this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
1405 points (98.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5769 readers
3082 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Idk who is that, and probably is a moron.
But it is a genuinely good question: "what's a woman?" "what's a man?" "what's gender?"
Not an easy question, with not universally accepted answer.
Outside of a philosophy discussion, it's not a genuinely good question because it is irrelevant to our daily lives. In any way that matters to society, a woman is a person who says they are a woman. It's that complicated.
Sure, the anatomical features we use to categorise people into genders have always existed, but the categories themselves are made up and there's a rather large amount of overlap between them. The more strictly someone attempts to enforce a given set of criteria as the basis for this categorisation, the less practical utility their definition tends to have in terms of everyday use.
What is an adult human with both sets of genitalia? They exist.
A hermaphrodite. What is any other genetic condition?
Intersex. And there are more of them than trans people per 100k, I believe. Yet somehow they're never brought up.
Many (maybe most?) end up getting some type of gender-affirming surgery very early on, but not always. And who knows, going forward.
I have never seen "hermaphrodite" on any government form. What do they put down?
It's an edge case. Does a government form determine reality? They can put down one, both, none.
You cannot put down both or none on any government form that does not consider gender to be a non-biological thing.
Laws are not supposed to be selectively applied. If they can put down whichever one they choose, you are admitting your definition of 'man' and 'woman' do not apply to how society works.
I know "the exception that proves the rule" is a fun phrase, but it's not actually how things work.
But this is a biological thing. It's a medical condition. It's not your gender if you were born with both sets of organs. The point of equality was to get rid of laws being selectively applied. By your philosophy, race also works similarly. Someone who is latino is whoever says they're latino.
Again, laws are not supposed to be selectively applied. If they can put 'man' or 'woman' on any form, so can anyone else. Or do you think they need some sort of confirmation by a doctor before they're allowed to fill out any sort of government forms?
And so what if they do? Nobody is throwing you in jail for selecting the "wrong" box. And if there is some special program you're defrauding.. well.. treating people differently on this in the law isn't part of my philosophy.
Oh, so you can be whatever gender you want? We agree.
Yea, you can put down whatever you want on government forms. That's no mystery. Whether people at large accept you as that what you claim is on them. The government isn't an arbiter of reality any more than you are.
Now you're admitting that gender is a subjective thing based on societal norms. Which is the point.
Yea, but sex isn't. And the way it's done now is that gender is invoked as identical to sex when it's beneficial and rebuked when it's not.
We are talking about gender here. Gender is only identical with sex if the person so chooses to identify that way. If you think that's "the way it's done now," you have been listening to too much conservative media.
The fact that you don't understand all of this does not speak well of you.
We're talking about both. Gender was traditionally identical to sex and this issue didn't come up much till relatively recently. Outliers, like people born with both sets of organs, were just that. To be consistent with this philosophy, race must also now be done as "whoever identifies as such". After all, it's just as much of a societal construct.
You are talking about both.
Anyone who understands the subject understand that gender and sex are completely different.
Which is why there are multiple societies with more than two genders.
https://www.britannica.com/list/6-cultures-that-recognize-more-than-two-genders
Again, your archaic Anglo/Eurocentric, heteronormative idea of how the way things are supposed to be is not how the world works on an objective level.
Something from within the last few decades isn't really archaic, that is generally reserved for (well?) over a hundred years old or older, and the vast majority of Lemmy users are either North American or European. Anglo/Eurocentric is going to be the relative norm on social media in general outside of specific apps, and those then trend East/South East Asiacentric due to their development origin. You should not be surprised to encounter this.
Heteronormative will also currently still trend as a default since over 80% of the population identifies as such. Intersex is also somewhere around or under 1% of the population. While gender and sex can most certainly be different, at least currently the supermajority of people will have these aligned and will use them interchangeably. This shouldn't invalidate or be used to discriminate against those that aren't heteronormative by any means, but something that is true 80-90% of the time falls within the colloquial or layman's qualifications for a broad assumption of "how the world works".
The fact that intersex people get to decide their primary sex (or more likely had a doctor decide for them at birth) on government forms is somewhat analogous to 3 wheeled motor vehicles that can be registered as either a car or a motorcycle depending on the State and/or county. This does not invalidate car or motorcycle as categories, nor does it invalidate andly other means of transport.
I did not read past this. You clearly did not read my link. Come back when you read it since it talks about cultures going back thousands of years.
You can't use archaic as a preparative against one thing and then come back and use it as a positive for its "opposite". I read your link, it is a perfectly good link, so I guess your arguing that an archaic Indoasia-centric queernormative world view is "the way the world actually works" instead? If you think you can understand what someone is attempting to say/discuss by only half of an opening sentence, I understand why you seem to be arguing past multiple people in this thread.
No, I'm arguing that your rigid definition of gender (that no reputable biologist would agree with) is not the way the world works. Because gender and biological sex are different and have always been different and biological sex is far, far more complicated than XX and XY.
This was your claim:
Unless by "traditionally," you are going by an entirely Anglo/Eurocentric view of the world (and only really applies to the Christian era), which is pretty damn bigoted, I showed you that you were wrong.
