Postgender

[Aillyria]

That's not the issue. It's the idea that someone can mystically "transcend" gender and be something completely alien.

I'm pretty sure post-genderism is mostly aspirational, not a supposed ability in the here and now. And though I don't think gender abolitionism will ever become a reality, I don't think it's inherently impossible... just extremely complicated, like trying to permanently eliminate all currency.

Gender communism??? It sounds like shitty transhumanist crap to me.

[Liriena]

I'm pretty sure post-genderism is mostly aspirational, not a supposed ability in the here and now. And though I don't think gender abolitionism will ever become a reality, I don't think it's inherently impossible... just extremely complicated, like trying to permanently eliminate all currency.

Gender communism??? It sounds like shitty transhumanist crap to me.

I'm pretty sure much of post-genderism is kind of explicitly transhumanist, yes.

I'm pretty sure post-genderism is mostly aspirational, not a supposed ability in the here and now. And though I don't think gender abolitionism will ever become a reality, I don't think it's inherently impossible... just extremely complicated, like trying to permanently eliminate all currency.

Currency is not something you come out of the womb with. I also fail to see why anyone would be so psychotic as to want to abolish gender.

You keep making this claim that gender is innate... but where's the sauce?

[The Parkus Empire]

Gender communism??? It sounds like shitty transhumanist crap to me.

I'm pretty sure much of post-genderism is kind of explicitly transhumanist, yes.

Currency is not something you come out of the womb with. I also fail to see why anyone would be so psychotic as to want to abolish gender.

You keep making this claim that gender is innate... but where's the sauce?

Transfolk become aware they are transfolk from an extremely early age, they are not "conditioned" to be transfolk.

[Diopolis]

Clearly the solution is to do away with all this gender nonsense and categorize people based on sex.

[Liriena]

I'm pretty sure much of post-genderism is kind of explicitly transhumanist, yes.


You keep making this claim that gender is innate... but where's the sauce?

In all fairness you'd call the source wrong no matter what.

In all fairness, you should wait and see before making assumptions about my attitude.

[Liriena]

I'm pretty sure much of post-genderism is kind of explicitly transhumanist, yes.


You keep making this claim that gender is innate... but where's the sauce?

Transfolk become aware they are transfolk from an extremely early age, they are not "conditioned" to be transfolk.

Parkus, I'm fine with that being your opinion. I don't hate it. But you need to substantiate it with something.

[Liriena]

Clearly the solution is to do away with all this gender nonsense and categorize people based on sex.

So... an even more strict gender binary with extra "muh primary sexual characteristics".

Say you do categorize people exclusively based on sex... What happens with everything about gender that has nothing to do with sex? What happens with clothing, language, customs, etc.?

[Roliganistan]

Reminds me of my discussions (as a humanities major) with one of my friends (who's a hard science major) about how species are just social constructs but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Species is supposed to denote different life forms that are unable to breed with each other and form fertile offspring. That isn't really a social construct. The fact that for extinct life forms we cannot be certain if they where unable to interbreed does not change the fact that species actually have meaning beyond a social construct.

I used to think this as well. But nature rarely goes along with clear cut definitions. Just a few examples:
[*]What about the many asexually reproducing organisms.Does each individual (or lineage) count as a separate species?
[*]What about groups of animals which produce fertile offspring, but only interbreed under rare conditions? Are lions and tigers a single species? How about Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens?
[*]What about infertile individuals? Do these belong to any species at all?
[*]What about those social insects which have three biological genders, with subgroups (drones) unable to reproduce?
[*]The ability to produce fertile offspring is initially a continuum. As a new species evolves, it may still be able to reproduce with its "mother species", although with reduced fecundity.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

...

** RED FLAG ** . ** RING CHURCH BELLS ** . ** BESTIALITY ALERT ** . ** CHRISTIANS TAKE COVER **

[Aillyria]

Clearly the solution is to do away with all this gender nonsense and categorize people based on sex.

So... an even more strict gender binary with extra "muh primary sexual characteristics".

Say you do categorize people exclusively based on sex... What happens with everything about gender that has nothing to do with sex? What happens with clothing, language, customs, etc.?

Postgenderism?

[Roliganistan]

We all know what gender dysphoria is: it is a medical condition where one's gender identity, which we now know to be hardwired, does not correlate with one's sex. This is a widely documented medical phenomenon.

I argue that postgenderism, "I'm my own gender, " or "no gender" has zero to do with this. Such positions have no medical support, and are basically "I'm a special snowflake, short and stout."

