In your own words and eyes....

It is a birth defect because, as it currently stands it decreases one's life options. Note that "has a penis" is just as much a birth defect. But yes, this one does tend to value traits associated with "masculinity" higher than those associated with "femininity". Popular opinion insists that females are defined by their relationships (preferably with males) rather than accomplishments, and that is something this one has a huge problem with.

Not sure what you mean. Could you explain, please?

edited 10th Sep '11 11:10:29 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

You realize that if having a sex was a deviation from the norm for humans we'd all have died out long ago, right...?

~shrug~

I don't see why we wouldn't measure someone by both their achievements and their relationships...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Most tropers don't undstand gender, and other things, and autmomatically declare it invalid.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

@Erock: Tell me about it.

The problem is not with having a certain set of reproductive organs, but with having that set of organs define one's life. That's what this one meant by birth defect. Basically, having gender role with it's restrictions attached by society to genitalia is what makes it, essentially, crippling. Having a vagina is not, in itself, a birth defect. Society, however, makes it so.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

What makes you think that this one does not understand what gender is, or at least that hher understanding is worse than everyone else's?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

That's... not a birth defect. A birth defect is a biological thing. You're just being confusing for confusing's sake.

And what is your plan, exactly, to kill the concept of "gender roles" as you define them? Control people's thoughts? Regulate action to the very most minute detail?

As I said, you cannot easily and effectively change opinions. You can only try and remove as many legal restrictions as possible and as safely as you can, and hope the opinion resolves itself to what you want...

I am now known as Flyboy.

^^^The imporance of gender in situations not related to reproduction is lessening. It's a slow process, though, as are all societal changes.

edited 10th Sep '11 11:21:21 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

This one apologises for confusion. She should be more clear.

Perhaps the better way to put it would be to say that, with the way society treats it and, consequently, effect it has on one's life it might as well be a birth defect. The very point is that, inherently, it isn't. But society treats it such - as if it is something that automatically curbs some aspects of one's personality, and makes one ill-suited for some activities.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This one is aware of that, and this one has no answer.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

You know there's an edit button...

~shrug~

That's just sociology.

And I don't have an answer either, past what I've provided...

I am now known as Flyboy.

1. These ideas are irrelevant (for exactly the same reasons as 'true love' is irrelevant; the 'true X' or 'false X' word formation generally relates to some kind of No True Scotsman fallacy being committed by the speaker.)

If you were to simply talk of how to define 'man' and 'woman'*

, I'd say it's simply whether you have a penis or vagina, despite the various corner cases that this doesn't cover.

2. Complementary? More like codependent. Interchangeable? You'd have to clarify what exactly you meant by that before I could answer it.

3. Equality trolls. What those differences are — if they are caused by cultural rather than birth conditions — is something more worthy of critique. Certainly I won't hesitate to criticize any part of a role specification that limits rather than encourages (eg. women = passive vs men = active, or women = expressive vs men = outwardly emotionless)

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Men and women are not interchangeable, if that's what's being said. The main difference lies not in aptitude, but in sexual dynamics.

edited 10th Sep '11 11:42:25 PM by tropetown

Title says "in your own words and eyes", so in order to prevent my response to the OP from being tainted by influence from other posters' responses, I am replying before I read the rest of the thread.

IMO, human adult cismale.

IMO, human adult cisfemale.

Outdated and overly simplistic. People don't all fit into two neat boxes, not even on a biological level.

I think if they were interchangeable, there wouldn't be such a thing as transgender. I think genders are somewhat complementary, but the various frustrations they tend to have with one another and the variety found within each group show that they don't fit together perfectly, and that gender roles are insufficiently flexible to fit what people are actually capable of.

I'm not sure what you mean. What I've seen mainly is denial of the fact that males and females are different, which I would ascribe to the fact that people recognize that humanity's obsession with hierarchies and tendency towards us v them mentality mean that differences between one group and another are often used to rationalize inter-group hostility and oppression. A well-meaning but misguided response to this problem is to deny or minimize differences in an attempt to rob categorists of their ideological ammunition.

On the occasion that I've seen people speak negatively of differences between males and females, it's usually been in the context of sexual/romantic interaction between the two, each sex complaining about behaviors of the other, their difficulty at figuring them out, and the resulting romantic difficulties. Self-serving behaviors.

A more serious problem that's been brought up is how our differing reproductive biology creates unresolvable dilemmas surrounding the whole abortion mess. If only the fetus didn't have to be located inside a damn person, the issue could be dealt with a lot more easily.

I must acknowledge that sex/gender seems to be a necessary part of some people's identities. (Aondeug is fairly good at explaining the thought processes behind this.) On the other hand, there are also people whose identities do not include sex/gender, and who do not act in the manner expected of either sex. I believe that we should respect all methods people use to define their selves, so long as the information generated by those methods is not false. (And then there are bigender people, whom I don't understand at all, but whom I'm not going to criticize.)

(I once started a thread on self-definition, but nobody understood the question.)

edited 11th Sep '11 4:16:19 AM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

this sentence causes my brain to reboot every time I try to understand it.

edited 11th Sep '11 4:53:21 AM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

^ Let me try to explain it through example: my mother hates the idea of organ donation, because her identity is based on having all her own organs, and if she received a donor organ, she'd no longer consider herself to be herself. Most of us posting here would accept a donor organ without feeling any challenge to our identities, because we define our "selves" in a different way than she does. (Or rather, in many different ways, some of which have very little overlap.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

For me. A real man or woman is any one individual outside of a set of unpredictable circumstances can basically care for themselves. This includes basic skill sets from simple first aide, cooking, cleaning, and hygiene to being able to work in variety of enviroments and possibly a variety of professions.

They prefer to work on their own but if they honestly need help they take it with in reason.

Who watches the watchmen?

Doesn't that make "real man" and "real woman" Artifact Titles, for you? I mean, it looks like your concept is gender neutral. An alien from a species with whole different set of genders could meet your criterion for a "real" man/woman.

I think there's an implied "and this will probably vary depending on your sex" behind it...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I apply it to both men and women pretty much equally. I can't speak for aliens unless they are extraordinarly like us.

Who watches the watchmen?

I will just add that it takes more than two breasts and a uterus to be a woman. It does make you female-gendered but it does NOT make you a woman.

Likewise, having a penis and two testicles makes you male-gendered. It doesn't make you a man.

Or more exactly, it takes more than your secondary sexual characteristics to be a respectable, useful, successful human being.

Actually, if the feminists (and psychologists, I guess) are to be believed, gender =/= sex. Sex is what you are, biologically speaking. Gender is your sexual identity.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I guess Real Men are assertive but casual about social relationships and likely to brag about being drunk, whereas Real Women form strong, long-term friendships and are likely to get less drunk and refrain from talking about it afterward. I can't say I'm any of the above - kinda shy in a loud, nerdy sort of way and prone to fall out of touch; a total prude who's never been high off anything - but honestly, I don't think many people conform anyway.

Hail Martin Septim!

I'm not saying sex =/= gender.

I'm saying there are more to manhood and womanhood than physical characteristics.

Survival and necessity used to impose a role to men and women: men, having much more muscular mass and higher upper-body strength, used to hunt big and dangerous animals and defend the group from enemy tribes; women, having breasts and stronger lower-bodies, used to be confined to child-bearing and home, as well as physically protecting the children (cavewomen were physically stronger than modern women).

These roles have changed but are still ingrained in our collective consciousness and transcend cultures: men are still expected to protect women and children, women are still expected to nurture children and take care of the home.

There are qualities that supposedly make a man a "real man": "toughness", confidence, charisma, leadership, stoicism, achievement and protection of the family.

A "real woman"?: Nurturance, empathy, subservience, vulnerability, home-making, beauty, supporting the husband and the family.

The Gender Dynamics Index gives a lot about how those are translated into pop-culture. But it remains that these qualities transcend all cultures and are sort of the "traditional" gender roles. Not saying they're good or bad, just saying they exist.

edited 12th Sep '11 4:02:06 PM by Alrune