Colorado club shooter is non-binary, CNN repeatedly misgenders them.

[Bomb#20]

... let alone "sex", a concept whose modern connotations of strict biological determinism existed no more or less in the imagination of the Medieval Englishman than gender did. Perspectives on masculinity and femininity were wildly different even just a few centuries back ...

Perspectives were different in detail, sure, but wildly different? According to the OED:

virtue: Middle English: from Old French vertu, from Latin virtus ‘valor, merit, moral perfection’, from vir ‘man’.

bad: Middle English: perhaps from Old English bǣddel ‘hermaphrodite, womanish man’.​

Whether pink is considered a manly or womanly color could change on a whim, sure. But having a patriarchal sexual caste system per se, not so much.

 

[Oleg]

 

[Politesse]

... let alone "sex", a concept whose modern connotations of strict biological determinism existed no more or less in the imagination of the Medieval Englishman than gender did. Perspectives on masculinity and femininity were wildly different even just a few centuries back ...

Perspectives were different in detail, sure, but wildly different? According to the OED:

virtue: Middle English: from Old French vertu, from Latin virtus ‘valor, merit, moral perfection’, from vir ‘man’.​

​

bad: Middle English: perhaps from Old English bǣddel ‘hermaphrodite, womanish man’.​

Whether pink is considered a manly or womanly color could change on a whim, sure. But having a patriarchal sexual caste system per se, not so much.

How charming.

But I don't think you've quite thought through your own example, as if you do think about it for half a second, you'll realize that the OED has here preserved a record now-defunct gender term, bǣddel, more relevant to the society that produced it than the one which now exists. Hardly proof that gender perspectives are static, quite the opposite.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not talking about transgender. That's easy to understand. The brain matter doesn't always match up with the body parts. Those folks should be given the option to transition and be accepted for who they are. It's just a little harder to understand the concept of being gender fluid. Actually, it's becoming difficult to understand what the term gender even means.

Narcissism. It’s all narcissism. It’s the current way to be unique and important. Everyone must bow. But in reality it’s completely meaningless. The only categories that matter are male / female and gay / straight / bi.

Anti-science BS.

Are you proposing that sociology qualifies as a science? Or are you claiming chemistry or neurobiology or some other actual science has discovered empirical evidence that objectively distinguishes "categories that matter" from "categories that don't matter"? If you meant the latter, share.

I'm proposing that Oleg's response to Southernhybrid's statement was anti-science BS. The neurobiology of the brain and the sexual differences of portions of it are well established.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not talking about transgender. That's easy to understand. The brain matter doesn't always match up with the body parts. Those folks should be given the option to transition and be accepted for who they are. It's just a little harder to understand the concept of being gender fluid. Actually, it's becoming difficult to understand what the term gender even means.

Narcissism. It’s all narcissism. It’s the current way to be unique and important. Everyone must bow. But in reality it’s completely meaningless. The only categories that matter are male / female and gay / straight / bi.

Identifying with the other sex, if you have gender dysphoria, I can see as a coping mechanism.

But identifying as "Non-binary" seems to me an exercise in narcissism. It is somebody who needs to be the specialest snowflake. And it requires no change in any perceivable appearance or behaviour--because of course there is no non-binary sex.

I know a woman who calls herself 'they/them', and even has adopted the label 'queer' for herself. She is an attractive, feminine, heterosexual woman who has only ever been in monogamous relationships with men. Of course, she isn't remotely bisexual or lesbian, and even if she pretended she were, those identities no longer have any social currency. But if you are 'non-binary'? Girl you're dismantling the heteropatriarchy like nobody's business.

I don't know about that. I watched a bunch of videos by people who identify as nonbinary. They seemed very sincere and they did seem a bit out of what we might call mainstream gender. I'd call them nerdy or off beat, if I had to judge them.

While I don't really understand exactly why they feel this gender concept is so important, they didn't seem narcissistic. They just seemed to think that their gender ID was very important to them. I don't understand why being misgendered is such a terrible thing, but I'm not one who ever lets other people's opinions of me hurt me, so it's always been difficult for me to understand why other people's feelings get so easily hurt, especially by people who they barely know. Apparently, not everyone is able to ignore the things that others say about them that they feel are insulting. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against or bullied due to being a minority of any type. That's different from simply being called a she when you feel like a they, assuming it's not done out of malice.

I just like to understand where people are coming from as much as possible and how best to make them feel comfortable around me. If it takes referring to one as they, that's cool, even if I don't understand it. There are certainly far more important things to be concerned about in today's world. I would hope that all of us could agree on that, regardless of how we perceive our genders.

What I really dislike about some of this gender stuff, is that is seems to put too much emphasis on stereotypical gender roles. I read about one woman who lost her husband. He had been a truck driver and after he died the wife became a truck driver and then started to identify as mostly male. WTF! I've known of female truck drivers. I met a woman who was an awesome tow truck driver. Sure, she was large and very strong, but she had a husband and children and considered herself a woman. Shouldn't gender stereotypes and roles be dead by now? I think that may be why some of this seems contradictory to me, despite my best efforts to understand it.

Then again, maybe there are some people who literally have an odd mix of white and grey brain matter or a hormonal mix that makes it difficult for them to identify as one gender. I don't think we know at this point whether nonbinary gender is purely a social construct or if there is something more to it.


Anyway......I think I've said more than enough.

 

[Politesse]

Are you often misgendered? I am often enough, on the phone, due to my naturally high tenor. I've never liked it, but it'd context that makes it hurt more than the act. If I hadn't spent my entire life being bullied and hurt by supposed friends and family for supposedly failing at masculinity and thus, by implication, essentially failing at being a human being, it probably wouldn't hurt quite as much when it happens accidentally at the Wendy's drive thru. But it did, and it does.

 

[Metaphor]

What I really dislike about some of this gender stuff, is that is seems to put too much emphasis on stereotypical gender roles. I read about one woman who lost her husband. He had been a truck driver and after he died the wife became a truck driver and then started to identify as mostly male. WTF! I've known of female truck drivers. I met a woman who was an awesome tow truck driver. Sure, she was large and very strong, but she had a husband and children and considered herself a woman. Shouldn't gender stereotypes and roles be dead by now? I think that may be why some of this seems contradictory to me, despite my best efforts to understand it.

If you ever watch any videos of 'trans kids', you will see nothing but coached children tallying off gender stereotypes. Little Billy (who has now been renamed Aurora) always took to feminine-styled clothing and played with dolls. Obviously a girl! Little Jessica (now Max or Ash) pulled the ribbons out of her hair and fought like the dickens when she was required to wear a dress. Obviously a boy!

Instead of parents telling children: play with what makes you happy and dress the way you want, because your preferences don't determine whether you are a boy or girl, parents (mostly mothers) reinforce gender roles by re-casting their child as trans.

Children are trans the same way cats are vegans. We know who's making the decisions in that household.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you often misgendered? I am often enough, on the phone, due to my naturally high tenor. I've never liked it, but it'd context that makes it hurt more than the act. If I hadn't spent my entire life being bullied and hurt by supposed friends and family for supposedly failing at masculinity and thus, by implication, essentially failing at being a human being, it probably wouldn't hurt quite as much when it happens accidentally at the Wendy's drive thru. But it did, and it does.

A high tenor is prized and extremely rare for a male voice type in musical circles. You could leverage it as a source of pride instead.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What I really dislike about some of this gender stuff, is that is seems to put too much emphasis on stereotypical gender roles. I read about one woman who lost her husband. He had been a truck driver and after he died the wife became a truck driver and then started to identify as mostly male. WTF! I've known of female truck drivers. I met a woman who was an awesome tow truck driver. Sure, she was large and very strong, but she had a husband and children and considered herself a woman. Shouldn't gender stereotypes and roles be dead by now? I think that may be why some of this seems contradictory to me, despite my best efforts to understand it.

If you ever watch any videos of 'trans kids', you will see nothing but coached children tallying off gender stereotypes. Little Billy (who has now been renamed Aurora) always took to feminine-styled clothing and played with dolls. Obviously a girl! Little Jessica (now Max or Ash) pulled the ribbons out of her hair and fought like the dickens when she was required to wear a dress. Obviously a boy!

Instead of parents telling children: play with what makes you happy and dress the way you want, because your preferences don't determine whether you are a boy or girl, parents (mostly mothers) reinforce gender roles by re-casting their child as trans.

Children are trans the same way cats are vegans. We know who's making the decisions in that household.

And if you watch the Problem with Jon Stewart episode about trans kids you will see two mothers whose small Children insisted on being the opposing gender from their sex and the mothers disbelieved and fought and finally gave in to referring to them as they wanted after the children struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts. After the gender affirming recognition the children were much happier.

These are just anecdotes and it’d be better to look into proper research on the matter but I felt It Was necessary to present an obvious counter example to your comments.

 

[Bomb#20]

... let alone "sex", a concept whose modern connotations of strict biological determinism existed no more or less in the imagination of the Medieval Englishman than gender did. Perspectives on masculinity and femininity were wildly different even just a few centuries back ...

Perspectives were different in detail, sure, but wildly different? According to the OED:

virtue: Middle English: from Old French vertu, from Latin virtus ‘valor, merit, moral perfection’, from vir ‘man’.​

​

bad: Middle English: perhaps from Old English bǣddel ‘hermaphrodite, womanish man’.​

Whether pink is considered a manly or womanly color could change on a whim, sure. But having a patriarchal sexual caste system per se, not so much.

How charming.

Pretty revolting, actually.

But I don't think you've quite thought through your own example, as if you do think about it for half a second, you'll realize that the OED has here preserved a record now-defunct gender term, bǣddel, more relevant to the society that produced it than the one which now exists. Hardly proof that gender perspectives are static, quite the opposite.

To put it in terms more relevant to modern society, it's sort of like if kids, always looking for new put-downs for everything they find unsatisfactory in the world, were in the 1980s to adopt "That's so gay." for the purpose.

What the OED has here preserved is a record of a now-defunct society that identified people who supposedly failed at masculinity, and that regarded them so thoroughly as people who supposedly failed at being human beings that it took up using its word for the one as its word for the other.

If I hadn't spent my entire life being bullied and hurt by supposed friends and family for supposedly failing at masculinity and thus, by implication, essentially failing at being a human being, it probably wouldn't hurt quite as much...

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not talking about transgender. That's easy to understand. The brain matter doesn't always match up with the body parts. Those folks should be given the option to transition and be accepted for who they are. It's just a little harder to understand the concept of being gender fluid. Actually, it's becoming difficult to understand what the term gender even means.

Narcissism. It’s all narcissism. It’s the current way to be unique and important. Everyone must bow. But in reality it’s completely meaningless. The only categories that matter are male / female and gay / straight / bi.

Anti-science BS.

Are you proposing that sociology qualifies as a science? Or are you claiming chemistry or neurobiology or some other actual science has discovered empirical evidence that objectively distinguishes "categories that matter" from "categories that don't matter"? If you meant the latter, share.

I'm proposing that Oleg's response to Southernhybrid's statement was anti-science BS. The neurobiology of the brain and the sexual differences of portions of it are well established.

So you can cite some specific neurobiology research showing that people who behave like the girl in the video in post #253 have brains anatomically different from the brains of ciswomen and anatomically different from the brains of transmen, in some way that is systematically different from the way the brains of narcissistic people anatomically differ from the brains of normal people? Did you see Southernhybrid say she wasn't talking about transgender?

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

It's a stubborn beast, isn't it? Feminists have been dismantling the patriarchy for decades, or so I'm told.

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

It's a stubborn beast, isn't it? Feminists have been dismantling the patriarchy for decades, or so I'm told.

Unless you ask a conservative, in which case you'll be solemnly informed that racism and sexism are functionally extinct and the rule of law need not trouble with them.

Political feminists were never so naive.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

It's a stubborn beast, isn't it? Feminists have been dismantling the patriarchy for decades, or so I'm told.

Unless you ask a conservative, in which case uou'll be solemnly informed that racism and sexism are functionally extinct and the rule of law need not trouble with it.

Who would think that? Systemic discrimination against whites and males is alive and well.

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

It's a stubborn beast, isn't it? Feminists have been dismantling the patriarchy for decades, or so I'm told.

Unless you ask a conservative, in which case uou'll be solemnly informed that racism and sexism are functionally extinct and the rule of law need not trouble with it.

Who would think that? Systemic discrimination against whites and males is alive and well.

Ah yes. I forgot that only reverse discrimination exists.

I can definitely see why you guys object so vehemently to higher education.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

It's a stubborn beast, isn't it? Feminists have been dismantling the patriarchy for decades, or so I'm told.

Unless you ask a conservative, in which case uou'll be solemnly informed that racism and sexism are functionally extinct and the rule of law need not trouble with it.

Who would think that? Systemic discrimination against whites and males is alive and well.

Ah yes. I forgot that only reverse discrimination exists.

"Reverse discrimination" is a term used only by people who believe discrimination against white males is impossible.

Thank you for identifying yourself.

I can definitely see why you guys object so vehemently to higher education.

I graduated from both of my university degrees with first class honours.

Objecting to the groupthink and rigorously prescribed orthodoxy that are the result of the long march through the institutions does not mean I object to 'higher education'.

Try harder, Politesse.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not talking about transgender. That's easy to understand. The brain matter doesn't always match up with the body parts. Those folks should be given the option to transition and be accepted for who they are. It's just a little harder to understand the concept of being gender fluid. Actually, it's becoming difficult to understand what the term gender even means.

Narcissism. It’s all narcissism. It’s the current way to be unique and important. Everyone must bow. But in reality it’s completely meaningless. The only categories that matter are male / female and gay / straight / bi.

Anti-science BS.

Are you proposing that sociology qualifies as a science? Or are you claiming chemistry or neurobiology or some other actual science has discovered empirical evidence that objectively distinguishes "categories that matter" from "categories that don't matter"? If you meant the latter, share.

I'm proposing that Oleg's response to Southernhybrid's statement was anti-science BS. The neurobiology of the brain and the sexual differences of portions of it are well established.

So you can cite some specific neurobiology research showing that people who behave like the girl in the video in post #253 have brains anatomically different from the brains of ciswomen and anatomically different from the brains of transmen, in some way that is systematically different from the way the brains of narcissistic people anatomically differ from the brains of normal people? Did you see Southernhybrid say she wasn't talking about transgender?

Thanks, no. That's been done more than adequately by Jarhyn several times. Again, this applies to Oleg's statement. I haven't formed an opinion on gender fluidity yet, other than live and let live.

 

[Toni]

Well, that's why I think gender perspectives haven't really changed since the Middle Ages quite as much as you implied.

That would only make sense if "the patriarchy still exists" were the only factor one were considering.

It's a stubborn beast, isn't it? Feminists have been dismantling the patriarchy for decades, or so I'm told.

Unless you ask a conservative, in which case uou'll be solemnly informed that racism and sexism are functionally extinct and the rule of law need not trouble with it.

Who would think that? Systemic discrimination against whites and males is alive and well.

Ah yes. I forgot that only reverse discrimination exists.

"Reverse discrimination" is a term used only by people who believe discrimination agaiblnst white males is impossie.

Thank you for identifying yourself.

I can definitely see why you guys object so vehemently to higher education.

I graduated from both of my university degrees with first class honours.

Objecting to the groupthink and rigorously prescribed orthodoxy that are the result of the long march through the institutions does not mean I object to 'higher education'.

Try harder, Politesse.

Try harder Politesse? You have got to be kidding, Metaphor. And class rank? What are you? 17?

Reverse discrimination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reverse discrimination is a term for discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of ethnicity, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.[original research?]

The advent of compensatory initiatives and policies such as affirmative action in the early- to mid-1970s were seen by many white people, and some black people, as reverse discrimination. This was a time period during which these policies focused on the under-representation of ethnic minority groups and women, and attempted to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world.[1]

An interesting article for more background: Article gifted: https://wapo.st/3VxCP0H

This “background circumstances” test has been widely followed since first laid down by another federal appellate court in 1981 as a way to deal with bias claims by White (or male) employees. Some critics find it vague; others think it unfair. My concern is that in their constant invocation of “reverse discrimination,” the precedents are unhappily worded. That term and the concept behind it share a history sufficiently odious that I’d advise critics of affirmative action to find a different form of words. Because there’s been scarcely a moment of progress toward racial equality that hasn’t met the same criticism.

We can trace similar language at least back to 1854, when a North Carolina newspaper registered its dismay at the contents of an abolitionist pamphlet: “[T]here seems to be a prejudice against a white skin, and in favor of black one, that would be amusing if it were not disgusting.” In 1866, during the Reconstruction Era, newspapers across the country reprinted an anonymous essay condemning the Freedmen’s Bureau for “discrimination against the white race.”

 

[Politesse]

Unless you ask a conservative, in which case uou'll be solemnly informed that racism and sexism are functionally extinct and the rule of law need not trouble with it.

Who would think that? Systemic discrimination against whites and males is alive and well.

Ah yes. I forgot that only reverse discrimination exists.

"Reverse discrimination" is a term used only by people who believe discrimination against white males is impossible.

Thank you for identifying yourself.

I can definitely see why you guys object so vehemently to higher education.

I graduated from both of my university degrees with first class honours.

Objecting to the groupthink and rigorously prescribed orthodoxy that are the result of the long march through the institutions does not mean I object to 'higher education'.

Try harder, Politesse.

I mentioned so-called "reverse discrimination" because it's a common right wing phrasing, not because I endorse its use. Before you ask, no, I don't endorse exclusively highlighting discrimination against privileged classes as a social problem, nor anti-intellectualism, nor denying the social reality of institutional sexism and racism, nor any other contents mentioned in the post. I was, in fact, complaining or intending to complain about the paucity of critical thinking and intellectual honesty in conservative social discourse due to the prevalence of such poorly considered thinking.

Congratulations on your (I assume recent?) graduation, though!