Gender identity is real and should be respected. That's already been debated and voted on federally and in multiple provinces.
I believe gender identity is real and should be respected. Can you please tell me if glassgender is a real gender identity or have I been punked?
Obviously there are limits, just like in any other case.
What are those limits, and who decides where they are? How do the rest of us know what the limits are? Are they instantiated in the law, or do you have to find out only after you're in some degree of legal trouble?
Look up the Ontario Human Rights Act, which was the law in question for Peterson. The government decides on limits. Employers and public institutions are supposed to inform their employees of the details.
Obviously there are limits, just like in any other case.
What are those limits, and who decides where they are? How do the rest of us know what the limits are? Are they instantiated in the law, or do you have to find out only after you're in some degree of legal trouble?
Look up the Ontario Human Rights act, which was the law in question for Peterson. The govenrment decide on limits. Employers and public institutions must inform their employees of the details.
So how does a conscientious employer get the information about the limits to inform their employees? It's already on the law, so I assume the limits are already set? Or is it going to be tried on an arbitrary case by case basis?
EDIT: Also, I am employed, and so far my employer has not informed me or any of my colleagues about anything to do with this issue, much less what the limit of recognized identities is. If tomorrow a 19 year old shithead customer tells me they are an apache helicopter, what do I do?
Gender identity is real and should be respected. That's already been debated and voted on federally and in multiple provinces.
I believe gender identity is real and should be respected. Can you please tell me if glassgender is a real gender identity or have I been punked?
I'm not familiar with the term. How would this be relevant in any practical employment or public institution situation?
Gender identity is real and should be respected. That's already been debated and voted on federally and in multiple provinces.
I believe gender identity is real and should be respected. Can you please tell me if glassgender is a real gender identity or have I been punked?
I'm not familiar with the term. How would this be relevant in any practical employment or public institution situation?
What if a customer tells me they identify as glassgender?
The Ontario Human Rights Act also includes guidelines to help employers and public institutions. Specific cases can be investigated by the Ontario Human Rights commission.
What if a customer tells me they identify as glassgender?
I'd ask for more details, and how they would like be called. The prounon "they" usually covers any gender identity.
The Ontario Human Rights Act also includes guidelines to help employers and public institutions. Specific cases can be investigated by the Ontario Human Rights commission.
That sounds fun.
Mr Magoo, my point was that there those who are neither male nor female. That's the reality, not a crazy fantasy, like being "Captain Proton" or a "Supreme Leader."
Ah. It's "the reality".
What makes it "the reality", aside from some people's belief (because, after all, lots of people believe in 'Noah's Ark" but that doesnt promote Noah's Ark to the status of reality).
The gender neutral prounoun must be used if specifically requested.
Which pronouns?
Could you list them, if asked? Assume I'm asking. Which. Make the list as long or short as you wish, but stand by it. Which gender neutral pronoun should I use? Note that for men I say "he" and for women I say "she"... there aren't 12 different ones for each. So... which gender neutral pronoun is going to satisfy the 0.5% who have no gender?
If Peterson does not want to follow the Ontario Human Rights Act
There is no such thing.
Take a moment. Exhale. You're wrapping yourself 'round the axle.
Gender identity is real and should be respected. That's already been debated and voted on federally and in multiple provinces.
That's the problem, though. "Gender identity" doesn't have a reasonable legal meaning if we don't know what "gender identity" actually means. Does it mean "male or female" or does it mean literally anything someone invents?
Reminder: some asshats on Queen West genuinely believe they're "vampires". Is "vampire" a legit gender, or why would we dismiss that? What about "wolfkin" or "foxkin" or "weatherkin"? Can we go ahead and disregard those?
Mr. Magoo, you should read the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the related guidelines for yourself. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns
We elect governments to pass laws based on what they determine as reality, hopefully based on factual and scientific evidence. Do you have any better ideas?
Mr. Magoo, you should read the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the related guidelines for yourself.
To bring this full-circle, isn't that exactly what Peterson is suggesting is too vague to be the law of the land?
Ah. It's "the reality".
What makes it "the reality", aside from some people's belief (because, after all, lots of people believe in 'Noah's Ark" but that doesnt promote Noah's Ark to the status of reality).
Hormone therapy.
Mr. Magoo, you should read the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the related guidelines for yourself.To bring this full-circle, isn't that exactly what Peterson is suggesting is too vague to be the law of the land?
It's much more specific than common-law, which forms the basis of our legal system and is not written down by definition.
