None of my business. I mean people identify as Christian all the time, even when they're not.

Gender identity is different to sex and many people don't seem to grasp that. They get hung up on penises and vaginas.

(November 17, 2017 at 3:40 am)pool the matey Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:We use cultural points .

Right.........here's the thing, while the whole transexuality thing has been gaining audience in the states quite recently, homosexuality, transexuality etc has been around since FOREVER. Look at ancient sculptures and you'll see people sucking each other like it's an art form, it's not as much a big deal as it's made out to be. Look at India, transexuals and homosexuals are a part of her culture, you just have to look at ancient sculptures and textbooks to see how wildly acceptable it was, it was only after british invasion homosexuality got a bad rep, there's still a lot of transexuals and homosexuals living in peace. Most of the trans folks used to only earn money by giving sexual services because some employees weren't open to hiring them(and most of the time they weren't exactly high skilled workers either), so recently even the government has taken an initiative to exclusively hire them, give them quotas etc. Anyway.... my point is, these things while not being the norm has been around since a long looong looooooong time so you don't have to defend a meaningless definition tooth and nail as if, if it was shown as meaningless transexuality would suddenly not make sense.

Another thing to note is, you said you'd determine the gender of a person by looking at cultural points. I take it you meant you'll look at what masculinity or femininity is considered as in a society to determine gender, right?

So if a society considers certain behavioral characteristics as "masculine" and a person show these behavioral characteristics you'll take it that this person is male gendered(I take it that's what you meant when you said you'll look at cultural points to determine gender).

What if this person that was born a man that does masculine things and has masculine interests but identifies as a woman? Now as per this definition a man with masculine interests, having culturally masculine traits can't identify as a woman, so only men having culturally accepted feminine traits can identify as a woman? I'm not saying that's what you're implying because I know you probably have best intentions at heart but still, I want to point out while you have the best intentions at heart it can still get you the opposite results. That kind of thinking(people showing culturally accepted masculine traits are male gender and people showing culturally accepted feminine traits are female gender) can reinforce gender stereotypes. Meh, I this these kinds of over complicating trivial things, forming complex definitions and fighting over it's validity is silly, let people be what they want to be. End if story. Everybody's happy. ☺️

I think your confused .

1. Transgender is not a personnel  assigned identity it's a medically assign category. So your notion  above is wrong. 

2. My definition of Transgender (which is different then transsexual ) is based on the APA definition which states 

3. Transsexualism is not the same as Transgenderism

Quote:Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx
   
Also the rest is addressed here 

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/03/0...-declined/

And here

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/12/0...-delusion/

Dude, c’mon. Rachel Dolezal was enough. The cultural and physical traits of women of color are not for white consumption. End of story.

(November 17, 2017 at 6:34 am)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Dude, c’mon.  Rachel Dolezal was enough. The cultural and physical traits of women of color are not for white consumption. End of story.

*Chastened, Crossless sadly puts his gele on the top shelf of the closet*

(November 17, 2017 at 6:34 am)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Dude, c’mon. Rachel Dolezal was enough. The cultural and physical traits of women of color are not for white consumption. End of story.

Which traits of women of colour aren't for white consumption?

(November 16, 2017 at 11:08 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 16, 2017 at 11:02 am)bennyboy Wrote: This is another one of those cases where people take a word, use it exactly opposite to what it meant, and then when enough do it, they say "well, that's what it means.  Look in the dictionary."

"Literally" is one example.  People have used it wrongly so much, that one of its meanings is now "figuratively."  That's literally the dumbest thing that's happened, ever in history!

"Gender" is another.  Gender comes from genus, "to beget," and it describes the role one has / is expected to have in the begetting of new human beings that is typical for 90 or 95% of the species.  It's not an insult, it's just what that word means-- were you born with the precursors to a sperm injection system, or a sperm receptacle / baby incubating system?

Ahem....

Quote:gen·der
ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"
synonyms: sex
"variables included age, income, and gender"

Tell us more about what gender means, and how you strongly object to words being used to grant specificity and clarity to a subject with vast overlap?  Terrific was originally coined from the word terror..do you object to my kids teachers putting "terrific job" and a couple of green stars on the english homework?  Language changes Benny, you should know that.  If it changes for the better, allowing us to communicate more complex and subtle concepts.....I can;t imagine -why- you would get so worked up about that.  Isn't that language working as intended?

This is a good example of the process of the "evolution" of a word, by which it is forced to mean what it didn't mean due to social influence.

I'm not worked up at all, btw. I just like words to mean what they mean, and for them to represent something real. The current social clime is pretty much in the process of tearing down meanings and replacing them with enough ambiguity for everybody to think whatever they want about things, without regard to considerations of reality. I'd say at this point, the term "gender" literally means nothing at all, and it therefore has very little use as a descriptor.

There's a reason that English words are built out of Latin-- it's because the person who coined a term was trying to convey a particular meanings.

(November 17, 2017 at 7:47 am)bennyboy Wrote: This is a good example of the process of the "evolution" of a word, by which it is forced to mean what it didn't mean due to social influence.

