A contradiction in the liberal view of gender

[shadow]

That's really true. It's what bothers me about some affirmative action things like 'Women in STEM' awards. If you put false incentives on something (like women pursuing STEM) you're not going to have a natural proportion of people pursuing it. I think it can be different if one group is clearly disadvantaged, but for something like science it's not like girls have fewer opportunities to study it than guys (at least in Canada, I'm sure its different elsewhere).

-and the other foot finally falls.  Something else bothers you.  

Plenty bothers me

I don't think that's an accurate parallel to draw. Adopting one of two extreme gender roles does not bridge the gap between them, as bringing food to those who don't have it bridges the gap between those who have food and those who don't. One is actively solving the problem, one is more of a compromise.

Who's looking to bridge any gap in either statement?  What gap?  What compromise is being made in either statement?

'Changing genders' implies that there are distinct genders and you are choosing one of them. Like, if I change my job, I distinctly no longer work in one job and I distinctly work in another. If you don't believe that genders are distinct, sure, choosing between two is better than being forced into one, but the full extent of your view is that you shouldn't have to choose between two.

---

No, they believe that they are arbitrary.  You're the one that chose to take the statement that they were arbitrary and then launch into something about them being invalid.

Well, sorry if I didn't make this clear in the OP, but that is the ideology I'm referring to.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then that would be your, entirely convenient, ideology....then?

---

'Changing genders' implies that there are distinct genders and you are choosing one of them. Like, if I change my job, I distinctly no longer work in one job and I distinctly work in another. If you don't believe that genders are distinct, sure, choosing between two is better than being forced into one, but the full extent of your view is that you shouldn't have to choose between two.

There -are- distinct genders in any given culture. They are meaningfully arbitrary, but they exist. The full extent of my view is that people should be afforded the dignity of choosing between whichever they want, or choosing neither.

This doesn;t mean that I think theres some compulsion to succeed. Or that, when a persons biological sex is genuinely relevant, it shouldn't be taken into account - I don;t think that you should have to successfully see a biological male as a female, or vv...or that you see tham as "none", nor do I think that a biological male who identifies as female with respect to gender should have legally assured access to womens health services (that would be pointless, lol "hey doc, how are my non-existent ovaries doing today?") - but you can put forward the bare minimum effort, we all can, we all have an ethical compulsion to at least -try-......and part of that implictly includes not setting extraneous obstacles either socially or by law - or by advocating for shitty arguments meant to diminish the subject entirely.

Agreed?

[shadow]

This doesn;t mean that I think theres some compulsion to succeed.  Or that, when a persons biological sex is genuinely relevant, it shouldn't be taken into account - I don;t think that you should have to successfully see a biological male as a female, or vv...or that you see tham as "none", nor do I think that a biological male who identifies as female with respect to gender should have legally assured access to womens health services (that would be pointless, lol "hey doc, how are my non-existent ovaries doing today?") - but you can put forward the bare minimum effort, we all can, we all have an ethical compulsion to at least -try-...

Agreed.

...and part of that implictly includes not setting extraneous obstacles either socially or by law - or by advocating for shitty arguments meant to diminish the subject entirely.

I am disappointed that you continue to act as though me wanting to discuss this is somehow an attack on transgender people. I have no desire to attack any group, but this feels like an insult against my motives instead of my argument. Are you under the impression I think I have a shitty argument and I just want to diminish the subject? Have I said anything to suggest this is the case, or been remotely hostile or closeminded towards anyone?

If it's your view of me that I somehow know any better than what I'm saying here, you clearly have no understanding of why I brought this up, and I don't see any reason to continue discussing it with you. If you're not willing to accept honest statements clarifying the intentions and meaning of my question (ie. post #49), your premise is wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn;t say it was an attack on transgender people, it was and is..however, an attempt to maintain that there is some contradiction in "the liberal view".  It isn't. I;m actually assuming that you and I and the liberal position are in agreement - and it certainly seems to be the case that this is true. Nevertheless, you think that something is wrong with that position.

I'm trying to help you understand, flat out, that "that position" is not the one to which your are objecting.

[shadow]

I didn;t say it was an attack on transgender people, it was and is..however, an attempt to maintain that there is some contradiction in "the liberal view".  It isn't.  I;m actually assuming that you and I and the liberal position are in agreement - and it certainly seems to be the case that this is true.  Nevertheless, you think that something is wrong with that position.

I'm trying to help you understand, flat out, that "that position" is not the one to which your are objecting.

I'm talking about a position that believes gender roles are entirely invalid. Regardless of whether or not you think that this was implied in my OP, do you think this view is entirely reconcilable with the view that we should support people changing from one gender to another? Or does that seem more like a compromise between one's ideals and the constraints of society?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, you're no longer talking about any position referenced in your op or in "the liberal view" - arbitrary does not mean invalid.  

Still, suppose a person thought that gender was invalid.  So what, it doesn't matter what they think, particularly if it means something to some other person who doesn't think it's invalid and wishes to both live and be seen as x.  We can afford them that dignity regardless of our own positions.  W have an ethical compulsikon to do so, regardless of our own positions, as we have in the case of many other positions and desires we might take to be meaningfully invalid - such as the desire to live as a loony christer and be seen as a loony christer.

