gender fuck or gender fucked (the politics of trans)

and i think you mean to say 'genderqueer'. 'androgynous' refers generally to gender presentation iirc, which is also a different thing.

i think you're coming too much from your own position of thinking that someone's sexual attraction determines their gender. i guess someone could feel like they were attracted to women "in a male way" and that might edge them towards thinking themself more male.

but really a 100% androgynous person, the way you're thinking about it, isn't really possible, you know? not least because in our lives we're constantly being gendered by the people around us: someone born intersex, for example, is going to have grown up thinking a lot about gender, being told they're a boy or a girl, or that they're like a boy or like a girl, long before they start working out who they're attracted to.

csm there are many many people who identify as neither/both genders without a big lean in either directions

direction

so there are!

i mean trans people generally go many years of their lives being incorrectly gendered but they still know what their true gender is, right? it's not really any different for ppl in the middle of the spectrum though i'm guessing there's often some more confusion

oh, yeah, that was kind of what i was trying to say: the process of working out where you feel you are on gender starts when you start being gendered by other people, which is quite a bit earlier than working out who you're attracted to.

saying that sexual orientation and gender are two totally different thinks implies that there isn't the slightest relationship between these at all (no confounding variable). You're saying that gender and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive. You are absolutely certain that there one does not directly effect the other even in the slightest way

nvm the typos

^my original question is getting at what I just posted

nvm the bollocks

and nvm the confounding variable thing. I used that term wrong.

they are mutually exclusive

maybe there's a correlation between being out of the closet, ie if you're out as trans maybe you're more likely to be out as gay or bi or whatever, or you're more willing to confront the possibility (or maybe not)

but yeah, gender identity and sexual preference have no correlation. i'm not an expert but this is very basic 101 stuff.

I don't think you have the science to back you up your mutually exclusive stance. You have a theory that corresponds to what everyone else says... sound bytes from gay activists.. I'm only suggesting that there's a tiny but direct correlation between the gender and sexual orientation. But not enough of a correlation to suggest that I'm "coming too much from your (my) own position of thinking that someone's sexual attraction determines their gender". And actually I'm a bit offended that you said that's my position when I clearly wasn't coming from that position at all.

....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

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.

....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

(or "genderqueer" or whatever)

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

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

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

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

there always has to be an antagonist for the antagonist

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

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

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

http://timecube.com/

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.

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

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

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

"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

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.

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

also not just scientifically dubious but also mutable

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.

xp

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

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

soooo otm

Each person on the planet is pretty different.

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.

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

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

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.

someday I will finish reading The Cyborg Manifesto

....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.

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

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

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

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

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

whatever you wanna call it, I'm off

xpost

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

malice is not a prerequisite for harm

no, but harm is a prerequisite for harm. no one was harmed. lorax talked some silly drunk shit and then got peevish when called on it. ILX's desperate hunger to find things MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE! is bizarre.

Mordy, I don't get why you're being so venomous about this but nagl, dude.

contenderizer, how do you know no harm was done?

how can we be sure lorax wasn't harmed?

going out on a limb. just call it a hunch. point me at some harm, and i'm re-evalute.

(ffs. there's a hidden camera around here somewhere, right? O GOD THE HARM!)

laurel, why would i fucking care what u think is or isn't a good look? i'm only posting on this thread in the first place bc i think this ilx discourse is mind-numbing, omnipresent, and of absolutely no value to anyone anywhere. and the way you and others go on about it like it's IMPORTANT, and SERIOUS, is transparent self-aggrandizing bullshit that you should really get over. bc that's the real nagl.

http://www.bilerico.com/images/think_of_the_children_186.jpg

you know, one thing I've found to be a surefire panacea for when someone feels attacked or offended by someone else's words is for someone else to come swanning in and rudely tell them to get over it, that always ends well

I'll add your concerns to the list of self-aggrandizing bullshit that I need to get over. It's a long list, though, I'm not sure when I can get to it.

u know why you have to pretend cpt lorax is dangerous, a guy everyone on ilx knows about and knows what his deal is, the guy who posted that weird gif i posted above as proof that 9/11 was an inside job? bc he has to be if your intervention is to make any difference. if he's just some weirdo that is already rarely tolerated then we don't need a post from zach, from elmo, from laurel, from wcc, all of you coming out of the woodwork to protect ilx from his malignant influence. maybe he's not that important + neither are u

i'll phrase it in a different way, then, contenderizer: what constitutes 'harm', in your opinion? does someone have to be physically injured for it to be 'harm'? slandered? offended?

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, June 14, 2012 3:13 AM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

To me, posts like this are ivory tower snottiness. The number of people who have ever taken a gender studies 101 course is probably relatively few. It's stuff that most folks don't go through their days thinking about. If you have the knowledge, and someone is wrong about something, help them by sharing that knowledge. Don't keep it cloistered and then get upset when someone who wants an earnest conversation pushes back at you for being rude.

contenderizer, shut up about who was and wasn't harmed

i won't cosign a lot of what mordy's said itt to WCC but i do think his point about the response to lorax vis-a-vis his...mental faculties is a fair one. this of course comes from a position of privilege but it's hard for me to read lorax's ramblings and not feel a bit of pity - and while it's not exactly my place to demand this, it would be...ideal if someone like lorax could be engaged - or ignored - without assaulting his very being. he seems to be a fragile guy. zachlyon i think does and did a good job of being able to show some compassion and understanding while calling out lorax's ideas - that's not exactly known as the WCC style, for better or worse, and since the kind of stuff lorax was saying affects some posters in a way it can't posters like zach, maybe it's unfair to expect everyone to react with such measure. i miss nabisco tbh

i will not. no harm was done. period. the closest thing to harm was the brusing of lorax's ego.

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

contuserizer

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" !

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

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.

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...

oh my god

are you even serious right now

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

I do love a man in uniform

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

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

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.

I'm sorry, it's just lol.

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.

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.

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

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