...................

Quote:I'm not worked up at all, btw.  I just like words to mean what they mean, and for them to represent something real.  

It does "mean what it means", and cultural normatives are very real.  So, check and check, right?

Quote:The current social clime is pretty much in the process of tearing down meanings and replacing them with enough ambiguity for everybody to think whatever they want about things, without regard to considerations of reality.  I'd say at this point, the term "gender" literally means nothing at all, and it therefore has very little use as a descriptor.

There's nothing ambiguous about what the term refers to.  That was the whole point of it's use..before it was used this way..there -was- ambiguity both within and between cultures. It has little use for you, but a great deal of use in specificity. Hilariously, before the term was used in this way the only terms which could convey the meaning were a laundry list of social pejoratives...I'll be employing two below. See if you spot them, when you do..take a moment to consider your reaction to either.

Quote:There's a reason that English words are built out of Latin-- it's because the person who coined a term was trying to convey a particular meanings.

Or, shot in the dark... you're getting pissy at words because they don't support your brilliant objections to words.

DNA doesn't determine gender. The term gender explicitly and specifically refers to things -not- determined by ones DNA. More accurately, it refers to expectations of a given sex within a given culture. If you were significantly effeminate, you would not be gender conforming even if your wardrobe was full of flannel and denim, you went to monster truck rallies every saturday, and you were perfectly happy with your penis. The end.

(November 16, 2017 at 6:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 16, 2017 at 4:11 pm)paulpablo Wrote: There's no harm in the man identifying with what he wants but he seems to be a gay American white guy.

His reasons for identification are spiritual bullshit, saying he feels his soul connects with Filipino culture on a subconscious level.

I don't think there's anything controversial about the story though, it's just a crazy guy who seems to be unhappy in his own skin, so he's trying to be this other human who is happy, his mothers Filipina friend.

Yeah I was going to say the same. I feel really bad for him. Seems like he really just wants to be someone else bc he isn't happy with himself/his life.

(November 16, 2017 at 6:38 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(November 16, 2017 at 2:16 pm)Dearborn Ellington Wrote: No it's perfectly normal to think you're a chick when you're a dude. And hey, it doesn't hurt anyone, so it fulfills the left's only "virtue". 

But thinking that you're an asian when you're not, well, now that would be ridiculous. 

In other news, average IQs around the world are the same don't you know.

Wow a new idiot on this forum

---

(November 16, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Dearborn Ellington Wrote: The guy obviously has severe mental issues.

Proof

---

(November 16, 2017 at 11:37 am)pool the matey Wrote: If I give you a random person how do you determine what gender that person is with that definition?

We use cultural points .

The evidence that this white man has mental issues is clearly demonstrated in the video. He thinks he's a woman and he thinks he's an asian. He needs therapy.

It's obvious what Neo spastic's agenda is here. He's tried doing it before. Post about someone who is clearly not something, but is also trans and conflate the two as equally delusional. I don't know why he is so keen on pushing this agenda. I can only assume that he is repressing bisexual or homosexual urges and is trying to fool himself.

Regardless. You should not conflate self identifying as a different gender than your physical body with that of identifying as a different culture. The two are completely different phenomenon. The former has a fundamental biological aspect that the latter lacks.

Just because you were born and raised in a country does not automatically mean that you will develop the values and cultural norms of that country. I believe that there is a filtering effect that can happen where people can find a culture best suited to their nature which becomes their new home.

I was born and raised in England for example and lived in England most of my life. Yet I identify as German and Scottish. No one thinks that this is strange because my dad is German and even though I do not have a Scottish accent I live in Scotland with a native husband. They have the concept up here of the new Scot. I never felt English but I immediately recognised Scotland as the home for me when I first moved up here. But I also recognise that I am culturally British despite my separatist tendencies. On the other hand while my father is German, he's lived in England most of his life because he prefers it there because he sees the society as being less rigid. He's actually quite English at times, to the point of making Hitler jokes while on holiday in Germany as if he was some British tourist. My dad even gets complimented on his good German language skills because he has lost his native accent.

Yet Germans and Brits did not develop differently in the womb like males and females do. But there were values and a world view that appealed more to me in these countries than in the one where I was born and raised.

So someone thinks that they are a Fillipino. No one knows why, the original article does not explain. Nor do we know if the person had any Fillipino heritage. But frankly, who cares? There is obviously something about the Fillipines that appeals to the person. Personally I'd say that calling yourself a Fillipino is a step too far if you aren't even living in that country and integrating into the culture. Same as calling yourself a woman if you're not attempting to live as one. This is because the way you live your life also shapes how your brain becomes wired. e.g. Nurture vs nature.

That doesn't mean to say that the person is wrong to recognise that the way they think and what they value is inherently similar, whether that's because of how their brain developed in the womb because of the influence of hormones, or because of how their brain developed because of the life they lead.

But it's much easier to point and laugh like children rather than think the matter through.