A contradiction in the liberal view of gender

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see that you're fishing for arguments, as you were fishing in those statements.  I'm telling you exactly what I just told you.  That the presence of peen does not determine what gender a person identifies as.

You were wrong. Will you now search for other things to be wrong about? If there are contradictions in some "liberal view" of gender (I;m sure there are plenty, lol) you failed to identify one. You're now failing to identify anything I've told you.

[bennyboy]

Gender is the state of being male or female by most definitions. Not the state of washing dishes and rearing children.

But what's fundamentally the difference between being male and female? It's got to be based on something. If you try to define it, the definitions do seem rather arbitrary or stereotypical.

One has an innie, and one has an outie.  I'm sticking with that.

[shadow]

I'm talking more about one's ideals. If someone thinks that there should be no difference between how we treat men and women, it is at the very least logically inconsistent for them to think that it should matter whether you are one or the other. I could see it as a means to deal with the fact that the world isn't yet what one might desire it to be, but it is still contradictory reasoning in that case.

-and I'm reminding you that just because someone or someones - plural, shouldn't, doesn't mean that they don't.  That this is not a contradiction between the two statements you chose to reference. 

I don't care about the wording of my statements or whatnot, I'm trying to understand this viewpoint. It seems like a contradiction between a proclaimed ideology and an expressed one.

To provide an analogy: it's like if I thought religions are all BS, but decided to convert from being a Muslim to a Christian. Why not just be an atheist, or distance myself from religion as much as possible if my society doesn't allow me to completely leave it? Why emphasize the change?

A poor analogy, even statement A doesn't call them bullshit, - it calls them arbitrary - and they are, as evidenced by vast disparity between competing notions of gender between cultures as they refer to their respective sexes.  Their being arbitrary doesn;t change the fact that they exist, and that people within those frameworks find them both compelling..and, in some cases, disphoric.  

Arbitrary, and rather valueless. I don't think this ideology, call it what you like, finds stereotypial gender roles compelling.

Just my experience. I absolutely agree it's not like all liberals will think this or that they are the only ones, just that there are many liberal people who hold this view, who I would otherwise agree with on many issues.

Why do you think liberals hold that view?  Why do you think it's the view of sociology, psychology, and ethics?  I take it by "otherwise" you mean you disagree here, but are you disagreeing with anything that's actually being said?

Haha... it sort of has to do with what I'm studying. I'm a joint major between two faculties, Environment and Business, so there's a very clear distinction in my mind between the two factions and their beliefs. I'd suspect that is the origin of my phrasing. I've never specifically studied sociology, psychology, or ethics, so I don't think it would be accurate for me to apply this viewpoint to them.

I agree strongly with A, which is why B doesn't seem as pertinent.

Even more simply - if someone wants to be a girl or be called a girl or be treated like a girl..whats the fucking problem?

I couldn't care less. But I don't think it should matter all that much if someone wants to be called a girl or treated like one.

---

I can see that you're fishing for arguments, as you were fishing in those statements.  I'm telling you exactly what I just told you.  That the presence of peen does not determine what gender a person identifies as.

I didn't bring that up. I believe you said it was a physical thing that defined the difference between male and female, right? Now you're saying it's not.

By the way, I'm not fishing at all. I didn't come here with an agenda, I'm just trying to reconcile some viewpoints I've been exposed to. I'd appreciate if you didn't assume I want to be proven right. I just want to understand this perspective, but I seem to be missing something that makes it logically consistent.

You were wrong.  Will you now search for other things to be wrong about?  If there are contradictions in some "liberal view" of gender (I;m sure there are plenty, lol) you failed to identify one.

Okay, I'm still confused though. I'm not trying to convince anyone or 'identify contradictions', I'm just trying to understand something.

You're now failing to identify anything I've told you.

I don't think I understand all of your arguments if that's what you mean.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't care about the wording of my statements or whatnot, I'm trying to understand this viewpoint. It seems like a contradiction between a proclaimed ideology and an expressed one.

The wordings of -your- statements?  I thought these were the statements of others, accepted by liberals?  If it seems like a contradiction, it's because you have a sloppy mind.  

Arbitrary, and rather valueless. I don't think this ideology, call it what you like, finds stereotypial gender roles compelling.

