Are genders needed?

[Spiritual Warfare]

Gender is not the same as sex. A person can be male, female, hermaphroditic, or asexual. Sex is an important distinguishing factor for many occupations since a five foot one hundred pound female cannot be expected to be a Navy SEAL or provide adequate CPR, for example. I do believe that in terms of employment flexibility males have an advantage as they can simply do more with their size and strength.

But rather than getting worked up over who is what and what is legitimate, we should just eliminate gender entirely. Enough of all this “gender-fluidity” nonsense. If you want to identify as a man, a woman, transgender, or even a tree, then go ahead and identify as whatever you want. No one should care that much and we shouldn’t try to label everyone. Gender has become a symptom of “special snowflake syndrome” so just eliminate it altogether and call yourself a human being who has certain genitalia.

I feel this would reduce confusion and drama, leading to a much more open society in which no one is assigned roles or uses labels as reactionary devices.

[Zega]

Gender can go as deep as language. The Turkish language, for example, has no gendered pronouns from what I understand, whereas languages like Spanish revolve around masculine and feminine. Granted that's not the same as gender but they tend to dovetail. I don't think we are anywhere near being a genderless society because there are far too many gender roles we fill to be that progressive. I think to understand your question we need to understand why we make a big deal about gender in culture war issues.

[Spiritual Warfare]

9 minutes ago, Zega said:

Gender can go as deep as language. The Turkish language, for example, has no gendered pronouns from what I understand, whereas languages like Spanish revolve around masculine and feminine. Granted that's not the same as gender but they tend to dovetail. I don't think we are anywhere near being a genderless society because there are far too many gender roles we fill to be that progressive. I think to understand your question we need to understand why we make a big deal about gender in culture war issues.

Yeah, we’re a long way from a genderless society, but I think a lot of the resistance to gender fluidity comes from fear of change and the unknown. Gender roles are so deeply embedded, but there’s definitely a growing movement to rethink these roles. Like you mentioned, language reflects those roles, but language can change over time too. Just because we have gendered pronouns or terms doesn’t mean we can’t adapt or be more inclusive in how we talk about gender.

[Buck Edwards]

Gender can be fluid and that's completely okay. It's called being progressive. 

[LittoDitto]

Does gender just mean what you identify as? I'm not very knowledgeable in this gender language haha.

[Spiritual Warfare]

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

Gender can be fluid and that's completely okay. It's called being progressive. 

For me, though, I think society might be less divided if we put less emphasis on gender and labels. Maybe it’s idealistic, but I believe we could all benefit from focusing on who we are as individuals, beyond labels. Either way, it’s good to talk about it.

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Spiritual Warfare said:

For me, though, I think society might be less divided if we put less emphasis on gender and labels. Maybe it’s idealistic, but I believe we could all benefit from focusing on who we are as individuals, beyond labels. Either way, it’s good to talk about it.

I don't think society is divided. Your perception. 

[Spiritual Warfare]

42 minutes ago, LittoDitto said:

Does gender just mean what you identify as? I'm not very knowledgeable in this gender language haha.

Gender is often used to describe how people identify, which is different from biological sex.

[Spiritual Warfare]

4 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

I don't think society is divided. Your perception. 

It could just be my own way of looking at things, but sometimes it feels like we focus a lot on labels and categories. I wonder if society might be more connected if we focused more on each other as people and less on those distinctions

[Eph75]

@Spiritual Warfare

It's quite natural to wanting to create new categories without paying attention to the increase of categories.

The more completely specified something is, the more excluded grows that which is yet to be included.

Depending on where the drive to uphold new categories is, a favorism or preference typically emerges within such systems, having some adverse systemic impact. 

Albeit, while might not be explicitly saying that the new categories are better, it can be deeming old categories less prominent than the newer/newest category/-ies. 

If that's gender, race or otherwise, it's not a direction where we should move towards, and what we're seeing now is one example where the progressive take something fundamentally well-meant, and spins it out of control into something toxic and thus unsustainable. 

Rather we need the opposite direction, where categories matter less and less until not important at all other than from a strict biological point of view (e.g. medical) 

Unity will prevail over categorization over time, it's mostly a matter of time scale. 

