Gender Identity and Mental Health
This topic is locked from further discussion.
/thread*awesome response to op*
Lockedge
Seriously, I wish some people had even the teensiest bit of critical thinking skills, because it's not hard to understand that you don't always see what's going on underneath someone's skin and bone. If someone tells you they had a ham sandwich for lunch, that's pretty freaking easy to accept, even if you can't see in their stomach, because they know better than you do. If someone tells you they have a headache, it's pretty easy to accept because even though you can't feel their pain, and you can't necessarily tell if they're acting or not, they know better than you about whether their body is in pain or not. If someone tells you they have lung cancer, that's pretty easy to accept because even though you can't see it physically, they know better than you. If someone says they have an intersex condition where they have atypical chromosomes, it's pretty easy to accept because even though you aren't a doctor and haven't run any tests to prove it, they know better than you. I just don't get why people suddenly can't allow their brains to function that way when it comes to trans folk. :\You're confused.
People who are unsure about their gender are not delusional about the sex organs they possess. Your mistake is thinking that the belief the person possesses (e.g. "I'm more of a woman than a man.") is something that can be disproved by their phyisical features. This isn't the case, since as I just said, they're not confused about the sex organs they have, they're confused about which gender they identify with.
****. Saint had this covered already...
Niff_T
Â
/thread[QUOTE="Lockedge"]
*awesome response to op*
ghoklebutter
Thanks!
Gender identity disorder is no longer in the DSM, which means it's no longer a valid diagnosis. Gender dysphoria is a disorder. But a person's gender is not something decided by their sex organs. This is not a difficult concept to understand.Check this page out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder
Basically people think it's a brain type thing - like when you're in the womb you're exposed to a lot of the wrong hormones or something. I think there's been stuff shown where some transgendered people's brains were like the brains of people who were the sex they identified with.
cain006
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="bobaban"] So you're basically saying they are less delusional. And for the record: "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." They have a penis and XY genetic makeup. Where is the EVIDENCE that they are female? None, that's where. bobabanAgain, that is assuming those who identify with the opposite gender literally think that biologically they are a different sex, which isn't the case. They don't wake up, look down and go "what the hell! I have a penis how can this be!" They understand fully that biologically they are one gender, they simply identify and wish to be another, and through hormone therapy and surgery some take the extra step to be more like that different gender. Someone born in the UK who moved to America and loves the country can call themselves an American, and just because they were born in the UK doesn't mean they are delusional just because they identify and wish to be American. Ok so in line with your logic: A white person can become black, if he truly believes he is black. And If said person gets his skin dyed, his penis enlarged, and his hair in cornrows - he is now black, right? Will his children come out black, assume he has non-black wife. Your argument is based on social constructs, ie gender. CONSTRUCT - "An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence." Gender is social construct we INVENTED, not discovered or proved. Again you fail to produce any evidence, only pointless conjecture. ...once again you have this false notion that when a person identifies with a different gender they actually believe they biologically change...again, not the case. They know no matter what they do to their bodies they are still biologically one gender, but it doesn't stop and it shouldn't stop them, from wanting to change their physical image. Changes so their physical self better mirrors their conscious, emotional self, the self they identify with and the one that they are most comfortable being. There is a reason why many who struggle with their identify can be depressed and unhappy. Because they do in fact know their biological selves don't match how they feel, they wish they were biologically different, but know they aren't, but the least they can do is have surgery or hormone therapy, etc. so that when they look in the mirror they see the selves they feel they are.Â
Ok so in line with your logic: A white person can become black, if he truly believes he is black. And If said person gets his skin dyed, his penis enlarged, and his hair in cornrows - he is now black, right? Will his children come out black, assume he has non-black wife. Your argument is based on social constructs, ie gender. CONSTRUCT - "An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence." Gender is social construct we INVENTED, not discovered or proved. Again you fail to produce any evidence, only pointless conjecture. ...once again you have this false notion that when a person identifies with a different gender they actually believe they biologically change...again, not the case. They know no matter what they do to their bodies they are still biologically one gender, but it doesn't stop and it shouldn't stop them, from wanting to change their physical image. Changes so their physical self better mirrors their conscious, emotional self, the self they identify with and the one that they are most comfortable being. There is a reason why many who struggle with their identify can be depressed and unhappy. Because they do in fact know their biological selves don't match how they feel, they wish they were biologically different, but know they aren't, but the least they can do is have surgery or hormone therapy, etc. so that when they look in the mirror they see the selves they feel they are.Â[QUOTE="bobaban"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] Again, that is assuming those who identify with the opposite gender literally think that biologically they are a different sex, which isn't the case. They don't wake up, look down and go "what the hell! I have a penis how can this be!" They understand fully that biologically they are one gender, they simply identify and wish to be another, and through hormone therapy and surgery some take the extra step to be more like that different gender. Someone born in the UK who moved to America and loves the country can call themselves an American, and just because they were born in the UK doesn't mean they are delusional just because they identify and wish to be American. SaintLeonidas
Â
So should trans woman disclose themseleves as trans woman or just classify themselves as real women?
