And if your opinion isn't fueled by adequate information, it's hardly an informed opinion worth paying attention to. Hence, semantics-picking.
Anyway, I didn't really mean to pick on you in particular, since I did actually notice you took a moderate view of the matter, so I apologize for that. I went from addressing you to the "room" in general in a few places. Sorry for blurring the lines between the two.
ted: Tempscire, you completely miss my point by playing semantics.
Actually, I was just trying to correcting your vocabulary. If you're going to make an accurate argument about gender identity, you should use the correct words.
And she does need to justify herself if people refuse to refer to her as female. People can be very ignorant about a lot of things; perhaps informing/correcting them could (ha) make a dent in their ignorance.
Would anyone refuse to call someone by a nickname, because their birth certificate says something else and even if they're trying to present their name as something other, they're still really that original name? Even if they legally changed their name to the nickname-- hey, after all, that's not the name they were given at birth. Same idea, different scale; both tie into a person's identity. One just requires a more dramatic alteration.
Yes, I got you didn't care what he did under the knife to be a she. I am amused, though, by the thought that this wouldn't even cross most people's minds if they walked past her on the street, and even the naysayers calling her a him, had they no other knowledge, would title her a Miss and might make passes at her without a second thought. Unless you've been in someone's pants, you don't really know what's there. =p So, for the casual observer, her identity is as good as 100% female, and should be addressed as such.
Simply removing the external sex organs and sculpting new facsimiles doesn’t change a person into the opposite gender. [...] You don’t need to justify it with “gender is wired in the brain; biology isn’t perfect”. That just makes it somehow sadder.
"Sex" refers to male/female genitalia; "gender" refers to the social function of a sex. Those who undergo a sex change often feel they are a gender opposite to their sex and that the operation is simply setting things right, giving them an outward physical nature to match the inner.
I'd say biology is more rigid about male/female, except that it really isn't; gender even less so. If you disagree with the dissociation between biology and mental/hormonal conditioning, then you are welcome to challenge the anthropological and sociological fields with your well-researched treatise on the nature of sexuality as it relates to gender.
'cos the lap dance is better when the stripper is crying cramping? =p
Anyway, no, it does say that non-menstruating > menstruating. "NON pill-popping lap dancers pulled in nearly twice as much as they made when they were menstruating."
Also, could someone explain to me why Golly's rant was relevant?
Ugh. This reminds me of one of those ugly "real-life anime character" 'shops. Newsflash: if they were really real, they wouldn't still have the cartoony proportions.
Y'know, there's naturally-occurring instances of a person's outward gender (or developed biology) not meshing with their genetics. Would you insist someone who always thought of themselves as female start being male once they figured out the genetic mix-up?
Anyway, I didn't really mean to pick on you in particular, since I did actually notice you took a moderate view of the matter, so I apologize for that. I went from addressing you to the "room" in general in a few places. Sorry for blurring the lines between the two.
Anyway, those were all pretty basic, easy cocktails/alcohols. Did learn a few new facts, however, so that's fun.
Heh. (yeah, I know it's the original site's slip-up, no worries)
Actually, I was just trying to correcting your vocabulary. If you're going to make an accurate argument about gender identity, you should use the correct words.
And she does need to justify herself if people refuse to refer to her as female. People can be very ignorant about a lot of things; perhaps informing/correcting them could (ha) make a dent in their ignorance.
Would anyone refuse to call someone by a nickname, because their birth certificate says something else and even if they're trying to present their name as something other, they're still really that original name? Even if they legally changed their name to the nickname-- hey, after all, that's not the name they were given at birth. Same idea, different scale; both tie into a person's identity. One just requires a more dramatic alteration.
Yes, I got you didn't care what he did under the knife to be a she. I am amused, though, by the thought that this wouldn't even cross most people's minds if they walked past her on the street, and even the naysayers calling her a him, had they no other knowledge, would title her a Miss and might make passes at her without a second thought. Unless you've been in someone's pants, you don't really know what's there. =p So, for the casual observer, her identity is as good as 100% female, and should be addressed as such.
"Sex" refers to male/female genitalia; "gender" refers to the social function of a sex. Those who undergo a sex change often feel they are a gender opposite to their sex and that the operation is simply setting things right, giving them an outward physical nature to match the inner.
I'd say biology is more rigid about male/female, except that it really isn't; gender even less so. If you disagree with the dissociation between biology and mental/hormonal conditioning, then you are welcome to challenge the anthropological and sociological fields with your well-researched treatise on the nature of sexuality as it relates to gender.
Anyway, no, it does say that non-menstruating > menstruating. "NON pill-popping lap dancers pulled in nearly twice as much as they made when they were menstruating."
Also, could someone explain to me why Golly's rant was relevant?