• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

58 genders selection in Facebook

I've never seen such a tiny issue get so much attention.
How many people truly define themselves outside of cismale, cisfemale? Maybe one in a thousand?

I'm happy for people to identify themselves on whatever they want on this spectrum. I'm not going to learn a load of personal pronouns just to keep them happy though..
 
No, you responded with a silly strawman (pardon my Formaldehyde), and you still haven't explained why you care so much about an issue that has absolutely zero impact on you.

*derp* Okay... apologies for the misunderstanding. I read the title, I saw the list, made assumption that didn't pan out. All is well, move along, nothing to see here.

Could you please point out the strawman there? Oh right, you can't because there isn't one. This is the post I was talking about when I said I reacted quite rationally. I see no strawman. As to why I should care about any issue? Well I can care about any issue I want whether it has any impact on me or not.

I've never seen such a tiny issue get so much attention.
How many people truly define themselves outside of cismale, cisfemale? Maybe one in a thousand?
The majority of the world population? I suspect most define themselves as "male" or "female" and not this stupid "cis" stuff.
 
Could you please point out the strawman there? Oh right, you can't because there isn't one. This is the post I was talking about when I said I reacted quite rationally. I see no strawman. As to why I should care about any issue? Well I can care about any issue I want whether it has any impact on me or not.
Don't be obtuse, I was directly responding to your response to warpus. It is a complete and total man of straw.

"Agree with me or stfu" eh? No, I think not. I do like, however, how you have decided that just because I have an issue with male and female not existing as choices automatically means I am full of hate and mockery.
 
The majority of the world population? I suspect most define themselves as "male" or "female" and not this stupid "cis" stuff.
Aye, but that's how the language changes. Those who make the most noise have the biggest influence.

And complaining about it only makes its adoption more likely. Maybe.

It's like telling someone not to think of a black and white cow: that's exactly what they will think of.
 
Where's "hermaphrodite" gone, in all this?

Hermaphroditism is specifically used for species that have both genders normally and can normally reproduce as both genders. Intersex is used for this in species where that is not the case, and that is on the list.
 
*shrug* Fine, if you want to dismiss my comment by labeling it a strawman, that's your prerogative. I am not, however, going to shut up about anything just because people don't agree with me and expect people that don't agree with them to be silent.
 
Hermaphroditism is specifically used for species that have both genders normally and can normally reproduce as both genders. Intersex is used for this in species where that is not the case, and that is on the list.

Oh, OK. Thanks for the information. It seems you're correct.

Historically, the term hermaphrodite has also been used to describe ambiguous genitalia and gonadal mosaicism in individuals of gonochoristic species, especially human beings. The word intersex has come into preferred usage for humans, since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be misleading and stigmatizing,[3] as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

"Gonadal mosaicism" I like. Can I type that into Facebook?

"Gonochoristic"!!!
 
Are you sure you want to accuse bhsup of responding to a straw man? It might be a straw neutrois.
 
If anything, I'm siding with Mr Sup. I rather think Mr Warpus has been strawmanning, if anyone has.

(Though, honestly, I never know quite what a strawman is. Is it something to do with bayonet practice?)
 
If anything, I'm siding with Mr Sup. I rather think Mr Warpus has been strawmanning, if anyone has.

(Though, honestly, I never know quite what a strawman is. Is it something to do with bayonet practice?)
You don't think transgender people exist, then? Gender is either "male" or "female"?
 
No. I do think that people think they're transgender. And that's good enough for me.
 
I'll take this as my opportunity to object to the term cisgendered. The trans- in transgendered means "to the other side of" i.e. to the other (of two) genders. That makes sense. The cis- in cisgendered is modeled on Cisalpine and Transalpine, on the near or far side of a third thing (the alps). There is no third thing that a gender one is comfortable with, if that's what cisgendered means, is on this near side of. It's a poorly conceived word.
 
Oh, I don't know. That makes perfect sense to me. The transgender means to move from one gender to the other. From one side of the Alps to the other.

Hmm. Still.

What would you recommend instead?
 
I mean I'm fine with people describing themselves however they wish. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else. And I can't see how this possibly could.

Incidentally, the strawman I was referring to was Warpus's claim that people thought their world was collapsing. I don't believe anyone thinks this.
 
Oh, I don't know. That makes perfect sense to me. The transgender means to move from one gender to the other. From one side of the Alps to the other.

Hmm. Still.

What would you recommend instead?

It would make sense to you. You're such a cis-y.

Male and female. I also object to defining the norm backward from the special cases (cisgendered = non-trans-gendered)
 
I also object to defining the norm backward from the special cases (cisgendered = non-trans-gendered)

I can understand that. (Though I don't think it's a particularly important thing to object to. Just refer to yourself as male or female, then. If you ever feel the need to.)

As I say above, "objecting" is likely to be counterproductive to the aim of objecting. You're just drawing more attention to the subject, imo.
 
"Agree with me or stfu" eh?

This isn't an issue of personal tastes, this is peoples' freedom we're talking about here. You're assaulting the concept of these peoples' identities for no other reason than that you've never heard of it before. How much more callous and self-centered can you be? Warpus is right to shout people down who think this way.

No, I think not. I do like, however, how you have decided that just because I have an issue with male and female not existing as choices automatically means I am full of hate and mockery.

First, they do exist, as others have noted.

Second, you're still not understanding the difference between gender and sex. Sex is biological, you have a penis or vagina, etc. However, even that binary is incorrect, since there are people who are born with both organs sometimes. Gender, on the other hand, is part of someone's identity, it's how they see themselves and understand themselves. Gender is fluid, one's perception of oneself can change through life.

Third, this isn't your bone, you said you had never heard of these before, and therefore they are stupid.

Just because you don't understand all the ways transgendered, asexual, or other categories of people identify doesn't make those identities invalid or deserving of your scorn. In the past, the binary of male/man female/woman were the only acceptable ones as enforced by society. But as our society evolves, so does our capacity to sustain and defend tolerance and tolerant structures, and that is why the new issues of homosexuality and gender identity have come up in recent years: we've reached the point where people who formerly were forced to suppress this part of their identity are now becoming more comfortable with voicing it. In addition, people whose identity would have been forced into the old "molds" are now understanding that these unfamiliar feelings they've had are natural and have meaning, it's not "just them." There are others like them. This openness enables them to better understand and explore who they are, and what they are doing here. You don't have the right to tell them that they are wrong. You are obligated not to obstruct them from exploring who they really are, and to reach maximum personal fulfillment from that. Understanding one's identity in the universe is one of the most fundamental parts of being a sentient being. By scoffing at them and mocking them, you offend the very idea that they are fully human. In a world struggling to understand, grasp, and make room for these new ideas and the people who believe them, such an attitude is very dangerous to these people. Transgendered and homosexuals still get murdered simply for being who they are. A big part of what enables that to happen is people treating them and regarding them as if they are lesser people or "others" who don't belong here because they're not like us.

To be quite simple: everyone has the right to a personal identity which defines them as belonging in this universe. It is our obligation as civilized, sentient people, to make room for all possible identities, and to make everyone feel like they belong, and that it's okay for them to be different from other people. Being different doesn't make you bad or wrong.

Please bother to learn about new things before you just reflexively denounce them out of simple unfamiliarity.
 
Back
Top Bottom