/gsm/ - Gender & Sexual Minorities

i 100% agree

>>39

Indeed, there are only two genders. Nobody is really disputing that, unless you are inclinded to consider hermaphrodites a gender of their own, as opposed to as a 'merging' of the two more commonly occuring ones.

But this is primarily about sexuality (asexuality and non-binary do not describe attitudes towards physical gender, but towards concepts of sexuality). And a major part of sexuality is the categorisation/labelling/treatment of others, especially where it pertains to reduction to genders where it doesn't belong, making unsubstantiated connections between types of bodies and types of personalities and even assignments.

If a woman behaves 'masculin' (and what does that even mean) and perhaps fits a stereotypical "male" profile, she should be considered at most an uncommon occurence, but not a gender-related anomaly. The notion that genders are in some way exclusive when it comes to character and attitude is precicely what leads to the extreme confusion about gender, manifest particularly in transsexuality that at the same time denies and enforces the duality of gender. THIS is the source of the issue, and to deny that gender as a term is conflated FAR beyond the scientific-descriptive meaning that it undeniably has is completely missing the point. Though you are correct when you state that people who self-mutilate and only then are mentally and even physically satisfied with their sense of self are essentially suffering from a rather serious condition. But that is the extreme case, not the norm, and is not what falls under "attitudes towards sexuality and the perception thereof".

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, not sure I really managed to be as concise as I wanted to.

And by the way; How does paedophilia enter into any of this? It doesn't add to your argument that there are only two genders, and only serves to paint you as ignorantly associating mental instability of any kind with one particular notion of abnormal sexual preferences. If you are going to do that, at least make the connection clear, and if there is none, refrain from referring to off topic provocation entirely.

>>39

You CAN argue that gender is irrelevant as a distinct concept from sex, but in that case you would have to accept that genitals are all that matters, and that there is nothing unmasculine about a man wearing a dress etc since masculinity would only be defined by genitals.

Personally I find gender to be a useful concept, because the way I interact with people in my daily life means their genitals are usually irrelevant, but it's possible to put them in male or female gender categories by how they present themselves. Of course, we could just eliminate the concept of gender entirely and allow people to present however they want regardless of sex. In any case, I'm not about to ask to see someone's genitals before choosing to call them a boy or girl.

Basically, since there are "feminine" men and "masculine" women according to our current definition of gender, the abandonment of gender as a concept would also necessitate the abandonment of different societal roles for men and women, apart from reproduction obviously. Someone can follow female gender roles regardless of what genitalia they have, so if we eliminated gender there would be no such thing as "masculine" or "feminine" characteristics, in other words the ONLY masculine or feminine thing would be genitals. There would not be any masculine or feminine aspect to personality traits, clothing, hairstyles, or hobbies etc.

Also, pedophilia really has nothing to do with this. The word literally means sexual attraction to children, and calling myself a demiboy or whatever does not in any way imply sexual attraction to anyone at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

>>41

>But this is primarily about sexuality (asexuality and non-binary do not describe attitudes towards physical gender, but towards concepts of sexuality)

Actually, non-binary is about gender, not sexuality. It's not about who you're attracted to really, but more an attitude towards lifestyle with regards to social interaction, clothing etc. Gender is about grouping people into categories, usually based on physical sex but not matching it completely (for example, someone may be physically male but possess female-gendered personality traits and interests).

>>44

Thanks for the clarification, I'm afraid I was too unclear.

When I say "gender" I mean what is commonly refered to as "sex", i.e. the physical difference of bodies. That is why I mentioned hermaphrodites as a possible third "gender" as opposed to a third sex.

Non-Binary - unless it refers specifically to hermaphrodites or the like - does not refer to this. It refers to gender perception, gender stereotyping, gender roles, generalisations (with or without merit) and so on. This is pretty much what you said in your response to OP. I call this "sexuality" because it represents an attitude towards gender (defined first and foremost through physical traits) specifically. It does not have to be about attraction or lust, but I would still argue that the desire to label someone "a boy or a girl" is a sexual interest. The only way this were not the case is if we were to accept something in addition to "mere" gender to be equivalent to the terms "boy" and "girl" (like 'masculinity'). But this I find to be a misuse of terminology, since it would deprive the terms of their actual meaning in favour of some sort of complex of associations that don't seem to be clearly defined.

I am non-binary in the sense that I reject the meaningfulness of terms like "feminine man", and - probably unlike you - I concede that the only thing reasonably gendered are genitalia. Every additional use of the labels is either application of probability or simply random association. The latter is inherently irrelevant, the prior at best a useful instrument but not a measure for identity.

Though to be fair, I might be conflating the term "non-binary" a little. I have heard stances similar to mine be described as "agender", for example.

Hope that didn't irritate you. I think we're almost in complete agreement, it's just a question of terminology. Our primary difference would probably come down to this;

>>43

>Of course, we could just eliminate the concept of gender entirely and allow people to present however they want regardless of sex

You say this, but you seem to argue nonetheless for the usefulness of the concept of "gender" (used in your sense here), so what exactly would we 'lose' if we eliminated this concept? My reply would be a flat-out "nothing" aside from a more or less functional but overused and overemphasized tool for categorisation, but I suspect your response would be slightly different.