To bring this full-circle, isn't that exactly what Peterson is suggesting is too vague to be the law of the land?
Nice try with all the multi gender bafflegab, but maybe you should ask the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that one. Apparently the law is real enough that they found there was discrimination on the basis of gender in the Kimberly Nixon case, even if they also found that Vancouver Rape Relief had a valid reason for doing so.
That was upheld by the court of appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear any appeal.
After all, this is less about sorting all the fine points of gender, and more about the discrimination, which is usually a lot more obvious.
In fact, the ruling also undercuts Peterson's claims about these rights protections leading to authoritarianism.
"Might is right" is, I believe, not in the jp playbook.
He just a fella spewing information.
Apparently the law is real enough that they found there was discrimination on the basis of gender in the Kimberly Nixon case, even if they also found that Vancouver Rape Relief had a valid reason for doing so.
On the basis of a gender? Or on the basis of "no gender"?
Was Nixon claiming to have no gender, or was Nixon claiming to have a gender?
I think the real point of the issue is that we are talking about a very small group of individuals. Whether they are justified or not in their wishes to me is secondary to the fact that debating their choice is pretty cold hearted. The impact on our society one way or another is minimal, they are not in any way a powerbase and clearly this is something that is important to them. Why don't we spend our debating energies on more important things like blocking Jediism from being considered as a religion on the census form.
@ Pogo
When it comes to discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression, actually it isn't a small number of people. Anyone discriminated against because they don't meet someone's stereotypical conception of a man or woman is protected by this law. That can actually be any of us.
Okay I was referring to the individuals targeted for requesting relatively unique gender identification. I know a number of people who have gender situations outside of the biblical framework. None have asked for a different gender referent. Granted I my circle of friends is perhaps narrow. Can you tell me how many people use non-biblical (for a lack of a better term) gender referents? As a percentage?
At NDP conventions how are non-binary people addressed? Men are addressed as "brother", women as "sister" but what about NDP members who don't identify as "brother" or "sister". So does anyone know what non-binary people addressed as ?
In Ottawa in February the badges had blanks to be filled out under the names: I identify as (gender) / My pronouns are: ______
The "brother"/"sister" terminology was actually pretty rare and, I believe, comes out of old-school union tradition, from the years before it would've occurred to anyone to respect the non-binary.
The "brother"/"sister" terminology was actually pretty rare and, I believe, comes out of old-school union tradition, from the years before it would've occurred to anyone to respect the non-binary.
Roughly what year did they stop?
There wasn't a formal decision, most likely. The terms probably simply fell out of use.The "brother"/"sister" terminology was actually pretty rare and, I believe, comes out of old-school union tradition, from the years before it would've occurred to anyone to respect the non-binary.Roughly what year did they stop?
I remember when Margaret Birrell ran for the BC Leadership and opened with "Sisters and Brothers" which was a head turner at the time.
There wasn't a formal decision, most likely. The terms probably simply fell out of use.
I was kind of being facetious. If you Google "union brothers and sisters" (and add in, say, "OPSEU" or "CUPE" to keep it Canadian) you'll see that by no means has it fallen out of use. Now, maybe everyone in the labour movement identifies as either male or female. I wouldn't know how to go about proving that, though.
Munk Debate: Political Correctness
Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and British actor and activist Stephen Fry takes on American blogger Michelle Goldberg and American academic Michael Eric Dyson in a fiery debate on political correctness in modern society."
Stephen Fry is good news.
There is a free wakeupdialler service where Stephen Fry will telephone you with a funny recorded message at the given time. It has not failed once...
Cody: re your post 33, apologies for the delay in responding I missed your post earlier. I often agree with and appreciate your posts here too, so please accept this pre-emptive apology that this reply will probably not be very satisfying. Largely because I don't really have the energy or inclination to argue about Peterson's beliefs or statements in detail anymore, I've spent a fair bit of time with him and his critics in the past few months and am pretty much tapped out. I hope his star returns to earth soon but I'm not sweating it either way.
I do see him as presenting a more traditional sort of conservatism than Milo or Stephan who in my view are primarily reacting to identity politics (as is Peterson, but he's got more going on). I don't think his political views are a mystery or very radical, I largely take him at his word that he views himself as a classic British liberal in the Locke/Hume tradition. I think he is commonly linked with the Brietbart/young conservative/troll the sjw wing of the right because his criticism of identity politics are articulate and the fact he is a psychologist gives his views on this and 'victim mentality' in general some heft. But on this he's not a lot different than Candace Owens, just more academic in tone.
