First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you believe that people can have no gender?
1329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / NY
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

serifsansserif wrote:


deer wrote:


masked185 wrote:

Nope, gender is what body parts you have or do not have. It is written in your body's very code. You can call it different things all you want and twist it to your own ends but you are what you are. Gender is not determined by society, rather society has twisted the definition of gender to meet their wants.

Ok flame away, cause I'm sure I'll get it from at least one person.


Gender is a societal construct lol have you ever been educated or at least researched this before spewing stupidity? Or nah?


awwwwweeeee... such a cwute widdle troll.. :)


http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / The Cosmos
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
I think a lot of this has to do with people trying extremely hard to be a unique individual. A "I don't have to do this so I'm not going to" type statement.


Just because you "consider" yourself something doesn't make it true. People say they don't consider me black because of the way I talk and act, that doesn't make it true though....it's just people doing something simply because they can
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

deer wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


deer wrote:


masked185 wrote:

Nope, gender is what body parts you have or do not have. It is written in your body's very code. You can call it different things all you want and twist it to your own ends but you are what you are. Gender is not determined by society, rather society has twisted the definition of gender to meet their wants.

Ok flame away, cause I'm sure I'll get it from at least one person.


Gender is a societal construct lol have you ever been educated or at least researched this before spewing stupidity? Or nah?


awwwwweeeee... such a cwute widdle troll.. :)


http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf


Your tone not your information. I was the first one to state the differences between gender and sex on the first page of this topic.
1329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / NY
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

serifsansserif wrote:


deer wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


deer wrote:


masked185 wrote:

Nope, gender is what body parts you have or do not have. It is written in your body's very code. You can call it different things all you want and twist it to your own ends but you are what you are. Gender is not determined by society, rather society has twisted the definition of gender to meet their wants.

Ok flame away, cause I'm sure I'll get it from at least one person.


Gender is a societal construct lol have you ever been educated or at least researched this before spewing stupidity? Or nah?


awwwwweeeee... such a cwute widdle troll.. :)


http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf


Your tone not your information. I was the first one to state the differences between gender and sex on the first page of this topic.


congratulations

1606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Bullhead City, AZ
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
I don't think that was the right use of the term "tenure".


Also you can't be neither male or female. You're either born with a penis or you are born with a vagina. Regardless of what your sexual orientation is, you are either a male or female, no other way around it.
Bavalt 
22029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
I have some doubts as to whether someone could legitimately be agendered, though it largely depends on how you want to define it. I largely see gender as something that society labels a person as, rather than anything intrinsic to the person. People "place" you based on your behaviour. By that logic, to be truly genderless, you would have to partake very rarely in any behaviours that are tied to gender. The obvious problem there is that there are a lot of behaviours that are gender-relevant, and avoiding them all would be nigh-impossible. Based on that paradigm, I would say that it's, at the very least, extremely difficult and limiting to be agendered.

As I've said, I consider gender to be something that exists outside the person in question, just a societal organizational device people use to predict and promote behaviours that they're not interested in looking for the real reason behind. Gender is a shortcut, and because it's such an easy one, it's far more prevalent in most of human culture than I'm personally okay with. If we are to ascribe the "gender shortcut" to an individual, then, and say that gender is one of the tools they use to understand people, then it stands to reason that they might feel uncomfortable if they don't display the correct gender for their anatomy. I have a hard time relating to transgendered people for this reason: I personally don't see gender as a very useful or insightful construct, and I find it difficult to understand why it matters so much to some people. I personally think that such people shouldn't have to label themselves in that way just to be understood. There's no reason not to take it as a given that girls can be "manly" or guys can be "girly". There's a definite correlation between sex and gender, but there are also definite exceptions, and if you look around, they're fairly numerous. People are just comfortable with saying "good enough" and predicting other peoples' behaviour using gender, because it generally works.

Looking at it from an inward point of view, I suppose an agendered person would be a lot like a transgendered person. They have trouble reconciling their personality with the "gender" construct, while simultaneously believing in that construct, and see themselves as abnormal as a result. From this point of view, I'd argue that agendered people can exist, just like transgendered people can. By my understanding, however, neither of these terms has any real merit, because I don't bellieve the gender binary quite "gets it right". Holding to the gender-as-label point of view, I would say that there is no such thing as an "agendered" person, because while "transgendered" people would be easy to identify by their behaviour and classify as such, "agendered" people would not. Gender observations are positivistic: they judge a person on what they do, not by what they don't do. If you exhibit behaviours indicative of each gender, you would be considered potentially transgendered, or potentially "normal" - probably a little bit of both. As I understand it, though, agendered people are those who exhibit no gender-based behaviour. Even assuming one could successfully avoid gendered behaviour to such an extent, the result would be that that person would be considered "normally gendered" - but a little odd - by default, because they haven't done anything to indicate the opposite. The gender binary is, by its name, binary.

