All things Transgender related
Comments
-
ecdanc said:
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.cincybearcat said:
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.0 -
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).cincybearcat said:ecdanc said:
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.cincybearcat said:
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.0 -
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.ecdanc said:
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.0 -
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.ecdanc said:
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).cincybearcat said:ecdanc said:
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.cincybearcat said:
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.hippiemom = goodness0 -
I think there's two different things going on here:mrussel1 said:
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.ecdanc said:
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.0 -
May I ask you a question, then? If the answer is "none of your business" or "I don't want to pursue this avenue of conversation," I understand. It's not an easy question to wrap our heads around, but how do you think your daughter would be different if she did not have a gender?cincybearcat said:
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.ecdanc said:
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).cincybearcat said:ecdanc said:
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.cincybearcat said:
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.0 -
Yeah but I think it's a good point. Since it isn't really clear that the impact is on the 7.4 billion others? I'm not saying I know one way or the other, but it should be considered, no?ecdanc said:
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Well, I'm of course suggesting it would make everyone's life better.cincybearcat said:
Yeah but I think it's a good point. Since it isn't really clear that the impact is on the 7.4 billion others? I'm not saying I know one way or the other, but it should be considered, no?ecdanc said:
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
0 -
except THEY arent. He is male , she is female and live as such. good enough for the child, not for the parentmcgruff10 said:
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?ecdanc said:
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.mcgruff10 said:
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I think you're misunderstanding: we're not expecting P to stay gender neutral forever. We're waiting for them to express their gender identity.mickeyrat said:
except THEY arent. He is male , she is female and live as such. good enough for the child, not for the parentmcgruff10 said:
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?ecdanc said:
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.mcgruff10 said:
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?0 -
Sorry, missed this (last post on the page): yes.mcgruff10 said:
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?ecdanc said:
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.mcgruff10 said:
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?0 -
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?0
-
Its a great question that I will honestly need to take some time to think on so I try and say what I actually mean correctly.ecdanc said:
May I ask you a question, then? If the answer is "none of your business" or "I don't want to pursue this avenue of conversation," I understand. It's not an easy question to wrap our heads around, but how do you think your daughter would be different if she did not have a gender?cincybearcat said:
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.ecdanc said:
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).cincybearcat said:ecdanc said:
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.cincybearcat said:
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
Off the top of my head, she is inspired by people that she believes are like her that do great things. A female plant manager of mine when she was a little girl. Dancers now. Stories like the women math wiz's that made NASA successful. It has created a way of seeing herself being successful and I believe helped her believe that great things are possible. Now, if everyone thought of themselves as the same, I suppose they would see everything and think they could do anything...but I'm really not sure the inspiration would be the same.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Correct me if I am wrong but choosing your gender isn't a choice. As in your brain is hardwired already to your gender.ecdanc said:
Sorry, missed this (last post on the page): yes.mcgruff10 said:
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?ecdanc said:
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.mcgruff10 said:
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?ecdanc said:
I think there's two different things going on here:mrussel1 said:
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.ecdanc said:
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.0 -
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.ecdanc said:I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?hippiemom = goodness0 -
Zero for me. Not once has anyone asked me about my three children like that. If they did, I'd probably punch the old codger in the nose.cincybearcat said:
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.ecdanc said:I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
0 -
Apologies, I (erroneously, it seems) thought you were using "choose" as a stand-in for "express." I'm punting on the "is gender hardwired question" question, because it's too thorny for me to do justice here.mcgruff10 said:
Correct me if I am wrong but choosing your gender isn't a choice. As in your brain is hardwired already to your gender.ecdanc said:
Sorry, missed this (last post on the page): yes.mcgruff10 said:
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?ecdanc said:
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.mcgruff10 said:
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?0 -
I don't know if anyone know the answer to that, right? I'd like to think she would find other (non-gendered) inspiration in the world I imagine, but I have no desire to oversimplify the ramifications of my "perfect" world.cincybearcat said:
Its a great question that I will honestly need to take some time to think on so I try and say what I actually mean correctly.ecdanc said:
May I ask you a question, then? If the answer is "none of your business" or "I don't want to pursue this avenue of conversation," I understand. It's not an easy question to wrap our heads around, but how do you think your daughter would be different if she did not have a gender?cincybearcat said:
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.ecdanc said:
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).cincybearcat said:ecdanc said:
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.cincybearcat said:
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
Off the top of my head, she is inspired by people that she believes are like her that do great things. A female plant manager of mine when she was a little girl. Dancers now. Stories like the women math wiz's that made NASA successful. It has created a way of seeing herself being successful and I believe helped her believe that great things are possible. Now, if everyone thought of themselves as the same, I suppose they would see everything and think they could do anything...but I'm really not sure the inspiration would be the same.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help