Society, however, does.... as do gender disphorics.  If you have a dick, no matter how "girly" you feel...even to the point of wanting to lop of your business....will make others see you that way - and so you have to manifest or accentuate affectations suitable to the gender role.  

This isn't limited to trans, either.  As a male with peen, you'd still have to "act like a man" to be taken -as- man...if you feel like a man and want to be one...

......and if you don't.....good luck to you.  

Haha... it sort of has to do with what I'm studying. I'm a joint major between two faculties, Environment and Business, so there's a very clear distinction in my mind between the two factions and their beliefs. I'd suspect that is the origin of my phrasing. I've never specifically studied sociology, psychology, or ethics, so I don't think it would be accurate for me to apply this viewpoint to them.

lol, environment and business but no ethics?  Jesus christ...are you studying to be an oil baron?  

I agree strongly with A, which is why B doesn't seem as pertinent.

Too bad you don't set the metrics of societal conformity and pressure, I guess?  

I couldn't care less. But I don't think it should matter all that much if someone wants to be called a girl or treated like one.

So you don't "otherwise agree"  at all, you simply agree.  Problem solved.

[paulpablo]

If you have a dick, no matter how girly you feel, even to the point of lopping off your dick, will make others see you that way.

No matter how many times I read that it doesn't make sense.

I think you're trying to say that if someone acts girly people won't see them as a girl if they have a dick.

[shadow]

I don't care about the wording of my statements or whatnot, I'm trying to understand this viewpoint. It seems like a contradiction between a proclaimed ideology and an expressed one.

The wordings of -your- statements?  I thought these were the statements of others, accepted by liberals?  If it seems like a contradiction, it's because you have a sloppy mind. 

Not direct, word specific statements, just ideologies. I'm trying to put into words the components of a paradigm that others have, but what I'm saying is it's not a super specific, word for word contradiction I'm trying to get at. It's what I perceive as a contradictory ideology. 

Arbitrary, and rather valueless. I don't think this ideology, call it what you like, finds stereotypial gender roles compelling.

Society, however, does.... as do gender disphorics.  If you have a dick, no matter how "girly" you feel...even to the point of wanting to lop of your business....will make others see you that way - and so you have to manifest or accentuate affectations suitable to the gender role.  

This isn't limited to trans, either.  As a male with peen, you'd still have to "act like a man" to be taken -as- man...if you feel like a man and want to be one...

......and if you don't.....good luck to you.  

It's a bit different for girls, I guess. I frequently ignore stereotypical feminine behaviors that don't suit my preferences/lifestyle and I've never observed anyone judging me for it. I don't think it's impossible for this to be the case.

Regardless, that's the contradiction. It's behaving against your ideology because of how society will treat you for it. I try to act upon my ideologies in my day to day life, so I consider it contradictory to believe something should be one way but not actually live that way.

Haha... it sort of has to do with what I'm studying. I'm a joint major between two faculties, Environment and Business, so there's a very clear distinction in my mind between the two factions and their beliefs. I'd suspect that is the origin of my phrasing. I've never specifically studied sociology, psychology, or ethics, so I don't think it would be accurate for me to apply this viewpoint to them.

lol, environment and business but no ethics?  Jesus christ...are you studying to be an oil baron?  

No, a renewable energy baron. Don't insult me by suggesting I have anything but disdain for fossil fuels. 
In all seriousness, though, I'm only halfway done my degree so I haven't taken ethics yet. Don't worry, I don't think they give you a degree without it.

I agree strongly with A, which is why B doesn't seem as pertinent.

Too bad you don't set the metrics of societal conformity and pressure, I guess?  

Who does?

I couldn't care less. But I don't think it should matter all that much if someone wants to be called a girl or treated like one.

So you don't "otherwise agree"  at all, you simply agree.  Problem solved.

I meant that as in: I don't really think it really makes a difference what gender someone is either way, and I'd try to treat someone the same way regardless of what gender they are or want to be treated as.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you have a dick, no matter how girly you feel, even to the point of lopping off your dick, will make others see you that way.

No matter how many times I read that it doesn't make sense.

I think you're trying to say that if someone acts girly people won't see them as a girl if they have a dick.

Some people, no matter what you do or how you identify, [i]or what you were born as in some sexual sense -will see you as x. Even if you were born a guy they might still see you as, meaningfully, female.  Perhaps it doesn't "make sense" to you because you're one of those people with "limited" minds.  

