Judge Dredd gay........ WTF

SuperflyTNT wrote: Let me make it simpler: If a person identifies themselves as transgendered, are they not saying that they are identifying themselves as the opposite gender?

No, they're actually not, not by default at least. They could, yes, but there are many different genders people identify as, it's not a male/female binary. Transgender is a blanket term for people who do not identify as a male or female and were not born of that sex. It's used much in the same way that Queer covers a plethora of sexuality.

You can change language, you can't change who a person is, you can only oppress them, so stop oppressing and start changing.

Ok, remove "opposite" and insert "another". The point remains that using the word "transgender" implies that there is a gender to begin with. So how is that gender defined upon birth? If a child is born male, what is that child's gender? If a cat is born, what is it's gender? Species? What?

Explain it to me.

I am in agreement that language changes, but using "gender", "gender idemtity", and "transgender" in the same context defeats the pupose of the word itself. If there is no "born gender" and gender is defined as "gender identity" then by definition there can be no such thing as "gender identity" because one's gender is the definition of their gender identity and one cannit be transgendered if their gemder is theor identity, How van one be opposed to themselves if their gender is who they are?

Please, explain how that works logically.

And please, quit the lecturing on oppression. I'm not oppressing anyone, I'm not against gays, gay rights, and as a very vocal libertarian, I find the idea of inequality repulsive to the extreme. My issue here isn't with the thoughts or ideas we're discussing as much as the incoherent use of the word gender. The word gender, as you are describing, cannot logically be used as you're attempting to express. It's circular logic, as far as I can see. One simply cannot use "gender" interchangeably with "gender identity" because the terms rely upon one another for meaning. As I said, long ago, if gender means "traits referring to sexual preference" then gender identity is a moot word. If transgender relies upon your definition of gender as "above" then one cannot be transgendered because they would have to opposed to one's gender. If gender is user defined, then they could not be opposed to it because they defined it.

It's a semantic argument I'm making, not a philosophical one,

TS, I'd like to point out to your young, entitled self that between you and I, only one of us is trying to explain their argument, only one of usmis trying to understand what the other side is saying,

And it's not you. You've added nothing to the conversation. As usual.

Go back to wiping your dick off on your mom's curtains, and after you're both done crying, go sit back at the kid's table until you can learn how to have a discussion, You are a troll, a cunt, and an annoying little pussy. Fuck. Off.

The problems happen because society enforces male gender to male sex and female gender to female sex and this isn't always true and it goes beyond that binary (for both sex and gender, see intersexed and genderqueer). If you accept this simple premise your semantic wankery is unnecessary. Also, pro move on the sexist insults, really reinforces your ~true libertarian I oppose inequality~ stance.

TS Cook, your hard on for Superfly Pete is showing ... how many threads is it now?

Ok, remove "opposite" and insert "another".

Very different statement then, but it remains the same as I described it.

The point remains that using the word "transgender" implies that there is a gender to begin with.

I'm not sure of your point, I was not arguing that there was no such thing as gender, I was saying there are many genders.

So how is that gender defined upon birth? If a child is born male, what is that child's gender? If a cat is born, what is it's gender? Species? What?

Upon birth I'd say a person has no gender. We generally call them boys and girls based on their genitals, We treat them as such and this in a way conditions their gender, but it's not there from birth. It's the same way you can't be straight or gay when you're one day old, you don't know what those things are, you aren't developed enough. If you have any insight to how a newborn boy and girl differ on a non-anatomic level I'd be glad to hear.

I am in agreement that language changes, but using "gender", "gender idemtity", and "transgender" in the same context defeats the pupose of the word itself.

Gender and gender identity are pretty interchangeable, transgender means your gender and your sex are different.

If there is no "born gender" and gender is defined as "gender identity" then by definition there can be no such thing as "gender identity" because one's gender is the definition of their gender identity and one cannit be transgendered if their gemder is theor identity, How van one be opposed to themselves if their gender is who they are?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I feel like you're still not grasping the differences between one's gender and sex.

And please, quit the lecturing on oppression. I'm not oppressing anyone, I'm not against gays, gay rights, and as a very vocal libertarian, I find the idea of inequality repulsive to the extreme.

I never said you were against anyone, I said you were oppressive, and you are. You literally said transgendered people were bastardising languages, and then you literally said your gender is your sex. Those are two oppressive statements. They are oppressive because you're restricting (or attempting to) people's ability to express themselves as they see fit because 'it doesn't work for you'.

scissors wrote: TS Cook, your hard on for Superfly Pete is showing ... how many threads is it now?

Not my fault he is chronically wrong.

SuperflyTNT wrote:
Gender and gender identity are two separate things,

This.



And I don't like that they have an 'other' box. Everyone is either one or the other or should be able to identify themselves with one or the other.

Black Barney wrote: Everyone is either one or the other or should be able to identify themselves with one or the other.

The problem isn't that people are not inclined to identify with one or the other. The problem starts when from a very early age everyone around him or her denies that self-identification. Growing up in that kind of conflict about one's very identity and intimate relations has a profound psychological impact. Sorting things out afterwards is extremely difficult, and can involve everything from deep therapy, to sex-reassignment surgery, to self-imposed social isolation, and so on. Brutal.

Bull, you're simply not understanding my point and, unfortunately, you are not reading what I am saying. You call me oppressive when I blame sociologists who want to categorize.

You just said "gender and gender identity are interchangeable". You go on to say that transgender means one's sex and gender are different. So, in the first case, sex doesn't mean gender but in the second case gender DOES mean sex. And that is my point, which you so perfectly illustrated: you are using gender as sex when you want and then as sexuality when you want.

That makes no logical sense from a semantic standpoint. Without having gender mean "sex" then none of the other words need to exist. One would assign their own "gender" based on their "identity" and therefore any person could be man, women, or other.

If gender = sexuality, then why would anyone be labelled transgender? They would simply not be male gendered, female gendered, or whatever. There would be no need to label as trans- becasue as you are saying, gender is sexual identity and if you're born neutral gender and choose to be gay or whatever, you would simply be whatever you choose...there would be no starting gender so there would be no trans-.

This is all really illogical use of language to describe things. Seems to me that the sociologists and social science professors had a field day trying to make shit up to fit people into little boxes. In any event, they should've gone down the hall to the English professors and had them check their grammar.

Pete's point about semantics seems sound. And in fact I think that's why these terms are debated all the time in academic forums. There is an inherent difficulty with using general categories when things vary so much case by case.

Hatchling wrote: Pete's point about semantics seems sound.

I agree. Language is supposed to make it easier to communicate, not cloud the issue being discussed.

If Gender = Sex, then transgender has physiological meaning; "the plumbing" as Pete calls it is/has/will be/whatever in flux.* Gender Identity also has a meaning that's more psychological, and is more meaningful than gender or transgender.

If Gender = Gender Identity, then transgender has psychological meaning. Transsexual should then have the physiological meaning because we've separated Gender from Sex. We can then just stop saying "gender identity", because that's how we've defined "gender" in this case.

Either way it's not as easy as saying "male" or "female".*

* I believe that a person's sex should be determined by their chromosomal makeup, and their identity completely their own. I see Pete's point, but "the plumbing" is oversimplifying the issue.

Hatchling wrote: There is an inherent difficulty with using general categories when things vary so much case by case.

Yep, and there are always special cases. People tend to be better at arguing than deciding. I still miss Pluto.

Also, I've seen Judge Dredd and I'm pretty sure Stallone is cismale and straight, but it's not like we go to the gym together either.

Whatever happened to poor Judge Dredd?

tscook wrote: How do you think words obtain meaning? Some Platonic ideal we all glimpse? Words have meaning through their usage.

In the past I've tried the dictionary, it usually works pretty well. Of course a lot of modern people reject it as a byproduct of the older patriarchal system and consider it biased. In the meantime, short of talking to a broad enough cross section of humanity to get a democratic understanding of how all people use language... it works pretty well. Did you know that the people who write them take modern usage into account and write it down for us so we don't have to ask a million people ourselves? It's an awesome invention you should look into it.

Here's wikipedia's definition, about as pop as you can get I suppose and not my dictionary of choice but since they've already been quoted here before:

Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity.[1] Depending on the context, the term may refer to the sex (i.e. the state of being male or female), social roles (as in gender roles) or gender identity.

It goes on to say much more and give context and history, it's not too bad an article really.

tscook wrote: The definition has changed, deal with it.

If it's changed so drastically why is this argument happening at all? If you go around all of America and check how it's used who would be democratically right? Is your definition the most widely used? I'd guess that we're not there yet. The Ivory Tower where people have the luxury to sit around arguing about language does't disseminate all it's unassailable wisdom as quick as the young students might like. There are plenty of words from 20 year old academia that still haven't made their way into popular lexicon.

Pete is partly right. So is Cook.

Words are defined by their usage regardless of how ambiguous it makes them (and the dictionaries will eventually incorporate that if it becomes widely used). It doesn't matter if the words definition is clear to you or me... hell "fuck" has to be one of the most broad words around yet both of these people and indeed all of us use it a fuck of a lot. What Cook and others are implying does not make it difficult to understand what gender means... we are all able to take context into account. We're all smart enough to use the rest of the words available and our conversational abilities to talk to whoever it is and partly understand them.

Language is great and I do like explicit conversation and explicit words. But no matter how clear the words are, no matter how useful language is we will always need to probe. Language is meant to allow us to communicate clearly but I've found in all my years of living that I rarely have the words available to me to make people understand how I truly feel. Words alone don't suffice... which is why we use conversation instead.

I can have a thought that literally takes less then 10 seconds to happen in my head but even if I wrote 50 pages on that thought I may still be unable to communicate it. That's how much of a hindrance language is to me. Words alone don't cut it.

The other thing is that without kinesics we're somewhat lost. Which is why it's easy to mis-understand each other here. Pete at least tries with a bunch of TL:DR's but Cooks just using arrogant - I'm obviously right so no need to explain - one liners. Which causes even more confusion and animosity.

Now I've written another TL:DR that says the same thing I said before... no ones wrong here.

Wow, Friday already? This week is flying.

The reason no one has yet been able to come up with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay, fag, queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own sex, many don't; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our nature and not worth fretting about.

Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.

I think Gore Vidal said it best. All of the fracas comes down to people wanting to classify one another in order to control them. Government has no place in the private lives of individuals, and what all of this comes down to is trying to find creative ways to further divide people so they can be more easily controlled.