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]
[QUOTE="bobaban"]
So what's the harm in either?Â
bobaban
One option accommodates reality, while the other accommodates a delusion.
It's only a delusion in your eyes because your entire foundation of your argument and reasoning is that trans people suffer from delusions. Your whole point was that if a trans woman was really a woman, she'd be a "woman" from birth as assigned by doctors and everything.You're positioning how you understand the world around you as an objective reality when it's simply not the case.
It gets really tiring listening to people spout off high school sex ed knowledge as if they have any clue of how the human body works. Chromosomes? They can change, they aren't immutable. Hormone levels? Can also change, even naturally by drastic levels. Genitals? They can come out atypical through birth, or seemingly typical external genitalia can hide away atypical internal reproductive organs. Sometimes there's a lack thereof. Some intersex conditions (of which there are many) can make XY women and XX men, and sometimes (albeit exceedingly rarely) they're fertile. These atypical conditions occur sometimes due to genetics, sometimes from hormone levels in utero, etc. etc. Is it so far-fetched that the development of the brain might happen atypically as compared to the rest of the body? Why, it already does, yet why do people deny that it could be a cause for gender dysphoria?
The medical community accepts intersex conditions. They occur, even if people don't want to believe they do. Just like the medical community has accepted that what trans people experience is valid, through mounting peer reviewed evidence and through decades of exhaustive research on finding efficaceous treatments. Psychotherapy didn't work, cognitive-behavioural therapy didn't work, antidepressants didn't work, anti-anxiety meds didn't work, anti-psychotics didn't work, lobotomies didn't work, etc. etc. But regulate their hormone levels within the typical range of the sex they identify with, and symptoms of dysphoria drops. Amend the state of the body to physically resemble the sex they identify with, and once again, dysphoria symptoms are reduced. Help the patient with social integration into the gender they wish to express themselves as, andagain, dysphoria symptoms are reduced. Until at one point, for some at least, the level of discomfort in their body and social role are no greater than the average person. Their dysphoria is virtually eliminated, and they're content with where they are.
Have you even remotely scanned studies from the past twenty years start consistently show more and more proof that there is a biological component that creates gender dysphoria? The biggest delusion in all of human society is that sex exists as a binary, and that sex and gender are rightfully conflated. It's all socially prescribed with little basis aside from tradition and what is understood as "common sense", where knowledge of trans* issues simply are not found, because trans* issues are simply not common. So most people cannot immediately make sense of such things, which is uncomfortable, so they rely on stigmas and tired old statements and arguments that only show how lazy people have gotten in the past years. This isn't the early 90s with Ace Ventura just coming out in theatres. We know a lot more now than we did then, and it's been a long, long time since the John Money experiments.
Some trans folk don't want surgery, and some don't even want hormones. Many of the former can't afford it or are wary of the quality of the result given by the current surgical techniques. I know some who specified to me that unless they can transplant ovaries, a uterus, etc. they're going to just wait and hope that becomes available. Some of the former group are pleased with their genitalia, or at least content enough that it doesn't pose a significant issue for them. But most prefer hormones. I know a few genderqueer folk who don't use them, just as I know some who have used them for a period of time to gaina specific appearance, and just like I know some genderqueer folk who plan on using them for the rest of their lives. Most trans people, if they can get access to it, and if they can afford it, will get hormones. Above all else, this treatment is the most significant for the well being of trans people. Especially transsexuals, who tend to have much higher levels of dysphoria that need treating.
I've approached this post from a more scientific vein, because that seems to be your angle. In truth, even if there wasn't mounting evidence showing trans people's conditions are at least in part biologically founded, it would be a condition at least equivalent to homosexuality. Because men have dicks and women have vaginas, and they have sex for reproduction. If gay men really wanted to have sex with men, they'd be women, right? That's the kind of logic you're spouting, and that's the kind of logic peple used on homosexuals a long, long time ago, along with many of Freud's flawed theories. Fact is, some people are gay and we don't know why, we just take them at their word because it's clear that they're attracted to men, just like lesbians are attracted to women, and bisexual folk are attracted to both. If we allow ourselves to see sexuality as a spectrum, which it well and truly is, why can we not finally admit to ourselves that so is gender and sex, and that we hold innate characteristics that position ourselves along those spectrums?
I love how this amazing post was basically ignored.
God, please change the user names in those quotes.SaintLeonidasLOL
Ok so in line with your logic: A white person can become black, if he truly believes he is black. And If said person gets his skin dyed, his penis enlarged, and his hair in cornrows - he is now black, right? Will his children come out black, assume he has non-black wife. Your argument is based on social constructs, ie gender. CONSTRUCT - "An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence." Gender is social construct we INVENTED, not discovered or proved. Again you fail to produce any evidence, only pointless conjecture. ...once again you have this false notion that when a person identifies with a different gender they actually believe they biologically change...again, not the case. They know no matter what they do to their bodies they are still biologically one gender, but it doesn't stop and it shouldn't stop them, from wanting to change their physical image. Changes so their physical self better mirrors their conscious, emotional self, the self they identify with and the one that they are most comfortable being. There is a reason why many who struggle with their identify can be depressed and unhappy. Because they do in fact know their biological selves don't match how they feel, they wish they were biologically different, but know they aren't, but the least they can do is have surgery or hormone therapy, etc. so that when they look in the mirror they see the selves they feel they are. But realistically, are they going to feel any better? I mean there is certainly more to being a woman than having breasts and a vagina I think that being a fake woman would probably be a bigger hell than living with whAt you were assigned with. I mean no matter what you modify, you are never going to really be the opposite sex. Its more of a masquerade.[QUOTE="bobaban"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] Again, that is assuming those who identify with the opposite gender literally think that biologically they are a different sex, which isn't the case. They don't wake up, look down and go "what the hell! I have a penis how can this be!" They understand fully that biologically they are one gender, they simply identify and wish to be another, and through hormone therapy and surgery some take the extra step to be more like that different gender. Someone born in the UK who moved to America and loves the country can call themselves an American, and just because they were born in the UK doesn't mean they are delusional just because they identify and wish to be American. SaintLeonidas
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]...once again you have this false notion that when a person identifies with a different gender they actually believe they biologically change...again, not the case. They know no matter what they do to their bodies they are still biologically one gender, but it doesn't stop and it shouldn't stop them, from wanting to change their physical image. Changes so their physical self better mirrors their conscious, emotional self, the self they identify with and the one that they are most comfortable being. There is a reason why many who struggle with their identify can be depressed and unhappy. Because they do in fact know their biological selves don't match how they feel, they wish they were biologically different, but know they aren't, but the least they can do is have surgery or hormone therapy, etc. so that when they look in the mirror they see the selves they feel they are. But realistically, are they going to feel any better? I mean there is certainly more to being a woman than having breasts and a vagina I think that being a fake woman would probably be a bigger hell than living with whAt you were assigned with. I mean no matter what you modify, you are never going to really be the opposite sex. Its more of a masquerade. Are they going to feel better? In most case, yes, definitely. I feel like many people in this thread have never actually read or heard any individual who has gone through this discuss their struggles with gender identity and the like. For so many they never feel like they can truly be happy or who they want to be until they make the sort of changes I mentioned above. Most would rather make the changes to live and look like how they actually feel than to continue living and looking like a gender they don't identify with. Socially, yes it might be harder for them but they aren't making these changes to appease anyone but themselves. Its the same reason why many who were gay during times when it was much more of a social stigma still came out because they'd rather be happy knowing they were being honest with themselves then to socially live "easier" lives just to "fit in".[QUOTE="bobaban"] Ok so in line with your logic: A white person can become black, if he truly believes he is black. And If said person gets his skin dyed, his penis enlarged, and his hair in cornrows - he is now black, right? Will his children come out black, assume he has non-black wife. Your argument is based on social constructs, ie gender. CONSTRUCT - "An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence." Gender is social construct we INVENTED, not discovered or proved. Again you fail to produce any evidence, only pointless conjecture.Murderstyle75
