First person without a legal gender

[lisab]

MotoH, you keep saying gender is a black-and-white issue; do you have any references that back that up?

You haven't addressed the instances that others have posted here, such as testosterone resistance or people born with ambiguous genitalia. It's really not a black-and-white issue.

Here's a little bit of information from the National Institutes of Health:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001527.htm"

 

[Kajahtava]

That hypothesis has very shallow evidence.

Besides, gender is more cultural than you think, a variety of cultures in history really never made much of a fuzz of gender. Don't know if it's true, but I've been told that the Japanese word for 'homosexual' is a recent borrowing and only appears in technical literature, for the rest they have a word meaning 'homosexual act', but not 'homosexual person', also, apparently in Japanese you can use words you would usually use for girls on feminine guys and you would do the reverse with tomboys.

 

[MotoH]

MotoH, you keep saying gender is a black-and-white issue; do you have any references that back that up?

You haven't addressed the instances that others have posted here, such as testosterone resistance or people born with ambiguous genitalia. It's really not a black-and-white issue.

Here's a little bit of information from the National Institutes of Health:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001527.htm"

I'm not talking about people with wibbly wobbly mix and match genitals. I am talking about what you are born as for a normal person. You are either male or female when you are born. The rest is how your brain thinks. What I have a problem with is people who pretend/want to be something they aren't. That link you just sent further backs my point in that it is a mental issue. Just because a man wants to be a woman, and feels like a woman, doesn't make them a woman. They are still a man, only now they are a man who dresses like a girl and will get them made fun of for the rest of their life.

 

[Kajahtava]

I'm not talking about people with wibbly wobbly mix and match genitals. I am talking about what you are born as for a normal person. You are either male or female when you are born. The rest is how your brain thinks. What I have a problem with is people who pretend/want to be something they aren't. That link you just sent further backs my point in that it is a mental issue. Just because a man wants to be a woman, and feels like a woman, doesn't make them a woman. They are still a man, only now they are a man who dresses like a girl and will get them made fun of for the rest of their life.

Kay, how does that all apply to me being 'confused'?

I wouldn't deny that my body is pronounced masculine, the only desire I would have to switch to a more feminine one if it just happens to be a lot more beautiful?

It also has nothing to do with not wanting to be or praetending to be not what I am. I never contested that I have a masculine body, I just said I don't identify as having either a masculine or female soul and consider the distinction useless.

Also, these transgender people also don't praetent any thing, they won't deny having a female body for instance, but they will claim to have a male mind. And that's a thing you can hardly deny, you've admitted yourself in this post already that body and mind needn't congruate.

 

[MotoH]

A male mind. . .

I have Roger Moore's mind.

A mind is a mind, and aligns itself with its "chromosomes."

Just another excuse for them to justify what they do. I'll try and justify why I got an answer wrong on a test, but does that make the answer right? No it does not.

 

[Kajahtava]

A mind is a mind, and aligns itself with its "chromosomes."

And you already admitted in your praevious post that this needn't be true.

If you all it insanity or not is your own label to it, but you admitted it wasn't true per se.

Just another excuse for them to justify what they do. I'll try and justify why I got an answer wrong on a test, but does that make the answer right? No it does not.

What is this analogy you speak of?

 

[zomgwtf]

This thread all I can see going on really is a person trying to justify their own personal feelings to other people... maybe to feel better about themselves? I mean like if they feel like they have to change sex they are probably already quite insecure with themselves.

I don't care what any checklist says or some whack job wants to tell me, your born one sex and that's your sex. You want to complain that someone made an error somewhere (maybe it was those damned sperm cells, the one that won the race actually cheated.) then go see and psychologist and complain to them. If your born with a chromosomal disorder then that's a completely different bag of chips... I'm just talking about what NORMALLY occurs in the human race (in fact most organisms on this planet work based on two sexes...)
No just because some organisms can change their sex doesn't mean that humans should too or that when they try to it means diddly squat.

