Reply With Quote
You routinely wrongly classify others here as opposite gender but you're somehow a champion for gender neutrality.
So then feeling more feminine should qualify a man to use the women's restroom, to compete on women's pro sports teams, to have birth certificate altered to reflect different sex than born with?
You routinely wrongly classify others here as opposite gender but you're somehow a champion for gender neutrality.
I'm just asking for one other gender besides male and female.
You're confusing sex (biological) with gender (social construct). Many people use it (incorrectly) interchangeably. That can be easily remedied by grabbing a copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and educating oneself.
Intersex would be one of them...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
You could also look up 'Berdaches' in Native Americans...
If you're interested in reading about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Ones.../dp/0312224796
The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) uses the following two sentences to illustrate the difference, noting that the distinction "is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."
The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient.
In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.
In other words, gender goes towards social constructs (ie: derived from traditionalism), as opposed to strict biological differences.
Another example: "Females have traditionally been the best cooks". In that context, females specify gender, not sex: Men can also cook, and there's nothing stopping a man to be the best cook ever.
That's not gender though.
At that link:
"who embodied both genders "
Both meaning two.
The term 'berdache' is a little-known, rarely discussed reference to Native American individuals who embodied both genders - what some might classify as 'the third sex.' Berdaches were known to combine male and female social roles with traits unique to their status as a third gender, defying and redefining traditional notions of gender-specific behavior. In Changing Ones , William Roscoe opens up and explores the world of berdaches, revealing meaningful differences between Native American culture and contemporary North American culture. Roscoe reveals that rather than being ostracized or forced into obscurity, berdaches were embraced by some 150 tribes, serving as artists, medicine people, religious experts, and tribal leaders. Indeed, Roscoe points out, berdaches sometimes even occupied a holy status within the tribal community. Roscoe begins with case studies of male and female berdaches, blending biography and ethnohistory, and he builds toward theoretical insights into the nature of gender diversity in North America. What results is highly engaging, readable, and illuminating. Changing Ones combines the fields of anthropology, sociology, theory, gay and lesbian studies, and gender studies to challenge conventional schools of thought and to expand every reader's horizons.
Notice how "third sex" and "third gender" are used interchangeably?
Scroll down to Language. Sex and gender are interrelated, but that doesn't mean they describe the same thing.
Right. Embodied both genders, not both sexes. iow: did things that socially were cir scribed to one-gender-only. Thus, third gender.
If gender is social sexual iden y, then biology is irrelevant to gender since the sex, male, female or a combination of both can decide on which gender it prefers.
Regardless how you move the slider in the spectrum of masculinity/femininity, there's no third gender on the scale. If there were, you could possibly say that person X is part 3rd gender. Instead, 3rd gender is part something else, or as they said, "a combination of the two genders". So the two genders are precursors and whatever comes from the two is a product, both in natural birth and in gender iden y. Since no one is 100% masculine nor 100% feminine, but some combination of the two in some ratio, everyone could, in essence, be a distinct gender if we changed the concept of gender.
It isn't irrelevant because society has traditionally assigned certain roles based on sex, despite the ability of other sexes (in most cir stances) to be able to perform the same role.
That's why I mentioned that traditionalism has a lot to do with gender, and why movements like feminism were strong advocates on the proper differentiation of gender vs plainly biological sex.
But gender is still a binary product, meaning a ratio of masculinity:femininity (until someone can illustrate a real 3rd option). I can accept that many different names can be conjured up to describe each ratio, however it's still a ratio of two parts.
The problem is that in society, we split certain roles based on biological sex, where it wasn't necessarily needed. For example, there was a time where only men could vote. And so gender came to describe that, roles originally assigned to certain sexes, strictly for social/traditional reasons, not because of the biological sex impeding the ability to carry out the role. So, when you throw a freak of nature like an intersex in there, which one of these virtual social roles can he/she do? both? neither? whatever roles were assigned to him/her based on whatever some arbitrary person wrote down when they were born?
You don't even need such a freak (even though it makes for a good example). Some people feel more comfortable in a social role that might not match what society assigned to them due to the biological sex their were born with. And then we get to this discussion.
We could obviate that society has, and continues to (up to an extent) hand out societal roles by connecting them directly to biological sex, but it's disingenuous.
Assume for the sake of arguendo that two people are born and abandoned (Blue Lagoon and ), one male and one female biologically. What societal pressure would force the male into gender roles of societal males elsewhere? Once Brooke goes into estrus and homey into the rut, won't they still eventually sniff each others' genitals?
On said island of slain pretend Jesus (Indian owned island), where they haven't been disturbed in however long, what societal pressure keeps them procreating?
Not necessarily binary, but more of range with two distinct ends. A hermaphrodite is far enough away from both ends to classically be determined to be neither male nor female in the animal world.
This goes to your slider comment, which I think it's a better description. The problem is that traditionally in society we've assigned certain roles more in strictly binary fashion, rather than in a range, purely for arbitrary reasons. So the description of those fake-sex requirements have been called gender.
This is what I am referring to by "slider". The two distinct ends are the binary components, and the range between them the ratio. If a human was born with no genitalia, that would be an anomaly (unless said human was a Lakers fan), so it's not worth it to include those in the discussion tbh
I know what you mean, but it's a bad argument. Societal pressures exist when there's a society, which would be pretty sketchy to say there's on an abandoned island by two people whom had no contact with the outside world.
We do know from past history that we've more or less modeled our society on top of what the Greek and Romans built, but we also do know there were very different societies also (Egyptians, Incas, etc) that were quite different in how they assigned their roles (albeit, they also did assign roles by biological sex).
At any rate, I don't want to derail from the core point, which is that there's a clear distinction between strictly biological sex, and what certain societies assign as a role for the sexes (which, have changed throughout history).
There is a difference, sure. However we've been asked as a civilized society to pretend biology is a social construct.
See, that's a great example. Laker fans has to live in our society, and if they want to win at something that's not basketball, they may need to take on roles that society has built for them, sometimes based on gender. For example, Lakerfan might one day want to pretend they're Chuck Norris, a symbol of masculinity, despite having no balls. The notion that Chuck Norris can only be played by the male gender is entirely a social construct.
"These are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions."
"Gender is not a matter of opinion; it's a scientific fact. Penis or vagina, vagina or penis?"
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the...ly-two-genders
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