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] ...once again you have this false notion that when a person identifies with a different gender they actually believe they biologically change...again, not the case. They know no matter what they do to their bodies they are still biologically one gender, but it doesn't stop and it shouldn't stop them, from wanting to change their physical image. Changes so their physical self better mirrors their conscious, emotional self, the self they identify with and the one that they are most comfortable being. There is a reason why many who struggle with their identify can be depressed and unhappy. Because they do in fact know their biological selves don't match how they feel, they wish they were biologically different, but know they aren't, but the least they can do is have surgery or hormone therapy, etc. so that when they look in the mirror they see the selves they feel they are. SaintLeonidasBut realistically, are they going to feel any better? I mean there is certainly more to being a woman than having breasts and a vagina I think that being a fake woman would probably be a bigger hell than living with whAt you were assigned with. I mean no matter what you modify, you are never going to really be the opposite sex. Its more of a masquerade. Are they going to feel better? In most case, yes, definitely. I feel like many people in this thread have never actually read or heard any individual who has gone through this discuss their struggles with gender identity and the like. For so many they never feel like they can truly be happy or who they want to be until they make the sort of changes I mentioned above. Most would rather make the changes to live and look like how they actually feel than to continue living and looking like a gender they don't identify with. Socially, yes it might be harder for them but they aren't making these changes to appease anyone but themselves. Its the same reason why many who were gay during times when it was much more of a social stigma still came out because they'd rather be happy knowing they were being honest with themselves then to socially live "easier" lives just to "fit in". Yet realistically there are only certain changes you can even make. Just because you change sex organs, throw on some makeup and have some painful surgery done to your facial bone structure, how would you still feel like a woman? You are never going to have a real female figure, never have a period, never even attempt to have children and never have any sort of coming of age experience of a real female. It just sounds like far more trouble than its even worth.
Fact is, if you are not biologically born female, you never will be no matter how much you fool yourself and how hard you try and fool others.Murderstyle75
Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between biological sex and gender identity. While your body may be given a biological sex based on genetics, neurobiochemistry and neurobiology can provide something different altogether.Â
This isn't some made-up syndrome that people use as an excuse to change their body. If you look at the scientific research of these issues, there are underlying differences in how the brain is wired if you look at cisgendered and transgendered people.Â
Just becuase you have your own view of the universe and your own fears doesn't mean that someone else's self-identification is invalid. I've seen your argument recently on another forum, and it's getting really tired to me.Â
they don't believe they are a different gender... they feel they should have been the other gender, not that they are the other gender, and take steps to try and become as much like the gender they identify with as possible. MuD3
short, insightful, observant, and considered correct by most who are educated in mental and sexual health (as well as trans people themselves). good work
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Fact is, if you are not biologically born female, you never will be no matter how much you fool yourself and how hard you try and fool others.
jimkabrhel
Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between biological sex and gender identity. While your body may be given a biological sex based on genetics, neurobiochemistry and neurobiology can provide something different altogether.Â
This isn't some made-up syndrome that people use as an excuse to change their body. If you look at the scientific research of these issues, there are underlying differences in how the brain is wired if you look at cisgendered and transgendered people.Â
Just becuase you have your own view of the universe and your own fears doesn't mean that someone else's self-identification is invalid. I've seen your argument recently on another forum, and it's getting really tired to me.Â
Still doesnt make them a woman which is my entire point. The original post I was responding to criticized my use of "real" woman.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Fact is, if you are not biologically born female, you never will be no matter how much you fool yourself and how hard you try and fool others.
