Gender/Racial Locking in 2019

[rachcouture]

Yes, it's 2019 and Male/Female are still genders for most animals on this planet.

Sure, but only one species wears clothes, which is what this thread is about.

Actually, what I find more recent and BS is that "gender" is used for whatever the hell people want it to mean. Since there is no getting around the biological science that denotes there are only TWO sexes, gender is used to describe any and all that pseudo exist on the grey.

A lot of the things we consider male and female is not BS. Perhaps it is to extreme left SJWs trying to destroy the boundaries between the two until we are a completely androgynous society who won't be able to defend ourselves when all those safe spaces are invaded. What we know as male and female has been established for centuries. Gender roles were taught and enforced, and done so for a very good reason: It taught boys how to be men, and girls how to be women. As human beings, males and females are equal, but from a biological, mental, and anatomical standpoint, we are different and different in a way where men and women compliment each other.

Well, no. There's numerous chromosome strand variations i.e. Klinefelter's syndrome. It's not as simple as two sexes. Of course, arguing that with someone who resorts to meaningless buzzwords like 'extreme left SJWs' is likely pointless.

To OP: I am totally okay with this. Some of the attire gendering is laughably stereotypical (see: WHM AF pants three times in a row), especially coming from a studio that tends to be more progressive than most. I'm saying this as a total girly girl that loves shorts and skirts and all things femme.

[linay]

Also, there are not only two sexes, that's invalidating intersex individuals who are born with both (and yes, before the inevitable "it's an exception, not the rule" then how do you treat them socially? it's not the same as being born deaf or blind, and we still have measures for them).

You treat them on a case by case basis depending on the actual effect their intersex has on the body.

Well, no. There's numerous chromosome strand variations i.e. Klinefelter's syndrome.

And yet that particular syndrome is acknowledged as occurring on boys and men (males). Chromosomal variation does not necessarily dictate actual physical result, or dictate them to varying degrees. So it is still correct to say humans have two sexes. Any rare variation should be treated on a case by case basis depending on the actual effect of the variation on each individual.

[rachcouture]

You treat them on a case by case basis depending on the actual effect their intersex has on the body.

No, you let them make their own decision. Being intersex isn't a disease.

And yet that particular syndrome is acknowledged as occurring on boys and men (males). Chromosomal variation does not necessarily dictate actual physical result, or dictate them to varying degrees. So it is still correct to say humans have two sexes. Any rare variation should be treated on a case by case basis depending on the actual effect of the variation on each individual.

And yet it still has effects that relate more to being intersex than anything else. Dated terminology doesn't change that whatsoever. Regardless, there are other examples that affect women, and some that can affect both (i.e. X0/XY mosaicism) making this a moot argument. Sex is not as simple as binary no matter how much you want it to be.

[whiskeybravo]

Sex is not as simple as binary no matter how much you want it to be.

Yes, it is, no matter how much you don't want it to be. Some disfigured middle ground doesn't make a new gender. People have and will continue to be born with deformities, it doesn't make them "non-human".

Riddle me this.. In recent news a "transgender man" (aka, formerly female) gave birth to a stillborn child. The baby was apparently stillborn because the medical staff was not informed of his "trans" status, so they didn't consider that he may have been pregnant. Now, we all know that males do not have the biological inners to actually carry a baby, so don't you think it would've been better for the patient to admit their actually sexual biology to receive proper medical care? Or perhaps you think it's justifiable to lie even in cases such as this?

I think a quote from one of my favorite movies is appropriate: "Sticking a feather up your butt does not make you a chicken"

[rachcouture]

Yes, it is, no matter how much you don't want it to be. Some disfigured middle ground doesn't make a new gender. People have and will continue to be born with deformities, it doesn't make them "non-human".

And yet here you are, dehumanizing people by referring to them as a "disfigured middle ground".

I didn't say it was. Being short isn't a disease either, but there are still rules about height in certain occasions. Where rules regarding sex is put in place, being intersex shouldn't give you any additional right to choose. In all other cases, it doesn't matter. It is as far as the normative effect of sexual difference is concerned: reproduction. There is no third sex for humans from which a new human individual can be conceived.

It gives you every right to choose. It's your body, not a doctor's who thinks hacking body parts off an infant who has no say in the matter is somehow sane. This is how you ruin someone's life before they're even given a chance.

Stop relying on your high school biology education. Science evolves as we learn more.

[linay]

It gives you every right to choose. It's your body, not a doctor who thinks hacking body parts off an infant who has no say in the matter is somehow sane. This is how you ruin someone's life before they're even given a chance.

Uh, what? I wasn't talking about hacking body parts, so don't even go there.

Stop relying on your high school biology education. Science evolves as we learn more.

Have we learned about a new sex for human reproduction?

[linay]

No, you let them make their own decision. Being intersex isn't a disease.

I didn't say it was. Being short isn't a disease either, but there are still rules about height in certain occasions. Where rules regarding sex is put in place, being intersex shouldn't give you any additional right to choose. In all other cases, it doesn't matter.

Sex is not as simple as binary no matter how much you want it to be.

It is as far as the normative effect of sexual difference is concerned: reproduction. There is no third sex for humans from which a new human individual can be conceived.

[Gemina]

And yet it still has effects that relate more to being intersex than anything else. Dated terminology doesn't change that whatsoever. Regardless, there are other examples that affect women, and some that can affect both (i.e. X0/XY mosaicism) making this a moot argument. Sex is not as simple as binary no matter how much you want it to be.

This affects less than 1% of the world's entire population. Exceptions are never good grounds for the rule. I'm afraid sex is as simple as binary. As I said before, there is no way around it. It's indisputable which is why the term "gender" is used instead to cover the grey area. Biological sex refers specifically to the sex organs a person possesses. In 99% of cases worldwide, biological sex can be determined under 12 weeks after conception (varies from case to case). It is based off of the chromosomes assigned much earlier in the process of fetal development, and there are only two possible results. This person has either male or female sex organs.

We can argue about intersex and even transgender (true TG and not trans-trenders), but these are a rare, rare exception. However, in their cases the term "gender" is appropriate to what they identify with. Again though, this is going to be either male or female. Two choices. Gender fluid people - go back and forth between male and female. Two choices. Genderless people don't identify with either male or female. Two choices.

To put it shortly: Your identification card is going to have one of two sexes printed on it.