pmcollectorboy: Well actually there ARE unstated and decidedly arbitrary rules of society that, while not a set in stone enforcement, can cause socially accepted microaggressions. There is no biological precedent that states blue is a boy color or that girls can't like legos or Transformers. The fact that we still have arguments over cartoons or toys being "for boys" or "for girls"

The old way of thinking with "this is the way things are so for boys and for girls"

devoras: Your mention of sociological is flawed, however, at least with those examples given. There are clear differences between men and women that can be seen very, very early on in life. Girls are more interested in people, while boys are more interested in things. That's where the dolls vs action figures comes in, and men are more aggressive and competitive, while women are more agreeable and supportive. Those aren't traits that are imposed on them by society. Now of course any individual will have variations, but as an average of the whole, men will in general be less agreeable and more aggressive, while women will be more agreeable and less aggressive; among other differences. Men and women are different, but they are also equal. We complement each other quite nicely, we need both.

devoras: That's not how it works. You can't change reality just by saying something is true. I can understand the idea that a woman might want to be a man, or that a man might wants to be a woman, and I have empathy for their position. But I disagree with the idea that a woman saying they want to be a man, magically makes them into a man. They're still a woman, whom we can have empathy for and can refer to as a man. But that still doesn't make them male.

devoras: The attack helicopter joke is not intended to be offensive in any way.

dtgreene: Yes, what I said is indeed how it works.
dtgreene: I disagree.

pmcollectorboy: Well actually there ARE unstated and decidedly arbitrary rules of society that, while not a set in stone enforcement, can cause socially accepted microaggressions. There is no biological precedent that states blue is a boy color or that girls can't like legos or Transformers. The fact that we still have arguments over cartoons or toys being "for boys" or "for girls" or that we have a "pink aisle" proves that we still have our idiotic hangups as a society, but gender norming language tends to be harsher on boys than girls. The feminists would blame "the patriarchy" on why this is so, but I haven't seen any attempt from feminists to miss a good opportunity to turn the screw on male vulnerability, even noncomformist males like me, and some of the nastiest shaming language I've heard against me have been from women.
My childhood is proof all this gender talk is a load of crap, as I enjoyed a wide range of cartoons deemed both "for boys" and "for girls", from G.I. Joe to Strawberry Shortcake and yes, My Little Pony too. Now that I'm an adult and can compare and contrast the simplistic, some would say idiotic, merchandise driven shows of the 80s to the cartoons of today, I can see an honest attempt at modern cartoons to frame their characters, songs, and dialogue in ways that are not so divisive and insulting along gender lines. It's not so much being "gender neutral" or "enforcing androgyny". It's being more forward thinking in dealing with the complexities of gender and celebrating the common ground between what are masculine elements and what are feminine elements. The old way of thinking with "this is the way things are so for boys and for girls" leads to confusion and fears of ostracism for individuals who operate on the fringe of gender identity. I honestly don't know if I would classify myself as "gender fluid". I certainly don't feel gender dysphoric enough to demand being addressed as a different gender or to change my visual sex, but I accept that there are people deep enough into the gender disconnect to warrant alternative ways of thinking of gender such as pronouns, identity, or what a person should like, play with or wear.

richlind33: I fully support getting away from roles that confine and restict human expression, but this business of claiming that gender has nothing to do with biology strikes me as incredibly immature and reactionary, and if I'm forced to choose sides, I'll choose scientific methodology.

dtgreene: Scientific methodology says that people are, indeed, the gender they say they are

dtgreene: It is not unusual (though not universal) for transgender people, even early in life, to show the behaviors of the gender they identify with, rather than the gander they were assigned at birth.

devoras: --- I'm a jaguar ---

dtgreene: You really don't understand. Anyone who says she's a woman is a woman. Anyone who says he's a man is a man. It doesn't matter how the person looks, dresses, or acts.

Also, the"attack helicopter" joke is actually highly offensive, so please don't use it.

dtgreene: For those who are downrepping my posts, could you explain what I could do better to avoid this?

dtgreene: Scientific methodology says that people are, indeed, the gender they say they are; most (maybe all) respected scientific and medical institutions that have considered the issue agree with this. (This, for example, includes both APAs.) Don't forget that the brain is part of biology.

dtgreene: For those who are downrepping my posts, could you explain what I could do better to avoid this? I am trying to majke my points calmly without breaking any rules, so what am I doing wrong?

initialpresence: Cat or car? And if the latter, which model?

devoras: Why do I have to be either a cat or a car? Why can't I be both?

devoras: If anyone is downrepping anyone's posts for this they should stop. I believe that you're wrong with what you're saying, but not having open dialogue about anything is harmful to everyone. I see that posts from both sides of the discussion have been downrepped though, so it's an overall issue rather than anything targeted.

GreasyDogMeat: Be less insane.