Murderstyle75
Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between biological sex and gender identity. While your body may be given a biological sex based on genetics, neurobiochemistry and neurobiology can provide something different altogether.Â
This isn't some made-up syndrome that people use as an excuse to change their body. If you look at the scientific research of these issues, there are underlying differences in how the brain is wired if you look at cisgendered and transgendered people.Â
Just becuase you have your own view of the universe and your own fears doesn't mean that someone else's self-identification is invalid. I've seen your argument recently on another forum, and it's getting really tired to me.Â
Still doesnt make them a woman which is my entire point. The original post I was responding to criticized my use of "real" woman.Woman  refers to gender.It's inccorect to say it refers to sex as in biology you'd usually say female. And biology doesn't matter at all in social situations.Â
For those of you saying that gender is separate from sex, I say "bullsh*t." The two are intertwined.
For those of you saying that gender is separate from sex, I say "bullsh*t." The two are intertwined.
BluRayHiDef
Intertwined, but not the same.Â
For the most part they are intertwind, that's why only a minority are trans.For those of you saying that gender is separate from sex, I say "bullsh*t." The two are intertwined.
BluRayHiDef
However they are by no means the same.Â
For the most part they are intertwind, that's why only a minority are trans.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
For those of you saying that gender is separate from sex, I say "bullsh*t." The two are intertwined.
toast_burner
However they are by no means the same.Â
One cannot be a biological male and a girl/ woman simultaneously, and vice versa.For the most part they are intertwind, that's why only a minority are trans.[QUOTE="toast_burner"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
For those of you saying that gender is separate from sex, I say "bullsh*t." The two are intertwined.
BluRayHiDef
However they are by no means the same.Â
One cannot be a biological male and a girl/ woman simultaneously, and vice versa.Sex is based on anatomy, gender is mental.
For the most part they are intertwind, that's why only a minority are trans.[QUOTE="toast_burner"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
For those of you saying that gender is separate from sex, I say "bullsh*t." The two are intertwined.
BluRayHiDef
However they are by no means the same.Â
One cannot be a biological male and a girl/ woman simultaneously, and vice versa.Seeing how some people are. Yes they canOne cannot be a biological male and a girl/ woman simultaneously, and vice versa.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="toast_burner"]For the most part they are intertwind, that's why only a minority are trans.
However they are by no means the same.Â
applesxc47
Sex is based on anatomy, gender is mental.
Sex is based on anatomy and gender complements sex.Â
[QUOTE="applesxc47"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"] One cannot be a biological male and a girl/ woman simultaneously, and vice versa.
BluRayHiDef
Sex is based on anatomy, gender is mental.
Sex is based on anatomy and gender complements sex.Â
It complements it, yeah, but the two are not the same thing.
[QUOTE="applesxc47"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"] One cannot be a biological male and a girl/ woman simultaneously, and vice versa.
BluRayHiDef
Sex is based on anatomy, gender is mental.
Sex is based on anatomy and gender complements sex.Â
Most of the time, yes. But not always.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="applesxc47"]
Sex is based on anatomy, gender is mental.
applesxc47
Sex is based on anatomy and gender complements sex.Â
It complements it, yeah, but the two are not the same thing.
Â
The woman gender cannot complement the male sex, and vice versa.
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] The real delusion here is thinking someone who is a male identifying themselves as a woman is in any way comparable to a human identifying with a f*cking platypus TerryCrewYou're not helping the defense of why transgender identity shouldn't be considered a mental disorder.
There's no need for that, it's already easy to silence inconveniences and critics...
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
So what's the harm in either?Â
Lockedge
One option accommodates reality, while the other accommodates a delusion.
It's only a delusion in your eyes because your entire foundation of your argument and reasoning is that trans people suffer from delusions. Your whole point was that if a trans woman was really a woman, she'd be a "woman" from birth as assigned by doctors and everything.You're positioning how you understand the world around you as an objective reality when it's simply not the case.
