[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

I would say that some people in this thread don’t know what feminism is.

And to those who would say ‘there are only two genders’ id ask them to question their very notion of what gender is. Legally, gender typically is equated with sexual anatomy. But what people who identify as ‘genderqueer’ for example are manifesting is an inability to fully con scribe themselves to the gender categories that law and society dictates to us. I’d encourage these people to question, and where possible reject the idea that people should feel restricted in such away.

And wrt the poster who believes in the categorisation of four sexualities.. i obviously disagree as a result. When gender categories lose their meaning, so do sexuality labels, and even before that, sexuality between the two gender norms is a spectrum.

I don't need to question it. Male or female, cis or trans. That's what it comes down to. Anything else is simply someone that fits into the above that opposes gender norms, good on them for doing so but it's not a gender.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I don't need to question it. Male or female, cis or trans. That's what it comes down to. Anything else is simply someone that fits into the above that opposes gender norms, good on them for doing so but it's not a gender.

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

Of course it can be simplified to that extent. You're confusing gender for social constructs for the most part. Just because a man is feminine (but not trans) doesn't mean that he's some other gender. He is simply a feminine cis man.

You're either a man or a woman, cis or trans. Everything else after that is just preferences.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

"Gender norms" could just be renamed "personal taste"

Oh yeah definitely. But those people who are "gender fluid" what are they basing the "fluidity" on? You have to have two defined opposites to say you are fluid between them.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by TomC

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

Or another way of looking at it, you're overcomplicating it.

[Cal.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Two genders, four sexualities, true feminism is great, the rare few ‘feminists’ that just hate men in general, are just as mad as men who see women as second class citizens.

.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh yeah definitely. But those people who are "gender fluid" what are they basing the "fluidity" on? You have to have two defined opposites to say you are fluid between them.

Yeah exactly and that's not helpful for equality between the sexes imo

[Firewire]

Originally Posted by TomC

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

I understand you’re trying to be woke af but don’t patronise people for expressing their opinion, in a thread you created to cause discussion.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by TomC

The feminist and queer theorist has really been popping out in me in the last few months! I’ve been reading the book Gender Trouble which discusses ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ as a construction born out of the use of the sexes for the polarisation of our identifiable performative genders. The subordination of woman in these dualised genders serves masculine oppressiveness, as does compulsory heterosexuality. Thrilling!

Essentially I agree. Gender (being the actions we perform that are typically ascribed masculine and feminine) is socially constructed for the purpose of the patriarchy. The world would be a much better place if gender and sexuality were more fluid, and we created a more even playing field.

I don't have time to start going too into depth really but just something to consider for now;

Whilst I do (broadly) agree that gender is a societal construction, it logically cannot have been constructed "for the purpose of the patriarchy", as the very concept of patriarchy requires gender as a precursor. That is to say, "the male" HAS TO predate "the patriarchy", and thus, gender can't be a social norm created to serve the patriarchy. Thus, for me, a patriarchal society is a wide-scale secondary symptom of a gender divide, not your starting point.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Of course it can be simplified to that extent. You're confusing gender for social constructs for the most part. Just because a man is feminine (but not trans) doesn't mean that he's some other gender. He is simply a feminine cis man.

You're either a man or a woman, cis or trans. Everything else after that is just preferences.

The crux of our disagreement I think is in my belief in gender and social constructs as being intimately linked whereas you dinstinguish between then.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Or another way of looking at it, you're overcomplicating it.

I am merely questioning the accepted norms.

Originally Posted by Firewire

I understand you’re trying to be woke af but don’t patronise people for expressing their opinion, in a thread you created to cause discussion.

Wow rude I’m not trying to be ‘woke af’, I’m merely discursively questioning accepted beliefs. If you have something constructive to say, please share it.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't have time to start going too into depth really but just something to consider for now;

Whilst I do (broadly) agree that gender is a societal construction, it logically cannot have been constructed "for the purpose of the patriarchy", as the very concept of patriarchy requires gender as a precursor. That is to say, "the male" HAS TO predate "the patriarchy", and thus, gender can't be a social norm created to serve the patriarchy. Thus, for me, a patriarchal society is a wide-scale secondary symptom of a gender divide, not your starting point.

Sorry I don’t think I articulated that well at all. Patriarchy is an abstract, contest idea anyway, but what I was trying to say is that the binary classification of gender and resulting subordination both is propounded by and enables masculine oppressors.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by TomC

Sorry I don’t think I articulated that well at all. Patriarchy is an abstract, contest idea anyway, but what I was trying to say is that the binary classification of gender and resulting subordination both is propounded by and enables masculine oppressors.

