4 ms·

> Binary is bullshit. Um, no. Reality dictates that everything is based on relativity and probability, but the logic that everything technically falls into a

> Binary is bullshit. Um, no. Reality dictates that everything is based on relativity and probability, but the logic that everything technically falls into a grey area doesn't mean that abstractions like male and female, man and woman (silos that the vast vast majority of people fall into) aren't useful, practical, or real. If one believes that binary is bullshit, then be consistent and accept metaphysical nihilism. Accept that binary in computers is "bullshit" because a 1 can be represented by an infinite number of voltages, and sometimes 0 is represented by a really low voltage. Ignorant binary-normative CPUs! I don't care how people identify, how they have sex, how they love, etc. People should be able to express their true selves, but I'm getting tired of the constant disdain against normalcy. I've never quite fit in anywhere I go so I think I can understand what it's like to want society to conform to one's vision. Part of being a part of society is some level of conformity and accepting that other people aren't like you. If binary-non-conforming people want acceptance, then they ought to quit acting like my sex and my gender are bullshit. Gay people didn't achieve their current status in society, as better as it could be, by telling gay people that there's no such thing as "straight" sex. > Gender is about your identity, your expression, and it's often based on your idea of sex. If gender isn't related to the perception or expression of biological sex, then what is it? If sex is optional for gender, then how is gender different from fashion? I could go on point by point, but those two things really address most of the video. EDIT: For clarity, I'm not saying that I don't think that gender isn't a form of fashion. I'm saying that, if the variable of sex is removed, then it's a totally useless word that can be substituted with the word fashion. (in which case it's bizarre that people are trying to make other people like their sense of fashion)

senectus1 8y ago
Binary isn't bullshit, it's just irrelevant.
watwut 8y ago
First half is about intersex people who do not fit into those boxes. They are operated on infancy to fit into boxes. It is not like they would have any choice in the matter. They did not chose how they are born and they did not choose to be operated on. Intersex means that you have mix of male and female organs/hormons. Or you look like women, but don't have fitting chromosomes. Operation is done on theory that it will be easier for you this way. > If gender isn't related to the perception or expression of biological sex, then what is it? If sex is optional for gender, then how is gender different from fashion? Gender afaik is not all that different for fashion. Writing in general and especially poetry was considered male thing. It was weird for girl to do it. Now it is considered girl thing (at least where I live). Consciously and subconsciously, people do and don't do things based on what makes them look weird vs normal or popular or fitting in. Or they just follow cues (every boy in class got star wars sticker and every girl barbie one so they just follow that). My understanding of gender is that it is what you do cause of these things.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  I have no dispute about the facts about intersex people. Their existence just doesn't support the idea that "binary is bullshit", and your use of "male" and "female" ironically demonstrates the usefulness of those concepts. > Gender afaik is not all that different for fashion. Writing in general and especially poetry was considered male thing. It was weird for girl to do it. Now it is considered girl thing (at least where I live). Yeah, it's not that different from fashion because it is a form of fashion. My point is that if gender is sex-optional, then it's a totally useless term that's superseded by the word fashion. > Consciously and subconsciously, people do and don't do things based on what makes them look weird vs normal or popular or fitting in. Or they just follow cues That's true. And it's also true that people have certain behaviors because of biological conditions acting upon them. For instance, do you think that most females are statistically attracted to males just because it's normal, or that females can be conditioned to be homosexual if society worked differently? If not, then why not also apply the steps you use to reach that conclusion to gender expression?
  - watwut 8y ago
    First, it makes perfect sense to have more general and more specific words. Second, fashion implies clothing and quick change. Gender identity is something very important to people, they don't throw it just like that. They get more offended over others having wrong gender expression. Small kids treat gender as something super important and get more relaxed as they grow from kindergarten. > For instance, do you think that most females are statistically attracted to males just because it's normal, or that females can be conditioned to be homosexual if society worked differently? Homosexual acts are more common in single sex groups like prisons. So yeah, humans have certain flexibility. Bisexual people would be more likely to choose opposite sex partner in homosexuality tolerant society then in the one where it is frowned upon and illegal. > If not, then why not also apply the steps you use to reach that conclusion to gender expression? Cause there is this neat trick where some or unknown amount of hormonal impact is extrapolated to all of gender differences as you are trying to do here. Or something completely unrelated being extrapolated at gender as you also do here. There was no biological change that would influence writing affinity, just social one. When women were all expected to be stay at home, some of their behavior was influenced by the lonely-whole-day stay at home person experience - that would lead to different gender expression too compared to males who went to work with other people. That is why.
49531 8y ago
> how is gender different from fashion? In a lot of ways it isn't. Gender is often performative in nature. The idea that gender is binary is fairly reductive, and as most people know isn't a very descriptive way to view the world. You're more likely to be a mix of masculine and feminine traits than a binary one-or-the-other. Viewing the world via binary genders puts people into categories that can be negative. This is why gender bias exists, because we view men with certain traits and women with certain traits. If society was less binary in its approach to gender we might have to make less assumptions about people. This is similar to the old way of approaching race science. X people are good at Y, and A people are good at B. We've pushed back on categorizing people by race and it's been beneficial.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Gender is often performative in nature...We've pushed back on categorizing people by race and it's been beneficial. Life is often performative in nature. We need to think about this when it comes to culture and society. If we want ourselves and our community to become wealthy, then we need to model our behavior to people who are well off. Likewise, we need to avoid acting like people who are failing. In this, human beings inevitably reinterpret and change things. In part, it's a matter of figuring out the essentials. (The opposite of cargo cult behavior.)
- ravenstine 8y ago
  > The idea that gender is binary is fairly reductive Yes, that actually is the idea about having a binary. It's reductive. At the end of the day, a sperm and an egg have to meet for a population to propagate, and seeing as how the vast majority in a population that sexually reproduces have either set of organs that make sperm or eggs, it becomes naturally efficient to rule out who is mating material and who isn't. For instance, a mostly heterosexual person is going to almost always be interested in copulating with the opposite sex, and it's convenient that most people of the opposite sex display gender that is mostly in line with the opposite sex. It's just that most of us really don't find it mostly useful to be using the word "most" when we're talking about things most of the time to acknowledge that mostly nothing is binary, so we decide to fit everything in to categories so we can assess them. If someone falls within a certain circle of a Venn diagram, then pragmatically they are considered within that category even if they don't perfectly match it. > This is similar to the old way of approaching race science. X people are good at Y, and A people are good at B. We've pushed back on categorizing people by race and it's been beneficial. We pushed back on "race science" because it's not scientific.
seiferteric 8y ago
It's probably something like a bimodal distribution.
ptidhomme 8y ago
If sex is optional for gender, then how is gender different from fashion? It is a good point IMO, and from the perspective of the theory of embodied cognition, to which I highly subscribe, I've always had a hard time thinking that male and female minds (intersex set aside) can just interchangeable. There are physical and physiological differences, such as hormones, that must make a difference in cognition and somehow must extend to behaviour/tastes. It's an inference given a theory, which questions me. Not trying to be affirmative here.
lemmsjid 8y ago
I think you're taking that statement quite out of context and extrapolating it into an argument against math and logic. By saying 'binary is bullshit', they are making the argument that gender is a bimodal distribution, and that forcing it into a pure binary model is oppressive (not to mention counter to much evidence). Certainly in the gender distribution, the two peaks may represent so many people that it is useful to name them, just as it is useful to name many strong probabilistic phenomenae. Is the weather report that it will rain certain? No, but I'll prepare for rain. I think we'll agree on that. But many people fall outside of the bimodal peaks and are actively discriminated against by people who do not believe there is a distribution in the first place, or who believe that if you are not sufficiently close to one of the peaks that you are an unfit human being. This is why I think you're taking it out of context. You are clearly not the target audience of that statement. You understand that the two mainstream gender labels are, as you say, 'useful' and 'practical'. You understand that '1' can represent many voltages. Labels are useful, as long as you understand the level of certainty they represent. The target audience of that statement believes they are the only thing, period (taking a simplistic view), or who make a value judgement based on how close one is to one of the bimodal peaks (taking a normative view). Certainly I don't represent everything you'll read that's said or written by advocates for people with different genders, but there is illogic on both 'sides' of the arguments on gender and sexuality. Here's how I look at it. Regardless of the illogic, which side is more harmful? The side that is making value judgements based on faulty evidence and using those to propose and enforce sometimes tremendously painful rules on others, or the side that is sometimes making illogical arguments in an attempt to be accepted by society?

senectus1 8y ago

Binary isn't bullshit, it's just irrelevant.

watwut 8y ago

First half is about intersex people who do not fit into those boxes. They are operated on infancy to fit into boxes. It is not like they would have any choice in the matter. They did not chose how they are born and they did not choose to be operated on. Intersex means that you have mix of male and female organs/hormons. Or you look like women, but don't have fitting chromosomes. Operation is done on theory that it will be easier for you this way. > If gender isn't related to the perception or expression of biological sex, then what is it? If sex is optional for gender, then how is gender different from fashion? Gender afaik is not all that different for fashion. Writing in general and especially poetry was considered male thing. It was weird for girl to do it. Now it is considered girl thing (at least where I live). Consciously and subconsciously, people do and don't do things based on what makes them look weird vs normal or popular or fitting in. Or they just follow cues (every boy in class got star wars sticker and every girl barbie one so they just follow that). My understanding of gender is that it is what you do cause of these things.

ravenstine 8y ago
I have no dispute about the facts about intersex people. Their existence just doesn't support the idea that "binary is bullshit", and your use of "male" and "female" ironically demonstrates the usefulness of those concepts. > Gender afaik is not all that different for fashion. Writing in general and especially poetry was considered male thing. It was weird for girl to do it. Now it is considered girl thing (at least where I live). Yeah, it's not that different from fashion because it is a form of fashion. My point is that if gender is sex-optional, then it's a totally useless term that's superseded by the word fashion. > Consciously and subconsciously, people do and don't do things based on what makes them look weird vs normal or popular or fitting in. Or they just follow cues That's true. And it's also true that people have certain behaviors because of biological conditions acting upon them. For instance, do you think that most females are statistically attracted to males just because it's normal, or that females can be conditioned to be homosexual if society worked differently? If not, then why not also apply the steps you use to reach that conclusion to gender expression?
- watwut 8y ago
  First, it makes perfect sense to have more general and more specific words. Second, fashion implies clothing and quick change. Gender identity is something very important to people, they don't throw it just like that. They get more offended over others having wrong gender expression. Small kids treat gender as something super important and get more relaxed as they grow from kindergarten. > For instance, do you think that most females are statistically attracted to males just because it's normal, or that females can be conditioned to be homosexual if society worked differently? Homosexual acts are more common in single sex groups like prisons. So yeah, humans have certain flexibility. Bisexual people would be more likely to choose opposite sex partner in homosexuality tolerant society then in the one where it is frowned upon and illegal. > If not, then why not also apply the steps you use to reach that conclusion to gender expression? Cause there is this neat trick where some or unknown amount of hormonal impact is extrapolated to all of gender differences as you are trying to do here. Or something completely unrelated being extrapolated at gender as you also do here. There was no biological change that would influence writing affinity, just social one. When women were all expected to be stay at home, some of their behavior was influenced by the lonely-whole-day stay at home person experience - that would lead to different gender expression too compared to males who went to work with other people. That is why.