In short, I don't think agendered people could exist by my understanding of gender. While I do believe that people could identify as agendered, just as they could identify as transgendered, I don't consider either of those terms particularly meaningful. That is, however, just based on my own subjective worldview, and I'm not about to go around trying to "convert" people if they don't act in a way that makes sense to me.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / $$east coast$$
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

Bavalt wrote:

I have some doubts as to whether someone could legitimately be agendered, though it largely depends on how you want to define it. I largely see gender as something that society labels a person as, rather than anything intrinsic to the person. People "place" you based on your behaviour. By that logic, to be truly genderless, you would have to partake very rarely in any behaviours that are tied to gender. The obvious problem there is that there are a lot of behaviours that are gender-relevant, and avoiding them all would be nigh-impossible. Based on that paradigm, I would say that it's, at the very least, extremely difficult and limiting to be agendered.

As I've said, I consider gender to be something that exists outside the person in question, just a societal organizational device people use to predict and promote behaviours that they're not interested in looking for the real reason behind. Gender is a shortcut, and because it's such an easy one, it's far more prevalent in most of human culture than I'm personally okay with. If we are to ascribe the "gender shortcut" to an individual, then, and say that gender is one of the tools they use to understand people, then it stands to reason that they might feel uncomfortable if they don't display the correct gender for their anatomy. I have a hard time relating to transgendered people for this reason: I personally don't see gender as a very useful or insightful construct, and I find it difficult to understand why it matters so much to some people. I personally think that such people shouldn't have to label themselves in that way just to be understood. There's no reason not to take it as a given that girls can be "manly" or guys can be "girly". There's a definite correlation between sex and gender, but there are also definite exceptions, and if you look around, they're fairly numerous. People are just comfortable with saying "good enough" and predicting other peoples' behaviour using gender, because it generally works.

Looking at it from an inward point of view, I suppose an agendered person would be a lot like a transgendered person. They have trouble reconciling their personality with the "gender" construct, while simultaneously believing in that construct, and see themselves as abnormal as a result. From this point of view, I'd argue that agendered people can exist, just like transgendered people can. By my understanding, however, neither of these terms has any real merit, because I don't bellieve the gender binary quite "gets it right". Holding to the gender-as-label point of view, I would say that there is no such thing as an "agendered" person, because while "transgendered" people would be easy to identify by their behaviour and classify as such, "agendered" people would not. Gender observations are positivistic: they judge a person on what they do, not by what they don't do. If you exhibit behaviours indicative of each gender, you would be considered potentially transgendered, or potentially "normal" - probably a little bit of both. As I understand it, though, agendered people are those who exhibit no gender-based behaviour. Even assuming one could successfully avoid gendered behaviour to such an extent, the result would be that that person would be considered "normally gendered" - but a little odd - by default, because they haven't done anything to indicate the opposite. The gender binary is, by its name, binary.

In short, I don't think agendered people could exist by my understanding of gender. While I do believe that people could identify as agendered, just as they could identify as transgendered, I don't consider either of those terms particularly meaningful. That is, however, just based on my own subjective worldview, and I'm not about to go around trying to "convert" people if they don't act in a way that makes sense to me.


Quite enjoyed reading that, thanks for sharing your opinion I can definitely see where you are coming from. Though I personally don't agree with everything you have said, but definitely can concur on the fact that there's very little consensus on the terms used to describe those that are used to describe those that identify outside the "gender binary". Since terms such as agender, genderless, non-gender, gender neutral, and neutrois are used sometimes interchangeably or defined differently by people who use them, it's really difficult to actually nail down a definition that is descriptivist rather than prescriptivist.


3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / $$east coast$$
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
sorry for double post but
>tfw not sure if people are even reading other's responses lol
5727 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Yes. It does seem outlandish, and like a new "trend", but it isn't. These things have been around for a long time, but they're very unnoticed and not encouraged because of intolerance and the society we live in. For example, my great grandmother told me she never felt like a boy or a girl. But she didn't mind if anyone referred to her as a female. i guess the term for that is non-binary. (I don't know if that was a recently coined term or not.)