Not direct, word specific statements, just ideologies. I'm trying to put into words the components of a paradigm that others have, but what I'm saying is it's not a super specific, word for word contradiction I'm trying to get at. It's what I perceive as a contradictory ideology. 

-and your perception in this is wrong.

It's a bit different for girls, I guess. I frequently ignore stereotypical feminine behaviors that don't suit my preferences/lifestyle and I've never observed anyone judging me for it. I don't think it's impossible for this to be the case.

Perhaps that has something to do with there being popular support for gender nonconformity in females the past 50 years?  Nevertheless, if you trully felt "like a man" in some meaningful trans sense.......I think you'd find the pushback, soon enough.

Regardless, that's the contradiction. It's behaving against your ideology because of how society will treat you for it. I try to act upon my ideologies in my day to day life, so I consider it contradictory to believe something should be one way but not actually live that way.

No, shadow, lol, it's not "the contradiction" - there's only one way to explain this to you and I've already done so.

No, a renewable energy baron. Don't insult me by suggesting I have anything but disdain for fossil fuels. 
In all seriousness, though, I'm only halfway done my degree so I haven't taken ethics yet. Don't worry, I don't think they give you a degree without it.

Here's to hoping.  

Who does?

Society-at-large, which is why it;s an issue for sociologists in the broad view, pyschologists in the individual view, and ethicists in the moral view.  

I meant that as in: I don't really think it really makes a difference what gender someone is either way, and I'd try to treat someone the same way regardless of what gender they are or want to be treated as.

Would that include imagining that theres some contradiction between being a male, sexually, and wanting to be treated as a male, as a matter of gender?  Would you treat me the same as you treat a girl? OFC not. We incredibly capable of treating people as our traditional gender roles define...but as soon as something deviates we start looking for "contradictions".

The "liberal view" of these gender constructs is that they exist - and that they are arbitrary - further, that regardless of which -if any- of these gender constructs a person chooses to identify as - they have every right to do so and you have an ehtical compulsion to afford them that dignity. Pretty easy stuff, right?

[paulpablo]

The concept of what you said made sense, I had to guess what the concept was because of how badly the sentence was structured.

---

The way I see the liberal view point of gender is that there's what you identify as being.
And there's your biological sex.
And there's gender roles, some gender roles are general biological tendencies and some are imposed by society.
Transgenders are people who identify as being different to whatever biological sex they are born as.

I know there's probably some extreme liberals who believe every gender role is imposed by society rather than being a biological tendency, and biological sex doesn't exist which is something I would argue against.

But as for the rest of what I mentioned I don't really see a contradiction but maybe I haven't grasped what you're saying properly.

[bennyboy]

I have to say that in my case, roles and reality are different. If a man wants to wear a dress and call himself Sarah, fuck yeah go for it. If I'm dating a girl named Sarah, and she looks up adoringly during a blowjob and tells me don't worry about getting her pregnant, because she used to be a man, then I'm gonna be pretty upset. I'll probably tell her "Jeezus H. Christ, you just finish what you're doing and get the hell out of here!"

[emjay]

I have to say that in my case, roles and reality are different.  If a man wants to wear a dress and call himself Sarah, fuck yeah go for it.  If I'm dating a girl named Sarah, and she looks up adoringly during a blowjob and tells me don't worry about getting her pregnant, because she used to be a man, then I'm gonna be pretty upset.  I'll probably tell her "Jeezus H. Christ, you just finish what you're doing and get the hell out of here!"

For me, I'm bi, so attracted to both sexes but there is some deep-rooted and hard to define difference in the nature of the attraction according to what gender they were biologically born as; ie if I was in a Crying Game situation... basically the same situation as you just described... it would make a difference, regardless of they looked now. For instance, I've never really wanted to kiss female skin... I get nothing out of it... but I like to kiss male skin. In actuality there's probably no difference whatsoever between male and female skin, but there is this deep-rooted psychological difference of perception, so if I found out that a woman used to be a man, it would make them more attractive to me to kiss, and if a man told me he used to be a woman, it would him less attractive to kiss, because regardless of what they look like now, rightly or wrongly and accurately or inaccurately, those deep-rooted perceptions operate at a lower level than physical appearances.