Gender/Racial Locking in 2019

[Melichoir]

Ill bite...

...Besides, saying men and women are "mentally" different from one another is... plain wrong, there's no peer reviewed study that proves that beyond going into a "nature vs nurture" debate (are women different than men because they're taught to be?).

Ill try to keept his brief: This is the "tabula Rasa" position - men and women are blank slates at birth and are conditioned by society. To quickly illustrate why this argument fails without to much effort, the core position of Trans Identity is that it is something people are born into. A genetic factor. Since this is the case, explain how can Trans people be Trans if men and women are blank slates? Blank slate theory would imply that its all a social construct and men and women are by and large interchangeable at the mental level. Are you insinuating that Transgender identity is all psychological and they can be taught to not be trans? Or are we going to be convoluted and argue that neurology and sex characteristics are 100% separate from one another. That the body may develop female, but the brain is blank (neither male nor female) and is only shaped by society tells us what a male/female is supposed to do? This wouldnt make sense either, because then it wouldnt matter what characteristics or traits we teach someone, they would 'be at home' in their body because the mind and body are completely separate. There would be no impetus for someone to feel dysphoria about their sex/gender because there is no baseline to start with.

You mention erasing homosexuality, but pushing that Gender isnt related to the biological and some of what we do is influenced by our sex and genes comes across as erasing Trans people. Itd be like saying a person's sexuality is purely societal, that people choose their sexuality. That would open the door for the pray away the gay argument that religious conservatives like, and it would be a valid argument under those specific terms if they were true. I tend to not think that this is a good line of logic.

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).

Humans are not binary when it comes sexes, but we are heavily bimodal - sex is a 'spectrum, but an extremely vast majority of the population are discernibly male and female genetically. This is the same for any other genetic variations that are not part of the average (which keep getting brought up.) Even those that do have genetic variances, most of those still display outward sex characteristics that are predominately Male or Female. The issue is framing, though. On one side of the argument, people are saying flat out there are only two sexes cause of Chromosomes. They are wrong, as intersex is a thing. The otherside, however, is playing up intersex and other genetic outliers in a fashion to say "Sex is a spectrum so saying male and female is irrelevant." This is disingenuous (and wrong) as it seeks to muddy the water by implying a false truth with facts taken out of context. The false truth being that there is no such thing as two predominant sexes and that everything is interchangeable.

The truth is more like this: If you have 10,000 gummibears and 4,999 of them are red, 4,999 of them are blue, and two are purple, the average gummy bear is gonna be red or blue, but you still have purple gummy bears in the set. Theyre all still gummy bears, but the set of 10,000 is made up of mostly Red and Blue Gummibears. It would be innaccurate to say there are only Red and Blue Gummibears, and it would be innaccurate to say that because there are purple gummibears, that there is no set that makes up the vast majority.

snip.

Hmm while its true the earliest invention of heels was for horse riding (as a lot of fashion in its roots start out as a means of utility), when it became more of a cultural fashion statement in places like france, it was designed for men typically. Usually as a means to stand taller, as well as accentuate the very same features you mention though for different reasons. It'd be like being perpetually flexed.

Beyond that, I dont see why men cant wear high heals in FFXIV. I mean we can argue keeping things in universe more visually consistent, and I think there might be some merit to that as I would hazard a larger variety of players (usually male) would (initially atleast) be wearing tons of more gendered clothing for the lulz. The "look at me run around in a dress and high heels! So funny!" (Before the 'see! sexism!" comment, Id hazard its more the oddity factor that the sexism factor. Wearing heels isnt a dig at women, so much as 'check out this thing which you dont see to often today'. Kinda of like wearing a space helmet and running around in a bathrobe would also be seen as peculiar by most cultural standards).

[rachcouture]

I'd argue it's a little of both, really. Anyone denying some sort of innate gender qualities on a biological level when things like hormonal baths are being studied is disregarding an entire population of both cisgender and transgender people alike. Still, there is plenty to imprint on people. See: the gender stereotypes present in this thread.

Humans are not binary when it comes sexes, but we are heavily bimodal - sex is a 'spectrum, but an extremely vast majority of the population are discernibly male and female genetically. This is the same for any other genetic variations that are not part of the average (which keep getting brought up.) Even those that do have genetic variances, most of those still display outward sex characteristics that are predominately Male or Female. The issue is framing, though. On one side of the argument, people are saying flat out there are only two sexes cause of Chromosomes. They are wrong, as intersex is a thing. The otherside, however, is playing up intersex and other genetic outliers in a fashion to say "Sex is a spectrum so saying male and female is irrelevant." This is disingenuous (and wrong) as it seeks to muddy the water by implying a false truth with facts taken out of context. The false truth being that there is no such thing as two predominant sexes and that everything is interchangeable.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. The issue is people outright denying both a. the existence of variations, and b. that sex/gender is a lot more complicated than what was taught several decades ago.

[Melichoir]

I'd argue it's a little of both, really. Anyone denying some sort of innate gender qualities on a biological level when things like hormonal baths are being studied is disregarding an entire population of both cisgender and transgender people alike. Still, there is plenty to imprint on people. See: the gender stereotypes present in this thread.



I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. The issue is people outright denying both a. the existence of variations, and b. that sex/gender is a lot more complicated than what was taught several decades ago.

I agree, I think outdated information is prevalent, but the issue is more about framing than the data. Both sides of the argument broadly do the wrong thing with the data. Either they go to black and white, or they take it out of context to dump the core intent that the average layman understands. For extremely practical purposes, its easy to say "Yeah there are pretty much two 'sexes'." That statement isnt true factually, but it represents the core idea that most people fall under the two sets which make up the extreme majority - male and female. The problem with the counter argument is the typical distortion of the facts. Intersex and other genetic outliers do exist, but they do not make up a significant proportion of the population. However, their existance is used in a fashion to downplay the core intent of their being two predominant sexes. It's played up like there are just as many intersex people as male and female, and usually argued this way to fight against other aspects of the sex/gender debate. It's disingenuous and spreading wrong perceptions. IMO that is just as bad a point as the opposite side.

[WhiteArchmage]

Ill try to keept his brief: This is the "tabula Rasa" position - men and women are blank slates at birth and are conditioned by society. To quickly illustrate why this argument fails without to much effort, the core position of Trans Identity is that it is something people are born into. A genetic factor. Since this is the case, explain how can Trans people be Trans if men and women are blank slates?

I'll admit to being behind in my trans reading, and there's some debate right now on if trans individuals even need corrective surgery (from which I'll stay away because, as said, I'm behind on my trans-issues reading) my original point was about how social characteristics that we consider "manly" or "womanly", especially as how clothing and personal appearance are seen (it IS what the thread is about), have been socially constructed instead of being biological.

You mention erasing homosexuality, but pushing that Gender isnt related to the biological and some of what we do is influenced by our sex and genes comes across as erasing Trans people. Itd be like saying a person's sexuality is purely societal, that people choose their sexuality.

I mentioned erasing homosexuality because the quote was "men and women complement one another", which heavily implies male/male and female/female relationships don't exist or don't count. I'll avoid getting into an argument about it because it's besides the point. Although it's been noted that (visible) homo-, bi-, and/or pan- sexuality is more prevalent in places where it's more accepted... which is sort of a chicken and egg kind of dilemma.

Humans are not binary when it comes sexes, but we are heavily bimodal - sex is a 'spectrum, but an extremely vast majority of the population are discernibly male and female genetically. This is the same for any other genetic variations that are not part of the average (which keep getting brought up.) Even those that do have genetic variances, most of those still display outward sex characteristics that are predominately Male or Female. The issue is framing, though. On one side of the argument, people are saying flat out there are only two sexes cause of Chromosomes. They are wrong, as intersex is a thing. The otherside, however, is playing up intersex and other genetic outliers in a fashion to say "Sex is a spectrum so saying male and female is irrelevant." This is disingenuous (and wrong) as it seeks to muddy the water by implying a false truth with facts taken out of context. The false truth being that there is no such thing as two predominant sexes and that everything is interchangeable.

I am agreeing with this point, it's mostly how we percieve said sexes socially (i.e. gender) that we get into further problems. I wasn't about to do a whole essay on the OF (there's still some papers I haven't read and I'd need a refresher on others).

That said, this is likely an argument that has no bearing on the actual thread

No one in this thread has done that, however. Even WhiteArchmage's post is more of a misguided oversimplification than anything else. Granted, I'm not a fan of taking neutral positions like this; occasionally there just isn't a grey area to sit in, and this, imo, is an example of one.

Sorry! I didn't want to pull all my saved articles and look through my books for a forum post but here we are lol

Same. I wanna see Roe men in cute AF heels.

+1