The debate "Is there more than two genders" was started by
an anonymous person on
October 22, 2016, 11:52 am.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 27 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
TheExistentialist posted 30 arguments to the agreers part.
Yanksxx21 posted 32 arguments, neveralone posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
TheExistentialist, PsychDave, jack_tim_45 and 1 visitor agree.
Blue_ray, nick, historybuff, thereal, sabrina, danielle, Tobibroek, dalton7532, Your_dad, The13yearoldconservative and 17 visitors disagree.
Then I think we can call this debate settled. Thanks for being a good opponent.
I can agree with that
I believe gender dysphoria is a spectrum of distress. Meaning that depending on how far you differ from the archetype usually associated with your sex, the distress exponentially increases. If we take persons a and b (both being male) and place them on the graph (assuming they live in the same society of course)
I would argue that (b) is more likely to experience a greater degree of distress than person (a).
I believe that some individuals who would be gender non-normative can live perfectly comfortably with a slight shift in societal acceptance and perhaps some counselling.
I believe that some may require hormonal treatment (there is a lot of evidence to support this idea especially in the younger trans population).
I do however maintain that in some extreme cases, gender reassignment is a valid course of treatment.
I also believe in the medical concept of least invasive first, most invasive last. So anyone who struggles with gender identity issues ought to go through treatment programs which go from least invasive (counselling etc...) to most invasive (surgery) only when they've exhausted all treatment option in between without success and always under the supervision of multiple doctors from multiple disciplines (psychologist, psychiatrists, endocrinologist, and surgeon)
It's not really a fair analogy since being transgender isn't an issue in and of itself. It causes no harm and doesn't effect the person negatively.
It would be more like a non-Mormon living in a Mormon society where drinking isn't acceptable. The non-Mormon feels like having a drink at night, however he feels distress by the pressure of the Mormon society not accepting him due to his desire to have a drink at night. Having a simple drink is not pathological if it doesn't in itself cause any issues (just like identifying as feminine if you are male doesn't itself cause an issue). The issues are societal pressure. If you wanted to eliminate the distress then, the non-Mormon would have to leave the Mormon community if he wanted to keep having drinks at night, or he would have to alter his behavior to conform to social norms, or he could hide his drinking.
The transgender individual is left with similar options. They can either deny their gender identity and conform to social norms, they can leave the society (although this is not an option for most transgender individuals), or they can "hide" their sex and thus appear to be conforming to normative gender identities.
So this is more about personal freedom than pathology. Are you obliged to change your identity in order to conform to social standards and avoid being "other", or do you simply change your appearance to conform to social norms, or do you leave an society unaccepting society (again, this is not really a viable option).
I would say that this only happens with transgender because it's such a extreme diff. though their might be more to it than that. on a personal not with dealing with transgender would u say there might (keyword might) be a way that doesn't change their sex. this would change some people's views. personally I believe it's wrong but I wouldn't force that opinion on them.
I simply mean feminine and masculine. So you may perform a mostly masculine role but also some feminine rolls. If we were to place that on the scale with "i" it would look something like this (1= masculine, 2= feminine, x = androgynous):
if you perform more feminine role we would place "i" like this:
we can place "i" anywhere along this chart and get an infinite number of genders.
If we take a "tomboy" for example (call it "t") we would place them somewhere along the lines of this:
If we take a transgender male though (call it "tm"):
===> the distress here is then caused by the societal expectation of the individual to conform more to the gender archetype of masculine but they in fact identify more with the female archetype.
I'm coming cold yet again but, If you have a mental Illness of alcoholism your not going to tell them to keep drinking and drink more..So their is no reason to dismiss an unlogical and wrong Perception of your self as a Mental Illness. So the only cute to this is not to let them fall down this hoke, and to reasure them, you are who you are.
so by gender archetype do u mean only transgenders or also tomboys/girls?
By that definition, there must necessarily be an infinite number of genders, with 3 main archetypes (hyper-masculine, hyper-feminine, and androgynous). If we assign them values 1, 2, and X respectively, you'd get a scale like this.
Gender identities will then fall somewhere between 1 and 2 with an infinite amount of degrees to which one identifies with the 3 main archetypes.
By that definition we must also accept that gender may not match sex. This gender archetype to Sex mismatch causes distress due to the societal expectations, bias, and the source of being considered "other". This then is not a delusion, since the person is accurately able to state the reality of their situation (they are born one sex, but identify with the gender archetype of the opposite sex in their role, affect, and behavior). This means that the gender identity itself is not pathological, it's simply non-normative. The gender identity therefore doesn't need to be treated. If you want to treat the distress, you must then either change the perception of sex/gender archetypes in society, or you can treat the sex/gender mismatch to alleviate the distress. Only one of those is a clinical option, the other is a shift in society. I doubt anyone would advocate the societal shift since it's an impossible proposition. So you are left with treatment of the Sex to gender mismatch.
This treatment can take on many forms and usually starts with counseling to try and alleviate the internal pressures to conform and to accept the external pressures to conform. If that fails then people are usually asked to live as the opposite gender archetype but maintain their Sex (I.e. Cross dressing, etc....) of that is insufficient in releasing the distress, the next step is hormone treatment (this gives some structural results as well as perhaps some mental stability. There are a few studies that came out which show a strong link of hormone production to transgender identities). If none of these work, then gender reassignment is the last option. This is by no means a common treatment and is usually reserved for only the most extreme cases and it takes years of treatment to be considered an option.
I would therefore argue, that there are more than two genders, and in some cases, gender reassignment surgery is a valid method for treating distress of gender non-normative individuals who have exhausted other treatment options.
let's go with psychological
I think that the anthropological or psychological would work fine. They're pretty similar and wouldn't conflict with each other, nor would they conflict with any of the research out there that I'm aware of. I'll let you pick whichever you prefer.
OK so which one would u prefer to use for now?
That's kind of my thing, haha.... Don't know if you noticed
Since every definition I've provided deals with gender being separated from sex and that every academic discipline which deals in the study of gender and Sex differentiates between the two, I don't see any reason why we should adopt a definition other than gender being a social construct and Sex a biological one.
Given the fact that we're arguing pathology now, we have to use the clinical definition which would be the APA definition provided below. If we are to discuss cultural issues, we should use the sociological definition, and if we discuss cultural relevance then we should use the anthropological definition. That way the sources pertaining to the subject match the definition we're using.
if there that many def. then we really need to decide on one in the sake of not being here all day arguing on different def.
I would also add that since the diagnosis of "delusion" is a clinical diagnosis from the field of psychiatry, you have to use their definitions to categorize gender.
so we're back to arguing definition again........Every scientific discipline that studies gender and sex uses separate definition for the two terms. The oxford dictionary and Merriam Webster also define gender by role not sex. Finding one outlyer doesn't negate the functional definition by which experts in the field use it. It also doesn't negate the colloquial definitions. If you want to argue definitions however, here are sources which you can reference
The APA (American Psychological Association): https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf:
Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender?normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non?conformity
The same source you posted has the sociological definition of gender as: " the socially constructed views of feminine and masculine behaviour within individual cultural groups."
Anthropology: Sex and gender are defined differently in anthropology, the former as grounded in perceived biological differences and the latter as the cultural constructions observed, performed, and understood in any given society, often based on those perceived biological differences
The straight up google definition: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender : either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:
The W.H.O: http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/
Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.
The Oxford dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender
The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)
do you really need any more???
Again, I reject the notion that gender is based on sex due to the overwhelming acceptance to the contrary by the scientific fields who study the issue.
OK that explains the sudden change.
the def. for gender in the http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender is as follows
Category to which an individual is assigned by self or others, on the basis of sex. so it is based on sex therefore it is a delusion.
As I stated I just ran across this information (thank you NPR and sciencedaily!!!) and I will always change my mind in light of new evidence. Changing my mind in light of new evidence is the only intellectually honest position I can take.
