6 ms·

I'm still waiting for the point in history of this planet that people abandon the concepts of sexual orientation or identity or gender completely. The only inte

I'm still waiting for the point in history of this planet that people abandon the concepts of sexual orientation or identity or gender completely. The only interesting thing to know is whether a person is able to give birth, biological sex that is, and that's only interesting for medical reasons.

ryanx435 8y ago
I'm still waiting for the point in history where science denying gender warriors like you wake up and come back to reality.
erkkie 8y ago
Why?
- dschuetz 8y ago
  Gender identity and sexual preference don't really matter. They are natural attributes of a person, just as natural as eyes and ears. The only thing I can do is to ignore people's attempts to appear more unique than others by treating them as regular human beings. I haven't seen any person identifying themselves by their eyes, or their umbilicus (which is in fact unique on every single person). Because it's normal thing. If gender identity is a normal thing, then let's ignore it altogether?
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Serious question: how long into the future do you think it would be before society meets the criteria you are expecting? Even if it seems bang obvious to you, it would be an irreconcilable and inconceivable shock to deep-seated cultural beliefs for billions of people, and we are a very political / status-driven type of animal that has deeply ingrained reflex to use any kind of physical characteristics as differentiators for tribes, wars, social classes, etc. Even if we granted your presumption, it still seems like something that could not possibly be pragmatic or tractable even in hundreds of years, unless there was essentially a global propaganda campaign lasting for generations, orchestrated in unison by wildly different governments and cultural institutions. Again, I’m not making any normative claim about your viewpoint. I’m only questioning the “still waiting” part .. because surely any even optimistic estimate about when the human species would have a radically different concept of gender or identity would be hundreds and hundreds of years from now, if ever.
Anita_kiss 8y ago
The vast majority of the planets population accepts and cherishes their gender identity. The wishful thinking of a few people will not change that. The attempt to force any kind of ideology that makes everybody exactly the same and eradicates differences is , in my view, problematic.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  The vast majority of the planets population accepts and cherishes their gender identity. I'm not sure that's the case – I get the impression that the "vast majority" of the planet's population doesn't really ever think about gender identity at all.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    The vast majority of the planet's population might roll their eyes at the mere mention of the words "gender identity" if they're even familiar with the concept, but everything from simple clothing choices to complex social interactions are consciously and unconsciously influenced by [local, contemporary] behavioural norms along gender lines (including when, why and how far they're happy to deviate from them). Men don't start seriously considering wearing dresses to work or stop telling their daughters that certain actions aren't very "ladylike" just because they suspect gender studies courses are a waste of time.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  Making differences irrelevant is not the same thing as eradicating them. Sorry, using your arguments, you cannot say that the fight against discrimination of any kind is a moral thing to do. It's in fact problematic, as it eradicates differences, in your own words.
rc_hadoken 8y ago
Hmm..yeah but I like the opposite gender as it is and will "naturally" evolve. What you're describing reeks of ideological agenda. If it happens fine, but for now I like to know someone is their gender because thats what I prefer. I'm not biologically interested in man-woman/woman-man hybrids. My genes and psychology agree with me.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Its and interesting concept, and one that may have already occurred in some societies in the past. Imagine seeing someone attractive, you get to know them, and during this time you find out something that destroys their attraction. Maybe finding out they were of the opposite gender you like, maybe finding out they were an awful person who abuses pets, maybe finding out that they were much younger than you assumed. How much of the destruction of attraction is biological in nature verses social in nature? And even more complex is that idea that the origin is sociological in nature, develops to be biological. I'd suggest looking up research on linguistic relativity. The extent of the impact of it is still being researched, and it is unknown the extent it might impact attraction (even far more mundane things like object placement and color recognition are still being researched and debated among scientist). 2018 article that has found evidence some mental processes may be impacted while others appear not to be: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384117304941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438411... Sadly basically all the research I found on it is locked behind paywalls, but I will say that while a lot of the initial concepts have been challenged and thrown out, from what I've read the idea as a whole has survived to some extent.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
