Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gender Identity

Posted Jan 25, '14 at 2:45pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,501 posts

There seems to be constant misunderstanding in this thread.

Gender is how someone identifies

Sex is what they were born as.

You caught that, did you? Yes, that is a complete misunderstanding, because the words are actually synonymous. Gender = Sex.

I reserve the right to interpret your words as I see fit, regardless of their intended meaning.

 

Posted Jan 25, '14 at 3:03pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,230 posts

Gender is how someone identifies

Sex is what they were born as.

Thought I would clear that up

I made the same mistake in my OP. As is pointed out in page and and here on page 6 by Fish, gender and sex are synonymous. The term you are looking for is Gender Identity.

 

Posted Jan 26, '14 at 12:35am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

If it was just "sports" without the gender divide it would continue to be male-dominated

So what? Some track and field sports are currently black-dominated. Should we separate by skin tone to make it 'fair'?

 

Posted Jan 26, '14 at 6:23am

Riptizoid101

Riptizoid101

3,228 posts

Let's not get caught up with semantics. Are gender and sex synonymous? Yes, but one should be able to interpret from context when one means sex or gender identity. We shouldn't dwell on this any longer and get back to discussing about gender identity itself rather than linguistic accuracy.

So what? Some track and field sports are currently black-dominated. Should we separate by skin tone to make it 'fair'?

Perhaps this is enacted so that the generally "physically weaker" females get to have play time. And, admit it or not, but we're in a society that inherently believes in the male superiority and female inferiority (although we're moving out of that). This shouldn't be the base model at all, as individual skill evaluation should be the utmost priority. But what about high physical contact sports like tackle football and boxing? This is a problem that people can't overlook when it comes to differences in terms of physical strength.

But I digress. On this topic, I have mixed feelings whether full on gender segregation on certain sports should be lifted or not.

 

Posted Jan 29, '14 at 7:15pm

abt79

abt79

59 posts

Just as females are proven to have, genetically, a better brain capacity, men are genetically stronger, (both statistics are on average of course, I am sure there are some women stronger and not nearly as smart as me). So either way you put it, men and women have their strengths and weaknesses, and neither gender is "superior".
   As such, I think gender segregation in sports can be seen in different ways. If you mean that men/women should not be allowed to play different sports (ex. Only girls play volleyball, football is a man's sport) seems ridiculous. If you mean that men and women should not play sports on the same teams or in the same leagues, I do agree that women are inherently physically weaker (although there may very well be  some female bodybuilders that could take down Shaq), plus there is the whole facet of attraction (for lack of a better, more AG-appropriate term) towards the opposite gender, a topic I think is quite self explanatory (Would many women want a 250 lb guy in those tight football pants tackling her to the ground? Being a man I am not entirely sure, but I have a hunch...)
So to recap: neither gender is "superior" in general, mixed feelings on gender segregation in sports.

 

Posted Jan 30, '14 at 12:16am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

plus there is the whole facet of attraction (for lack of a better, more AG-appropriate term) towards the opposite gender, a topic I think is quite self explanatory (Would many women want a 250 lb guy in those tight football pants tackling her to the ground? Being a man I am not entirely sure, but I have a hunch...)

You realize there is the whole facet of attraction towards the same gender too, right? Some guys might join the team just for that kind of experience. Is that a reason to ban contact sports? Or locker rooms?

 

Posted Jan 30, '14 at 10:49pm

abt79

abt79

59 posts

Hmmm true good point.
This is one reason why many men are homophobic and do not want "gay" guys on sports teams. They genuinely don't want someone they are in no way attracted to "checking them out".
Hmmm I will have to think about this.

 

Posted Feb 8, '14 at 3:15pm

chrystalfox

chrystalfox

19 posts

What if we allow personal privacy? Is it such a bad deal? Add showers with stalls, and maybe give everyone a place to change, if they're so worried about it.

 

Posted Feb 8, '14 at 8:25pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

What if we allow personal privacy? Is it such a bad deal? Add showers with stalls, and maybe give everyone a place to change, if they're so worried about it.

That might be a bit hard to implement given such a set up would either have to take up much more room or create a waiting line for use. Though I do have to say personally I would prefer it if we did have such a set up instead.

 

Posted Mar 6, '14 at 5:35pm

Sonatavarius

Sonatavarius

1,344 posts

Imma throw 2 cents in and run away for a while b/c med school integrated exams and stuff, so.... hold on to ya butts.  It's mostly me rambling about a pseudo related issue to the current topic... so, sorry to all of you who don't like that or won't like my thoughts

When it comes to subjects such as this I think people neglect to acknowledge (or they just don't know) that there are different models/systems/lenses by which the information is compiled and viewed through.  A lot of the arguments I've seen revolve almost solely on two parties arguing things seen through different lenses which means that the people use the same words but they don't mean the same things.... so its like a semantical tornado of never getting anywhere. You can hardly place certain views as "truths" just because they make sense under the model you've bought into.  Different psychologists say different things all of the time... so just because a few people have come in and tried to redefine certain words doesn't make the classical definitions wrong.  Every verbal picture must be painted on the canvas of context or it starts dabbling in the realm of just making a pointless mess.   

I feel that the model that says that gender = sex is the more concise and efficient of the two.  Gender identity comes across as a better means of expressing the mental association one takes with a specific set of (what seem to be) preconceived psychosocial norms for what they think they are.  For all those stuck in the gray area of sexual maldevelopment those disorders all have specific names that describe them and those terms can and are used to describe their exact characteristics/problems making a seemingly decent substitution for the hermaphrodite and others. 

I just have difficulty with accepting the other way of thinking because it isn't very objective in my eyes... unless the sole action of someone saying they are something dictates that they are in fact that something qualifies as objective.  The gender identity norms are all socially constructed and are apt to change from culture to culture.  You can't standardize what it means to psychologically identify as a man or woman.  The names for whatever category you put yourself into have no value or significance at that point.  They are not descriptive and they are not scientific.  Maybe this is just me forcing my beliefs onto the realm of science, but the value of a label isn't in making yourself feel better... it's in streamlining information and making something understandable to others.  A field of science is a field of science... it's not inherently an outlet for making you feel better about the genetic lottery ticket you bought on your way into the world. 

If I say that my gender is tree, then what does that mean?  I think it, I believe it, I am it! But I'm not a tree.  I'm a human male who has thrust his opinion of what he thinks a tree is onto all of treedom... and if all I've done is simply say that I am a tree without forcing my idea of what that treentails onto the world, then all I'm doing is saying words that, like I said earlier, have little to no descriptional value.  AND if they're not going to have any value, then it's not really a scientific explanation of something and not science.  You have to objectively fall into the category, you don't just get to pick.  Some of the girliest guys (it's a trap!) you can find will identify as men and some of the burliest guys will identify as women.  The model that reconciles with the burly guys' gender/sex disgruntlement is in fact a model, but it does nothing but reconciliation.  There's seemingly no value in the labels and it just makes the whole ordeal more complicated and convoluted than the model I subscribe to.  I can't look through those particular lenses because everything is too blurry without any definitive lines tracing the objects so as to actually be seen and differentiated from the surroundings. 

Even if we find out something in the brain that's specific to this particular occurrence exists in these people I still say their sex/gender should be male but psychologically they're female.  If you're going to use alternate definitions, then you should make the context and actual meaning known, so that what you're talking about is at least clear.

just thought I'd stir up the mud a little bit :)

http://funny-pictures-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Judging-tree.jpg

 
Reply to Gender Identity

You must be logged in to post a reply!