[INTP] ⚧ Gender ⚧ - Page 3

⚧ Gender ⚧

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
Thank Tree44Thanks

This is a discussion on ⚧ Gender ⚧ within the INTP Forum - The Thinkers forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; sex is just biological, born a male or female ( or if nature did something weird to you ) I ...

  1. #21
    INTP - The Thinkers

    sex is just biological, born a male or female ( or if nature did something weird to you )

    I think gender involves a lot of self expression. There is the traditionally held man/woman thing, and each culture has varying expectations on it. For example like a century ago, the red/blue color association flopped, and young boys were in dresses because they were easier to potty train that way. And then you go back further and men were wearing ruffles and heels ( at some point that jumped ship to women's side, weird )

    The easiest thing to do is play the norm. Most people accept their given gender without fuss, or just don't give much thought or importance to it.

    Some people feel very strongly about realizing deeply held convictions about themself and having other people validate it.

    To me I feel like gender is a personal experience, you decide what is true about yourself. I don't feel the need to inform anyone what my thoughts are about myself or be validated / called by special names. For example I'll get a chuckle out of people assuming I'm something else; I don't care if they are wrong about what I am, it is just interesting to see how others perceive you and they are usually trying to be respectful whatever the case. I don't require any tip-toeing. I am not usually interested in other's thoughts on their gender especially if I just met them

    People who do require pronouns and validation, to be honest I have a bad memory with names and faces and then throwing pronouns in there I'm going to mess up and it's not intentional. If somebody sets up strict social rules about how to interact with them I will probably avoid them just because I don't want to set off any tripwires. However if it's somebody I come to like and respect I will remember anything about them, like their favorite movies and foods and so on
    Last edited by Kiwizoom; 07-07-2019 at 09:12 PM.
    Necrofantasia thanked this post.

  2. #22

    Quote Originally Posted by Aridela View Post

    Now, gender specific roles is another kettle of fish altogether, and it would warrant its own thread. To put it simply, I think people have always tried to rationalise why they won't do certain tasks they find difficult/distasteful/boring. The strongest person will force the weakest person to do said chore. Nowadays it's happening with men vs women in the confines of a household, but it's not dissimilar to how free men would have slaves do the chores noone liked to do, or how rich folk will 'pay' lesser folk to serve their food, clean their sh*t and take care of their children.
    If gender is a matter of expressing one's self-conception wouldn't that also encompass roles? or the things you choose to do?
    The theory I have is that a way to force people to do stuff in the past, was to tag the right story to something immutable, like race or sex. Or even to a single human being in the case of royalty and religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by HumanBeing View Post
    I would say let this man do what he enjoys
    I enjoy watching him do what he enjoys, so not a problem. :3
    You can tell from his Q/A responses that he's more interesting than average. The reason I posted his vid was to tease those who point at gender as being strictly chromosomal or presentation related.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zoel.fahmi View Post
    It's always male and female
    I don't care what else they have or created
    Or discovered?
    A lot of terminology used in daily life now didn't exist ages ago, and referred to things we didn't know existed. There's no reason this would be different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentia View Post

    2) And then people are more able to see what it exclude, and then will enter the trangressions of the current norms, while before they were subversive, invisible to the eyes of the societies. In conclusion, there's a continuity between gender and sex, but we have to be careful, gender isn't social sex, and sex isn't biological either, it's a social construct, an arbitrary cluster of parameters like hormones, gametes, genitalia, etc.
    Then what is the difference between gender and sex according to you? What do you call the biological component?

    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentia View Post
    3) I'm eager to see a fascist movement using queer sacrality to advocate for white people to breed more against the "muslim invasion", that would be beautiful.
    I'm gonna go with Nope.
    I was hoping the thread would remain intact a little longer before trolling started to happen, so much for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentia View Post
    4) Well, I'll let you draw your own conclusion from here ^^. But anyway, let's destroy heteronormativity, and hail queer feminism (never forget feminism). Spread the word.
    Speaking of which, something that's caught my eye, and sort of the reason I made this thread: Apparently it's not uncommon for lesbian women that have no interest in coupling with trans women and for people making remarks within a scientific context to be targeted for harassment as Transphobes. Is this justifiable or misguided?



    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentia View Post
    I'm open to any questions and willing to make any clarifications that are needed. But I'm not open to contradictory debate, with one exception, you have to explicit everything we would have in common, but even here it's not granted I will enter the debate, if there are to much things we don't share for example.

    And much love to everyone, so you don't think I hold any grudge against you (cause I take the society as responsible not the individuals), whoever you are. <3
    Bit patronizing but thanks....

    Quote Originally Posted by GusWriter View Post
    Because the responses weren't going down the path you hoped, or our answers weren't colorful enough for you?
    Because they're guarded. Posting memes and videos is safe and easy, because someone else does the thinking and talking for you.




    See? I can do it too.

    Quote Originally Posted by GusWriter View Post
    Honestly can't say with 100% certainty, but made it less than 5 minutes into video. The make-up thing doesn't interest me. There are some who can be very good at pretending to be the opposite sex, but I'd never want to get into my own private little Crying Game.

    I saw this video a while back. If it gets boring the part around 8:10 is a bit funny.

    I gotta wonder....would people at a show called "Change My Mind" show anything but "arguments" that make them look good? I'm listening to this thing as I write the post and it's kinda what I expected. Very strawmanny, cookie cutter arguments. Lots of "I don't know"s and false claims and conflations and gish galloping. Very Jordan Peterson.

    It's very easy to get away with flawed thinking within real time debate, especially when layered in all the emotional and contextual noise a face to face confrontation comes with. This is why I prefer video essays to debates.


    Quote Originally Posted by yippy nr 2 View Post
    If they are detrimental it entirely depends on how we view those roles. When a society looks at the feminine role as a quiet, submissive, stay at home mom who can hold no place of importance in society and the women suffer because of it....then yes....detrimental. If a society however looks at women as equals to men, as empowered beings who are important and have a significant role to play in society then the role is not detrimental. Unless women of course see this as undesirable....

    Are they necessary? One could argue no they aren't. A feminine man and a feminine woman can still make a great & succesful couple for instance.

    However.....a large portion of society needs clarity. A lot of people still think in black & white, mainly in order to make sense of the world around them. For them strictly defined gender roles are, mostly in their own views, necessary.
    Trivial addendum, I'd probably opt for the word Equivalent, rather than equal.
    Really fond of the thought in bold. It also highlights why there's such friction concerning adjusting to genderfluid people: It's tricky.


    Quote Originally Posted by yippy nr 2 View Post
    Gender neutrality is a trend right now and that will continue for the foreseeable future. I think a third gender, neutral, will become an accepted thing. As with all things there will be a counter movement however. In some quarters you will hear calls for the return of traditional gender roles. The masculine man who works hard for the family and the caring & nurturing woman who stays at home for the kids. Bit 50s style.
    It's kind of already a thing, in the form of the plural "they".
    To what extent would you say gender neutrality as a trend is simply a rejection of socially mandated stereotypes?

    Quote Originally Posted by napkineater View Post
    Holy shit this thread is transphobic.
    Not helping. This is a conversation, not an argument. Go troll elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by napkineater View Post
    Typical that an introvert can't appreciate that someone else has the authority to define their own idea of gender.

    You have no authority on how someone else identifies, whether you understand it or like it.

    The arrogance involved in thinking we get to determine what the truth is for someone else. Irrationality lads, watch it. Reality will never live up to your expectations if you're this limited in your perspective.

    Work on your extroverted functions to have a clearer sense of what reality is and what's actually factual.

    It's so funny when INTPs buy into the accepted norm. You're supposed to be helping human understanding, not hindering it with your own biases for what can and can't be.
    Again, not helping...
    Sorry we aren't what you think we are supposed to be, keep in mind though, ignorant people aren't necessarily transphobic.
    They can, however, get defensive and clam up if you start finger pointing and assuming shit out of nowhere though.


    Quote Originally Posted by napkineater View Post
    All I hear is "the world should be more like I think the way it is" and that's your Ti and Si. You need to work on your Ne bro. I mean this. Phobia means to other something. To other someone is to not recognise their humanity. Recognizing someone's humanity is a natural thing that makes us so clever and complex, empathic is rational. It's the only way we all survive. But when we OTHER people we're saying what they think isn't like what I think. They're different from me. That's the origin of these phobic words.

    Your argument has been made before, what do YOU actually think?

    This is the least scientific or academic approach to thinking you understand something. You're lying to yourself in some way. Start being more honest and working out the inconsistencies. Your Ti will love you for it.

    You need to integrate with reality. The self (Ti) has to meet the outer world (Ne) for reality to make any sense. You're being defensive about something. I'm telling you now. You're not being honest. And the bullshit just won't cut it anymore if we're going to survive as a species.
    ....once again, thanks for your input on what we should be like and what we should do. Can you tone down the aggro? You seem more keen on attacking people than arguments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwizoom View Post
    Some people feel very strongly about realizing deeply held convictions about themself and having other people validate it.
    Why is it necessary to receive validation on realizations that are personal and cannot be corroborated by others anyway?
    Is it validation or simply acceptance?
    Last edited by Necrofantasia; 07-08-2019 at 05:26 PM.

  3. #23
    INTP

    Quote Originally Posted by napkineater View Post
    All I hear is "the world should be more like I think the way it is" and that's your Ti and Si.
    It seems that you hear but don't listen, that you look but you don't read. There is absolutely nothing in my post about "how the world should be more like I think the way it is". It was about the existence of different models (you know, science is all about models which are used to interpret observations) and which one I personally chose... well, actually, I wish that people stop imposing to others what they label as "reality" or "truth". You know... deep tolerance, not the superficial one, like the "I'll painfully endure your dirty ignorance" one.

    About your private message, you remind me those christian intolerant preacher (not the tolerant one, which are really great people) who want to "help" others seeing the Truth, to leave ignorance and save me from eternal suffering. By the way, the title of your private message that you sent me gives me an indication how you respect other human beings... which is not much since it is "assbum".

    I'm curious: If you have the power to brain-wash people, would you use it? If yes/no, why?
    Necrofantasia thanked this post.

  4. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    If gender is a matter of expressing one's self-conception wouldn't that also encompass roles? or the things you choose to do?
    The theory I have is that a way to force people to do stuff in the past, was to tag the right story to something immutable, like race or sex. Or even to a single human being in the case of royalty and religion.
    Possibly.

    But even the most traditionalist men/women will have slightly different ideas about which those gender specific roles are. It's a case of trying to justify your own bias by applying it to a 'rule'.

    i.e. All women should cook/clean; Until very recently (maybe 1850s, maybe a bit earlier) most households had servants/helpers/slaves. Only the lower class/peasant women were expected to do these tasks. And even then cooking and cleaning were labour intensive tasks that needed a lot of physical strength and specialist knowledge (how to butcher an animal, foraging, carrying water from a distance, handling tools etc). It was a full time job and it was viewed as important, but noone expected of the dainty mid/upper class women to perform these tasks.

    So what one considers a woman's job may be another's 'servant' job.

    One potentially good thing about the gender VS sex argument is that it makes people rethink concepts such as gender specific roles/behaviour. The list of appropriate/non appropriate roles/behaviours for each gender have changed over time and they will continue to change as long as humans exist and evolve.

    I think what we experience now is a full scale reshuffling after we've abandoned the extremes of the 50s conservative model and the 70s 'fuck tradition' model. Hopefully we can find some middle ground before long.
    Necrofantasia thanked this post.

  5. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    It's kind of already a thing, in the form of the plural "they".
    Hmm. It is not really a thing here though (the Netherlands). Certainly not when it comes to official documents and such. One still has to choose between male or female. You're probably from the US, right? As far as I can tell gender neutrality is a bigger trend in the US than in most parts of the world. But in my experiences the US a country of extremes. On the one hand you have people who have very traditional views on gender and on the other hand people who embrace more modern views on gender.

    To what extent would you say gender neutrality as a trend is simply a rejection of socially mandated stereotypes?
    Do you know the song 'I want to break free' from Queen?



    People who are genderfluid just want to be heard & acknowledged. They want to break free from the socially mandated stereotypes and make people aware that there is more to gender then just the simple male & female division.

    If those stereotypes weren't in place the whole gender neutrality movement needn't exist.

    One nice example is how the Native Americans dealt with genderfluid people. They acknowledged up to 5 different genders and they believed people who were genderfluid had recieved a gift from the Gods. Those people were respected and could even crossdress if they felt like doing that.
    Necrofantasia thanked this post.

  6. #26

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcar View Post
    In my case, I see people stating their opinion in this thread and there is no enough information to detect transphobia... because nobody shows aggressiveness, fear, hatred against someone from the LGBTTQQIAAP community. In my case, my perception is that gender = sex and there are three categories: male, female, exception. You can maybe see this perception as transphobic... but, if I'm talking with a non-binary lesbian transwoman, it won't affect how I will interact with her since tthey are actually details for me: I'm way more interested by personality, skills, goals and interests. Well, sex matters in some context: find a partner for dancing, or dating someone.

    I don't know why you bring the concept of truth or reality... As I see it, this thread is mainly about interpretation, perception and belief. You know... I would to like to perceive the world in order to focus on what allow me to go forward and build something positive and simplify the rest. Consider sex and gender, it really go down to... can I have kids with this person? Male = no, Female = maybe. And can I do this activity (i. e., dancing) without worrying about misinterpretation and annoying judgements?

    I haven't seen a good argument for making my perception on this subject more complex, so I don't see the point of doing it. We all see the world differently and that's actually a good thing... but it seems that some people want to impose us how we have to perceive the world and that is really problematic.
    If you look at a person strictly in terms of "What I can do with them" there's no reason. If you take interest in Who They Are, I think gender identity is one way to articulate it, not perfect of course because words sometimes are clumsy and limiting.

    I wrote a bunch of nonsense below that may shed some light into what I am trying to say.



    Quote Originally Posted by yippy nr 2 View Post
    Hmm. It is not really a thing here though (the Netherlands). Certainly not when it comes to official documents and such. One still has to choose between male or female. You're probably from the US, right? As far as I can tell gender neutrality is a bigger trend in the US than in most parts of the world. But in my experiences the US a country of extremes. On the one hand you have people who have very traditional views on gender and on the other hand people who embrace more modern views on gender.

    Do you know the song 'I want to break free' from Queen?



    People who are genderfluid just want to be heard & acknowledged. They want to break free from the socially mandated stereotypes and make people aware that there is more to gender then just the simple male & female division.

    If those stereotypes weren't in place the whole gender neutrality movement needn't exist.

    One nice example is how the Native Americans dealt with genderfluid people. They acknowledged up to 5 different genders and they believed people who were genderfluid had recieved a gift from the Gods. Those people were respected and could even crossdress if they felt like doing that.

    I think there's more to the transgender and gender neutrality movement than just rejection of stereotypes. The rejection of stereotypes might be more of a side-effect than a main goal. Thing is I am trying to organize my thoughts on the matter into stuff that can be put into words, because there are a number of layers to it, some of which may be tied to the "lenses" I use to make sense of the world. If I'm overthinking or speaking nonsense let me know.

    Layer 1 Humanity

    I view each mind/human as a collection of variables. Environmental, personality, genetics, experiences, culture, health, intoxication etc, in constant interaction with circumstantial variables: Physical reality. social context, "emotional atmosphere", etc + Other people and their variables. The whole thing works like a freaky combo of algebra and chemistry.

    Layer 2 Cognition as a social enabler

    I also subscribe to Robin Dunbarr's theory that humans developed their cognitive abilities in order to manage the social complexity inherent in human interactions, there is a lot to keep up with as is when it comes to body language, verbal language and situational cues. Variables, again.

    Layer 3 Shift in self-orientation from institutions to individuals.

    I see a society ("western") as increasingly secularized and separated from religion, which used to provide a frame of reference by which to assess oneself, one's role in society and identity, Elements like gender roles, social castes, etc Were also "answers" given in the past so that people could orient themselves quickly and go on living instead of spending tons of time feeling each other out and determining this. Organization in other words, self-location in a map of others. These answers were also tampered with by certain people to avoid undesirable things or even get others to behave however they want, by tacking stories to immutable things. This leads tot he different forms of hierarchies throughout history. All different answers to the same problem.

    Layer 4 - Technology-driven evolution of the mind.

    Take also into account that technology has enabled us to access info, communicate and complete tasks at increasingly fast paces, our minds/attention spans are thus evolving accordingly. More breadth to handle a world of people we previously had no contact with, and more and more tasks as roles become compressed in capitalist economic frameworks that seek to squeeze as much efficiency from people as possible.

    Layer 5 - Mass peer reviewing of existing frameworks and concepts.

    Thanks to technology people are introduced new ideas en masse, at a really fast pace, and enabling massive amounts of peer-enhanced analysis, almost as if human minds acted as multiple cores to one processor, lasering into various concepts and systems taken for granted, constantly pushing them and testing them against various schools of thought and other such concepts and circumstances and finding they were limiting (all of this would be layered between the lines in oceans of shitposts and vitriol and humanity, and occur at a subconscious level).

    Layer 6 - Discussing sex and how it fits into the puzzle now that the Church is less of a hindrance.

    Pushing against existing frameworks, in particular religion, eliminates the barriers provided by their respective taboos with respect to sex and other such things. This coupled with the analytical deconstruction and testing of the frameworks humanity uses to guide itself, results in a sort of catch-up process where identity with respect to sexuality is explored extensively, New conceptual territory is explored Manifest Destiny style. Conceptualization concerning gender/the gender neutral/trans movement is an aspect of this, Analysis on the matter had been slow burning throughout history, and recent attention has simply accelerated that exploration.

    Layer 7- More minds to compare against = more introspection.

    People would have access to new minds and ways of thinking en massse: one person nowadays probably interacts with many more minds on a daily basis, than people a century ago would in their lifetimes. To handle the volume we are basically developing vocabulary to articulate and convey to other people our self-concepts in a faster, more accurate and nuanced way. This access to more minds, leads to more comparisons between the self and others leading to a richer understanding of oneself. Interacting with more minds over time requires more efficient or faster ways to communicate to manage the volume. Simplification is needed.

    Layer 8 - Outdated vocabulary being updated. Terms created to reflect new understanding of the self.

    Couple the above with a more secularized society, and people are prompted to start using each other and humanity's existing body of knowledge to orient themselves (think of points in a radar) in lieu of religious/social frameworks which are slow to update and devoid of nuance, also restricting. To cope with this increased social demand the human mind is evolving to handle more nuanced self-concepts that stem from technologically augmented information exchange, and part of handling these self-concepts is to establish terminology that can be used to convey them.

    Terms like the Id, the Ego, the Superego, the Anima, the Animus or even personality types: INTP, INFJ, ENTJ, etc are basically visual abbreviations/info packages/abstractions people use to convey aspects of their inner workings or their Psychology. They are essentially prototype forms of one's self concept, colours in a palette used to paint a picture of who one is. Blips in the radar one uses to map out a model of an individual mind. They used to be medical/academic terms that slipped into daily parlance for a reason. Terminology used for gender identity also serves this purpose: Providing a solution to the question: How to convey my variables to others in an accurate yet simple manner?
    Basically gender is an aspect of one's self. Much like spatial positioning is an aspect of physical reality.

    The existing conflicts concerning gender identity are in no small part the result of confusion caused by limitations of existing language in the process of being "patched up". People are on all kinds of pages.

    ---

    The scenario that comes to mind to sort of string this together looks sort of like this: Imagine a museum, where each piece of art is sapient, self and mutually aware and self-updating. but the colours available are only the three primaries. Left to their own devices, in trying to externalize their core concepts, the art pieces would interact, exchange information and eventually discover how to mix paint and develop a pallette, an approach to composition, colour theory, form/shape, etc that would best allow them to articulate said core concepts for others to understand.

    They would never stop changing or evolving, simply because the meaning attached to words and imagery change with time and collect subtext. Circumstances make them acquire connotations or charges of things that introduce potentially unwanted subtexts to their original meaning. This is why new words are invented and existing words change.

    Words are very limiting, and I'm still not sure I organized this correctly (rough, theoretical interpretation) so if I said something stupid or insensitive let me know.
    Last edited by Necrofantasia; 07-09-2019 at 12:34 AM.
    Aridela, Alcar and yippy nr 2 thanked this post.

  7. #27
    INTP

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    If you look at a person strictly in terms of "What I can do with them" there's no reason. If you take interest in Who They Are, I think gender identity is one way to articulate it, not perfect of course because words sometimes are clumsy and limiting.
    It's a bit more complex than that in my case and this complexity comes from the "Who this person is?" question. When I'm meeting someone, I'm asking this question, but it would be foolish to get an exhaustive answer. We have to choose dimensions and create like a loose hierarchy that can change over time. For example, if you really hate math, you are not interested to know a detailed map of someone's skills in math. Instead, you'll lower the priority of this dimension and remember the minimum required if, one day, you need to do some math and you're looking for help.

    One of the criticism around all those stuff about gender is that they put this gender dimension very high in the hierarchy and expect others to do the same. It annoys me because I put this dimension very low in the hierarchy, since I use this information only if it has a clear impact on me. Same example as before, dating a man and a woman is not the same thing, same for dancing with a man or woman. And yep, I'm feeling like a man because I have penis. If I wake up with a vagina and boobs, I would consider myself as a woman without hesitation. Actually, I would find the situation very very interesting and quite cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    I think there's more to the transgender and gender neutrality movement than just rejection of stereotypes. The rejection of stereotypes might be more of a side-effect than a main goal. Thing is I am trying to organize my thoughts on the matter into stuff that can be put into words, because there are a number of layers to it, some of which may be tied to the "lenses" I use to make sense of the world. If I'm overthinking or speaking nonsense let me know.
    Of course that there is more than rejection of stereotypes. You have already a handful of transgender that are gladly following the stereotypes. But I disagree that there is a main goal. Some want just to mess up with the norms. Others want to have a big impact on how others see them. You have those who are feeling depressed to be a man/woman without knowing where that feeling comes from. Some want to be seen as the victim of a system. You have also have those who want to impose a vision of the society on others. And many other goals...

  8. #28
  9. #29

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    The existing conflicts concerning gender identity are in no small part the result of confusion caused by limitations of existing language in the process of being "patched up". People are on all kinds of pages.
    In essence language has little limitations. New words are invented on a daily basis by the dozens. One can dream up all sorts of terms for a third gender for instance. The limitation is in the human mind. We are change resistant and a majority of folks remains close minded.

    For one group of people 'they' is a term for a gender neutral person. Another group will reject this notion and treats the term 'they' as just the plural of him.

    Because of that reaching consensus about what a word means is difficult, let alone reaching consensus about if a third/fourth/fifth gender actually exists and what it should be called.

    Anyway. The problem is not in language but in the human mind.

    ---

    The scenario that comes to mind to sort of string this together looks sort of like this: Imagine a museum, where each piece of art is sapient, self and mutually aware and self-updating. but the colours available are only the three primaries. Left to their own devices, in trying to externalize their core concepts, the art pieces would interact, exchange information and eventually discover how to mix paint and develop a pallette, an approach to composition, colour theory, form/shape, etc that would best allow them to articulate said core concepts for others to understand.
    Very well put and ideally that's how development goes. But......

    They would never stop changing or evolving, simply because the meaning attached to words and imagery change with time and collect subtext. Circumstances make them acquire connotations or charges of things that introduce potentially unwanted subtexts to their original meaning. This is why new words are invented and existing words change.
    ....what if....as in real life.....there is a significant portion of artwork that doesn't want to mix colors. They want everything to remain in primary colors, because that is easier to understand for them or they want this because it has always been like this.

    The primary colors (well definifed gender roles/stereotypes) is something they want to hold on to. The other group want's to break free of those primary colors. They want to mix it up, they want colors like purple and pink to exist, to be acknowledged, to be seen.

    Those are very important needs for a person. See me, hear me, acknowledge me! So yes I do think it as a simple as rejecting stereotypes, break free and be seen/heard/acknowledged.

    NB: Thank you for well typed post. I read it all and it was insightful to say the least. However I do you think you are making things a bit too complex :) Life is often simpler than it seems, that's what I believe.

  10. #30

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcar View Post
    It's a bit more complex than that in my case and this complexity comes from the "Who this person is?" question. When I'm meeting someone, I'm asking this question, but it would be foolish to get an exhaustive answer. We have to choose dimensions and create like a loose hierarchy that can change over time. For example, if you really hate math, you are not interested to know a detailed map of someone's skills in math. Instead, you'll lower the priority of this dimension and remember the minimum required if, one day, you need to do some math and you're looking for help.

    One of the criticism around all those stuff about gender is that they put this gender dimension very high in the hierarchy and expect others to do the same. It annoys me because I put this dimension very low in the hierarchy, since I use this information only if it has a clear impact on me. Same example as before, dating a man and a woman is not the same thing, same for dancing with a man or woman. And yep, I'm feeling like a man because I have penis. If I wake up with a vagina and boobs, I would consider myself as a woman without hesitation. Actually, I would find the situation very very interesting and quite cool
    The thing is, aren't you basically expecting them to adopt your value hierarchy in turn? The whole point is to treat people how they want to be treated.

    Rather than insisting you see them as they see themselves, they seem to want to be believed when they say their mind/self is what they say it is, because they live in it. The concept of metaphysical skepticism is really helpful to understand where they come from. The position you state is basically a variant of "People can do what they want, so long as they don't push it on me because I don't care as much as they do" It's a begrudging tolerance that suggests low opinion, still rejection.

    And, forgive me, it seems that the original stance is unchanged, but the phrase "What I want to do with them" was replaced with "How they affect me" .


    Quote Originally Posted by Alcar View Post
    Of course that there is more than rejection of stereotypes. You have already a handful of transgender that are gladly following the stereotypes. But I disagree that there is a main goal. Some want just to mess up with the norms. Others want to have a big impact on how others see them. You have those who are feeling depressed to be a man/woman without knowing where that feeling comes from. Some want to be seen as the victim of a system. You have also have those who want to impose a vision of the society on others. And many other goals...
    Or maybe having more introspective, more informed generations is leading to greater nuance in self-concept and not everyone has an ulterior motive behind choosing this path (which ultimately leads to a lot of difficulties for very little pragmatic benefit). This stance suggests you essentially think you know people better than they do.
    You know how Germans have words for things that no other language has? Like Schadenfreude, Fremdschamen and Backpfeifengesicht? Does the fact they are the only ones who created those terms mean the things they refer to don't exist?


    Quote Originally Posted by yippy nr 2 View Post
    In essence language has little limitations. New words are invented on a daily basis by the dozens. One can dream up all sorts of terms for a third gender for instance. The limitation is in the human mind. We are change resistant and a majority of folks remains close minded.

    For one group of people 'they' is a term for a gender neutral person. Another group will reject this notion and treats the term 'they' as just the plural of him.

    Because of that reaching consensus about what a word means is difficult, let alone reaching consensus about if a third/fourth/fifth gender actually exists and what it should be called.

    Anyway. The problem is not in language but in the human mind.

    ---
    And to that I say:


    The way I see it, it's just history repeating itself again. The consensus over the meaning of words changes all the time, which sometimes even results in contronyms, words that mean one thing and their exact opposite at the same time. Non-plussed is an excellent example.

    There isn't a problem IMO. Language is a way to externalize thoughts, so it reflects the mind. I think this is just part of the evolution of Homo Sapiens, the ability to handle more data and be more nuanced in introspection.

    I see it as sort of going from dog vision, to mantis shrimp vision. New colours are becoming evident.



    Quote Originally Posted by yippy nr 2;43355873
    Very well put and ideally that's how development goes. But......

    ....what if....as in real life.....there is a significant portion of artwork that doesn't want to mix colors. [B
    They want everything to remain in primary colors, because that is easier to understand for them or they want this because it has always been like this.[/B]

    The primary colors (well definifed gender roles/stereotypes) is something they want to hold on to. The other group want's to break free of those primary colors. They want to mix it up, they want colors like purple and pink to exist, to be acknowledged, to be seen.

    Those are very important needs for a person. See me, hear me, acknowledge me! So yes I do think it as a simple as rejecting stereotypes, break free and be seen/heard/acknowledged.

    NB: Thank you for well typed post. I read it all and it was insightful to say the least. However I do you think you are making things a bit too complex :) Life is often simpler than it seems, that's what I believe.
    I won't lie, I think my brain really craves complexity and gets bored without it. That's not to say I reject simplicity, but that I like simplicity that betrays a complexity of thought/concept (art), optimization for a purpose (Anatomy, engineering) or a philosophy (minimalism). I revel in things that make me think stuff I've never thought before, that I've never seen before.

    The fact that other people don't want to mix colours is their own prerogative, but there's a bit of a stalemate....by accusing others of imposing their wishes on them, they're pushing back by imposing their wishes on others, thus doing the exact same thing they are faulting others for.

    That's why the museum scenario seems to fit this situation well. Whether people choose primary colours for themselves, or choose to mix, the idea is to depict the concept the piece is trying to convey as accurately as possible. Would you stick with black and white TV because it's simpler?
    Last edited by Necrofantasia; 07-09-2019 at 12:18 PM.
    yippy nr 2 thanked this post.


     
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] Which gender do your friends tend to be? (and what gender are you?)
    By BUtheBabyUnicorn in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-18-2016, 02:08 PM
  2. [ENFJ] Gender/ gender neutrality
    By chickpeaax in forum ENFJ Forum - The Givers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-03-2012, 03:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0