You're again using rhetoric rather than evidence to marry a definition to a condition which isn't accepted by the medical community. It also demonstrates that you still either don't comprehend the distinction between gender and sex or your intentionally being intellectually dishonest about the analogy you're using. Furthermore, the definition you're using doesn't even fit the condition. Gender dysphoria is in no way "not true". The person who is transgender doesn't deny their sex. A male transgender doesn't say "I'm a biological female" nor does he say "I'm not a biological male". They are describing their reality accurately when they say "my gender identity doesn't match my sexual identity".
Since gender is independent of sex, saying that sex defines gender is simply wrong. Gender is the identifier, sex is the biology which is associated to the archetype (male-masculinity female-feminine). These archetypes are social constructs, thus sex is mismatched to the cultural role you play if you're transgender. Since gender is the personality, sex is the cause of the distress. The distress doesn't come from the gender identity. If the person were born into the sex that is associated with their gender, they wouldn't have any distress.
As for treatment options. You should look into the courses of treatment before criticizing the most extreme treatment option. The general timeline is psychological therapy first; exposure second (living as the opposite sex. i.e. cross-dressing, etc...); Hormonal therapies to make small body changes, and only if none of these work, does surgery become an option. If any of the less invasive treatments alleviate the distress to the patient, then there is no need to actually move down the chain of invasiveness.
I take this stance because u r the one that stated it today and now ur changing urs.did u only just find this out?I really can't say honestly.
delusion def. by http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/delusion (is that academic enough for u. haha) means that it's a belief in something that's not true. u may believe that ur a girl on the inside but that does not make it true.also how do we know that there aren't better ways to treat it if we dont try to find them?
There aren't any flaws in the citations. I'm arguing that gender dysphoria is falsely classified given the current state of research. By your own logic you would have to dismiss gender dysphoria as being a mental disorder since the research is not definitive. The positive proposition always has the greater burden of proof, so the research would have to prove that distress is caused by the dissociation of sex and gender. There is no research which does this and the old classification is simply based on the presence of distress, not the source.
Let's assume for the sake of moving the argument along that gender dysphoria remains classified as a mental disorder and that somehow this classification is justified. I'm actually surprised you'd want to take this stance since it weakens your position.....
If gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, then it causes distress. Gender dysphoria is not a delusion according to both the DSM 5 and ICD-9 and 10. Since gender dysphoria is not a delusion, the treatment is not to break someone of a delusion (i.e. a false reality). If there is no delusion to break, then the treatment must address the source of the distress. The source of the distress is (according to the DSM) the disassociation of biology from gender identity. The treatment is then an association of gender identity and sexual biology. Since the gender identity is not a delusion, it cannot be the source of the distress, since the only other source is biology, it is this aspect that must be addressed. In effect, classifying gender dysphoria as a mental disorder dictates that the treatment for it necessary leads to gender reassignment.
actually I'm using ur sites and pointing out flaws.
it has not been 100? done yet. scientist used to say u should never eat any fat but now they say u should the point being is these study's always flip-flop so they aren't good to use until they become fact. and again it questions it but does not correct it.
it is not based on bias. if a guy has too much iron in his blood would have put more in it? of course not.what u r doing is makes ng it worse not better. people are seeing changing ur sex as a final solution when it's not but they don't search for a diff. answer that would be better.
What do you think research studies are? They report facts. The proposal to change the DSM is based on the facts contained in the studies. The ICD-11 is already being changed and the proposal to act on the facts of these studies has already been approved by numerous international committees which are composed of experts in the field. I provided you with primary sources and you have yet to substantiate a single opinion you've shared with anything other than rhetoric.
My initial argument was that there are more than 2 genders. I think we've established this as true. So the original proposition has been shown true.
my second argument was that there are 3 distinct sexes. No one has challenged that point, so even the concept that there are only 2 sexes is false.
The third argument is whether gender affects sex. I don't think anyone would argue that gender affects sex. So it's sort of a moot point.
The fourth argument is whether or not gender dysphoria is or isn't a mental disorder. I would agree that it is currently classified as such. I would however side with the most recent research since it is the newest and most relevant. The changes to the DSM 5 in 2012/13 to shift gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria also demonstrates a shift from mental illness to mental disphoria and an evolving stance on the issue. Whether or not the newest DSM will follow the ICD 11 guidelines remains to be seen, however, the facts at least question the proposition that gender disphoria is actually an mental disorder.