You really, really need to come to some understanding and acknowledgement, in this convo, that you're discussing two entirely different things when you waffle on about validity after making statements regarding arbitrarity. Even after you do so, you won;t have advanced the idea of a compromise or a contradiction an inch. I don't have to compromise or contradict my stated view that loony christers are batshit crazy to afford them the dignity of living their lives as they see fit. The same is true of a person who thinks that gender constructs are invalid but supports the choice to identify with whatever invalid construct is meaningful to another.

[shadow]

Still, suppose a person thought that gender was invalid.  So what, it doesn't matter what they think, particularly if it means something to some other person who doesn't think it's invalid and wishes to both live and be seen as x.  We can afford them that dignity regardless of our own positions.  W have an ethical compulsikon to do so, regardless of our own positions, as we have in the case of many other positions and desires we might take to be meaningfully invalid - such as the desire to live as a loony christer and be seen as a loony christer.

Fair. I accept that's a moral view of the issue. But I don't think this ideology assumes transgender people are 'loonie' and 'batshit crazy'. Quite the opposite, actually. It assumes there is a legitimate rationale to their desire to change genders.

You really, really need to come to some understanding and acknowledgement, in this convo, that you're discussing two entirely different things when you waffle on about validity after making statements regarding arbitrarity. 

adjective: arbitrary

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
   

I don't see how it's inconceivable I would use this word to mean a belief is invalid and unsupported.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fair. I accept that's a moral view of the issue. But I don't think this ideology assumes transgender people are 'loonie' and 'batshit crazy'. Quite the opposite, actually. It assumes there is a legitimate rationale to their desire to change genders.

Sure, that they feel dysphoric in their arbitrarily assigned gender construct and that we have no reason to perpetuate or enforce this dysphoria.  It's arbitrary nature doesn't change anything about their dysphoria.  

adjective: arbitrary

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
   

I don't see how it's inconceivable I would use this word to mean a belief is invalid and unsupported.

Because you never set out to understand statement a in the first place.  You're looking for semantic equivalence, instead ..in order to manufacture a wedge because of, to put it bluntly, -other things that bother you-. Statement a refers to the arbitrary nature of gender as opposed to sex in that the gender a in one culture may conform to the gender b in another, and vv, and millions of permutations thereof. Nothing about gender uniformly or logically follows from peen/no peen. Nothing. Not even "x is the stronkgender". Nevertheless, these constructs exists and there are reasons for their existence (see: cultural)...further, these constructs are meaningful to people regardless of their arbitrary nature.

Meaningful enough to subject ones self to ridicule, ostracization, or worse, in conforming to them. Meaningful enough, even, to take steps to conform to them even when you were born with the culturally complimentary sexual equipment.

[emjay]

There's also a flip side to that stereotype-distorting conformity that Khemikal has touched upon; rebelling against a stereotype... eg accentuating the opposites/differences to the stereotype. I'd say that's just as distorting of the actual picture, because by accentuating those opposite/different aspects, it creates new stereotypes that probably would not have been extracted by the passive stereotyping process of the brain on their own. Personally I'd guess that that sort of effect is in play a lot in the gay world, both for gay men and lesbians, because there are uber-masculine and uber-feminine stereotypes in both camps eg 'camp' and 'butch'. So if we assume that the original gay (male) stereotype was camp... after all, that's how it's always portrayed in old TV... limp wrists and mincing etc... uber-feminine... then the now existence of uber-masculine gay stereotypes might have spawned in rebellion against that.

That's really true. It's what bothers me about some affirmative action things like 'Women in STEM' awards. If you put false incentives on something (like women pursuing STEM) you're not going to have a natural proportion of people pursuing it. I think it can be different if one group is clearly disadvantaged, but for something like science it's not like girls have fewer opportunities to study it than guys (at least in Canada, I'm sure its different elsewhere).

I had to look that up to know what you were talking about. I guess these stereotypes affect society at every level, right down from people's aspirations... in terms of what they think they can do/what would be suitable... up to similar judgements based on these stereotypes, subconscious or otherwise, of what an interviewee can do at job interviews... such that fair or unfair... mainly unfair... someone who wants to pursue something that is not in line with gender stereotypes, faces an uphill struggle to get employment in those jobs. Such as 'women in STEM'.

As it applies to what you're saying, on the one hand 'equal opportunities' quotas and suchlike (eg the awards you're talking about) are most definitely not truly representative... of anything... but on the other, although there are equal opportunities for study, there is nonetheless this stereotype effect in play, so in that sense there is a real lack of opportunity. There was an interesting episode of 'Yes Minister' or 'Yes Prime Minister', can't remember which, (a British comedy about government... but one which Maggie Thatcher said was incredibly accurate about how it worked), that dealt with pretty much this exact subject; introducing a quota of women into the civil service against the backdrop of a very resistant old boys network that thought women had no place there. In that episode they fared no better in solving that problem than anyone else; quotas are distorting and condescending and so are the stereotypes that lead to them. In the end, the woman offered a job under that system, basically told them to stick it because she felt patronised. So the solution to the problem all round is still far from obvious... and perhaps the only real way of dealing with it is simply to accept the stereotypes and carry on regardless.

[Amarok]

The thing stopping them from STEM is a cultural bias within those fields . I have known plenty of woman who say that's the reason they never went into STEM fields because they felt alienated and ostracized  by there colleagues and superiors .