University of Otago student association gives "sportswoman of the year" award to a man.

[Metaphor]

In Meta's case, and that of many conservatives, this would seem not to be the case. They're not real sure what they are (the stridency with which they contend otherwise is proportional to the degree of truth of that assertion). They look to pigeonholing others as a means to get their bearings.

Have you taken up amateur psychoanalysis?

What makes you think I'm not sure what I am?

 

[Metaphor]

You shouldn't. Get a hobby.

Well, here's the thing: I don't care. I have never enquired about somebody's gender.

Well, that definitely depends on several things. SHOULD you be protected from the terrible spectre of getting beaten in some sport by a "girl"?

I don't play sports, but I am of the sex (male) that does not stand to lose if a woman decides to play against us.

Maybe you shouldn't be playing.
Is it that your entertainment is threatened by men beating women in some sports league?

No, I don't watch sports.

You SHOULD appeal to the league, then. They are usually incredibly responsive to factors that effect their fanbase/viewership.
Questing about some backwater internet forum for definitions from which you can pick and choose, isn't going to help you with this nagging problem of yours.

Why are you so against discussion on a discussion board?

 

[Emily Lake]

(Hint: in the example Card it’s a binary choice, and doesn’t reflect the spectrum of human anatomy, psyche or experience - it just makes some people more comfortable. That’s the purpose of the card.)

Sex is binary.

 

[Ahab]

Why are you so against discussion on a discussion board?

It is interesting seeing the number of posters simply complaining that this is being discussed. If one finds a a discussion to be a waste of time the sensible thing to do is to simply ignore it.

 

[Ahab]

(Hint: in the example Card it’s a binary choice, and doesn’t reflect the spectrum of human anatomy, psyche or experience - it just makes some people more comfortable. That’s the purpose of the card.)

Sex is binary.

Quite so. Only male or female. Intersex is not another sex.

 

[Elixir]

(Hint: in the example Card it’s a binary choice, and doesn’t reflect the spectrum of human anatomy, psyche or experience - it just makes some people more comfortable. That’s the purpose of the card.)

Sex is binary.

The question was "gender".
Choose your poison!

 

[Elixir]

Why are you so against discussion on a discussion board?

Lol! It's as good a place as any for vacuous "discussion". I'm certainly not against it.
I find some people's preoccupation with other people's self identification weird.
Discuss away! I hope you reach a point of resolution of all the problems caused to you by gay, trans, female or whatever individuals. Are you sure you don't want to show us on the doll?

 

[Metaphor]

Lol! It's as good a place as any for vacuous "discussion". I'm certainly not against it.

Then I would appreciate fewer snide comments about the discussion then, if you are not against it.

Also, how do you, Elixir, define 'gender'? You've used it before, and you gave a (partial? false?) definition when you said it was:

“Gender”as I referred to it, is the binary choice imposed upon individuals by other individuals or organizations (such as Olympic Committees) based on criteria they choose for their own purposes.

You then appeared to accuse me of illiteracy because I pointed out that my online groceries involve a binary choice ("click and collect" or "delivery") imposed on me by an organisation. And, rather than failing to see the sloppiness of your definition and offering a better one, you got stroppy.

I find some people's preoccupation with other people's self identification weird.

Okay.

Discuss away! I hope you reach a point of resolution of all the problems caused to you by gay, trans, female or whatever individuals. Are you sure you don't want to show us on the doll?

I have not been sexually molested so I don't know what it is on 'the doll' you would like me to show you.

 

[Elixir]

I would appreciate fewer snide comments about the discussion then, if you are not against it.

So I have to be "against it" to make snide comments about it? Hmmm... so many rules...

Also, how do you define 'gender'?

I defined it for you as I used it. If you can't understand it or don't find the definition satisfactory, feel free to "discuss" the reason for that with someone else.
Seems like Ahab might offer his support.

 

[repoman]

Asking these questions will literally be psychic terrorism in a decade.

 

[Emily Lake]

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

[Metaphor]

I would appreciate fewer snide comments about the discussion then, if you are not against it.

So I have to be "against it" to make snide comments about it? Hmmm... so many rules...

No, your conclusion is fallacious. If you are not against it, I don't see why you would make snide comments about it. But that does not mean that if you were against it, I would find snide comments desirable. In fact, a number of posters--including yourself, apparently--come into my threads only to proclaim their uninterest, make snide comments, and then leave.

Also, how do you define 'gender'?

I defined it for you as I used it.

Okay. My online grocery buying imposes a gender when it asks if I want groceries "click and collect" or "delivered".

 

[Jarhyn]

(Hint: in the example Card it’s a binary choice, and doesn’t reflect the spectrum of human anatomy, psyche or experience - it just makes some people more comfortable. That’s the purpose of the card.)

Sex is binary.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The irony is meter-shattering, as always.

 

[Elixir]

No, your conclusion is fallacious. If you are not against it, I don't see why you would make snide comments about it. But that does not mean that if you were against it, I would find snide comments desirable. In fact, a number of posters--including yourself, apparently--come into my threads only to proclaim their uninterest, make snide comments, and then leave.

Also, how do you define 'gender'?

I defined it for you as I used it.

Okay. My online grocery buying imposes a gender when it asks if I want groceries "click and collect" or "delivered".

That sounds like a discussion truly worthy of right wing conservative “thought”.
Pray tell - what gender did your online grocer assign to your last order, and what was in it?

 

[Metaphor]

No, your conclusion is fallacious. If you are not against it, I don't see why you would make snide comments about it. But that does not mean that if you were against it, I would find snide comments desirable. In fact, a number of posters--including yourself, apparently--come into my threads only to proclaim their uninterest, make snide comments, and then leave.





Okay. My online grocery buying imposes a gender when it asks if I want groceries "click and collect" or "delivered".

That sounds like a discussion truly worthy of right wing conservative “thought”.
Pray tell - what gender did your online grocer assign to your last order, and what was in it?

Well - I chose delivery - so by your definition of gender, I chose 'delivery gender'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(Hint: in the example Card it’s a binary choice, and doesn’t reflect the spectrum of human anatomy, psyche or experience - it just makes some people more comfortable. That’s the purpose of the card.)

Sex is binary.

I always found it fun.

 

[LoAmmo]

Metaphor...if I may.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt; I've been following along more or less just to have something to read. I can see valid points on both sides of this debate -- if one were to say there were only two-- but on a more fundamental level, what I think is going on is this:

For years and decades and centuries past, "gender" was strictly defined as a stark, binary, black OR white box to check off, even though it isn't, wasn't, and never has been, but...that's the way you grew up with it and that's the way you're used to it being. And the world is changing faster than you're prepared to accept. That isn't an indictment of you; it's simply to say that (in my opinion) what you're doing is refusing to get on board with this emergent re-imagining, this burgeoning acceptance, of gender as being more fluid, more malleable, only because it flies in the face of the way you've always known gender and are used to thinking of it.

Do you allow for that possibility?

 

[Gun Nut]

This fixation that some people have about finding news on trans people is kinda peculiar. Yup. Very peculiar I'd say.

I was just wondering what linked him to that too... shemale porn, maybe?

 

[Gun Nut]

Seems like this thread is mis-titled.
Should be: Metaphor disagrees with University of Otago student association’s definition of a woman. Thinks they should listen to him.

Do you feel this is an appropriate post for a mod to make?

I agree with the first sentence you wrote. The second sentence is false. When I went to university back in the stone age, I was already aware of the intractable, hard left cloud cuckoo land nature of "student unions" -- elected by less than 7 per cent of the student population that took part in elections, but nevertheless supported by compulsory student unionism and fees extracted from students.

What a student union thinks a woman is does not concern me. That strange ideas (like that some men can be women) that began in academia now have increasing public purchase does.

It makes sense that someone that went to school in the "stone age" only knows how to bang stones together when a modern university creates fire. Must be very scary for you... all these new ideas...

 

[Emily Lake]

Metaphor...if I may.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt; I've been following along more or less just to have something to read. I can see valid points on both sides of this debate -- if one were to say there were only two-- but on a more fundamental level, what I think is going on is this:

For years and decades and centuries past, "gender" was strictly defined as a stark, binary, black OR white box to check off, even though it isn't, wasn't, and never has been, but...that's the way you grew up with it and that's the way you're used to it being. And the world is changing faster than you're prepared to accept. That isn't an indictment of you; it's simply to say that (in my opinion) what you're doing is refusing to get on board with this emergent re-imagining, this burgeoning acceptance, of gender as being more fluid, more malleable, only because it flies in the face of the way you've always known gender and are used to thinking of it.

Do you allow for that possibility?

I would suggest that part of the problem is the forced redefinition of a term to fit a political narrative.

Roles, presentations, and expected behaviors based on sex have existed throughout time and throughout cultures. Some of the behaviors are actually sex-linked, and show a degree of persistence and consistency across eras and nations. At a bare minimum, hormones affect behavior.

The rest of it, however, has been socially determined, and shows considerable variation past and present, and from region to region and group to group. The clothing and ornamentation that are expected to be worn by either males or females is entirely socially defined. Color associations, social roles and jobs, and a lot of behavioral aspects are socially defined and imposed.

Up until the 1950s, gender meant exactly the same thing as sex. It was simply the polite term for biological sex, used to distinguish the biological element from the act of intercourse. Then Money came along and redefined gender as something separated from sex so that he could justify doing sick sexual experiments on children. That was followed up by Butler, the Mega-Queen of meaningless babble, who pretty much made gender something completely devoid of any understanding and turned it into something people could don or drop at will.

Currently, "gender" is being forcibly and coercively redefined to represent a woo-laden internal soul that can have a sex the opposite of ones body... or even have a sex that is not found anywhere in nature and doesn't exist. It is simultaneously. however, being used to represent the set of sex-based stereotypes that are bundled up into social roles and behaviors. All of which, at the end of the day, robs it of value for discussion and understanding.

It's become a meaningless term... and that meaningless term is being foisted into publicly policy to override the very real and objective fact of sex.