Caitlyn Jenner

[Darkwing Duck]

And I do not know what in my post made you think I want to "enforce gender" so I am not sure what you are arguing against.

Just as said arbitrarily assigning gender based on sex doesn't work in a society, enforcing it based on sex doesn't work either, making gender a much more fluid thing and incapable of being set as gender equaling sex.

 

[babe]

As long as it doesn't involve smoking pot. Amirite?

Not on this one, because I've never hunted down a pot smoker and called the cops or knocked the joint out of his/her hand. I do my own whatever, and you've done your whatever without any restraint from me. I like chemistry, and I like to make stuff chemical-wise and do things I think are pretty good with them. I don't like govt claiming regulatory powers over my activities, either. A lot of bad stuff happens when idiots don't understand everything about the chemicals they use. A lot of bad stuff happens when govt regulators don't understand everything about what they regulate. "Natural" substances, like weed, are not really beyond fault on those lines either. We don't know what we don't know. We do stuff and we get consequences sometimes we never expected. I found out that I can't afford to do stuff with chemistry unless I get certain licenses, zoning, permits, and such, and do a lot of reports to regulators. To hell with all that. I realized that I can't afford enough lawyers to defend myself against every possible consequence of my ignorance. Society has lost a lot of useful inventions because of regulators and lawyers, but there's fewer "Love Canals" to be cleaned up after, as well.

I would preach to you all day long to quit weed, but I think you did already. You're just a cool dude who doesn't get your shorts in a bunch over it if others do it. Fine. I'd still like to reach out to some other dudes who haven't thought it all through yet, or decided they know it all already. I really cannot see where any chemical substance, even chocolate, my favorite addiction, doesn't deserve some discussion and maybe more research. I don't believe there are not meaningful consequences to our choices.

 

[fishonjazz]

To not think less of and dehumanize people based on what they say or do or feel?

Isn't this what you are doing to babe because of what he says and feels?

 

[fishonjazz]

Not on this one, because I've never hunted down a pot smoker and called the cops or knocked the joint out of his/her hand. I do my own whatever, and you've done your whatever without any restraint from me. I like chemistry, and I like to make stuff chemical-wise and do things I think are pretty good with them. I don't like govt claiming regulatory powers over my activities, either. A lot of bad stuff happens when idiots don't understand everything about the chemicals they use. A lot of bad stuff happens when govt regulators don't understand everything about what they regulate. "Natural" substances, like weed, are not really beyond fault on those lines either. We don't know what we don't know. We do stuff and we get consequences sometimes we never expected. I found out that I can't afford to do stuff with chemistry unless I get certain licenses, zoning, permits, and such, and do a lot of reports to regulators. To hell with all that. I realized that I can't afford enough lawyers to defend myself against every possible consequence of my ignorance. Society has lost a lot of useful inventions because of regulators and lawyers, but there's fewer "Love Canals" to be cleaned up after, as well.

I would preach to you all day long to quit weed, but I think you did already. You're just a cool dude who doesn't get your shorts in a bunch over it if others do it. Fine. I'd still like to reach out to some other dudes who haven't thought it all through yet, or decided they know it all already. I really cannot see where any chemical substance, even chocolate, my favorite addiction, doesn't deserve some discussion and maybe more research. I don't believe there are not meaningful consequences to our choices.

Sold answer

 

[Darkwing Duck]

That actually fits in my viewpoint just fine. Name it what you want. In those other societies I would like to know how they arbitrarily assign gender and also completely ignore the biological sex of the child. On some level that is still part of it, however it evolves after that. And if someone in that society decides or feels differently then it is the same situation in general.

As far as the question of "choice" goes, I don't know if we want to go there in this thread. When I used choice I mean it as Jenner was choosing to openly live who he feels he is, that is all.

There is no arbitrary, it is how the individual lives within its society and "gets assigned" once that individual sets certain parameters. Most common one in pretty much all cultures is coming of age. One is not born a "man" or "woman" in any society. One most "earn" the title. Now, in most modern western cultures, the title is easy. Exist for eighteen cycles of the earth's revolution around the sun. Probably one of the most arbitrary markers. Prior remnants of other gender defining moments still exist, though. In Mexico, you have quinceañera, which shares the arbitrariness of sun revolutions, but in this case, concludes at fifteen.

In other cultures, it's completing an event, a proof that you are what western culture might define as "man." There are plenty of examples. Land diving is one. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1125_021126_TVVanuatu.html

Gender is never arbitrary. It's never immediately set, either. In many cultures, like the one I link a few pages ago, there are different gender roles individuals can fit into. In cultures with only two genders heavily influenced by biological sex, those that do not fit the profile are left with little recourse, identify with the other gender, or essentially be nothing.

