Do you mean thiis dictionary definition is incorrect? gender 2 The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles Number ! doesn't seem to fit this topic either. 1 A grammatical category in inflected languages governing the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives; n some languages it is quite arbitrary but in Indo-European languages it is usually based on sex or animateness
The word "gender" that your generation grew up using has undergone a slow semantic shift over the past 30 years. Grammatical gender doesn't really apply, but it's actually kind of relevant because some languages have dozens of grammatical genders! There isn't just two. Hell, even English has three genders.
Shit. I learned at a very young age I liked girls. I never was the type to be mean to girls I liked, even at 4, 5, 6, and on. I'd be like, "you're the raspberry jelly to my peanut butter." If I had known what sex was, I had a high sex drive at a very early age. There was no aha moment for me. I don't think many have an "aha" moment. I think many just have a natural attraction, and that's the way it is. That's why I think hate towards gays is such a terrible thing. It's a natural feeling and attraction they have for the same sex just as I view the opposite sex. You can't hate that.
Please don't think this is insensitive, these are legit questions I have (and like oldguy said, I didn't even know some of the topics in this thread were actual topics, so kudos), and I'll use a real-life public figure as an example... Chelsea Manning (I'm pretty sure) has the body that is physically male, XY chromosomes, etc. She has now asked to be identified as a woman, changed her name, and desires treatments/surgeries/whatever to make that happen. Fair enough. Pre-name change, Private Bradley Manning (I assume) had the same desires/thoughts/feelings/"gender leanings" that Chelsea does now. Would it have been legal and/or appropriate for Private Bradley Manning to have been using the women's bathroom, showering with women, living in the women's barracks because he identified as a woman gender-ally, vice being male physically? Or was it an infringement on his rights to make him do the same with the physically male? I ask because there doesn't seem to be a way to reconcile it--either it's an infringement on the rights of the trans-person to be forced to utilize the facilities that they physically identify with, rather than how they identify gender-ally; or you do away with physical male/physical female segregation and segregate by gender identification (sexual identification?), which seems to be a "separate but equal" issue waiting to come up. Put another way, I personally would feel as uncomfortable with a physical female (who identified with male) taking a shower next to be in the gym, on the submarine, etc. Chelsea Manning (even knowing her sexuality, how she identifies, etc) taking a shower next to me would not be an issue. Would you say that's just bigotry on my part? Is that something that society should be cleansed of? And (not legally, but societally) are we all comfortable with physical males able to walk into women's showers without question, and assume that they are there with good intentions because they identify with being a female, vice being a predator? Again, just mho, but I tend to error on the side of protecting women, because I don't believe in the inherent goodness of individuals.
I know someone like you. I made this face once in an online conversation ":O~", and this guy I was speaking with immediately thought of guy on guy action for some reason. You're just like him, I think that reflects more on you dude, and your insecurity and the thoughts going through your head. ;] I accept you no matter what, no worries. :O
It sounds like you and I have different meanings to "strawberry sandwich". You've clearly made the wrong conclusion. I am insulted and feel attacked. But really, while the third sentence is apparently in violation of S2 rules as I understand them, sentences 1 and 2 are totally serious.
Now you're getting somewhere. Realize that for transgendered, they had no aha moment, they just have a natural feeling they're the opposite gender of their genitals.
The gay guys in Monty Python liked to cross dress. They didn't look like women, nor did they claim to be.
I wasn't going to make the comment at all, as I knew you'd respond as if it somehow supported hat you were arguing. But I don't agree. I had a better answer ready last night, but after working until 10pm followed by a shitty night's sleep, I don't remember my retort. But suffice to say, for gay people who always knew they were gay, why didn't they identify with being transgendered and straight instead (say, crandc feels she's really a straight man in a woman's body). If we're talking biological sex, to me, I don't really think you're going to convince me that someone with a penis is a woman and vice versa. By all means, please keep trying. I'll ask the questions and I'll listen. And from it, if nothing else, there's a greater understanding of a different viewpoint.
She's addressed your question more than once. You can be straight/transgendered or gay/transgendered. In other words, gender is not tied to sexual preference. I really do think you're close to "getting it." You say "gay people always knew they were gay" and you can accept that. Transgendered people "always knew they were gender opposite their genitals." It's no leap; it's obvious.
If Manning dresses (near) full time as a male, presents as a male, etc., he's a male. He's assumed that gender. He uses the men's facilities. Guys like him have probably been in the showers next to you many times and you didn't know it. Were you harmed in some way?