What are your opinions on "postgender" theory?

Why do you care what other people identify as? I don't see what anyone gains from forcing people to conform. Shouldn't people have a right to decide for themselves?

I like your live-and-let-live standpoint, but I'd still like to understand what is going on. One reason is to give the "new gender people" their due: There is a clear sense of grievance. If I and others have been been giving offense without meaning to, I'd like to make amends. So I need to understand the new genders: I consult Wikipedia, where I discover the matter is only slightly more complicated than string theory. The gender definitions are arbitrary, unstable, confused.

So, please help me by critiquing this understanding:
It was a big help to learn that the discussion is only indirectly connected biological gender and sexual preference/behaviour. Instead, what is at stake is the alignment between biological gender and a persons likes and dislikes. Example:
[*]While Stanley's friends are loud and enjoy blood sports, Stanley prefers spending quiet time reading Proust, watching ballet and looking after his maiden aunt.
[*]Jill stands out among her friends for her assertiveness. She loves hunting, chews tobacco and eschews "typical feminine" pursuits.

We could call Stanley sensitive, and Jill, perhaps, a bit manly. These are well known concepts. So what is gained by inventing new gender names?

[Liriena]

So... an even more strict gender binary with extra "muh primary sexual characteristics".

Say you do categorize people exclusively based on sex... What happens with everything about gender that has nothing to do with sex? What happens with clothing, language, customs, etc.?

Postgenderism?

*head asplodes*

[Coesu]

Clearly the solution is to do away with all this gender nonsense and categorize people based on sex.

So... an even more strict gender binary with extra "muh primary sexual characteristics".

Say you do categorize people exclusively based on sex... What happens with everything about gender that has nothing to do with sex? What happens with clothing, language, customs, etc.?

Hopefully she/he/etc. says no difference based on sex...

[Aillyria]

Postgenderism?

*head asplodes*

[Nationalist Gold Union]

Gonna wreck a liberal epic style, hold my yarmulke

there are only 2 genders

[Roliganistan]

I don't think it's completely fair to just dismiss it entirely. While I personally feel it's stupid, I guess I could see maybe 4 genders max: male, female, both, or neither, though "both" and "neither" are sort of stretching it imo. But I don't think there needs to be 76 (or however many now lol) of them and I don't think they each need different pronouns.

Hi I am neither. Let me explain. I was asked when I first started trying to understand people who where trans how I would feel if I woke up in a body of the opposite sex then my own. I thought about it for a bit and said, cool and I would have no issue. If people can feel gender dysphoria then it would also make sense that there are people who cannot feel gender dysphoria.

Cool!
This is near the top of my "what if a genie were to offer you three wishes" list. Nothing to do with gender uncertainties, everything to do with intellectual curiosity. I'd love to spend a week as a woman; experiencing the good, the bad and the ugly from woman's side, and come back a better/wiser/more understanding man a week later (I suspect I'd still want to).
Besides, I'm sure the book would sell well.

[Liriena]

Gonna wreck a liberal epic style, hold my yarmulke

there are only 2 genders

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!

Too logical, dude. Too sciency. I'm so owned. D:

[Western-Ukraine]

There isn't a place for gender dissidents in the public discourse. We have a stable foundation in traditional, nuclear families, and breaking working conventions with little insight for future could leave us with irreparable damage, including dangerous and revolutionary movements and plummeting birth rates here in the West. There is much more at stake in this topic than just freedom.

[Liriena]

There isn't a place for gender dissidents in the public discourse. We have a stable foundation in traditional, nuclear families, and breaking working conventions with little insight for future could leave us with irreparable damage, including dangerous and revolutionary movements and plummeting birth rates here in the West. There is much more at stake in this topic than just freedom.

Intrigued by the underlined.

[Western-Ukraine]

There isn't a place for gender dissidents in the public discourse. We have a stable foundation in traditional, nuclear families, and breaking working conventions with little insight for future could leave us with irreparable damage, including dangerous and revolutionary movements and plummeting birth rates here in the West. There is much more at stake in this topic than just freedom.

Intrigued by the underlined.

Dangerous and revolutionary movements, including the LGBT movements that have more often than not greatly disturbed social order. Aggressive minorities alienate traditional men and women and incite many good people to violence, like in Russia. We allowed the movements to destroy our customs and now we are here. Be reminded that my statement about breaking conventions did not specifically imply the revolutionary gender ideas alone. More like the so-called progressive ideas in general.

As for plummeting birth rates, the liberal ideas about gender have decayed our picture of a working family. Too many women buy the revolutionary illusion and have fewer children than is sustainable to be competitive internationally. The image of the female gender has changed in a scary way. Hence we fall behind, just because family and children don't seem to matter that much for the progressives. What more of postgenderism (?), we are doomed.

[Liriena]

Intrigued by the underlined.

Dangerous and revolutionary movements, including the LGBT movements that have more often than not greatly disturbed social order. Aggressive minorities alienate traditional men and women and incite many good people to violence, like in Russia. We allowed the movements to destroy our customs and now we are here. Be reminded that my statement about breaking conventions did not specifically imply the revolutionary gender ideas alone. More like the so-called progressive ideas in general.

If people react to LGBT+ people fighting for their rights by becoming violent towards LGBT+ people, they are not "good people", and it's not okay to blame LGBT+ people for the violence inflicted upon them.

As for plummeting birth rates, the liberal ideas about gender have decayed our picture of a working family. Too many women buy the revolutionary illusion and have fewer children than is sustainable to be competitive internationally. The image of the female gender has changed in a scary way. Hence we fall behind, just because family and children don't seem to matter that much for the progressives. What more of postgenderism (?), we are doomed.

The notion of not having children, or having fewer children, is "revolutionary"?

I don't really see what's scary about it, but then again I also don't sympathize with the "good people" who involve themselves in anti-LGBT+ violence, so...

[Hediacrana]

If people react to LGBT+ people fighting for their rights by becoming violent towards LGBT+ people, they are not "good people", and it's not okay to blame LGBT+ people for the violence inflicted upon them.

This. To argue the opposite is classical victim-blaming, really.

[Euphisia]

We all know what gender dysphoria is: it is a medical condition where one's gender identity, which we now know to be hardwired, does not correlate with one's sex. This is a widely documented medical phenomenon.

I argue that postgenderism, "I'm my own gender, " or "no gender" has zero to do with this. Such positions have no medical support, and are basically "I'm a special snowflake, short and stout."

What are your opinions on "postgender" theory?

In our world, we continually strive to become more and more accepting of even the most outlandish things that have little provable fact and basis in reality. I don't believe in the idea of being able to identify as another gender than the one you were born as, or as one of the other incredibly ridiculous denominations that people often use such as "non binary." It's inherently ridiculous. But ridiculous phenomenon tend to draw in small crowds of supporters. Just like conspiracy theorists, political radicals, and things of the like. It's minor overall, as a whole they're just very vocal but shorter in number than is perceived - sort of like BLM.

At this point, I think it's just a lot of people looking for somewhere to be special, or belong. I don't care for it, but I don't wish to dissuade them from doing what they're doing. It's not my business nor does it currently affect me in any fashion. The day that I'll actively seek out to push back is the day that people begin to attempt to force me to call these people what they wish to be called - which will never happen. If I am not forced to contend with how they view the world, then I will not attempt to force them to do the same in respect to how I view the world.

[Western-Ukraine]

Dangerous and revolutionary movements, including the LGBT movements that have more often than not greatly disturbed social order. Aggressive minorities alienate traditional men and women and incite many good people to violence, like in Russia. We allowed the movements to destroy our customs and now we are here. Be reminded that my statement about breaking conventions did not specifically imply the revolutionary gender ideas alone. More like the so-called progressive ideas in general.

If people react to LGBT+ people fighting for their rights by becoming violent towards LGBT+ people, they are not "good people", and it's not okay to blame LGBT+ people for the violence inflicted upon them.

As for plummeting birth rates, the liberal ideas about gender have decayed our picture of a working family. Too many women buy the revolutionary illusion and have fewer children than is sustainable to be competitive internationally. The image of the female gender has changed in a scary way. Hence we fall behind, just because family and children don't seem to matter that much for the progressives. What more of postgenderism (?), we are doomed.

The notion of not having children, or having fewer children, is "revolutionary"?

I don't really see what's scary about it, but then again I also don't sympathize with the "good people" who involve themselves in anti-LGBT+ violence, so...

I imply that the LGBT supporters are incited to violence, not the opponents. Also, the notion of not having children is the bad thing. Not because I hate the people who don't want to have children, but steady rates are important politically.

[The Lone Alliance]

I only recognize 3 or 4 genders, Male, Female, or "Nothing" and maybe "Both", cause at least all of those are biologically possible.

I see Gender roles just an off shoot of sex roles which works back to reproduction, if you want to call yourself something else that doesn't reproduce then I'll just see it something like drones in a hive who don't reproduce but serve a purpose.