What you say about the debates in the white nationalist forums about him being a gateway to their ideas may be true, but I don't think it's something to blame him for. Would you agree that in some ways he is also a gateway to a more traditional type of conservatism based on individualism and merit? Conservatives of the more traditional type are rallying around him as well.
Also, genuinely curious, in what way do you think he is specifically dangerous? Is it that he "normalizes" issues or ideas that can lead to a support for white nationalism? And/or something more?
No worries about the delay, and there's certainly no problem if we don't agree. But I'll respond and hopefully it's not too much, since you're a bit burnt out on the topic.
I don't think his political views are a mystery or very radical, I largely take him at his word that he views himself as a classic British liberal in the Locke/Hume tradition. I think he is commonly linked with the Brietbart/young conservative/troll the sjw wing of the right because his criticism of identity politics are articulate and the fact he is a psychologist gives his views on this and 'victim mentality' in general some heft.
This is the thing though. He says he's considers himself a classic Liberal. But when you look at what and who he promotes, and what and who he denigrates, there is clear dissonance there. Now, for most people I could accept that, because a lot of people aren't able or willing to self reflect. But Peterson is not only clearly capable of self-reflection, he often talks about both him doing so and the value of doing so.
On just about every social issue he's pronounced on he is firmly a conservative (eg. traditional family structures). When he has a somewhat-Liberal position, he caveats it to make it more right wing...for example, he acknowledges that inequality is a problem...but then goes on to say it's only a problem because when inequality gets too bad violence increases because those who have nothing will "flip the board to start a new game". And even on issues he hasn't pronounced on, it's pretty clear where he would fall and that's with the conservatives. For example, what do you suppose his opinion is on abortion (which to my knowledge he hasn't talked about)?
Going from the issues to the people, he's repeatedly attacked Kathleen Wynne and Justin Trudeau. He's admitted that if he was a U.S. citizen he "probably" would have voted for Trump. He's spoken negatively about the NDP, and has provided policy advice to Andrew Scheer.
Literally the only issue he's actually left on, as far as I can tell, is environmentalism - and even on that issue I've only heard him talk about pollution in the ocean.
So to believe that he's being truthful when he claims to be a classic Liberal requires one of the following to be true:
He hasn't carefully considered his positions
He isn't smart enough to recognize his affiliation
He doesn't recognize a difference between a classic Liberal and a modern Conservative
The other possibility I can see is that he's lying. And considering his schtick about the importance of telling the truth, if he's lying about that, then what else is he lying about?
But on this he's not a lot different than Candace Owens, just more academic in tone.
I haven't seen enough of her work to judge. Maybe just a Rubin interview. Sooner or later I'll get around to listening to her recent podcast on Rogan, he spends enough time with his guests to really get a good feel for them. I know she was working with Turning Point USA. For Owens, this suggests outright conservatism, not just classic Liberalism.
What you say about the debates in the white nationalist forums about him being a gateway to their ideas may be true, but I don't think it's something to blame him for.
I'm not really blaming him for that...I'm just accepting their analysis that his influence is beneficial to them. After all, they would know.
Would you agree that in some ways he is also a gateway to a more traditional type of conservatism based on individualism and merit? Conservatives of the more traditional type are rallying around him as well.
Well, I don't know if you can call it a gateway when he's outright promoting conservative ideology.
Now, Peterson has recently also been attacking the alt-right as well, which is why some in that community are upset with him. So it could be argued that he may bring people from the alt-right to more traditional conservatism - and he claims he's gotten letters to this effect. But just sheer numbers will tell you that there are way more left and centre people that he's moving an indeterminate amount to the right, compared with a relatively small number of alt-righters that he's moving a touch to the left.
Let's say you have a spectrum of people in society, 5% far left, 25% left leaning, 40% centrist, 25% right leaning, and 5% alt right.
If he's moving 10% of every group to right-leaning, even if we assume nobody goes full alt right because of him and their numbers technically decline, that's still going to have a huge effect on the balance of power towards the right in general, which can be exploited by the alt-right in the days ahead.
Also, genuinely curious, in what way do you think he is specifically dangerous? Is it that he "normalizes" issues or ideas that can lead to a support for white nationalism? And/or something more?
Well don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I necessarily think he's ill-intentioned. But I don't believe he's being entirely honest about his motivations, and if he is ill-intentioned I think he has the ability to do exceptional harm. And he's studied the right literature to know exactly how do it. When I say he's dangerous, it's a comment on what he could potentially do, not what he necessarily will do.
Thanks for this Cody, just a few comments mostly to clarify:
I think Peterson means when he says classic British Liberal is what would today be a small government conservative with libertarian leanings. RE: Candace Owens, yes she is a small government conservative in the same way. Should have been more explicit in previous post - I assume that the classic Liberal maps onto the small government conservative or libertarian today.
Regarding who he denigrates -- I agree there is some dissonance there, and it's startling how little he discusses or acknowledges who has actual power in society. But it is mostly understandable to me by his overarching narrative around "post modern neo-marxists" -- he sees the left as encouraging people to identify more with their racial or gender group than as individuals, which leads to chaos/fascism/stalinism etc etc etc. I think he is wrong but sincere on this. He thinks society is getting out of balance and the course correction needed is a return to individualism and individual responsibility. So I think he's internally congruent in targeting who he targets. But in that he's not a lot different than David Horowitz and Frontpage Magazine, who have published blacklists of "marxist" professors for years now. Although apparently Peterson's dropped that idea as it's too "divisive".
RE: this -
"So it could be argued that he may bring people from the alt-right to more traditional conservatism - and he claims he's gotten letters to this effect. But just sheer numbers will tell you that there are way more left and centre people that he's moving an indeterminate amount to the right, compared with a relatively small number of alt-righters that he's moving a touch to the left."
I see his main postiive value as what you described here - moving alt-righters to a more traditional conservatism. I think some of his advice to disaffected young people is good too. RE - moving people on the left rightwards, I think that is possible but not certain, and in any case it's a sign that, in popular culture at least, the left needs to up it's game and improve our ability to debate opponents who can remain calm and respond carefully and on point.
RE - moving people on the left rightwards, I think that is possible but not certain, and in any case it's a sign that, in popular culture at least, the left needs to up it's game and improve our ability to debate opponents who can remain calm and respond carefully and on point.
Preach.
Honestly, I'd even go a bit further and just say the left needs to up it's game and improve the ability to debate opponents who remain calm. Even where someone makes an imperfect/carelessly articulated argument, if you shut them down based on the carelessness of the argument rather than the argument itself, that doesn't refute the general point, it just shows you're more interested in scoring cheap and ultimately meaningless points on technical details rather than discussing ideas. Kind of a similar idea to the pointlessness of spelling flames.
If you don't rebut an idea in it's strongest possible form, you haven't refuted it. If your opponent makes an argument poorly, it's best to help them correct it, and then show them where the error is. Otherwise they are stuck with that feeling that "I wasn't wrong, I just didn't say it right."
On the question of opponents who can remain calm:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941537619107840?lang=en
Not so say it isn't good advice for everyone, but Peterson often doesn't observe that one himself. Not to mention his habit of just making up stuff.
Pogo wrote:
I know a number of people who have gender situations outside of the biblical framework.
I am not really taking Pogo to task for this statement. However, I do think it's worth an examination.
Gender is not 'biblical'. Gender is something that exists for any animal that uses sexual reproduction. That would include all mammals (which means it includes humans). Gender is not a human construct, like race, for instance. Gender is a very real physical attribute handed down over millions of years of evolution.
Given that reproduction is the second strongest urge (after self-preservation), it's understandable that it is a subject fraught with peril.
Having said that, it's also true that gender, having a number of different, discrete, attributes, is sometimes mixed and matched in nature. Sexual preference and libido, for instance. Both operate on a sliding scale, which means there can be people who don't care what the gender of their sexual partner is, as long as there's lot of them, and others who are either very straight or very gay, but don't care much about how often.
Obviously the sexual preference scale is weighted to 'opposite gender' and the libido is probably closer to the centre. But the main point, for me, is that gender is not a humans construct. However, the way culture treats people is a construct, and we'd be better off if for the most part we just ignored gender differences.
Preach.
Even where someone makes an imperfect/carelessly articulated argument, if you shut them down based on the carelessness of the argument rather than the argument itself, that doesn't refute the general point, it just shows you're more interested in scoring cheap and ultimately meaningless points on technical details rather than discussing ideas.
Peterson kind of invites this, although maybe it works to his advantage. His fans seem to think he is some kind of hypercareful thinker, and yet so many of his arguments are so carelessly articulated or straight up uninformed and/or dishonest. It's difficult NOT to want to analyse the terrible technical details.
When he attacks neomarxist postmodernism, he sounds like a windbag spewing nonsense. The real argument that needs to be addressed is cloaked in the nonsense. I guess maybe in that sense he's not much different than Doug Ford, who can say all kinds of nonsense, and fool the left who can't understand how people believe this outright bullshit.
Pesky wrote:
Gender is not 'biblical'. Gender is something that exists for any animal that uses sexual reproduction. That would include all mammals (which means it includes humans). Gender is not a human construct, like race, for instance. Gender is a very real physical attribute handed down over millions of years of evolution.
My understanding is that gender, as the term is used by gender theorists, IS thought to be a human construct. Whereas the physical characteristic of being male or female is referred to as "sex".
Whether it is correct to posit gender as a separate attribute apart from genital sexuality is another question.
Just to clarify the difference between sex and gender. The the first is physical; the second is behavioural and social.
Zombie wrote:
When he attacks neomarxist postmodernism, he sounds like a windbag spewing nonsense.
I agree that the derogatory terms often employed by right-wing culture warriors against the left are often nonsensical, conflating together things that are not at all the same.
In fairness, though, I've heard and read paid left-wing commentators use the word "neo-conservative" to refer to Margaret Thatcher and Ralph Klein, which is also pretty nonsensical, for anyone well-versed in the history of modern conservative factions.
6079_Smith_W:
Just to clarify the difference between sex and gender. The the first is physical; the second is behavioural and social.
You didn't read the article you posted. From that Wikipedia article:
The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not. Some languages, such as German or Finnish, have no separate words for sex and gender, and the distinction has to be made through context.
FWIW, Rev, when someone claims to be "genderfluid", I take that to mean that they feel socially male or socially female at different times (as opposed to their genitals or chromosomes or secondary sex characteristics continually changing).
One thing I do find interesting about current "gender politics" is that we've pretty much always had homosexuality, and we've pretty much always had transmen and transwomen. But all of the 30 or so other new "flavours" seem to have popped up in the last ten or fifteen years.
It's also interesting to me that people have "come out" as gay or trans at 50 or 60 or even older, however for some reason the "genderfluid" and "gender-ambigous" and "agendered" and "demigender" all seem to be millenials, somehow. I'd love to see the grandmother who insists that her grandchildred refer to "them" as "they".
So I decided to try to give Peterson a fair hearing, so I sat through his speeches on Youtube. Studied the 12 Rules, read the criticism of him, etc.
Kind of rating him psychologically, he seems to be a bit manic. He is also an attention-seeker. Shows absolutely no embarrassment or humility at applause, as if that should be expected. Bit of an ego thing, I suppose.
He read the diaries of the Columbine killers, which I would not recommend to anyone. Too much danger of psychological pollution. Yes, millions were killed by Stalin and Mao, but it is terminally ridiculous to compare that to modern SJWs. A lot of ideologies made mistakes, including capitalism and Christianity. To some degree, they were corrected. There is no reason Marxism cannot be used as a valid basis for analysis.
It seems to me that if you are going to label him any one thing, it would be a Social Darwinist. Money goes to the top, it is inevitable, and the only thing you can do is be more like successful people, and of course he has tons of advice for that based on many concepts we have all heard before. Take baby steps. Make little goals you can achieve. Do things which are difficult and get through them.
In supreme irony, the university professor tells us that university robs you of your future self.
It is ironic that Peterson says that pomo is a haven for Marxists, and Chomsky says it is the best philosophy yet for the Powers that Be, as it just confuses people and makes them feel inferior. However, there is grudging respect for intersectionality, which we have dealt with quite well here.
Peterson says that places with a bad GINI coefficient have more violence. So you could make an argument for wealth redistribution on that basis. He says it is hard for money to go down the hierarchy, however it is not. You tax, and redistribute, through an evidently scandalous concept called progressive taxation.
Some things are ironic, and have been observed. As a company grows, incompetence grows exponentially, while competence grows linearly. Which is a good case for decentralization and autonomy, such as epaulo13 has been talking about.
The basic algorithm is that the square root of the number of people do half the work/have half the money/sell half the records, etc. Going from the list of the top 100 billionaires to the entire Canadian population, this curve seems to fit.
The point is, it is only money and material things, and through progressive taxation we can redeal. So, it will probably reaccumulate, and probably to a different crew. So we redeal again, etc.
What I think is somewhat scandalous is that he calls that the Matthew principle quoting a verse from the NT book of that name. In archaic language, that is, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." (KJV)
I think he misses the spiritual message on this line, and so does everyone else who thinks this means that the rich get richer and the poor remain so. For one thing, that is in the future tense, which would make one think that it is what you spiritually have that will increase your blessings. If you have many spiritual things, it is easy to strive for more, as you are not worried so much about money.
Then in another speech he says that once you have enough to stave off poverty reasonably well, the pursuit of more money is a curse. Why would the Boss of the Afterlife want you to accumulate more money? You won't get it through the eye of the needle, etc. You only need a coin in each eye to get across the River Styx, not a gold brick.
"The professor of piffle" - Ira Wells.
"The stupid man's smart person" - Tabatha Southey.
Next!
@ Rev
What makes you think that?
Just because some people use the words interchangably doesn't mean they aren't two different concepts. Many human rights codes make the distinction between sex and gender, because they are different.
And Magoo, the concept might be new to some in our culture, but it has been around for awhile.
6079_Smith_W wrote:
Just because some people use the words interchangably doesn't mean they aren't two different concepts.
However, there is no general agreement that they are different concepts, and the article you posted made exactly that point (which statement I quoted).
Oh nonsense. Just because the Chinese horoscope sign is both a sheep and a goat doesn't mean there is "no general agreement " on the difference between sheep and goats. Try again.
6079_Smith_W wrote:
Try again.
Okay, I will. The article you posted to support your position said there was not general agreement that sex and gender were different things. I quoted directly from that article. Now, you either believe the sources you post, or what???
Here's another article about frogs:
Before you can determine a frog's gender, you need to know the frog's species, because male and female characteristics vary from one species to another. Appearance, mating behavior and calls can be good gauges of frog gender as long as the species is known.
11 animals that can change their gender:
For Mother Nature, gender isn’t always an either-or proposition. In fact, the animal world is filled with creatures that occupy an intriguing gray area between male and female. A few species come already assembled with simultaneously functioning female and male organs. Others (like the moray eel pictured) change from female to male or vice versa, depending on need or surrounding conditions. Still others wear their half male, half female status in a more visible way, literally displaying the colors and physical traits of both genders.
The reasons behind this gender mobility are as varied as the gender-benders themselves.
Now, if gender was only a human behaviour construct, the above articles wouldn't make any sense.So it seems that using gender to indicate sexual characteristics in animals is accepted as a normal part of writing about such things.
See now, in the examples you are using rev, that actually means biological sex - an example of using either term just to mean sex as pointed out in the wikipedia article.
By contrast Canada's Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code specify sex, gender identity and expression (which are themselves two separate things) as distinguishing features.
So again, just because some people don't recognize the differences, or misuse the words doesn't mean they aren't distinct concepts.
If you are interested, gender identity refers to how a person feels or identifies. Gender expression refers to how a person dresses or looks.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/gender-identity-and-gender-expression-brochure
If "sex" refers to observable and objective physical attributes like chromosomes, reproductive organs, genitals and secondary sex characteristics, and "gender" refers to the social behaviours, expressions or roles that we take on (sometimes consistent with our "sex" and sometimes in opposition to it) then what, specifically, does it mean if someone says "this is a female penis"?
From a "sex" point of view, it makes no more sense to pretend that penis is female than it does to pretend that our arms are wings.
From a "gender" point of view, adopting a female gender doesn't make one's chromosomes, reproductive organs or genitals automatically or logically female.
To be fair, it's not just the regressive and mouth-breathing dinosaurs who "don't get" the difference between sex and gender. The people who we might expect are on the bleeding edge of it all seem to also play loosey-goosey with the difference.
Otherwise, it's a male (sex) penis on a person who expresses a female gender. And male testes (the only kind!). And a male "Y" chromosome.
Oh hi Magoo. I was wondering when you were going to pop up. And yes, clearly lots of people mix the terms up. The article Rev posted is one example.
You know, people say all sorts of things (or claim someone else has said something) I don't try to account for; it is the internet, after all. These are actually basic and widely-accepted concepts - by the World Health Organization, and as I just mentioned, in Canadian law. That some people don't accept it (or use the terms interchangably) doesn't change that, or that people are regularly discriminated against based on it.
6079_Smith_W wrote:
Oh hi Magoo. I was wondering when you were going to pop up. And yes, clearly lots of people mix the terms up. The article Rev posted is one example.
Actually they were two examples (from two different writers), and I could have proved many more. So either all those writers are confused, or you are. Given the article you yourself posted said 'sex' and 'gender' were interchangeable, I'll take it that it is you who are confused.
