• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

How should gender or sex be defined?

I think the significance of the 'cosmetic' appearance of the genitalia is not being acknowledged fully over functionality (which is of course relevant in terms of reproduction but not the whole picture).

For example (and I've now read way too much about this topic), micropenises exist and have crippling emotional and other traumatizing effects upon an individual.

It's also important to keep in mind that hermaphroditism is not just defined in terms of functional genitalia. It's about secondary sexual characteristics as well.
 
i think at some point (your right btw) they both converge (the physical and biological factors) and in the case of being born a hermaphrodite it compounds the issue.

there are also the individual cases of the binary sexes to be considered socially, psychologically, emotionally and intimately when micro peni are developed.

let's not forget this is a harm reduction site and micro peni are developed in women by use of steroids for exercising.
 
@JessFR: i'm never one to correct a mod. i would like to bring to the attention of the thread that true hermaphrodite humans are what i was referring to in a previous post when mentioning both genital organs are functioning. it requires a certain number of cells that as of yet humans are not capable of producing in one being (essentially a layering of tissue and cells where two occupy the same space of matter at the same time. almost a symbiosis of sorts.), hence why it's so hard to find actual proof (if any exists) i was more or less postulating as opposed to theorizing with LandsUnknown.

what is now commonly referred to as intersex is what hermaphrodites prefer in terms of being PC and using words (though maybe not all, this is a general accepted verbiage as i'm sure your most aware on the level of addressing people with their proper title in today's world).

though much like the affiliation in general with LGBT (and the other 7 letters that are now associated with that acronym; LGBTTQQIAAP) the term intersex is now associated with more than just one type of variation of sex at birth, that extends beyond the basic binary values.

Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

in short, yes. no true human hermaphrodite (self impregnating), but hermaphrodites in the way the physical reality is do exist. i'm all to familiar with birth defects and how they affect the physical body.
 
Well you're more than welcome to correct me if you think I am in error. :)

But I would argue that if a hypothetical human hermaphrodite can not self impregnate, then indeed both sets of sex organs are not completely functioning.

I think that's perhaps one of the most out there sentences I've ever spoken. Lol.

I really don't care what terms are used so long as it's unambiguous for the sake of discussion. So for the record, by hermaphrodite I'm using a relatively scientific term of meaning fully functioning male and female sex organs. And by fully functioning, again I mean in a detached, scientific sense. As in if an organism of sexual maturity can not sexually reproduce, that's not complete functioning.
 
In the life sciences, hermaphroditism is considered a developmental event. It's generally restricted to individuals with tissue from both sex organs. Functionality of these tissues isn't a part of the definition to which I would default.

It can be stamens and pistils or ovaries and testes, a hermaphrodite has both tissues.

As the article above presents (post #138 ), the question of whether an individual is considered intersex can be a broader question. However, I'd suggest that the discussion about "what does intersex include" is appropriate solely in a strictly rare medical setting (see table of conditions) or relegated to the academics of medical sociology. And of course CE&P. :D
 
@JessFR: quiet the contrary. i was following most of what you were saying. i was ascertaining in part for my own clarity and what others might or might not interpret as definitive, after all that is the topic of the thread.

i've always appreciated the way you and i have dealt with confusion even before you became a mod. now that you are one i'm glad to see that hasn't changed.

haha, maybe it was one of those sentences. i doubt it though as it seemed to make perfect sense (and you put it better than i did too :p)

@cduggles: "the significance of the 'cosmetic' appearance of the genitalia over functionality" i think in the regard to Clitoromegaly (an enlarged clitoris) and micropenis this might shed some light in helping to discern the difference. what do you think?

Micropenis is defined as a stretched penile length of less than 2.5 standard deviations below the mean with normal external and internal genitalia.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/micropenis

and from the Prader scale


  • An infant at Stage 0 would be considered as having normal female external genitalia.
  • Stage 1 has a mildly large clitoris and slightly reduced vaginal opening size. This degree may go unnoticed or may be simply assumed to be within normal variation.
  • For Stage 2, genitalia are obviously abnormal to the eye, with a phallus intermediate in size and a small vaginal opening with separate urethral opening. Posterior labial fusion will be present.
  • Stage 3 shows a further enlarged phallus, with a single urogenital sinus and almost complete fusion of the labia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prader_scale
 
I think gender is a harmful construct that unnecessarily ascribes to each sex a set of behaviors, norms, and beliefs that should be totally independent from biological sex, and someone's sexual orientation. As such, I reject gender and am not "cisgender" nor am I "transgender", "genderqueer" or the pseudo-woke nonsense "nonbinary." I therefore have no cisgender privilege.
 
I agree with you in principle; however, if the rest of society does not agree with this position, and you display biologically as a man, there is still privilege involved even if you do not try to claim it. But yeah gender, the mental construct, is arbitrary. Different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes men and women, which goes all the way back to biology as there are certain ingrained biological behavior roles in an animal/instinctual sense (related to reproduction and male/female dimorphism). I think that's why cultures tend to be so adamant about accepted gender roles, and even fearful of stepping outside them.

However, as we are intelligent creatures, it is possible for us to move past that fear and into acceptance that each individual is their own person, and that it's okay to be who you are.
 
Legally, I think there should only be male & female, determined by appearance of genitals at birth. Socially, I'm pretty libertarian, so I don't really care what individuals do & am happy to use preferred pronouns. But I think we need to be very careful in media & education bc it seems to me that overly promoting nontraditional gender norms mostly makes more young people confused & miserable (even suicidal). This is NOT to say I think anyone should have to hide how they feel, or that there aren't actual biological aspects to LGBT+. I just think the pendulum has swung too far. Society in general is evolving at a rapid rate, but we as a species are not, and this creates problems. And I'll admit I do not like the direction we are going in, as a civilisation.
 
fairnymph said:
Legally, I think there should only be male & female, determined by appearance of genitals at birth. Socially, I'm pretty libertarian, so I don't really care what individuals do & am happy to use preferred pronouns. But I think we need to be very careful in media & education bc it seems to me that overly promoting nontraditional gender norms mostly makes more young people confused & miserable (even suicidal). This is NOT to say I think anyone should have to hide how they feel, or that there aren't actual biological aspects to LGBT+. I just think the pendulum has swung too far. Society in general is evolving at a rapid rate, but we as a species are not, and this creates problems. And I'll admit I do not like the direction we are going in, as a civilisation.
Click to expand...

This 100%
 
JGrimez said:
^what, you don't like teaching sex education to kids in kindergarten?

This is very interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...86rRObbc&noredirect=on&utm_term=.af5a29bc712f
'Crossing the divide - Do men really have it easier? These transgender guys found the truth was more complex.'
Click to expand...

The Washington Post?????
I'm notsure if I was being trolled by that link to their filth, I'd prefer to eat Tofu with The Guardian readers than check out their content.

Oh the irony of it all with this on The Washington Posts website "Democracy Dies in Darkness"
 
I'm nowhere near a fan of the Washington Post, but that article seems to directly counter the ideology that they're normally pushing and is worth a read for people who do not believe that there is any 'female privilege'.

It seems lately there has been schism in the feminist movement, the war brewing between trans activists and feminists (know as TERFs) who do not believe that trans women are real women.
 
No one here claimed that there is no such thing as female privilege, that's on you.

Privilege is on a sliding scale with a huge lead and margin given to the white male. It's a rather simple and obvious concept that a child could grasp.
 
w01fg4ng said:
a huge lead and margin given to the white male. It's a rather simple and obvious concept that a child could grasp.
Click to expand...

I find that also to be a pretty bold claim. Care to prove that one? Should be easy to explain if it's that simple and obvious.
 
To believe that women have more advantages in society than men, or as many, is to completely ignore the history that has shaped it that is only so recently moving towards equality. I'm a man, a white man, and it helps me out a lot. I'm thankful for it, I consider myself lucky to have been born this way. That's fine, I'm willing to admit I'm lucky. I don't feel bad about it. I think all I owe anyone else, regardless of their gender identity or ethnicity, is equal consideration and respect. But if I deny that I have an advantage, and that everyone else's opportunities and sets of challenges are the same as mine, I am implicitly denying that the hardships other people face are real. And that's not only disrespectful, it's insulting.
 
Yeah, pretty much everything in history.

Ever notice that we've never had a female president? Trump is the right's knee jerk reaction to our first black president as well as a possibility to eventually getting our first female present. The racist and sexist right are completely terrified that they might lose their privilege.
 
Regardless of who has privilege and to what degree, this is a losing subject for Democrats. Generally speaking, White people don't like being told they don't deserve the lives they feel they've earned. And believe it or not, quite a few minorities don't like being told they need special treatment in order to achieve success.

It is one thing to have a discussion about ideas and how certain groups of people have been historically disadvantaged...I think liberals would be surprised how many in fly over country would agree with them on that. But in Trump country, mainly rural and dirt poor communities, they might say, "what about OUR disadvantages?" They were abandoned by free trade and globalism decades ago, with no jobs and no hope, left to die on a mountain of Dew and meth and pills. Shitty education. Shitty infrastructure.

Now you add on the gender thing, again, most would agree sexism is bad and is still a problem...but how do you think the average white guy feels when he gets home from working a 60 hour week, turns on the tv, and hears how he is privileged from a bunch of people who make a hundred times what he does?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top