Why is it that negative sex stereotypes (e.g. women should stay in the kitchen) and racial distinctions (Black people are tall/good at sports) are generally becoming more inappropriate in society, but the very basic distinction between male-female is still heavily enforced?

Maybe because some people have outwards pointing wee wees while other's go inwards?

He's talking about gender, not biological sex.


Sex = your biological state (male/female/intersexed)
Gender = your mental/psychological/social state (and there are probably as many as genders as there are people - this is why there is a difference between bisexual and pansexual, as bisexual indicates the existence of just two genders whilst pansexual encompasses all possible genders).

My own view is that it is still heavily enforced by society because it is seen as easy to differentiate between male and female. Society is very black and white when it comes to this, and people will often see someone with a penis as a man, and someone with a vagina as a woman. It scares many people when they are confronted with the idea that gender is fluid and that someone's genitals do not necessarily match their identity.

and what about the people who don't have either?
or the people who have indeterminate "wee wees"?

to answer the op: i would suggest that slowly, but surely, those barriers are being broken down too.

i was going to say more, but i'm not sure how to explain my thoughts clearly.

If it was the case that there are as many genders as there are people, then it would be a meaningless concept.

Almost as meaningless as the term "pansexual".

That's true, although there are certainly more than two genders.

Can you name them?

They don't have specific names for each gender. Some people consider themselves bigendered (both at the same time), androgyne (mix of both), trigendered, neutrois (neither) etc.

Bigendered = male and female at the same time

androgyne = partly male, partly female

trigendered = male, female and what?

neutrois = neither male nor female.

I can only see two genders in any of the above, apart from trigender, the third component of the triumvirate remaining a mystery.

Meanwhile, all of the above designations seem based on a misunderstanding of gender which is not a fixed state, but a continuum.

They are actively used by many people worldwide, just go to any transgender website, although I don't think trigendered is.

if a person is neither male or female, but does not say they are neutrois, what are they?

just because you know only two terms for gender ('male' and 'female') does mean that other terms don't exist.

i suggest you read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
it is misleading, as the term "third gender" is used in context to the other "two", when in fact, there are many different recognised "genders" depending on the culture.

also have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

the notion that there maybe more than two "genders" is also quite common in science fiction writing (both within human communities, and within alien communities).

so, what gender is a person who has exclusive sexual relationships with dogs? (or any other animal?) what about a person who only likes to have sex with intersex folk?

there is a broad spectrum of sexuality out there, and to try and shoehorn it all into two boxes is fucking crazy.

Gender is not the same as sexuality. A gay male is not a different gender to a hetero male, for instance.

Meanwhile the wiki article on Third Gender makes the mistake of conflating gender with biological sex.

Categories are almost always created for our purposes, when it comes to social identities. The issue with sexuality is it has a purpose, though somewhat vague. Straight people want to specify what type of partner they are looking for. This is based on a "norm." Anyone outside this norm is defined somewhat clearly, though there are difficult cases. And I am not pansexual, but it is not a meaningless term, at least within our current context. And who's do say a bisexual is attracted to transsexual, etc?

I'm not sure my position on gender. There are so many gender differences in society. It is difficult to say whether something is environmental or genetic. A widespread refutation of all gender categories as genetic is hasty. It "might" be the case that certain behaviors are more prevalent in women and less prevalent in men. I'm not committed either way. However, I once discussed gender with a transsexual who was quite offended by the idea that gender does not exist. They pointed to the case of gender identity disorder, often present in small children.

Frankly, I think the issue of whether gender identities exist naturally is an important one for scientists to analyze "without bias." What if women are less prone to being engineers, on average? What if men are less prone to being nurses, on average. Hiring practices seeking to create equality may cover up a biological norm.

I'm more sympathetic to skepticism of gender, myself, but we can't be too hasty as I see it. The main issue is society has no business assuming individual people are X just because there group is X. It's the same thing for racial profiling. It's not acceptable to assume something of one person because they are associated with a group. It's something unrelated to their group that is causing it. It's just coincidental.

There might be a consistent conjoining of say "empathy genes" in women because of some genetic phenomenon. It may not necessarily (and is likely not, in my view) linked to being "female." I don't know of a single gender identity I would support as biological, but I know I am quite open-minded about the subject. Differences aren't the end of the world, after all. It's discrimination and assumptions that are the problem.

Rise Like Lions: "the very basic distinction between male-female is still heavily enforced"

You mean like women screaming bloody murder when a man goes into the women's room? Geez...is this really so hard to understand?

RedAnarchist: "Gender = your mental/psychological/social state (and there are probably as many as genders as there are people...)"

As Bob The Builder pointed out, that's the same nihilism as those who say there are "many, many classes." Useful theory can identify specific genders--and the material bases for these genders. Useless theory cannot. The material basis for gender is sex; thus, the word "gender" cannot be anything but a synonym for "sex."

RedAnarchist: "It scares many people when they are confronted with the idea that gender is fluid and that someone's genitals do not necessarily match their identity."

Of course it does. It's a con game. Many people become apprehensive of a man who "confronts them" by walking into the women's room.

