It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Facebook users to have 50 different gender options(205 posts)(205 posts)
(205 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
pds41: What does it even mean?
avatar
Darvond: 'Individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity'

Or basically, an entirely unneeded term.
Yes. We could say "Individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity" instead. Why invent words.
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Darvond: 'Individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity'

Or basically, an entirely unneeded term.
avatar
Telika: Yes. We could say "Individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity" instead. Why invent words.
Also known as 'Default'?
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Telika: Yes. We could say "Individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity" instead. Why invent words.
avatar
Darvond: Also known as 'Default'?
This is a bit vague.

Sometimes, in some contexts, you need a descriptive term.

Plus, "default" is a bit normative (like, saying "normal"). Seriously it shocks you so much that some technical terms pop up to shorten long descriptive sentences into one unambiguous concept ?
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
HGiles: ...the militant homosexual lobby...
avatar
ydobemos: Who are they, then? The ones who break into your house and replace all your jackets with ones in colours that clash with your shirts? Please. There is nothing "militant" about wanting an end to oppression.
You seem to be confused over the difference between toleration and support. Toleration is getting along with those who are different, and not oppressing them. Support is what you, and many other people under the liberal umbrella, are asking for. That is very different.

I am fully behind tolerating differences. I firmly believe that all humans are brothers and sisters and should be treated with consideration and respect. I do not and will not support people making choices I consider wrong or harmful. And I will not be intimidated into silence by your anger and insinuations that I am irrational.

That my beliefs are different from yours does not make either belief wrong. That you are attempting to silence your opposition does make you wrong, regardless of your reasons for doing so.
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
ydobemos: Who are they, then? The ones who break into your house and replace all your jackets with ones in colours that clash with your shirts? Please. There is nothing "militant" about wanting an end to oppression.
avatar
HGiles: You seem to be confused over the difference between toleration and support. Toleration is getting along with those who are different, and not oppressing them. Support is what you, and many other people under the liberal umbrella, are asking for. That is very different.

I am fully behind tolerating differences. I firmly believe that all humans are brothers and sisters and should be treated with consideration and respect. I do not and will not support people making choices I consider wrong or harmful. And I will not be intimidated into silence by your anger and insinuations that I am irrational.

That my beliefs are different from yours does not make either belief wrong. That you are attempting to silence your opposition does make you wrong, regardless of your reasons for doing so.
Yeah. I tolerate people who are black. You won't coerce me into supporting their wrong skin colour.
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Darvond: Also known as 'Default'?
avatar
Telika: This is a bit vague.

Sometimes, in some contexts, you need a descriptive term.

Plus, "default" is a bit normative (like, saying "normal"). Seriously it shocks you so much that some technical terms pop up to shorten long descriptive sentences into one unambiguous concept ?
Is it really so complex? When it boils down to three things, (four, if you want to throw in the 'special' identities like otherkin), do you really need a more complex descriptor than, 'Identifies as biological, Identifies as male, and Identifies as female'?
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
HGiles: You seem to be confused over the difference between toleration and support. Toleration is getting along with those who are different, and not oppressing them. Support is what you, and many other people under the liberal umbrella, are asking for. That is very different.

I am fully behind tolerating differences. I firmly believe that all humans are brothers and sisters and should be treated with consideration and respect. I do not and will not support people making choices I consider wrong or harmful. And I will not be intimidated into silence by your anger and insinuations that I am irrational.

That my beliefs are different from yours does not make either belief wrong. That you are attempting to silence your opposition does make you wrong, regardless of your reasons for doing so.
avatar
Telika: Yeah. I tolerate people who are black. You won't coerce me into supporting their wrong skin colour.
Since I was talking about beliefs and choices, I don't see where a non-choice like skin color comes into it. Oh, is that a strawman I see out there in the distance?
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
nadenitza: 50? I don't think i heard more than male, female, trans and bi... wtf are the rest 46?
avatar
Licurg: http://business.time.com/2014/01/21/facebook-is-about-to-lose-80-of-its-users-study-says/
avatar
nadenitza: Do want!
Bi is no a gender. It's a sexual orientation. That's leaves 4.

Technically, you could split trans in M->F and F->M, so we are still at 5 total.

To that, you could maybe add an handful of genetic anomalies and we are left with 40 redundant choices.
avatar
Darvond: I know this is entirely rude (and probably 'incorrect'), but if I were running a company, I'd restrict it to biological choices.
I totally get what you are saying. The gender field is not supposed to be a hip thing, it's just supposed to be informative.
Post edited February 15, 2014 by Magnitus
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Telika: This is a bit vague.

Sometimes, in some contexts, you need a descriptive term.

Plus, "default" is a bit normative (like, saying "normal"). Seriously it shocks you so much that some technical terms pop up to shorten long descriptive sentences into one unambiguous concept ?
avatar
Darvond: Is it really so complex? When it boils down to three things, (four, if you want to throw in the 'special' identities like otherkin), do you really need a more complex descriptor than, 'Identifies as biological, Identifies as male, and Identifies as female'?
Yes it is. Because when you actually observe it (observe the range of diversities, in your society, and even more worldwide, with so many societies working on different categories), then you realise that people's sexual indentities is a constellation of complexities.

So, two things. You work on it (sociologically, antropologically) and then you need words in order to shorten your texts to redeable and non-tedious sizes (that's why sciences have their own specific, extra-precise, unambiguous jargon). Or, you try to make things easier in society, raise a bit people's awareness and tolerance, trying to exclude less people into negation and invisibility, so you popularise these notions, in order to relativise our norms a bit, and to give the conceptual tools needed to "think" ("process", "see") the diversity. This leads to a clearer, more precise understanding of the realities of people around you.

See it as getting more name for the colours of the light spectrum, even in a place where there is a dominant tint.
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Darvond: I know this is entirely rude (and probably 'incorrect'), but if I were running a company, I'd restrict it to biological choices.
avatar
Magnitus: I totally get what you are saying. The gender field is not supposed to be a hip thing, it's just supposed to be informative.
I like you. You're both Canadian and sensible about this. Really, I have to wonder if most of those 'genders' on Facebook are to fulfill the 'special snowflake' quota. And really, do most advertisers care if you identify as a hermaphrodite reptile with chili cheese fries?
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Telika: Yeah. I tolerate people who are black. You won't coerce me into supporting their wrong skin colour.
avatar
HGiles: Since I was talking about beliefs and choices, I don't see where a non-choice like skin color comes into it. Oh, is that a strawman I see out there in the distance?
The strawman is you reducing it to beliefs and choices, while it is absolutely not as simple as that. And anyway, even if it was about beliefs and choices, then the fact that you consider yourself entitled to be judgemental about it is wrong all the same. It would still not be something that warrants moral judgement.

You would have preferred the "jewish" exemple, for the increased level of choice it implies ?
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Darvond: Is it really so complex? When it boils down to three things, (four, if you want to throw in the 'special' identities like otherkin), do you really need a more complex descriptor than, 'Identifies as biological, Identifies as male, and Identifies as female'?
avatar
Telika: -Teal Deer-
Allow me to smash your metaphor asunder. When going from Red to Orange, do I bother with naming off every single color between? Each color may be unique, but there is no point in trying to define each one, especially seeing as we can only see so many colors anyway.

One of these is red, one is reddish orange, and the other is orange. Only in a very specific niche area do you need to bother to go any deeper than that and declare, 'Banana Spackle Pinkish Blue Viridian Yellow Red.'
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Telika: -Teal Deer-
avatar
Darvond: Allow me to smash your metaphor asunder. When going from Red to Orange, do I bother with naming off every single color between? Each color may be unique, but there is no point in trying to define each one, especially seeing as we can only see so many colors anyway.

One of these is red, one is reddish orange, and the other is orange. Only in a very specific niche area do you need to bother to go any deeper than that and declare, 'Banana Spackle Pinkish Blue Viridian Yellow Red.'
In that case you are in front of people from different categories. It's not a theoretical classification of possibilities. When you encounter a person from a specific sexual identity, then having a term to describe it becomes relevant. And LGBT doesn't cut it, because it doesn't cover all realities.

To get back to the silly metaphor, if I show you a bolt and want you to describe it, you may find yourself in a situation where both "orange" and "red" would be a bit wrong. Having a specific word makes communication more accurate and efficient.

And we are not talking of objects, but of people. So, (self-)identification may matter a bit here. A banana would be less annoyed by "well, no it's not exactly that" and "I DON'T CARE. CLOSE ENOUGH, YOU'RE THAT TO ME".

Approximation, when describing people's realities, sometimes lead to confusion, misunderstanding, various problems.
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
HGiles: Since I was talking about beliefs and choices, I don't see where a non-choice like skin color comes into it. Oh, is that a strawman I see out there in the distance?
avatar
Telika: The strawman is you reducing it to beliefs and choices, while it is absolutely not as simple as that. And anyway, even if it was about beliefs and choices, then the fact that you consider yourself entitled to be judgemental about it is wrong all the same. It would still not be something that warrants moral judgement.

You would have preferred the "jewish" exemple, for the increased level of choice it implies ?
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. That you think people aren't, or at least aren't entitled to hold an opinion that differs from yours, is very telling.

Sex and political beliefs are choices, or at least, if having sex or the political ideology someone follows is not a choice, than there is a huge problem with that situation.
Posted February 15, 2014
avatar
Telika: The strawman is you reducing it to beliefs and choices, while it is absolutely not as simple as that. And anyway, even if it was about beliefs and choices, then the fact that you consider yourself entitled to be judgemental about it is wrong all the same. It would still not be something that warrants moral judgement.

You would have preferred the "jewish" exemple, for the increased level of choice it implies ?
avatar
HGiles: Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. That you think people aren't, or at least aren't entitled to hold an opinion that differs from yours, is very telling.

Sex and political beliefs are choices, or at least, if having sex or the political ideology someone follows is not a choice, than there is a huge problem with that situation.
So why does that choice issue matter, why did you bring it up ? You're entitled to dislike black people.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Facebook users to have 50 different gender options(205 posts)(205 posts)
(205 posts)