This does by no means imply that people are not free to have individual self-expression, it's the opposite, but rather that it not shaping systemic factors based on an individual need to be acknowledged within a system. 

Singling out based on individual self-expression should never happen, which goes both directions, not to be criticized or repressed, nor requiring special treatment from others or systemically so. 

The broader biological categories are not self-expressions. It doesn't make sense for example to have mixed sex changing rooms/showers based on this, while it would make sense to have isolated dressing rooms/shower stalls to protect the integrity of the variety of individual self-expressions. If ones quirk is that others should consume ones own self-expression, likely rooted in a need attention, that's an individual responsibility to keep in check, it's not up to the system to accommodate for. 

These, along with many other similar phenomena, I make up are speed-bumps in evolution: progressiveness running unchecked as healthy evolution is not paid attention to.

It's fascinating how few can have so high impact on a human system far beyond what the represention deems warranted. Few can be loud, and fear can allow loud voices. That's just how it typically goes. 

With other words, rather than ending up creating hundreds of categories as a means to accommodate for that which only imagination is the limit, minimize categories around absolute need and around absolute minimum use-cases - and - other than that look for using broader categories such as "humans".

No self-expression should be persecuted by others.

No self-expression should require others attention or accommodation in order to build own self-justification, self-esteem or self-worth.

Edited Thursday at 01:06 AM by Eph75

[Spiritual Warfare]

7 minutes ago, Eph75 said:

@Spiritual Warfare

It's quite natural to wanting to create new categories without paying attention to the increase of categories.

The more completely specified something is, the more excluded grows that which is yet to be discovered.

Depending on where the drive to uphold new categories is, a favorism or preference typically emerges within such systems, having some adverse systemic impact. 

Albeit, while might not be explicitly saying that the new categories are better, it can be deeming old categories less prominent than the newer/newest category/-ies. 

If that's gender, race or otherwise, it's not a direction where we should move towards, and what we're seeing now is one example where the progressive take something fundamentally well-meant, and spins it out of control into something toxic and thus unsustainable. 

Rather we need the opposite direction, where categories matter less and less until not important at all other than from a strict biological point of view (e.g. medical) 

Unity will prevail over categorization over time, it's mostly a matter of time scale. 

This does by no means imply that people are not free to have individual self-expression, it's the opposite, but rather that it not shaping systemic factors based on an individual need to be acknowledged within a system. 

Singling out based on individual self-expression should never happen, which goes both directions, not to be criticized or repressed, nor requoring special treatment from others or systemically so. 

The broader biological categories are not self-expressions. It doesn't make sense for example to have shared sex changing rooms/showers based on this, while it would make sense to have isolated dressing rooms/shower stalls to protect the integrity of the variety of individual self-expressions. If ones quirk is that others should consume ones own self-expression, likely rooted in a need attention, that's an individual responsibility to keep in check, it's not up to the system to accommodate for. 

These, along with many other similar phenomena, I make up are speed-bumps in evolution: progressiveness running unchecked as healthy evolution is not paid attention to.

It's fascinating how few can have so high impact on a human system far beyond what the represention deems warranted. Few can be loud, and fear can allow loud voices. That's just how it typically goes. 

With other words, rather than ending up creating hundreds of categories as a means to accommodate for that which only imagination is the limit, minimize categories around absolute need and around absolute minimum use-cases - and - other than that look for using broader categories such as "humans".

No self-expression should be persecuted by others.

No self-expression should require others attention or accommodation in order to build own self-justification, self-esteem or self-worth.

I’m glad we share many common views. Thank you for your comment!

[Sucuk Ekmek]

10 hours ago, Zega said:

Gender can go as deep as language. The Turkish language, for example, has no gendered pronouns from what I understand, whereas languages like Spanish revolve around masculine and feminine. 

 That is right, turkish language has no gendered pronouns if it's a person then you call "him&her"  "O" done finito. 

Now thinking about it.. It is actually nice to call others, them, him... in a circle shaped form. O !  Very shakespearean indeed.

Also  turkic tribes didn't have the separate word for son&sister it was the same word for both sexes which meant youth.

[Nemra]

11 hours ago, Spiritual Warfare said:

we should just eliminate gender entirely.