I hate how our modern world tries to accommodate every individual person. It should really only go to a certain 'normally acceptable' extent where you should expect to get accommodated for. When you go past that then your own your own, go live in the jungle or something clearly being HUMAN doesn't make you happy, personal problem and should not be in court systems or in debates over how to accomdate them in the washroom making it something public.
I'm really against the death penalty, but sometimes I really wish some people would just die off.

It seems that medical advances have evolutionally been a downfall for humans... I'm sure the people with these thoughts would just die off, not bothering the world with their non-sense 'I feel like a man' or 'I feel like a girlll'.

 

[Kajahtava]

This thread all I can see going on really is a person trying to justify their own personal feelings to other people... maybe to feel better about themselves? I mean like if they feel like they have to change sex they are probably already quite insecure with themselves.

I don't care what any checklist says or some whack job wants to tell me, your born one sex and that's your sex. You want to complain that someone made an error somewhere (maybe it was those damned sperm cells, the one that won the race actually cheated.) then go see and psychologist and complain to them. If your born with a chromosomal disorder then that's a completely different bag of chips... I'm just talking about what NORMALLY occurs in the human race (in fact most organisms on this planet work based on two sexes...)
No just because some organisms can change their sex doesn't mean that humans should too or that when they try to it means diddly squat.

I hate how our modern world tries to accommodate every individual person. It should really only go to a certain 'normally acceptable' extent where you should expect to get accommodated for. When you go past that then your own your own, go live in the jungle or something clearly being HUMAN doesn't make you happy, personal problem and should not be in court systems or in debates over how to accomdate them in the washroom making it something public.
I'm really against the death penalty, but sometimes I really wish some people would just die off.

It seems that medical advances have evolutionally been a downfall for humans... I'm sure the people with these thoughts would just die off, not bothering the world with their non-sense 'I feel like a man' or 'I feel like a girlll'.

Okay, let's just assume that's true. Is this bad too:

Should we stay to our born racial phenotype if we don't like it?

Is this also atrocious:

Or this:

If any of those is fine with you, then where's the line? How much of our phenotype are we allowed to change from what we've born with because we don't like it hmm? We're born naked? We're born animals. Why aren't we half baked to praetend that we aren't and put some second skin over it?

Are we allowed to shave our beards? Isn't that a little bit changing gender? This guy thinks so. For the record by the way, I have no ambition to change my gender, it's like changing a hair colour to me. Sure, there are times I wonder how another hair colour suits me, but really, I 'identify' no more as male then I 'identity' as 'a person with black hair'.

 

[DanP]

You haven't addressed the instances that others have posted here, such as testosterone resistance o[/URL]

If I would develop testosterone resistance, I would shoot myself.

 

[Kajahtava]

No you won't.

 

[DanP]

No you won't.

You are right. I would shoot anybody telling me that I would not do it first And yes, I wont, because it's impossible for me to develop testosterone resistance :P It simply can't happen.

 

[Kajahtava]

I more mean, that if you develop it you shouldn't care that much any more about manliness.

 

[DanP]

I more mean, that if you develop it you shouldn't care that much any more about manliness.

Then hopefully, one of my friends will be a gentleman and will put me out of my misery :P

 

[Kajahtava]

A gentlemen doesn't put ladies out of their misery. He uses their misery to talk them into going to bed with him

 

[DanP]

A gentlemen doesn't put ladies out of their misery. He uses their misery to talk them into going to bed with him

That is called gay :P

 

[Kajahtava]

To talk them (as in, the ladies) into going to bed with him (as in the gentleman)?

Your lexer needs updating.

 

[DanP]

Your lexer needs updating.

Seems it does indeed.

 

[Kajahtava]

I would suggest switching to a model that first translates to C-- and then compiles.

Any way, nothing wrong with a bit of homo-erotic military paedastry.

[PLAIN]http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/0/5/3/144289-135093/THIS____IS____SPARTA.jpg

 

[DanP]

Any way, nothing wrong with a bit of homo-erotic military paedastry.

Nothing indeed, as long as you remain a male.

 

[Kajahtava]

There are no women in Sparta my friend, children are born with beards out of creatures that have beards there.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

'Gender' typically is synonymous with 'sex'. Old men with beards a long time ago decided that people acted a certain way because of their gender and that ladies are to act like ladies and men are to act like men and anything else is just not natural. Feminists decided, rightly, that these absolute 'gender roles' were hogwash but then proceeded to commit just as egregious a taxonomic offense and threw the baby out with the bath water. Now 'gender' is supposedly just a social construct that ultimately means nothing and accommodations of definition have been made (gender =/= sex) so that we can still classify people as male and female while being politically correct.

 

[DanP]

Now 'gender' is supposedly just a social construct that ultimately means nothing and accommodations of definition have been made (gender =/= sex) so that we can still classify people as male and female while being politically correct.

Being "politically correct" is a sad joke, IMO.

 

[Kajahtava]

I agree, to say that people are female because they feel female is absurd. I just say it as it is, male body, female mind, that's just how it is, and truth can hurt.

 

[Kajahtava]

Oh, by the way, I think that the following legal changes out to be made for every person:

1: removing one's name from legal documents, already, every citizen of this country has a social number, and in fact for all official business one has to input both. Names cannot serve to disambiguate people for legal reasons, because two people can have the same name, but not the same social numbers. People should be legally only known by their number, how they wish to be called in private life is their own business. If I randomly want to have a different name I just tell people to address me with that without going through any legal trouble.

2: removing one's gender from legal documents, there is simply no reason for it to be there, already, one can derive no legal right or plight from one's gender in this country. There simply is no reason that one's gender is on a legal document. If they use it, they violate the first article of the constitution.

There is actually a movement here who advocates the same, it's a subparty (yeah, Dutch politics is complex) called pink-left that has also started actions like 'If you have to fill in your gender on a form where it's not relevant, don't, and add the qualifying note that if they would use your gender in any way, they violate the constitution, thus they have no need for it.', they also feel people should be legally able to lie about their names because as soon as people find people's name relevant, they violate same part of the constitution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh, by the way, I think that the following legal changes out to be made for every person:

1: removing one's name from legal documents, already, every citizen of this country has a social number, and in fact for all official business one has to input both. Names cannot serve to disambiguate people for legal reasons, because two people can have the same name, but not the same social numbers. People should be legally only known by their number, how they wish to be called in private life is their own business. If I randomly want to have a different name I just tell people to address me with that without going through any legal trouble.

2: removing one's gender from legal documents, there is simply no reason for it to be there, already, one can derive no legal right or plight from one's gender in this country. There simply is no reason that one's gender is on a legal document. If they use it, they violate the first article of the constitution.

There is actually a movement here who advocates the same, it's a subparty (yeah, Dutch politics is complex) called pink-left that has also started actions like 'If you have to fill in your gender on a form where it's not relevant, don't, and add the qualifying note that if they would use your gender in any way, they violate the constitution, thus they have no need for it.', they also feel people should be legally able to lie about their names because as soon as people find people's name relevant, they violate same part of the constitution.

You mean this?
"Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
That seems a bit of a tough sell. I'm not sure what the case law is like though.

As for the name drop I think that may be a bit more trouble than it is worth. People are frequently called to court due to mistaken identity (well they are here anyway). I could only imagine just how many different people one might be mistaken for due to a single off digit.

I understand the idea, and I like it, though it does not seem very practical.

 

[DanP]

1: removing one's name from legal documents, already, every citizen of this country has a social number, and in fact for all official business one has to input both. Names cannot serve to disambiguate people for legal reasons, because two people can have the same name, but not the same social numbers. People should be legally only known by their number, how they wish to be called in private life is their own business. If I randomly want to have a different name I just tell people to address me with that without going through any legal trouble.

Removing a person's name is part of the process of dehumanization. It was a key element in nazist concentration lagers. You rape,kill and generally abuse much easier numbers then humans with a name. The psychology of self indicates that humans do consider names a important part of what is The Self. Removing names is a bad idea on all possible levels. The right to recognition as a person is so important that is present in UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 6 of UN Universal Human Rights Declaration

 

[DanP]

Now 'gender' is supposedly just a social construct that ultimately means nothing and accommodations of definition have been made (gender =/= sex) so that we can still classify people as male and female while being politically correct.

I believe this case is not one of being "politically correct". Psychologically, the self, your identity is built by a series of cognitive processes. Your identity can be discordant with the
scientific reality, but for all intended purposes it does not matter. If your cognitive processes
build the self with the information that you are a female for whatever reason, (even if you have male sexual characteristics), you will define yourself as female.

The problem is further complicated if the society see you as a male. There is cognitive conflict between your perception of yourself (the real self), and what the society think you ought to be (the ought self). Such conflicts between real self and ought self are generating strong anxiety. I can only imagine that life for such a person will be hell.

The policy question is where you draw the line. What society would consider as more or less normal and what it considers a pathological deviation. And this is where you start to either accept the person as it perceives itself, or you throw them into a psychiatric ward, or, god forbid, to a deserted island in the South Pacific.

 

[Kajahtava]

You mean this?
"Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
That seems a bit of a tough sell. I'm not sure what the case law is like though.

As for the name drop I think that may be a bit more trouble than it is worth. People are frequently called to court due to mistaken identity (well they are here anyway). I could only imagine just how many different people one might be mistaken for due to a single off digit.

I understand the idea, and I like it, though it does not seem very practical.

Well, these things are copied by computers nowadays, not people writing it over.

You just select a person in your database -> right click -> sue.

Removing a person's name is part of the process of dehumanization. It was a key element in nazist concentration lagers. You rape,kill and generally abuse much easier numbers then humans with a name. The psychology of self indicates that humans do consider names a important part of what is The Self. Removing names is a bad idea on all possible levels.

One doesn't remove names at all, one removes them from legal documents. You keep your name, you just can't derive any legal rights from them.

It basically comes down to that you can always give up a different name, but you have to give up the correct social number.

Besides, the rules for how much your name may deviate is complex enough as it is. If your name is William, you may call yourself formally Bill, or Will, or even Willy, but you can't Jill. I fail to see how William is any closer to Bill than it is to Jill. Then there are ridiculously complex rules about last names and using your mother's maiden name as that and what-ever. And that if you're married as a woman you can use your husband's name without formally changing it. (People here seldom adopt each other's names on marriage. Children for the most part are still named after the father though.)

The right to recognition as a person is so important that is present in UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Okay, that's a ****ing stupid universal right, that is unbelievably vague. Also, how does having a name on a legal document recognises you as a person. It at max recognizes and solidifies the fact that you are to some extend property of your parents until you reach a magic number in age.

Do I also have a universal right of not having a name intrinsicly linked to me by law? I didn't choose my own name, I think it's stupid.

Then again, the universal rights of man are one big praetentious hoax of the west trying to impose their culture onto others and sell it under some good-will 'universal rights' banner. Especially since a lot of them seem to be plights, such as this one.

Any way, if this is so true, to recognise me as a person, then why do I have to have a legal gender? I never choose that gender, just because I have a little schlongie between there it got into all kinds of papers and various groups insist that I 'act like it', if I want to have long hair and long nails that's my bloody own business.

 

[Kajahtava]

I believe this case is not one of being "politically correct". Psychologically, the self, your identity is built by a series of cognitive processes. Your identity can be discordant with the
scientific reality, but for all intended purposes it does not matter. If your cognitive processes
build the self with the information that you are a female for whatever reason, (even if you have male sexual characteristics), you will define yourself as female.

The problem is further complicated if the society see you as a male. There is cognitive conflict between your perception of yourself (the real self), and what the society think you ought to be (the ought self). Such conflicts between real self and ought self are generating strong anxiety. I can only imagine that life for such a person will be hell.

I find this 'self' to be a dubious business to be honest. Supposedly 'my' hands are mine, but they're still tools which simply execute some tasks, like typing here, by static electricity by neurons which hit by the laws of physics those keys again drive scancodes through my CPU, which also by the laws of physics processes characters to finally sent some symbols over a wire to some server so that you can read this in the end.

So why aren't the keyboard, the wires, the CPU, the whole relay connexion, the server, your eyes, and finally the neurons that lead up to, and into your brain so that you can 'consciously perceive this' part of me? Why are my fingers, but that not?

The 'self' is in the end a cognitive illusion that the mind makes to abstract and simplify reality, I don't believe in it. Also, 'identity' is mainly how you want to be called. Not what you are, or want to be, it's about the name, not about the meaning.

 

[DanP]

One doesn't remove names at all, one removes them from legal documents. You keep your name, you just can't derive any legal rights from them.

It doesn't matter. Name is a too important part of the human self to remove it from anywhere. Dehumanization of citizens by government is how all wrongs start

Okay, that's a ****ing stupid universal right, that is unbelievably vague

Actually, is one of the most important constructs I ever seen. Its rooted in history, human psychology, sociology, and a long observation of human rights disasters.

Any way, if this is so true, to recognise me as a person, then why do I have to have a legal gender?

Because governments recognize **your right** to be represented as a person before the law. Sex is also an extremely important part of self.

 

[Kajahtava]

It doesn't matter. Name is a too important part of the human self to remove it from anywhere. Dehumanization of citizens by government is how all wrongs start

So people feel more human because the government legally decides for them what their name is?

People freak me out.

Actually, is one of the most important constructs I ever seen. Its rooted in history, human psychology, sociology, and a long observation of human rights disasters.

How does one decide when the government depersonalizes?

Because governments recognize **your right** to be represented as a person before the law. Sex is also an extremely important part of self.

It's not a right, it's a plight.

They force every citizen to choose this binary, there are some facilities to chance it, just like names, but only binary. It's like saying all people should be called either John or Matthew.

 

[DanP]

So why aren't the keyboard, the wires, the CPU, the whole relay connexion, the server, your eyes, and finally the neurons that lead up to, and into your brain so that you can 'consciously perceive this' part of me? Why are my fingers, but that not?

Because not even your fingers are. If you make the effort to study human cognition long enough you will see how it works. You can start with "phantom limbs" phenomena.

Also, 'identity' is mainly how you want to be called. Not what you are, or want to be, it's about the name, not about the meaning.

identity: the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity

this is the main definition of identity. It's up to you if you try to invent your own definitions, or reinvent the whole world, but don't expect other ppl to take you seriously.

 

[DanP]

So people feel more human because the government legally decides for them what their name is?

People freak me out.

How does one decide when the government depersonalizes?

It's not a right, it's a plight.

They force every citizen to choose this binary, there are some facilities to chance it, just like names, but only binary. It's like saying all people should be called either John or Matthew.

You didnt understood anything it seems.

 

[Kajahtava]

Because not even your fingers are. If you make the effort to study human cognition long enough you will see how it works. You can start with "phantom limbs" phenomena.

Fine enough, you define to me where the 'self' then ends.

identity: the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity

Which doesn't exist.

There has been no scientific evidence whatsoever that this 'ego' people to have exists, furthermore, its existence is hard, next to impossible to unify with physics or neuroscience.

It's a cognitive illusion made by how human beings store memory, the 'self', the 'identity', the 'ego', it doesn't exist. You exchange like 80% of the atoms in your body in a month or something?

this is the main definition of identity. It's up to you if you try to invent your own definitions, or reinvent the whole world, but don't expect other ppl to take you seriously.

I'm fine with this definition, it shows so simply it doesn't exist. There is no 'persisting entity'

You can at max go to 'a collection of memories', but that means you can remove part of the ego by a good blow to the head.

You didnt understood anything it seems.

Maybe me, maybe you, who knows?

The fact stands that having a name in a legal document solidifies that the government legally decides for you what your name is and not sticking to it is punishable then.

 

[DanP]

Fine enough, you define to me where the 'self' then ends.

Start by learning the bare minimum of social psychology, social cognition and the accepted theories in existence today. You will get a clear idea of many elementary notions in several months. You will also learn about a lot of experiments in psychology and cognitive areas which lend support to particular theories. It is the best I can tell you to do. Much of what you wrote here about the "self" , "persistent identity" and so on is flawed. Understanding cognition scientifically may allow you a better perspective over many subjects you at the moment only grasp intuitively. I guarantee you it will not be a waste of your time if you do this.