How Many Genders Are There? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

How Many Genders Are There?

One
No votes
0%
Two
26
63%
Three
2
5%
Between four and ten
No votes
0%
Between eleven and twenty
1
2%
Twenty one or more
1
2%
Other
11
27%
#14941175
Albert wrote:So gender roles are only possible in traditional society?
For the most part, yes.

Still, people paint their rooms blue if it's a boy, and pink if it's a girl, so there's always exceptions, and expectations.
#14941179
Albert wrote:So are you saying gender roles are the same or not? Or you saying some are the same and some not? If you are saying some gender roles are not the same, which are those are not the same then?


Most gender roles are different for men and women. This is implicit in the idea of gender roles, since the main purpose of these roles is to differentiate between the genders.

And what you mean Pants, this is very important.


Please explain why. Thanks.

—————————

SolarCross wrote:Gender is dependant on sex; the mapping is one to one and has been always. If you want to radically change the taxonomy of every culture that has ever existed you need to come up with a very good reason to do so and I have not seen that yet.


Since I just linked to an article that shows that gender has not always been synonymous with biolsex, this is an incorrect criticism.

Yes, gender is based on sex. Especially in western societies. But just because something is based on biological facts does not mean that that thing is also biological. Traffic laws, for example, are based on the biological fact of damage occurring when a human being is impacted by a moving vehicle. Traffic laws themselves are not biological, even though they are based on biological facts.

And frankly, no one “needs a reason” to do away with the traditional taxonomy, as you put it, of sex and gender. It is a fact that people change gender. Facts do not require justification.
#14941190
SolarCross wrote:However identities are not whimsical things which exists solely in the world of ideas, they are names for bundles of properties, phenotypes. "woman" is a identity which is used to name a person with a womb, XX chromosomes, breasts, vagina and all the rest. If a man impersonating a woman by imitating their fashions, forging the physiology with fake breasts etc and imitating female mannerisms makes his illusion very well he may fool some people into believing he is actually a woman but it is still a disguise, essentially a lie. For those that claim they are in the wrong body they are suffering from a mental illness, that is all. You are simply asserting we should let the mentally ill be our taxonomic masters and this is totally unacceptable.

A real gender change is beyond the ability of medical hacks at this time.


Sorry SolarCross, you are still confusing sex with gender. Being are spelt differently, surely you must understand they are defined differently too.

As of yet you cannot change your chromosomes, so the best anyone can do at changing their sex would be cosmetic. Gender is cultural. So by changing your appearance you do indeed "change your gender". Just as the Barkers character is female, so is anyone else who plays a female role by changing their state. The confusion is the mental state of course - as you highlighted. It doesn't matter. If that is your state of mind and you act accordingly to social cues you have indeed achieved "changing your gender" but not your sex, whether you like that fact or not.
#14941222
Godstud wrote:If you look like a woman, and dress like a woman, you will be regarded as a woman in gender, even if you actually aren't(sexually).

Try jumping in bed with one then, would love to see your reaction when the dawn of REALITY creeps upon your face. :lol: :lol:

Case in point - this is a man, but you'd likely never refer to this person as a "he", if you didn't know it.
Image
NONSENSE; They say, "Never judge a book by it's cover",they KNOW what they are, YOU don't, that is called IGNORANCE, most men who call themselves MEN, spot such things a mile off.

The same applies if you look androgynous. You can appear to not fit into either category.


Gender is how you appear to society/culture, and how they view you.


NONSENSE: In your eyes only, NOT in my eyes.

Any male dressing up, putting make up on, or acting in a pseudo way, is just ACTING out, or role-playing, trying to make a ,'silk purse out a sows ear', just doesn't cut it in my eyes.

Maybe you, Godstud, need a trip to Specsavers, or is it, all in you head ?
#14941225
:roll: Your responses @Nonsense only show that your argument is childish and based in bigotry and/or ignorance. Ad hominems seem to be your MO, since you can't connect a rational and logical argument with your sentences. Pretty pathetic.
#14941228
Etymology is your friend. https://www.etymonline.com/

Etymology of Gender:
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).

The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.


For comparison the etymology of sex (n):

late 14c., "males or females collectively," from Latin sexus "a sex, state of being either male or female, gender," of uncertain origin. "Commonly taken with seco as division or 'half' of the race" [Tucker], which would connect it to secare "to divide or cut" (see section (n.)). Meaning "quality of being male or female" first recorded 1520s. Meaning "sexual intercourse" first attested 1929 (in writings of D.H. Lawrence); meaning "genitalia" is attested from 1938. Sex appeal attested by 1904.

For the raw sex appeal of the burlesque "shows" there is no defense, either. These "shows" should be under official supervision, at the least, and boys beneath the age of eighteen forbidden, perhaps, to attend their performance, just as we forbid the sale of liquors to minors. [Walter Prichard Eaton, "At the New Theatre and Others: The American Stage, Its Problems and Performances," Boston, 1910]

Sex drive is from 1918; sex object is 1901; sex symbol is 1871 in anthropology; the first person to whom the term was applied seems to have been Marilyn Monroe (1959). Sex therapist is from 1974.

-------

ESOL students @Pants-of-dog, @B0ycey and @Godstud just got an advanced lesson in Engrish.

Image
Last edited by SolarCross on 21 Aug 2018 15:19, edited 2 times in total.
#14941231
If we suppose for a moment that a man who wishes to act like a woman because it gives him pleasure is changing his gender then it begs the question: "Why should we care if nobody is harmed?"

If that man takes steps to change his sexual characteristics through surgery or drug therapy then that is quite another thing altogether.

If we assume that gender is nothing more than the traditional actions of one sex or the other then traditional or not it is just acting whether counter to one's sex or not.

I am not prepared to trivialize the notions of male/female traditional behavior so quickly however. Gender roles are far to important than that. While any society should make room for those with divergent behaviors that does not mean that deliberate engineering of behavior is wise based on whim. For example, the tendency for men to be protective of women and children is thought to have a genetic component. Many experts believe it is in some way hard-wired into the male psyche to a greater degree in some men than in others. Playing fast and loose with genetic predispositions is fraught with dangers we may not quite appreciate. In fact that we obviously do not understand fully.

We do not understand love. Some call it genetic and others call it a social construct. I am on the genetic side more than the social one. We ought not fiddle with that unless we are certain we understand what is happening.

There have be scholarly articles (and no POD I will not do your research for you) which have pointed out the difficulty some males experience when denied the opportunity to act out their deeply felt desires. Desires that obviously have a genetic or physiological component in not outright cause.

It is fun to debate stuff like this but the consequences of engineering a society based on whim is another thing altogether.
#14941232
Drlee wrote:If we suppose for a moment that a man who wishes to act like a woman because it gives him pleasure is changing his gender then it begs the question: "Why should we care if nobody is harmed?"

If that man takes steps to change his sexual characteristics through surgery or drug therapy then that is quite another thing altogether.

If we assume that gender is nothing more than the traditional actions of one sex or the other then traditional or not it is just acting whether counter to one's sex or not.

I am not prepared to trivialize the notions of male/female traditional behavior so quickly however. Gender roles are far to important than that. While any society should make room for those with divergent behaviors that does not mean that deliberate engineering of behavior is wise based on whim. For example, the tendency for men to be protective of women and children is thought to have a genetic component. Many experts believe it is in some way hard-wired into the male psyche to a greater degree in some men than in others. Playing fast and loose with genetic predispositions is fraught with dangers we may not quite appreciate. In fact that we obviously do not understand fully.

We do not understand love. Some call it genetic and others call it a social construct. I am on the genetic side more than the social one. We ought not fiddle with that unless we are certain we understand what is happening.

There have be scholarly articles (and no POD I will not do your research for you) which have pointed out the difficulty some males experience when denied the opportunity to act out their deeply felt desires. Desires that obviously have a genetic or physiological component in not outright cause.

It is fun to debate stuff like this but the consequences of engineering a society based on whim is another thing altogether.


Great post. I am beginning to really enjoy reading your stuff, even though we disagree on a great many things, I do think you try to take a sincere, objective, and balanced approach and your posts always seem to be measured, if nothing else.
#14941252
SolarCross wrote:
ESOL students @Pants-of-dog, @B0ycey and @Godstud just got an advanced lesson in Engrish.


Loving the fact you spelt English wrong here. How good is your English btw? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not sure where your argument is actually SolarCross. Nothing from what you have published. Although even you ally VS has created a thread highlighting the differences between the two words, you still maintain they are the same. Have you never wondered why we have two words spelt completely differently if they mean the exact same thing?
#14941255
SolarCross wrote:Etymology is your friend. https://www.etymonline.com/

Etymology of Gender:

For comparison the etymology of sex (n):


-------

ESOL students @Pants-of-dog, @B0ycey and @Godstud just got an advanced lesson in Engrish.


And?

—————————

Drlee wrote:If we suppose for a moment that a man who wishes to act like a woman because it gives him pleasure is changing his gender then it begs the question: "Why should we care if nobody is harmed?"

If that man takes steps to change his sexual characteristics through surgery or drug therapy then that is quite another thing altogether.

If we assume that gender is nothing more than the traditional actions of one sex or the other then traditional or not it is just acting whether counter to one's sex or not.

I am not prepared to trivialize the notions of male/female traditional behavior so quickly however. Gender roles are far to important than that. While any society should make room for those with divergent behaviors that does not mean that deliberate engineering of behavior is wise based on whim. For example, the tendency for men to be protective of women and children is thought to have a genetic component. Many experts believe it is in some way hard-wired into the male psyche to a greater degree in some men than in others. Playing fast and loose with genetic predispositions is fraught with dangers we may not quite appreciate. In fact that we obviously do not understand fully.

We do not understand love. Some call it genetic and others call it a social construct. I am on the genetic side more than the social one. We ought not fiddle with that unless we are certain we understand what is happening.

There have be scholarly articles (and no POD I will not do your research for you) which have pointed out the difficulty some males experience when denied the opportunity to act out their deeply felt desires. Desires that obviously have a genetic or physiological component in not outright cause.

It is fun to debate stuff like this but the consequences of engineering a society based on whim is another thing altogether.


You seem to be confusing gender roles and gender identity.

Also, no one is fiddling with gender roles, or doing genetic engineering on a whim, or any of the odd stuff you claim here.
#14941260
B0ycey wrote:Loving the fact you spelt English wrong here. How good is your English btw? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not sure where your argument is actually SolarCross. Nothing from what you have published. Although even you ally VS has created a thread highlighting the differences between the two words, you still maintain they are the same. Have you never wondered why we have two words spelt completely differently if they mean the exact same thing?

That spelling was on purpose, it was a reference to a relevant meme.

You didn't read the etymology at all did you? The reason for the different words is the different root metaphors. Sex comes from the root metaphor of "half", because males and females are each half of humanity. Gender comes from the root metaphor of "birth", because the differences of men and women originate there. Gender has the same root as genetics and genetalia..

Different words, derived from different metaphors, can mean the same thing, that is what a synonym is. This is especially common for English because it is a hybrid language of both germanic and romantic strains.

Image
Last edited by SolarCross on 21 Aug 2018 15:21, edited 1 time in total.
#14941266
SolarCross wrote:That spelling was on purpose, it was a reference to a relevant meme.

You didn't read the etymology at all did you? The reason for the different words is the different root metaphors. Sex comes from the root metaphor of "half", because males and females are each half of humanity. Gender comes from the root metaphor of "birth", because the differences of men and women originate there. Gender has the same root as genetics and genetalia..

Different words, derived from different metaphors, can mean the same thing, that is what a synonym is. This is especially common for English because it is a hybrid language of both germanic and romantic strains.


The first line fucks up your argument completely SolarCross. So does all the text actually. Not that it matters. Gender today means the state of being male and female and is cultural. Sex is biological. Trying to use English to win this argument is pointless. You will lose because you cannot understand this simple bit of knowledge as you are ignorant.
#14941269
B0ycey wrote:The first line fucks up your argument completely SolarCross. So does all the text actually. Not that it matters. Gender today means the state of being male and female and is cultural. Sex is biological. Trying to use English to win this argument is pointless. You will lose because you cannot understand this simple bit of knowledge as you are ignorant.


Not exactly a gracious loser are you?
#14941272
SolarCross wrote:Not exactly a gracious loser are you?


However have I lost? You don't even know what you are talking about. :lol:

But just to humour me further with your fantastic Engrish skills, what is the difference between the two defined words of Sex and Gender to you?
#14941278
B0ycey wrote:However have I lost? You don't even know what you are talking about. :lol:

But just to humour me further with your fantastic Engrish skills, what is the difference between the two defined words of Sex and Gender to you?


The mangling of the word gender didn't start until the 1960s and by crazy people at that. They picked the wrong word to mangle really because sex would have been better since its root is "half" not "birth". Gender suggests a word rooted in biology as can be seen in similarly rooted words, genetics and genitalia, but sex could be anything you can divide in two.

I'll say again I see no reason to allow mentally ill people to be the masters of our taxonomy.
#14941284
SolarCross wrote:The mangling of the word gender didn't start until the 1960s and by crazy people at that. They picked the wrong word to mangle really because sex would have been better since its root is "half" not "birth".


Well actually they chose the correct word according to your source as the one is the traits of being male and female and the other is collectively being male or female. Not that it matters with me pointing that out as you will still be confused like always I guess.
#14941312
The political liberals in here consistently revert to very esoteric rhetoric. This seems to be because they can't argue on this in a straight-forward manner. SC is by no means my ally on this bored, but I agree with him in this debate and he has actually constructed some good arguments.

I don't buy that gender is something fluid Or subject to personal identity. I also don't buy the notion that all people are exactly the same (popularized in anthropology in the 1950s); nor that men and women are completely equal. This sort of new age shit is phony.

I also never thought the femenised teenage boys that grown men liked to fuck in Edo Japan were anything special, besides maybe special abominations. But so it goes.
#14941345
Drlee wrote:If we suppose for a moment that a man who wishes to act like a woman because it gives him pleasure is changing his gender then it begs the question: "Why should we care if nobody is harmed?"

If that man takes steps to change his sexual characteristics through surgery or drug therapy then that is quite another thing altogether.



It does matter.

Where there is surgery to perform a physical abuse of a human body(not least because the operation is 'elective' by choice),it is the general taxpayer funding the enabling of such lifestyle changes.
It is PANDERING to an individuals lifestyle choice, FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER
.
TAXPAYERS money funding the N.H.S is being inappropriately used ever since the Tories introduced a 'constitution' to the N.H.S.
In 1948 BEVAN said that there would be 3 'core' principals to the N.H.S;

1\That it meet the needs of everyone
2\That it be free at the point of delivery
3\ That it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay

Applying those 3 principles above to gender-bender operations being carried out, it is clear that they are NOT based upon CLINICAL NEED, they are NOT free, because they are paid for by other taxpayers & it does NOT meet the needs of EVERYONE for obvious reasons.

Just the FACT that these operations are NOT based upon 'CLINICAL NEED', means that they are provided as a SELECTIVE provision NOT available to NORMAL people.
#14941347
Nonsense wrote:It is PANDERING to an individuals lifestyle choice, FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER


A major portion of healthcare does that already. So either you're totally against ALL lifestyle choices being publicly financed, or are being transphobic because you're piking out ONE example.

Also with universal healthcare you pay for any of everyone else's healthcare. THAT'S the idea.

I pay for breast implants, plastic surgery, smoker's & alcoholic's problems to be compensated, etc, but I bite my teeth.
#14941351
redcarpet wrote:A major portion of healthcare does that already. So either you're totally against ALL lifestyle choices being publicly financed, or are being transphobic because you're piking out ONE example.

Also with universal healthcare you pay for any of everyone else's healthcare. THAT'S the idea.

I pay for breast implants, plastic surgery, smoker's & alcoholic's problems to be compensated, etc, but I bite my teeth.



I point out the contradictions between the 1948 core principals of the N.H.S & what is current under the Tory 'constitution' for that body.

The original 'core' principal is of , 'CLINICAL NEED' & that is fair when treatment is provided for that purpose.

When that 'NEED' is established, treatment should be 'FREE'(it isn't-because others are paying for it), with the cost born by ALL of us, as we also would want it on that same basis.

The N.H.S never provided lifestyle operations until the 1980's of the type mentioned.

Also, the N.H.S founder, BEVAN, would probably be appalled at the abuse with which lifestyle 'treatment' is being provided for a service founded on providing CLINICAL care & treatment based upon 'NEED' - NOT 'WANT'.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]