the gender megathread

[Clove Darkwave]

I actually really encourage anyone who is genuinely confused/questioning to post in this thread. Don't do what I did and try to reason your way out of it forever and end up waiting until you're a month from 25 to seek help, assuring you're going to be stuck with the damage done.

[Bloodshot_Eyes]

Gender is how energy moves around when divided by the duality of space and time. It's a cyclical motion between two halves of the same whole. An over here and an over there that exists as one, like the peak and trough of a wave. 

There's a certain flow to gender that's mimicked by the dimorphic pattern of the sexes on Earth.

People are typically born as a single polar gender and are trained to behave in a way that that society sees as the "correct" way to behave for that polarity. People often rank themselves based on how well they hold up to that expectation (alphas and betas and shit, you know... caste systems).

Some people perform better and subsequently rank higher as the opposite polarity than their birth polarity; these people typically turn out trans, because their skills,  interests, and personality (the way their brain's wired up and shit) don't fit as comfortably in the expectations of their original gender as they would in the expectations of the opposite gender. There's nothing "wrong" or "right" about it. It's just a way to try and feel okay and hold one's shit together in reference to the expectations of society. 

 

[Vallium]

21 minutes ago, Bloodshot_Eyes said:

Gender is how energy moves around when divided by the duality of space and time. It's a cyclical motion between two halves of the same whole. An over here and an over there that exists as one, like the peak and trough of a wave. 

There's a certain flow to gender that's mimicked by the dimorphic pattern of the sexes on Earth.

People are typically born as a single polar gender and are trained to behave in a way that that society sees as the "correct" way to behave for that polarity. People often rank themselves based on how well they hold up to that expectation (alphas and betas and shit, you know... caste systems).

Some people perform better and subsequently rank higher as the opposite polarity than their birth polarity; these people typically turn out trans, because their skills,  interests, and personality (the way their brain's wired up and shit) don't fit as comfortably in the expectations of their original gender as they would in the expectations of the opposite gender. There's nothing "wrong" or "right" about it. It's just a way to try and feel okay and hold one's shit together in reference to the expectations of society. 

 

I dont know what to think of that post but I liked it because it seemed like a joke making gender some abstract concept of the universe. Sounds like something a high person would say

[Mapa]

2 hours ago, Bloodshot_Eyes said:

Gender is how energy moves around when divided by the duality of space and time. It's a cyclical motion between two halves of the same whole. An over here and an over there that exists as one, like the peak and trough of a wave. 

There's a certain flow to gender that's mimicked by the dimorphic pattern of the sexes on Earth.

People are typically born as a single polar gender and are trained to behave in a way that that society sees as the "correct" way to behave for that polarity. People often rank themselves based on how well they hold up to that expectation (alphas and betas and shit, you know... caste systems).

Some people perform better and subsequently rank higher as the opposite polarity than their birth polarity; these people typically turn out trans, because their skills,  interests, and personality (the way their brain's wired up and shit) don't fit as comfortably in the expectations of their original gender as they would in the expectations of the opposite gender. There's nothing "wrong" or "right" about it. It's just a way to try and feel okay and hold one's shit together in reference to the expectations of society. 

 

That's... a really convoluted way of saying that some people deviate from gender roles.

Do you happen to be from spirit science? The guys over there specialize in word salads.

Edited February 28, 2016 by pothocket

[Derin Darkpaw]

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

You're missing the point. The burden of proof is on a claim, not on the skeptic for believing that the claimant is mistaken or deluded.

Actually no the burden of proof rests on you at this moment.

In regards to this argument we would have the null hypothesis that bizarre gender identities are not a valid/real form of gender identity.  In opposition of this people have provided evidence(Yes it is anecdotal, but anecdotal evidence is valid when discussing/refuting universal statements) that they or others they know feel more comfortable expressing as said bizarre gender identities.  Now the burden of proof lies on you to refute and/or explain said evidence.  Which you have yet to engage with in any way other then outright denying said evidence and demanding more.

Burden of proof and the null hypothesis are actually a little more complicated then how they are often used by many people in the skeptical movement and it helps to properly understand the logical/philosophical constructs one is attempting to use as the cornerstone of their argument.

[Käpt'n]

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

On the subject of bathrooms, I think that some people want people to use the bathroom that reflects their physical sex, in order to prevent voyeurs from entering under the false pretext that it's okay because they're trans. 

It would be like gay men being sent to women's changing rooms; clearly some women would fear that straight men purporting to be gay would exploit the opportunity in order to be voyeurs. 

How about this: Trans people transition. So why not let them "transition from one bathroom to the other"? I think this would be in the best interest of everyone involved. Sure, at first they don't get to go into the room corresponding to the gender they identify as, but I'm sure they will understand that when you physically look like a woman it's not a good idea to go into the men's locker room at the gym or vice versa. This way no one gets pissed or offended, trans people won't have to worry about their safety and no one has to worry about voyeurs as well. Until society has become more accepting of trans people this strikes me as the only feasible solution. 

[Luca]

I do think a lot about people with different genders, biologically, and otherwise. I try to imagine what they must feel like to kind of keep myself grounded, but that only goes so far.

What I've caught flack for before was not being attracted to biological males, who identify as otherwise. I have no issues with what they are but it is honestly a turn off that has kept me from getting into a relationship before. Now is that, really so bad? I don't think so, but you'd have sworn I was terrible for losing interest in being more than friends when they told me. I'm just a dude who's a dude, into dudes who're dudes. It was a real mess overall and I feel bad it happened still.

[Onnes]

On 2/27/2016 at 8:19 AM, Saxon said:

I disagree with @Snagged Cub that 'gender' should be used to denote 'physical sex'. Surely 'physical sex' is the term that denotes physical sex. 

It is already widely recognised that 'gender' typically refers to the societal norms for males and females, so redefining these terms will lead to confusion in subsequent discussions.

Anyway, regards the OP ( @willow ), is there any research which suggests that gender fluidity or non binary genders are real or not? 

On 2/27/2016 at 8:34 AM, willow said:

I'd have to look into it if there's actual research but if you're looking for something purely scientific, I doubt it because it's a social identity

so any research I'll find is basically 'we've noticed more people doing this thing and here's why'

On 2/27/2016 at 8:40 AM, kazooie said:

if you're running a definition of gender than doesn't encompass the person's physical sex, then i dont see why it cant be a spectrum

hell, even physical gender isn't cut-and-dry all the time

So this exchange occurred at the very beginning of the thread. (All emphasis is mine.)
From the very beginning, the people you are arguing with say that they consider gender identity to be a social/cultural property. Social things are social things; proving mere existence requires only finding a person who does the thing. However, you are arguing that gender identities need a known physical basis.

 

21 hours ago, Saxon said:

On the contrary the sex-ambiguous brain architectures of transgender people show that gender identity probably does have a physical basis.

It's not just an idea, and you know, maybe that's why it's actually pretty distressing for most of the people whose brains purport to be the opposite physical sex to their bodies.

On the other hand, people claiming to be exotic new genders, that nobody's ever heard of, are bullshitting and their ideas really are just made up ideas. 

Do you get it? 

So you require that gender relates back to hard physical properties, at the level of genetics or large-scale brain structure. Ignoring social and ethical considerations, this isn't a very practical position simply because the state of that kind of research is still very new and poorly developed. Prior to the MRI studies comparing the brains of transgender and cisgender subjects, would you have argued that people wanting a gender opposite their physical sex were just making things up?

 

[Onnes]

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

For you lot, facts and reality are fucking irrelevant. 

You are asserting that gender identities must have a known physical basis or be considered bullshit. Never mind the state of the science in that area, which is basically still at the MRI tea-leaf reading stage, you're arguing from the position that you have the god-given definition of gender. This is demonstrably untrue just from the posts in this very thread, and your justifications for why your definition is somehow 'better' than the others just boil down to your own beliefs as to how society should treat gender beyond locking it to physical sex.

You fundamentally disagree with other people on what gender is. There's nothing really wrong with that, but you seem to have taken it as an invitation to get worked up arguing that everyone else is divorced from reality.

[Snagged]

We wouldn't think at all if our brain structure was messed up. I agree with Saxon on that matter that the physical composition does affect our brain. Just look at the lobotomized or lightning struck people. However, the way Saxon puts his words gives an impression that the only thing that matters is the anatomy and that society and culture have no influence to one's gender identity whatsoever. 

A constant exposure to suppression of Gender identity X by society can influence one's gender identity. The same applies to encouraging certain identity, like encouraging straight relationships during the old days when religion dominated your societal norms and everyday life. 

Of course you could imply that society can only suppress your true identity but how could we know if it's only suppressed or erased altogether

[willow]

26 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Do you actually think ideas such as 'gender identity is a social construct' make sense if it has already been demonstrated that there are anatomical reasons related to brain architecture which explain mismatches? 

It's patronising really to tell someone who is mismatched, that actually, it's just all socially constructed. That probably is bullshit. 

actually the idea that gender is a social construct comes from the fact that most preconceived notions of gender have no scientific basis. there's nothing in biology that states boys don't cry or need to be strong or women need to be at home and emotional. you can make observations sure but nothing is ever absolute

not to mention gender comes primarily from socialization based on the sex you were born as

also this concept gives more validity to people's identities because then it frees up the notion that certain physical traits or behaviours are strictly attached to a certain sex 

edit: surely there is some evidence that supports the idea that it's linked to brain structure but basing it solely on brain structure as a means to categorize which identities are real or fake isn't a good idea 

[Snagged]

3 minutes ago, willow said:

boys don't cry or need to be strong or women need to be at home and emotional. you can make observations sure but nothing is ever absolute

And these alone are past cultural norms

[willow]

2 minutes ago, Snagged Cub said:

And these alone are past cultural norms

depends because I still see a lot of people say boys showing emotion is weak

I guess a more recent example is that certain hobbies are for boys and others are for girls. 

[kazooie]

its really hard to discuss this thing with you, saxon

i dont think we even disagree with one another, either, its just weird hair splitting over technical terminology while missing the bigger picture due to some weird grudge you hold due to dumb tumblrites

Edited February 28, 2016 by kazooie

[willow]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

So I'm discussing gender identity, which is not socially constructed*; you're discussing gender roles. Some gender roles are socially constructed, but many are not. Many gender roles do have scientific bases, such as the archetype of men being stronger in comparison to women, because studies have demonstrated that they tend to be, even when the effects of working out are removed. 

Similarly there are studies about things such as emotion and crying, which identify biological mechanisms responsible for at least some of these differences. 

'Boys wear blue and girls wear pink' is an example of a socially constructed gender role, if you need one [apparently you do, because you weren't able to think of one?]

 

*This is a really hand-wavey explanation anyway; it's often very poorly defined. 

 

i can't repost my comment but I'm pretty sure I said the idea is that boys don't cry at all because it's a sign of weakness, totally unmanly. because yes I'm aware that there IS an emotional difference between males and females, that's why trans people become more moody when they start hormones (emotional or aggressive respectively) 

but yeah, I am talking about gender roles because they shape your identity in some way. it's all a part of socialization 

 

[Butters]

21 hours ago, Saxon said:

On the subject of bathrooms, I think that some people want people to use the bathroom that reflects their physical sex, in order to prevent voyeurs from entering under the false pretext that it's okay because they're trans. 

It would be like gay men being sent to women's changing rooms; clearly some women would fear that straight men purporting to be gay would exploit the opportunity in order to be voyeurs. 

Actually, no such thing occurs in co-ed bathrooms (being a voyeur...or a rapist as you see some people argue in the states). It's still illegal to peep at people in a bathroom, allowing trans people to use their preferred toilet wouldn't change anything. Except making them happier. 

[kazooie]

Just now, Saxon said:

problem 

im pretty sure the main problem is that you've seen too many profiles claiming to be demi-graysexual genderfluid gemkin, and it's tainted your perception, as well as your ability to reasonably discuss this subject.

you gotta let it go, man. the internet is stupid. don't be the internet.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

 

56 minutes ago, willow said:

there's nothing in biology that states boys don't cry or need to be strong or women need to be at home and emotional

You're right, but biology does determine which sex--on the aggregate--is better suited for work in a welding yard or in a nursing home.

Macho culture isn't something that sprang up out of nowhere. It has its roots in the biological realities of sex. Men are expected to be unswerving, resolute, and stalwart because these qualities are absolutely necessary for a good soldier, father, or ironworker to possess.

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[kazooie]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Maybe those non-binary genders really are just made up, just like so many people who are right falsely handed claim to be ambidextrous in order to be perceived as more interesting. 

well, i mean, i find the entire concept largely irrelevant when it comes to interacting with fellow human beings

judging a human being based on their physical appearance is generally dumb, so i've sort of tossed that area of gender out the window

making assumptions about a person based on the gender they perceive themselves to be seems even less useful

id much rather just get to know people based on their actions/interactions, rather than weird gender-based assumptions

[Vae]

Since we're still arguing the validity of things like agenderism and gender fluidity and shit,
lemme throw out a personal example here, since I'm still speaking as someone who's genderfluid, in this thread.

My feelings of identity aren't strictly locked in stereotyping and gender roles. I've never abided by gender roles, because
   1. I wasn't raised that way anyway, and
   2. gender roles as a concept have always been entirely silly to me.

My concept of gender with myself has been fluctuating for over a decade. Sometimes I "feel" female, and sometimes I "feel" male.
People from oldFAF (might) remember I identified as fem during that time.
But before that, for a while, I identified as male on the internet. (Not IRL because I didn't want people bothering me about it.)

Not in my adherence to roles and standards, once again, but simply in my own identity and my own body.
It's why I bought a binder in this past year.
It's why I wore it under a sports bra, during a recent family-centered event, just so I could "feel" like myself without causing questions and issues from people I didn't want to have to answer to. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? But it made me feel better, so idgashit.


So where do I fall on this spectrum of real trans issues versus "my gender is schoolbus"?
If fluctuation isn't real, because it's not a "medical condition" or whatever the fuck, then why would I feel one or the other? Why would I even bother with this shit, without insisting to the internet to refer to me specifically by my Ludwig spectralkin demipronouns?
Why would I be wasting money on this shit in a manner that most people aren't even going to see?

[willow]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

 

To be blunt though, if bathrooms and changing rooms are divided between the sexes, transgender people should use the one which matches their physical appearance, because the other people using them have no idea whether someone is trans or not. 

 

what do you mean by that exactly? I have an idea of what you're talking about but I just wanna clarify 

2 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

 

You're right, but biology does determine which sex--on the aggregate--is better suited for work in a welding yard or in a nursing home.

Macho culture isn't something that sprang up out of nowhere. It has its roots in the biological realities of sex. Men are expected to be unswerving, resolute, and stalwart because these qualities are absolutely necessary for a good soldier, father, or ironworker to possess.

 

I guess my thing is more about holding people to these types of expectations because failing to be macho and so on is seen as really weird. well used to, we're slowly moving away from that 

 

[Derin Darkpaw]

15 hours ago, Saxon said:

I don't think you understand how proof works. It is not like a game of tennis, as you seem to believe.

For example if I don't believe ghosts exist, and somebody says 'I saw one once' this doesn't mean the onus is now on me to prove that their experience is bogus. The onus is still on the claimant to come up with evidence which is compelling. 

 

First I want to point out again that you are misunderstanding the philosophical constructs you are using here.  Burden of proof and the null hypothesis have very specific meanings and ways of being used when it comes to logical arguments and you can't just assume you know what that is by a strict reading of their root words.  This wouldn't be the first time you drastically misunderstood some philosophical terminology.  If you want to keep using things like burden of proof and the null hypothesis please take some time to actual understand the terms you are using.

Alright now on the point you were making here.  What we are debating in this instance is the existence of a subjective personal phenomena.

Too use your own analogy here a more apt way of phrasing it would be that some is arguing that people believe they see ghosts.  Evidence they provide for this point would be anecdotal accounts of individuals believing they see ghosts.  This evidence would be perfectly valid for supporting the initial argument here and the fact that ghosts have not been proven to be real would not be valid for refuting that individuals believe they see them.

What people within this thread are arguing is that some individuals identify as these bizarre genders.  Your argument seems to essentially be that you know what they are feeling better then said individuals and that they need to provide you with physical evidence before you will believe them about how they feel.  That is frankly preposterous and rather condescending of you.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Derin Darkpaw

[Clove Darkwave]

Can I stop you people for a second to point something out?

It seems super-obvious to me that Saxon is mostly talking about Transsexuals while Willow is talking about Transgenders.

Am I wrong?

'cause I don't understand people that need to be "Trans" as much as I understand people who need to be the opposite sex.

[willow]

2 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

Can I stop you people for a second to point something out?

It seems super-obvious to me that Saxon is mostly talking about Transsexuals while Willow is talking about Transgenders.

Am I wrong?

'cause I don't understand people that need to be "Trans" as much as I understand people who need to be the opposite sex.

you're not wrong. But I'd like to add that Saxon's whole argument is based on the idea that if there isn't any definitive proof, it can't be real while I'm arguing that some things can't be measured in brain scans and that social norms play some role too 

 

[Clove Darkwave]

2 minutes ago, willow said:

you're not wrong. But I'd like to add that Saxon's whole argument is based on the idea that if there isn't any definitive proof, it can't be real while I'm arguing that some things can't be measured in brain scans and that social norms play some role too 

 

It seems to me social norms would just be another thing that sprang forth from brain chemistry anyway, but then I am relatively uneducated on the matter.

[willow]

27 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

It seems to me social norms would just be another thing that sprang forth from brain chemistry anyway, but then I am relatively uneducated on the matter.

it's a pretty complicated subject to try and explain really because yeah, some social norms come from nature but the idea that if you posses certain traits you must do X Y and Z is something we made up for the most part 

[Clove Darkwave]

2 hours ago, willow said:

it's a pretty complicated subject to try and explain really because yeah, some social norms come from nature but the idea that if you posses certain traits you must do X Y and Z is something we made up for the most part 

Well yeah that's a given, dumb things like "Men can't like this thing/Women can't like that thing" should be obvious to anyone with critical thinking or reasoning.

But then so should a lot of things.

[Joshi]

I'm gender and sex male.

But I agree to the ones above, only you can know what you feel and decisions are always right because you are the only person able to make them.

I someone feels like the opposite gender, then that's the truth.

[Vallium]

17 hours ago, Vae said:

Since we're still arguing the validity of things like agenderism and gender fluidity and shit,
lemme throw out a personal example here, since I'm still speaking as someone who's genderfluid, in this thread.

My feelings of identity aren't strictly locked in stereotyping and gender roles. I've never abided by gender roles, because
   1. I wasn't raised that way anyway, and
   2. gender roles as a concept have always been entirely silly to me.

My concept of gender with myself has been fluctuating for over a decade. Sometimes I "feel" female, and sometimes I "feel" male.
People from oldFAF (might) remember I identified as fem during that time.
But before that, for a while, I identified as male on the internet. (Not IRL because I didn't want people bothering me about it.)

Not in my adherence to roles and standards, once again, but simply in my own identity and my own body.
It's why I bought a binder in this past year.
It's why I wore it under a sports bra, during a recent family-centered event, just so I could "feel" like myself without causing questions and issues from people I didn't want to have to answer to. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? But it made me feel better, so idgashit.


So where do I fall on this spectrum of real trans issues versus "my gender is schoolbus"?
If fluctuation isn't real, because it's not a "medical condition" or whatever the fuck, then why would I feel one or the other? Why would I even bother with this shit, without insisting to the internet to refer to me specifically by my Ludwig spectralkin demipronouns?
Why would I be wasting money on this shit in a manner that most people aren't even going to see?

In all fairness this is what I meant my original example of genderfluidity to be based off of, since it seems a lot of ("actual") trans people do fluctuate based on something or other

 

Agender may be debated perhaps but is probably based on the same ambiguity or gender being blurred...

 

But what do I know Im still new to all this. I just find 'gender spectrum' silly and anything past two genders is quite frankly fake. Just kids being dumb confused kids.

Edit: Regarding bathrooms, I think unisex or family bathrooms should be a more common thing, theres a lot of practical reasons for it (assuming deciding not  to be dividing people by sex in an area for releasing waste is not practical) such as mothers or fathers with children of another sex or older people or people who need assistance of their opposite-sex companion who should go in. It would also serve the function of helping people who dont quite fit into either (if physical traits were the question) be able to carry a basic task in a space designated to no one in particular

Quite frankly separating the sexes by bathroom seems odd to begin with, besides anatomical differences in how people urinate, it really just seems to serve the purpose of not sexually harassing one another. As if same-sex people, as already stated, couldnt do that already. As if we arent encouraging that behavior as justified when we're around others who are nude by discouraging being practically nude around others we are attracted to (despite having the barriers set up to preserve privacy anyways)

but whatever, I wont argue an entire societies need for sex segregation as much as a way to fill a need for sex integration

 

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by WolfNightV4X1

[Xaende]

It seems to me that some people have overly specific and arbitrary ideas of what masculine and feminine mean. Males and females exhibit a wide range of behavior. I'd rather define masculinity and femininity by what men and women actually do, versus what some people think they should do. There are trends and averages, of course, so certain traits can be more stereotypically male or female, but that's not enough for me to separate one's gender from their biological or reassigned sex. For instance, although I certainly respect an individual's preference to be referred to as their chosen gender, and I wouldn't call a man feminine just because he likes cute fluffy things or a call a woman masculine just because she likes wrenching on machines. Those are well within the range of behavior exhibited by either sex.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Xaende

[Vallium]

@Xaende 

I typically use "masculine" and "feminine" without regard to someones actual sex/gender, both sexes can exhibit any trait and vary by individual but by gender role standards for many years some traits were ones attributed these titles. These traits now seem no longer tied to gender but ideal of personality, and its in no way strange to be a feminine male or masculine female, it just is.

At least thats how Ive been interpreting it

[Xaende]

@WolfNightV4X1

Maybe I have a strange way of looking at things. My ideas of masculine and feminine seem to tolerate more androgyny than most, so I'm more comfortable sticking with male, female, or other. At least that's how my mind sees it. I'm slow to classify individual traits as masculine or feminine because there's so much overlap. I'd feel like I was insulting someone by calling them a feminine male or a masculine female. It's easier for me to go by their biological sex or by their chosen identity. This might have something to do with my upbringing though. Much of this is cultural.

 

[Clove Darkwave]

To add another good reason for unified bathrooms that sometimes gets overlooked, it'd honestly be less awkward for everyone involved. It's honestly not that uncommon to spook someone out of the bathroom immediately after they enter and while they always come back in a couple seconds later (after checking the sign) there's a palpable awkwardness for all parties involved.

[Terminal7]

So a girl can bleed while my jingles jangle?

I'll pass.

[WolfyAmbassador]

Is mayonnaise a gender?

[Clove Darkwave]

4 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

Is mayonnaise a gender?

See this? Don't do this in this thread. I am only going to warn once.

[WolfyAmbassador]

9 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

See this? Don't do this in this thread. I am only going to warn once.

???

[Brazen]

9 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

See this? Don't do this in this thread. I am only going to warn once.

If shitty middle class 15 year olds on tumblr can be ronald-mcdonald-megatron-vanilla-JOHN-CENA--gendered then this dumb faggot can be mayonnaise. Policing people on what they identify as is a little nazi don't you think? Come on Clove, you're better than that.  

[willow]

unless you're actually going to contribute something worthwhile here, take it somewhere else 

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, willow said:

unless you're actually going to contribute something worthwhile here, take it somewhere else 

This is a furry forum. I think if you want a serious discussion on gender there are other forums which are a better venue.

Plus the more you try and make things "serious" the more likely that people will post immature stuff leading to thread derail.

If someone wants to be mayo whatever. If I want to identify as a 1963 Chevy Impala with a SS409 motor who cares? 

[willow]

21 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

This is a furry forum. I think if you want a serious discussion on gender there are other forums which are a better venue.

Plus the more you try and make things "serious" the more likely that people will post immature stuff leading to thread derail.

it's not even so much trying to be serious and I'm not very keen on hiding every post or infracting for the stupid comments but if it's obvious you're being an ass then we reserve the right to take some form of action 

if you can't refrain from being immature for any reason then maybe learn to exercise more self control 

i promise not every thread needs to devolve into nothingness

 

[Newt]

11 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

See this? Don't do this in this thread. I am only going to warn once.

I don't think it's fair to single out this particular topic as "the one you can't make jokes in." Jokes are made in other "serious" threads without any sort of repercussion, but here it warrants an infraction? Why? Because you're invested in it?

Edited March 1, 2016 by Newt

[sarnarus]

3 minutes ago, Newt said:

I don't think it's fair to single out this particular topic as "the one you can't make jokes in." Jokes are made in other "serious" threads without any sort of repercussion, but here it warrants an infraction? Why? Because you're invested in it?

yeah that seems to happen occasionally, over on the new furaffinty forums i got a warning from a mod for the mention of furry drama, relating to a thread on how he can become a better known artists (since furries seen to love drama) but i can talk about shoving 3 hamsters up this guys ass  so yeah sometimes mods can be inconsistent which is a pain

[willow]

5 minutes ago, Newt said:

I don't think it's fair to single out this particular topic as "the one you can't make jokes in." Jokes are made in other "serious" threads without any sort of repercussion, but here it warrants an infraction? Why? Because you're invested in it?

I'm honestly fine with jokes, I don't really care if people make jokes because I do it all the time. I didn't even hide Wolfy's comment because I understand it's a joke..just don't keep asking though because then it counts as spam

personally I take ire with people coming in and saying things like 'I identify as Donald Trump and my pronouns are...' because that's not what this thread is for, Tumblr's idea on gender don't have bearing here, and I'll simply hide comments rather than infract. unless people can't help but continue to do it that is 

 

 

 

[#00Buck]

17 minutes ago, willow said:

it's not even so much trying to be serious and I'm not very keen on hiding every post or infracting for the stupid comments but if it's obvious you're being an ass then we reserve the right to take some form of action 

if you can't refrain from being immature for any reason then maybe learn to exercise more self control 

i promise not every thread needs to devolve into nothingness

 

This is okay if you apply it consistently. But people act like asses all over the forum and no action is taken. It is only in the gender thread where people feel really sensitive where you get threatened with "action." The whole forum is full of immaturity and given the kind of forum it is that makes sense. 

Either punish it in every thread or don't do it at all. But slapping people down for making a joke in a thread about your favourite issue is actually the real immature behaviour. 

If someone tries to come into your conversation and says something you don't like. Just ignore them. It's a win win. They get to say their stupid comment. You get to continue your serious conversation. 

It is the trying to shut people up and prevent then from airing their views that causes the thread derail and having it devolve into nothingness. 

 

[Gryphoneer]

On 27.2.2016 at 6:08 PM, Saxon said:

I think you should exercise a little bit more skepticism about what you read on the internet.

That's rich, coming from you of all people. Then tell me, Mr. Skeptic Supreme, who has more credibility here? A) a medical anthropologist who's researched this topic for a considerable span of his career, or B) a physics student who talks way outside his area of expertise?

Anyway, you may "suspect other gender identities are just made up by people trying to be trendy" (oh dear Lord) or that only because some American institutions labeled transgender a medical condition this is both correct or even something transgender people believe because SCIENCE SAYS SO! (mainstream science authorities have a history of particularly bad screw-ups involving socio-cultural topics, just look at eugenics or y'know homosexualism), but here's the thing, reality doesn't care about your opinion.

Say what you want about transgender people, but the treatment of intersex people proves a third gender exists. They fall outside the binary doctrine, and as a consequence they're regularly subjected to life-altering surgery to "correct" their biology into the binary mold and social conditioning to make them think like men or women, according to the image of what constitutes "man" or "woman" of their particular society.

[Vallium]

"Is mayonnaisse a gender" is a common meme related to this topic and I found it funny despite being invested in the super srs bsns of the topic myself

 

The comment wasnt even meant to troll or cause strife it was just funny.

[willow]

6 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

"Is mayonnaisse a gender" is a common meme related to this topic and I found it funny despite being invested in the super srs bsns of the topic myself

 

The comment wasnt even meant to troll or cause strife it was just funny.

which is why I just left it originally 

[Vallium]

34 minutes ago, Gryphoneer said:

 

Say what you want about transgender people, but the treatment of intersex people proves a third gender exists. 

I dont think its called a 'third gender' though, or even multiple ones...just an inbetween state between the two, which is entirely possible but doesnt make it something brand new

Edit: Aye, and with what fallow said I suspect most of those people being multigendered are being trendy, putting their ideal concepts of gender at the forefront of their identity to join in some community hive mind

 

If you need actual examples of just how cringey kids can be

 

 

Not all of them are cringey and are actually funny but there are definitely some 'off' ones.

Edited March 1, 2016 by WolfNightV4X1

[willow]

7 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

I dont think its called a 'third gender' though, or even multiple ones...just an inbetween state between the two, which is entirely possible but doesnt make it something brand new

 

the existence of intersex people doesn't really prove a third gender exists but it does prove that there's another sex besides male and female

unfortunately most people think that intersex people can't function normally so the parents choose the sex of the baby but that's a whole other issue entirely