I recently discovered I was genderqueer. And still kind of questioning it. I don't like labeling it, but it's good for general terminology, I guess. I've always felt similar to my great grandma, but I wouldn't mind being a boy or a girl. or neither, really. It basically means that I'm outside of the gender "spectrum", and I don't really have a specific gender. But, I'm used to people referring to me as a girl, and that's okay, too. Though they/them are my preferred pronouns.

I don't expect people to understand it. And I don't expect them to accept it at first. And you can mark it off as a weird "fad" or "trend" all you want, but I'm just saying it exists. Even if it is a small amount who identify with it.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Online
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

dongaloli wrote:


crazykl45 wrote:

So, I should ask, if gender is a "social construct" then how do we suddenly have a gender that society at large doesn't recognize? How do we have people categorized into those new gender constructs society at large never recognized? If we posit the existence of a gender that's not male/female that society at large doesn't recognize, then how is that a real gender? Isn't gender supposed to be a social construct?

To me, I fail to understand the logic that if gender is a social construct, then you're not pigeon-holed into whatever society pigeonholes you into. Cause if you fall outside of what society pigeonholes you into, it's not really a gender then by that definition.


I'm assuming you are referring to what I and several other commenters have argued (would have replied to this sooner but didn't get a quote notification). From what I understand, there has been no sudden introduction of another gender. Instead, society is naturally reacting to something that has always been there, but has not been clearly defined or researched before; that is, the concept that "gender" is only a construct, and something which has a fluid definition. Society does not recognize the existence of non-binary people, or rather, is resisting the recognition of anything that is not binary because a hegemonic system in power wants to stay in power and not be challenged. Only recently (in the past century or so) have there even been research and exploration into the idea that biological sex and gender identity are separate and function on a single bipolar dimension of masculinity-femininity—that is masculinity and femininity are opposites on one continuum.As societal stereotypes changed, however, assumptions of the unidimensional model were challenged. This led to the development of a two-dimensional gender identity model, in which masculinity and femininity were conceptualized as two separate, orthogonal dimensions, coexisting in varying degrees within an individual. This conceptualization on femininity and masculinity remains the accepted standard today.

Phew that was longer than I expected.

I think this kind of complicates things a bit. I basically see gender as something done to you by society if it's a social construct. Like with race or nationality. If there's some set of traits inbetween masculine and feminine or something else that exists outside of what society assigns where people have noticed and started researching it, then it's tough to see gender as just a social construct and it becomes more of something genetics or biology influences.

I do think the lines are a bit more fluid than we would usually give them credit for. I feel like if a person is transgendered and I can guess they identify as a male or female, then that's how I would identify them. Or if they told me they identified as such. So there is that. But some of the other stuff like non-gender, a-gender, or non-binary genders with new pronouns comes across as a bit hard to understand. I like the 2-d model though. If gender is more like a plane with masculine and female traits orthogonal to each other, it gets a little easier to conceptualize.
Posted 2/4/15
It's interesting that people decide to spend their time finding ways to seek some sort of label to be able to identify themselves, I think if we truly believed that we were what we say we are, we would just be and their would be no need to explain. Intrinsically we all exhibit forms of masculinity and femininity, it's a ever fluctuating dynamic that changes with time. All in all I think it's a illusionary idea, but maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Online
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

Bavalt wrote:

I have some doubts as to whether someone could legitimately be agendered, though it largely depends on how you want to define it. I largely see gender as something that society labels a person as, rather than anything intrinsic to the person. People "place" you based on your behaviour. By that logic, to be truly genderless, you would have to partake very rarely in any behaviours that are tied to gender. The obvious problem there is that there are a lot of behaviours that are gender-relevant, and avoiding them all would be nigh-impossible. Based on that paradigm, I would say that it's, at the very least, extremely difficult and limiting to be agendered.

