You're all Transgender hens until Proven Otherwise!!

Feisar

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Development of nature?? Language is completely made up by humans to describe things. What makes a chair a chair? Does the word c-h-a-i-r have some essential connection with the thing you are sitting on or is it a complete fabrication which we make up? The latter in fact. The only reason a chair is a chair is because it is different than a stool or a box or whatever. The word chair is a signifier nothing else.

And humans are a development of nature. It's a bit simplistic of me to argue that everything comes from nature and that's all there is too it though.

Well I suppose a chair had to be something. The word itself has no meaning, it's different in France or Germany. Words are like currency, they hold no real value only the concept of something.

I'm drifting a bit here. As said earlier what's wrong with the term boy to describe a young male?
Does the harm occur when we attach different expectations to the things we put these handles on?

Again, not arguing, just throwing a few questions out. Not informed enough to make solid arguments on the subject.

thomasj

The fact that that article you linked was created two days before April fools day has me being a bit of a doubting thomas.

wonderfulname

Feisar wrote: »

I'm drifting a bit here. As said earlier what's wrong with the term boy to describe a young male?
Does the harm occur when we attach different expectations to the things we put these handles on?

I'm inclined to agree, quite wholeheartedly in fact. I can't speak for Sweden but within our own society I find gender has been caricaturised, especially in how we present it to children, and I definitely see that as a bad thing. For the most part the terms boy and girl are 100% correct but it shouldn't mean more than sex and is definitely burdened with more.

sbsquarepants

Mardy Bum wrote: »

It is manufactured and has been proven since the 60s onwards conclusively by the experts in a range of fields. Obviously male is male. I said sex is different to gender i.e male/ female =/=man/woman. Boys is a created term to signify difference there is nothing essential about it (While Im at it all language is made up to create difference through binary opposites, all words are signifiers they don't actually correspond to anything only the constructed terms society has given them). It doesn't make a different if its PC or not the actual fact that people don't recognise how society is constructed is more worrying.

Proven my arse. Language has nothing to do with it. Back in caveman days before language and politicaly correct stupidity like this hens nonsnense men were men, in both the physical dicks and testerone sense and also in the gender "manly" sense. It's not a construct of anyone or anything - it's just the way that animals work. All this gender is a social construct bullshít is just politicaly correct rubbish to try and mask the fact that some people are just different, but might get offended if you point that out.
I dislike the term abnormal - but it is stupidity to claim there is no such thing as normal for any species. The norm for ours is relatively clearly defined males and females who are in the region of 90 - 95% heterosexual. We may be sufficiently evolved that we are more tolerant of those who fall outside these norms - but it is plainly false to claim they don't exist so as not to hurt someones feelings. Being different is fine in my opinion - but it is a difference or a deviation from the norm nonetheless. We are not born androgenous and manufactured into gender groups by society - that's crazy!

As a person who was born a male, am perfectly happy being male and never want to change male, I genuinely don't understand this whole "being born in the wrong gender", but that's just because I've never experienced it myself. Yes, you can say I'm ignorant about it, but I wouldn't stop someone from doing it. At the end of the day, it's they're bodies and their choices; I would just hope that if I ever became sexually attracted to a post-op transgendered woman without realizing, she'd have the decency to tell me - yes, it would put me off becoming attached to her, but that would only because I would like to have a child naturally, which is something she just wouldn't be able to provide.

wonderfulname

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Proven my arse. Language has nothing to do with it. Back in caveman days before language and politicaly correct stupidity like this hens nonsnense men were men, in both the physical dicks and testerone sense and also in the gender "manly" sense.

It's not wise to get your information on the bronze age from early Hollywood film. Evidence shows women held greater rights and powers in that time, holding a role that in our time would be viewed as masculine.

Doc Ruby

wonderfulname wrote: »

It's not wise to get your information on the bronze age from early Hollywood film. Evidence shows women held greater rights and powers in that time, holding a role that in our time would be viewed as masculine.

There were an awful lot of different bronze age cultures though.

And in other news, in Sweden it's legal to have sex with animals, so maybe this hens thing is actually paedophilia.

So I'm eh, I'm just going to change the channel over here...

PhlegmyMoses

I remember a few lads when I was younger who preferred barbie dolls or skipping and the like. Other kids gave them a slagging because they were different but the parents seemed to not really care and encouraged them by buying them the stuff they wanted.