It gets really tiring listening to people spout off high school sex ed knowledge as if they have any clue of how the human body works. Chromosomes? They can change, they aren't immutable. Hormone levels? Can also change, even naturally by drastic levels. Genitals? They can come out atypical through birth, or seemingly typical external genitalia can hide away atypical internal reproductive organs. Sometimes there's a lack thereof. Some intersex conditions (of which there are many) can make XY women and XX men, and sometimes (albeit exceedingly rarely) they're fertile. These atypical conditions occur sometimes due to genetics, sometimes from hormone levels in utero, etc. etc. Is it so far-fetched that the development of the brain might happen atypically as compared to the rest of the body? Why, it already does, yet why do people deny that it could be a cause for gender dysphoria?
The medical community accepts intersex conditions. They occur, even if people don't want to believe they do. Just like the medical community has accepted that what trans people experience is valid, through mounting peer reviewed evidence and through decades of exhaustive research on finding efficaceous treatments. Psychotherapy didn't work, cognitive-behavioural therapy didn't work, antidepressants didn't work, anti-anxiety meds didn't work, anti-psychotics didn't work, lobotomies didn't work, etc. etc. But regulate their hormone levels within the typical range of the sex they identify with, and symptoms of dysphoria drops. Amend the state of the body to physically resemble the sex they identify with, and once again, dysphoria symptoms are reduced. Help the patient with social integration into the gender they wish to express themselves as, andagain, dysphoria symptoms are reduced. Until at one point, for some at least, the level of discomfort in their body and social role are no greater than the average person. Their dysphoria is virtually eliminated, and they're content with where they are.
Have you even remotely scanned studies from the past twenty years start consistently show more and more proof that there is a biological component that creates gender dysphoria? The biggest delusion in all of human society is that sex exists as a binary, and that sex and gender are rightfully conflated. It's all socially prescribed with little basis aside from tradition and what is understood as "common sense", where knowledge of trans* issues simply are not found, because trans* issues are simply not common. So most people cannot immediately make sense of such things, which is uncomfortable, so they rely on stigmas and tired old statements and arguments that only show how lazy people have gotten in the past years. This isn't the early 90s with Ace Ventura just coming out in theatres. We know a lot more now than we did then, and it's been a long, long time since the John Money experiments.
Some trans folk don't want surgery, and some don't even want hormones. Many of the former can't afford it or are wary of the quality of the result given by the current surgical techniques. I know some who specified to me that unless they can transplant ovaries, a uterus, etc. they're going to just wait and hope that becomes available. Some of the former group are pleased with their genitalia, or at least content enough that it doesn't pose a significant issue for them. But most prefer hormones. I know a few genderqueer folk who don't use them, just as I know some who have used them for a period of time to gaina specific appearance, and just like I know some genderqueer folk who plan on using them for the rest of their lives. Most trans people, if they can get access to it, and if they can afford it, will get hormones. Above all else, this treatment is the most significant for the well being of trans people. Especially transsexuals, who tend to have much higher levels of dysphoria that need treating.
I've approached this post from a more scientific vein, because that seems to be your angle. In truth, even if there wasn't mounting evidence showing trans people's conditions are at least in part biologically founded, it would be a condition at least equivalent to homosexuality. Because men have dicks and women have vaginas, and they have sex for reproduction. If gay men really wanted to have sex with men, they'd be women, right? That's the kind of logic you're spouting, and that's the kind of logic peple used on homosexuals a long, long time ago, along with many of Freud's flawed theories. Fact is, some people are gay and we don't know why, we just take them at their word because it's clear that they're attracted to men, just like lesbians are attracted to women, and bisexual folk are attracted to both. If we allow ourselves to see sexuality as a spectrum, which it well and truly is, why can we not finally admit to ourselves that so is gender and sex, and that we hold innate characteristics that position ourselves along those spectrums?
Thank you for being sensible. I find reflection an increasingly rare human quality and it's quite frankly depressing.
[QUOTE="applesxc47"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Sex is based on anatomy and gender complements sex.Â
BluRayHiDef
It complements it, yeah, but the two are not the same thing.
Â
The woman gender cannot complement the male sex, and vice versa.
Are you trolling or just really stupid?Sex and gender are two very different things - . Smokescreened84This is wrong....
Since everyone wants to argue definitions.... Gender is the range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.[1][2][3] Depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3][4] It is correct to use gender for male/female. It's only in recent history where there has been a desire to separate the two. But it is by no means wrong to use gender for biological purposes.LJS9502_basicIn the past tras and alternative genders were ignored and/or stigmatised.Â
Not really wise to use it now when we are more educated about it.Â
This is wrong....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]Sex and gender are two very different things - . GreySeal9
What makes you think that statement is wrong?
Sex is typically biological while gender is cultural.
Actually until this became an issue they were one and the same. Now there is some use of the word for cultural but that does not mean using it as a biological indicator is wrong. 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 distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, As you can see...it's actually a recent shift. But that does not mean gender isn't used for biology.This is wrong....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]Sex and gender are two very different things - . InEMplease
No, it's not.
Sex is physical, gender is mental. Â You referenced this yourself.
You did not read carefully.....Gender is the range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.[1][2][3] Depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This is wrong....
LJS9502_basic
What makes you think that statement is wrong?
Sex is typically biological while gender is cultural.
Actually until this became an issue they were one and the same. Now there is some use of the word for cultural but that does not mean using it as a biological indicator is wrong. 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 distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, As you can see...it's actually a recent shift. But that does not mean gender isn't used for biology.That's a pretty long time ago. It wasn't untill the late 60's that being gay was legal. Do you really expect people to be educated on matters such as gender and sexuality back then?
Actually until this became an issue they were one and the same. Now there is some use of the word for cultural but that does not mean using it as a biological indicator is wrong. 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 distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, As you can see...it's actually a recent shift. But that does not mean gender isn't used for biology.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
What makes you think that statement is wrong?
Sex is typically biological while gender is cultural.
toast_burner
That's a pretty long time ago. It wasn't untill the late 60's that being gay was legal. Do you really expect people to be educated on matters such as gender and sexuality back then?
80s is long ago? The word gender can still be used for male/female. That is not an incorrect way to use the word. Certainly context is key. And frankly I don't want to get into a semantics argument. But it's silly to deny the use of the word to further agendas here. The only difference is context....it can be used either way and it's correct. So just stop telling people they can't use it the way you don't approve of is all.You did not read carefully.....Gender is the range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.[1][2][3] Depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="InEMplease"]
No, it's not.
Sex is physical, gender is mental. Â You referenced this yourself.
InEMplease
That "depending on the context" part plays a very large role. Â And that gender is based on physical, mental and behavioral charateristics sets is apart from sex, which is only based on one, which is the physical.
I never said it didn't depend on context. I said it's correct to use it biologically as well. And it is. So everyone telling people that use it that way they are wrong....are just ignorant is all. *shrugs*[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This is wrong....
LJS9502_basic
What makes you think that statement is wrong?
Sex is typically biological while gender is cultural.
Actually until this became an issue they were one and the same. Now there is some use of the word for cultural but that does not mean using it as a biological indicator is wrong. 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 distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, As you can see...it's actually a recent shift. But that does not mean gender isn't used for biology.I don't think it matters that it's a recent shift. Terms change over time. IMO, the more common/current usage the one that is more relevant.
But I'm not saying that gender is never used, and can never be used, for biology. What I'm saying is that biological sex and gender in terms of the way that it is expressed and percieved (which is what smokescreened is refering to) are most definitely different things.
Actually until this became an issue they were one and the same. Now there is some use of the word for cultural but that does not mean using it as a biological indicator is wrong. 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 distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, As you can see...it's actually a recent shift. But that does not mean gender isn't used for biology.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
What makes you think that statement is wrong?
Sex is typically biological while gender is cultural.
GreySeal9
I don't think it matters that it's a recent shift. Terms change over time. IMO, the more common/current usage the one that is more relevant.
But I'm not saying that gender is never used, and can never be used, for biology. What I'm saying is that biological sex and gender in terms of the way that it is expressed and percieved (which is what smokescreened is refering to) are most definitely different things.
Well actually it's still common to use it for male and female. That hasn't gone away. It's just taken on another meaning when this specific issue arises. That doesn't mean the original meaning is extinct.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment