[

RavenWings (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:13 am And now that we all seem to be rather in agreement over this, should I just snip this thread? And if I do, how do I close it off?

The originator of a thread can't close it. Only Paolo (and his assistants Bboy and talula) have that power.

Thank you for that information. I'll be contacting them soon to do so then.

Yes, but also look at the FUN!



gus

haltlos (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:04 am Maybe I should repeat the little theory I try to cultivate right now. ... Men and Women have different genitalia. And that's it!

gus Gender Equity

IN THE BEGINNING: The human male and female were created equal (like the other creatures) with no sexual inhibitions or hidden secrets. We were at peace and in harmony with God, the universe and each other. Gender issues, as we know them today, did not exist. Then, we created many artificial differences that resulted in unnatural problems, secrecy and gender tensions.

CLOTHING & RESTROOMS: Next, we created an unnatural secrecy around basic bodily functions by We first created clothing, not to protect us from the elements but to hide our physical differences from each other. This resulted in stereotyped female and male clothing to further disguise and promote our differences. It created unnatural secrecy, curiosity and tensions between female and male. What a giant step backward!

Today, the clothing trend is starting to reverse. It is now acceptable for the female to wear all traditional male styled clothing. However, there is still a real bias against the male wearing any traditional female styled clothing (skirts, dresses, blouses, underwear, lacy and frilly items).

establishing separate restrooms for female and male users and implementing different levels of secrecy for both. The female was always provided private stalls with 6-foot walls and doors. However, the male was given open urinals and inadequate stalls. Male stalls were either non-existent or had only 4-foot walls (sometimes without doors). This secrecy only promoted unnatural curiosity and perversion.

Today, due to long lines, females frequently use male restrooms. However, the male is still prohibited from using the female restroom unless he can pass as a female. The family restroom addresses some aspects of this bias by permitting opposite gender assistance for children, elderly and handicapped. However, true unisex use is prohibited (even for married adults).

BATH, DRESSING, & SPORTS: When the concept of a bath was established, we again created separate facilities for the female and male. Heaven forbid they should see each other without clothes. We provided privacy curtains for the female, but not the male, in dressing and shower areas. Why the difference? We even added basic health and fitness as secret and forbidden differences by creating separate exercise and recreational facilities. Why so much secrecy?

OTHER GENDER BIAS: We continued these exclusions and differences to all areas of human life: employment, sports, recreation, family life, and etcetera. Fortunately, some of these biases are now being eliminated. However, the rate of change is much too slow.

CONCLUSIONS: We must establish true gender equity for everyone. Making all clothing acceptable for both sexes will abolish one stereotype. True unisex restrooms with adequate stalls for privacy will eliminate another bias and provide additional security for both female and male users. Bath and dressing facilities must be designed for unisex usage and individual privacy. Sports, health and recreation facilities must offer shared usage for both female and male users. Gender biases must also be eliminated from employment and all other social areas of our life.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to be saying that the way to deal with gender inequity issues is to treat everyone equally, when that's simply not possible.

Sometimes the distinction falls along gender identity (okay, let's just

call it "plumbing" - because that's a better description) lines: certain

jobs need muscle mass/ability, and it might make sense to rewrite

work rules based on that. ("To do this job, you must be able to lift

at least 150 lbs and carry it a quarter-mile" is a reasonable requirement

for certain positions, and a 5'2" man might not be as good a choice for

such a role as a 5'11" woman who lifts weights. Statistically, the testosterone helps build those muscles, but it's the ability-to-lift that's

the real key.)

Sometimes the issue isn't the sex/gender/plumbing of the participant,

but the age: we don't want to see teenagers (or younger) as sexual

beings, so we hide sexuality from them with segregated bathrooms and

certain clothing and so on. Perhaps the segregation should be based

on age? (I'm not really suggesting this, but it does seem to be tossed

into the mix.)

Men, women, and modified-folks, are not interchangeable. Even a

hormone-free, surgically-modified human still has life experiences that

harken back to when that being was an intact man or woman, and so

even nullo'ed folks are interchangeable.

Why pretend otherwise?

-jab

My two cents is that gender is much deeper than a social construct. Sure some societies will differ regarding whether women can do such and such a job, but in general there is a pretty strong biological perogative that seems to prevail in "gender roles".

If gender was just about social rules then there would not be any transsexuals -- people who have a deep identification with a particular gender. I've seen interesting evidence that brain development in a M2F transsexual is much closer to a female brain development than a male brain development. So I believe gender starts with a genetic basis.

RavenWings (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:47 pm I know that the subject is a hard one to fathom. I think of gender as being more mental than physical and sex as being more physical than mental. Sexuality, i think, has a lot more to do with what gender/sex one is attracted to sexually. I know that I think of myself as being both female and lesbian, but those looking at me wouldn't see me that way. Most people who know me in the 'real' world do not know what I am going through currently. I have tried to find men attractive, but no matter what I try, I cannot find men attractive at all. Women, however, I find very attractive.

This leads to the obvious question as to whether you are attracted or repelled by what's between the legs or what's between the ears.

That's not intended to be flippant. You are clearly distinguishing between 'men' and 'women'. As to being both 'female' and 'lesbian', surely the latter in someway implies the former, since the concept of a 'male lesbian' is, to say the least, problematic. Really, the use of words like 'lesbian', or indeed 'homosexual' and 'herterosexual' is just a way of making neat pigeonholes for a very complicated subject that we just don't understand.

Perhaps there is a comparison to be made with plugs and sockets...

Mains plugs and sockets are rather like the 'official' view of gender. They have to be the right way round otherwise you get exposed live contacts in the plug.

Consider instead RS232 connectors. They are *supposed* only to have sockets on the modem (the DCE) and plugs on the equipment at the other end (the DTE.) If this actually happened the only cable that would be needed would be a simple extension cable with a plug at one end and a socket at the other.

Unfortunately, as computers became more common (and cheaper) more and more people wanted to connect printers to computers, (etc). (DTE to DTE). This requires a different sort of cable called a 'null modem', which 'crosses over' the signals so that the outputs on one side go to the appropriate inputs on the other, and a lot of manufacturers failed to do things properly, so that these days RS232 connections are definitely a black art.

The upshot is that the electrical 'handedness' of an RS232 connector is largely unrelated to the handedness of the connector.

On top of this, many of the networking protocols are themselves handed, so that, for example, a box on an X25 network could easily have a female connector, be an electrical (level 1) DTE, a 'link level' (level 2) DCE, and operating multiple simultaneous sessions at level 3, some as DCE and some as DTE....

The point I think I'm trying to make is that the definition of 'male' vs 'female' can't be just either 'one or the other, but not both', but is a complex thing. It probably is also in part a definition of a relationship and that 'bisexuality', for example, might reflect 'flexibility' in the defining parameters, rather than something in itself.

Perhaps we just need to discard the terms 'male' and 'female....

jab (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:25 am I'm sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to be saying that the way to deal with gender inequity issues is to treat everyone equally, when that's simply not possible.

Sometimes the distinction falls along gender identity (okay, let's just

call it "plumbing" - because that's a better description) lines: certain

jobs need muscle mass/ability, and it might make sense to rewrite

work rules based on that. ("To do this job, you must be able to lift

at least 150 lbs and carry it a quarter-mile" is a reasonable requirement

for certain positions, and a 5'2" man might not be as good a choice for

such a role as a 5'11" woman who lifts weights. Statistically, the testosterone helps build those muscles, but it's the ability-to-lift that's

the real key.)

-jab

As you said, men and women of the same physical stature should be able to perform similar physical tasks. The same goes for other work and social tasks.

The only places where plumbing, as you called it, makes a difference is if you try to connect the parts or to use a urinal. However, I have seen claims that women can use a urinal as well as a man and urinals have been designed to be unisexual. I guess that makes connectivity the only real gender related issue.

This is a fun and educational thread, though. I think it deserves a bit more life.

RavenWings (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2002 10:16 am I wanted to ask everyone in here about their thoughts about gender, sexuality, and sex. I know that there is no single answer to the question, that is why I'm posing it.

To me, gender, sexuality, and sex are three seperate but intersecting continuums. I know that society sees gender and sex as the same thing. One is either Male or their Female. I know that there are probably few of you out there today who actually feel that. To me, there are four genders and sexes, none of which necissarily preclude the existance of one gender in another sexes form. I also sometimes think that gender is more a social construct than natural. Among my ancestral Celts, it was not unusual for a woman to both own herown weapons, but to fight in battle along side men. But in the Arab societies, that would be tantamount to blasphamy. So, if gender is merely a social construct, what does that mean for what we do to our bodies?

As I said, I would like to hear people's thoughts on this. I love to debate issues so that I can refine my own understandings of them, and perhaps come to a conclusion based upon my oppinons and the oppinion of others. I have often found this to be the best way to learn about the world arround us.

Thanks

Hello, Raven.

The three are different.

We have Gender, which is our self-identification as well as role (if one self-identifies as female yet was raised as male, this can cause Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria). Gender identity can range from male to female and anything in between.

Sexuality, I assume, is sexual preference--what kind of a person arouses you. People can be attracted to their own sex, the opposite sex, both, neither, or even be attracted to things other than what we would consider standard.

Sex, or the "plumbing," the genitalia, can range from male to female or be a combination of the two or be deficient in both. There are people that are born intersexed and those that change their plumbing.

All of these have various ranges and are multi-dimensional. The three are separate, since for example, if one has a male gender identity, that does not mean that he is attracted to females and has boy plumbing. He could be born female, be a person that likes guys, and has had male hormones but no surgery to become male. He may later have surgery to become male. And certainly we know that about 15% of males are attracted to males.

In my case, I was born with boy plumbing, am asexual (I call myself lesbian to avoid questions), and was born with (and still have) a female gender identity. I had surgery to make me female.

A polar society would like to equate the three, but this will not hold--we know that there are gay people, we know that there are intersexed and transsexual people. I am a good example of a non-standard person if we are supposed to be pigeon-holed into such binary boxes.

You wonder if gender is more of a social construct. Not exactly. Gender role is, sort of. We are raised as a particular gender and placed in a particular gender role. But actual gender identity is inborn, and very resilient to change. Being raised socially as a boy did nothing to alter my gender identity--I live as a woman now. Gender identity, therefore, is natural (inborn), not nurture (assigned).

Warm hugs,

Kelly