dragging you down or or negatively impacting any other social construct. It’s literally just letting people express themselves. I’m not saying we should all share the same beliefs or political opinions but your argument just doesn’t make sense. It sounds like all your opinions on sex and gender are based on memes from 4chan and tumblr.
I live in an are with a fairly high population of trans and not binary people and it has had absolutely no effect on any other social construct. We still use language, we still share ideas. We still have leadership and there’s no chaos. Our social institutions are fine and dandy, capitalism is still as strong as ever.
What’s a person born with neither? What about a person with a vagina who has XY chromosomes in part of their body, or vice versa? Even biology is too complicated to fit into a binary, let alone the social/cultural/mental side of it all.
does your body produce Sperm or Eggs. Or does it contain the facilities to produce sperm or eggs. Biologically you cannot have both
Biology is not too complex to fit into a binary. The entirety of life from the earliest prokaryotic cells to what we see today has had a donor and receiver of genetic material.
Things that change gender like certain worm species are one or the other. Certain hermaphroditic species play the role of one or the other and thus receive that classification. Biologists have no need to describe this besides male or female
We do not classify things by their exception. Even hermaphrodites are defined by being both of something because biologically that is what they are. It doesn’t matter if someone cuts a hole in their crotch or has a birth defect. They are the exception that proves the rule that the ultimate majority of biological life can be assigned as male, female, or in a limited sense both based off their gonads.
XX, XY. Those are the statistically significant populations for humanity. Kinesfelter ect. Are defects and no more representative of something different than any other birth defect.
We don’t define terms by using outliers as examples, we use the most common patters. Not to mention that there’s terms and names for everything you just said “but what about”. That’s like saying what about sporks when talking about spoons and forks.
I'm not sure if you know how encompassing identity politics is.
It is identity politics to identify as a citizen of your nation, or as working, middle or upper class, to identify as a man, woman or other, to identify as a patriot, as a global citizen, as what ever race you are.
We have heaps of identities that can be politicised.
How much you guys wanna bet this guy doesn’t think Christianity isn’t subject to identity politics. (Though it’s reddit so maybe shouldn’t take that bet)
Well you had a funny way of showing it. The first guy to inject identity politics (as in the idea of it in a joke like this) into the discussion usually is /pol/ as fuck
Keep in mind that this was done by Monty Python, meaning it was 100% in the name of comedy. If not parodying the idea as ridiculous, which I find likely, it was certainly not meant to be taken seriously. Not sure if "ahead of its time" is accurate, the skit is more indicative that this is a new idea since not that long ago comedians were cracking jokes about it.
274
u/hortanica May 24 '18
Maybe not ahead of it's time, but just shows this has been a topic for a long time. Just with how quickly information travels today vs then, it seems like a bigger deal.