It is abusive and rude to treat everyone as if they exist to serve you. Poor people aren't walking sex slaves. They resent being "confronted" with demands to satiate anyone's wish to be titillated. The whole idea of advancing a "sexual revolution" through "confrontations" is just one small part of the petty-bourgeois radical-liberal movement for more social power.

Bob The Builder: "gender...is not a fixed state, but a continuum"

No. This statement can be disproved by your own method. A continuum between what and what? Between male and female? OK, what is the material basis for fixing a point on the continuum? The reproductive organ of the individual. Thus, gender is a fixed state of one of the two polar opposites. The extremely small number of persons born with malformed or nonexistent reproductive organs--are abnormal, same as people born without arms.

Besides, if it were true that gender is some kind of kiddie role-playing game, if it were true that adults are all Peter Pans who have no instinctive mating behaviors, then why would anyone need to compare fantasy gender to reality sexual characteristics? Why would anyone ever even think of physically acting out behaviors about something that has no physicality? To simultaneously assert that gender is merely an abstration, while asserting that gender has physical relation to the body, is the logical fallacy of taking both sides.

where do we see arguments that rely on fallacies? In con games.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor: "Categories are almost always created for our purposes... There are so many gender differences in society. . . . A widespread refutation of all gender categories as genetic is hasty."

Thus, you create and defend many "gender categories" for your unstated purpose.

whore: "there is a broad spectrum of sexuality out there, and to try and shoehorn it all into two boxes is...crazy."

Just the reverse. There are two types of sexuality out there. To try to paint it as a "broad spectrum" is crazy. Literally. People who look at their bodies and see something other than what exists--are mentally ill. You would call someone "crazy" for saying that his nose is a third eye, and then rambling on about being "differently sighted." Do the same for someone who makes irrational statements about any other body part.

this isn't true at all. the genitalia you're born with don't determine the social role you are supposed to fulfill. gender is the expectations that are constructed around sex- men are breadwinners, women stay at home, etc. obviously these things are socially constructed, not innate.

Begging the question. I explicitly rejected the definition of "gender" as being arbitrary role-playing games--precisely because that would be arbitrary. You should have responded with some argument such as why biological sex is arbitrary, why there is a "third" or "transforming" material that causes motion on a "continuum," or so forth.

After 5700 posts, you should understand that to respond with a logical fallacy is to deliberately undermine honest discussion. Please reconsider your post.

just because you reject something doesn't make it untrue. gender describes the social expectations that surround sex. that's reality. there is biological sex, but it isn't confined to male/female and being born one or the other doesn't necessarily determine gender.

What is your opinion of transexuals and transgender people?

Actually, if a person is TS and considers themselves female, but has a male body, then they are female. Few TS people would go into a toilet if they didn't pass as the sex the room was intended for. There are also female-bodied transexuals, would you be apprehensive of them if they wanted to pass as male and walked into the men's toilets?

I wasn't saying that ideas of gender differences should be forced on people, and just because someone's gender does not fit their sex doesn't mean that it has anything to do with sexuality.

Gender and sex are not the same. If your gender and sex match then you are cisgender. If your gender and sex do not match, then you are transgender.

Can I ask - are you cisgender, going by the definitions I mentioned above?

What are these two types of sexuality? Your view of both gender and sexuality seems to be very black and white, and that's not it works in the real world.

You seem to be going back and forth between gender and sexuality. People who are transsexual do not see themselves in a woman's body when they are male-bodied and vice versa, they know that they were born in the wrong body, and they know that to change this they have to jump through several hurdles, see gender therapists and endure painful, potential fatal surgery to get the body that fits their gender.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you actually saying that transsexuals and transgendered people are mentally ill?

bcbm: "biological sex...isn't confined to male/female"

Thank you. That is a proper response.

In other words, you think that sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, and secondary sexual characteristics are manifested of some third, fourth, or more alternate sexes? I see no evidence of that. To the contrary, I see overwhelming evidence of only two sexes.

RedAnarchist: "What is your opinion of transexuals and transgender people?"

As I said in another recent thread, there is no such thing as "transgender" or "transexual." The words are euphemisms. All persons have gender according to biological sex.

RedAnarchist: "Actually, if a person is TS and considers themselves female, but has a male body, then they are female."

I disagree. Wearing a Halloween costume doesn't make you a pirate or a cowboy. "Sex change" is a put-on, an act, a fraud.

RedAnarchist: "There are also female-bodied transexuals, would you be apprehensive of them if they wanted to pass as male and walked into the men's toilets?"

Men are confident in themselves and are rarely apprehensive when eliminating. Such apprehension in men is a sign of immaturity or other stress.

RedAnarchist: "Gender and sex are not the same."

Again, that's easily disproved. As long as you rely on totally arbitrary bases such as role-playing, you can never prove that statement. Thus, all conclusions flowing from that statement are also false.

RedAnarchist: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you actually saying that transsexuals and transgendered people are mentally ill?"

Yes.

intersex.

please explain how the social expectations that surround sex are derived from what you have between your legs.