Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby firechicago » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:32 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:To be fair, I didn't say the whole rant was typical evangelical fare; I said it started as typical evangelical fare. If no one in your church would ever say any of the things in the first paragraph I quoted, I'm not so sure your church is as evangelical as you think it is. :wink:

Evangelical is not actually a synonym for fundamentalist or conservative. It is a broad term for a whole group of religious movements tracing their origins to the Great Awakenings of the 18th century. You will find self-proclaimed evangelical groups all across the political and theological spectrum. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is one of the most liberal sects of Christianity in the US.

Also, Baptists are an incredibly diverse group, comprising something like a dozen different sects plus hundreds or thousands of independent congregations in the US alone. Just because the largest and most visible Baptist sect in the US is batshit crazy doesn't mean all Baptists are.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby addams » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:55 am UTC

Bat Shit Crazy? Not Baptists.
There is one church that took the Baptist name.

They are not recognized by any other Baptist group, that I know of.
Baptists are alright. For Bible Thumpers.

I like a little Bible. It is fun. But; It is not The Only Book.
I don't want to argue with them. They have some Wholesome rules and they are supportive of each other as Brothers in Christ. (so sweet)

The Methodists. Those guys are tough on each other.
I have no idea what their big split was about.

But; It left some Methodists more kind and loving toward fallen Belligerent Atheist Drunks than the The Northern Methodist Congress.
People are funny; As long as they are someone else's people.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Nordic Einar » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:10 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:I'm increasingly annoyed by applications and the like which have radio selectors for "male", "female", and "transgender". Sorry, but no. Transgender is not a third gender. Of course, I'm a white cis straight male, so it's not a personal affront, but....


I know trans people who would disagree with you, and do identify as "Transgender" independent of male or female. I also know trans people who refer to themselves as "A Transgender", and I'm loathe to tell them they're wrong.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Joeldi » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:20 am UTC

With regards to radio controls, all I ask is that it not be mandatory. I try to go with the other gender offered whenever that comes up. No you Don't need to know that.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:25 pm UTC

firechicago wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:To be fair, I didn't say the whole rant was typical evangelical fare; I said it started as typical evangelical fare. If no one in your church would ever say any of the things in the first paragraph I quoted, I'm not so sure your church is as evangelical as you think it is. :wink:

Evangelical is not actually a synonym for fundamentalist or conservative. It is a broad term for a whole group of religious movements tracing their origins to the Great Awakenings of the 18th century. You will find self-proclaimed evangelical groups all across the political and theological spectrum. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is one of the most liberal sects of Christianity in the US.

Also, Baptists are an incredibly diverse group, comprising something like a dozen different sects plus hundreds or thousands of independent congregations in the US alone. Just because the largest and most visible Baptist sect in the US is batshit crazy doesn't mean all Baptists are.

Being ex-evangefundaconservabaptist myself, "typical evangelical fare" probably has a more specific meaning to me than to the rest of the world. Sorry about that.

Nordic Einar wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I'm increasingly annoyed by applications and the like which have radio selectors for "male", "female", and "transgender". Sorry, but no. Transgender is not a third gender. Of course, I'm a white cis straight male, so it's not a personal affront, but....

I know trans people who would disagree with you, and do identify as "Transgender" independent of male or female. I also know trans people who refer to themselves as "A Transgender", and I'm loathe to tell them they're wrong.

Then let me rephrase: Transgender is not an appropriate catch-all term for anyone who isn't cis male or cis female.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Red Hal » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:38 pm UTC

If someone wants to refer to themselves as "A Transgender" then I certainly wouldn't even consider telling them otherwise, but I agree that as a catch-all (i.e. non-cis) term it is ... problematic, especially as it excludes people who explicitly identify as agendered. Genderqueer seems to me to be more appropriate as a third term after the traditional binary choice, but ideally the gender expression would be completely removed from sex in these questions, making such distinctions as cis- and trans- irrelevant; you identify as female? tick that box, male? tick that one instead, something else? either click other or feel free to tell us so we can improve our options next time.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:53 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:If someone wants to refer to themselves as "A Transgender" then I certainly wouldn't even consider telling them otherwise, but I agree that as a catch-all (i.e. non-cis) term it is ... problematic, especially as it excludes people who explicitly identify as agendered. Genderqueer seems to me to be more appropriate as a third term after the traditional binary choice, but ideally the gender expression would be completely removed from sex in these questions, making such distinctions as cis- and trans- irrelevant; you identify as female? tick that box, male? tick that one instead, something else? either click other or feel free to tell us so we can improve our options next time.

To avoid the possible confusion/connotations of "genderqueer", what about simply male, female, and non-binary?

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Red Hal » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:58 pm UTC

I suppose so, but that seems exclusionary in the way that "white" and "non-white" would be. The term genderqueer is becoming fairly well established (if not yet fully mainstream).

On edit: y'know, there really is something truly magical about two white, straight cis-men discussing what to call people who fall outside of the narrow definitions they were raised with. Ain't privilege grand?
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:09 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:I suppose so, but that seems exclusionary in the way that "white" and "non-white" would be. The term genderqueer is becoming fairly well established (if not yet fully mainstream).

On edit: y'know, there really is something truly magical about two white, straight cis-men discussing what to call people who fall outside of the narrow definitions they were raised with. Ain't privilege grand?

Well, not to pat ourselves on the back, but if privileged people don't lay down their privilege and talk about these things, it's going to take a helluvalot longer to effect change.

I suppose there is a balance to be struck: is the application intended to gather statistical data, or to gather personal information about a candidate, or what? I guess "male, female, other" is the simplest. But it implies that a person who wants to identify as "other" (which could include anyone who isn't cis) isn't a legitimate male or female.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Red Hal » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:13 pm UTC

Yeah, that was just me checking and acknowledging my privilege. Instead of the increasing number of terms, perhaps something along the lines of the following three questions?

1) On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do you identify as male?
2) On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do you identify as female?
3) On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do your answers above reflect your physical sex? (<- this one's optional)
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:19 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Yeah, that was just me checking and acknowledging my privilege. Instead of the increasing number of terms, perhaps something along the lines of the following three questions?

1) On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do you identify as male?
2) On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do you identify as female?
3) On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do your answers above reflect your physical sex? (<- this one's optional)

Well, 3 implies that the person asking the question has some valid interest in knowing whether the person's self-identification matches their genitalia, which may not be the case. Plus, this gives us WAY more data than we need. What most people really want to know is whether they are dealing with a guy, a girl, or someone who identifies in a nonbinary way.

What about just moving to two questions, but making both questions binary?

1) Do you identify as male? Y/N.
2) Do you identify as female? Y/N.

That seems nonoffensive and useful.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Red Hal » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:48 pm UTC

I used one to ten as a scale since it is more granular. You may have people who are predominantly one gender, also have an affinity with the other, but not strongly enough that they would feel comfortable answering yes to both questions.

In any case, unless it is a survey which is explicitly seeking information about the gender identity of respondents as part of its remit then no version of the question is required.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:14 pm UTC

The reason it was on my mind was actually because I had looked up the application form for MasterChef, just for kicks, and that's where I saw male/female/transgender. For something like that, a two-question binary seems like it would serve their purposes much better.

You could do a double question one....

1) Do you identify as predominantly male or predominantly female? Y/N
1a) If yes, check "male" or "female".

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Red Hal » Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:02 pm UTC

Oh. Well, in that case, I suppose you could say at least they're trying. Bless.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:57 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Then let me rephrase: Transgender is not an appropriate catch-all term for anyone who isn't cis male or cis female.


I don't object to this statement, but the distinction between this and your previous one is important. NCTE has some guidelines for gender designations on forms if you'd like to dig around their website for them, but typically the "best practices" is generally defined as "many many options" + a "write your own" option.

So something along the lines of:

Male
Female
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender
Transexual
Agender
Bigender
Genderqueer
Non-Binary
Other:________________

With the option to "check all that apply"

davidstarlingm wrote:The reason it was on my mind was actually because I had looked up the application form for MasterChef, just for kicks, and that's where I saw male/female/transgender. For something like that, a two-question binary seems like it would serve their purposes much better.