You have failed to provide any evidence for your claim that it is and have yet to challenge the new research which I cited in any meaningful way. Rhetoric is not evidence. Making claims without evidence is a fallacy known as an argument by assertion. Please refrain from making these logical errors and back up your argument with actual primary sources.
The fifth argument is then the efficacy of gender reassignment surgery. The efficacy is still under investigation, however, it is a well established part of treatment. Currently the only honest position to take is that it is the best treatment option we have, however it is still investigational and may not be appropriate for every case.
To make a claim like you made about gender reassignment being somehow wrong is based on bias not fact. It is rhetoric, not an argument.
this is a proposal not a fact. next time give something more concrete. also I know that society accepts these ideas to an extent. sure it's fine if the dad wants to stay home and the mom work. or the wife to be a wrestler and the guy be a nurse. now being completely changing ur sex is diff. as said before. don't give evidence if u don't like where it will go or just accept that ur wrong.a
@yanksxx21 and @neveralone
The treatment for gender dysphoria is still in it's infancy. It's unclear as to what protocol will yield the best results. The new studies seem to show that some distress may be alleviated by gender reassignment surgery, however, there are conflicting studies. I would argue it's too early to draw any meaningful conclusion on the efficacy of the procedure just yet.
I would further argue that eliminating gender reassignment surgery as a treatment option for transgender individuals is a disingenuous position to take as the research is simply lacking. I will reserve my judgement of the efficacy of this treatment until the research is more definitive.
Any other position is simply ignorant and based on bias rather than data.
go read the studies, they clearly show that you're wrong. if you don't want to accept those studies please provide scholarly articles which rebuke these studies.
To your point that gender doesn't matter:
Gender is the only thing that matters. It's sex that's irrelevant. Since sex is not an archetype or an indication of how you interact with society, it is irrelevant to the identification of an individual. Gender is the only definition by which we identify ourselves to society. So the only definition that actually matters is Gender. Sex has no impact on how you interact with others, it only confuses the issue of identity.
Sex should therefore be considered a personal issue and is not really relevant to anyone but the individual.
If someone then identifies as feminine but is born with the male sex, their gender identity dictates their interactions and thus they ought to be considered feminine and referred to as such.
Your sister ought be considered as "He" by anyone who interacts with him. Your personal relationship with him allows you to have a different relationship with him, however, I doubt he'd be ok with a stranger assigning a gender identity to him which doesn't match the gender role he identifies with. His sex is none of my business and so the only reference point that is valid for me is his gender identity.
wait that's not true though. society has accepted that the dad can be the stay at home and the mom be the worker and very scenario in-between so it is therefore entirely the situation.
@neveralone and @yanksxx21
I need to retract my statement about gender dysphoria being a mental disorder (to some extent). I ran across some new information which will remove gender dysphoria from the DSM 5 and the ICD-11 codes which will be approved in 2018. The WHO released new studies this year and the declassification has already been approved by several international committees.
I'll go into the background a little bit to explain this change. In order for something to be considered a mental disorder, the thought pattern must cause significant distress or disability. Gender dysphoria obviously qualifies as causing mental distress or disability.
The WHO studies which were published in the Lancet Psychiatry journal show that gender dysphoria is however, not the cause of the distress. The studies show that the distress comes from the social pressures to perform in accordance with the gender roles typically associated with the sex you're born with. Meaning that society expects male sexes to perform masculine gender roles and female sexes to perform feminine gender roles. The distress is caused by society not accepting non-traditional gender roles and identities. Meaning that society causes distress in associating gender with sex.
The American Psychiatric Association has not yet made changes to to the DSM 5 or 6 to reflect these new studies. The ICD (international classification of disease) code-book has however already adopted these changes and it is likely that the DSM will reflect these changes when the new ICD-11 code-book is approved.
I would say that the argument for continuing the view that Gender dysphoria as a mental disorder can still be made to some extend, however, it seems the research is overwhelmingly against that proposition.
I apologize for any confusion my previous statements inserted into the conversation. I was working off of old sources.
you and I are im not sure about the existionalist
Way are we all on the same page?
true it was in that article he put in here
Hormonal therapy links to Blood clots, stroke, seizures, and breast cancer. Why is supporting these health issues good in any way??
Their is a number of health issues that are caused by these that they often ignore
so to put what ur saying it's a cop out?
What I mean is the progressive left by supportng hormone therapy, and the mutilation of your body, is supporting that it is play to have a illness.
@anyone reading this.see below and u will see a person from the left called it a mental illness and gave facts to support it not us.
@yanks I don't understand how somone would support normalizing this. it's like if I had a brother who thought he was a bunny should I put him in a cage and feed him carrots for the rest of his life? no I should find a real cure the instead.
Exactly, the progressive left is normalizing a mental illness.
but if it is a mental illness like we believe this takes time and effort. instead we let them go down further in the rabbit hole instead of trying to pull them out
There is a way, you just accept who you are and what you are.
OK now I understand but I wonder if their is a way to "cure" it for a lack of better word that doesn't completely change urself
we are on the same lol...re-read what I said
lol it's Sarcasim
please explain I'm not sure what ur saying
Your wrong, because injecting your self with unbalanced hormones, and mutilating your genitals in healthy
and by their I mean mentally ill
therefore is there a way to treat it without actually changing them. because correct me if I'm wrong but don't doctors advise u to not give in to their reality because ultimately it would do more harm than good?
Is it bad? No. However when you think you are something you're not, that's a mental illness
Yes as it's all in your head
so we are on agreement that it's a mental illness?
Gender Identity in s less cliche way is if your a simple tomboy or tomgirl....
The entire point of Gender is that you have the right to think that you are different, however that doesn't change people's prescription of you. As an example, my sister is trans, however I will ALWAYS call and think shes my sister. So in turn If people's perception of you doesn't change, what the hells the point of multiple genders.
We'll the point is that your gender can be whatever you want, you can be a tree for all I care. But your sex doesn't change, so if your gender doesn't affect your sex, than gender doesn't matter.
That is a point I won't argue. So to sum up;
1. There are an infinite number of genders
2. Gender identity is a product of our role in society and how we measure ourselves compared to the hyper version of masculinety/feminity
3. Gender is therefore fluid
4. Our gender is to be addressed in reference to the role we play and how we identify ourselves
5. There are only 3 sexes (male, female, and intersex)
6. Sex is a product of biology
7. Sex is unaffected by gender
here is the DSM 5
The DSM is the definitive guide to mental disorders. I strongly recommend academic sources when discussing academic issues and staying away from the merriam-webster nonsense. It's a poor resource when it comes to academics.
As for the Gender definition.
Gender is defined as being part of the social construct by Anthropologist, psychologists, sociologists, and even in colloquial terms
Even in the Meriam webster definition you provided it states: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
The Meriam Webster definition needs to take into account gender roles as a defining factor for gender, not sex. Sex here is only in reference to gender roles assigned to the sexes in a given culture. It says nothing about the biological presence or absence of any part of the anatomy.
To further illustrate this if we look at the definition of sex we see it related to genitalia not behavior:
also ur def. applies to anthropology only while if u look up the definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary u will see as the 2nd def on http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
it says that it's not a mental illness but it sounded exactly like one and by Merriam Webster dictionary definition it is.http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/mental%20illness
Yes that is correct
I defined gender by the scientific definition thereof. I provided my source to that definition in my original post on the subject. Here it is again in case you missed it:
In the spirit of this definition, I don't think there can be an argument about the presence of an infinite number of genders.