I'm with you on this one, and I'm surprised you've been downvoted so heavily. Gender, sexual orientation, and the identities associated with them seem like such weird anachronisms to me. I understand the reasons behind why the exist and why society evolved in this direction, and I've got no interest in forcing anybody to abandon their self-image. But I do find it strange that people want to construct identities around what are ultimately just biological facts.
- zeveb 8y ago
  > But I do find it strange that people want to construct identities around what are ultimately just biological facts. That's an odd perspective to me, because from my point of view what other than facts would I base my identity on?
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    I suppose that would be things that you willingly decided to engage with. Someone identifying as an “engineer” or a “problem solver” or a “musician” or a “good listener” or a “conservative”. Those make sense to me as forms of identity; sex and sexuality far less so.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    Well, that's an odd question. Sure, biological sex is an objective fact, but you can't call gender identity a fact. It's a part of a more complex identity which people unwillingly or willingly emphasize. I refuse to define my identity based on my sexual attributes, because it only concerns myself and a potential partner. For the rest of the world most of my attributes of identity are masked by other peoples' perception of my actions. People can identify my actions and my attributes as unique, and they have a shortcut label as a help to identify me - by my name. So, what if a person is not as unique as others? Do they need to emphasize some attributes to appear more unique, to be distinguishable? Why? They are unique in any way, objectively. But in their own eyes? I don't think so. So, there is a clear distinction between biological/physical attributes (facts) that are a non-disputable part of the identity of a person and subjectively perceivable attributes (perspectives). It's a fact that I'm a man, but things other than that don't really matter, because they are perceivable only subjectively. Identity is based not only on facts. It's also based on wishes, labels, lies and social constructs.
bloak 8y ago
With the English language as it currently stands you need to know a person's gender in order to talk about them in a normal, non-stilted way and without drawing attention to you not knowing their gender. Did the use of the words "them" and "their" in the previous sentence seem natural to you? Probably it did because they referred to a generic "person". However, if I'd referred to a named individual, "Chris", say, using "them" or "their" then I think you would have immediately felt some weirdness. It's not that unusual nowadays, I find, to meet people whose gender is not obvious so it would be good to fix this linguistic problem, but I can't imagine it getting fixed overnight.
- aaronblohowiak 8y ago
  Singular them/they isn’t that weird and is easily normalized through exposure.
  - bloak 8y ago
    That is almost certainly true, but there isn't yet much exposure. For example, in the article linked to below there are a couple of instances of "they" referring to a named and identified person, and the reason for using "they" is obvious and explained in the article. Nevertheless, I noticed I needed an extra fraction of a second to process mentally the sentences in question. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44575229 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44575229 Singular "they" used in that way is certainly a lot less weird than Spivak pronouns or "xe" so even if those two are, perhaps, technically superior solutions I would guess that singular "they" is what people will (continue to) use.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
krapp 8y ago
Humanity needs to abandon the idea of strictly binary gender and sexuality, and in particular the fallacy that heteronormativity is more correct, rather than merely being more common. However, I doubt the entire premise of identifying oneself with a particular orientation or gender is going to disappear, since sexual orientation and gender do exist.
- troupe 8y ago
  >Humanity needs to abandon ... the fallacy that heteronormativity is more correct, rather than merely being more common. There is good reason to suspect that heterosexual behavior is strongly correlated with the ability of a species to survive. Of course, not all members of a species may see survival as a desired goal.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about more than mere reproduction, though. If the arguments against homosexuality were strictly about that, they could also be applied to straight people who marry monogamously, or who choose not to have children at all, since neither a single partner or no partner is optimal for survival. My point is that non-hetero sexuality and non-binary gender should be viewed as simply an uncommon aspect of human biology and identity, which has no moral weight in and of itself. Some people are left-handed, some people have red hair, some people are gay.
    - virmundi 8y ago
      Homosexuality brings with a high level of STDs even within a "couple". They also have higher substance abuse issues. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-in-lgbt-populations https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-... Also, when you look at the demise of countries, the acceptance of general homosexuality and transgender-ism are correlated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ To this end, one could make the argument that homosexual behavior is a public health crisis and should be banned along with non-monogamous heterosexual relationships.

