Does gender offend you?

Posted by davidmcnab 8 years, 7 months ago to Culture
102 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In recent years, I've been seeing gender coming under sustained attack, of relentlessly increasing intensity.

People are now arguing that the very concept of male and female gender is restrictive, oppressive, discriminatory, and needing to be done away with.

The new PC-fashionable derogatory term is "genderist" (or "gender binary"), which is being hurled around with similar viciousness to the terms "racist" and "sexist" in the 1960s-80s.

I am happy and grateful to be male, and my wife is happy and grateful to be female. But we're starting to see an era in which we will be increasingly marginalised and ridiculed for honouring our natures.

It kinda shocked me the other day to see a female Facebook friend on social media, whining about the existence of separate "Boys' toys" and "Girls' toys" aisles in department stores. And another friend is saying she wants to tour around eastern Europe "as a man".

Meanwhile, some jurisdictions are now allowing births to be registered without gender.

How do folks here feel about gender? Personally, I do see some links between those attacking gender, and those attacking ownership and economic self-determination.

What are your thoughts?


All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good as explanation as any. We could just put them on an ice floe and one generation later ....voila!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 7 months ago
    Originally this non-gender sillyness was an eastern concept. The gods were genderless. When one ascends, there is no use for sex...another reason to volley for immortality I say!
    But not only is this nonsense promoted to go against the way things were created, go against traditional marriage, the Judaeo/Christian historical observations but to create more division within society and promote Alistar Crowley's, "Be what ever you will" there are no consequences, mindlessness.

    Side note: it's easy to see that this crap is done on purpose and the stupid and perverse buy into it but I wonder how much of the solar/cosmic chaotic electromagnetic events, the reduction in our magnetic shielding, the rapid movement of our magnetic poles, might be playing a role in these sociological retardation's. These events do in fact play upon the brain.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Suzanne43 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Need to disagree here. I have never gotten the idea that Christianity taught that sex was unnatural or evil. True, Christianity does set guidelines, which were made to enrich a Christian marriage and family.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Render them all individual [role-less] actors"
    People being individual actors free from others' notions of their role is something I strongly support.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 7 months ago
    If people want to have their hardware modified, it's up to them. And I don't see that they should be treated as bad guys for doing it.

    I'm just tired of hearing about it. I'd rather not know about anyone's sexual equipment unless one of us is trying to seduce the other.

    As for the "denying reality" argument, I don't buy it. Talk to one of those people (I've known several) and they've thought through pretty deeply what they want to accomplish. The doctors who do these operations insist on thorough psych evaluations before they'll start -- because they're scared to death of lawsuits by someone who undergoes the change, regrets it, and decides it is the doctor's fault.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Life is an incredibly interesting canvass, David, to which many people bring boring palettes. There are so many things ahead of us, if we can only shake loose from the losers and fly on ahead.

    Let's meet to go wing-gliding on Io in another 40 years. Wanderers: http://io9.com/the-best-science-ficti...

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Jan, oh Jan...
    NOW you're talking!!! :D

    Screw death (for those who don't choose it).
    Bring on physical immortality!!!
    This life is too damned interesting to clock out after a few lousy decades!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sure. Glad you cleared that up.

    Now back to your real topic: There was some whodunit that I watched when I was a kid where the punchline was that an accused male would rather have been sentenced to prison for rape than be found innocent because he did not want people to find out that he "was not a man" - ie could not perform sexually. The response by the hero was, "You have no idea what 'man' means!"

    I have a lot of quibbles about the neat (strong; adventurous) part of gender roles being traditionally assigned to the male, but I have no problems with the males having those attributes ( I just want females to have adventurous and strong roles too). So I agree that male does not = man.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that would be cool. I have always envied the blue people (real, not rock group). It would be neat to be able to decide to be 'blue' for a few years, just as an aesthetic choice (might be detrimental to my other vigorous hobbies, though, since O2 utilization is poorer - sigh).

    Probably we would use chimp or orang for improved athletic skills, though. They would be better suited to our existing physiques.

    More seriously: regeneration. We actually have the gene that allows regeneration of body parts, we have just lost the mechanism that can turn it on

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK, it was a typo. Thank you.
    My post was about trying to make distinctions between the term "man" and "male" but that can definitely get confused when in doing the genetics wrong. Thanks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've often commented that I think that electronics was one of the dominant technologies of the 20th century and that biotech will be similarly dominant in the 21st.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sekeres 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Segregation of toilet facilities by gender is another local construct. In many places, it's a single group of toilets -- NOT one set for male, another for female. The children I know (& most of their parents :-) want to use whatever facilities have the shorter wait no matter the labeling.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is another interesting offshoot of this discussion - once we see genetic technology capable of changing people's sex at a genetic level, we'll most likely also have the technology for people to splice in animal DNA, and "mod" themselves way beyond the human genome. A bit of feline muscle tissue will help those basketballers get way up high. and those footballers to end-run around all opposition. And why stop at tattoos and body piercings when you can get gene-grafts to grow some canine fangs? How about some canine genes for chefs to grow far better olfactory cells and refine the cuisine they prepare? And musicians would delight in having a couple of extra arms for playing extra instruments. We'll probably look back and see those sex reassignment surgeries as utterly mild.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And your generalization implies that ALL people whose plumbing is at odds with what their mind tells them about their gender are Dangerous.

    One of my "Laws" is "Don't trust ANY generalizations."

    Yes, it's meant to be oxymoronic or self-referent, but I try to point it out to people who believe that their Generalizations Are The Same As someone else's Perceptions or equal to some Absolute Truth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your first sentence made it clear what your conclusion in the last paragraph would be. I didn't need to read anything in-between.

    I'm an atheist and your 'argument' and assertions have no meaning or influence on me.

    But you're obviously well-glued to your beliefs and apparently enjoy sharing them, and I have no right to ask (or tell) you to stop.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree, CG, and one thing that offended ME was the presumption in one of the posts above that implied that XX versus XY Was THE Measure Of "Reality" from which they 'clearly differentiated sex OR gender.'

    The implication was that such External Judgment was The Only True Answer and that what the individual Being Judged had NO say in the matter, No Matter what They Thought or Felt.

    Like saying "my evaluation of your reality is more accurate than yours..."

    Fucking nonsense AND offensive. Especially, imnsho, for "Objectivists."

    Maybe I took too many "personal growth" classes when I lived in California. Maybe I lived in California too long. Maybe the Socratic Method and Critical Thinking have failed me.

    Maybe I'm 'right' after all...

    After all, It's For YOU To Decide, right?

    Bullshit, "Objectivists."
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo