[Sivad]

What about eunuchs?

Classic.

[Red_Army]

What about eunuchs?

There's no advocacy like self advocacy.

[Ter]

So you are arguing that Ter forgot to mention hormones as one of the criteria for determining biological sex.

You are trying to obfuscate the issue, make it more complicated and confusing.
The sex hormones and the gender are a package deal.
A person with a penis has testosterone in certain volumes/proportions,
the females have more oestrogen.
I simplify so that people from the soft sciences, like Pants, can also understand.
If the hormones are out of tune with the gender of the person, we have a freak occurrence which does not justify categorising it as a separate gender.
But I am confident that Pants et al. will continue to promote the existence of 71 genders.
Oy vey.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are trying to obfuscate the issue, make it more complicated and confusing.
The sex hormones and the gender are a package deal.

I do not find it confusing.

Sex is biological and objective.
Gender is cultural and subjective.

It is fairly simple.

A person with a penis has testosterone in certain volumes/proportions,
the females have more oestrogen.
I simplify so that people from the soft sciences, like Pants, can also understand.

Yes, as @SolarCross pointed out, hormones are also part of sex.

If the hormones are out of tune with the gender of the person, we have a freak occurrence which does not justify categorising it as a separate gender.

So we agree that the gender identity of someone can be different from the sex associated with their hormones. Excellent.

But I am confident that Pants et al. will continue to promote the existence of 71 genders.
Oy vey.

I previously pointed out that our culture has two genders. They are, unoriginally, the same as the two sexes.

It is possible that another culture has 71 cultures. I have not heard of any.

[Ter]

It is possible that another culture has 71 cultures. I have not heard of any.

I think you need some more sleep.
Each culture has only one culture

[SolarCross]

So you are arguing that Ter forgot to mention hormones as one of the criteria for determining biological sex.

No, you might be arguing that but I am not. The primary cause of maleness and femaleness is genetic stuff starting with the X and Y chromosomes. From which chromosomes comes the phenotypic package of genitalia, hormones, general physiology and psychology. Most people aren't geneticists so they sort the one from the other using the apparent phenotype, which at birth is done by seeing who has a penis and who has a vagina. @Ter is correct and you are wrong (probably on purpose because that is what you do apparently).

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you might be arguing that but I am not. The primary cause of maleness and femaleness is genetic stuff starting with the X and Y chromosomes. From which chromosomes you get come the phenotypic package of genitalia, hormones, general physiology and psychology. Most people aren't geneticists so they sort the one from the other using the apparent phenotype, which at birth is done by seeing who has a penis and who has a vagina. @Ter is correct and you are wrong (probably on purpose because that is what you do apparently).

Sorry, what was I wrong about?

I said hormones were part of sex designation.

You seem to be agreeing.

Nor did I say that sex designation does not occur at birth. At least, that is how we did it when the girls were born.

Nor am I disagreeing with you that sex is determined by genetics, hormones, genitals, and other physiological traits.

So, what did I get wrong?

[B0ycey]

I think there is some confusion with gender. I would suspect there are can only ever be three just like sex categories. Male, female and intersex. Transgender just means a transition from one gender into another. It doesn't mean it is a new gender. On the contrary. If someone is in the process of transition they don't use new pronouns to describe themselves. They just use the one they that associate themselves with.

As for eunuchs, their removal of male genitals doesn't alter their genetic makeup. So apart from having no male sex organs, their biology remains male nonetheless. And gender is the state of being male and female. If they feel they are male and act like they are male then their gender is also male regardless of their genitals too .

[Godstud]

Sex is biological.
Gender is psychological/sociological/cultural.

Most of the people posting here haven't a fucking clue about the difference.

[Drlee]

Their entire argument is based upon some notion that gender is flexible. In some countries people are given permission to play fast and loose with the definitions and express that through their behavior. That does nothing to change their sex definition at birth. No more so than a swastika tattoo makes one a German.

[SolarCross]

Biological gender: presence of penis? yes or no?

Cultural gender: Human observer declares presence of penis is to be called a boy, absence of penis is to be called a girl

The cultural element is just what we call a package of phenotypic properties.

[Pants-of-dog]

Their entire argument is based upon some notion that gender is flexible. In some countries people are given permission to play fast and loose with the definitions and express that through their behavior. That does nothing to change their sex definition at birth. No more so than a swastika tattoo makes one a German.

If gender is a social construct, then it is flexible.

And the fact that some people transition between genders also shows that it is flexible.

And all of this is true despite the fact that you cannot change the fact that they were born having a specific sex.

But since sex and gender are two different things, the sex at birth does not change the fact that gender can be fluid.

—————————

Biological gender: presence of penis? yes or no?

We discussed this, and we decided that the mere presence or absence of a penis is just one of several traits involved in sex designation.

Cultural gender: Human observer declares presence of penis is to be called a boy, absence of penis is to be called a girl

The cultural element is just what we call a package of phenotypic properties.

Not quite. Culutral elements are often independent of genetics. When we say girls should wear pink, wear dresses, and stay home and look after the kids, we are not discussing genetics or phenotypical phenomena at all.

[SolarCross]

We discussed this, and we decided that the mere presence or absence of a penis is just one of several traits involved in sex designation.

When you are born it is the only thing to go on. It always works so that is okay.

Not quite. Culutral elements are often independent of genetics. When we say girls should wear pink, wear dresses, and stay home and look after the kids, we are not discussing genetics or phenotypical phenomena at all.

You can't change your gender by wearing a pink shirt, seriously.

[Pants-of-dog]

When you are born it is the only thing to go on. It always works so that is okay.

The fact that it is the only thing that is easily discernible for a non-professional does not change the fact that there are other traits also associated with sex designation.

You can't change your gender by wearing a pink shirt, seriously.

Since I did not argue that, this is not a relevant criticism.

Now, we were discussing how gender constructs are not phenotypic phenomena. Wearing pink frilly dresses is obviously something we associate with females. And just as obviously, it is not phenotypic.

[SolarCross]

The fact that it is the only thing that is easily discernible for a non-professional does not change the fact that there are other traits also associated with sex designation.

Thanks for conceeding that point.

Since I did not argue that, this is not a relevant criticism.

Now, we were discussing how gender constructs are not phenotypic phenomena. Wearing pink frilly dresses is obviously something we associate with females. And just as obviously, it is not phenotypic.

You were the one suggesting that pink dresses change a person's gender.



What gender are these two chaps?

[Pants-of-dog]

Thanks for conceding that point.

Please note that sex designation, and its detection, are not relevant to the discussion on gender.

You were the one suggesting that pink dresses change a person's gender.



What gender are these two chaps?

No, that was not my claim.

Please note that it was your claim that gender is phenotypic. Are pink dresses phenotypic?

The answer is obviously “no”.

[SolarCross]

No, that was not my claim.

Please note that it was your claim that gender is phenotypic. Are pink dresses phenotypic?

The answer is obviously “no”.

You brought up pink dresses as if it was relevant not me.

If a bloke wears a pink dress does that change his gender?

[Pants-of-dog]

You brought up pink dresses as if it was relevant not me.

Yes, I brought that up as an example of a gender construct that we have in western society that is not a phenotypic property.

Please note that you claimed that gender was “just what we call a package of phenotypic properties”. The pink dress example disproves that claim.

If a bloke wears a pink dress does that change his gender?

That depends.

Are you asking if wearing a pink dress changes his gender identity? Probably not. There is no evidence to suggest that wearing the clothes of the other gender will cause people to change gender. Also, cross dressers do not seem to want to change genders.

But since we were discussing gender roles, it seems more like you were confused and though gender roles and gender identity were the same thing.

Please note that my original claim about pink dresses had nothing to do with gender identity.

Now, if a bloke wears a pink dress, is he filling a gender role associated with females? Yes, he is. For some people, this is amusing and I assume that the image is a still from a classic British comedy show. The whole reason British conservatives find this funny is because it runs against traditional gender roles.

The most realistic relationship between wearing a pink dress and changing gender would be if the man changed his gender identity (so that he was no longer a he) and then started wearing such dresses to outwardly signal that this person is a woman.

[Drlee]

If gender is a social construct, then it is flexible.

I am not convinced that it is.

And the fact that some people transition between genders also shows that it is flexible.

That is not really what people do. Some choose to impersonate the other sex. Those who resort to surgery to change their sexual appearance are something far more difficult to explain away as a mere expression of a social construct.

Referring to gender as a simple social construct is an insult to those who feel victimized by their birth sex.

[Saeko]