It does, but to address it you have to consider its origins (I think this is a here a lot of people go wrong; assuming that the origin is necessarily societal or worse, that it "doesn't matter" as though it's possible to change the current status quo without understanding the roots of gender roles.)

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

The crux of our disagreement I think is in my belief in gender and social constructs as being intimately linked whereas you dinstinguish between then.

Gender is something that simply exists, the only thing we aided with is giving people who know they are the opposite sex a chance to transition but gender norms and societal constructs are of our own making.

[Twosugars]

what about someone who is happy with a part transition, say "female to male trans" who gets rid of breasts but keeps vagina, only bc that's what s/he feels this combination reflects them accurately (it could be other way round, a chick with a dick)
and is androgynous in terms of looks and behaviour, and bisexual
where should s/he be placed in the two-gender world?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Gender is something that simply exists, the only thing we aided with is giving people who know they are the opposite sex a chance to transition but gender norms and societal constructs are of our own making.

Gender exists only in the way that society created it. Yes it ‘exists’ but it’s not an indestructible construct. Sex on the other hand does physically exist.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

what about someone who is happy with a part transition, say "female to male trans" who gets rid of breasts but keeps vagina, only bc that's what s/he feels this combination reflects them accurately (it could be other way round, a chick with a dick)
and is androgynous in terms of looks and behaviour, and bisexual
where should s/he be placed in the two-gender world?

That’s a very interesting point. What such a person would feel is dysphoria with societal gender but not sexual characteristics. And such a person is a prime example of how problematic binary gender can be.

[armand.kay]

I use to be very firm in my belief that there are only two genders and that people who identify as gender fluid were attention seeking but the more i've looked into it the more I towards the idea that gender is a social construct.

Now sexuality I know is a social construct. Maybe the reason people feel as if a bunch of sexualities are just popping up everyday is because it might just be impossible to try and represent every individuals sexuality in a couple of groups. I'll use myself for example. In the past I've had sexual encounters with and have been attracted to women. i also wouldn't rule out dating a trans man/woman or somebody who's non binary. However I identify as gay because i'm only actively dating cis men atm. Sexuality I've always seen as being on a spectrum but a spider diagram might be more accurate tbh

(sorry for any typos I'm a mess today).

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think that when people have a bit too much time to themselves and dont have much else on they start to obsess about stuff like this


Busy people who have things to do tend not to bother tbh

[Redway]

Two sexes, heterosexual and others.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I think that when people have a bit too much time to themselves and dont have much else on they start to obsess about stuff like this


Busy people who have things to do tend not to bother tbh

Do you mean tax paying workers just get on with life whilst school/college/University attenders are constantly getting indoctrinated with this bollox?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

I use to be very firm in my belief that there are only two genders and that people who identify as gender fluid were attention seeking but the more i've looked into it the more I towards the idea that gender is a social construct.

Now sexuality I know is a social construct. Maybe the reason people feel as if a bunch of sexualities are just popping up everyday is because it might just be impossible to try and represent every individuals sexuality in a couple of groups. I'll use myself for example. In the past I've had sexual encounters with and have been attracted to women. i also wouldn't rule out dating a trans man/woman or somebody who's non binary. However I identify as gay because i'm only actively dating cis men atm. Sexuality I've always seen as being on a spectrum but a spider diagram might be more accurate tbh

(sorry for any typos I'm a mess today).

I personally struggle with the somewhat limiting sexuality categories. I am somewhat attracted to the female body (and have been intimate w one or two ) but I am far more attracted to men by a long way and would only get into a homosexual relationship. I don’t think bisexuality and homosexuality as labels do justice to the spectrum.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Alf

Do you mean tax paying workers just get on with life whilst school/college/University attenders are constantly getting indoctrinated with this bollox?

None of the info in the OP was indoctrinated into me at university or school, I learned all this independently of my own accord

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by TomC

None of the info in the OP was indoctrinated into me at university or school, I learned all this independently of my own accord

to be fair I doubt you can make that call as you would not know

Its like when people say that advertising does not affect them and then you look in their fridge and hey presto..

[armand.kay]

Originally Posted by Alf

Do you mean tax paying workers just get on with life whilst school/college/University attenders are constantly getting indoctrinated with this bollox?

what the hell does being a tax payer have to do with it??

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

what about someone who is happy with a part transition, say "female to male trans" who gets rid of breasts but keeps vagina, only bc that's what s/he feels this combination reflects them accurately (it could be other way round, a chick with a dick)
and is androgynous in terms of looks and behaviour, and bisexual
where should s/he be placed in the two-gender world?

I don't count genitals as part of defining gender - a transwoman will always be biologically male, even if her penis is turned into a surgical wound. But we'd call her a (trans/)woman.
The person in your apocryphal example is a transman who hasn't had bottom surgery.