Cisgender people wouldn't agree with you.

11 hours ago, Spiritual Warfare said:

Enough of all this “gender-fluidity” nonsense.

If that's nonsense, so are all genders identities.

[Nemra]

12 hours ago, Zega said:

Gender can go as deep as language. The Turkish language, for example, has no gendered pronouns from what I understand

My language also doesn't have gendered pronouns. There isn't even an awareness of the distinction between gender identity and sex in my country. It is implied that there is no gender identity but only biological sex, which is used to justify why their gender identity is the correct one.

[Javfly33]

12 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Gender can be fluid and that's completely okay. It's called being progressive. 

Is not Ok. You are basically approving the identification party: The ingredient soup to make mental illness.

[Javfly33]

2 hours ago, Nemra said:

Cisgender people wouldn't agree with you.

If that's nonsense, so are all genders identities.

of course are identities.

Is very simple, whatever genitals you were born with, thats what you get.

If you create A MESS INSIDE YOUR HEAD, thats your Karma.

In fact even kids that feel 'like a girl' or 'like a boy' when they are born with opposite sex genitals, thats still mental illness. They just inheredited.

So is not about denying that some people might have gender disphoria, is about not encouraging or normalizing the mental illness.

Look, is as simple as this: You have gender disphoria? Ok, fine, Im not going to deny your situation. But instead of applauding the mess you have in your head, and engaging with it to the point of going to surgery or taking hormones, why don´t we look at the cause of why you are having that gender disphoria.

Clearly if you have disphoria something wrong you are doing with your mind. 

What you need to look is at your mind, not go remove or change your organs just because you think your mind is always right

Edited Thursday at 12:32 PM by Javfly33

[Nemra]

@Javfly33, first of all, if someone is not cisgender, it doesn't mean that they have dysmorphia. And even if they have, then it proves you are wrong.

Also, having a different identity doesn't automatically imply that someone is mentally ill.

21 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

In fact even kids that feel 'like a girl' or 'like a boy' when they are born with opposite sex genitals, thats still mental illness. They just inheredited.

You don't understand that feeling like a boy/girl isn't only about sex organs.

Edited Thursday at 12:50 PM by Nemra

[Javfly33]

9 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Javfly33

You don't understand that feeling like a boy/girl isn't about sex organs.

I understand "feeling" like a boy/girl happens in your brain, not on your knee, that´s for sure.

As a full fledged human being, handling Feeling/emotion/thought correctly is your business. 

Quote

Also, having a different identity doesn't automatically imply that someone is mentally ill.

Just tell me something, if your identity is not working for you but against you (it makes you go to a surgeon to change your organs) is that a good use of an identity or is that a bad use of an identity? @Nemra

We all know identity is imaginary, The point of using a identity is that it will work for you, not against you. 

So clearly if is working against you, then your imagination is ruling your life.

When imagination is ruling the life of someone, we usually call that people 'crazy' or that it needs to go to the psychiatrist.

The problem is since 90% of people in this society are as crazy as them, they applaud their crazyness and now we have come to a place the crazyness is normalized. 

Edited Thursday at 12:56 PM by Javfly33

[Basman]

Just because a social construct is in essence arbitrary doesn't mean that they aren't functional and serve an important purpose (like money). Man and woman are highly functional social constructs that have stood the test of time for 1000s of years and work effectively for 95% of the population (if note more). Progressives go over board with deconstructing social constructs, throwing out the baby with the bath water while giving no room for debate without devolving it into a culture war. Especially in regards to practical issues like women's bathrooms, transwomen in women's sport, etc.

The problem is that it comes of as frivolous and entitled to demand the rest of society to accommodate a highly niche cohort.  The fact that the trans community comes of as highly inflexible and judgemental might have to do with the high positive correlation of being trans and being autistic (those are traits typical of autistic people).

That said, there's nothing wrong with more fluidity in terms of gender for those who it applies to (and general tolerance for that) but its very entitled to act like all of society needs to change for their sake. Most people are happy being men and women. Why does that need to stop?

[Buck Edwards]

30 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Is not Ok. You are basically approving the identification party: The ingredient soup to make mental illness.

Why is it mentally ill? Any logical explanation?