.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers (Read Only) > Discussion
New Gender Options for Facebook Users
coolzeldad:
Why be associated with any label? I have always had that question in mind.
From what I have experienced, the act of doing something out of plain desire or want, rather than being associated with a label that parades the act, scares people more. Because in doing so, the act is less explainable.
Since the nature of a grouping is to idolize the similarities and marginalize the differences, you never can be fully represented by any one group unless you are the sole provider of that group.
In essence, to be part of a label you really have to believe you are. Having others believe you are superficially reinforces the validity of your choice in a label grouping.
Individuals within a group are likely to also provide a service of explanation or encouragement for scenarios relating to the group's societal place and experiences, which is appealing toward the idea of defending a source of thought or action.
Furthermore, groups tend to construct a set of agreed upon beliefs regarding themselves, other groups, individuals, the world around them, concepts of life and death and the nature of existence, morals for thoughts and actions.
I think it is more work to defend your thoughts and actions if you are alone, and easier for larger groups to work to silence your rebuttals.
Who are you? That is a big existential question but related nonetheless.
The issue of identity is impossible to quantify without belief, whether it be the origin of national identity, racial identity, sexual identity, etc., as there are too many factors to consider.
Many people spend their lives struggling to make themselves identifiable to other individuals and groups.
That being said, this is a large spanning topic.
A large problem with asserting belief is that it belongs solely to the individual, and will by nature conflict in some way with the interpretation of another individual or group.
The great thing about discussion is that we can analyze and not only build defense for our own beliefs but also consider the reasoning and it's validity to our own perspectives.
The beliefs one holds for themself rationally supports another individual withholding their beliefs.
Beliefs are what they are. And in the ever changing realm of experience and generally accepted knowledge, beliefs will shift and groupings will change as well.
Just my 2 centz
ursus:
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---There is nothing wrong in media or other people encouraging overweight people to start losing weight. Being overweight isn't even healthy to begin with so it is good that society wants everyone to seek perfection because that way we can progress faster.
--- End quote ---
I'll agree that being overweight is generally unhealthy. However, when approached from a capitalistic standpoint, it's clear that the people attempting to shame fat people into losing weight don't actually care about their health. This might only be an american thing, but our food is not healthy. If society as a whole really cared about the obesity epidemic, they would push for stricter food standards and start educating children on nutrition from a balanced perspective.
Also, what exactly is your idea of perfection? What would make "our society" perfect to you? What should we do with people whose genetics cause them to naturally store more fat? From another perspective, my genetics are inferior because I burn food too quickly and cannot survive long without food.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---Implementing changes trough political pressure against people's will or using mainstream media as a propaganda machine to persuade people into it.
--- End quote ---
And? Political pressure is the only way anything gets done in a federal republic. This point would be valid if we lived in a direct democracy, but here the only way to effect change is to "pressure" your elected representatives or to elect new ones that will vote in your favor. That's just how things are. As for the media, propaganda is distributed from both sides. I've seen misleading information from right-wing and left-wing politicians alike, and even more so from news sites that just need to bring in ad revenue and can't be held accountable the same way politicians can. I don't think either of these two points are worth arguing about, since 1) We literally live in different countries, and 2) The media is unarguably biased no matter what side it's promoting. That's just how media works, and I don't think it's worth getting into which side is "more" untrustworthy.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---There are already plenty of laws that cover the discrimination issue plus many of the laws that defend the rights of majority also defend the rights of minority.
--- End quote ---
Again, this is a country issue. The EU is actually pretty good about human rights from what I've heard, but discrimination laws still have a very long way to go here.
Although I live in California, one of the more liberal/progressive states out of all 50, the validity of the statement you're making varies. Maybe you're right in Lithuania and wrong in Kansas. This isn't something that should be debated as if there's a solid right or wrong global answer.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---You can't beat, rob, kill etc. minorities, they really do have enough laws that let them live just fine, except they often like to think that they're being targeted because they're different when often it just happens that they were just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time,
--- End quote ---
Strictly speaking, here there are laws on hate crimes. If you look at it from a purely legal perspective then you would be correct. However, there are many instances of police turning a blind eye or judges being much too lenient because of a lack of minimum sentencing. I'll use this list as an example. In that list, most of the people who murdered those individuals faced some kind of punishment. However, there are a number of worrying incidents like this:
--- Quote ---Erika Keels (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 3/22/07) Erika, a 20-year-old black transgender woman, was murdered on 22 March 2007, on North Broad Street in Philadelphia. Witnesses saw an assailant eject Erika from her car and intentionally run her over four times, killing her and leaving the scene. A medical examiner’s report supports these eyewitness accounts. But police ruled Erika’s death an accident and have refused to conduct an investigation. The driver, Roland Button, was later apprehended, but he has yet to face criminal charges–including “hit and run” charges.
--- End quote ---
While I don't doubt that the liberal media loves to blow things like this out of proportion, they still happen. Even though you may resent that I spend time on Tumblr, my presence on that site allows me to see many first- or secondhand accounts of transgender people or other LGBT individuals that face unethical treatment from family and legal authorities alike. I don't compile lists of these so that I can show them to people like you, but I am telling you as one honest person to another that it happens.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---I'm obviously not saying that it is like that all the time. Also it is worth mentioning that not all laws that apply to majority may be compatible with minorities.
--- End quote ---
This is true.
For example, sex-separated bathroom laws focus on genitals, not gender. This is to be expected because society's understanding of gender is still changing very slowly, but this produces problems.
If a transgender woman (Or a "trap" if that's what you'd like to call them) enters a woman's bathroom as they would like to, women will complain that it's simply a man dressing as a woman to go in there and harass them (Even if they've undergone HRT and now have completely female features except for their genitals, which renders them completely infertile and is much too high a price to pay simply to harass women in their bathrooms). If they give up and go into a men's bathroom, they'll be viciously harassed for reasons that I don't think I need to explain. Straight men have an unusual habit in this country of harassing and usually murdering trans women for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying that all straight men (Including me, you, and most of us here) are murderers, but the majority of transgender hate crimes are straight white men brutally killing and sometimes torturing (mostly black) trans women. For this reason, going into a men's bathroom would be a bad idea.
To be honest, the bathroom issue I brought up as an example is too complicated for me to answer. I personally think that a third gender-neutral bathroom would solve most of these problems, but it's too simple of a solution to make everyone happy. In the end, the only true solution would be to enter an age where people are fully educated and understanding of the ways in which gender can differ from the usual. I am not suggesting that we force it on anyone (Hence why I think an additional bathroom would be optimal) because that would create more problems, but in the long term people need to be educated on this.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---I've used racism as an example. Also if minorities want to be tolerated they must live up to the moral standards of everyone else instead of "LOOK AT ME GUISE IM GAY".
--- End quote ---
Has it ever occurred to you that if a minority member was completely silent about their gender/sexuality, you wouldn't notice?
If there are 100 people in a room and 2 of them start acting obnoxiously and shouting feminist rhetoric at everyone around them (It happens, trust me) would you be able to tell if there were 80 more feminists in the room? The majority of transgender people simply want their rights to be lawfully protected and recognized by society so that they can move on with their lives. Most people you see exhibiting the flamboyant "LOOK AT ME EVERYONE" attitude are either not aware of the negative effects their behavior has, or simply too angry about their situation to care. In the end it really is just their problem, but it's also a choice we can make to be understanding of that complication and not make preemptive judgments.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---I've used the term and then I also provided more detailed explanation about the Oxford's definition of gender.
--- End quote ---
Now that I think about it further, I'm going to drop this point. The dictionary is still written by people, and that has a lot of implications. However, you shouldn't be so quick to assume that they're writing that definition just to gain positive attention or because of political pressure. It's much like Facebook adding new accommodations for trans people. Are they doing it for money? Are they doing it for attention? They could also be doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do, but there's no real way to know unless you talk to the people that did it. Zuckerberg does not personally oversee every decision his company makes, but I would imagine his reasoning was something along the lines of "It's a good thing that will also make me more money." I would do the same thing in his position.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---Sources of real human opinions I've seen: real life, biology lessons, all the documentary about animals and nature that I've seen, youtube, almost every place on the Internet I've ever been, and /pol/ too.
--- End quote ---
I think you've missed the point of what I said. You personally decide what information you see. You decide who to talk to in real life. Again, you live in a miniscule country in eastern europe. On the other hand, I also live in a town of less than 100,000 people, but still in one of the largest states of one of the greatest military powers in the modern world. I have a vague idea of what you mean with the nature documentaries and biology lessons, but we're talking about people. People are more complicated than animals in almost every aspect. You can insist that there are still only two "real" genders all you want, but as the definition of the word changes and more and more people realize they fall outside the lines that have been drawn by society it won't be so easy.
I should take this time to let you know that personally, I do think gender as a whole is unnecessary. I also think that people should not be coerced into acting a certain way on the basis of their sex, which is what creates these problems in the first place. However, me thinking gender is unnecessary does not make it un-exist.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---Please refer at my posts on the first page of this thread for more info.
--- End quote ---
You still haven't answered most of the things I've said in the post other than the one you just replied to. I'll admit that "Prove it." is a bit antagonistic, but that's really the only thing I could have said at that point.
--- Quote from: Prox on February 17, 2014, 12:30:08 PM ---I used that to show how simply gender can be defined, or at least how pretty much everyone in here defines it.
--- End quote ---
Aaaand, here we are.
Gender is defined however people define it. Language is simply a series of words with agreed-upon definitions that are used to communicate information. When the majority of people start using a word with a different denotation, the definition of the word changes. There's no official process for changing the definition of a word. While you define gender as what's in someone's pants, I define gender as a composite of social environment, hormone balance, and the behavioral patterns that result from a person's past experiences. Gender as a concept is more complicated than it needs to be, but we cannot make it less complicated unless we first unravel the current situation in staggering depth.
While people of certain sexes do often act in certain ways, it's not as much as you might think. How many of you are violent, loud, dominating and unusually strong? Gender roles are not as naturally occurring as you said on the first page. I know many more women who are not fond of being quiet, submissive, or domesticated. Feminism has actually been pretty angry about that for hundreds of years. While I would normally take this opportunity to lecture you on the fine line between gender and gender roles, I won't because I actually know nothing about it. Even the people who I look up to for information on this have never given me a particularly solid answer, so I treat them as being more or less conjoined to one another.
--- Quote from: coolzeldad on February 17, 2014, 02:51:31 PM ---Why be associated with any label? I have always had that question in mind.
From what I have experienced, the act of doing something out of plain desire or want, rather than being associated with a label that parades the act, scares people more. Because in doing so, the act is less explainable.
Since the nature of a grouping is to idolize the similarities and marginalize the differences, you never can be fully represented by any one group unless you are the sole provider of that group.
In essence, to be part of a label you really have to believe you are. Having others believe you are superficially reinforces the validity of your choice in a label grouping.
Individuals within a group are likely to also provide a service of explanation or encouragement for scenarios relating to the group's societal place and experiences, which is appealing toward the idea of defending a source of thought or action.
Furthermore, groups tend to construct a set of agreed upon beliefs regarding themselves, other groups, individuals, the world around them, concepts of life and death and the nature of existence, morals for thoughts and actions.
I think it is more work to defend your thoughts and actions if you are alone, and easier for larger groups to work to silence your rebuttals.
Who are you? That is a big existential question but related nonetheless.
The issue of identity is impossible to quantify without belief, whether it be the origin of national identity, racial identity, sexual identity, etc., as there are too many factors to consider.
Many people spend their lives struggling to make themselves identifiable to other individuals and groups.
That being said, this is a large spanning topic.
A large problem with asserting belief is that it belongs solely to the individual, and will by nature conflict in some way with the interpretation of another individual or group.
The great thing about discussion is that we can analyze and not only build defense for our own beliefs but also consider the reasoning and it's validity to our own perspectives.
The beliefs one holds for themself rationally supports another individual withholding their beliefs.
Beliefs are what they are. And in the ever changing realm of experience and generally accepted knowledge, beliefs will shift and groupings will change as well.
Just my 2 centz
--- End quote ---
This is... well, pretty sound and something that needed to be said, but I think the issue is that people treat gender simultaneously as an identity, label, and medical condition. If you're a transgender person, people assume you align politically with other transgender people. They also assume you self-identify as such, and if they instead respect that you did not choose your identity they will often treat you as someone who is disabled or defective in some way. I could be partially misinterpreting this, but I don't "identify" as white or American or Italian. However, it is a part of my identity. Those are just some of the words for what I am. On the other hand, I identify with some of the ideals represented by these labels. This doesn't mean that I align politically with all other Americans and white people (thankfully) or that I even understand the full experiences of all other white Americans. This applies less and less the smaller the group is, because minority groups are more likely to function as a social group and align together in order to secure their own safety and decrease the chances of their rights being infringed upon.
Of course, it doesn't look like you were focusing only on the issue at hand and I still agree with the content of what you said, but I felt like it needed to be applied to the original topic.
Cake Faice:
Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.
Tiger Guy:
--- Quote from: Cake Faice on February 17, 2014, 07:05:10 PM ---Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too?
--- End quote ---
i'm pretty sure he doesn't
Goat:
--- Quote from: Cake Faice on February 17, 2014, 07:05:10 PM ---Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.
--- End quote ---
Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version