Gender reassignment is a specific treatment for a condition called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition which requires treatment and management. It has little to do with the concept of gender identity and how we treat those identities in society; it is a medical option doctors and patients ought to discuss for the treatment of gender dysphoria. It's no different than a woman who has the BRCA1&2 gene undergoing elective mastectomies in order to quell the angst of breast cancer. I don't think you, I, or anyone without clinical knowledge of the patient is in a position to discuss the benefits of gender reassignment surgery in any given case. This is a medical procedure which has been validated by the medical community for treatment of some patients, the scope of which is to be determined by the doctor and patient (whether it be simple hormonal therapies or full blown surgery). The condition and treatment are well described in the DSM-5 and DSM-6; both are of course backed by plenty of research into the efficacy of the treatment as it pertains to that condition.
To say that gender dysphoria is the dictating principle behind the discussion of gender and gender identity however, is to miss the mark and ignores the larger segment of the population who struggle with gender bias as it pertains to their gender role as opposed to their sexual identity.
Since there are two different inputs I'll address by name:
Again, it seems that you're holding contradictory positions. You seem to accept that gender is a scale rather than a hard definition. You accept that people can freely identify anywhere along that scale. Yet, you say that those identifiers don't exist.....that makes no sense. I'm trying to make sense of your position, so I'll try and word it a little different; let me know if this is what your position actually is.
While there are an infinite amount of genders, gender identity does not effect sex.
Is that about right?
depends on what you define as gender. in ur examples u have a guy doing a bake sale or a girl wrestling and I'm completely fine with these and they won't make u change ur sex. it's when u actually want to go as far as physically changing ur body in such an extreme way that I don't agree with. what u have been describing is simply put tomboys and girls.
I can think that getting a 50% on a test is good, however that dosent make it good.
If someone says that they are a female although they are male, I respect that you can think that you are, but just thinking you are dosent make you a male. If I belive in God, that dosent prove that God exists.
So you're disagreeing with gender reassignment, not gender identity? Meaning that you don't think someone who identifies as a female gender should be able to reassign their sex to match their gender; is that correct?
I partially disagree. I agree with ur examples and so does everyone in America besides extremist. but they are extremely diff. from actually changing something that has been a part of u ur whole life.would u not think someone is crazy if they had surgery to take out their eyes?
Why do you disagree with the presence and existence of at least 3 distinct gender modalities (masculine, feminine, and androgynous)?
Furthermore, you stated: "There is an infinte amount of genders however it dosent make you them"
---This seems to be a self defeating claim as you affirm the presence of an infinite amount of genders and then you go on to claim that you can't actually be those genders.
I'm going to quote Aristotle here: "To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."
Essentially you're holding an irrational position. You claim that infinite genders exist and in the same statement claiming that they don't exist. This is a complete breakdown in logic.
I'm assuming you're still struggling with the distinction between sex and gender.
So I'll argue for the existence of at 3 sexes:
we have male, female, and intersex. So even if we go by sex, the original claim of there being more than two holds true.
So far we disagree on different genders, however agree on the flexibility of gender roles for both sexes.
exactly; so you can go ahead and agree with your own claim :-)
Also agree I can a man, but I can love to knit and I will have a more feminine gender role.
Glad you agree.
I'll take it one step further here since we seem to be agreeing.
I'd say gender is more important than sex. Gender identity informs society of the role you will be taking as you participate in your community. It also allows you to define the limits of your gender role (i.e. hyper-masculine identity will probably not participate in bake sales while a hyper-feminine identity will probably not participate in football). These limits are the range of one's gender identity and are much more descriptive and much more useful than sexual identity.
Sex on the other hand is irrelevant to the community if it accepts non-traditional gender roles. Sex is therefore an irrelevant identity claim. It is simply a claim about the presence or absence of certain organs.
I agree, if you want to take such roles do be it. But I'd you don't want to you don't have to.
Great, then we can call this portion of the debate settled (the existence of multiple genders)
Again with the false analogies. You don't have the capacity to fulfill the role of an airplane, so it's delusion rather than an identity.
The major relevance gender has is on our bias of sex vs gender roles. This is critical in our legislative process. If we look at something like maternity leave for example, we can't simply say something to the effect of: "the biological mother is entitled to "x" weeks of paid leave to bond with the child etc...." We have to look at who will actually be home with the kid on a regular basis. If the father is going to assume the more traditional feminine role of child rearing and the mother is going to be assuming the traditionally more masculine role of working, then our legislation should reflect such gender flexibility.