ryanx435 8y ago

I'm still waiting for the point in history where science denying gender warriors like you wake up and come back to reality.

erkkie 8y ago

Why?

dschuetz 8y ago
Gender identity and sexual preference don't really matter. They are natural attributes of a person, just as natural as eyes and ears. The only thing I can do is to ignore people's attempts to appear more unique than others by treating them as regular human beings. I haven't seen any person identifying themselves by their eyes, or their umbilicus (which is in fact unique on every single person). Because it's normal thing. If gender identity is a normal thing, then let's ignore it altogether?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Serious question: how long into the future do you think it would be before society meets the criteria you are expecting? Even if it seems bang obvious to you, it would be an irreconcilable and inconceivable shock to deep-seated cultural beliefs for billions of people, and we are a very political / status-driven type of animal that has deeply ingrained reflex to use any kind of physical characteristics as differentiators for tribes, wars, social classes, etc. Even if we granted your presumption, it still seems like something that could not possibly be pragmatic or tractable even in hundreds of years, unless there was essentially a global propaganda campaign lasting for generations, orchestrated in unison by wildly different governments and cultural institutions. Again, I’m not making any normative claim about your viewpoint. I’m only questioning the “still waiting” part .. because surely any even optimistic estimate about when the human species would have a radically different concept of gender or identity would be hundreds and hundreds of years from now, if ever.

Anita_kiss 8y ago

The vast majority of the planets population accepts and cherishes their gender identity. The wishful thinking of a few people will not change that. The attempt to force any kind of ideology that makes everybody exactly the same and eradicates differences is , in my view, problematic.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
The vast majority of the planets population accepts and cherishes their gender identity. I'm not sure that's the case – I get the impression that the "vast majority" of the planet's population doesn't really ever think about gender identity at all.
- notahacker 8y ago
  The vast majority of the planet's population might roll their eyes at the mere mention of the words "gender identity" if they're even familiar with the concept, but everything from simple clothing choices to complex social interactions are consciously and unconsciously influenced by [local, contemporary] behavioural norms along gender lines (including when, why and how far they're happy to deviate from them). Men don't start seriously considering wearing dresses to work or stop telling their daughters that certain actions aren't very "ladylike" just because they suspect gender studies courses are a waste of time.
dschuetz 8y ago
Making differences irrelevant is not the same thing as eradicating them. Sorry, using your arguments, you cannot say that the fight against discrimination of any kind is a moral thing to do. It's in fact problematic, as it eradicates differences, in your own words.

rc_hadoken 8y ago

Hmm..yeah but I like the opposite gender as it is and will "naturally" evolve. What you're describing reeks of ideological agenda. If it happens fine, but for now I like to know someone is their gender because thats what I prefer. I'm not biologically interested in man-woman/woman-man hybrids. My genes and psychology agree with me.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Its and interesting concept, and one that may have already occurred in some societies in the past. Imagine seeing someone attractive, you get to know them, and during this time you find out something that destroys their attraction. Maybe finding out they were of the opposite gender you like, maybe finding out they were an awful person who abuses pets, maybe finding out that they were much younger than you assumed. How much of the destruction of attraction is biological in nature verses social in nature? And even more complex is that idea that the origin is sociological in nature, develops to be biological. I'd suggest looking up research on linguistic relativity. The extent of the impact of it is still being researched, and it is unknown the extent it might impact attraction (even far more mundane things like object placement and color recognition are still being researched and debated among scientist). 2018 article that has found evidence some mental processes may be impacted while others appear not to be: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384117304941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438411... Sadly basically all the research I found on it is locked behind paywalls, but I will say that while a lot of the initial concepts have been challenged and thrown out, from what I've read the idea as a whole has survived to some extent.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

