i’m all for this, if egalitarianism means people arriving by their own ways, with whatever level of agreement (which could be, and probably ought be their own internal agreement mostly), undistorted by social or cultural influences

i’m not sure it exists though, that no behavioral differences emerge from the raw materials (children from the womb and on), differences that could be broadly categorized as female, or male attributes, or propensities, among all the variation, and frankly I think humans are mostly variation, the norm is variation, which has perhaps the downside of requiring more powerful behavior controls, some of which perhaps aren’t helpful. I can see why great diversity might incline some people toward dystolerance

environments can be (helpfully) neutral, doubtful people can be neutral though, a person needs be something, once born, nobody can avoid that, really

so if this thread had a second title, a second possibility, it could have been once born, you have to be something

of course a person doesn’t need be much, a modest life is a good life, and whatever it’s taken away from you in your last moments, you continue on as memories, other peoples memories, and of those memories there are within something about the value of (a) life, a life worth living, even as the memories fade, and eventually they fade completely as the holder of the memories also moves on

to bridge the coming and going there is culture, individuals are mortal, culture lives on

so where is culture regard sexual egalitarianism, delivering a neutral environment, not a neutralizing environment

People won’t ever be who they naturally are, because of influences that extend to children pretty soon as the parent/s know they are expecting. Think gender reveals.

We all have biases whether we’re aware of them or not. Society revels in putting people in nicely labelled boxes. It’s like they can’t function when those norms are challenged.

Why does my almost-6 yo like pink and unicorns? The influences stemming from daycare. (Daycare also liked to say “exploring gender roles” when kids did things like play in the pretend kitchen. FMD. I politely pointed out that was bullshit, what about male chefs? They quickly stopped.)

You’re also assuming binary gender.

Divine Angel said:

People won’t ever be who they naturally are, because of influences that extend to children pretty soon as the parent/s know they are expecting. Think gender reveals.

these influences are they natural

SCIENCE said:

Divine Angel said:

People won’t ever be who they naturally are, because of influences that extend to children pretty soon as the parent/s know they are expecting. Think gender reveals.

these influences are they natural

Not to some people. In the animal kingdom, it’s usually the female who takes care of the offspring. In humans, females can live quite fulfilling lives without offspring. Yet societal influences say women must have at least 2 children, preferably boy and girl, in order to be happy.

Divine Angel said:

…You’re also assuming binary gender.

The Vic Police announced a gender balance policy the other day – The intention to have a 50:50 workforce.

When I pointed out that there’s a dozen or so known combinations of the x and y chromosomes, none of which have any influence over the person’s gender identity or sexual preferences (in the discussion on their Facebook page) they promptly deleted it. I posted it again, even more politely than the first time. They deleted that, too.

Rule 303 said:

Divine Angel said:

…You’re also assuming binary gender.

The Vic Police announced a gender balance policy the other day – The intention to have a 50:50 workforce.

When I pointed out that there’s a dozen or so known combinations of the x and y chromosomes, none of which have any influence over the person’s gender identity or sexual preferences (in the discussion on their Facebook page) they promptly deleted it. I posted it again, even more politely than the first time. They deleted that, too.

XX, XY, XXY. Can’t place any others, unless you are including mutations, which are usually detrimental.

>You’re also assuming binary gender.

I didn’t think so

Rule 303 said:

Divine Angel said:

…You’re also assuming binary gender.

The Vic Police announced a gender balance policy the other day – The intention to have a 50:50 workforce.

When I pointed out that there’s a dozen or so known combinations of the x and y chromosomes, none of which have any influence over the person’s gender identity or sexual preferences (in the discussion on their Facebook page) they promptly deleted it. I posted it again, even more politely than the first time. They deleted that, too.

Trolling the VICPOL FB page? Doesn’t sound like you…

Ah, forgot about Turner’s syndrome. And yes there are some other quite obscure ones.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9396296/

But most of them are rather unlikely to be applying to join the police force…they’ve got enough on their plates just managing a lot of health issues.

transition said:

>You’re also assuming binary gender.

I didn’t think so

So are there multiple genders, or one continuum with two extremes?

Or do we need a 2D or 3D continuum, or maybe more?

man this shit is starting* to ressemble what do they call it, not getting the wood for the bushes, or something like that

*: fine, not starting

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>You’re also assuming binary gender.

I didn’t think so

So are there multiple genders, or one continuum with two extremes?

