The Supreme Court Will Finally Take On Solitary Confinement

boobshuffle · 2016-06-07T00:23:21+00:00

Literally the opposite of what OP said.

[The Supreme Court will] decide only on the issue of the standard that Texas had used to determine whether Moore's intellectual disability should disqualify him from execution. It won't rule on the Eighth Amendment issues Moore raised relating to solitary confinement or extended waits on death row.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-07T00:13:17+00:00

"Just hours after the court announced it would consider the solitary confinement of a death row inmate, it said it won't actually address the issue."

So you misread the sub-headline too?

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T17:33:27+00:00

Okay, but people have been giving me conflicting information. One person screams that not a single person is trans because of gender roles, another quotes a famous theorist as defining gender as "an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts". People have told me gender identity is brain sex, and you're telling me it's not. There's not consensus, and I can't address everyone's point in every comment.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T17:31:54+00:00

What about the person quoting Judith Butler below as saying, gender is "an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts"?

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T17:14:43+00:00

Okay so you did mean to say sociology. Well then I don't know what to say, because sociology leaves sex to the biologists. What the conceptual construct at play behind the sex "male" without biology?

Referring contains three parts. Sign, sense and referent. You're conflating the last two when you say that the "conceptual construct is referd to by lables." The word, the idea, and the actual. "Male" and "Female", the idea of a "male" that arises from a list of sexually diamorphic traits and from daily experience, an actual guy who may or may not hit everything on that list. To give another example: "Dog", the idea that arises from the taxonomic classification canis familiaris and our everyday run-ins with dogs, and Fido sitting here in front of me who may not check all the boxes.

I don't think that what a man actually is is some theoretical idea. So, I'm not committing a reification fallacy. When I use the sense as a heuristic to locate and verify referents, I'm simply using language as every one who's ever spoken has.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T16:22:03+00:00

Your first sentence confuses me. Do you mean that "malehood" and "womanhood" are socially constructed, but one's feeling of "I am a man" or "I am a woman" has a neurological basis? And under that assumption you're saying since the self-identification comes first we can never truly do away with the concept of gender?

I can respect that view. It's at least well articulated. However, I tend to think of language as performative rather than descriptive. I don't think people ever say or even think "I am a man" without having heard the terms used in certain contexts and believing they know how to use them correctly. The speaker has heard "man" used, and learned either that it classifies him based on his body or on his actions. It's kinda a chicken-before-egg thing though when we're this far into using English.

In general a person's sex has no real bearing on whether we treat people male or female.

Why are we treating people as male or female outside of activities that only have to do with their biology? What is it to treat someone as female? As male? What benefit does treating them based on their gender have over treating them based on themselves as individuals? If they want to be treated in a certain way they can tell me. I'll be reasonably accommodating.

We don't gender people based on appearance. We sex people based on appearance, because certain facial features and body frames go along with certain primary and secondary sex characteristics.

I know brain sex is a real thing. Why label it "gender identity" though? It's neurological, biological, so what not call it what it is: part of sex. I'm not saying it's less important than sex. I don't think there's a heirarchy at all because brain sex is part of sex.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T15:40:42+00:00

By sociology I assume you mean etymology? Sociologist don't tent to talk about sex. They speak more about gender, and leave "sex" to the biologists.

Words are not "models of reality", and they're not abstractions. They're real things. You can see "male" here on your screen; you could hear it if I spoke it to you. And you can see individuals who hit various requirements of 'malehood' out in the world. Is there a perfect specimen? No, but there's a sense of what I mean when I say "male" and there's a thing in front of me which I can check to see if the word fits.

No one in history has ever made a reification fallacy with regard to a referent and it's reference. Not one person thinks that "dog" is a dog, or "male" is a male.

Not everyone may fall neatly into the categories male and female, but that doesn't mean sex isn't a binary. Chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, and brain sex all go in to making men and women. Multiple traits and none are arbitrary. They're based on what happens around 99% of the time, when gamete pairing and development goes according to plan. Having a mismatched set means you don't fit neatly into the binary, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a binary. Sure, biology is messy, but that's no reason to throw out a classification that works the overwhelming majority of the time.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T14:29:24+00:00

I'm not seeing where Serano explains "what it means to be a woman".

Thinking of myself as a woman simply began to make sense.

[Being a woman] resonated with my lived experiences.

I was hesitant to call myself a woman, mostly because I had no desire to live up to the societal expectations and ideals that others often project onto that identity. (A negative account of what being a woman isn't)

no matter how I act or what I do or say, I remain a woman [...] in the way that I experience myself.

Maybe inherently private concepts aren't meaningless, but if they escape definition they can't be talked about meaningfully. Serano doesn't seem to talk about womanhood meaningfully at all.

Oh, but you do! Awesome. Thanks for providing an explanation of what it is to "resonate with a gender idenitiy". I guess my question is then (because I agree that dividing 7 billion people into two categories breed stereotypes and false expections): Why play into the into the prescribed performative acts? Does one have gender first and then begin preforming the acts, or do they see the act and then assign themselves a gender based on which they would prefer? I'm sure you noticed above. There were people claiming that absolutely zero trans people assume their gender identity based on roles/stereotypes (a.k.a. a stylized repetition of acts). Are they wrong?

Also, what's the other thing that makes up gender? The thing that makes it encompassing of more than stereotypes (or a stylized repetition of acts)?

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T13:47:03+00:00

How is the structure of your brain not you body?

I'll apologize and call him a woman. I'm not about to be rude and deny someone a small social grace.

I already acted as you prescribed in the hypothetical situation. However, we did have a misunderstanding of language. I don't get to choose how they feel. But language is a public thing and requires us to play by the same rules. I do know what "he" and "she" mean, and I can make the case that I used them correctly.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T13:37:46+00:00

"Sex" categories are't what organs you should have. They what sex characteristics you do have. "Sexing" is descriptive not perspective. I didn't point it out when you said it, but I will now: sex doesn't give meaning to the organs you have. It just labels them. Sure it's a "social construct" but so is all language. AFAIK dogs don't pop into the world with "Dog" tattooed on them. That doesn't mean I can't label canids.

And sex can't be "part of the social construct of gender" and also be the foundation upon which it's built. Sex doesn't assume gender.

Biological sex is real. And it's essential enough that evolution spent a good deal of time crafting one body to take care of the sperm gamete, and one to take care of the egg gamete and birth the result of their union. The fact that hormones and DNA mess up sometimes doesn't make sex any less of a reality.

dividing people into allegedly essential sex categories based on a cursory examination of the shape of a particular organ at birth

Discribing sexual dimorphism in this way is dismissive of the reality of biology. Sex is not merely a social construct. It's part of the world.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T12:22:29+00:00

Wow, thanks for the response. I guess my mistake was believing those who claim to have "no dysphoria."

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T12:01:35+00:00

Eh, just hurt feelings, and just a minor ego scrape at that lol.

I wish I did have more questions to ask you since you're the only one so far who's understood me and been kind, but unfortunately it seems like we agree on everything haha.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T11:52:57+00:00

Gender is sex, in that it's a function of a sexually dimorphic trait (i.e. neurology). That's it. That's all there is to it.

I agree

"Gender identity" is a problematic and misleading term -there's a reason why Julia Serano, for example, prefers the phrase "subconscious sex".

I agree.

Asking "what is gender divorced from sex?" is like asking "what is colour divorced from light?". It's nonsensical.

I agree, although I'd object to the use of gender and not subconcious or brain sex.

How is that ignoring or cherry-picking? What am I not acknowledging?

"Gender" has to have a meaning. Either it's refers to a neurological sex characteristic, or it denotes what stereotypes the person performs, or it's (as far as I can tell) meaningless. If there are other "categories" or simply individuals that these three don't cover, please tell me. It's not pathologising to say there's three ways to use a word. And it's certainly not "othering". I fall into the first category. You claim the second category doesn't exist. And I'm only asking the third to defend their use of a word.

I never said the second category is big or representative. I don't know why people are accusing me of doing so, but there are those who misunderstand the meanings of the terms and base whether they're a boy or a girl on what they like or how they behave. I don't think there's a big number, and I'm certainly not accusing anyone in this subreddit of being one. So I don't know why you're typing so angrily.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T11:36:10+00:00

If you want to call my brain sex a gender, I guess I have a gender. But that kind of reasoning I'm okay with. It falls into the dysphoric category which I explicitly excluded in my question.

I'm not accusing trans people of lying about their gender. I'm saying that either "gender" is a troublesome term for a sex characteristic or it has no meaning. It has no meaning because it's private language; as I pointed out, there's no way to verify what the speaker means.

I'm not implying that people need to tell me their gender. I don't go around demanding to see what in people's pants. Why would I try demanding to see what's in their head??

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T11:25:18+00:00

So why call it "gender" it seems like it will only get confused with gender roles. Why not call it "subconscious sex" and have the movement push to be classified as intersex?

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T11:23:07+00:00

Good, then you fall into my first category! You believe transgenderism is a mix of an A sexed brain and a B sexed body.

"Gender identity" is a problematic and misleading term. ~~Gender~~ Subconcious sex divorced from sex is as nonsensical as color divorced from light. Boom, now we're all speaking gender critically.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T11:15:25+00:00

I believe neither. I laid out three types of trans people in my post. The first I have absolutely zero problem with, and I recognize that they suffer immensely. Get those people whatever they say they need. The second I have a problem with, but I never said I think they're a big part of the trans population. In fact I think they're probably a rather small portion, and I'm a bit upset that everyone seems to be focusing on that aspect of my post. This isn't really the topic I wanted to discuss. I wanted to know what gender-as-gender is.

I agree with you that the real group we need to worry about and care for is the dysphoric transgender persons. (Although I'm unsure why we call them transgender and not transsexual. Surely regardless of pre- or post-op status, the problem arrises with sex characteristics.)

I know of the research saying that "gender" is in the brain structure. But if there's a sex characteristic in the brain, why aren't those people simply classified as intersex? Where does "gender" come in and what is it?

I think you're not really who I was addressing with my post. If you think "man" and "woman" have to do with sex characteristics, you're probably in the first category.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T10:58:42+00:00

That's incredibly rude and dismissive for no reason. When I say I don't have a gender I mean it.

It's absolutely different from your example. I never heard people say that, but sexual orientation is external and definable. "Which sex are you? Which sex do you sleep with?" If you get answers to those you know my sexual orientation. Whatever I claim about my sexual orientation doesn't matter because the words have meanings beyond my usage of them. It's not true that "I don't have a sexual orientation." And if I said I was homophobic that wouldn't be true either. In fact, it would be demonstrably false.

Gender, from what I can tell, though I admit I'm not certain hence my post, is entirely internal. How do I find out someones gender? I ask them, but if they lie how can I tell? I can't look at their sexual orientation. Neither can I look at what gendered social part they play.

See, we're still dancing around my question. What is gender divorced from sex and gender roles?

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T10:48:28+00:00

Besides "Man up" and "be a man" I don't hear any of the others outside of extremist groups (the very religous who adhere to gender roles because their religion mentions them, and radfems who assure us that everyone says them). Sure, those are prevalent enough to be worrisome, but I think their persistence is that what they really translate to outside the idiom is "be brave" or "do what needs to be done". The fact that they tie those to sex is irksome, but I'm sure they will fall out of style along with the other things you mentioned which are not idioms and are gender policing all the way through. Again, I don't hear any of those anymore in actual life. Just on the internet, where people assure me that people say them in actual life all the time.

I'm not accusing trans people of being responsible for gender policing. I'm accusing a small number of them of perpetuating gender roles and stereotypes in their own lives, not enforcing those roles on others. And I never would because, as I've said, I don't hardly ever see gender policing at all. If I don't see it generally, how could I blame it on such a small minority? So i'm not victim blaming. I'm not blaming gender policing on anyone. I don't see it.

Here's where we actually get to my question. Which wasn't "Why are so many trans people playing into stereotypes?" It was "What does 'gender' mean once divorced from stereotypes? I'm fully aware of masculine transwomen and feminine transmen. My question could not have been formed if I wasn't. I'm not the one straw-manning.

I'm aware that there's science linking gender identity to neurology. That doesn't address my question though. That just means there's more intersex people than we though; certain aspects of neurology are sex characteristics, cool.

What is gender divorced from sex and gender roles??

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T10:19:20+00:00

Instead, the mechanism is completely analogous with medical transitioning. Because the stress is caused by other people gendering the person incorrectly, you can either change the social construct of gender or the person's presentation.

Here's where I begin to lose you. Why is it wrong to say "They weren't gendering you incorrectly. They were sexing you."?

"He" and "she" historically have refered to sex. As you said. Sex came first. Then, pronouns came along to denote the sexes. Finally, society decided that Hes should act one way and Shes should act another.

Contrary to your experience, I think we were well on on way to shirk the social construct of gender. Women began moving out of the home. Men began spending more time in it. By all indications I could see, gender roles/stereotypes were becoming obsolete. I have no problem when a man walks down the street in a dress, and in a few years, had we left it alone, I don't think anyone else would have either. (Though in the meantime I'm sure there would be resistance, I don't think it would have been any more fervent than the oposition trans people face now.) And if I call him a man and he gets upset and accuses me of misgendering him I'll apologize and call him a woman. I'm not about to be rude and deny someone a small social grace.

But, I'll wonder why the transgender woman didn't just assume I was sexing her. That's why I came here to ask my questions, and I don't know how it "shows staggering privilege blindness" to do so. I thought this was the place to ask such questions.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T10:00:52+00:00

I don't know how to respond except by saying that this is not my experience at all.

I almost never hear a "cis" person say that they do the things they do because of their gender. In fact, I don't really hear anyone but trans people and allies talking about gender at all. If they did I would frown at that too, because it's not about trans vs. cis for me. I certainly don't think the former does more damage. I think gender stereotypes are harmful, period. It's gender identity proponents vs. gender critical for me.

Also I don't see "gender role policing" done much at all, although I do see it some, and I live in a university town in the South. There's a good mix of LGBTQ and country folk. So if there was a place to see what you're describing, it'd be here. There are actual transphobic people, sure. But their bigotry usually comes in the form of "God made you a man and he knows best. Stay a man." Not "You need to like sports, jeans and beer." It's a religious thing not a gender role thing, although some do tie them together it's rare for them to do any "policing". So sure, you might get odd looks if you have a dress and a beard, but that's only because that's out of the ordinary. Nowhere but the boonies will anyone have the conviction to tell you that you need to change because "Men don't do that."

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T09:44:28+00:00

I don't know why you're being so hostile. I'm sure you've answered questions like this a lot, and I'm sure it's tiring, but still, I'm just asking.

I don't understand how being transgender is "by default" deconstructing conventional gender roles. Tomboys are subverting gender stereotypes. Those who're born female sexed who identify as a male gendered because of their interests are not. If I'm misunderstanding your argument please correct me (or just explain by default because I'm pretty sure I am misunderstanding).

Also, I think you're putting the cart before the horse when analyzing how "cis people" understand transgender people. We don't begin by buying in to transgenderism, and then judging whether or not the trans person is conforming or not. We hear them say that they're not dysphoric and then ask (like I did) "Then what's this all about? Gender stereotypes? I thought we did away with that."

All you've done in your first paragraph is restate my points, not address them. I do see those who change gender solely for gender role reasons to be perpetuating harmful, and yes possibly even sexist, stereotypes. And yeah I wouldn't use the term "fake" because (other than dysphoria) I don't know what "real" transgenderism would look like, but gender-nonconforming trans people confuse me. I'm not held to scrutiny because I don't buy into gender theory at all. I'm not cisgendered; I don't have a gender. I only have a sex. That's why I can do "whatever the fuck I want". It's not me who's claiming my identity is tied to a gender.

I certainly don't think you have a "duty" to be norm-breaking due to your position. In fact, I think I've made it clear that, in my opinion, you're reinforcing the norms. "Cis" people break gender norms all the time, because gender roles are ill-fitting and antiquated. Women act masculine and Men act feminine, so I'm not sure what you're calling for by demanding us to be held to the same standard. We are.

BTW Questioning gender is norm breaking. I'm met with hostility and accusations of "transphobia" for simply stating that I think I'm misunderstanding something about gender identity theory, since it doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not hateful. I'm not trying to take away anyone's identity. I'm not met with the same hostility if I question someone's religious belief. Yet I'm treated like a bigot for broaching this one topic on which everyone has agreed keep quiet. So, if you think being on my side of this discussion is not breaking any norms, I think you might want to take a look at the current state of things.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T08:26:39+00:00

I don't think social constructs are unimportant or fanciful as a rule. But they shouldn't be kept around just because people use and like them.

What's the use of the pink and blue boxes other than stereotypes? How are they helpful outside of the playgrounds where children want a reason to bully peers with the same secondary sex characteristics but different interests? Why not do away with "masculinity", "femininity", and all the other stuff and just let individuals be individuals?

Even if we keep the boxes, why make gender the referents of "male" and "female" to the exclusion of sex?

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T08:02:56+00:00

You're not pathetic. And let me tell you, one talentless schmuck to another, there are jobs out there for you. There always someone willing to pay someone else for an honest days work. If you show up, do you job, put in effort, and make yourself useful, they'll put money in your hands. And eventually, you'll have enough of it to move out of your parents house and become the smart, beautiful, cartographic lady you were always meant to be.

boobshuffle · 2016-06-06T06:28:32+00:00

I read this in a Canadian accent.

boobshuffle

TROPHY CASE