(February 7, 2019 at 7:55 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Male and female are sex, not gender.  Gender refers to the social constructs we lay atop sex.  That's what people are talking about with non binarism.  They aren't talking about people who have a penis and a vagina, or no penis, or no vagina.

Go show yourself, let wonder lead you to knowledge.

Uhuh.  So show me a gender role or construct which isn't based on the male/female division.

As I said, go show yourself.  It's a pretty interesting subject, you might enjoy it.

(February 7, 2019 at 8:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: As I said, go show yourself.  It's a pretty interesting subject, you might enjoy it.

No.  You've made an assertion, and I'd like you to support it with specific examples, please.

You say gender is non-binary.  Fine, show me any specific aspect of any gender identity, construct or role which isn't ultimately distilled down to that male/female binary that you insist is only about genitals.

Start here, have fun.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

(February 7, 2019 at 2:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Well, let me put it this way-- all traits are either ying or yang, Apollonian or Dionysian; that's because most scalar traits are bipolar: tall vs. short (tall would be "male"), strong vs weak (strong would be "male").  If you plot any scale vs gender, then either there's a scalar transition (one end of the scale is more typical of females, the other of males), or there's a perpendicular relationship-- neither end of the scale is typically male or female.

There are traits which depend on gender, but only on two categories of gender, and that's because traits are scalar.  Someone says, "Oh trait X is masculine" or "Oh trait Y is feminine," or "Oh trait Z isn't really gender-dependent."  I don't think anybody says, "Oh, traits ABC are gender-bender-ist," other than the trait of identifying as a gender bender.


The discussion, to me, is about whether if many of a person's traits are typically found in people of the other gender, you say "This is a male with predominantly female traits" or "This is a female (because of the vast preponderance of female traits), who happens to have been born in/with a male body."

I prefer the first: the classification-of-fact, in my opinion, should be as unambiguous as possible, and based on concrete reality.  I find it much clearer to say "biologically male, but identify as female" than "woman trapped in a male body."

What you've stated is more or less 2 paragraphs of irrelevancy.  It's like saying that there are only 2 races, black or white, and no one thinks that way.

(February 7, 2019 at 10:38 pm)Jehanne Wrote: What you've stated is more or less 2 paragraphs of irrelevancy.  It's like saying that there are only 2 races, black or white, and no one thinks that way.

It's not like that. Almost all people are born male or female, under any definition of that term. The same cannot be said of race.

(February 7, 2019 at 5:48 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: adam's apple..adam's apple... lol. The notion is that it got stuck in his craw, lol. Let that sink in.

But lets run with that. Gender identity is about characteristics as we conceptualize them in the gender construct, not traits as they exist in your pants. Did you choose to be "masculine" or "effeminate" to whatever degree you are either..or is it simply who you are?

I think I clearly delineated trait, characteristic and preference (even if my phone auto-correct messed up my anatomy). I grew up walking effeminate, it was a learned characteristic, not a choice. I could have chosen to change my posture to appear less effeminate, which would be a preference. Neither of those things is who I am as a trait. You may be right but let me try filling in my beliefs:
You say, Gender identity is about characteristics as we conceptualize them in the gender construct. My gender identity is male because I conceptualize my gender by my cock and don't have any cognitive dissonance with my socially normative constructs that contradict that causing me to be gender dysphoric. If I lost my cock I would identify myself as male and conceptualize my gender as male eunuch because there was no cognitive dissonance due to my gonadal operation. I might feel as less of a man but my chemical, emotional, behavioral and cultural status didn't change. So I guess gender identity isn't dependent on gonads, and my normative quick interpretation of my current gender identity is a conglomeration of more than just my dick. It is however, probably one of the most informing personal and societal factors of gender identity, most likely.

I believe what benny is trying to say is that even third, forth or other gender characteristics are contextually binary because humans are sexual dimorphic. You can say there is a man, there is a woman, but anything else is a combination or absence of the 2 terms.

I wasn't commenting in the typo (i hate ac, lol)..but on the derivation of the term as a part of our current construct.  It's not eve's apple.  

Quote:You say, Gender identity is about characteristics as we conceptualize them in the gender construct. 

I say that because it's the product of centuries of anthropological study.

Quote:My gender identity is male because I conceptualize my gender by my cock and don't have any cognitive dissonance with my socially normative constructs that contradict that causing me to be gender dysphoric. 

-and because the construct under which your perceptions were formed does the same.  If it didn't, you wouldn't.

Quote:If I lost my cock I would identify myself as male and conceptualize my gender as male eunuch because there was no cognitive dissonance due to my gonadal operation. I might feel as less of a man but my chemical, emotional, behavioral and cultural status didn't change. So I guess gender identity isn't dependent on gonads, and my normative quick interpretation of my current gender identity is a conglomeration of more than just my dick. It is however, probably one of the most informing personal and societal factors of gender identity, most likely.

-in the construct with which you are most familiar.

Quote:I believe what benny is trying to say is that even third, forth or other gender characteristics are contextually binary because humans are sexual dimorphic. You can say there is a man, there is a woman, but anything else is a combination or absence of the 2 terms. 

That's how our construct expresses itself, yeah.  That the contents of the binary construct are malleable by reference to itself and change over time..by reference to the contents of other binary constructs, and that the construct (and even it's language) is fundamentally non applicable outside of itself or other similarly binary constructs leaves no room to exclaim that the construct is representative of anything other -than- itself.  It's true as far as it;s normative assumption is insisted upon, but not true in any way beyond that.  

Gender -is- binary..in your construct.  Insisting that this is as true as it certainly is and has been is not the subject of gender non-binarism. Which is the observation that other constructs exist and have existed for all of recorded history. Gender binarism is the preference for a binary construct, not a truth statement of gender.

Here's another fun thing to chase down the rabbit hole..and it swirls around your impressions of your own manhood above.  The presence of peen you take to be instructive (even though you don't take it's removal to be so).  So..at various points in time, eunochs weren't considered men at all...and in alot of tribal kinship structures, even explicitly binary ones..a person cannot simply be born a man or a woman.  They must become  either through ritual test or procedure.  

These ideas still echo through our culture, which has largely abandoned them as then-envisioned. Informal rites of passage, feats of manhood, and (largely derogatory)psuedo-distinction replacing their strong normative incarnations.

(February 8, 2019 at 5:17 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 7, 2019 at 10:38 pm)Jehanne Wrote: What you've stated is more or less 2 paragraphs of irrelevancy.  It's like saying that there are only 2 races, black or white, and no one thinks that way.

It's not like that.  Almost all people are born male or female, under any definition of that term.  The same cannot be said of race.

Don't tell that to people who are Hispanic.