Or do we need a 2D or 3D continuum, or maybe more?

i’m happy for there to be as many genders as there are individuals, happy to see it that way, do see it that way, but there will inevitably be characteristics that can be generalized from commonality (frequency if you like) that may lend to ideas about qualities of two sexes, male and female. Reproduction back through bio-history made reproduction important, so quite a few anatomical differences persisted in male and female expression, for reproduction, there’s no avoiding them

of course in humans the intellectual abilities, abstraction for example, well, humans have been patching instincts and desires, adding an instrumental dimension of mediating them with beliefs for probably thousands of years at least. More recently the beliefs have been based on science

nobody should be unnecessarily limited and deprived that sort of control over their inner, or nearest outer environments, have their mind tools hijacked by bullshit, superstition, ideology, whatever

so, is my belief there are as many different genders as there are individuals wrong, and even if it weren’t technically correct, what harm could come from it

Witty Rejoinder said:

Rule 303 said:

Divine Angel said:

…You’re also assuming binary gender.

The Vic Police announced a gender balance policy the other day – The intention to have a 50:50 workforce.

When I pointed out that there’s a dozen or so known combinations of the x and y chromosomes, none of which have any influence over the person’s gender identity or sexual preferences (in the discussion on their Facebook page) they promptly deleted it. I posted it again, even more politely than the first time. They deleted that, too.

Trolling the VICPOL FB page? Doesn’t sound like you…

Trolling my posts…?

You owe me a sincere and humble apology for your childish and ridiculous attempts to insult me here, Witty. You need not bother to address me again until you’re ready to do that.

buffy said:

Rule 303 said:

Divine Angel said:

…You’re also assuming binary gender.

The Vic Police announced a gender balance policy the other day – The intention to have a 50:50 workforce.

When I pointed out that there’s a dozen or so known combinations of the x and y chromosomes, none of which have any influence over the person’s gender identity or sexual preferences (in the discussion on their Facebook page) they promptly deleted it. I posted it again, even more politely than the first time. They deleted that, too.

XX, XY, XXY. Can’t place any others, unless you are including mutations, which are usually detrimental.

“Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a rare chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females (see androgen insensitivity syndrome). Additionally, an abnormal number of sex chromosomes (aneuploidy) may be present, such as Turner’s syndrome, in which a single X chromosome is present, and Klinefelter’s syndrome, in which two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome are present, XYY syndrome and XXYY syndrome. Other less common chromosomal arrangements include: triple X syndrome, 48, XXXX, and 49, XXXXX.”

From Wiki… I’ve seen others with more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

transition said:

i’m happy for there to be as many genders as there are individuals, happy to see it that way, do see it that way, but there will inevitably be characteristics that can be generalized from commonality (frequency if you like) that may lend to ideas about qualities of two sexes, male and female.

The generalized characteristics are what compose gender. It’s a method of classifying individuals in to groups based on certain shared characteristics. Having “as many genders as there are individuals” totally negates the concept of gender, renders it a meaningless word.

esselte said:

transition said:

i’m happy for there to be as many genders as there are individuals, happy to see it that way, do see it that way, but there will inevitably be characteristics that can be generalized from commonality (frequency if you like) that may lend to ideas about qualities of two sexes, male and female.

The generalized characteristics are what compose gender. It’s a method of classifying individuals in to groups based on certain shared characteristics. Having “as many genders as there are individuals” totally negates the concept of gender, renders it a meaningless word.

not in a discussion of applied sexual egalitarianism it doesn’t, it’s not meaningless in that context, possibly, it may evolve not to be so meaningless, or entirely meaningless, considered

Rule 303 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Rule 303 said:

The Vic Police announced a gender balance policy the other day – The intention to have a 50:50 workforce.

When I pointed out that there’s a dozen or so known combinations of the x and y chromosomes, none of which have any influence over the person’s gender identity or sexual preferences (in the discussion on their Facebook page) they promptly deleted it. I posted it again, even more politely than the first time. They deleted that, too.

Trolling the VICPOL FB page? Doesn’t sound like you…

Trolling my posts…?

You owe me a sincere and humble apology for your childish and ridiculous attempts to insult me here, Witty. You need not bother to address me again until you’re ready to do that.

I wouldn’t hold your breath.

transition said:

i’m all for this, if egalitarianism means people arriving by their own ways, with whatever level of agreement (which could be, and probably ought be their own internal agreement mostly), undistorted by social or cultural influences

i’m not sure it exists though, that no behavioral differences emerge from the raw materials (children from the womb and on), differences that could be broadly categorized as female, or male attributes, or propensities, among all the variation, and frankly I think humans are mostly variation, the norm is variation, which has perhaps the downside of requiring more powerful behavior controls, some of which perhaps aren’t helpful. I can see why great diversity might incline some people toward dystolerance

environments can be (helpfully) neutral, doubtful people can be neutral though, a person needs be something, once born, nobody can avoid that, really

so if this thread had a second title, a second possibility, it could have been once born, you have to be something

of course a person doesn’t need be much, a modest life is a good life, and whatever it’s taken away from you in your last moments, you continue on as memories, other peoples memories, and of those memories there are within something about the value of (a) life, a life worth living, even as the memories fade, and eventually they fade completely as the holder of the memories also moves on

to bridge the coming and going there is culture, individuals are mortal, culture lives on

so where is culture regard sexual egalitarianism, delivering a neutral environment, not a neutralizing environment

Is this meant to be anti-Mendelian?

>Is this meant to be anti-Mendelian?

nah, it’s about gender categories, categorization, the learned dimension, the cultural tweaks of, but further the peculiarities of being part of the categories, part of the force/s of the category or categories defined, within them, or subject to them

people have a propensity for swift categorization, saves a lot of thought, they have brain structures invested in categories, dedicated to, committed to, processes that do that, and things in memory already in the whatever category

there are probably plenty of examples of the force of categorization turned mad, the chap that started WW2 for example, had a special fondness for them, didn’t incarcerate and end a few to tidy them up

I was thinking, getting to, the possibility of there being as many genders as there are individuals, whether that’s a better position than a any limited number of categories

by gender I mean adopted behaviors (importantly), the expression of any human example, which could be largely gender neutral, actively gender neutral

oddly maybe, asking someone today about gender could be like asking a person that’s been confined in a constantly lit room with no windows for an prolonged period what the time is, they’d probably be happy to see the sun set and rise again mostly

so I wonder with the subject of gender being lit up all the time, so to speak, is it liberating, really, entirely liberating, is it all good

and how would anyone know the job has been done, so as not to overshoot the objective with more of a good idea is never enough

I can’t see any honest position (for an inert generalized idea about) on the subject other than there are as many genders as there are individuals

meanwhile everybody has to be something, but I can’t see that requiring making good a propensity for, enthusiasm for, gender categorization

transition said:

>Is this meant to be anti-Mendelian?

nah, it’s about gender categories, categorization, the learned dimension, the cultural tweaks of, but further the peculiarities of being part of the categories, part of the force/s of the category or categories defined, within them, or subject to them

people have a propensity for swift categorization, saves a lot of thought, they have brain structures invested in categories, dedicated to, committed to, processes that do that, and things in memory already in the whatever category

there are probably plenty of examples of the force of categorization turned mad, the chap that started WW2 for example, had a special fondness for them, didn’t incarcerate and end a few to tidy them up

I was thinking, getting to, the possibility of there being as many genders as there are individuals, whether that’s a better position than a any limited number of categories

by gender I mean adopted behaviors (importantly), the expression of any human example, which could be largely gender neutral, actively gender neutral

oddly maybe, asking someone today about gender could be like asking a person that’s been confined in a constantly lit room with no windows for an prolonged period what the time is, they’d probably be happy to see the sun set and rise again mostly

so I wonder with the subject of gender being lit up all the time, so to speak, is it liberating, really, entirely liberating, is it all good

and how would anyone know the job has been done, so as not to overshoot the objective with more of a good idea is never enough

I can’t see any honest position (for an inert generalized idea about) on the subject other than there are as many genders as there are individuals

meanwhile everybody has to be something, but I can’t see that requiring making good a propensity for, enthusiasm for, gender categorization

Whether you want to be compartmentalised or not, for sure somebody else will do it for you.

I’d say gender-critical feminists are on the right track here. Real differences between the sexes are accounted for by the physical differences and their effect (if any) on psychology and behaviour.

In contrast, “gender” is largely cultural and usually has little real connection with sex: it’s more about prescribing limiting sets of attitude and behaviour to which people of each sex “ought to be” confined.

It’s this sort of thinking that tells us, for example, that boys who like playing with dolls are “really girls” and should be brought up as such. Girls who like having short hair and playing football should be encouraged to “gender-identify” as boys etc.

It’s all very crude and a big step backwards from the progress away from culturally-limited sex roles that most of us had hoped had occurred over the last few decades.