I'm with you on this one, and I'm surprised you've been downvoted so heavily. Gender, sexual orientation, and the identities associated with them seem like such weird anachronisms to me. I understand the reasons behind why the exist and why society evolved in this direction, and I've got no interest in forcing anybody to abandon their self-image. But I do find it strange that people want to construct identities around what are ultimately just biological facts.

zeveb 8y ago
> But I do find it strange that people want to construct identities around what are ultimately just biological facts. That's an odd perspective to me, because from my point of view what other than facts would I base my identity on?
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  I suppose that would be things that you willingly decided to engage with. Someone identifying as an “engineer” or a “problem solver” or a “musician” or a “good listener” or a “conservative”. Those make sense to me as forms of identity; sex and sexuality far less so.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  Well, that's an odd question. Sure, biological sex is an objective fact, but you can't call gender identity a fact. It's a part of a more complex identity which people unwillingly or willingly emphasize. I refuse to define my identity based on my sexual attributes, because it only concerns myself and a potential partner. For the rest of the world most of my attributes of identity are masked by other peoples' perception of my actions. People can identify my actions and my attributes as unique, and they have a shortcut label as a help to identify me - by my name. So, what if a person is not as unique as others? Do they need to emphasize some attributes to appear more unique, to be distinguishable? Why? They are unique in any way, objectively. But in their own eyes? I don't think so. So, there is a clear distinction between biological/physical attributes (facts) that are a non-disputable part of the identity of a person and subjectively perceivable attributes (perspectives). It's a fact that I'm a man, but things other than that don't really matter, because they are perceivable only subjectively. Identity is based not only on facts. It's also based on wishes, labels, lies and social constructs.

bloak 8y ago

With the English language as it currently stands you need to know a person's gender in order to talk about them in a normal, non-stilted way and without drawing attention to you not knowing their gender. Did the use of the words "them" and "their" in the previous sentence seem natural to you? Probably it did because they referred to a generic "person". However, if I'd referred to a named individual, "Chris", say, using "them" or "their" then I think you would have immediately felt some weirdness. It's not that unusual nowadays, I find, to meet people whose gender is not obvious so it would be good to fix this linguistic problem, but I can't imagine it getting fixed overnight.

aaronblohowiak 8y ago
Singular them/they isn’t that weird and is easily normalized through exposure.
- bloak 8y ago
  That is almost certainly true, but there isn't yet much exposure. For example, in the article linked to below there are a couple of instances of "they" referring to a named and identified person, and the reason for using "they" is obvious and explained in the article. Nevertheless, I noticed I needed an extra fraction of a second to process mentally the sentences in question. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44575229 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44575229 Singular "they" used in that way is certainly a lot less weird than Spivak pronouns or "xe" so even if those two are, perhaps, technically superior solutions I would guess that singular "they" is what people will (continue to) use.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

krapp 8y ago

Humanity needs to abandon the idea of strictly binary gender and sexuality, and in particular the fallacy that heteronormativity is more correct, rather than merely being more common. However, I doubt the entire premise of identifying oneself with a particular orientation or gender is going to disappear, since sexual orientation and gender do exist.

troupe 8y ago
>Humanity needs to abandon ... the fallacy that heteronormativity is more correct, rather than merely being more common. There is good reason to suspect that heterosexual behavior is strongly correlated with the ability of a species to survive. Of course, not all members of a species may see survival as a desired goal.
- krapp 8y ago
  Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about more than mere reproduction, though. If the arguments against homosexuality were strictly about that, they could also be applied to straight people who marry monogamously, or who choose not to have children at all, since neither a single partner or no partner is optimal for survival. My point is that non-hetero sexuality and non-binary gender should be viewed as simply an uncommon aspect of human biology and identity, which has no moral weight in and of itself. Some people are left-handed, some people have red hair, some people are gay.
  - virmundi 8y ago
    Homosexuality brings with a high level of STDs even within a "couple". They also have higher substance abuse issues. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-in-lgbt-populations https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-... Also, when you look at the demise of countries, the acceptance of general homosexuality and transgender-ism are correlated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ To this end, one could make the argument that homosexual behavior is a public health crisis and should be banned along with non-monogamous heterosexual relationships.