 

[Archie Moses]

I don't think you did.

Please, see my first first post again. I promise you, I did. I won't answer your strawman.

Also, if you'd like to call me a girl, sissy, Troutbum, that's your right to. It's not my right to make you call me what I want.

 

[Archie Moses]

What happens when you live in a society where society differentiate the definition of marriage and are unable/willing to differentiate the definitions of gender and sex?

I personally like the idea (within context) more tolerance and less-ignorance. The concept that's even more awesome once fully understood is... wait for it... wait for it... No matter what, people have been, are, will be different than me and it's perfectly normal and OK. This falls on both sides of the fence too. Sometimes, you should just agree to disagree and realize, more often than naught, people will see what they want to see.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

It's a phenotype, much like balls and a vagina. So if we have to identify with similar skin color, why don't we identify by our other phenotypes (balls, vagina)?

Because we don't, at least not fully.

And as mentioned, phenotypes don't always match the genotype. Why identify with what looks like when you can identify with what is? Besides, you'd call someone "she" if that person looked like what this culture would have the expected characteristics of a woman. I'll throw a picture up here. You truly have no knowledge just by looking at the picture whether this individual has a vagina or a penis, yet you'd have no problem using the pronoun "she" and calling her a woman just based on this one picture. Now if Jenner did the same pose and clothes, and you didn't know it was Jenner, you'd still use "she."

 

[NAOS]

I agree life is complicated, and we can make it a lot more so with all our possible ideas, or choices.

You're right, the agency we have (however over-estimated it might be) does play a role in diversifying life (i.e. making it more "complicated"). I fail to see a problem.

From some of your other comments, I've wondered if you might not be a woman, or something like a woman, based on some of your opinions which I think I have observed pretty uniquely in women's thinking.

There is no such thing as a mode of thought which resides only in women. If some of my thoughts merge with what you've observed of women, then that's because the texture of experience which you refer to as "women's experience" is open, and we all merge with it from time to time, yourself included. Conversely, bodies which are sexed as female and gendered as woman aren't locked in some prism of "women's thinking": they wayfare from one texture of experience to another, some textures are commonly associated with womanhood, some are commonly associated with manhood, and, if they're anything like Kafka, some are commonly associated with a cockroach.

Women are actually a lot smarter than men in certain ways. Men are handicapped by the neurological snipping that occurs in the male brain as a consequence of testosterone binding to membranes of nerves and marking them for removal. You could say our male bodies perform an autonomous sort of "operation" in the first place to produce a phenotypical male out of our embryonic equality with women. I'd say, logically, that a brain with more nerves still functioning on the original complex model has gotta be more intelligent, really.

I mean, a person with one leg can't walk like a person with two legs, although a person with two legs can walk the same way as person with one leg, if he/she wants.

males have some advantages, functionally, with the narrowed field of possible thoughts, emotions, and focus. They can aim a rifle better and pull the trigger smoother. Probably a lot of stuff, going back all the way to atlatls and doneys for crushing other peoples' skulls. Less distraction.

folksy stuff here.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Please, see my first first post again. I promise you, I did.

"think they need to be addressed to biology not sociology"

I read that as gender=sex. Am I misreading? That's why I don't think you answered the question since that's shown to be inaccurate.

 

[Archie Moses]

There is no arbitrary, it is how the individual lives within its society and "gets assigned" once that individual sets certain parameters. Most common one in pretty much all cultures is coming of age. One is not born a "man" or "woman" in any society. One most "earn" the title. Now, in most modern western cultures, the title is easy. Exist for eighteen cycles of the earth's revolution around the sun. Probably one of the most arbitrary markers. Prior remnants of other gender defining moments still exist, though. In Mexico, you have quinceañera, which shares the arbitrariness of sun revolutions, but in this case, concludes at fifteen.

In other cultures, it's completing an event, a proof that you are what western culture might define as "man." There are plenty of examples. Land diving is one. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1125_021126_TVVanuatu.html

Gender is never arbitrary. It's never immediately set, either. In many cultures, like the one I link a few pages ago, there are different gender roles individuals can fit into. In cultures with only two genders heavily influenced by biological sex, those that do not fit the profile are left with little recourse, identify with the other gender, or essentially be nothing.

I'm willing to bet you'd be the guy that likes arguing koala bears are not scientifically bears and never have been to people who give the slightest **** about scientific specie of animals. To them, it's a koala bear, man.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm willing to bet you'd be the guy that likes arguing Koala Bears are not scientifically bears and never have been to people who give the slightest **** about scientific specie of animals. To them, it's a koala bear, man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZPfgVSrPVY