In your post, every single characteristic is part of that group, and none of them are prerequisites. It encompasses the infinity of characteristic combinations, rendering it redundant. Again, with the spectrum. ADHD diagnosis is flexible, but it has parameters. Culture does not. The outer circle is encompasses the infinite number of possible characteristics. The inner circle encompasses the symptoms of ADHD; it is the prerequisite for diagnosis. Without absolute prerequisites, culture would be as general as the outer circle.
You seem to be having trouble reading my post, and also having trouble with the concept of sets. In your diagram, every ADHD patient would have the same set of symptoms. Your diagram is not expressive of the reality. You also seem to have reduced "culture" to a non-word. It is a word, many people use it in many contexts. It doesn't seem to be a concept that has any meaning for you. That's your choice, but it's a waste of my time to argue with you about a word that you apparently don't possess any definition for.
I'm on a mobile device and that was the first result on google images. A smaller circle - representing an ADHD patient's set of characteristics - that intersects the prerequisites for ADHD diagnosis would be representative of the reality of the situation. ADHD diagnosis, while flexible, still has a fixed set of parameters; culture remains purely subjective. You have tendencies to group multiple concepts into a generalized idea, and it's evident through the points you bring up in this discussion as well as the way you present them. Culture is still a word, like how the word "thing" is still a word. I did not state that concept of culture itself has no meaning; I simply stated that specific cultural labels do not denote any characteristics about a person. I'm fine if you wish to leave this discussion in its current state. We can agree to disagree.
To some degree. I am suspicious of the idea that they can be completely comfortable in a mismatched body, that doesn't make sense to me, but it seems some only experience an identity dysphoria rather than full gender dysphoria which is also about body image. That's fine, I can accept it. My argument is that the experience of a gender self-image, innate and unchangeable, is produced by biological factors because something so innate and unchangeable cannot simply be society projecting onto you, especially considering the evidence that suggests a biological element to the feeling of gender.
Because science and other logical systems are the only way we can hope to create any kind of useful, objective truth in a universe of absolute doubt. The point of science is that it says; "we have doubt" and therefore creates a metric for how undoubted claims about reality should be= empirical evidence. I'm not saying every scientist or scientific paper is right. But a strong scientific consensus is convincing to me until I see reason to expand upon the little grain of absolute doubt. Here's a funny thing explaining this;
What about if you are claiming to be something inaccurately? Because I think self-deception is a form of harm to a degree.
It's interesting that you see it as "society projecting onto you". I would see it as "you projecting onto society". Society offers the menu of possible roles, yes, but the idea is that you get to choose one, or make one by reassembling various elements of the menu, instead of being forced to take the default one set by your organs. Oscar, I really think that you should consider the possibility that at seventeen, in the year 2016, your knowledge and understanding of gender roles throughout human history may not be entirely and utterly complete. That some of the people on this thread might, possibly, conceivably, not be complete idiots.
Yep, if gender were to be defined as a societal projection, then the idea of being transgender would be subjective. A male who wears pink would be considered transgender by those who view pink as a feminine color. In that case, it'd just be a inconsistency between personal preference and societal expectations.
I don't think of you as anywhere near idiots at all, and I don't think knowledge of gender role history is entirely relevant to whether they define true gender. My point is that if a man can "act like a woman" how can those behaviours possibly define being a woman in any way? I think they probably have some connection to gender, a trend like most stereotypes, a grain of truth, but real gender to me has to be something more, and current scientific thinking says there is some biological factors that create it as a feeling, inspired on studies of how transgenderism works. Before transgenderism was accepted, sex and gender where the same thing to people. So I think the definition you have brought up is based more of the diea of behaviour than an essential identity. Trans people aren't just acting like men/women, they are internally that. That's the reason we accept their identity as true.
If sex and gender were the same, then it wouldn't have been shocking for a woman to wear pants or man to wear a skirt. They would have just been a woman and a man, no big deal. If sex and gender were the same, then Joan of Arc's dressing as a man wouldn't have been worth a thought. The fact that gender was ENFORCED, that people were forced to match their gender appearance to their sex, that Joan of Arc was executed in part for not matching those things, means that they aren't the same. You keep switching the topic to transgender people. I'm talking about the word gender. You continue to try to narrow the meaning of that word to transgender people, and to a medical context. Oscar, there are two links to pictures below: http://highheelsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Sergio-Rossi-pink-high-heels.jpg http://img.alibaba.com/wsphoto/v0/379607783/31-Factory-silk-Ties-men-s-ties-formal-necktie-men-s-tie-neckties-cravat-nice-NEW.jpg Are you able to figure out what gender those pictures are associated with? They're not pictured "on" any human being whose anatomy you can check. You can't test for hormonal traces left on the object. But I'll bet that you can still figure out the gender. If gender has no existence independent of biology and hormones, how can you POSSIBLY figure it out? Why aren't you stumped, puzzled, utterly at a loss? Can you tell? Can you figure out which picture is associated with which gender?
To stress the point, I am happy to accept your point of view if it's convincing and I could believe another explanation that explains the nature of transgenderism. I'm not convinced of my own intellectual perfection, I know there is a lot to learn, including stuff nobody knows, but I am relying mostly on the opinions of others(scientists) and mostly just defending those opinions as expert, relatively reliable opinions.
But I don't think that you are relying on the opinions of scientists. I doubt that you'd find many scientists that would define gender in the very narrow way that you do.
Firstly, I don't know if it's hormones, that's just one of the biological factors suggested, it's the same situation as homosexuality, we know biology's involved, but the specifics elude us. Secondly, gender exists as an experience of the mind is my proposition, so it's not just the biological factors that are involved in it, but the consciousness that actually has it. Thirdly, the existence of gender roles, possibly with a connection to gender itself, does not mean those roles are gender. I'm not saying there is any problem with the idea gender roles did and do exist. They did and do. So it doesn't challenge my actual argument to attack that strawman. Fourthly, I'm not narrowing the definition of gender to trans people, it's just that such people with a mismatch, including things like agender, have a more obvious distinction between gender and sex, and they are also a main point in our discussion here.
They would probably use the definition from the dictionary in most scenarios, but experts in this subject would also argue that our understanding of gender is changing. Let's just cut to the chase here, these are the kinds of articles I'm talking about, although I don't agree with all of them 100%; http://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html. http://www.focusintl.com/GD060- Gender - biological theory.pdf. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/gender-early-socialization/introduction/does-biology-play-role-gender-development-and-behaviour. https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/factors-influencing-gender-identity/. http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072820144/student_view0/chapter15/index.html. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000060/.
Those articles really don't seem to support your argument. I'm not sure that you're sure what your argument is any more, and I'm positive that you don't understand my argument at all. Those articles use the word gender in the way that I understand the word, and the way that the rest of the world understands the word. They are using gender in the sense of roles and behaviors. Some of them argue that one's gender role is influenced by biology, others are less sure, but there is nevertheless a clear understanding that there is a separation. Your argument seems to come down to the idea that you have the right to choose a word from the language, and make it your own, with your own definition, taking that word away from the rest of us. But, no. It's my language, too. It's my word, too. If you want your own word, to signify a male/female identification based purely on biology and separate from social identity and custom and other-than-sexual behavior, one purely about hormones and sexual organs (organs that are wished for or organs possessed)...if you want a word that means that, then make one up. You don't own the word gender, and you don't get to wave away the concept of gender by trying to claim the word. I'm not signing the quitclaim on the word or the concept. Go build your own. Call it "sex-only-gender" or "biogender" or go back to the Latin and build something. But "gender" is taken. We're using it.
Okay, first isn't exactly what I'm arguing for and those articles are to provide the idea of biological factors. My conception of gender as being about the experience that results from those is more my own. I have already said I think gendered behaviours do have some basis in genuine gender trends that arise from gender, so the articles saying the biological factors create the behaviours is still supporting stuff I have suggested. And again, the idea of behaviour being gender is inconsistent with how it is used. Tomboys aren't called male. And transgender people don't always adopt the gender roles of the their gender after coming out. So I would argue your already not using that word because it doesn't make sense. At least to me.
But the word isn't your own. I'm not giving you my share of ownership in that word, and even if I did, hundreds of millions of other people would have to do the same. I should have agreed with Bayview, many posts ago: You need to do some reading. Lots of it.
What knowledge do you want me to search for? Because I really don't think defining something in a way that is contrary to it's use if logical. I don't see what reading will change that logic. Are you seriously saying tomboys are male? Am I part female because I'm not very masculine? That logic combined with the evidence I presented is why I believe in a different version of gender. Please, if you think otherwise, show me why.
...then you should stop doing it. Defining "gender" in a way contrary to the way the the word is used is indeed illogical No. At what point did I say that? They may engage in behaviors that are associated with the masculine gender, though nowadays the gender expectations for children are not nearly as strict, so it's harder to label behaviors by gender. No. At what point did I say that? A dictionary will show you the usage of the word. You don't need me for that. However, I Googled, and genderspectrum.org https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/ seems to have a fairly tidy set of definitions of gender identity, gender expression, gender role, and so on. They don't use your self-coined definitions, but you could read them all the same.
Interesting... You do realise though the article separates gender identity, what I was talking about, from gendered behaviour, which I was rejecting as truly gender due to the their inconsistency in not existing universally on males/females as they should. My argument was they were a gender-related trend.
Why "should" they exist universally in males and females? Who declared that "should"? You? What you refer to as "gendered behavior" seems to be what they refer to as "gender expression"--which they state is a way of communicating gender identity to others. So they certainly tie it to gender identity.
Yeah, there's reason to believe in a connection, but why is it the defining this and not the self-conception which is what already decides gender, not how they act. It should be universal because it needs to describe males and females as males and females. That is what gender is= male/female/other. Not= masculine/feminine/mixed.
Uh... you just applied your own definition to a word that you don't own, again. You're going to lose your damage deposit at this rate. Who are you to say that "mixed" is out? And again, you're seeing this as society projecting on the person, but, no, society provides the menu, and the person chooses from it, or they might write their own menu. A person identifies as X, and then they choose behaviors that either express X, or they might choose some behaviors the contrast with it, but in any case, THEY choose. Of course their self-conception decides how they act. Edited to add: I see that I flipped the intent of "how they act" from your post, but my last statement is valid, even if it doesn't stem directly from your post, so I'll leave it there.
