Replied to you in my updated post. But yes, by age 3 that is when gender identity is cemented and hard or next to impossible to change.
First baby born without a gender in Canada
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Replied to you in my updated post. But yes, by age 3 that is when gender identity is cemented and hard or next to impossible to change.
Man of Honour
They were wearing makeup that was either ungendered or gendered masculine in the society they lived in. You're projecting the genderisation of the society you live in onto other societies and that's a mistake. Since gender is almost entirely artificial, it varies wildly from society to society and even in the same place over such a short timeframe that it's still the same society. In almost all things, societal norms are gender identity. There are a few biological trends that are gendered (e.g. height), but almost all of gender is artificial. It's just fashion.
I think you'd be better suited quoted asim18? Because if you actually read in-between the lines that is the point I'm making. You're definitely understating the biological factors for gender identity though, for most of our existence we were hunter-gatherers where the women bore children and nurtured them, their bodies designed to do so, while the men hunted and provided (their bodies designed to do so) that transitioned when we became farmers. This could be there was simply no choice now that men and women have equal opportunities, but there was no internet/mass media to influence ones mind into thinking (and those passing such radical thinking onto their children) so how much of that was hardwired so to speak? Who knows.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
No, because I was replying to your stated position that gender and societal norms are inherently completely different ("Absolute nonsense. Stop confusing societal norms and gender identity [..]")
There's a tendency towards a degree of differing adaptation and a resulting fairly small degree of sexual dimorphism, sure. There's no evidence of design, though. Quite the opposite, given the multitude of ways in which things could be done better with even just human level intelligence designing humans. That tendency isn't the same as gender and a tendency shouldn't be applied universally anyway. There's no reason to promote gender at all in any way. Even in the cases in which sexual dimorphism in humans results in some degree of a tendency towards a difference (i.e. gender that's actually real), that's not a reason to push that difference onto everyone (i.e. gender imposed by society).
There was even more scope for influence because societies were far smaller and people spoke. Enforcement of gender was even easier then than it is now. With a society of at most a couple of hundred people (and usually less) and a less assured and more dangerous life, there's far less scope for people not conforming. It was necessary to protect women far more than men because the death of even a small number of women would have a significant effect on the size of the next generation and thus on the future of the group. The death of a similar number of men wouldn't have that effect.
Caporegime
It's been around since the ancient Greeks, if not earlier. It just seems to have become more of a thing lately, or at least more publicised.
Caporegime
Your sex is not your gender, no matter how much you might think it is. The two are strongly correlated, very strongly, but it is not a 1:1 mapping.
Caporegime
It's a bad choice of words and not one I really understand. Non-binary means neither one nor the other, but that doesn't expressly mean that there has been a change from one gender to another. Non-binary would suggest a rejection of one gender and a choosing of neither.
Sex reassignment is also not the same as transgendering.
Caporegime
Sex is physical, gender is mental. It seems odd to me that so few people appear to understand this.
If gender is mental, that makes it subjective. Therefore why should i be forced to accept someones subjective sense of what they are?
Thank internet Dr nick!
Caporegime
You shouldn't, to a point, but I doubt it really comes up all that often anyway.
Soldato
Mother....
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,016
They called the kid cereal????
three, unless you're discriminating against hermaphrodites
Man of Honour
Maybe they're better placed to judge what they are or are not than you are? Equally it could be asked if someone requests that you refer to them in a particular way then what is the harm in going along with their wishes?
This subject is a minefield recently. Seeing it more and more in the work place.
Now I'm pretty relaxed and open minded with these things. If someone wants to be referred to as they, their, them or any other unisex or sexless term that's fine by me and I will respect their wishes.
However the big issue, especially in the work place, is one of toilets. Assigning them to the disabled toilets is a massive no no. I don't personally have any issues with m2f using the men's, but I'm pretty chilled. More often than not though the m2f wants to use the women's, as that is what they identify with. Fair play. But quite often a lot of the women feel uncomfortable with that... Which is perfectly understandable imo. But I've seen it twice now that the women have been described as 'unreasonable' by said individuals (and that's putting it extremely nicely).
Despite being pretty relaxed I'm on the side of the women.
I won't even go into the individual that went from man to woman, unannounced, lived as a women for two years then before surgery decided to change back. I felt sorry for his wife and kids..
well, maybe they aren't, and maybe there is.
Thats the point about subjectivity, there are no right or wrongs, only opinions.