The proper thing to do would be to admit it.
I doubt you will. But it's either you were wrong or all of those other cultures are not part of humanity. Which would be very bigoted.
I never said that gender is identical to sex, don't go putting words in my mouth. I am not sure if you are just skimming things or intentionally reading negatively, because I did clearly say that the Global North is the target audience for most social media, including Lemmy, and thus yes, for a North American or European that does apply as "traditionally".
I have said nothing contrary to that, nor said anything about it being either my world view, the only world view, a superior world view, or anything of the sort, and you are calling me a bigot for just pointing that fact out. I fully support the idea that sex and gender are not the same, can be different, and can be fluid, but also acknowledge that the majority of humans (I'll even confidently say globally here) will have them relatively aligned and not even think about it. That is why there need to be protections for those that do, because they are a minority.
Way to go about pissing people off. Your purity test bullshit that anyone daring to discuss your individual world view is automatically a bigot must be a big hit at parties and brings people together around you. I'll go out on a limb and say you are arguing that the non-Eurocentric queernormative world view is the superior world view, and that you do not believe that could be construed as a version of bigotry of any kind because you are "right". Like the actual bigots on the other side don't feel exactly the same.
Interesting how your "global north" excludes an entire continent's worth of north.
Now I know your trolling, pretending that the term "Global North" isn't a known shorthand for essentially the G8 and coined specifically by the left to point out the disparity with the rest of the world on a global power and economic scale
I am not trolling. You're proving my point. You think "normal" = "white."
Wow, you really are an absolute caricature of a social justice warrior and an ass who likes to put words in people's mouths to boot. Having the knowledge that a thing exists means you support the thing that you know exists, huh? Since you pointed out the existence of an Anglo/Eurocentric world view first I guess that must mean you think normal means whiteness and you are trying to welcome me to the club?
Ah, now this all makes sense. You're a conservative.
That's not how putting words in quotations marks work.
I am not a conservative, I am a left leaning classical libertarian that wants universal healthcare, UBI, LGBTQ rights, safe and legal abortions, and both religion and money out of government because these are the most effective/cost effective ways for government to support the common good.
You trying to put words in my mouth such as gender and sex being the same, or that I am a bigot who thinks normal = whiteness because I point out that social media started in and is primarily used in rich Euro/Americasphere countries is why you are a caricature, and I am real sick and tired of you doing so.
You think "social justice warrior" is an insult. So maybe you should rethink your other positions.
I'm happy to be insulted by the same term that could be used on Malcolm X or Nelson Mandela, even though it definitely does not apply. It's very flattering nonetheless.
No, I think that being a caricature by calling anyone who you seem to think is any amount to the right of you a white supremacist bigot and misconstruing them as such by putting words in their mouth like a character made up by Fox News is what's asinine, and would be the "insult" in this case.
-Edit-
And you are seriously telling me that because I don't pass your purity test I should rethink and abandon my leftist ideals/positions and just what, go right wing? This, right here, is why you are a caricature.
I was going to respond more substantively, but then I saw your edit and I realized you badly trying to gaslight me. This is what I said:
Which means I wasn't telling you that you that you should do anything.
You are not an idiot. You know what the word maybe means.
You are terrible at gaslighting and if that is what this has devolved into, I'll just report you for trolling and move on.
You know that that words can have different connotations based on how they are used, and there is a vast difference between using maybe in a sentence like "maybe you want ice cream" and "maybe you should shut up" when used in an argument.
Both still indicate a positive stance or recommendation to the other person, and "maybe you should rethink your positions" can only be taken as the speaker passive aggressively advising the other person to change said positions. Hell, it's almost impossible to find another connotation to "maybe you...", as it is almost exclusively used in a passive aggressive manner.
Attempting to claim gaslighting is a cheap cop out, like a TV mob boss saying they didn't threaten someone when they said "maybe they will encounter a little 'accident'". Gaslighting also has a definition, is a form of abuse meant to cause a person to question their sanity and grasp of reality, and I take major offense to being accused of such.
You accuse me of bigotry and either quote other people as if they were me or make up positions you say I hold for said accusations, accuse me in a round about way of white supremacy by saying I think normalness is whiteness, then accuse me of gaslighting for taking your comment as passive aggressive and want to report me for trolling? If this isn't trolling from you then I feel really sorry for you.
Sorry, that was not an admission that you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying, so I don't think this conversation is worth continuing.
I'm not really interested in talking to someone who appears incapable of ever admitting fault.
And before you accuse me of being the same way, I'll be happy to give you a chunky list of things in the last 48 hours or so that I fucked up on and take the blame for. It would be of about average length. A lot of things are my fault all the time.
If I didn't need more proof you are trolling, after accusing me of gaslighting you come back with the "I'm sorry you feel that way". Thank you for confirming.
If I am trolling, please report me to the lemmy.world administrators, as that violates the terms of service.
You'll find out if you were successful if I have an instance ban. Good luck with that and goodbye.
If intersex people are an edge case, then so are trans people.
And yet...