Are there more than two Genders?

Started by quanchi1128 pages
quanchi112 Disney

Originally posted by dadudemon
Damn. Looks like I need to force time in my schedule to finally see this, then.
I had to force myself to stop seeing it in the theatre. I didn’t want to overdo it. I needed to balance myself. Once you see the film you’ll understand the importance of balance.

BackFire Blood. It's nature's lube

https://www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong/

Surtur Restricted
Originally posted by BackFire
https://www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong/

LOL! I remember seeing that.

Thanos would totally approve of some of the Georgia Guidestones

Impediment Endless

Either quit the dick waving (Quan) and get back to topic or I’m closing this thread.

StyleTime Senior Member

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Nope that is just Politically Driven Nonsense. [/B]

That there are more than 2 sexes? That's science.
Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways: two genders. No 3rd, no 4th, no 5th.

Just 2. We can discuss there being more than 2 when someone can give me a concrete number.


Okay, for a moment, I'll say 3.

Why should intersex individuals be lumped into male/female?

quanchi112 Disney

Originally posted by Impediment
Either quit the dick waving (Quan) and get back to topic or I’m closing this thread.
Whnever there is mention of Thanos I get hard and my dick is out of my pants. It’s a Pavlovian response.

Surtur Restricted

I honestly have no problem with truly intersex people not wanting to identify.

But you see the number cited isn't usually 3.

Flyattractor Senior Member

Well Goodbye to this thread then.

Flyattractor Senior Member

Originally posted by StyleTime
That there are more than 2 sexes? That's science.

Okay, for a moment, I'll say 3.

Why should intersex individuals be lumped into male/female?

Sure there is Skippy. Cause much like Politics. Science can't be debated....at least on the College Level.

Silent Master Senior Member

Originally posted by StyleTime
That there are more than 2 sexes? That's science.

Okay, for a moment, I'll say 3.

Why should intersex individuals be lumped into male/female?

So everyone that says there are more than 3 is wrong?

StyleTime Senior Member

Originally posted by Surtur
I honestly have no problem with truly intersex people not wanting to identify.

But you see the number cited isn't usually 3.


Cool.

True, but I'm talking about the "biology only" argument.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Sure there is Skippy. Cause much like Politics. Science can't be debated....at least on the College Level. [/B]

You equate gender with sex, which means there can't be only 2 genders. Scientifically, there's at least 3. Or are you pretending intersex doesn't exist?

Or are you just being our lovable Fly? I genuinely enjoy your presence either way though.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So everyone that says there are more than 3 is wrong?

I'm saying 3 because Surtur wanted a specific number as a discussion point. I was sticking to biology for those who believe gender and sex shouldn't be separated.

The people saying there's 3+ believe, in short, this: Gender and sex are different things. Sex refers to our biological makeup. Gender refers to the roles and modes of expression expected of us by the world we inhabit. Being that these vary, even within a single society throughout time, I'm free to accept or reject whichever set of constructs I want. I can be all, none, or any combination of these and I am not permanently tied to one particular identity.

I've heard as high as 63. I think it's still being worked out though.

Silent Master Senior Member

Fair enough, It's just that I've never heard a single person state that they are biologically ___ but identify with the gender role of ____. I usually just hear them say, I 'm a ____ because that is what I identify as.

IMO, People should be free to call themselves whatever they want.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by StyleTime
Cool.

True, but I'm talking about the "biology only" argument.

You equate gender with sex, which means there can't be only 2 genders. Scientifically, there's at least 3. Or are you pretending intersex doesn't exist?

Or are you just being our lovable Fly? I genuinely enjoy your presence either way though.

I'm saying 3 because Surtur wanted a specific number as a discussion point. I was sticking to biology for those who believe gender and sex shouldn't be separated.

The people saying there's 3+ believe, in short, this: Gender and sex are different things. Sex refers to our biological makeup. Gender refers to the roles and modes of expression expected of us by the world we inhabit. Being that these vary, even within a single society throughout time, I'm free to accept or reject whichever set of constructs I want. I can be all, none, or any combination of these and I am not permanently tied to one particular identity.

I've heard as high as 63. I think it's still being worked out though.


Yeah but intersex is so rare, it could easily be viewed as a genetic anomaly rather than it's own gender. I mean there are probably more dykey gay women than intersex, but they don't get their own gender. I get that intersex don't fall into the male or female category, but it's more of a condition. And it's totally fair to note such a thing rather than sticking them in the impossible spot of picking one. I'd have no problem with adding "other" alongside the boxes Male and Female to account for all the variations of hermaphrodites and eunuchs.

StyleTime Senior Member

Originally posted by Silent Master
Fair enough, It's just that I've never heard a single person state that they are biologically ___ but identify with the gender role of ____. I usually just hear them say, I 'm a ____ because that is what I identify as.

IMO, People should be free to call themselves whatever they want.


True. They usually use short-hand, like "born in the wrong body." This statement is basically a way of saying all that with fewer words.

You might just be running into dumbasses though lol. This is why I never visit Tumblr/Twitter/etc, outside of occasional porn viewing vin. Dumb/Ignorant people exist whether you're trans, cis, or whatever and they don't always understand the nuance of the arguments they're trying to make. I'm pretty sure I'm on Fly's "Crazy Leftist Boogeyman" list, and even I roll my eyes at many of them.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah but intersex is so rare, it could easily be viewed as a genetic anomaly rather than it's own gender. I mean there are probably more dykey gay women than intersex, but they don't get their own gender. I get that intersex don't fall into the male or female category, but it's more of a condition. And it's totally fair to note such a thing rather than sticking them in the impossible spot of picking one. I'd have no problem with adding "other" alongside the boxes Male and Female to account for all the variations of hermaphrodites and eunuchs.

I see what you mean, but it's still most accurate to include it, especially for the folks claiming to be all about science.

Red hair is as rare, even rarer by some estimates, as intersex birth, yet we don't claim that there are only two hair colors. Blue eyes originated from a genetic mutation, and are only slightly more common than intersex births; however, we still understand blue to be a possible eye color. Red hair and blue eyes is far less common than intersex birth, yet it's still a possibility. We can include stuff like heterochromia too. They are all within the range of possible, healthy human bodies.

We're mostly on the same page though. The "condition" label is complicated because many intersex individuals and variations don't exhibit any detrimental symptoms associated with a "condition." There's lots of effort in the medical world to sort this out though, from what I understand.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by StyleTime
True. They usually use short-hand, like "born in the wrong body." This statement is basically a way of saying all that with fewer words.

You might just be running into dumbasses though lol. This is why I never visit Tumblr/Twitter/etc, outside of occasional porn viewing vin. Dumb/Ignorant people exist whether you're trans, cis, or whatever and they don't always understand the nuance of the arguments they're trying to make. I'm pretty sure I'm on Fly's "Crazy Leftist Boogeyman" list, and even I roll my eyes at many of them.

I see what you mean, but it's still most accurate to include it, especially for the folks claiming to be all about science.

Red hair is as rare, even rarer by some estimates, as intersex birth, yet we don't claim that there are only two hair colors. Blue eyes originated from a genetic mutation, and are only slightly more common than intersex births; however, we still understand blue to be a possible eye color. Red hair and blue eyes is far less common than intersex birth, yet it's still a possibility. We can include stuff like heterochromia too. They are all within the range of possible, healthy human bodies.

We're mostly on the same page though. The "condition" label is complicated because many intersex individuals and variations don't exhibit any detrimental symptoms associated with a "condition." There's lots of effort in the medical world to sort this out though, from what I understand.


See I disagree because being intersex isn't really something totally different, it's simply a mix up of the 2 true genders.

With hair it's different though, because it's simply applying an existing concept(the color red) to hair. Even if you have a hair color that falls outside of the generic true color, you get lumped into the color category(auburn and such all qualify as "red hair"😉. The classification for it is fixed, rather than individualized. When filling out a form someone with red hair isn't allowed to say "well I don't feel like a red head so I'm going to name my hair color Dragons Blood" and then expect government and the rest of society to allow for that option. And I know that last part isn't really pertinent to discussing such a thing on purely biological basis, I just wanted to include it as an example of why I'm so against all this 70+ gender BS.

StyleTime Senior Member

Originally posted by darthgoober
See I disagree because being intersex isn't really something totally different, it's simply a mix up of the 2 true genders.

With hair it's different though, because it's simply applying an existing concept(the color red) to hair. Even if you have a hair color that falls outside of the generic true color, you get lumped into the color category(auburn and such all qualify as "red hair"😉. The classification for it is fixed, rather than individualized. When filling out a form someone with red hair isn't allowed to say "well I don't feel like a red head so I'm going to name my hair color Dragons Blood" and then expect government and the rest of society to allow for that option. And I know that last part isn't really pertinent to discussing such a thing on purely biological basis, I just wanted to include it as an example of why I'm so against all this 70+ gender BS.


I hear ya, but male and female bodies are already a mixup of each other. Our bodies are mostly identical, and even our genitals share the same development path. Your scrotum and a woman's labia are the same thing under the influence of different hormones. Your penis, put comically simply, is a clitoris pointing outward. These and several other organs/parts share the exact same embryological precursor. Men and women were never separate entities to begin with, so much as different expressions on a single canvas. To penalize intersex for existing at point C on the continuum, rather than point A(female) or point B(male) just seems arbitrary.

I mentioned hair because your post implied that rarity meant something was invalid. People change their hair color all the time and list the new one on government documents though. With sex/gender, I guess it depends on what they are asking for. They asked for sex on my driver's license, which is a biological thing. If they ask for gender on certain ones, I can see the argument for allowing people to change it.

I agree though, the 9 million genders thing is tricky territory. We may look back on this like the lesbian separatist feminists of the past. When society develops a new social paradigm, we must consider all relevant possibilities. Women like Julie Bindel and Shiela Jeffries were a bit off the mark, even if they were well-intentioned. Even the lesbian separatists have lightened up on that stance in modern times, but it was a somewhat mainstream topic at one point in time.

I think that's what's happening now. We're trying to figure out how to proceed socially. In the future we may look back on all the gender pronouns in the same way: an interesting but ultimately impractical option. Of course, maybe not. I can't predict the future.

cdtm Restricted

Style:

Not different expressions? Are you saying men/women differences are entirely socially conditioned? No biological based behavioral differences?

StyleTime Senior Member

No, I am not, my good sir.

If you're referencing the sentence I think you're referencing, I think you misread it.

Maybe I could have punctuated/articulated it better, but laziness is a virtue tbh.

Eon Blue Restricted

On technicality there are 3 genders, but it’s widely accepted that there are only two. I’m under the latter persuasion, though I tend to keep an open mind about individual preferences and inclinations.

dadudemon Senior Member
Originally posted by Eon Blue
On technicality there are 3 genders, but it’s widely accepted that there are only two. I’m under the latter persuasion, though I tend to keep an open mind about individual preferences and inclinations.

1. Hi! Long time since I last saw you around these parts.

2. I agree with your post. I prefer to err on the side of "live and let live."