The same could be said for title 9 funding. If we have a bunch of female athletes who would rather compete in something like wrestling, then title 9 funding should apply to those programs (assuming they provide legitimate access and opportunity)
There is an infinte amount of genders however it dosent make you them.
I support your Freedom to Express yourself however disagree that it makes you different. If I say I'm a plane are you going bring me to airports , tape wings on me just becase I said so?
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you accept the concept of multiple genders and reject the idea of multiple sexes correct?
But it still dosent make you diffrent from what you are.
I suppose I agree that you can think differently.
We'll sex is a proven biological and genetic occurrence. While Gender can be a little more complicated as we have all of these social constructs. You can say or be whatever you want and I could care less, but that dosent make you diffrent from what you are, you can just think that.
Please provide an academic source which equates sex to gender. The two are different concepts. You're trying to muddy the waters by equivocating the two. The distinction between sex and gender is well documented, well defined, and accepted by every discipline which studies the issue.
And yes, I'm familiar with social contract theory. I've read plenty of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
I'm assuming by your response that you don't have a problem with the distinction between gender and sex. It's an accepted distinction in every academic circle which studies the issue and you didn't make an argument against the case. If you do have an issue with the distinction, please find me some reputable sources that deny such a distinction.
The rest of your post is simply an attempt to move the goal post from existence to relevance.
Gender is relevant as it pertains to the gender roles of a society. It is relevant to how we raise our children (girls wearing one color, boys another, etc...), it is relevant in regards to the types of activities we encourage (football vs softball), it is relevant in how we produce legislation (maternity vs paternity leave).
The nonsense of a student identifying as summa cum laude is a false analogy as it doesn't address identity but achievement; I hope you understand the difference between the two. For that reason I'll simply dismiss this as a nonsense argument.
The theist identifying as God is another false analogy since it deals with capacity not identity. A theist can't claim to be God if he/she can't embody the properties of God. An individual with the sex of female however, has the capability of fulfilling the role of the masculine gender however. So again, I'll dismiss this argument as being based on a false analogy.
Gender is about genetics and biology, Gender roles is what your speaking off. So you have no idea about "Social Contracts".
Thats is absolute Nonsense. If gender is whatever you identify as, then gender is irrelevant and nonsensical.
I'm yet to hear a good reason why what someone "identifies as" is important or relevant in any way. In debate about the existence of God, if a theist states that he identifies as God, does that mean he his God and God is now real? If a student identifies as someone who graduated summa cum laude, is the university obligated to give him that honor. If this isn't permitted in any other discourse why would be here?
There is a distinction that needs to be made. We have two separate concepts; one being sex (the biological assignment based on genitalia) and gender (the role we play in regards to our cultural construction). It seems like Yanksxx21 is either confusing the terms or doesn't know the distinction.
Here is a quick read about how gender differs from sex:
Now, I would agree that there are three defined sexes (male, female, and intersex). Those are fairly concrete, these are based on nothing more than biology.
Gender however, is different. It has to do with how a given culture defines masculine and feminine archetypes and roles. So gender must necessarily be viewed as a sliding scale rather than a definition. So you can have a person with the female sex taking on more of a masculine role and may even identify with the traditionally male gender role and thus her gender would be more masculine. A person with the male sex designation may in turn be more feminine in their gender role and identity and thus be more feminine. In reality we all fall somewhere in between the feminine and masculine gender identifiers, so it's a matter of how far we go to one side or the other that determines how closely we associate with the extremes of masculine vs feminine gender identity.
Essentially, there are an infinite number of genders lying somewhere between the hyper-masculine and the hyper-feminine. The exact middle would be androgyny.
it would be interesting especially the atheist since to support the other side they would have to admit there's a such thing as a soul
I know, i'd love to see them argue biology and science :D
more vulgar than I would say but I agree if u mean from the moment u were born but be prepared for the onslaught that is sure to come from this vine.:-)
If you have a Penis your a man, if you have uterus your a female...end of story