Their biological gender is a fact, it is not a fact that this should be the sole determinant in anyone’s gender though, nor do I think that this can simply be assumed given the existence of gender dysphoria.
Agreed. 
Just had a new member - a spammer. A good laugh for members. HOW DID YOU KNOW???
Uh 
… stoooopid spammer!!!
Interesting technique, trolling with two contradictory assertions in the same sentence, clever…very very clever… 
Well spotted…
To be honest, not my body, not my problem.
However, in my opinion, there are 2 genders, but multiple gender identities. If a biological male decides to change their name, dress diffrently, etc, I will respect it and use their pronouns. I still believe that intrinsically they are still a male, but that is rather irrelevant. In short, it doesn’t really matter as long as you respect the decision.
I agree with much of that, but I’m curious why would say “still intrinsically male” and not still biologically male? This to me either implies that a psychological identity that differs to their biological identity, is either unnatural or that the biological identity is the essential one. I can’t and don’t claim this is wrong, but I should like to see some evidence to support it, unless I’ve misunderstood of course?
I meant to use “intrinsically” as a synonym to “biologically” to add some diversity to the sentences. I’ve been writing multiple essays for CCP Comp, so I’m very much in “I need to use excessively diverse vocabulary” mode.
As a young child when I learned some humans have a collection of sex organs that look like they were selected randomly from the two well known pigeon holes (male/female); I realized that sorting humans into these two pigeon holes was doomed. Forget the politics of it: just the taxonomy of trying to sort them into two piles is already madness.
I recommend 1 pile, or a whole bunch of piles.
Thanks, that’s how I read it. Cognostic was making pretty much the same assertion. I am not sure that someone’s biological identity is the sole or even the lost important identifier of gender identity. It seems (to me anyway) as if there might be much more to this debate than whether a person has a male or female (biological) identity.
Just make sure you don’t use superfluous redundant words excessively.
Ok, so I’m transgender, Female-to-Male. I, personally, believe that there’s only two, biologically. Male and female. Intersex (or hermaphrodite for the old-school folks) are a combination of the two. Physical a-genderism is an absence of the two. However, you can live as anything, and it’ll be fine. And, like me, you can transition into the opposite sex and live in that role or with that “facade” (not really, but if someone finds a better word that works, please do tell). Personally, I’m not living in the “male role” completely, but I do want to be a Marine. But that’s for personal reasons. But also so no one can push me around anymore. Tired of that. But anyway, simplified, there are two biological and physical genders, there can be a combination or absence, and you can transition to the live as the opposite sex (obviously, you can’t physically, transition/change your chromosomes, I know that) or as whatever. As long as you aren’t using “nonbinary” or whatever else to hurt to someone or anyone else, then I’m ok with it. (And yes, something like “autism-gender” hurts people.)
The fact that these non-trivial (linear?) combinations exist SCREAMS to me that this 2 valued system(m/f) was doomed from the start.
From perhaps a more pragmatic view: which scheme would be more useful? I don’t claim to know; but I’m betting it isn’t the system that is GUARANTEED to exclude people.
1 Like
Somewhat. It’s moreso that it’s just that it tends to be something like having male chromosomes but something happened to the Y chromosome, so you end up with someone with the body of a woman. In most cases it does not end up with male and female 50/50, at least from my knowledge.
Others may call these combinations a “3rd sex,” I call them a combination of the two sexes, but that’s from personal choice, because you can’t use it as a 3rd sex for reproduction - rather, they tend to have problems with biologically having children, but not always.
Do you mean the binary two genders/male-female system vs. the more than 2 gender system?
I don’t understand the reference to 50/50 ratio. But in any case: for any defined ratio, you’ll have people who won’t fit well.
Why not?
Yes, I’m suggesting the best (perhaps unknown) system, isn’t going to be the system that we already know doesn’t have enough degrees of freedom (yes, the “traditional” two valued system)!
I mean 50% male/50% female.
Theoretically, you could. I’d be for that. A mermaid species that I am creating for a book series has 3 genders for reproduction, mermen (male), mermaid (female), and merwer (3rd sex), which they all have tails until mating upon which they have legs and go onto land to have sex. The 3rd gender can have either position (male or female) or clone itself.
However, humans do not work that way. Generally, from what I’ve seen, intersex are infertile, and I have yet to see a case where they are not. However, it’s possible that there are cases where they are fertile. That is what I meant.
I’m still a little confused.
It seems you’ve come to your conclusion about there being only two genders, by assuming there are only two genders/positions?
I’m saying: the best system is NOT going to be a system that only has two pigeon holes. The traditional system only has 2 pigeon holes, so it seems fundamentally fucked.
I meant moreso the ability to carry sperm or eggs, I would have said carry children for the female but then again the female seahorse puts the fertilized eggs in the male seahorse for him to birth them, so not always true.
Then what would be a better system? Please explain it. So I know what you mean.
I don’t need a solution to point out problems. I’m not going to offer one, other than the suggestion of doing away with the pigeon holes for sorting people by their reproductive organs.
The only reason I continue with that system is because of things like sex-specific diseases, or how diseases affect genders differently. For example, COVID-19. It kills twice as many men as women - killing so many that it’s lowering their life expectancy. In the US, it would be by 2.2 years. [1] However, it’s possible that it’s due to testosterone as that has been found to be the reason for men’s worse immune systems when it comes to being sick. So it’s possible that trans men with the same levels of testosterone fare like biological men and trans women with the same levels of estrogen fare like biological women.
[1] Why Celebrate International Men’s Day? - Men Are Human (Note: I did not find the specific research paper on it, but it should be on an article linked on the website, and then you can find that research paper through that article. However, there is still lots of information about COVID-19 affecting men more on that article and site.)