Latest hits: if gender is performative that means it’s fake and patriarchy doesn’t exist! I don’t know who Judith Butler is!
Of course you’ll have a better time talking about gender with other gender enthusiasts. It’s like complaining about how normies can’t have a conversation with you about cars for as long as car enthusiasts could.
‘Gender enthusiasts’ is probably my second favorite euphemism for trans people now. The first being from an old lady who was trying to politely ask if a woman was trans and asked if she was “a woman by choice” 😂
starts recording
Okay YouTube, this is my list of the TOP 10 genders of 2024! Tell me how many on this list you know about in the comments below. Leave a like and subscribe and let’s get into it. I’ll also be having a new video out soon about the best genders upcoming in 2025.
But before we get into todays video I would like to thank todays sponsor. This video has been sponsored by the Association of Gay Frogs
Number 15: Burger King foot lettuce
“factory stock” vs. “aftermarket custom”
Y’all overclock your gender?
deleted by creator
Genderfluid, gendergas, gendersolid, genderplasma
Undervolting, I’ve been told, can achieve similar, or sometimes better results, especially when paired with a less overclocked, but still higher gender clock speed…
For example: genderfluid, BUT only across the axis of gastrogenders. Agender also has potential, since in verbal conversation, it sounds dismissive, as if one is simply “a gender,” implying the other party should just guess.
I rather like the sound of “a woman by choice”, since it implies she is a woman, that it is a choice, and that the choice does apply. I’d be curious to hear opinions from trans people about that, but it seems very respectful.
Love it. Relevant xkcd
This is my first downdoot on a blahaj post post, or probably meme in general… I get it’s mostly just a joke, but still.
Cis people aren’t all fucked in the head or clueless, just like trans people aren’t. Allies are able to push for, or at least support trans rights, and unfortunately are a lifeline for trans folk that get shoved out of discussions for “bias.”
The “cis bad” memes just add to the lack of understanding, and force and “us vs them” mentality, based only on gender expression. It’s not even an optics thing… It just comes off as wanting to be a victim, before Mr Chadson or Ms Becky have been transphobic, or pushed for a bathroom bill, which almost demands a defensive attidude from them both.
Anyways, I have talked with people that are painfully unaware of how gender works/exists. Whether intentional or not, it is not a great time. I would dip out of the interaction ASAP, unless they are trying to understand or learn, which is kind of rare in most cases.
This meme says cis people are like babies and that I find them tiring, not that they are bad for being cis.
👍
-insert a good faith response to your bad faith, pedantic (at best) argument here-
“That’s right! It goes in the square hole!”
I don’t remember this part of sex ed.
American sex ed fails again.
Americans get sex ed??
there are so many people out there who can not fathom that the world could in fact be more complex than the version of it presented to them when they were children.
Im a cis person(tho probably not the kind you meant) and i think talking about gender is pretty tiring. I think everyone has their biases and everything but you can make yourself a good person by trying to understand why you have those biasesa at least. And also gender is a prettt complex thing.
If you’re being open minded and respectful even if you don’t understand something (or disengaging if you can’t) then probably 99% of trans people, myself included, aren’t going to have any issue with your questions or contributions to discussions about gender
It’s the (usually cis) people who are at Gender 101 level engagement, think they’re at Gender 501 level engagement, and also want to understand and learn nothing who make this so goddamn tiring 🥲
lol no disrespect, but you did just say “be open minded and respectful” after posting a meme equating all cis people to idiot babies
Yes, you (general you) as a cis person should be open minded and respectful about trans people, because you don’t know shit about what it’s like to be trans.
But…my point was you can’t say “be open minded and respectful, you dumb, nothing-going-on-upstairs idiot toddler.”
Do unto others, friend. That’s my point. Be respectful, don’t talk down to people and maybe you’ll be able to find that large swath of allies available to you. Because they do exist. But not if you actively repel them. Example: you’re in 196.blahaj and your attitude is not making you friends. You’re turning one of he most sympathetic, understanding spaces against you with your attitude. Seems like that might be your problem in the bigger picture, too. Learn from that.
“Be as respectful of my confident ignorance as you want me to be of your lived experience” isn’t what I fuck with, not sorry.
PS; I literally can’t see downvotes and don’t care. Downvoting me is a pacification button on your end.
I’m…not the one downvoting you. You’re entirely missing the point. And entirely mischaracterizing me. I support you. I want to see you flourish and succeed. That’s what I’ve been saying. But you are shutting the door in everyone’s faces and saying “why doesn’t anyone want to be in this room with me?! They must be bigots!” No, you have to let people support you. You can’t turn everyone away and then blame them for not being on your side.
And that’s not even people not being on your side! It’s that they personally don’t like you—no offense. It has nothing to do with your identity. But if your perception is bent through that particular lens, then you’re seeing a lack of people around you, specifically, as a lack of support for trans people. And that is not what’s happening.
See what I’m saying?
Let’s be honest here, that’s a long way of saying “the vast majority of people couldn’t give a shit either way how I live my life but they just really really wish I’d stop talking about myself for a minute” 😂
Ah, the vegan effect. Tbh I hadn’t thought about it that way before.
Talking about trains with my fellow train drivers:
Talking about trains with those fucking idiot bus drivers who don’t know shit:
I got hit with the exact opposite yesterday: “gender cannot be only performative because patriarchy exists and that would mean invalidating people hurt by it”
So tiring
So close yet so far, the entire point is that it’s performative and therefore millions of people were hurt for no real reason.
Can you please explain this in simple words to someone not knowing too much about how gender is ‘performative’ ?
I’m not a native speaker but I’m usually okay but new things needs to be learned :-)
A link is welcomed too ofc!
Stealing the answer because I’m nowhere near as articulate on this matter:
The basic (and simplified) idea is that gender–what we think of as masculine and/or feminine–is performed in the ways we act, speak, dress, move, etc. and doesn’t really exist outside of that performance. We learn how to perform this way from dominant culture and conventions–what someone might (incorrectly) call “normal male” or “normal female” behavior. But these “normal” qualities (and genders themselves) don’t actually exist–rather, we are all repeatedly mimicking them and are rewarded for doing so (or punished for not doing so). We merely impersonate the qualities we’ve been taught match the gender we’ve been told we possess (like females being demure or males being aggressive) until those impersonations (and gender itself) become belief and seen as something natural and assumed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dddcq/eli5butlers_gender_performativity/
Thank you very much!
Very simple to understand too IMO.
Forgot to add that male and female are not the same as man or woman. The former specifies the sexual characteristics of our species, but the latter is what we call the performance. See: drag queens.
So, in a nutshell, the assertion is that gender is entirely nurture and not nature.
Yeah, sorry, that is an extraordinary assertion and I’m going to need extraordinary proof.
Are there people for whom gender and sex don’t neatly match up, or even those for whom it is purely performative, sure.
But they are statistical outliers, and not representative of the majority experience.
People can be different then the statistical norm, and that’s ok, but to assert that this norm is entirely cultural is over the top self serving.
There are clearly things that fall under physical differences. People with penises will always find it easy to stand up while peeing, and that affects how bathrooms are arranged. These things fall under their sex.
There are clearly other things that don’t fall under those physical differences. Men can have long hair styles, but western culture doesn’t usually go that way. That hasn’t always been true, it’s more common now than it was in the 1950s, and other cultures make entirely different choices for hairstyles between men and women. These things fall under gender.
Which means gender is performative by definition. You fall into society’s rules for gender, or you deliberately break them, but it’s never something encoded in DNA or anything. If it is, then it’s sex, not gender.
I had hoped that as we as a society realised that gender is performative, it would make gender and these arbitrary gender roles less and less meaningful, to the point of eventually being effectively erased. That people could just say “this is my personality” and be accepted without needing to wrap it into definitions and groupings.
However what seems to be happening instead (from my perspective and experience) is that people are embracing the performative nature of gender more strongly, albeit with new non-traditional genders.
As a specific example, it seems like having one pronoun for everyone regardless of gender, would be better than inventing new pronouns in addition to the traditional gendered ones.
Note that I am happy to learn/hear other perspectives, or how mine is flawed.
Even sex isn’t particularly cut and dry (Relevant Radiolab Episode). Here’s hoping technologically enabled transhumanism makes it all moot.
Gender is definitionally cultural. A person’s sex is nature, but the bundle of signifiers that denote gender (as well as which categories exist at all) are largely arbitrary and divorced from that, and vary greatly across time and place. Women wearing pants was unheard of a century or so ago, and would 100% be perceived as queer, nowadays it’s completely normal. There were times when dueling was a virtually mandatory rite of passage to being considered a man. There are also historical cultures with more than two genders, and it’s not as if people in those cultures were biologically different from others.
There’s nothing “extraordinary” about this claim.
Pants could also be exclusively feminine clothing, depending on the region and time period. Also, the colour pink used to be considered masculine (as we’re all shades of red).
What I’m saying is, you’re absolutely correct, and gender expectations are completely reliant on the culture factor.
My understanding (and it could be incorrect) is that this is more of a definitional/philosophical thing.
Though you are more than welcome to read directly from the source Judith Butler who (to my understanding) first started this theory on gender:
https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1650/butler_performative_acts.pdf
There’s certainly a non-performative part, I feel it inside of me. But when I’m looking at other people I can’t see that, I can only see the performance. Tbh I’m not very good at doing woman despite my internal sense of self. Most of the things people think of in women are not very appealing to me, so I don’t do them. And I think it’s fair to say a lot of those things, like wearing certain kinds of clothing, are definitely not nature, but arbitrary.
Basically, there’s two (maybe more) things going on here both called gender which is very confusing. I’m sure the internal feelings are very correlated to biological factors, but the other parts? No.
Simone de Beauvoir has a great text on it called the Second Sex. It is also one of the pioneers of feminist theory :)
I literally had a moment today where I had to explain to a coworker that some feminine presenting women can have xy chromosomes or swyer syndrome. That apparently jenga towered his cis male beliefs on gender.
The more I look into genders and try to understand it the less I understand. On the gender wiki (apparently gender is so complex it has its own wiki??) I was reading about ‘genderfae’ and ‘genderfoe’ kinda understanding it, kinda not. But when I got to the comments and I saw “gender ≠ pronouns” in the comments and I just gave up trying to understand anything 😭
I’m sure I’ll look into it more at some point but for a ‘3am browsing Wikipedia because I can’t sleep™️’ adventure I did not have the critical thinking for that level of thoughtFWIW I would consider regular Wikipedia a much better source to learn about transgender 101 topics, the stuff you’re talking about is really niche even within the trans community, haha
The gender wiki is a bit much for me. I think a lot of its articles need to get revised a bit.
I see it as a heightened period of different people “trying shit out” when it comes to new gender identities. None of these are necessarily definitive norms that will define future society. As with any aspect of language and culture, it’s a part of an ongoing process of evolutionary change, adaptation, and discovery. Some might call it a church, some might call it a shifting paradigm, but it’s always going to be a bit messy and won’t necessarily make perfect sense right away.
Me frantically reading more Butler and Hooks so I’m not seen as a cis normie. /s
Removed by mod
Well yes you are absolutely correct from a materialist standpoint. If you limit reality to material things, then truths are limited to material knowledge. Emergent properties such as subjective experience, society/culture, and ultimately meaning and meaningfulness are excluded from what is considered reality and truth, except for their material correlates. And this is why philosophers moved on from materialism because, while highly fruitful, it was ultimately insufficient in capturing all forms of knowledge.
I prefer a pragmatic blend of constructivist realism.
Except they didn’t move from it, but now I am tired lol
You want to make me even more tired than I already am?
Don’t take the bait then 😘
Edit I mean any time anyone makes a comment which makes you tired :3
Removed by mod
If only good empirical books on trans research weren’t burned by the nazis at the start of their regime and trans literature/research weren’t being banned in the U.S. by the GOP…
-
I have published work in academia so I know from experience. Empirical evidence CAN be extremely biased depending on who is doing the writing. There’s a reason there’s a million (exaggerated, obviously I hope) studies showing that games are both good and bad, studies showing red wine both causes and prevents cancer, studies showing that the Brontosaurus wasn’t a real dinosaur but a misplacement of two different fossils, oh wait just kidding there was a new study that says it IS a real dinosaur. People are people, there’s no perfect study. When studying humans and their behavior, we only have theory that is constantly being rewritten. We have something called cronbach’s alpha that states that as long as data reaches 71% consistency or higher, it’s a valid study. All to say, you can’t always trust empirical evidence
-
Science already supports the idea of different genders. A basic college biology course could tell you that. Forget “there’s only two genders” the “two sexes” thing is also a myth. Humans have two different kinds of sex chromosomes, x and y. We can have I BELIEVE up to 3 at a time? XX is typically associated with FEMALE and XY is typically associated with MALE unless of course you have de la Chapelle syndrome and your XX chromosomes make you develop a penis instead of a vagina. This is just one example of being intersex. Up to 2% of the population is intersex, 4 times more than the number of cops in the U.S.
-
Gender being a science doesn’t mean boomers are open and willing to unpack their views of gender though. Unlearning things is painful, scientifically speaking. People HATE unlearning things. There’s lots of studies on cogitative dissonance, if you want to go read your empirical references.
-
Sorry, I’m not taking homework assignments from you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The fuck does this even mean lol
“Just write a thesis on why you’re right” no, lol
So, when you quote something, the trick is to make it something they actually said.
If they’re questioning your model then just provide a good empirical reference to support it
Yeah I guess that’s more “do my homework for me”
No, it’s saying they don’t understand what you want them to understand and they need help in a concrete way, but this issue doesn’t actually impact them except in the form of threads like this, so they sure aren’t gonna go research it themselves because that’s generally how humans work. I think I captured that right.
Or perhaps, instead of treating people who are broadly on your side like dumb children who simply aren’t trying to meet you half way, acknowledge that you need a different framework for communication with them. Or don’t.
The other poster probably meant something along those lines
Or perhaps, instead of treating people who are broadly on your side like dumb children
This thread isn’t about them, glad to clear that up
wah they don’t understand something I tell them
"Hey here’s a way to help them understand "
fuck you you’re not my teacher
I do not exist to educate people 24/7
Then you have no right to complain lmao, absolute child
Be nice. There’s no need to insult.
People aren’t required to teach you anything. Anyone educating during their free time is doing volunteer work.
lol how was my comment removed for transphobia!? This mod team needs to get educated and needs to read, you’re a joke
Edit you know what, idc. If someone’s feelings got hurt, then I am sorry. An Internet forum is not the place to air out my grievances with post modern frameworks. I think queer people deserve better, that’s just my take.
1st, Ada is the instance mod, we have no control over who she decides to ban.
2nd, let’s look at your comment. “I think some post modern schools of thought have a danger of getting high on their own farts, and sometimes it’s important to push back so we don’t lose grip on reality.”
Defend this. Be more specific. Communication requires a mix of efficiency and effectiveness. Your extremely broad statements allowed the instance mod to “misinterpret” your argument due to it’s lack of effectiveness. A lack of specifics forces the reader to interpret your meaning. “Post-modern frameworks” or “post modern schools” can mean anything from critical race theory to anti-Marx criticism.
You’re right that the comment is broad. So I am not talking about any one academic field, like CRT or Queer Theory, but instead I was talking about the underlying philosophical frameworks like post structuralism and new materialism.
One grievance I have in analyzing some of the underlying frameworks is that there seemed to be a schism between academics, which started in the 90s, indicating that some thinkers where trying to re-insert idealist and structural binaries into new materialism, whereas it seems the goal for new materialism was simply to provide a framework for avoiding correlationism.
Here’s one text which validates what I am saying, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s41286-016-0001-y.pdf
I have some other ideas on this regarding subjectivity, but let’s not get into that. But as far as anyone should be concerned, nothing I am saying is against queer people, minorities, or their rights and humanity.
I get where confusion can arise, so for my part I’ll just make sure to keep it clear. Tbh, I was sharing my perspective as a hot take, so it makes sense why someone would find it provocative. I don’t think there’s any reason to assume bigotry, though.
I’m not surprised that comment was pulled, I’d have also assumed bad intentions.
Since these moderation events often attract people like moths to a flame, consider this: those in LGBTG community spaces may seem a smidge jumpy as bigots often mask their bigotry with imprecise language. What likely is poor word choice in another community has a much higher chance of being thinly veiled abuse here. Cut the mods some slack and please try to use more precise language, especially about sensitive topics.
Okay I agree, but I maintain that that comment and any other ones removed weren’t thinly veiled insults or the like. If they were insulting to anything, it’s some niche philosopher somewhere and not necessarily to some distant and distinct application. I’ll keep it chill going forward. I mean, I just want to shitpost and not create headaches for mods.
I understand. I don’t intend to dogpile, just explain one aspect of why sometimes LGBTQ+ space mods seem so reactive. They often have to handle more than the average mod.
deleted by creator
