Queer identities, some insights and questions

[M_K_Babalon]

Okay, I hear ya. So... how does it feel to be a man? If we were somehow able to hide your genitals from your view how would you know you were male?

Memory for starters.

 

[stickygirl]

Against my better judgement I've been sucked in to replying because I'm tired of the bullying faction of the forum who constantly push their opinions down people's throats and take advantage of checking the right political boxes of their friends and groupies here.

The same people who say believe the science are the same people who ignore biology.

You can identify as what you want, call yourself a quart of oil if you want, but end of the day...

There are only two biological genders, and unless you go all in and add or remove parts, you are what's between your legs, not your ears.

This is common sense to the majority of the population, but most fear saying it because of how angry the minority gets and they don't want to be called names. They do this to the point they will sit back and allow their daughter, sisters and wives be abused in sports or subjected to men in their bathrooms and showers. These are the people who say they defend women's rights then won't use the term mother because according to them men can get pregnant (back to biology again) Another example of one group trying to elevate by attacking and denigrating another.

I do believe in people's right to be happy however they want to be, as in feel free to feel free. But don't be free with me or anyone else but yourself. You lose that right when you want to infringe on the rights of others and constantly on the attack while also playing perpetual victim. They want to argue but not be argued with. The 'inclusive" people here make constant remarks about old white men, white men, cis men, and anyone else they want which are sexist, racist and bigoted remarks, but you know, not when they say them.

End of the day the truth of the matter is fairy tales are not facts and facts do not care about feelings.

Oh dear... so how would you describe someone who has a penis but XX chromosomes? You know what - I'm not going to entertain further discussion with you because the scientific facts are a google away and I've better things to do. If you want to put your fingers in your ears and sing lalalala that's fine too. We'll leave you alone.

When you need medical treatment from people who agree with the science, they'll treat you without judgement. Hopefully you can stay healthy though

 

[896972]

My main thing is, one just can't be a null gender, unless they're some degree of hermaphrodite. Just like I told that other user; a mans a man, a womans a woman.

The mistake I believe you and lovecraft are making is conflating gender and sex. The "degree of" intersex you're referring to is related to sex, not gender. "Biological gender" that lovecraft mentions is simply not a thing, but "biological sex" is. There are a lot of factors that determine biological sex, and genitals are certainly one of them, but gametes, chromosomes, primary sex characteristics that aren't genitals, secondary sex characteristics, and hormones are also all factors, and there are many people for whom these don't all point to the same classification of biological sex. How society interprets one's gender is based on these things and is based on gender expression!

We can argue about social gendering 'till the cows come home, and there certainly are different valid persepctives on that. But most biologists recognize that there are many factors influencing an organism's sex and that there can be variety in how these are expressed or whether these expressions align.

 

[YmaOHyd]

There are only two biological genders, and unless you go all in and add or remove parts, you are what's between your legs, not your ears.

Which sex are people with both functioning ovaries and functioning testes?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Against my better judgement I've been sucked in to replying because I'm tired of the bullying faction of the forum who constantly push their opinions down people's throats and take advantage of checking the right political boxes of their friends and groupies here.

The same people who say believe the science are the same people who ignore biology.

You can identify as what you want, call yourself a quart of oil if you want, but end of the day...

There are only two biological genders, and unless you go all in and add or remove parts, you are what's between your legs, not your ears.

This is common sense to the majority of the population, but most fear saying it because of how angry the minority gets and they don't want to be called names. They do this to the point they will sit back and allow their daughter, sisters and wives be abused in sports or subjected to men in their bathrooms and showers. These are the people who say they defend women's rights then won't use the term mother because according to them men can get pregnant (back to biology again) Another example of one group trying to elevate by attacking and denigrating another.

I do believe in people's right to be happy however they want to be, as in feel free to feel free. But don't be free with me or anyone else but yourself. You lose that right when you want to infringe on the rights of others and constantly on the attack while also playing perpetual victim. They want to argue but not be argued with. The 'inclusive" people here make constant remarks about old white men, white men, cis men, and anyone else they want which are sexist, racist and bigoted remarks, but you know, not when they say them.

End of the day the truth of the matter is fairy tales are not facts and facts do not care about feelings.

What makes this discussion so fraught for argument is that some people want to restrict it to just biology, claiming gender is an absolute binary, ignoring the ~1.7% of the population that are intersex(National Institute of Health*) , making them about as prevalent as redheads. Gender dysphoria is not purely biological, and the same is true of being transgender. It is a disconnect between biology and neurology and impacts about 0.7% of the population(national Institute of Health and Mayo Clinic*). Research is ongoing, but it is documented, it is real. The science says so..

For many, this dysphoria is sever and requires radical treatment. Others are able to mitigate with less severe methods.
In a perfect world, we would stop arguing about the definitions of the words we use to separate ourselves, and start discussing how we can best help the people suffering from gender dysphoria get the medical help they need.

*A Google search will get you thee numbers.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Which sex are people with both functioning ovaries and functioning testes?

You'd have to look at the chromosome pairs to find out. Oh wait, what about...

Monosomy: Missing a sex chromosome.
45,X (Turner Syndrome): One X chromosome.
Trisomy: An extra sex chromosome.
47,XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome): Extra X.
47,XXX (Triple X/Trisomy X): Extra X.
47,XYY (Double Y/Jacob's Syndrome): Extra Y.
Tetrasomy: Two extra sex chromosomes.
48,XXXY, 48,XXYY, 48,XXXX.
Pentasomy: Three extra sex chromosomes.
49,XXXXX, 49,XXXXY, 49,XYYYY (rare).
Mosaicism & Chimerism
Mosaicism: Some cells have one combination, others have another (e.g., 45,X/46,XY).
Chimerism: An individual has two distinct sets of DNA, often from fused fraternal twins (e.g., 46,XX/46,XY), leading to varied sex characteristics.
Other Variations
46,XX Male Syndrome: Genetically female (XX) but develops male characteristics due to SRY gene presence.
46,XY Gonadal Dysgenesis: Genetically male (XY) but develops female or ambiguous genitalia.

 

[AG31]

you are what's between your legs, not your ears.

Seems to me people can discuss whatever they want, what's between their legs, or what's between their ears. It's fruitless to try to define what people "are." Way too complicated.

 

[ColtonWrites]

Seems to me people can discuss whatever they want, what's between their legs, or what's between their ears. It's fruitless to try to define what people "are." Way too complicated.

Way better and easier to let people define their identity for themselves, I think.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

What makes this discussion so fraught for argument is that some people want to restrict it to just biology, claiming gender is an absolute binary, ignoring the ~1.7% of the population that are intersex(National Institute of Health*) , making them about as prevalent as redheads. Gender dysphoria is not purely biological, and the same is true of being transgender. It is a disconnect between biology and neurology and impacts about 0.7% of the population(national Institute of Health and Mayo Clinic*). Research is ongoing, but it is documented, it is real. The science says so..

For many, this dysphoria is sever and requires radical treatment. Others are able to mitigate with less severe methods.
In a perfect world, we would stop arguing about the definitions of the words we use to separate ourselves, and start discussing how we can best help the people suffering from gender dysphoria get the medical help they need.

*A Google search will get you thee numbers.

I appreciate the tone of your posts in this thread. You've expressed an opinion and pointed out some numbers in a calm manner. I wish more people followed your example rather than acting like a lynch mob.

By the way, this is from Wikipedia:

The portion of the population that is intersex has been reported differently depending on which definition of intersex is used and which conditions are included. Estimates often range from 0.018% (one in 5,500 births) to 1.7%

From everything I've read about it, science still doesn't know enough, nor is there a consensus about the definition of intersex. Surely, one can't simply pick the part of the research that suits them to fuel their convictions about gender. Very, very few actual scientific facts have been used in this and every other thread about this topic that I've seen in the AH.

Anyway, since you use these (very varying and still very arbitrary) numbers to prove that if something exists in a certain number, it has to be a natural thing, I'll use some numbers too. It's not my intention to mock anyone with this; it's just an example of how misleading such numbers can be.

According to research posted on the CDC or similar organizations, the incidence of children born with fewer limbs is about 1 in 2000. In some of those cases, limbs are significantly shorter; in some of them, a limb is missing entirely.

Also, the incidence of children being born with fewer or extra fingers or toes is more than 1 in 1000.

So, are we gonna use this data to demand some extra definitions of people to cover all these cases? Surely we can't keep teaching our students that a human being has four limbs, ten fingers, and ten toes? It would mean all these people are abnormal in some way.

I wasn't trying to be smug about this, but rather to make a point.

 

[ColtonWrites]

Surely we can't keep teaching our students that a human being has four limbs, ten fingers, and ten toes? It would mean all these people are abnormal in some way.

The better analogy would be teaching children that those people are just imagining they have a limb difference, because ALL humans have 2 arms and 2 legs

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I appreciate the tone of your posts in this thread. You've expressed an opinion and pointed out some numbers in a calm manner. I wish more people followed your example rather than acting like a lynch mob.

By the way, this is from Wikipedia:

The portion of the population that is intersex has been reported differently depending on which definition of intersex is used and which conditions are included. Estimates often range from 0.018% (one in 5,500 births) to 1.7%

From everything I've read about it, science still doesn't know enough, nor is there a consensus about the definition of intersex. Surely, one can't simply pick the part of the research that suits them to fuel their convictions about gender. Very, very few actual scientific facts have been used in this and every other thread about this topic that I've seen in the AH.

Anyway, since you use these (very varying and still very arbitrary) numbers to prove that if something exists in a certain number, it has to be a natural thing, I'll use some numbers too. It's not my intention to mock anyone with this; it's just an example of how misleading such numbers can be.

According to research posted on the CDC or similar organizations, the incidence of children born with fewer limbs is about 1 in 2000. In some of those cases, limbs are significantly shorter; in some of them, a limb is missing entirely.

Also, the incidence of children being born with fewer or extra fingers or toes is more than 1 in 1000.

So, are we gonna use this data to demand some extra definitions of people to cover all these cases? Surely we can't keep teaching our students that a human being has four limbs, ten fingers, and ten toes? It would mean all these people are abnormal in some way.

I wasn't trying to be smug about this, but rather to make a point.

referring to the post you quoted:

In a perfect world, we would stop arguing about the definitions of the words we use to separate ourselves, and start discussing how we can best help the people suffering from gender dysphoria get the medical help they need.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

referring to teh post you quoted:

In a perfect world, we would stop arguing about the definitions of the words we use to separate ourselves, and start discussing how we can best help the people suffering from gender dysphoria get the medical help they need.

I wholeheartedly agree.

But it's not people like me who are pushing for all the talk about gender classification, and the usage of all this terminology that sounds completely artificial to me, but will cause offense if not used.

I'm 100% for tolerance, but it should go both ways. People who disagree with some of the modern definitions of gender and sex shouldn't automatically be called bigots and phobes, although some undoubtedly are.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

The mistake I believe you and lovecraft are making is conflating gender and sex. The "degree of" intersex you're referring to is related to sex, not gender. "Biological gender" that lovecraft mentions is simply not a thing, but "biological sex" is. There are a lot of factors that determine biological sex, and genitals are certainly one of them, but gametes, chromosomes, primary sex characteristics that aren't genitals, secondary sex characteristics, and hormones are also all factors, and there are many people for whom these don't all point to the same classification of biological sex. How society interprets one's gender is based on these things and is based on gender expression!

We can argue about social gendering 'till the cows come home, and there certainly are different valid persepctives on that. But most biologists recognize that there are many factors influencing an organism's sex and that there can be variety in how these are expressed or whether these expressions align.

That's what I'm talking about. Most of these folks are just abstaining from being a gender because they feel whatever. If I didn't feel like my race, I wouldn't be going all Rachel Dolezal, or claiming I'm some alien, or nonexistant race. Like taking androdyny and going extra uneeded steps.

 

[ColtonWrites]

People who disagree with some of the modern definitions of gender and sex shouldn't automatically be called bigots and phobes,

Its not the disagreement with the definition of the terms that makes someone a bigot. Its the attitude you take when you disagree that does that.
You dont need a definition of "man" or "woman" or "nonbinary" or anything else that you "agree with" in order to respect a person who tells you they are such a thing.

I am nonbinary. I dont "understand" xenogenders; it doesnt make sense to me. That doesnt matter in the slightest to someone's identity.

 

[alohadave]

I dont "understand" xenogenders; it doesnt make sense to me.

That's a new term I haven't seen before. Reading a bit about it, it seems odd to me, but if people find comfort in it, good for them.

That doesnt matter in the slightest to someone's identity.

As long as they aren't hurting anyone, it doesn't (shouldn't) matter to anyone else what they call themselves.

 

[Britva415]

My main thing is, one just can't be a null gender, unless they're some degree of hermaphrodite

Sounds like conflating "sex" and "gender."

Why can't you simply believe people who identify as agender, or neuter, or nonbinary, or a xenogender (a gender which is neither male nor female but still a gender), or as genderfluid, or something else? Why do you have to tell people like that "nuh uh, you're wrong?"

Just because you might not be able to understand it doesn't mean it has to not be a thing.

What does "lived experience" mean to you?

 

[Britva415]

In a perfect world, we would stop arguing about the definitions of the words we use to separate ourselves, and start discussing how we can best help the people suffering from gender dysphoria get the medical help they need.

It isn't just about that. A person with no dysphoria can still be hated, bashed, erased and discriminated against.

 

[old_prof]

It isn't just about that. A person with no dysphoria can still be hated, bashed, erased and discriminated against.

Hate, unfortunately, finds a way. Whether it’s gender, skin color, language, religion (or lack thereof) or wealth (too much or too little) or many other factors. Even sporting team allegiance.

 

[Britva415]

If I didn't feel like my race, I wouldn't be going all Rachel Dolezal, or claiming I'm some alien, or nonexistant race. Like taking androdyny and going extra uneeded steps.

Isn't that the white woman who pretended to be black?

Using her example might make sense if you were trying to entirely deny trans people on the whole. But you do "believe in" transmen and transwomen (my word, not yours). So this doesn't really defend your denial of nonbinary genders or anti-genders. Instead what it appears to do is to belie your belief in transgender people at all.

I'm not saying that's what's happening or you weren't being honest, I'm just saying your thought process seems inconsistent and illogical.

Just own it: You're believing what you want to believe. I wouldn't try being persuasive about it. You don't seem able to make sense of your beliefs. Be free to just own them for what they are.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I appreciate the tone of your posts in this thread. You've expressed an opinion and pointed out some numbers in a calm manner. I wish more people followed your example rather than acting like a lynch mob.

...and this, folks, is why I can't take AwkwardlySet seriously.

Dude. Go read about the history of lynch mobs. Read about what was done to people like Jesse Washington, for as long as you can stomach it, and look at the commemorative postcards that people sold to celebrate the torture and murder of human beings, until you feel sick at heart, and then think about the ridiculous narcissism that leads you to liken the experience of being mildly disagreed with on an internet forum to a lynching.

You came into this thread with nothing to contribute but pre-emptive gloating about the flamewar you wanted to believe was going to start. When people instead chose to engage with one another constructively, you were so disappointed you felt the need to try to provoke one yourself, and in the process you ended up showing your entire ass.

Let the grownups have a grownup conversation.

 

[896972]

and one disagreement between two or three people most certainly does not translate to some woke mob shouting folks down as another man came here to intimate a page ago

 

[AwkwardlySet]

...and this, folks, is why I can't take AwkwardlySet seriously.

Dude. Go read about the history of lynch mobs. Read about what was done to people like Jesse Washington, for as long as you can stomach it, and look at the commemorative postcards that people sold to celebrate the torture and murder of human beings, until you feel sick at heart, and then think about the ridiculous narcissism that leads you to liken the experience of being mildly disagreed with on an internet forum to a lynching.

You came into this thread with nothing to contribute but pre-emptive gloating about the flamewar you wanted to believe was going to start. When people instead chose to engage with one another constructively, you were so disappointed you felt the need to try to provoke one yourself, and in the process you ended up showing your entire ass.

Let the grownups have a grownup conversation.

I'm going to make an exception here and reply to the only person with whom I've been refusing to communicate for the last three years or so, not for them, but for the sake of those who are reading this thread.

I think it's pretty obvious why I chose not to communicate, even in this post. Ever since we had a small clash in the forum three years ago, over nothing in particular, this individual has used every opportunity to at least throw a jab at me, with sometimes their post becoming a proper ad hominem, as in this case. And I've steadfastly refused to reply or to engage for all this time.

But one small exception won't hurt, right?

I've seen through you, and through this ridiculous internet know-it-all persona you seem to nurture so devotedly, and in which some of the AH denizens seem to believe. I find that kind of sad, but okay. Playing a know-it-all over the internet, eh? I don't get how intelligent beings can buy such a concept.

Yet that's not the issue at all. The issue is the constant personal and malicious posting towards someone who hasn't spoken a word to you in years. That has been going on sporadically during these three years, always absolutely unprovoked.
Your behavior during the whole Stacnash thing, for example, where you kept throwing jabs and defending that troll, but never directly, always underhandedly. And only when the collective attitude towards Stacnash soured, you stopped. It wouldn't be your MO to continue, after all.

At the end, let's just address this thread. The talk about actual lynching, yeah, I'm not gonna waste my breath about that. As if I actually meant lynching. As if that wasn't an intentional hyperbole to emphasize a point.

But the truth is, the flamewar did happen; it was just one-sided and short-lived, as both myself and MK Babalon refused to stoop to the level of mockery that was displayed here, and to use words that the other side used, like asshole, troll, ignorant, etc. It takes two for a flamewar, and we didn't oblige. That's the only reason why there wasn't a proper flamewar.

Also, one of the previous times, it was way worse as one of the very kind people from the AH was called a "fucking transphobe." Both EB (who seemed to like the post above) and I called out that person, but even more flocked to the defense of that person. There was no adequate reaction from this non-community. It was obvious then, and it's obvious now, that a rational discussion about this topic isn't possible in the AH. I fully understand the sensitivities of some people about the topic, but again, I am also just stating the obvious.

I'll finish by saying this. I've found that I can discuss and connect with some people in the AH regardless of our tastes, convictions, political stances, etc., as long as I see those people as honest in what they do and say. I respect those few people even if I often disagree with them. I truly appreciate the honesty in people. It's quite rare these days.

And that's why, after this post, I'll go back to not communicating with you indefinitely. You are so clearly a fake in my eyes, in most of your behavior and posts here. I want nothing to do with such people.

I've seen enough from the AH to know that some will now flock to your defense, but that's fine. Even Stacnash had a sizeable following in the brief time she spent on the forum. It's not easy to spot the fakeness over the internet, I suppose.

 

[Purechicanery]

But the truth is, the flamewar did happen; it was just one-sided and short-lived, as both myself and MK Babalon refused to stoop to the level of mockery that was displayed here, and to use words that the other side used, like asshole, troll, ignorant, etc. It takes two for a flamewar, and we didn't oblige. That's the only reason why there wasn't a proper flamewar.

You appear to be engaging in what I have seen described as 'tone policing'. The idea, as it was explained to me, is that people will sometimes care more about 'decorum' or 'politeness' than what someone's actually saying.

My own personal opinion is that dressing up a horrible opinion (such as one invalidating the existence of non binary people) in polite language does not make the opinion any less horrible.

So quit being a tone policing fuckwit. (This is dramatic irony or something idk) (It's probs not that, irony is tricky I guess)

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm going to make an exception here and reply to the only person with whom I've been refusing to communicate for the last three years or so, not for them, but for the sake of those who are reading this thread.

I think it's pretty obvious why I chose not to communicate, even in this post. Ever since we had a small clash in the forum three years ago, over nothing in particular, this individual has used every opportunity to at least throw a jab at me, with sometimes their post becoming a proper ad hominem, as in this case. And I've steadfastly refused to reply or to engage for all this time.

(You can say my name; I'm not Voldemort.)

I argue with lots of people here, when I think they're wrong. When I believe they're being silly, I might say so. You're not special in that, except in that you have a higher than average tendency to post things that strike me as wrong and/or silly.

Looking back through our exchanges, there certainly have been times when you've made some kind of incorrect assertion, and I've responded with a factual correction. Here, for instance, or here. I don't think those could reasonably be considered "jabs", just a statement of what the correct facts are.

But I've also been willing to back you when you're speaking sense - like here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for instance - or to offer constructive responses to questions you've asked, such as here or here. Are those "jabs"?

You might also recall this thread, where a poster won your sympathy complaining about victimisation by Literotica admins, and you might recall that I gave you and others a heads-up via PM that the poster was leaving out some rather important details (before later posting the same info in the thread). Was that a "jab"?

...and yes, when you're being not just wrong but silly, I will say so. For instance, here where you asserted that "it's almost impossible to decide that your diverse character will be evil these days", something easily disprovable by taking a few minutes to look through recent media; or here, where you tried to support your argument with a quote from an article, neglecting to mention that the article you sourced it from had debunked the quote as being false; or here, where you were complaining that "nobody here knew about [r/literotica] until now", even though you yourself had been discussing it four months earlier.

Are those "jabs"? Sure. Are they deserved? Matter of opinion. But are they the whole of my engagement with you? Not remotely.

Yet that's not the issue at all. The issue is the constant personal and malicious posting towards someone who hasn't spoken a word to you in years. That has been going on sporadically during these three years, always absolutely unprovoked.

See, here's the thing: when you do things like posting something untrue on the forum, apparently knowing it to be untrue - as with that quote snipped out of the context that debunked it - I rather do consider that a provocation.

If I were to do something like that by accident, and somebody were to point it out to me - no matter how snarkily - I would be mortified and I would apologise then and there for leading people astray, rather than using their tone as an excuse to deflect from my own error.

If you don't enjoy snarky responses, I recommend doing that kind of thing less often.

But TBH, even when I do post a neutral, snark-free correction, you still seem determined to construe that as malice. Tell me, what are acceptable ways for people to respond when you post something that's false?

Your behavior during the whole Stacnash thing, for example, where you kept throwing jabs and defending that troll, but never directly, always underhandedly. And only when the collective attitude towards Stacnash soured, you stopped. It wouldn't be your MO to continue, after all.

I recall defending Stacnash on two points. Both of them involved people making allegations against her that I didn't find convincing.

The first was the allegation that she was an alt for Tilan, which by my understanding was the rationale for her ban. (Not believing she was Tilan's alt, obviously I don't think she should've been banned for being Tilan's alt.)

The second was the allegation that Stacnash was bombing some people's stories. As best I can remember, the evidence for this boiled down to "well SOMEBODY is bombing my stories and I argued with Stacnash so who else could it be?" I was unconvinced by this argument, and remain unconvinced.

(Not sure what you're characterising as "underhandedly" here - I think I was quite clear where I stood on these two points.)

Other people, including some people who I quite respect, have a different view on those allegations. People are allowed to have different opinions on such things. Not everything is not a conspiracy against you.

However, what you've neglected to mention is that I did also criticise her behaviour. Early on in the whole mess, at a point where Stacnash was diminishing other people's work via comparison to mine, I publicly stated that I didn't want to be "complimented" at somebody else's expense and asked them to stop doing that. Here, I described her approach as "abrasive", which I'd consider to be a criticism.

In case anybody is struggling with the nuance: I thought there was a lot wrong with SN's behaviour, and I've been in plenty of forums where her visible behaviour alone would've been grounds for a ban. But even obnoxious people deserve fairness; I didn't think it was fair to ban her for something that hadn't been substantiated (the alt stuff), and she's hardly the only abrasive personality to visit AH.

I'll finish by saying this. I've found that I can discuss and connect with some people in the AH regardless of our tastes, convictions, political stances, etc., as long as I see those people as honest in what they do and say. I respect those few people even if I often disagree with them. I truly appreciate the honesty in people. It's quite rare these days.

I am content for people to read your characterisation of our exchanges, and then look at the receipts I've provided, and make up their own minds about who is being "honest" here.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Sounds like conflating "sex" and "gender."

Why can't you simply believe people who identify as agender, or neuter, or nonbinary, or a xenogender (a gender which is neither male nor female but still a gender), or as genderfluid, or something else? Why do you have to tell people like that "nuh uh, you're wrong?"

Just because you might not be able to understand it doesn't mean it has to not be a thing.

What does "lived experience" mean to you?

Because a lot of it sounds foolish, and folks just being extra.