As I've said, I consider gender to be something that exists outside the person in question, just a societal organizational device people use to predict and promote behaviours that they're not interested in looking for the real reason behind. Gender is a shortcut, and because it's such an easy one, it's far more prevalent in most of human culture than I'm personally okay with. If we are to ascribe the "gender shortcut" to an individual, then, and say that gender is one of the tools they use to understand people, then it stands to reason that they might feel uncomfortable if they don't display the correct gender for their anatomy. I have a hard time relating to transgendered people for this reason: I personally don't see gender as a very useful or insightful construct, and I find it difficult to understand why it matters so much to some people. I personally think that such people shouldn't have to label themselves in that way just to be understood. There's no reason not to take it as a given that girls can be "manly" or guys can be "girly". There's a definite correlation between sex and gender, but there are also definite exceptions, and if you look around, they're fairly numerous. People are just comfortable with saying "good enough" and predicting other peoples' behaviour using gender, because it generally works.

Looking at it from an inward point of view, I suppose an agendered person would be a lot like a transgendered person. They have trouble reconciling their personality with the "gender" construct, while simultaneously believing in that construct, and see themselves as abnormal as a result. From this point of view, I'd argue that agendered people can exist, just like transgendered people can. By my understanding, however, neither of these terms has any real merit, because I don't bellieve the gender binary quite "gets it right". Holding to the gender-as-label point of view, I would say that there is no such thing as an "agendered" person, because while "transgendered" people would be easy to identify by their behaviour and classify as such, "agendered" people would not. Gender observations are positivistic: they judge a person on what they do, not by what they don't do. If you exhibit behaviours indicative of each gender, you would be considered potentially transgendered, or potentially "normal" - probably a little bit of both. As I understand it, though, agendered people are those who exhibit no gender-based behaviour. Even assuming one could successfully avoid gendered behaviour to such an extent, the result would be that that person would be considered "normally gendered" - but a little odd - by default, because they haven't done anything to indicate the opposite. The gender binary is, by its name, binary.

In short, I don't think agendered people could exist by my understanding of gender. While I do believe that people could identify as agendered, just as they could identify as transgendered, I don't consider either of those terms particularly meaningful. That is, however, just based on my own subjective worldview, and I'm not about to go around trying to "convert" people if they don't act in a way that makes sense to me.

I think this is the crux. If there's anything out there that shows behavior is influenced by sex in a significant way, it really gets hard to believe in the idea that people can be non-gendered.

The second point is also really key. I too get the feeling that gender as a shortcut really is limiting and unhelpful. If gender creates social expectations that limit people from doing what they want to in life, it's pretty damaging. So I suppose it's worthwhile at least to explore the concepts.
27595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Nope
XX=female DNA
YX =male DNA
anything else is an attempt to re-purpose biological fact. And the other option is hermaphrodite, which is a genetic anomaly. Any other argument is social or psychological, therefore subjective to a point of view. Scientifically no, no such creature exists unless you are a hermaphrodite, and then it's not asexual, but both sexes. I hate being a scientist sometimes, it gets me into a lot of arguments. But I will only argue from a biological point on this kind of subject. What you think or feel is immaterial, just the hard polynucleotide facts. Homogametic structure vs heterogametics. If you have a mix, you will have combinations of both organs, not organ free. Although this could cause a person to identify themselves as neuter, but that's really not the case. Be careful, you are treading on some deep genetic information. It's always been around, but people tend to make waaay too much of it. Go back to watching anime....
7401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Gender like most things in life could do without all the stereotypes and people trying to fit individuals into neat tidy boxes. It doesn't help that many people confuse the definition of gender for that of one's sex.

As for agender, personally I think that particular category is a bit of a misnomer. By calling yourself agender you are then in essence giving yourself the gender, agender.

As for me, the only part of gender I care about when dealing with others is knowing their preferred pronouns.
1329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / NY
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

Steelmonk wrote:

Nope
XX=female DNA
YX =male DNA
anything else is an attempt to re-purpose biological fact. And the other option is hermaphrodite, which is a genetic anomaly. Any other argument is social or psychological, therefore subjective to a point of view. Scientifically no, no such creature exists unless you are a hermaphrodite, and then it's not asexual, but both sexes. I hate being a scientist sometimes, it gets me into a lot of arguments. But I will only argue from a biological point on this kind of subject. What you think or feel is immaterial, just the hard polynucleotide facts. Homogametic structure vs heterogametics. If you have a mix, you will have combinations of both organs, not organ free. Although this could cause a person to identify themselves as neuter, but that's really not the case. Be careful, you are treading on some deep genetic information. It's always been around, but people tend to make waaay too much of it. Go back to watching anime....


What you're referring to is sex, not gender.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.