You could do a double question one....

1) Do you identify as predominantly male or predominantly female? Y/N
1a) If yes, check "male" or "female".


I would disagree pretty strongly with the idea that a two question binary is *ever* better than having an option for "transgender", even if that's still not the best set up.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:04 am UTC

Or we could just not ask people what their gender is.

Its only appropriate (personal conversation aside) to ask someone's gender is if that information is going to be used to discriminate on. And I actually cannot off the top of my head think of a single valid example where it would be appropriate to discriminate on gender or where we do, maybe car insurance or other risk behaviours we insure for?

Usually the discrimination we do is based on sex. And intersex should be on that list.

But if we are going to ask for peoples gender/sex on forms, we better have a damn good reason for doing so.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:28 am UTC

Men and women have wildly different life expectancies, healthcare costs, and auto accident rates. I'd say it's fair to charge different rates, because simply put, they aren't buying the same product.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:30 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Men and women have wildly different life expectancies,


Which is based on sex.

healthcare costs,


Mostly based on sex, but of course any costs associated with a mismatch between sex and gender.

As I said before, unless we have a very good reason to ask for gender, don't.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby phlip » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:33 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Or we could just not ask people what their gender is.

Indeed... In my reckoning, in order of idealness, number 1 is "just don't have a gender field on your form". Option 2 is a free-form gender field, with no drop-down list, which is optional.

Having that drop-down list, even with an "Other, please specify" option, serves primarily to let you do analysis based on the entered values. Sometimes, that's relevant to whatever service you're actually providing, in which case the specifics of why it matters will inform what options you need. For instance, for certain medical procedures, it could be relevant what bits you have... for instance, if you have a cervix, then the HPV vaccine is more relevant to you. So a form you fill out while signing up for something medical could be understood to ask your sex (it would be more accurate if the form specifically asked "do you have a cervix", but just asking for their sex is relatively unawkward and covers a raft of similar questions in the majority case, and exceptions can be noted). They probably don't have any particular need to ask your gender, though.

But the main reasons that such a field exist on forms are (a) inertia, people have them because everyone else has them, or (b) for data mining/market research purposes. In the case of (a)... just don't, and you're done. In the case of (b)... just use a freeform field, and your data mining will need to be a bit fuzzier. This is nothing new, data mining algorithms already have to be a bit fuzzy to match up most things, this just adds a bit more of that. But the alternatives all have problems. If you get people to specify M/F, even if the field is optional, that's going to be exclusionary to non-binary folk. If you make it "Male/Female/Other", then that's going to be, well, othering, literally (renaming "Other" to something more tactful can help, but doesn't make it go away). On the other hand, having too many choices is just going to end up being super cluttered, having categories that overlap, or are subsets of each other, and still probably won't cover everyone (so you still need an "Other" option, which will now feel even worse). You end up needing, like Einar suggested, a tick-all-that-apply-style option, and even then, you're probably going to annoy some people for being too broad and not including their personal identity, and annoy other people for being too narrow and pedantic about things they might not want to share. And the results will probably be no more useful for your fuzzy data-mining matcher than a free-form text field anyway.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:42 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Men and women have wildly different life expectancies,


Which is based on sex.

healthcare costs,


Mostly based on sex, but of course any costs associated with a mismatch between sex and gender.

As I said before, unless we have a very good reason to ask for gender, don't.


AFAIK, forms use 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably, but they are virtually always asking 'are you legally male or female', not 'do you identify yourself more as a woman, a man, some combination or something else entirely'. I have yet to see a form asking for the second one. I also will tentatively agree with you; that's rather personal and really, unless the other person is a psychiatrist it doesn't provide the other person with any information that's going to be useful.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:47 am UTC

Intake forms for medical clinics, intake forms for rape crisis centers, intake forms for low barrier shelters, intake forms for mental health organizations, intake forms for government institutions, etc etc etc all have extremely valid reasons to ask about gender.

*EDIT*

As do, say, CDC data collection forms or forms that will be used to provide data about macro level health outcomes.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:49 am UTC

Alright, therapists of various forms have a valid reason for asking. Anyone that isn't a therapist that would find the information useful?

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:50 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Alright, therapists of various forms have a valid reason for asking. Anyone that isn't a therapist that would find the information useful?


...low barrier shelters, various government institutions, public health people? Anyone who reports to public health people?

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:AFAIK, forms use 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably, but they are virtually always asking 'are you legally male or female', not 'do you identify yourself more as a woman, a man, some combination or something else entirely'. I have yet to see a form asking for the second one.


This is pretty much the crux of the problem. Society as a whole has a very poor understanding of the differences between sex and gender and the issues that arise out of a mismatch between the two. And issues do arise for transgendered individuals being forced to select one over the other. Being able to legally change ones sex/gender and physically changing ones sex.

Imagine trying to go through passport control where your passport lists you as a man but you look like a woman and have had gender reassignment surgery.

Why is it even necessary to be legally male or female? Do we want to go back to denying women the vote or some such?

EDIT:
...low barrier shelters, various government institutions, public health people? Anyone who reports to public health people?


I expect sex would be much more useful or is in fact, the information they are really after.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:55 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Why is it even necessary to be legally male or female? Do we want to go back to denying women the vote or some such?


Can't think of a good reason, really. A lot of forms include information which has little practical purpose, plus there's inertia and what not. Rights should be sufficiently equal that making the laws outright gender-blind seems logical....and if you do that, then you need not officially pick any answer. Problem solved, and as a fringe benefit, forms get a little bit shorter. Everybody wins.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:58 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:This is pretty much the crux of the problem. Society as a whole has a very poor understanding of the differences between sex and gender and the issues that arise out of a mismatch between the two. And issues do arise for transgendered individuals being forced to select one over the other. Being able to legally change ones sex/gender and physically changing ones sex.

Imagine trying to go through passport control where your passport lists you as a man but you look like a woman and have had gender reassignment surgery.


I don't have to imagine this - I have stood shoulder to shoulder with partners, friends, lovers, and clients with a lawyer's number typed into my phone waiting to call in case it turned ugly.

BattleMoose wrote:Why is it even necessary to be legally male or female? Do we want to go back to denying women the vote or some such?


Because gender matters? Gender is a metric of identity, and the reality of living in the world is that being able to identify someone's gender is important? The question you should be asking is "why does it *only* have to be male and female" or "why is legally changing your gender so difficult"

BattleMoose wrote:
...low barrier shelters, various government institutions, public health people? Anyone who reports to public health people?


I expect sex would be much more useful or is in fact, the information they are really after.


You would be wrong.

*EDIT*

Tyndmyr wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Why is it even necessary to be legally male or female? Do we want to go back to denying women the vote or some such?


Can't think of a good reason, really. A lot of forms include information which has little practical purpose, plus there's inertia and what not. Rights should be sufficiently equal that making the laws outright gender-blind seems logical....and if you do that, then you need not officially pick any answer. Problem solved, and as a fringe benefit, forms get a little bit shorter. Everybody wins.


Rights are not sufficiently equal though, and legal application is as important as legal language.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:05 am UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:Because gender matters? Gender is a metric of identity, and the reality of living in the world is that being able to identify someone's gender is important?


And none of this has anything to do with the Government. The government does not need me (or anyone else) to be legally male or female in order to make decisions for the betterment of society. Indeed, legal requirements actually cause negative issues as you have apparently personally experienced.

BattleMoose wrote:
...low barrier shelters, various government institutions, public health people? Anyone who reports to public health people?


I expect sex would be much more useful or is in fact, the information they are really after.


You would be wrong.


Would you like to tell me why? Most health issues would relate to sex and not gender. Or is that assumption of mine horribly wrong?

Tyndmyr wrote:Rights are not sufficiently equal though, and legal application is as important as legal language.