Even now, my godson seems to have decided to copy his mother, who is a housewife, and is constantly trying to hoover, clean, bake and the likes. He also is quite a good footballer.

We all know plenty of girls who enjoyed sports and roughhousing with the lads instead of sitting around with dolls and make-up.

My point is that although many people would like to think that advertising executives have the most influence over our kids, the reality is that parents do and kids will generally do what they want unless somebody actively prevents them from doing so.

People have been allowing their kids to do what they want for years and I think they deserve a bit more credit than being told that they need to see Spiderman posing like a girl while pushing a pram before they can allow their kids to be themselves.

Mardy Bum

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Proven my arse. Language has nothing to do with it. Back in caveman days before language and politicaly correct stupidity like this hens nonsnense men were men, in both the physical dicks and testerone sense and also in the gender "manly" sense. It's not a construct of anyone or anything - it's just the way that animals work. All this gender is a social construct bullshít is just politicaly correct rubbish to try and mask the fact that some people are just different, but might get offended if you point that out.
I dislike the term abnormal - but it is stupidity to claim there is no such thing as normal for any species. The norm for ours is relatively clearly defined males and females who are in the region of 90 - 95% heterosexual. We may be sufficiently evolved that we are more tolerant of those who fall outside these norms - but it is plainly false to claim they don't exist so as not to hurt someones feelings. Being different is fine in my opinion - but it is a difference or a deviation from the norm nonetheless. We are not born androgenous and manufactured into gender groups by society - that's crazy!

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Trying reading up on the subject and become informed. I could debate all day cite numerous social studies of gender and what not but you seem pretty stubborn to change on your opinion. How much do you know about the 'caveman days'? Are you a archaeologist by trade? Gender roles change over time. There are groups in China were the women rule the roost. Men look after the kids, take orders from the women, have to be home in their mothers house even if they are married etc. What do you make of that. Does this make these males less manly for you. Video of it here.

Babybuff

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

We all know plenty of girls who enjoyed sports and roughhousing with the lads instead of sitting around with dolls and make-up.

bet most of the women here can identify with that. Strange thing about the hullaballoo surrounding gender identity is that it seems to affect men more negatively than women. I don't think most people here are too put out by the fact that women can wear trousers, cut their hair short, drink pints of beer, study law or physics, reason with another man, debate politics, work on a building site, become a priest (well maybe not that far but..) I know they don't give a flying fiddlers for the most part who they sleep with, or how they act..as long as they got boobies all is right in the world.

It's just detestable for men to think of other men wanting to be anything other than a hard balled testosterone fuelled jackhammer. Why is that.

Donnielighto

Mardy Bum wrote: »

As a matter of interest do you have any idea why boys are boys etc? Do you believe it is something essential or is it a construction?

Gender is constructed by society through language. Do you recognise any difference in gender or is sexual difference gender defining? Every position we take is imaginary formed through discourse. Boys are boys etc suits capitalist society but it is not the be all and end all of humanity. Gender in Celtic times was a metaphysical concept which is markedly different to our predominantly sexual interpretation of it now.

There are no universal truths.

gender roles are defined and there for a reason, seperate societies around the world developed similar roles for each gender independently. I'm not saying we should limit what people do but lads tend to like some things and women tend to like others.

conorhal

Mardy Bum wrote: »

As a matter of interest do you have any idea why boys are boys etc? Do you believe it is something essential or is it a construction?

Gender is constructed by society through language. Do you recognise any difference in gender or is sexual difference gender defining? Every position we take is imaginary formed through discourse. Boys are boys etc suits capitalist society but it is not the be all and end all of humanity. Gender in Celtic times was a metaphysical concept which is markedly different to our predominantly sexual interpretation of it now.

There are no universal truths.

Universally speaking, I think it fairly true that that if sombody kicks you in the knackers, you won't be having a stupid semantic argument about what language you intend to use to describe the area of your body that just exploded with the pain of a thousand suns all going supernova at once in you nut sack. You're just scream, Ow my balls!

It is also universally true that there's about to be a big slump in the sales of Spiderman costumes in Sweden, boys ain't gonna wanna play 'spiderbitch'.

Mardy Bum

Feisar wrote: »

I'm drifting a bit here. As said earlier what's wrong with the term boy to describe a young male?
Does the harm occur when we attach different expectations to the things we put these handles on?

Again, not arguing, just throwing a few questions out. Not informed enough to make solid arguments on the subject.

There is nothing wrong with it at all. However if people can begin to understand that this is a construction by society and it not something essential they will be well on their way to understanding that race and sexuality are similarly constructed by society. If people begin to understand this it may rid some the ignorance which surrounds race and sexuality.

seamus

There has never been any evidence to show that gender stereotyping, or lack thereof, has any effect whatsoever on the resultant adult sexuality.

The only kind of people who would be worried about a boy playing with a pram or a girl riding a pedal car are the same kind of people who tut about men holding hands in the street or women walking around with short hair and tattoos.

The real question is, WTF is Spiderman doing pushing a pram?

Donnielighto

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Gender and sexuality are phenomenally complex. Freud, Klein, Winnicott, Lacan, Foucault, Sartre are essential reading. You have to be able to see the difference between sex, gender and sexuality. You dont mean boys as boys you mean male as boys from what I can see from your posts. Boys as boys doesnt make sense.

Hasnt Freud been shown to be wrong on most stuff?

Mardy Bum

Donnielighto wrote: »

gender roles are defined and there for a reason, seperate societies around the world developed similar roles for each gender independently. I'm not saying we should limit what people do but lads tend to like some things and women tend to like others.

Yes over the last few hundred years gender roles where in place perfectly for men to dominate women. You are generalising something that is phenomenally complex.

Mardy Bum

Donnielighto wrote: »

Hasnt Freud been shown to be wrong on most stuff?

Freud is the beginning where everyone else starts and challenges his ideas. Most of the new psychoanalytical research all has its groundings in Freudian theory.

Babybuff

I get a pain in my face reading this sh/t. It's like trying to explain algebra to pre school children. They just look at you all puzzled and wonder wtf are you talking about.

conorhal

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Yes over the last few hundred years gender roles where in place perfectly for men to dominate women. You are generalising something that is phenomenally complex.

You sound like that idiot feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray who described E=mc2 as a "sexed equation".
Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics which suggests that fluids you see, have been unfairly neglected because "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things.

You relativists my think that language can reshape the world because everything is purely subjective to you, sorry, but all you manage to prove is how detatched from reality you really are.

Mardy Bum

conorhal wrote: »

You sound like that idiot feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray who described that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation".
Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics which suggests that fluids you see, have been unfairly neglected because "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things.

You relativists my think that language can reshape the world because everything is purely subjective to you, sorry, but I'm objectively laughing my ass off at you right now... really...

That has nothing to do with what I said.
So you are denying that gender roles over the last few hundred years have not been constructed at the detriment to women?

Donnielighto

Babybuff wrote: »

I think the word you're thinking of is androgynous.
It's what most children are until they reach an age where they begin acting out the gender "roles" that they have learned (or been burdened with) from society.

ah now this is a minority in fairness, the status quo supports the majority in their natural progression. As for minorities they shouldhave all the legal support they want and need to avoid discrimination but to not only remove gender roles but to actively work against them is naive and pandering.

On another not i dislike the entire concept of feminism, it is inherently hypocritical as are all forms of lobby groups for minority/majority groups that seek preferential treatment on any basis. Equality of opportunity is fine but positive discrimination and negative discrimination go hand in hand (you cant have one without the other). Exceptions I have to this are disabilities where the person is at a disadvantage due to physical or mental issues affecting them.

(I feel like ive left out part of my point, may edit it in if i remember)

suicide_circus

Babybuff wrote: »

I get a pain in my face reading this sh/t. It's like trying to explain algebra to pre school children. They just look at you all puzzled and wonder wtf are you talking about.

It's a wonder to me why an intellectual powerhouse like yourself would bother even trying.

strobe

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with it at all. However if people can begin to understand that this is a construction by society and it not something essential they will be well on their way to understanding that race and sexuality are similarly constructed by society. If people begin to understand this it may rid some the ignorance which surrounds race and sexuality.

Sexuality is a societal construct?

Care to expand on that a little there man?

Donnielighto

wonderfulname wrote: »

Gender has nothing to do with sexuality.

Statisitics would argue against that. There is a strong correlation between genders and sexuality. Not 100% for sure, but very strong.

wonderfulname

Donnielighto wrote: »

ah now this is a minority in fairness, the status quo supports the majority in their natural progression.

I beg to differ, the status quo supports the average natural progression, but of course with averages although you get a relatively accurate group view it's quite rare to come across an individual who fits the bill.

There isn't really any problem in supporting what is average, the problem lies in presenting the average as the norm, so when a normal person doesn't fit the average they see it as a flaw on their part. This can be as small a misfit as enjoying a hobby seen as that of the opposite gender, or as big a one as disassociating completely with how you are perceived based on sex, either way it's more normal not to fit the stereotype than to do so.

wonderfulname

Donnielighto wrote: »

Statisitics would argue against that. There is a strong correlation between genders and sexuality. Not 100% for sure, but very strong.

Define what you mean by gender and sexuality and show me the statistics, because from my understanding of the terms they have nothing to do with each other, and I feel I have a little understanding.

sbsquarepants

wonderfulname wrote: »

It's not wise to get your information on the bronze age from early Hollywood film. Evidence shows women held greater rights and powers in that time, holding a role that in our time would be viewed as masculine.

That's not what the flintstones teaches us:D

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Trying reading up on the subject and become informed. I could debate all day cite numerous social studies of gender and what not but you seem pretty stubborn to change on your opinion. How much do you know about the 'caveman days'? Are you a archaeologist by trade? Gender roles change over time. There are groups in China were the women rule the roost. Men look after the kids, take orders from the women, have to be home in their mothers house even if they are married etc. What do you make of that. Does this make these males less manly for you. Video of it here.

I'm not an archeologist no. Gender roles do of course change over time, sometimes even overnight - say in the case of war for example, but that doesn't change peoples actual gender, men are still manly, women are still womanly, it's just a case of neccesity requiring something out of the ordinary. Men and women differ physically, mentally and emotionally. Men will be men and women will be women, no matter what it says in any book.
There is a big difference between being well read and being well educated.
We don't need studies to tell us what is as plain as the nose on our faces.
I have 2 kids a boy and a girl, the differences are apparent from the very earliest stages of their development. Pretty much anyone with kids will tell you that, boys are boyish and girls are girly without anything being forced on them, even before they are able to comprehend the language you say molds them. Language is merely a tool, a resource, a visible manifestation of our thoughts. It does not define us, we define it! You're putting the cart before the horse i'm afraid.

ScumLord

strobe wrote: »

Sexuality is a societal construct?

Care to expand on that a little there man?

I think to a certain extent our sex practices are a social construct. Sex is obviously extremely important, the vast majority of animals entire life's revolve around sex in one way or another.

In humans the problem is exacerbated because human children take so much time and resources to raise. Marriage makes a lot of sense in humans because it in some ways guarantees the child will have the support structure it needs.
The other problem being a social animal is that child in a sense belongs to the community as a whole just as much as it belongs to the parents so the community as a whole wants to make sure the child will grow up to have skills and the sociability the community needs.

The next problem is humans can change their culture rapidly so just as we've gotten used to one way of living the next generation wants to change everything.

There is no right and wrong in genders really, it's whatever everyone agrees to. As long as we continue to spit out children we're doing what we're supposed to be doing.

Donnielighto

Millicent wrote: »

It's not really. There are academics and scientists who don't think so, at all, so why would the argument be pointless?

because it is fashionable to do so

Nothingbetter2d

davet82 wrote: »

boys have a penis, girls have a vagina

some girls in thailand also have a penis

sbsquarepants

Mardy Bum wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what I said.
So you are denying that gender roles over the last few hundred years have not been constructed at the detriment to women?

Depends on your point of view reallly. There weren't all that many women conscripted and sent off to die in carthage or flanders or hanoi etc. It's swings and roundabouts to a large extent.

conorhal wrote: »

You sound like that idiot feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray who described E=mc2 as a "sexed equation".
Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics which suggests that fluids you see, have been unfairly neglected because "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things.
.

Reminds me of some ultra feminist clown or other i seen on the telly years back, arguing that in a more feminist society we wouldn't have had things like missiles as they were obviously phalic in nature:rolleyes:

Actually maybe she's right, i can't see a fanny shaped missile being too succesfull!:D

Donnielighto

Mardy Bum wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what I said.
So you are denying that gender roles over the last few hundred years have not been constructed at the detriment to women?

In relation to this and you reply along the same lines to me, yes they have to a certain extent but i think the better word is exploited due to the fact that violence was a way of showing dominance for a long time both inter and intra gender. The fact that they have been misused is an arguement against them sure, but anti discrimination laws should remove this. Many things that are not inherently wrong can be misused on a grand scale but that does not mean they are broken...

bodice ripper

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Women cant park cars.

I am female and I can park on a dime, hit a moving target, read the f*ck out of a map. I am bisexual though, and my ring finger is a good deal longer than my index... :P

Donnielighto

wonderfulname wrote: »

Define what you mean by gender and sexuality and show me the statistics, because from my understanding of the terms they have nothing to do with each other, and I feel I have a little understanding.

What do you define as gender. As per common usage (what gives the word meaning) I would have it pretty interchangeable with sex. As for sexuality you could have it as hetro/homo/bisexual or have it as attraction to men, women, whatever you want and you will find that most people are attracted to the opposite sex/gender.

Arguing over the use of the term gender is disingenuous imo as the usage of the word has been co-opted to be synonymous with sex in recent decades.

Donnielighto

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am female and I can park on a dime, hit a moving target, read the f*ck out of a map.

Pics or GTFO :P

Babybuff

Donnielighto wrote: »

ah now this is a minority in fairness, the status quo supports the majority in their natural progression. As for minorities they shouldhave all the legal support they want and need to avoid discrimination but to not only remove gender roles but to actively work against them is naive and pandering.

On another not i dislike the entire concept of feminism, it is inherently hypocritical as are all forms of lobby groups for minority/majority groups that seek preferential treatment on any basis. Equality of opportunity is fine but positive discrimination and negative discrimination go hand in hand (you cant have one without the other). Exceptions I have to this are disabilities where the person is at a disadvantage due to physical or mental issues affecting them.

(I feel like ive left out part of my point, may edit it in if i remember)

ok. This isn't really about feminism..at least I'm not sure it is. I can just tell you how it is for me. I didn't grow up wanting to get married settle down and have kids. I just didn't. (that for most here is the most basic role a female performs in society ) I never thought about those things. I didn't especially play with dolls. I had a kermit the frog teddy that I loved however.
I did not "see" gender. I really mean that. I understood I was biologically a woman but I didn't understand or was able to associate or relate to what was/is ultimately female.. at least I did not identify with that like how my female friends did.

That doesn't mean that I wanted to be a boy. I'm not sure I wanted anything. I absolutely identified better with my male friends (even though I was aware I was biologically different to them) and I was more comfortable doing "boy" stuff with them.

Girls were attracted to me. That was nice to know. I wasn't attracted to anything. Think about how a young pre pubescent child feels about kissing a boy/girl, and that's about as much interest as I had in the opposite sex. That's all fairly normal for young children.

Hitting puberty was much more difficult. I fcuking cried the day I became a "woman". I was made aware of my differences much more. I was being forced by peer pressure to conform to a role that I knew I really didn't feel was right for me. I did my best, I even found a bf and had a baby, despite it being nothing I felt like I would choose given the option. I just never felt I had one.

Today I'm much happier. I no longer feel like I have to fulfil anyone else's obligations or expectations and perform a specific "gender role". My job is done and I will do and feel as I please to satisfy my needs with regard to my role, which in and of itself is completely individual to me. Because at the end of the day that's what I am, an individual.

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's a wonder to me why an intellectual powerhouse like yourself would bother even trying.

hey I'm shmart right.

Donnielighto

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Freud is the beginning where everyone else starts and challenges his ideas. Most of the new psychoanalytical research all has its groundings in Freudian theory.

So he hasn't? Genuine question cos my mate who has 2 psychology masters says he isn't the god of psychology that people seem to think. Mind you she is doing criminal psychology or something like that so it might just be that part that he is questioned on.

sbsquarepants

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am female and I can park on a dime, hit a moving target, read the f*ck out of a map. I am bisexual though, and my ring finger is a good deal longer than my index... :P

:eek: Sorry, freak forum is over that-a-way

---

>:D

bodice ripper

Donnielighto wrote: »

Pics or GTFO :P

sorry to have to point this out - but a static picture wouldn't prove I can do any of those things

sbsquarepants

except the bisexuality:)

PhlegmyMoses

sbsquarepants wrote: »

:eek: Sorry, freak forum is over that-a-way

---

>:D

Mine is too. Nearly as big as my middle finger. 2 against 1. You are now the freak.

drunkmonkey

bodice ripper wrote: »

sorry to have to point this out - but a static picture wouldn't prove I can do any of those things

No but it would give us red blooded males something to crack one off to.

It's good to be back!:)

Donnielighto

bodice ripper wrote: »

sorry to have to point this out - but a static picture wouldn't prove I can do any of those things

Pics, I suppose a gif would do.

bodice ripper

lads, if I had a man and a woman here who were willing to do the kind of things required for such a photo, I sure as **** wouldn't be pissing about on boards.ie right now.

wonderfulname

Donnielighto wrote: »

What do you define as gender. As per common usage (what gives the word meaning) I would have it pretty interchangeable with sex. As for sexuality you could have it as hetro/homo/bisexual or have it as attraction to men, women, whatever you want and you will find that most people are attracted to the opposite sex/gender.

Arguing over the use of the term gender is disingenuous imo as the usage of the word has been co-opted to be synonymous with sex in recent decades.

Sex refers to the physiological and the biological, gender refers to roles, behaviours and psychology. The word has not been co-opted to be synonymous with sex in recent decades, you may have just found it difficult to differentiate between the two, which is perfectly understandable if in your own case there are no great differences between them.

When we're talking about roles, behaviours and psychology not being linked to sexuality, that means that gay people don't necessarily take on the roles and behaviours attributed the opposite sex, or indeed that letting a little boy play with a pram won't make him gay. It also means that transgenderism and homosexuality are different and separate phenomena.

With this in mind issues of sexuality should not be arising in this thread.

sbsquarepants

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Mine is too. Nearly as big as my middle finger. 2 against 1. You are now the freak.

Run for the hills, it's a god damned freak-apocalypse:D
They've got ring fingers 10 feet long i tells ya.

Donnielighto

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No but it would give us red blooded males something to crack one off to.

It's good to be back!:)

Eh i wasnt asking for that, just proof or the parking and map reading. have some class man...

Kev_2012

My god these topics are getting well out of hand. If I have kids, they will be taught that males have penises, females have vaginas, and that males and females have relations together.

When they are old enough to understand the world for themselves, they can do what they like, but this is the way I would raise my future kids.

Gender is defined by genitalia. I do not care what anybody says on here, this is how it's defined. Whatever about people being homosexual, I think the transgender side of thing is absolutely outrageous. An operated-on penis =/= vagina and never will. If I meet a woman, I expect her to be born a female, and I would be disgusted and scarred for life if this wasn't the case.

This is my opinion on the matter and I couldn't give a flying f*ck what the PC brigade says about it. (waits for smartar$e answers because people can't have a proper discussion of everyones thoughts on the matter.)

Meesared

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Gender is defined by genitalia. I do not care what anybody says on here, this is how it's defined. Whatever about people being homosexual, I think the transgender side of thing is absolutely outrageous. An operated-on penis =/= vagina and never will. If I meet a woman, I expect her to be born a female, and I would be disgusted and scarred for life if this wasn't the case.

You might think so, but it doesnt make you any less WRONG

Donnielighto

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sex refers to the physiological and the biological, gender refers to roles, behaviours and psychology. The word has not been co-opted to be synonymous with sex in recent decades, you may have just found it difficult to differentiate between the two, which is perfectly understandable if in your own case there are no great differences between them.

When we're talking about roles, behaviours and psychology not being linked to sexuality, that means that gay people don't necessarily take on the roles and behaviours attributed the opposite sex, or indeed that letting a little boy play with a pram won't make him gay. It also means that transgenderism and homosexuality are different and separate phenomena.

With this in mind issues of sexuality should not be arising in this thread.

eh, you asked me what i define it as. I looked, checked it out and it seems that is has been used to replace the word sex despite some areas keeping the original word. While there is ambiguity in this i think the difference is that what you refer to as gender i would refer to as gender role(s) and for your sex i would have sex/gender.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Gender has nothing to do with sexuality.

You are interpreting this differently to what I intended. Intentionally I suspect.

Unless you have other sources I'll take this
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf