I'm going to use big people words here. I hope they don't offend you. Anyone who has been in the 7th grade will have seen most of these words in their science classes. If you don't like the usage of the words for the male and female genitalia then be fore-warned that they have been used and that you need to back out now.
I've recently come across this issue on a different site, and I'd like to get some input from some other people. There are two words that cause this issue. These words are Gender and Sex.
Sex is defined as having either a vagina(female) or a penis(male). Gender is classically defined as being synonymous with Sex. ...but it also has another definition. This one separates itself from direct association with the hardware downstairs. This definition states that your gender is what class you think you are. As in, if you think you are a woman but have male genitalia, then you are still a woman.
This is the main point that produces the fissure between the two sides. The two definitions for gender alone call for different names.... and that's not even taking the word Sex into account.
What then do we label people as? (inb4 people throw a fit about labeling).
One of the arguments I've seen said that "If it looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, has chesticles like a woman, and it wants to be a woman, then it is a woman... regardless of the penis downstairs. Now... what of the people that look, smell, sound like a woman, but want to be male... and just like to feel pretty? Is it just purely psychological? Is it solely physical with anything inbetween the classical normal male and female being a health/birth condition?
Should we make up new words for those individuals? ...or just leave the classic names for the not-so-classic ideology?
...here's an example. Some "normal" guy gets with a girl and then finds out that said "girl" has a penis... guy then goes.... "oh...ur a dude..." ...or should he be like... "I see you have a thingy downstairs muh lady?" I have been told that in such a scenario that the person in question is by no means a male. I am slightly vexed by that statement.
I'll let some people start the discussion before giving too much more of my opinion away. Please try and remain serious when discussing. Let's not make fun of anyone for their opinion.
The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)
- Gender Vs. This
Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions
Sex
Right?
If it is, then everything you made makes sense. I think that in such a case like the one you described, the 'girl that's a dude' is still a dude. Sex refers to the biological makeup of that one person, and even if they are somebody with, lets say, a hormonal imbalance or something else of that nature, biologically they would still act as fertile males, would they not? Maybe in terms of their gender, they may act or play the role of the opposite due to several reasons, but I still think the determining factor with who a person is in regard to gender is their reproductive organs, since those indicate the obvious sexual dimorphism displayed not only in humans but other organisms that pertain to having two sexes as well, along with being obvious indicators of one's genetic makeup.
Some would claim that they are male or female based off of what they think they are, and that it is a genetic/mental state that they can't control (like homosexuality) that makes them think such. They claim to be males/females trapped in the opposite sex/gender's body. ...and thus should be referred to by their desired gender.
i think its as simple as what you have down there. (correct me if im sayingg something stupid like most of the time XD) i think people want to be male/female just because of what we see them as. a person can be extremely girly but he would still be a man. because of what we think a normal man/woman should act like people like that want to be the other way around. i think a guy can look or act in any way he wants to, he would still by a guy but people would act differently too. if someone wants to be the other gender well... it doesnt matter because he is what he is (unless he does surgery).
its kind of difficult to explain and i hope you understand what im saying.
example that might explain myself better:
because humans think that being pretty is something girls should (do), guys who also want to (do) that probably feel they are girls.
but in the end, its just their behaviour and i dont think behaviour has anything to do with what you have down there.
Some would claim that they are male or female based off of what they think they are, and that it is a genetic/mental state that they can't control (like homosexuality) that makes them think such. They claim to be males/females trapped in the opposite sex/gender's body. ...and thus should be referred to by their desired gender.
sorry for double posting. i saw that after i posted.
i think that if they want to be reffered as the other gender they should do surgery. many people want to be things they are not but thats not a reason to reffer to them like that... (my opinion though)
i think that if they want to be reffered as the other gender they should do surgery. many people want to be things they are not but thats not a reason to reffer to them like that... (my opinion though)
Not that simple. Not only does this cost money but if a guy wants to be a girl, changing the stuff down there wont take away his manly features. People will more likely see them as freaks.
and that it is a genetic/mental state that they can't control (like homosexuality) that makes them think such.
Well, if they say that and they do have something detectable like a hormonal imbalance or anything of the sort, then of course it is not the case. If they don't have any issues/implications, like homosexuality [since the quest to find the gay gene is not over, right?], then it is more of a question of how society views them. The only difference is that they have a marker below their pants and gays do not. If that is the case, then I still don't see it to be any different. I think people like this will always appear, society has its lacks of normals.
Not that simple. Not only does this cost money but if a guy wants to be a girl, changing the stuff down there wont take away his manly features. People will more likely see them as freaks.
true... but there are many people who are boys that look like girls (and the other way around). yet they are still reffered as to what they have between their legs.
heres the basics-you have to have balls to be a man.
So if due to some genetical mishap a woman has male genital organs, does it make her a man? It's more than only a few organs, it's on one side the whole body (anatomy, proportions, physiology (hormons) etc.) and on the other side a mental thing (brain areas).
Some would claim that they are male or female based off of what they think they are, and that it is a genetic/mental state that they can't control (like homosexuality) that makes them think such. They claim to be males/females trapped in the opposite sex/gender's body. ...and thus should be referred to by their desired gender.
Homosexuality: a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex. Transgender: Identified with a gender other than the biological one.
There are also accepted terms such as Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Confusion. Are Gender Identity and Gender the same thing? Are we to pick and choose between which psychologist we like more?
I've been told that some of these people strive to look like how the stereotypical image of whatever gender they think they are is portrayed. ...Which means that they may take estrogen or testosterone supplements to induce those features. Some get breast augmentations done to go beyond what hormone supplements can do.
I guess I'll now survey the people who care to participate. When someone identifies themselves as man or woman, what does that mean to you? There are a few social order labels that you might think about, but do not the physical features of these individuals also come to mind? i.e. what they're supposed, to some degree, have? My social view of a woman includes her having the machinery to bear and feed a child after she's given birth to the baby. (regardless of the machinery working properly or not)
If they feel that they must look like the opposite gender to be the opposite gender, then do they truly look like the opposite gender until they've got the hardware downstairs? Are they really their desired gender until they get the reconstructive surgery downstairs? Can the sex organs of an individual also be a social requirement... I mean facial hair, breasts, and other physical structures seem to be.
@Jeff/Shona I only compared the two because I was trying to show that there are genetic/mental states that some argue can't just up and change because you want them to. ...that it may be natural and normal... i dunno... I didn't think it out as much as I should've... plus it was 3am when I wrote it.
To clarify a few things... in my other discussions, I used the standardized biology position on male and female... I was then called several names, and then they proceeded to say that none of that matters.
"Just because someone uses "GID" as a term doesn't make them right." "just because you class people on their "hardware" doesn't make it right" "You are what you think you are"
Well that last one is all well and true... if you don't take the physical aspects of the person into account. Let's say that I suffer a brain injury, and from then on I believe I am a tree. I really really really know I am a tree. Does that make me a tree? Am I no longer a male human?
I think if someone wants to be reconized as a certain gender then that's what you reconize them by. But if you're going out with the person then they will need to know what they have. If I got together with a girl and she one day told me she had something different then what I was lead on to belive, then I would be mad and the relationship would be over. I feel if you're going to be in that type of relationship with each other then you should both know exactly who you're going out with. Otherwise it's feels like they're lying.
*skims thread* darn. Looks like no one asserted that chromosomes determine sex. Looks like I grabbed my link for nothing.
Without going into much detail or quoting, I have two comments: First of all, I disagree that "hardware" determines sex. Weird mutations and stuff, you know.
More important, I would also disagree with the notion that wanting to be a different gender or thinking one is a different gender makes one a different gender. Desire is plainly not enough; desiring a different mental state does not equate achieving it (I desire boundless wisdom to see through all illusion, but I don't have it yet), and perceiving a different mental state in oneself does not equate achieving it. Thinking you are a girl -- honestly believing it deep down -- doesn't make you a girl.
Having tossed aside those two methods of determination, and being far too vaguely Scandinavian hipster "rogressives" to toss aside the notion of gender being separate from sex, what do we have to determine gender? My answer is not much. Gender is complex and difficult to gauge. Gender is gender. What that is is hard to see. I'll get back to you after I see how the boundless wisdom thing pans out.
Two food for thought questions: 1) How can one be sure of his or her gender identity, not having experienced life through the eyes of another gender? 2) If one believes that he or she is already of one gender mentally, why use hormonal supplements? And don't say it's for looks. That's boring.
Some day we'll have a computer that scans brains evaluates all correlations in its vast database. Then it will tell you your gender with far greater accuracy than your own notions. Sure, people will fight against on an ideological it with human exceptionalism, but at least the computer will know why.
If they feel that they must look like the opposite gender to be the opposite gender, then do they truly look like the opposite gender until they've got the hardware downstairs? Are they really their desired gender until they get the reconstructive surgery downstairs? Can the sex organs of an individual also be a social requirement... I mean facial hair, breasts, and other physical structures seem to be.
I personally think there's a fine line in such cases - my personal opinion is that if a man/woman believes they were born the wrong gender, battle with it and then start to make a change - they are truly their desired gender. Even if they haven't got the "hardware" as you put it, they still have the "software".. No i'm totally kidding with that fail of a reference. I think gender isn't black and white which means it isn't simply physical, the gray shades take into perspective emotions.
1) How can one be sure of his or her gender identity, not having experienced life through the eyes of another gender? 2) If one believes that he or she is already of one gender mentally, why use hormonal supplements? And don't say it's for looks. That's boring.
1. I guess when you think about it, no one can ever be 100% certain of their gender. I know that statement sounds beyond naive and i'm usually not one to think such a thing without reading a few articles, but i think you just know. Not the hard hitting evidence you were probably after - but it think it's just human instinct. You hear the cases of those who are male on the outside but know they're female - it's not a case of homosexuality, it's just them.
2. Looks. No i'm totally kidding - although image is the main answer - to look like their desired self, and although i guess you could put it under the umbrella of image, i think they take the likes of homone supplements to free themselves, they are imprisoned in a body that they don't believe is theirs. Rather than using the category "looks", i think it's a case of actually being who you are.