49531 8y ago

> how is gender different from fashion? In a lot of ways it isn't. Gender is often performative in nature. The idea that gender is binary is fairly reductive, and as most people know isn't a very descriptive way to view the world. You're more likely to be a mix of masculine and feminine traits than a binary one-or-the-other. Viewing the world via binary genders puts people into categories that can be negative. This is why gender bias exists, because we view men with certain traits and women with certain traits. If society was less binary in its approach to gender we might have to make less assumptions about people. This is similar to the old way of approaching race science. X people are good at Y, and A people are good at B. We've pushed back on categorizing people by race and it's been beneficial.

stcredzero 8y ago
Gender is often performative in nature...We've pushed back on categorizing people by race and it's been beneficial. Life is often performative in nature. We need to think about this when it comes to culture and society. If we want ourselves and our community to become wealthy, then we need to model our behavior to people who are well off. Likewise, we need to avoid acting like people who are failing. In this, human beings inevitably reinterpret and change things. In part, it's a matter of figuring out the essentials. (The opposite of cargo cult behavior.)
ravenstine 8y ago
> The idea that gender is binary is fairly reductive Yes, that actually is the idea about having a binary. It's reductive. At the end of the day, a sperm and an egg have to meet for a population to propagate, and seeing as how the vast majority in a population that sexually reproduces have either set of organs that make sperm or eggs, it becomes naturally efficient to rule out who is mating material and who isn't. For instance, a mostly heterosexual person is going to almost always be interested in copulating with the opposite sex, and it's convenient that most people of the opposite sex display gender that is mostly in line with the opposite sex. It's just that most of us really don't find it mostly useful to be using the word "most" when we're talking about things most of the time to acknowledge that mostly nothing is binary, so we decide to fit everything in to categories so we can assess them. If someone falls within a certain circle of a Venn diagram, then pragmatically they are considered within that category even if they don't perfectly match it. > This is similar to the old way of approaching race science. X people are good at Y, and A people are good at B. We've pushed back on categorizing people by race and it's been beneficial. We pushed back on "race science" because it's not scientific.

seiferteric 8y ago

It's probably something like a bimodal distribution.

ptidhomme 8y ago

If sex is optional for gender, then how is gender different from fashion? It is a good point IMO, and from the perspective of the theory of embodied cognition, to which I highly subscribe, I've always had a hard time thinking that male and female minds (intersex set aside) can just interchangeable. There are physical and physiological differences, such as hormones, that must make a difference in cognition and somehow must extend to behaviour/tastes. It's an inference given a theory, which questions me. Not trying to be affirmative here.

lemmsjid 8y ago

I think you're taking that statement quite out of context and extrapolating it into an argument against math and logic. By saying 'binary is bullshit', they are making the argument that gender is a bimodal distribution, and that forcing it into a pure binary model is oppressive (not to mention counter to much evidence). Certainly in the gender distribution, the two peaks may represent so many people that it is useful to name them, just as it is useful to name many strong probabilistic phenomenae. Is the weather report that it will rain certain? No, but I'll prepare for rain. I think we'll agree on that. But many people fall outside of the bimodal peaks and are actively discriminated against by people who do not believe there is a distribution in the first place, or who believe that if you are not sufficiently close to one of the peaks that you are an unfit human being. This is why I think you're taking it out of context. You are clearly not the target audience of that statement. You understand that the two mainstream gender labels are, as you say, 'useful' and 'practical'. You understand that '1' can represent many voltages. Labels are useful, as long as you understand the level of certainty they represent. The target audience of that statement believes they are the only thing, period (taking a simplistic view), or who make a value judgement based on how close one is to one of the bimodal peaks (taking a normative view). Certainly I don't represent everything you'll read that's said or written by advocates for people with different genders, but there is illogic on both 'sides' of the arguments on gender and sexuality. Here's how I look at it. Regardless of the illogic, which side is more harmful? The side that is making value judgements based on faulty evidence and using those to propose and enforce sometimes tremendously painful rules on others, or the side that is sometimes making illogical arguments in an attempt to be accepted by society?