gender fuck or gender fucked (the politics of trans)

....and any miniscule correlation would mean that you can't be 100% androgynous (or "genderqueer" or whatever) and be only attracted to one sex. you'd have to be 99.9% androgynous or less. to be 100% you would have to be bi-sexual

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 02:55 (11 months ago) Permalink

trans activists, more so

i don't think this is really something that two cis people can argue about. i'm just going to take the word of every trans person i've ever talked to about it and every trans person whose writing i've ever read about it.

and again, if there is some correlation, i would bet all my pennies that it's because a trans person who is willing to divulge their gender identity is more willing to confront their sexuality and divulge that information if they aren't 100% hetero. if the % of gay/bi trans people is higher than it is for cis people, i'd more readily believe it's because homophobic culture puts so much pressure on cis people to present as straight.

i'm sorry if i'm misreading you, but i disagree with your similarly non-scientific impression that there is even a tiny correlation. i'm not sure what your basis is there.

― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Thursday, 14 June 2012 02:56 (11 months ago) Permalink

....and any miniscule correlation would mean that you can't be 100% androgynous (or "genderqueer" or whatever) and be only attracted to one sex. you'd have to be 99.9% androgynous or less. to be 100% you would have to be bi-sexual

don't understand your logic here at all

― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Thursday, 14 June 2012 02:57 (11 months ago) Permalink

(or "genderqueer" or whatever)

you don't have to be an ass about this, i wasn't trying to fuck with you or anything

― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:02 (11 months ago) Permalink

no, I just don't honestly don't know what the right word is

but I don't think we can really discuss this 'question' of mine anyways if you are thrown off by my bad phrasing of sentences and math hoohaw

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:08 (11 months ago) Permalink

how could one scientifically test if gender and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive? maybe it's impossible, or maybe I should come back to this question when I'm high

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:10 (11 months ago) Permalink

CaptainLorax I have no idea what you've been arguing about but I'm going to predict that you're wrong.

― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:12 (11 months ago) Permalink

there always has to be an antagonist for the antagonist

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

if someone is 100% androgynous, ie. 50% male and 50% female, the greyest grey, then would they also be 100% bisexual?

you might say that sexual orientation and gender are two totally different things, and rightly so for the most part, but wouldn't you say that a 100% androgynous person is more male if they are attracted to females? or am I just prejudiced from heterosexuality being the sexual orientation norm?

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:44 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

these things have nothing to do with each other, you are wrong, I award myself 1000 points

― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:13 (11 months ago) Permalink

the world is shaped like a cube. you are full of words

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:15 (11 months ago) Permalink

it's okay if you don't understand the riddler as long as you understand the riddle

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:17 (11 months ago) Permalink

http://timecube.com/

― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:17 (11 months ago) Permalink

if other people can understand what you're saying without also ceding to a bias in favor of heteronormativity, then maybe i'm just dumb. it's also possible that you aren't making sense.

i guess i also just don't get the point of your question in the first place. if someone says they're "100% genderqueer" then that's what they are, and if that person says they're bisexual then that's what they are. you don't need to perform a scientific study to accept that.

― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:19 (11 months ago) Permalink

I don't just accept things at face value. I like to study them. I like the science I always come up with new things that I ought to be studied or new interesting theories that I like to talk about

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:35 (11 months ago) Permalink

i stopped typing coherently hours ago when I picked up the whiskey

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:36 (11 months ago) Permalink

lorax leaving aside my serious doubt about assigning percentages to culturally determined notions like biological sex, gender and sexual orientation, i think you're freely slipping between correllation and causation in your argument

― the late great, Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:48 (11 months ago) Permalink

"if someone says they're "100% genderqueer" then that's what they are"

yeah, I don't care about any of that. I mean, they can say whatever they want and I'll know what they mean

meanwhile, I'll still toy with the theory that gender and sexual orientation aren't mutually exclusive. the idea intrigues me. i'm not trying to prove people wrong if they say "I'm 100%". i'm trying to understand an idea that interests me

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:50 (11 months ago) Permalink

i don't necessarily accept things at face value either. but i guess my point is that whatever hypothetical 'science' you're doing right now doesn't trump the miles and miles of experiental data that's out there. and that queer politics are extremely sensitive and there isn't a single transgender/queer person alive that deserves to have their identity questioned or prodded or inspected. and there is plenty of science already out there that legitimizes queer identities and orientations.

― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:51 (11 months ago) Permalink

if there's no science to be had then I don't really care about this theory anymore

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:52 (11 months ago) Permalink

also not just scientifically dubious but also mutable

― the late great, Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:52 (11 months ago) Permalink

meanwhile, I'll still toy with the theory that gender and sexual orientation aren't mutually exclusive. the idea intrigues me. i'm not trying to prove people wrong if they say "I'm 100%". i'm trying to understand an idea that interests me

ok sure, but i think where you're going is affected by:

or am I just prejudiced from heterosexuality being the sexual orientation norm?

which seems to be true. when i didn't understand you before i was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt with this.

― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:53 (11 months ago) Permalink

xp

things are only mutable when you don't have enough science to nail them down

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:54 (11 months ago) Permalink

i don't think this is really something that two cis people can argue about

soooo otm

― decrepit but free (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:55 (11 months ago) Permalink

Each person on the planet is pretty different.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:57 (11 months ago) Permalink

Gender politics is good but it's only a fragment of a person's ego. Plus there is how you self-identify and how you are identified by societal norms, both of which can change from day to day, situation to situation.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:59 (11 months ago) Permalink

Androgyny will continue to get the short end of the stick as long as gender politics remain polarized.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:01 (11 months ago) Permalink

I think I'm only prejudiced in that the reason that I first entertained this theory of mine is because I was thinking about sexual norms. I have a theory and no answer; so I'm not gonna proclaim that gender and sexual orientation are NOT mutually exclusive. But I will lean towards NOT mutually exclusive because i feel like it

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:02 (11 months ago) Permalink

wouldn't you say that a 100% androgynous person is more male if they are attracted to females?

I would think a 100% androgynous person would be post-sexual.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:03 (11 months ago) Permalink

someday I will finish reading The Cyborg Manifesto

― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:11 (11 months ago) Permalink

....and any miniscule correlation would mean that you can't be 100% androgynous (or "genderqueer" or whatever) and be only attracted to one sex. you'd have to be 99.9% androgynous or less. to be 100% you would have to be bi-sexual

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:55 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you don't know how statistics work do you

anyway, the late great moonship is otm, pretending that socially-constructed "understandings" of gender/sexuality are in fact v precise analytical tools needed to pathologize actual people is...not productive.

― catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:15 (11 months ago) Permalink

lorax doesn't know how anything fucking works, i am mystified that people are still engaging with this creepoid halfwit

― relatively joan rivers (electricsound), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:18 (11 months ago) Permalink

i'm amazed that you get creeped out and testy this easily

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

i wouldn't want to be the guy who puts the extra scoop of sugar in your tea

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:21 (11 months ago) Permalink

http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t7en.html

― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:22 (11 months ago) Permalink

OK, you've just lit my touchpaper, opened my bullpen, yanked my bellrope.

whatever you wanna call it, I'm off

xpost

― relatively joan rivers (electricsound), Thursday, 14 June 2012 04:23 (11 months ago) Permalink

lorax i meant mutable in that a person can change their gender and sexual identification over time ... which i suppose you would answer with something like "we just don't have the SCIENCE to predict that a person will be born 73% gay, and therefore come out at 27% into their lifespan and be attracted to women 7 percent of the time"

to which i would reply that you seem to have equally strongly deterministic views of both science and human behavior

― the late great, Thursday, 14 June 2012 05:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/02/05/i-am-the-lorax-i-speak-for-the-gender-binary/

― buzza, Thursday, 14 June 2012 05:22 (11 months ago) Permalink

Weird ideas about trans people?

Staggering assumptions about bisexuality based on personal bias?

Lorax is Julie Bindel and I claim my £5.

― a cake made of all their eyes (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Thursday, 14 June 2012 06:24 (11 months ago) Permalink

i wonder if whisky explains bindel as well

― kanye kardashian (lex pretend), Thursday, 14 June 2012 06:35 (11 months ago) Permalink

it was quite dispiriting reading this actually, i know it's just drunklorax but you encounter that mode of pig-headed "I HAF AN IDEA ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE AND IT MUST BE RIGHT AND IF IT ISN'T I DON'T WANT TO KNOW" argument so often

― kanye kardashian (lex pretend), Thursday, 14 June 2012 06:36 (11 months ago) Permalink

oh my god i've only now seen bindel's latest gem

WCC have you seen it? it is kind of...beyond

― kanye kardashian (lex pretend), Thursday, 14 June 2012 06:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

Yeah that Bindel piece isn't so much beyond as backwards.

It's a particular piece of rad-fem ephemera from the 80s which was v v au current when I was adolescent and getting a sexuality and did me, personally, a lot of damage so it was just v v dispiriting to see it revived again. But since the evo psych crew are reviving antique notions towards gender roles I guess it's a thing. :-(

Thread is just, you know - straight White Cis dude demands "Science!" but wants science to look like the assumptions of SWCD's rather than the lived and stated experience of others.

― a cake made of all their eyes (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Thursday, 14 June 2012 07:06 (11 months ago) Permalink

I mean on a purely observational / anecdotal level it is oft noted that the percentage of trans, gender neutral, genderqueer people is actually much higher in the *asexual* community than in the general population but it's really hard to establish any kind of causation or even proper correlation on that one. But that is at least something based on talking to people and conducting informal headcounts, not drunken theorisation. It might just be easier for trans or genderqueer ppl to talk about or openly identify as such because they're already outside hetereonormativity and those questions get easier to ask outside that straitjacket.

― a cake made of all their eyes (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Thursday, 14 June 2012 07:28 (11 months ago) Permalink

i was hoping this would be one of those nice revives and it would be about the portrait of the chevalier d'eon the national portrait gallery just discovered

― thomp, Thursday, 14 June 2012 11:57 (11 months ago) Permalink

Who says my idea only applies to trans people? Gender and sexual oriention covers just about everyone. Most of you are unable to interpret everything that I say and it's largely my fault for not dropping knowledge as fluently as wikipedia.

What I was saying last night was merely a theory that I found interesting. And I never said that a direct relationship between gender and sexual orientation would renforce heterosexuality or homosexuality (plus I never concluded that such a relationship even exists). Furthermore, both hetero and homo can be supported at the same time in a direct relationship. Imagine a cloud of data points that do not suggest a straight line. They could be parabolic, hyperparabolic... or two seperate lines or zig zags even.

If you don't get the idea of things I try to explain then by all means keep on complaining about something that you think I'm suggesting. But don't blame me for your interpretations. If you need to blame me for something, and it appears that some of you might, try blaming me for not explaining things very coherently instead of jumping to conclusions about what you think I'm saying.

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:08 (11 months ago) Permalink

thomp that looks like tim brooke taylor.

― Pureed Moods (Trayce), Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:10 (11 months ago) Permalink

Lorax, stamping feet: it's not fair! You guys dismiss my ideas because you have miscast me as an idiot!!!

ILX: correlation / causation. We have dismissed you as an idiot *because* your ideas are garbage.

― a cake made of all their eyes (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:17 (11 months ago) Permalink

The same data cloud example I just used is exactly why I was wrong about a 100% androgynous person having to be 100% bisexual given a direct relationship exists between G and SO. I started last night posing that line of thought as a question. I take fault in answering that question later in the night when I was taking up an antagnostic viewpoint - mostly for the sake of argument. Anyways, I'm at work right now, I'm going to put down my blackberry for a few hours.

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:24 (11 months ago) Permalink

Xp

You win. My thoughts are garbage and the idea of a direct relationship between gender and sexual orientation is uninteresting and therefore not worth sharing

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:28 (11 months ago) Permalink

But why are you posting to this thread if I've started such an uninteresting discussion

― we gotta move these refrigerators (CaptainLorax), Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:31 (11 months ago) Permalink

psst: don't tell anyone, but i'm always looking for things to get offended by on the internet. it's tough to find nasty ignorant bullshit out there, i mean, you really have to dig for it

― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 6 July 2012 16:42 (10 months ago) Permalink

contuserizer

― dis civilization and its contents (nakhchivan), Friday, 6 July 2012 16:42 (10 months ago) Permalink

he was already called out two weeks ago!

if there are still ppl being like "hmm, wasn't so bad" then there are still going to be people saying "hmm, i think it was" !

― rayuela, Friday, 6 July 2012 16:44 (10 months ago) Permalink

basically instead of "you should know that these ideas are offensive", it's "fuck you because I want to assume you knew exactly how offensive it was"; y'know, exactly the kind of response that shellshocks you a bit when you assume these people are your friends

― frogbs, Friday, 6 July 2012 16:45 (10 months ago) Permalink

psst: don't tell anyone, but i'm always looking for things to get offended by on the internet. it's tough to find nasty ignorant bullshit out there, i mean, you really have to dig for it

i don't know if u read the 'I Love Racism' thread but that's pretty much the status quo over there.

― Mordy, Friday, 6 July 2012 16:50 (10 months ago) Permalink

ILX enforces an orthodoxy of thought when it comes to race, gender, sexual orientation and so on. i think that's generally a good thing, cuz i tend to agree with ILX hivemind on these issues, and it's nice to find places on the internet that aren't cesspools of racist, sexist, homophobic poison.

that said, i'm something of a minor-league outlier on the ILX orthodoxy chart, and i really dislike what too often strikes me as the blinkered, unthinking hostility with which the boundaries are policed. it's not the laws that bother me, it's the cops. i don't mind learning a lesson here and there (and believe me, i've learned a hell of a lot from this site, especially where these issues are concerned), but i do resent the way some people gleefully flaunt their license to bully "wrongdoers". cops will be cops, i guess...

― contenderizer, Friday, 6 July 2012 17:01 (10 months ago) Permalink

oh my god

― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:04 (10 months ago) Permalink

are you even serious right now

― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:04 (10 months ago) Permalink

holy shit, does this mean i'm a cop?

― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:05 (10 months ago) Permalink

I do love a man in uniform

― Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:06 (10 months ago) Permalink

holy shit, does this mean i'm a cop?

we all are, from time to time. it's often a good thing.

― contenderizer, Friday, 6 July 2012 17:07 (10 months ago) Permalink

Hahah oh my god. It almost sounds like you're saying you are...a member of a minority group, discriminated against by the PC police. You just want to be free to say whatever feels right to you and not suffer backlash from the hidebound, man! What is the internet coming to when you are not free to have IDEAS without consequence.

― how did I get here? why am I in the whiskey aisle? this is all so (Laurel), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:15 (10 months ago) Permalink

I'm sorry, it's just lol.

― how did I get here? why am I in the whiskey aisle? this is all so (Laurel), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:15 (10 months ago) Permalink

right, except when those cops are just totally BULLYING people over social justice issues, right? god i'm so horrible i almost forgot that i'm not allowed to be offended.

― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:16 (10 months ago) Permalink

I'M A BAD COP, REPORT ME TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS. STRIP ME OF MY GUN AND BADGE. MY PANTS, TOO, WHILE YOU'RE AT IT. SO YOU CAN KISS MY ASS.

― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:18 (10 months ago) Permalink

I was looking for recent news about political issues surrounding transsexuals in an attempt to push this thread back towards where it started but the most recent things I can find are from almost a month ago

― I see you, Pineapple Teef (DJP), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:19 (10 months ago) Permalink

rolling up the sidewalk, here. feel free to start a new, unpolluted thread.

― uncondensed milky way (remy bean), Friday, 6 July 2012 17:20 (10 months ago) Permalink