Jack Sparrow is clearly recognized as a man by me, you, and everyone we know. Maybe where you grew up all men were limited in their gender expression to be somewhere between Jack Sparrow and John Rambo, in which case you really wouldn’t need more than two genders. But that doesn’t begin to cover the range of gender expression we see, not in some abstract thought experiment or rare medical edge case but in our very own community.
I bought a new house last year, and it has an old empty workshop attached. I’d like to ‘revive’ it, but I’ve got little “workshop-experience”.
In preparation, I bought some books on woodworking and pottery. The woodworking books are very traditionally masculine. Men! Chest hair! Beer! BBQ!
But the book on pottery is quite feminine. Bright photos, soft colors, everything is demonstrated by a female Instagram influencer.
That doesn’t matter in the slightest to me. I don’t think my interest in pottery has any relationship to my gender. I don’t feel less manly for it. I like making physical objects with my own hands and that’s a human trait, not a gendered trait.
You describe “female-attired trans women who write great Rust code” as worthy of being its own separate gender. Why? Why can’t (trans) women who write great code just be… women? Is it impossible to simultaneously be defined as a woman and to be able to write great code? That feels sexist and backwards to me.
IMHO, behaviours, skills and hobbies don’t define your gender. Your genitals do.
People born with male genitals are male—even if they like to wear dresses and do ballet. People born with female genitals are female—even if they wear pants and write great code. Trans women often want to be recognized as female—even if they are “demisexual” (people who want a strong emotional connection before they can feel sexual attraction) and write great Rust code. And trans men often want to be recognized as male—despite [stereotypical female activity].
Last but not least—aren’t sexuality and gender completely detached? Why should a gay man be any less of a man?
Wait, trans women are just women but people born with male genitals are male? Are you proposing to use the words “man/woman” differently from “male/female”? I honestly don’t understand what your position is.
It’s literally a semantical discussion. There is no true right or wrong here. If you want to use the word “male” to describe those born with male genitals only, excluding trans men—that’s a valid definition. A lot of trans men want to be seen as male, and including them is a valid definition as well. IMHO, the latter definition is kinder.
Voted strong disagreement because genitals define sex and the definition of gender is very central to the issue.
I can agree that differences in skills and hobbies don’t flip genders. And it is quite so that we try to center the genders around the sexes. But what is between your legs also does not flip your gender. Gender is a lot about how you integrate socially and it does not need to be dependant on single issues.
So it is not the case that all individuals of the sex female have no hope of ever being the gender man.
Some bees work in a way where if the queen bee dies, some/one of the remaining workers will turn into queens. And while there is a queen in the hive alive no such transitions occurs. In that kind of arrangement there are males that can only be gender drone and females that can either be workers or queens. A particularly bossy worker does not constitute a queen. And queens and workers do different things but that is not what makes them queens or workers. If a queen would start to carry a leaf it would not make her into a worker.
Jack Sparrow is clearly recognized as a man by me, you, and everyone we know. Maybe where you grew up all men were limited in their gender expression to be somewhere between Jack Sparrow and John Rambo, in which case you really wouldn’t need more than two genders. But that doesn’t begin to cover the range of gender expression we see, not in some abstract thought experiment or rare medical edge case but in our very own community.
I bought a new house last year, and it has an old empty workshop attached. I’d like to ‘revive’ it, but I’ve got little “workshop-experience”.
In preparation, I bought some books on woodworking and pottery. The woodworking books are very traditionally masculine. Men! Chest hair! Beer! BBQ!
But the book on pottery is quite feminine. Bright photos, soft colors, everything is demonstrated by a female Instagram influencer.
That doesn’t matter in the slightest to me. I don’t think my interest in pottery has any relationship to my gender. I don’t feel less manly for it. I like making physical objects with my own hands and that’s a human trait, not a gendered trait.
You describe “female-attired trans women who write great Rust code” as worthy of being its own separate gender. Why? Why can’t (trans) women who write great code just be… women? Is it impossible to simultaneously be defined as a woman and to be able to write great code? That feels sexist and backwards to me.
IMHO, behaviours, skills and hobbies don’t define your gender. Your genitals do.
People born with male genitals are male—even if they like to wear dresses and do ballet.
People born with female genitals are female—even if they wear pants and write great code.
Trans women often want to be recognized as female—even if they are “demisexual” (people who want a strong emotional connection before they can feel sexual attraction) and write great Rust code.
And trans men often want to be recognized as male—despite [stereotypical female activity].
Last but not least—aren’t sexuality and gender completely detached? Why should a gay man be any less of a man?
Wait, trans women are just women but people born with male genitals are male? Are you proposing to use the words “man/woman” differently from “male/female”? I honestly don’t understand what your position is.
It’s literally a semantical discussion. There is no true right or wrong here. If you want to use the word “male” to describe those born with male genitals only, excluding trans men—that’s a valid definition. A lot of trans men want to be seen as male, and including them is a valid definition as well. IMHO, the latter definition is kinder.
Voted strong disagreement because genitals define sex and the definition of gender is very central to the issue.
I can agree that differences in skills and hobbies don’t flip genders. And it is quite so that we try to center the genders around the sexes. But what is between your legs also does not flip your gender. Gender is a lot about how you integrate socially and it does not need to be dependant on single issues.
So it is not the case that all individuals of the sex female have no hope of ever being the gender man.
Some bees work in a way where if the queen bee dies, some/one of the remaining workers will turn into queens. And while there is a queen in the hive alive no such transitions occurs. In that kind of arrangement there are males that can only be gender drone and females that can either be workers or queens. A particularly bossy worker does not constitute a queen. And queens and workers do different things but that is not what makes them queens or workers. If a queen would start to carry a leaf it would not make her into a worker.