5 ms·

> Terms change; distinctions between similar terms get made as they’re needed. And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing s

> Terms change; distinctions between similar terms get made as they’re needed. And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly? > I’m infertile, so “sex is about reproduction” makes me chuckle a bit, for example. I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly? No one said they're not related concepts. Just that they're not the same. The term "butch", for example, tends to describe a female with more manly outward presentation, where "manly" describes "characteristics generally associated by society with males". Short hair isn't an inherently male thing; it's frequently considered a man thing, though. > I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce. I don't produce gametes of either kind. Am I genderless and sexless?
- empthought 6y ago
  are leg amputees no longer members of a bipedal species? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    But that's the point, isn't it? "Sex is about reproduction" is as silly as "people who lose their legs aren't humans", because both are clearly untrue.
    - empthought 6y ago
      Yes, people who lose their ability to walk are still human, and people who lose their ability to produce sperm are still male.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        What is the "correct" gender for an intersex person, or someone born without genitalia, or someone with 45,X/46,XY mosaicism?
        empthought 6y ago
        Like all genders, I would ask them what is “correct.” If you’re asking about _sex_, however... in the case of intersex conditions, they arise from a disorder of sexual development which by definition arises by diverging from the typical developmental pathway of one sex or the other. Much the same as someone with a much later and artificial divergence (e.g. hysterectomy), this sex is still their sex despite their intersex condition. Being born “without genitalia” is still going to be one of these conditions, or the result of some other unspecified trauma or non-sexual-development disorder. They would still be either one sex or the other. Mosaicism is an interesting case. It would depend on which cells were activating sexual development.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Like all genders, I would ask them what is “correct.” If you’re asking about _sex_, however... Ah, we've switched arguments. Upthread, you stated: > And for most people, “man” and “male” are synonyms. If you're now arguing for a distinction between the terms, we're now in agreement.
        empthought 6y ago
        Yes, there is good reason to make a distinction between the terms, just like there’s a good reason to distinguish between “brain” and “soul.” I don’t have to believe the shahada in order to conduct myself respectfully with a person of the Muslim faith, and I don’t have to believe a female is a man in order to conduct myself respectfully with a trans man.
        throwaway26473 6y ago
        "My hair is purple." "No it's not, I'm looking at you and I can clearly see it's brown. Unless you've dyed it for the entire time I've known you it's a natural brown." "You can't assign hair colors based on physical characteristics like that! What is the 'correct' hair color for someone born without hair, or someone with hair heterochromia? Even though I do not belong to any of these tiny genetic minorities, the fact that these categories do not neatly apply to them must mean they are totally meaningless and I can assign whatever hair color I want to myself."
Pfhreak 6y ago
> And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly? It's the difference between "maleness" and "manliness". Those words are clearly related, but they mean different things. See also: "femaleness" vs. "feminine". The latter term in either case describes cultural behaviors, clothing, accepted roles, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't the same as their sex. Someone can be very "manly" independent of whether they have XY chromosomes, for instance. I find it useful to be able to describe the cultural elements as one's gender separately from what organs or genes they have under the hood.
- empthought 6y ago
  See, I view this as a system of oppression. “Manly” characteristics are those that are societally praiseworthy for males but considered negative for females, and “womanly” the reverse. I actively seek to avoid that game, as it is untenable in a just society.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I think a lot of trans/nonbinary people would agree with you. :D
    - empthought 6y ago
      I think a lot of people of any identity would agree with me... but are we outnumbered by those who are rigorously inspecting what toys a four-year-old is playing with, as a lens towards gauging their future conformity to one traditional gender role or the other?
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        The deconstruction of gender norms is relatively common among gender-progressive people. You seem to be confusing inspecting toys for conformity and inspecting systems that encourage (or require) conformity. And it's much easier to attack or be concerned about straw-positions than actual ones. It's not problematic for someone to play with toys, or do things, stereotypical to their gender. It's a problem when they are encouraged (tacitly or not) or forced to stick within a predefined scope.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly? No one said they're not related concepts. Just that they're not the same. The term "butch", for example, tends to describe a female with more manly outward presentation, where "manly" describes "characteristics generally associated by society with males". Short hair isn't an inherently male thing; it's frequently considered a man thing, though. > I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce. I don't produce gametes of either kind. Am I genderless and sexless?

empthought 6y ago
are leg amputees no longer members of a bipedal species? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  But that's the point, isn't it? "Sex is about reproduction" is as silly as "people who lose their legs aren't humans", because both are clearly untrue.
  - empthought 6y ago
    Yes, people who lose their ability to walk are still human, and people who lose their ability to produce sperm are still male.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      What is the "correct" gender for an intersex person, or someone born without genitalia, or someone with 45,X/46,XY mosaicism?
      - empthought 6y ago
        Like all genders, I would ask them what is “correct.” If you’re asking about _sex_, however... in the case of intersex conditions, they arise from a disorder of sexual development which by definition arises by diverging from the typical developmental pathway of one sex or the other. Much the same as someone with a much later and artificial divergence (e.g. hysterectomy), this sex is still their sex despite their intersex condition. Being born “without genitalia” is still going to be one of these conditions, or the result of some other unspecified trauma or non-sexual-development disorder. They would still be either one sex or the other. Mosaicism is an interesting case. It would depend on which cells were activating sexual development.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Like all genders, I would ask them what is “correct.” If you’re asking about _sex_, however... Ah, we've switched arguments. Upthread, you stated: > And for most people, “man” and “male” are synonyms. If you're now arguing for a distinction between the terms, we're now in agreement.
        empthought 6y ago
        Yes, there is good reason to make a distinction between the terms, just like there’s a good reason to distinguish between “brain” and “soul.” I don’t have to believe the shahada in order to conduct myself respectfully with a person of the Muslim faith, and I don’t have to believe a female is a man in order to conduct myself respectfully with a trans man.
      - throwaway26473 6y ago
        "My hair is purple." "No it's not, I'm looking at you and I can clearly see it's brown. Unless you've dyed it for the entire time I've known you it's a natural brown." "You can't assign hair colors based on physical characteristics like that! What is the 'correct' hair color for someone born without hair, or someone with hair heterochromia? Even though I do not belong to any of these tiny genetic minorities, the fact that these categories do not neatly apply to them must mean they are totally meaningless and I can assign whatever hair color I want to myself."

Pfhreak 6y ago

> And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly? It's the difference between "maleness" and "manliness". Those words are clearly related, but they mean different things. See also: "femaleness" vs. "feminine". The latter term in either case describes cultural behaviors, clothing, accepted roles, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't the same as their sex. Someone can be very "manly" independent of whether they have XY chromosomes, for instance. I find it useful to be able to describe the cultural elements as one's gender separately from what organs or genes they have under the hood.

empthought 6y ago
See, I view this as a system of oppression. “Manly” characteristics are those that are societally praiseworthy for males but considered negative for females, and “womanly” the reverse. I actively seek to avoid that game, as it is untenable in a just society.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I think a lot of trans/nonbinary people would agree with you. :D
  - empthought 6y ago
    I think a lot of people of any identity would agree with me... but are we outnumbered by those who are rigorously inspecting what toys a four-year-old is playing with, as a lens towards gauging their future conformity to one traditional gender role or the other?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      The deconstruction of gender norms is relatively common among gender-progressive people. You seem to be confusing inspecting toys for conformity and inspecting systems that encourage (or require) conformity. And it's much easier to attack or be concerned about straw-positions than actual ones. It's not problematic for someone to play with toys, or do things, stereotypical to their gender. It's a problem when they are encouraged (tacitly or not) or forced to stick within a predefined scope.