Take away the legal requirement to be on or another and it becomes impossible to legally discriminate on gender or sex. Unless of course, you want government and employers to be able to discriminate on your legal sex or gender?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:11 am UTC

There are some very rare cases where gender (sex?) ratios would be critical. Like, doomsday preparation or founding a space colony. You really want to have reasonable ratios of males and females.

Immigration might be an issue as well; you really, really, really do not want China and India to solve their male surpluses (surpli?) by sending 100m men each (but no women) to your country.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:17 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Nordic Einar wrote:Because gender matters? Gender is a metric of identity, and the reality of living in the world is that being able to identify someone's gender is important?


And none of this has anything to do with the Government. The government does not need me (or anyone else) to be legally male or female in order to make decisions for the betterment of society. Indeed, legal requirements actually cause negative issues as you have apparently personally experienced.


Do you believe that without a legal definition of gender we would be capable of limiting discrimination based on gender? Also note that I'm not just referring to overt discrimination.

Nevermind the fact that there are spaces which should be legally segregated based on gender (not sex) and that would not be logistically possible without legal definitions of gender.

BattleMoose wrote:
...low barrier shelters, various government institutions, public health people? Anyone who reports to public health people?


I expect sex would be much more useful or is in fact, the information they are really after.


You would be wrong.


Would you like to tell me why? Most health issues would relate to sex and not gender. Or is that assumption of mine horribly wrong?


Many health disparities are tied to gender, not sex - particularily mental illness. But for a further example - if forms are not inquiring about gender AND sex then you lose a LOT of granuality. Trans women and men are now suddenly lumped into the same catagory - and trans women have much, much, much different healthcare needs and outcomes than cis men do, even if we're looking at some of the same physical tissues.

BattleMoose wrote:
Rights are not sufficiently equal though, and legal application is as important as legal language.


Take away the legal requirement to be on or another and it becomes impossible to legally discriminate on gender or sex. Unless of course, you want government and employers to be able to discriminate on your legal sex or gender?[/quote]

I've already talked about the fact that there are occasionally good reasons to legally discriminate based on gender (Public accomodations come to mind) but, as I mentioned again, I'm not sure that lacking specific language about gender in law is going to do anything to protect at risk genders from discrimination. In fact I would not be surprised if it actually enabled discrimination.

*EDIT*

Just for the record - I am whole heartedly for smashing the gender binary, and I think we need to expand the legal definition of gender.
Last edited by Nordic Einar on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby addams » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:20 am UTC

Medically gender is important.
Don't want another one of those guys that got all the way to the OR and was being draped,
before it was decided by the nursing staff that this hysterectomy was not going forward.

Urban Myth? Maybe.
Spoiler:
Check three times. Always check three times.

All that gender identity. I might feel pretty manly during part of the day.
I may not feel manly all day.

Yes. I have filled out questioners, forms and applications that ask gender.
I rarely lie. I will keep my mouth shut and go with the men. You?

Why do you want to know gender? If it is a woman, it might bleed? That can be bad.
Spoiler:
Oh! Oh! I talked to a woman that was amazing. She hung out with men, a lot.
She wanted to do what they did. She was qualified.

She had one little problem. She could not pee standing up.
She had herself catheterized. We talked about it for a while.

She said it was totally worth it. I agreed to do it, too. If it ever came up, I would cath.
You? If you could go some amazing place with some amazing people,
but not if ya' have to get half undressed and expose half an acre of flesh, to pee.

How long would you hesitate? She hesitated a few minutes, she said. Then she maned up.
She said it was her idea. The other medical staff hesitated longer than she did.
She said it was no problem. We laughed. Don't pull on it. That is funny. Men can pull on theirs.

Of course, she controlled for bleeding with pills and getting all regular.

When do you feel most like a man?
When do you feel most like a woman?

Feminine and Masculine?
In the morning are you a real man?
After dark do you become feminine and helpless? Or; Just feminine.
Some men are so girlie and some woman are so manly.

There have been times and a lot of those times, too.
There have been times when the best man in the room was a woman.

What does that have to do with Fundies?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:09 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Rights are not sufficiently equal though, and legal application is as important as legal language.


Take away the legal requirement to be on or another and it becomes impossible to legally discriminate on gender or sex. Unless of course, you want government and employers to be able to discriminate on your legal sex or gender?


Misattributed quote there, I'm with you on there being little reason for the government to label people in this way.

I suppose one could come up with something regarding segregated bathrooms, but it's not like you need government id to use the men's room. And frankly, unisex bathrooms would work well enough.

There might be edge cases where it matters, sure, but then, we can just worry about it for those few edge cases on an ad-hoc basis, just like we do for everything else. I don't need the government to certify if I have ten toes. If it ever is relevant, they can just, yknow, worry about that then.

Sure, health care records likely have a legitimate need for this info, but the government hardly has a legitimate need for every bit of info that should be on my health records.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby addams » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:27 pm UTC

oh, You little Independent American.
I bet you are, also, a man. (so funny)

If you lived in a civilized nation, medical care would be government business.

Some people believe in Jesus. Some people believe in other people.
Governments are made up of people.

Do governments reflect the governed? That might explain a lot.
The American government is retarded, because Americans are retarded?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:There are some very rare cases where gender (sex?) ratios would be critical. Like, doomsday preparation or founding a space colony. You really want to have reasonable ratios of males and females.

And you also want them to all be hetero, and fertile, and probably cis too, with low self-esteem and a lack of understanding about birth control.

Like I said before, the case in point was the application for MasterChef 2014. It's obvious why a reality show would want to keep track of applicant gender. And, honestly, I think it's fine that a lot of different forms would need these kinds of questions; plenty of groups have legitimate reasons to collect demographic data. If you know you have an imbalance, you can work to correct it (or not, if you're trying to achieve a particular ratio).

The majority of the population is going to identify as either predominantly male or predominantly female, whether they are cis or not. So, for exclusively demographic purposes, it's ideal to sort your data into three buckets: male, female, other. You just want to achieve this in a way which doesn't unduly offend anybody or appear to exclude anyone.

One could always go with "Male, Female, Prefer not to answer."

But all you really need, I think, is "Do you identify as male" and "Do you identify as female" with check boxes, so you aren't required to answer either, and it's possible to answer both. That's the most transparent way of doing it. "We're merely interested in a demographic sort, so if you want to end up in one of these buckets, check here."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

Actually they don't need to be hetero, so long as they are willing to procreate. Gay men and women can still have sex; they just don't have the desire to.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby addams » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Actually they don't need to be hetero, so long as they are willing to procreate. Gay men and women can still have sex; they just don't have the desire to.

Desire to? ok.
I thought it was one of 'Those' things?
I suppose it is. You wrote the ending in a different language. That is not the way I heard it, but close enough.

Spoiler:
I had a freind that had such a hard time talking about sex.
He had tried a woman or two. "Everyone else was doing it."

The first time was pretty great, he said.
He seemed to recognise something about hanging out in bed with another person as a Good Thing, right away.
Sex with another person was fun, too. That is what he said. Then he discovered men.

Well...How does a Man get to adulthood, before discovering other Men?
It was a weird story. I eather don't understand it all; It is not true; Or; It is weirder than I can think it is.

Like the rest of the Universe, "It is not only stranger than we think it is; It is stranger than we can think it is."


I read Religion books. I laugh at some of it.
This is not about Religion. I think about some of the Threads David Darling starts and some of the things David Darling writes and it reminds me of something I heard a woman say, "Sharp as a Serpent's Tooth, is the Tongue of an ungrateful child."

Are the Funidies a Hazard to all that meet them?
No? Only to their children? Who's business is that? Ours?

I agree that every part of our lives can be open to examination by others.
If some Protestant uptight JackAss does not like some of the Hindu rituals? (fuck that guy. right?)
Spoiler:
ech. It was so nice back in the Long Ago Days.
I have heard stories about JackAsses that don't like Rituals.

Someone fucks the JackAss and he begins to see it our way.
That was sexual congress with consent. JackAsses have feelings, too.

It does not always work. I don't like some Rituals and I don't want to change my mind.

Dear David Darling; Your Family of Origin may have been isolating and abusive.
Spoiler:
With all those friends from Christain Life you posted about knowing?
In what way is having tons of friends that are all being abused isolating?

ech. Like BootCamp?


The point has been made that other kinds of people have been known to be abusive.
I am sorry you did not enjoy your Youth.

I know stories, that are true, about people that would think your home was a slice of Heaven.
It is not legal for me to type about it. It is not good for you, if I do that.

The Ungrateful Child. Yes. The Ungrateful Child should have a voice.
My Mother was an ungrateful child. What did my mother say?

Spoiler:
My GrandMother looked at me and said, "She would complain if she were hung with a new rope."
I walked into another space. My mother asked, "What did she say?"

I told my mother. She said, "Yes. I am complaining. New ropes are scratchy and stiff. Besides I don't want to be hung."
My mother took off. Poor me. I was too little to drive.

You think your family had problems? Honey; I would like you meet mine!
Spoiler:
I thank the Gods for the Christian Religion.
At least they are trying to be good.

I think it helps. It helps people find a little Peace, sometimes.
A little Peace seems to mellow people.

Oh! It would be creepy, but I think I can find some of those people from even worse families. How fun would that be?

What a great hobby! Kind of dangerous and weird.
Like stalking those guys from the movie Deliverance.

Most of those people have electricity.
Cell phones reach in there.

If those people turn on us, running into the arms of a Bear might look like a good choice.
What fun! Hey! The US government could pay us to do it.

If we live, we get enough money to live. If we die; It's the 21st century.
People die the same now as they did three hundred years ago.

You think your people are not dangerous? Lucky you.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:24 pm UTC

addams wrote:With all those friends from Christain Life you posted about knowing?
In what way is having tons of friends that are all being abused isolating?

Because we were all brainwashed into thinking it was normal and right.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby addams » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:34 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
addams wrote:With all those friends from Christain Life you posted about knowing?
In what way is having tons of friends that are all being abused isolating?

Because we were all brainwashed into thinking it was normal and right.

Yes. David Darling. Yes. I understand that.

Spoiler:
It might be difficult to understand how bad things are when the Human Spirit revolts.
Some people Wake Up as children and 'Know'. They, just, know.

This is Wrong. That is a person, like me. "Good God!" The internal voice Screams.
But; That internal voice does not have the words, "Good God."

Pop culture gives us a glimpse in, sometimes. The Color Purple is a movie that was designed to be a feel good.
It also touches on the helplessness. The Church was a blessed relief for some people. Remember Boot Camp?

If you were born into Boot Camp, you might think Boot Camp is normal.
Honey; Some people like Boot Camp. It is a blessed relief.

In some Boot Camps, a person can trust the guy with the clipboard.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby engr » Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:47 am UTC

Religious fundamentalists vs. LGBT rights activists.
The people who are standing still are crazy, intolerant fundamentalist religious fanatics.
The people who spray spit in their faces, spray-paint them, and draw crosses on their foreheads, are tolerant, nonviolent LGBT protesters. Yeah, yo go girls, show these Christians what the tolerance is all about!
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:56 am UTC

engr wrote:Religious fundamentalists vs. LGBT rights activists.
The people who are standing still are crazy, intolerant fundamentalist religious fanatics.
The people who spray spit in their faces, spray-paint them, and draw crosses on their foreheads, are tolerant, nonviolent LGBT protesters. Yeah, yo go girls, show these Christians what the tolerance is all about!


You mean to tell me that if I oppose gay rights, dozens of young attractive topless Hispanic women will all throw their underwear in my face and touch me and rub me with their bodily fluids? No wonder why people are homophobic...

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Daily Dose of Fundamentalism

Postby engr » Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:08 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You mean to tell me that if I oppose gay rights, dozens of young attractive topless Hispanic women will all throw their underwear in my face and touch me and rub me with their bodily fluids? No wonder why people are homophobic...


So spitting in someone's face, spray paint in their eyes, yelling insults and throwing underwear in their face is OK, as long as you are young and belong to an opposite sex from the people you're doing it to? Good to know.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests