• cisgender/agender/genderfluid/asexual/polysexual/demisexual vine compilation
    106 replies, posted
Looks like a bunch of freaks to me. I hope this isn't the new "IM BI" phase.
[QUOTE=Katska;47662401]I'm going to ignore all the other problems with this and, for now, ask you this one question: What are you going to say to all the transgender people who can't afford to have sexual reassignment surgery?[/QUOTE] I don't know, but I'd feel sorry And that was the last comment, I'm outta here, don't bother replying
[QUOTE=gary spivey;47662381]I didn't say that, I just said you'd have to change your junk Just to clarify[/QUOTE] Gender isn't sex. Gender is mental, sex is physical.
Biological sex is a thing, a very real thing. There are complications to it in some cases (extra X/Y chromosomes), but it's still clear enough. The world will always work on the gender binary system because of the physical Male/Female sex traits. It's never a personal attack against someone to call them by the pronoun they genuinely appear as. The world, realistically, is never going to move past a binary pronoun system and no amount of special snowflakes will change that. Identifying as a different gender is fine, asking people to refer to you by your gender identity is fine. But getting pissed at all cis people and getting extremely angry at someone who doesn't even know you is just stupid and a waste of energy.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;47661912]At what point do we stop belittling teenagers for being teenagery and start accepting that maybe that's actually who/how they are? Do we wait a couple months, a year, or until their an adult until we stop treating them like self-entitled egoists who want to feel special? How much of their life should we set aside for laughing at them and making them feel like shit? If they're trying to be special and get attention, the best way to give them that is to validate their fears by laughing at them and shutting them down. You could all either just ignore the video or just try and be a bit more tolerant. Yes it's not helpful to be yelled at for something you didn't know / bother to learn, but you can also apologise and then try and learn so it doesn't happen again. That way you don't feel like a horrible human being when some, if not all, turn out to be who they feel they are (what a surprise!) Is it possible for these things to be 1: real things and 2: more than just a tiny tiny group of people have them but aren't visible because of these kinds of responses? If you answer yes to these questions, then just be a little more tolerant. You can still be accepting of people even if they throw it back in your face because they're teenagers or something, complaining about their behaviour by picking on their self-identified traits isn't going to stop them though, just make them feel bad (and it makes you the dick, not them).[/QUOTE] Gender is socially constructed. How they feel is irrelevant, you adhere to the social framework or, unfortunately, suffer the consequences. A desire to adopt some of the qualities of each gender? Entirely socially constructed. Sexuality is innate (and non binary, but that is another matter). Gender is a social construct and therefore adhering to or rejecting the social construct is entirely your decision. Violating social norms is, provided you recognize the norm you are violating, entirely voluntary. Emile Durkheim had a theory about something called anomie. Basically the idea was that society exists, in some capacity, because people need to know what is expected of them. Anomie boils down to you wind up in a position where you are unwilling, unable, or unaware, of what society expects of you. Durkheim realized when reviewing suicides that mental health wasn't, as so many assumed, the primary factor. He realized that, among several reasons, anomic suicide was fairly prevalent. Veterans returning from conflict might return to find a society that has no place for them and have no idea of how to fit into the norms of society and, ultimately, kill themselves as a result. A society that expects nothing of you is surprisingly dangerous. People need social constructs to move forward and to operate as a group. I don't really care what gender people are, but here is the deal: society needs these norms. What gender fluid individuals need to recognize in order to successfully argue their point is that they are fighting against a structure that exists to fulfill a basic human need to understand what is expected of them. I know, I know, it sounds like bullshit. We all like to apply our individual reasoning to society as a whole, but humans have limitations. Our brains do work in basic and predictable fashions. Societies develop the same social constructs over and over again because they do serve a purpose. They fill a need and leverage some basic underlying components of the human thought process. Ugh, pushing this makes me feel all conservative and gross, but it is important that people recognize what they are actually trying to dismantle with gender fluidity. It is a behemoth beyond comprehension and you will lose unless you try to work within its confines.
[QUOTE=Deng;47661607]Since when did behaviours constitute "genders"? If a boy doesn't have gender identity disorder, but crossdresses or play with girls toys that doesn't make them genderfluid or whatever. They're still male. If a girl doesn't have gender identity disorder, and wears mens clothing or works in construction or is a body builder that doesn't stop them being female. The way I see it, there's boys and girls, plus people who transition from one into the other because they happen to feel uncomfortable with their body.[/QUOTE] It doesn't; ergo here's a salient reason why social sciences are becoming a laughing stock. Clinical dysphoria and dysmorphic tendencies are about as far removed from video chat selfie hugboxing as you can get. Insinuating a majority or overwhelmingly group of _______ need to change their outlook based on the semantic etymology of a given word is rather stark clarion call that real life and things like holding a job or paying a mortgage are in a another castle. Real life has a rather distinct knack of separating actual condition versus trendy hugboxing in a very crucible like manner, even in circumstances where people have lots of disposable income to insulate themselves from reality.
Call me ignorant, but I thought some of the more obnoxious people in this video existed only as heavily exaggerated satirized tumblr accounts.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47662496]Gender is socially constructed. How they feel is irrelevant, you adhere to the social framework or, unfortunately, suffer the consequences. A desire to adopt some of the qualities of each gender? Entirely socially constructed. Sexuality is innate (and non binary, but that is another matter). Gender is a social construct and therefore adhering to or rejecting the social construct is entirely your decision. Violating social norms is, provided you recognize the norm you are violating, entirely voluntary. Emile Durkheim had a theory about something called anomie. Basically the idea was that society exists, in some capacity, because people need to know what is expected of them. Anomie boils down to you wind up in a position where you are unwilling, unable, or unaware, of what society expects of you. Durkheim realized when reviewing suicides that mental health wasn't, as so many assumed, the primary factor. He realized that, among several reasons, anomic suicide was fairly prevalent. Veterans returning from conflict might return to find a society that has no place for them and have no idea of how to fit into the norms of society and, ultimately, kill themselves as a result. A society that expects nothing of you is surprisingly dangerous. People need social constructs to move forward and to operate as a group. I don't really care what gender people are, but here is the deal: society needs these norms. What gender fluid individuals need to recognize in order to successfully argue their point is that they are fighting against a structure that exists to fulfill a basic human need to understand what is expected of them. I know, I know, it sounds like bullshit. We all like to apply our individual reasoning to society as a whole, but humans have limitations. Our brains do work in basic and predictable fashions. Societies develop the same social constructs over and over again because they do serve a purpose. They fill a need and leverage some basic underlying components of the human thought process. Ugh, pushing this makes me feel all conservative and gross, but it is important that people recognize what they are actually trying to dismantle with gender fluidity. It is a behemoth beyond comprehension and you will lose unless you try to work within its confines.[/QUOTE] I think you are right though, about the necessity of a framework of "norms" for function. Society needs to be able to identify a set of general moral guidelines and no social expectations creates a disconnect about important things like privacy invasion etc.. But you [I]can[/I] change those norms. They change all the time.There can be a society that doesn't exactly recognize gender but just people. Maybe I am m8sunderstanding your point despite just saying I understood. What constitutes the framework society needs? It's the assumptions people make right? So they know where they stand right? But at what point does it stop going we expect a woman to look like this and start becoming we expect a woman to behave and be compensated less as a result? Clearly these are parts of society people loo? to change, they aren't desirable. Why not gender assumptions as well? I really think that challenging the challenge to the norm by saying "we need them" is ignoring the fact that they can be replaced and have been with other norms. [editline]5th May 2015[/editline] Otherwise you are suggesting we need to keep discrimination because those are inherent symptoms of what is considered the norm.
The first time I heard about genderfluid I thought they identify as some sort of liquid.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47661273] gender is extremely stereotypical! that's why it's such a difficult thing. gender as it's socially constructed tells people of both sexes specifically how they're supposed to act in social settings, and to operate outside the bounds of those established social parameters would label you as strange, weird, or outside the norm. aka, one of the reasons why people who are genderfluid are looked at so strangely and bizarrely! people like easy labels that they can apply to themselves and to others - it assists in creating a sense of identity for the self and a sense of logic and order to the rest of the world. it helps groups establish collective identities. and asking yourself whether you are genderfluid or not is really entirely up to you - anyone should be free to dictate their own gender, and I'm not going to stop them. honestly I'm amazed that out of all of the very much bizarre and out there social constructs that people call "gender" that this one is so controversial. we're not talking about otherkin or whatever, these are simply people who identify strongly with both stereo-typically traditional masculine and feminine traits, and effectively exist in the middleground between the two genders moving back and forth as contexts, situations, and emotional state dictate.[/QUOTE] Oh I will tell you why this one is controversial. Because it is redundant and unneeded. "Genderfluidity" is nothing new, it's inherently present in everyone - there's almost (there's no way of knowing for certain) no person who adheres to a single set of stereotypical characteristics, ie there's no "pure MAN" or "pure WOMAN". If everyone is "genderfluid" then no one is "genderfluid", there's simply no need for this concept and label to exist. This is the same as that one "sexuality" that's described basically as "I don't like to fuck someone unless I develop a romantic attachment to them", I forgot what it was. Well, pat yourself on the back, you're the same as most people, congratulations.
-snip-
[QUOTE=gudman;47662776]Oh I will tell you why this one is controversial. Because it is redundant and unneeded. "Genderfluidity" is nothing new, it's inherently present in everyone - there's almost (there's no way of knowing for certain) no person who adheres to a single set of stereotypical characteristics, ie there's no "pure MAN" or "pure WOMAN". If everyone is "genderfluid" then no one is "genderfluid", there's simply no need for this concept and label to exist. This is the same as that one "sexuality" that's described basically as "I don't like to fuck someone unless I develop a romantic attachment to them", I forgot what it was. Well, pat yourself on the back, you're the same as most people, congratulations.[/QUOTE] you're getting too abstract with this, it's really extremely simple - a person is genderfluid if they don't identify with being a man over being a woman or vice versa. it's equal and it's both. that is not redundant and is indeed distinct from the traditional binary perception of gender. it effectively represents a middleground. a person who identifies as a dude with some feminine characteristics doesn't qualify as genderfluid unless they also identify as a woman. most people don't identify as both. i feel out of all of the genders that exist that genderfluidity carries the most weight simply because, like sex, it represents a spectrum from one end to another. it makes the most logical sense within the social construction of gender as it exists.
[QUOTE=gudman;47662776]Oh I will tell you why this one is controversial. Because it is redundant and unneeded. "Genderfluidity" is nothing new, it's inherently present in everyone - there's almost (there's no way of knowing for certain) no person who adheres to a single set of stereotypical characteristics, ie there's no "pure MAN" or "pure WOMAN". If everyone is "genderfluid" then no one is "genderfluid", there's simply no need for this concept and label to exist. This is the same as that one "sexuality" that's described basically as "I don't like to fuck someone unless I develop a romantic attachment to them", I forgot what it was. Well, pat yourself on the back, you're the same as most people, congratulations.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing but how do you know most people only like to have sex with people they have a romantic attachment to?
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;47662118]I'd rather them not, personally. As a girl who ended up living as "genderfluid" for a few months it was basically a pointless fucking roadblock on my path to transition. It kept me from realizing I was uncomfortable as a male sooner. It really does nothing but make you look dumb. These kids will either realize they aren't anything or realize that their labels are dumb and will eventually say to themselves, "I'm a feminine man" or "I'm a masculine girl" which is really what the train of thought should be. Because that way they can just try to accept themselves as such and either be happy or question to themselves if they really are truly the same gender as their sex. These dumb labels only seek to giving some sort of answer that's not going to satisfy you in the long run. Or to be abused by dumb tweens looking to be special snow flakes.[/QUOTE] this is kinda reductive, I presume you understand as someone who's trans how extremely personal and individualized these matters are - tackling the question of whether or not you're actually trans doesn't have a catchall answer of "yes". some people don't want to fully transition as they want to retain their original identity, both physically and mentally. pushing people into either TRANS/NOT TRANS is the same thing as discouraging them to accept themselves for who they are. the trans community got a whole bunch of shit for years from the rest of the LGBTQ community which were effectively using the rhetoric of "fuckin make up your minds" and now you're basically doing the same thing to those who are genderfluid. this concept of not recognizing something as legitimate because [I]you[/I] personally don't identify with it is the same thing that hindered trans progress for years.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;47662993]I'm not disagreeing but how do you know most people only like to have sex with people they have a romantic attachment to?[/QUOTE] Because most people don't immediately have sex with the first thing they see that's on legs.
[QUOTE=Zyler;47663021]Because most people don't immediately have sex with the first thing they see that's on legs.[/QUOTE] That isn't... that isn't at all... What? What is your concept of romantic attraction? I mean first of all sex without romantic attraction does not imply no consent. Your example isn't sex, it's rape. Secondly there is such a thing as casual sex which is a very widespread and completely appropriate activity in the correct context. It is not romantic sex.
[QUOTE=Zyler;47663021]Because most people don't immediately have sex with the first thing they see that's on legs.[/QUOTE] no, but it's certainly not the standard that people fall in love before boning if that were the case university wouldn't be nearly as fun as it is
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47663017]this is kinda reductive, I presume you understand as someone who's trans how extremely personal and individualized these matters are - tackling the question of whether or not you're actually trans doesn't have a catchall answer of "yes". some people don't want to fully transition as they want to retain their original identity, both physically and mentally. pushing people into either TRANS/NOT TRANS is the same thing as discouraging them to accept themselves for who they are. the trans community got a whole bunch of shit for years from the rest of the LGBTQ community which were effectively using the rhetoric of "fuckin make up your minds" and now you're basically doing the same thing to those who are genderfluid. this concept of not recognizing something as legitimate because [I]you[/I] personally don't identify with it is the same thing that hindered trans progress for years.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that essentially as well as have a space between Male/Female being pre-op Trans/Not-Trans, we also need a space between Trans/Not-Trans that is essentially Half-Trans/Sort-of-Trans/Maybe-trans for people who sort-of identify as something and have a sort-of identity of something that's supposed to be a predefined medical condition. If you are taking on 'male' traits and 'female' traits, that doesn't necessarily mean you're Trans, that's prescribing to traditionally 'masculine' or 'feminine' behavior, it has nothing to do with gender. 'masculine' and 'feminine' are just loose terms for stereotypical behavior that is traditionally associated with men and women. You can be a 'feminine' man and be totally straight and cis-gendered. You can be a 'masculine' woman and be totally straight and cis-gendered. People very rarely exhibit every single one of the characteristics generally attributed to their particular sex or gender. People who heavily deviate from this pattern more than what would otherwise be described as average are defined as "Gender Atypical" (which is probably the actual, technical term for "Gender fluidity") and their unusual behavior is defined as "Gender Atypical behavior". Masculinity and Femininity have nothing to do with gender. People are usually able to discern what gender they are by the time they turn 6 years-old, the only reason someone wouldn't know what gender they should be is if they feel embarrassed or shameful about it, or they are otherwise uncomfortable or not knowledgeable enough about the situation to understand the difference between not being "manly" and actually having gender dysphoria, which I believe is the case here. Generally speaking, if you ask most children over the age of six whether they are male or female, they can tell you, but if you ask them what a boy is and what a girl is they'll probably say something like "girls wear dresses and like the colour pink while boys wear pants and like the colour blue". Nevertheless, gender is an innate thing and people who are truly gender dysphoric will know if they really should be a boy or really should be a girl from pretty much the moment they can discern the difference between the two.
The only thing I've learnt from this videos is that kids shouldn't be allowed on Internet. I don't see their problems I see they want more attention (like all kids do).
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47662975]you're getting too abstract with this, it's really extremely simple - a person is genderfluid if they don't identify with being a man over being a woman or vice versa. it's equal and it's both. that is not redundant and is indeed distinct from the traditional binary perception of gender. it effectively represents a middleground. a person who identifies as a dude with some feminine characteristics doesn't qualify as genderfluid unless they also identify as a woman. most people don't identify as both. i feel out of all of the genders that exist that genderfluidity carries the most weight simply because, like sex, it represents a spectrum from one end to another. it makes the most logical sense within the social construction of gender as it exists.[/QUOTE] There's effectively no difference between "a man with some feminine characteristics" and "a dude who's like a woman in some cases". It's one and the same, it's just worded differently. Because both are just a number of specific characteristics if you tear it off of biological sex. [QUOTE=gerbe1;47662993]I'm not disagreeing but how do you know most people only like to have sex with people they have a romantic attachment to?[/QUOTE] There's this thing called "a preference" and most people have those. I certainly should have worded it better to avoid possible confusion. "I only have fun fucking people I developed an emotional attachment to" is not a sexuality, it's a preference in partners based on features of their character [that allow one to develop emotional connection], present or perceived. There's no reason to separate this particular set of preferences from any other.
[QUOTE=gudman;47663163]There's this thing called "a preference" and most people have those. I certainly should have worded it better to avoid possible confusion. "I only have fun fucking people I developed an emotional attachment to" is not a sexuality, it's a preference in partners based on features of their character [that allow one to develop emotional connection], present or perceived. There's no reason to separate this particular set of preferences from any other.[/QUOTE] My emphasis was on most people though, you said that they should pat themselves on the back because they're like most people, but I feel like that isn't the case; I feel like a lot of people do not require an emotional connection to enjoy sex with someone.
it always seems a bit dangerous and gross to start looking down on people as just tryna be "special little snowflakes"
[QUOTE=gary spivey;47662413]I don't know, but I'd feel sorry And that was the last comment, I'm outta here, don't bother replying[/QUOTE] Yeah, thanks for invalidating my gender because I can't afford to get sex reassignment surgery. I look female and have been living as one for almost 2 years.
Ok look, regardless of whether or not you think gender/sexual identity is like, meerly a social construct, its one that has existed for literally thousands of years! You can't just knock down this sort of thing just because you want to feel special!
[QUOTE=Biohazard99;47663699]Ok look, regardless of whether or not you think gender/sexual identity is like, meerly a social construct, its one that has existed for literally thousands of years! You can't just knock down this sort of thing just because you want to feel special![/QUOTE] Tradition is a really bad reason to keep something around, especially if doing so would cause depression, suicide, etc.
holy shit these people are the fucking worst [editline]6th May 2015[/editline] and i mean the people specifically in the video before you you make any assumptions
[QUOTE=Biohazard99;47663699]Ok look, regardless of whether or not you think gender/sexual identity is like, meerly a social construct, its one that has existed for literally thousands of years! You can't just knock down this sort of thing just because you want to feel special![/QUOTE] well, gay marriage is a thing now, despite them traditions and such
[QUOTE=gudman;47663163]There's effectively no difference between "a man with some feminine characteristics" and "a dude who's like a woman in some cases". It's one and the same, it's just worded differently. Because both are just a number of specific characteristics if you tear it off of biological sex. There's this thing called "a preference" and most people have those. I certainly should have worded it better to avoid possible confusion. "I only have fun fucking people I developed an emotional attachment to" is not a sexuality, it's a preference in partners based on features of their character [that allow one to develop emotional connection], present or perceived. There's no reason to separate this particular set of preferences from any other.[/QUOTE] you don't really seem to be getting it and to be honest I'm not sure of a simpler way to explain it. it's not "a man with feminine characteristics" vs "a dude who's like a woman in some cases" - it's a self perceived and labeled identity. you perceive yourself as either a man, a woman, or both. others can perceive you as a man or a woman, however if you identify as both, then you're genderfluid.
The other rather irritating thing about all of these genderfluid/agender/etc terms is that they are seemingly coined out of nowhere. Whenever I try to access trans resources on this sort of thing, it just makes statements of fact about all of these different genders, what they are called, where they apply, etc. Whenever I try to find out where these terms have come from, I can't find the sources. Wheres the scientific work into this sort of thing? From what I can tell, all of it came out of a vacuum in the late 20th century and nobody has bothered to refute it. I'll get right to the root of the thing. Why should I believe that gender is a valid descriptive term, after you remove instances of it where gender is used as a euphemism for sex? I've tried looking up resources here for instance: [url]http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Gender[/url] [url]http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Gender[/url] [url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender[/url] No citations, no specific writers or studies of any kind mentioned. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#General_studies[/url] [quote]Social theorists have sought to determine the specific nature of gender in relation to biological sex and sexuality,[b][citation needed][/b] with the result being that culturally established gender and sex have become interchangeable identifications that signify the allocation of a specific 'biological' sex within a categorical gender.[b][citation needed][/b][/quote] I mean who? Who has been doing this? What evidence do they have? Where are the works that actually started off this thing and established it? Or is gender just an axiom in the field? To me it just seems like people are making up unnecessary categories for things based on conjecture.
[QUOTE=gary spivey;47662255]Got a prick = Male Got a cunt = Female Wanna change your gender, you'll have to change your junk as well That's my honest opinion[/QUOTE] why aren't you banned for this post yet [editline]5th May 2015[/editline] it's one thing to ask a question and it's another to be pointlessly ignorant
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.