gender fuck or gender fucked (the politics of trans)

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

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

Weird ideas about trans people?

Staggering assumptions about bisexuality based on personal bias?

Lorax is Julie Bindel and I claim my £5.

i wonder if whisky explains bindel as well

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

http://www.philipmould.com/admin/resources/1338997149stewartchevalierdeon2735inframe.jpg

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.

thomp that looks like tim brooke taylor.

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.

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.

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

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

straight White Cis dude demands "Science!" but wants science to look like the assumptions of SWCD's

Very otm-y.

Lorax, if your ideas weren't meant to be understood as referring to trans people, maybe you could have tried posting them in a different thread. Say, one that didn't explicitly refer to the politics of trans in its title.

trayce: Charles-Geneviève-Louis-Auguste-André-Timothée d'Éon de Beaumont (5 October 1728 Tonnerre – 21 May 1810 London), usually known as the Chevalier d'Éon, was a French diplomat, spy, soldier and Freemason whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman. Upon death, a council of physicians discovered that d'Éon's body was anatomically male.

the eighteenth century was best at names.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/five-trans-role-models

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.