Serious Oh Hey It's Another G E N D E R Thread

This is purely a response to @Moe_Ronickah in the thread that was closed. I wanted to post a rebuttal but the fun already happened, and I don't like leaving shit like this unscathed.
I didn't really want to make a bloody fourth thread about GENDER XD because it gets annoying after a while, but I can't offer a rebuttal if the thread was closed because it got "derailed" (despite the fact that it's in VIP Plaza ? Okay then).

Here goes.

What characteristics ? What is the nature of those characteristics ? How do you determine which is which ?

Your definition of something as complex and intricate as "gender" is as lackluster as if I would be defining "cows" as "organisms that breathe and graze on the soil".


Here's my definition of biological gender:

A result of sexual dimorphism in Humans. Since we know that brains tend to differ on average between men and women, I call these differences biological gender.
Trans people's perception of gender is a result of their unique brain patterns (more on that below), and as such they suffer from severe disconfort when referring to themselves as the gender their brain doesn't recognize

Note that, as the masculinization of the brain varies from individual to individual, most likely due to the variation in sexual hormones in-utero, some people are less enclined to follow through with the whole archetypes of gender.

Differently masculinized brains aren't a new gender, they're merely different brains, just like every other human.
Nobody falls into the perfect male/female model, just because you feel less like your gender doesn't mean you're justified in calling yourself "agender" or other variations.

N.B: This definition completely separates self identity from your brain configuration

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.conb.2010.09.014
Control of masculinization of the brain and behavior

http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~plaut/MBC/papers/Kimura92SciAm.sexDifferences.pdf
Cognitive variations between the sexes reflect differing hormonal influences on brain development. Understanding these differences and their causes can yield insights into brain organization.

If you want to ask me questions about this definition and how to improve it, please go ahead.


-----------------------------------

You're moving the goalpost pretty blatantly there, Moe. Here were your exact words :

Even as you stated above...

I don't want to elaborate on pure semantics (but I will anyways) because it's a very boring discussion one can have, but saying :
"If you fail to prove X, then X is proven false"
is completely illogical.

And this is what you said, anyways. I'm willing to understand you typing it wrong, but then don't say "Nah it's actually not what I said~"


Setting the issue of your logical fallacy aside, his claim would be akin to :
"I identify myself with God" (intent is irrelevant)
You responded with counter claims that dodge what he claimed originally :
"Are you X then ?"

X in this scenario is not an attribute he claimed, but an attribute YOU assumed would be linked to his first assertion, which isn't the case.
After all, that's why, in theological debates, it's imperative to define God first, as to not be arguing off the mark for the whole time. For some people, God is Love, the Universe, or Yahweh.

You seem to agree with me on this front, so this whole section is nothing but me clearing up the semantics. Leave no stone unturned.


-----------------------------------

You repeating this sentence doesn't mean you're clarifying your position one bit, especially on those "factors" you still don't bother to point out. I think I have an idea of what you think gender is to you based on your replies anyways.

So Gender to you, are the degrees of brain masculinizations and gendered behaviours that vary from individual to individual then ?
If so, I have several questions for you :

- What do you make of Gender non-conforming people ? Do they have a gender ? Are they just not conforming ?

- Do you think people without a gender can exist ?

- What about people who claim to have a different gender than the day before ? Do they have a basis in biology to you ? With it, can you justify feeling extra butch one day and super feminine the next ?

I agree, it's not a gender.

However, these people exist and make those claims known to others around them, enough that some elements left their niche communities and went on to become memes (attack helicopter comes from otherkins, after all).

What I was getting at with this exemple is that both have no basis in biology. You cannot be born without a gendered brain, as brains """""start""""" off female and go on through masculinization processes. I know I'm awfully simplying this, but this is the gist of it.

src: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nn.3988

Since both have no basis in biology, they're completely societal phenomenons, so I'll ask again : How do you differenciate between those two cases ?

I already did my research on that, in fact I already read through the articles you provided, and I had no objection, they weren't what I was looking for, however.
I just wanted you to submit yourself to a higher standard of scrutiny than just saying stuff without backing it up, not just reply with "edukat urself"

I also found this one article that suggests trans people might possess a brain that blows the whole "man brain in a female body" thing out of the water :

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

Given what this article implies, what I am looking for is actual evidence of transgender brains that don't contain a gender, for example. Believe me, I searched during hours for scholarly articles on agender brains, I found nothing.

Well I guess that's not totally true, I did found a 20$ dollar paper that was basically just a transcript of two trans people talking about feminism. Really worth that money, you know.


-----------------------------------

It could be societal, as I said, there is no biological basis for agender people, but these people still identify with the label they chose.
Also, Super_M was not referring to trans people, but more specifically, non-binary people that claim to be.

I guess you wouldn't get along well with TERFs and feminists that argue "gender is purely social and should be destroyed" lol



I was actually asking for a Yes or No answer, not some long-winded parable that doesn't actually answer my question, so I'll just restate it : Do you need to have gender dysphoria (and therefore, currently, a mental illness), to classify yourself as transgender ?


-----------------------------------


Well this was rather long, I'm getting pretty tired of these threads anyways.
If I said something false or misleading, tell me so.

 

Let me get this straight to everybody, there's two genders, male and female.

 

Well, he's not wrong. Sure, you can identify as something else, but you'll always be one of the two biologically.

 

I wasn't arguing anything, I was stumped by how little effort he put in his rhetoric

 

Fair enough. You did write a pretty damn long post, I understand that you might be disappointed by small responses.

 

Let's just leave it at that...

 

biologically speaking there are 6 (im probably missing some) genders female being the most common one, then male and the rest being genetic rarities

 

What are the genetic rarities called?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders

 

Thanks

 

all of these affect either males or females

 

The characteristics are of male or female or both but biologically speaking they are neither

 

well, fair enough

 

Yea, they are so rare no one counts them, most of them can't pass on their genes so we don't mind them.

 

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argumen, and a red herring attack is when you try to make an argument about something that is not part of the discussion, and, in fact, attempts to change the topic of the discussion. You have tried both of these. You are asserting that my definition of gender is questionable, when, in fact, I am only using the scientific definition of gender.

Sexual dimorphism refers to the differences in biological sex characteristics and to the differences in physiological development between the sexes. If a human has a Y chromosome, they will have the primary sexual characteristics of a male. That is masculinization.

You are using sex and gender, here, as if they are the same term, when, in fact, they are separate, and therefore, you are confusing the two terms.

While the first half of this statement is true, the second half is an unsubstantiated claim on your part, and, furthermore, there is no evidence of your contention. If you have any evidence for it, I'd like to see it.

Maculinization of the brain, in utero, is definitely due to the various hormone levels present during growth and development . This is a fact. Your conclusion, however, that this effect is limited to "some people", has been proven false, and is actually the basis for the evidence that gender is not the same as the presense or absence of a Y chromosome.

True, differently masculinized brains aren't new, as this has been happening for millions of years. Again, you are confusing gender with sex. It is also true that differently masculinized brains are "different brains", however, the difference is that the brains, biologically, are masculinized to varying degrees, with the result that the archaic notion of only two genders is provably false. With that, people whose brains are not sufficiently female or male, and we don't yet know how much variance is needed in order to effect the difference, feel themselves to be neither strictly female, nor male, and have every right to express those feelings.

Appeal to emotion, much?
Your claim that I said "If you fail to prove X, then X is proven false" is fallacious. You have ignored the second half of my statement, namely "and, in fact, it can be proven false, it is false." Your entire argument on this point is demonstrably false, because you have taken out of context, and, in fact, ignored the primary qualifier of my statement.

Funny. You don't want me, at least, to use a comparative example, when, in fact, that it is a valid teaching method? No, I shall continue to use them. Further, as I have stated previously, I will not be dragged into a discussion of religion.

Vague and all-inclusive statement. While I agree with some of what you've said, I, and biological science, disagree with much of what you have claimed. You should be careful of what you do with stones, you have a propensity for dropping them on your own head.

My statement stands, even though you've ignored what I've said about it.

That is the definition of gender, in biology, and in psychology. Are you trying, yet again, to use equivocation, as you have done, all along, to confuse sex with gender?

I didn't know that we were playing 20 questions. Oh, well. Let's see if I can help you with understanding this topic, some more., but first, you need to clarify a few things.
What do you mean by gender non-conforming? Are you still confusing gender with sex?

Of course they do. They are primarily female or male sex, which has nothing to do with their gender.

An interesting concept. Please provide us with a case study of such a person, as I've never even heard of this anecdotally.

What niche communities are you referring to?

Again, just because we currently do not have biological evidence to support the claims of people that claim to be asexual, that does not prove that they do not exist. The science concerning the transsexual spectrum is just too new for all of the topic to be fully explored. We don't answers to many questions concerning transsexualism, yet.

As you cannot recall what I've already stated, can you, yourself, differentiate between them? If not, reread what I've said in my previous posts.

My response was directly addressing your either not reading what I had previously written, or choosing to ignore it. Your admission of disengenuosness in this discussion is noted. If you wish to believe that I do not hold myself to a rather high level of scrutiny, simply because I choose to not reference every point that I make, that is a fallacious belief, and your suggestion that I somehow have not done so, is argumentum ad hominum. I have not forgotten my training as a research scientist, simply because I am semi-retired.

Quoting from that article:
"Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria. But given the variety of transgender people and the variation in the brains of men and women generally, it will be a long time, if ever, before a doctor can do a brain scan on a child and say, “Yes, this child is trans.”"
The field of study is so new, that it's a still an argument between science and common beliefs, that there is a biological basis for transgenderism. While it has been known for years that there are asexual sheep, goats, and hamsters, research into the biological basis of asexual behavior in these animals is still quite lacking. We are also a long ways away from fully investigating this phenomenon in humans, as we've just begun to deal with the science of transsexualism.

This is an example of "If you fail to prove X, then X is proven false". Just because, at this time, there appears to be no biological basis known for asexuality, that does not mean that there is not a biological basis for asexuality. Take, for example, the psychological illness that is referred to as schizophrenia. For most of human history, schizophrenia was only viewed as a mental illness. Only in the past 14 years or so have we found that there are at least 4 chromosomal markers for it, and it was only last year that we found out that a specific part of the immune system is causing damage to the connections between neurons in the brains of schizophrenics. This is what research is all about, finding answers, not believing that just because we don't know something today, that we already know everything that there is to know.

If that is their belief, then, no, I don't. They are provably incorrect, and I'll take current science over anything else. I don't agree with phrenology, either.

You originally asked me"So, in your opinion, do you NEED gender dysphoria to be qualified as Trans, or no ?" Apparently, you need me to explain my response of "Sure, you can point out that gender dysphoria is currently listed as a mental illness. I'll point out that, as more and more biological evidence shows that there really are biological variances in genders, there is a strong push to remove GID (gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria) from the DSM. Because gender variance isn't from any mental, or unknown cause, it shouldn't be listed as a mental illness. It isn't an illness at all. It's a biological variation. The same as having green eyes, or black hair" to Super_m, when he first stated that ". . . can I point out that Gender Dysphoria is also a mentall ilness."
DESPITE that the DSM currently lists gender dysphoria as a mental illness, science has shown that the disconnect between biological sex and gender has a definite, and real, basis in biology. So, if you want to use the phrase "gender dysphoria", I absolutely reject the ancient notion that your phrase is a mental illness, as having been proven, by science, to be a biological reality, that should be called, more properly, transgenderism. Have I made that clear enough? Do you know understand how badly your argumentum ad hominum assertion was that it was merely a "long-winded parable"?

Interesting. The same can be said of science deniers.

That is something that you need not have asked me to do.

At this point, I feel that it is unproductive and futile to continue to discuss this. Bias, in whatever form, and from whatever source, continues to ignore the scientific evidence, as it stands, at this point in time. Hence, unless I see a definitive need to respond further, I shall not continue to do so.

________________________________

Don't make it that easy. In humans, if there is a Y chromosome present, biologically, the individual will have male sexual organs and secondary sex characteristics, as long as there is at least one X chromosome present. Without an X chromosome, the zygote will die, and be spontaneously aborted. I'm fairly certain that even a Y/XY mosaic would be fatal in utero.

 

Some do survive although most of them suffer from weird sex characteristics.
The numbers are so tiny they are counted as an abnormal case.

 

why must parents fight

 

I never once made any attacks regarding your character, you're plainly wrong here.
If you can say where I attacked your character and not something you presented, go ahead.

Where the fuck did I deviate from the discussion about the difference between sex and gender when I posted an entire wall asking you questions about your definitions, your sources, reasonning, and exposing mine on the subject ?

It seems (what I think) our dissagreements come more from how we view the world, I don't know about you, but I think biology influences the way your brain is shaped, which influences the way you view yourself, and how you're going to respond to a society of individuals that follow the same process.
If trans people's existences are rooted in biology, then why would you consider it not sex ?

Moreover, your definition : "Gender, in humans, is a full range of characteristics, from female to male."
...would also include the brain patterns, since they are a characteristic that differs from female, to male, on an individual level.

Either you claim brains patterns are a sex characteristic, or a gender characteristic, or you come up with a better definition yourself, with clear defined characteristics.

Why thank you, good sir

I thought this was literally the definition of gender dysphoria tho

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/gender-dysphoria#1

Just to point out that they had every right to claim and express they feel this way.
Feelings don't make it true or sound tho
Doesn't even mean we have to change labels and structures to accomodate them.

Nothing in that quote was emotionnaly implicative

There was an occurence where you didn't specify this "primary qualifier" however, that's why I assumed it was a typing mistake :

https://forums.wynncraft.com/thread...ho-is-from-america.190225/page-3#post-2288366​

This is specifically why I included the bit about "I'm willing to understand you typing it wrong" my dude.
This matter is trivial now anyways.

I know, I try, I like to think I'm pretty hilarious at times. I agree with this factual statement about my character!

I mean you use them if you want my dude, I'll be expressing some objections if I don't like how you compare things however

alright

I WASN'T EVEN ARGUING ANYTHING ??? I was just agreeing with you and describing with I was doing.
Are you criticising the sentence "Turn this page to reach the other end of my argument" in this manner dude

I'd take that as a compliment from someone that has a propensity of being condescending and having a superiority complex tbh

Your statement stands ? You mean this one ?

​

That redirects to THIS one ?

https://forums.wynncraft.com/thread...ho-is-from-america.190225/page-2#post-2287205​

This paragraph in which you explained how "infinite genders" are proven by....biology ?
Thanks, I understand your mind less now.

Listen mate, I'm only following the most vague definition in the world about gender that YOU gave me without any explanation even after I've asked you like bloody 3 times now, so I don't know where to go from here. One time you say that I confuse sex and gender by saying "Oh look this brain pattern is different from male to female that's gender" and yet YOU do the same exact thing?

​

Like I honestly don't know anymore, here, look :

You claiming patterns in the brain are "the definition of gender"


Since my reasonning was "Brains tend to differ between male and female and that's gender", you saying I "confused sex and gender" means that you're arguing that brain patterns are sexual characteristics
​

Either I'm the biggest fucking moron this side of New York City or your definition was so lackluster that you can't even argue against yourself because you have two positions at the same time. I want to understand you PLEASE SAVE ME MOE.

Yes please save me from the darkness that devours my mind Moe, make me ascend with you into the realm of Pure Logic and Reason

http://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/gender-non-conforming/
I personally think they just refer to the social aspects of gender but what's your take on it ?

So by the definition of gender that I stated and that you AGREED WAS THE CORRECT ONE, they don't have brain patterns that relate to gender ? They never went through feminization nor masculinization ? Isn't that impossible or doesn't that guarantee a false pregnancy ?

https://www.youtube.com/user/RoryDeganRepresent/videos
have fun my dude
​

Man I have to introduce you to the beautiful world of Tumblr as well ? Christ, I didn't want to taint your soul during this, so my apologies.
http://genderfluidity.tumblr.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...uid-generation-young-people-male-female-trans
Sorry again, truly.

Why the fuck are you throwing asexual people around now ? Wait :

Oh.​

I guess you were thinking about their ...sexual characteristics with this sentence ?
I guess I'll reformulate my point for better articulation : "You cannot be born without gendered patterns in your brain, you're either masculinized or feminized"
There. Maybe I formulated it badly, but this is what I was arguing for.

¿Qué?
Then why the fuck do you act so high and might about being on the "side of biology" and saying "you're factually wrong" when you EVEN AGREE YOURSELF that it desperately needs to be explored further ?
I don't understand you my dude

I don't, that's the reason I asked you the question in the first place, which you still didn't provide any responde to but we're not really counting anymore are we?
Saying "I was born without gender patterns in my brain" and "I HAVE THE GENDER OF A CAT" are both equally unsupported statement so far, so I don't.
I don't disregard them as impossible, like you seem to think I am, I just need evidence to be convinced of such a thing.

Trust me, if I didn't see you post those studies, I would, they're all marked as "read" in my browser history my friend.
How is this disingenuous again ? Are you trying to read my mind and prove intent ? I mean have fun with that, but I don't have a horse in this race, I just like arguing with people is all.
Feel free to think of me as lowly of a cockroach as you want, I don't really care lmao

...You're insane. That is an insult.
You're insane and that's why you're wrong. That's an ad hominem.
Throwing shade into your character, justified or not, isn't an ad hominem unless I say you're wrong because of that.

Nevermind the fact that you're wrong about ad hominems, but that you didn't cite ANYTHING before I told you to. That's not "suggesting" it, that's what happens. It took me to get you to post shit that was actually coming from a paper.

What were you even teaching if you don't mind me asking?

I agree, then why are you acting like such a stubborn kid when people argue about definitions ? Why would you even say "NUH HUH U WRONK. SAD!" if you yourself admit that research is strongly lacking in this departement ? Honestly it baffles me man.

As I said, there is evidence that suggests a foetus can't attain maturity if the brain isn't feminized or masculinized, because it's a "either/or" thing.
If I see evidence to the contrary in the future, I'd be happy to correct my stance as quickly as possible.

Uh, TIL.

Why does phrenology even have to do with gender warriors and TERFs tho?

That doesn't even answer my question. Whether it's an illness or not is completely fucking irrelevant to what I'm asking you but okay, let's rereformulate :
"Do you need to have a severe disconfort with your body to extreme degrees to classify as trans or can you be trans and love your body/genitals ?"

You said yourself that "schizophrenia has a basis in biology" and it's still a mental disorder to this day.
Clearly either you're pushing for schizophrenia to not be a mental disorder anymore since it has also a basis in biology or the assertion that "Gender dysphoria isn't a mental disorder because it has roots in biology" is a completely null argument you made.

Holy shit my dude I'm tired of you saying "AD HUMUNUN AD HUMUNUN" left and right, I'll say it one final time.
"Your paragraph was too long and useless" would be an insult
"Your paragraph is too long and useless and that's why you're wrong" is an ad hominem

A physics teacher talking about logical fallacies, and the one you love so much​

Oh please Moe, I need your science in my brain, you have no idea how dumb I am. I need this. I want to see the light.

I somehow agree.

I am the literal definition of bias.

​

Don't worry, Dad and Dod still love you
It's just sometimes, plates tend to fly around the house

 

tl;dr

dad thinks there are 2 genders
man and other not man

daddy moe thinks otherwise