Cerberus Seven |
GM_Beernorg wrote:I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.
So, basically the Diamond Club, but with tentacles?
InVinoVeritas |
GM_Beernorg wrote:I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.
I'm curious about how they shopped for a publisher. Was that path documented anywhere?
Caineach |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caineach wrote:I'm curious about how they shopped for a publisher. Was that path documented anywhere?GM_Beernorg wrote:I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.
InVinoVeritas |
InVinoVeritas wrote:They have a youtube chanelCaineach wrote:I'm curious about how they shopped for a publisher. Was that path documented anywhere?GM_Beernorg wrote:I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.
Thank you! This is brilliant!
Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM_Beernorg wrote:I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.
i would argue that this has always been the case, since penny dreadfuls through twilight through whatever nonsense your grandkids will read.
InVinoVeritas |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caineach wrote:i would argue that this has always been the case, since penny dreadfuls through twilight through whatever nonsense your grandkids will read.GM_Beernorg wrote:I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.
Yes, this isn't really as much the YA state of affairs as the paranormal romance state. But in either case, there's always been a market for cheesy readers for as long as they have existed.
It's still kind of cool to watch the process.
Kirth Gersen |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I was cooped up in a hotel room Saturday night, and Mrs Gersen seized the remote for the giant TV, and she tuned in to the "Twilight" movie and jacked up the volume, so there was no escape. And I realized what I dislike so much about it.
The main character has no agency. She doesn't have to make decisions. She doesn't have to expend any effort for any reason. She doesn't need to be smart, or brave, or skilled, or charming, or anything -- she doesn't even need to be sentient. She doesn't drive the plot. She just sits around, and for no apparent reason, everyone wants to dote on her and protect her and maybe magically give her super powers.
See, when I watch something like "The Maltese Falcon," and I think about how cool it would be to be just like Sam Spade, I can only blame myself for not being more like him -- I'm forced to realize that I'm not that smart. But if Mrs Gersen watches "Twilight," and thinks about how cool it would be to be just like Bella, she can always blame me -- because I'm not a hot, rich, immortal teenage superhero. "Twilight" teaches you that you just inherently deserve everything, without doing anything. It's all about entitlement.
Freehold DM |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I was cooped up in a hotel room Saturday night, and Mrs Gersen seized the remote for the giant TV, and she tuned in to the "Twilight" movie and jacked up the volume, so there was no escape. And I realized what I dislike so much about it.
The main character has no agency. She doesn't have to make decisions. She doesn't have to expend any effort for any reason. She doesn't need to be smart, or brave, or skilled, or charming, or anything -- she doesn't even need to be sentient. She doesn't drive the plot. She just sits around, and for no apparent reason, everyone wants to dote on her and protect her and maybe magically give her super powers.
See, when I watch something like "The Maltese Falcon," and I think about how cool it would be to be just like Sam Spade, I can only blame myself for not being more like him -- I'm forced to realize that I'm not that smart. But if Mrs Gersen watches "Twilight," and thinks about how cool it would be to be just like Bella, she can always blame me -- because I'm not a hot, rich, immortal teenage superhero. "Twilight" teaches you that you just inherently deserve everything, without doing anything. It's all about entitlement.
I have heard this argument before and feel it applies nicely to most romances.
DrDeth |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about the whole "cis good or bad" debate that gets me all rustled is people like Lazar acting like turnabout is fair play there.The term "cis scum" is fine to use because trans people have had slurs thrown at them for a long time...and somehow that makes it okay?
That kind of double standard makes communication difficult as well. I don't call black people the N-word or gay people the British word for cigarette because those are appalling words to call people, and they just help to promote racial and social tension among groups.
So deciding that, for some reason, that standard doesn't apply to the other side is baffling to me. It's still a terrible thing to do, and promotes that same social tension.
There's too much of this attitude that payback is inherently righteous in these social justice conversations. Yes, someone called you a bad word. That doesn't give you a chit you can cash in to call someone entirely unrelated a bad word for every time you've heard it.
A lot of these Tumblr blogs and whatnot seem to operate entirely on this principle.
Saying "F&%! all trans people, kill 'em all" is clearly f~#&ing horrendous.
"Die cis scum" and "Kill all men/white men" are somehow then rallying cries, not only acceptable but LAUDABLE (and as many are saying right now in regards to that second, my mere bringing up of this fact merely reinforces the idea that it is a necessary and good idea to spread.).
This is far more of a problem when it comes to these issues than "Talking past people". Talking past someone merely prolongs the discussion, sending it in circles. No progress is made.
The double standards, meanwhile, regress the discussion instead. Negative progress is made. Everyone comes out of the discussion MORE convinced for LESS REASON that their side is right and the other is insane.
Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."
So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.
So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!
We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.
This just leads to more anger and intolerance.
Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.
DrDeth |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.
Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.
And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.
Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?
"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.
thejeff |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."
So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.
So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!
We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.
This just leads to more anger and intolerance.
Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.
It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".
thejeff |
Lissa Guillet wrote:Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.
And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.
Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?
"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.
If and when that 20 year old is showing his youth and health privilege, sure. For example, if he's making assumptions about something you can't easily do due to your arthritis.
Privilege is always a relative concept. "Check your privilege" is just a reminder that what seems easy and obvious from your point of view, given your life experience, might not be the same for others.
DrDeth |
DrDeth wrote:Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."
So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.
So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!
We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.
This just leads to more anger and intolerance.
Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.
It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term "non-transgender" instead of "cisgender." The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn't carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.
Often the words don't need to be used at all. When describing someone's sexual orientation, do you really need to use "transgender" or "cisgender" as a prefix to it?
As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in which they are necessary, appropriate, and ultimately beneficial to the community as a whole."
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:DrDeth wrote:Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."
So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.
So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!
We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.
This just leads to more anger and intolerance.
Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.
It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term "non-transgender" instead of "cisgender." The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn't carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.
Often the words don't need to be used at all. When describing someone's sexual orientation, do you really need to use "transgender" or "cisgender" as a prefix to it?
As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in...
There are arguments against "non-transgender" as well, generally that identifying people specifically by what they are not isn't usually a good idea.
Certainly, the words don't usually need to be used. There is rarely a need to specify "trans" or "cis" when talking about sexual orientation, since they don't relate to orientation. It's generally only useful when talking about gender identification issues. "Cisgender" should be used sparingly, as you suggest. And it is.
I'd also add that when minorities ask others "please dont use that term, it offends me", they can usually point out either specific linguistic reasons it's offensive or a history of prejudice and discrimination attached to the word.
Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, no one has ever called me "cis" in person. When I attend a party thrown by gay friends, I have been called the "token straight guy," and stuff like that -- usually in a friendly, joking manner -- but that's a far cry from what some of the {cis, straight} people here seem to be complaining about.
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are arguments against "non-transgender" as well, generally that identifying people specifically by what they are not isn't usually a good idea.
This is a bit of an odd statement, considering that this is basically what cisgender means.
I suppose there's a very, very, slight difference in the same way that "Over here" is not QUITE the same as "Not over there", but that's a pretty thin hair.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:There are arguments against "non-transgender" as well, generally that identifying people specifically by what they are not isn't usually a good idea.This is a bit of an odd statement, considering that this is basically what cisgender means.
I suppose there's a very, very, slight difference in the same way that "Over here" is not QUITE the same as "Not over there", but that's a pretty thin hair.
It's not what it means at all. I mean, it refers to the same concept, so the actual meaning of the words is the same, but it's not at all what the word comes from. Being identified as "not-something" is very different from having your own term.
Rynjin |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is where the word comes from, and is much a similar example to what I used.
Trans (Across, on the other side) vs Cis (not across, on this side).
Mind you I've already said I don't mind the term (merely the way it's often used, and the mind bending logic of "You're not allowed to be offended when someone calls you cis scum"), but that seems an odd reasoning to me.
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:I'd also add that when minorities ask others "please dont use that term, it offends me", they can usually point out either specific linguistic reasons it's offensive or a history of prejudice and discrimination attached to the word.That article includes such.
I missed the specific linguistic reasons and the history is pretty damn short and slim.
Nothing at all like the history attached to nearly any popular slur minorities are bothered by. Even the article talks about it being used mostly neutrally in academia and in policy and sociology discussions.
Again, I'm perfectly willing to accept a different term - come up with something that's not explicitly "not-trans" or "normal" and I'd be perfectly willing to jump on board and start using it. In all the discussions I've had about how horrible "cis" is, I've never seen a real alternative proposed.
thejeff |
That is where the word comes from, and is much a similar example to what I used.
Trans (Across, on the other side) vs Cis (not across, on this side).
Mind you I've already said I don't mind the term (merely the way it's often used, and the mind bending logic of "You're not allowed to be offended when someone calls you cis scum"), but that seems an odd reasoning to me.
If someone calls you "cis scum", feel free to be offended. I would be.
Mostly by the "scum". Much like if someone called me "white scum" or "male scum" or "straight scum".
The "cis" part doesn't bother me.
But yeah, I get that the words are chosen to be opposites. It's still not the same as just adding a not. Maybe because cisgender parses out as (not-trans)gender, rather than as not-(transgender).
Freehold DM |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin wrote:That is where the word comes from, and is much a similar example to what I used.
Trans (Across, on the other side) vs Cis (not across, on this side).
Mind you I've already said I don't mind the term (merely the way it's often used, and the mind bending logic of "You're not allowed to be offended when someone calls you cis scum"), but that seems an odd reasoning to me.
If someone calls you "cis scum", feel free to be offended. I would be.
Mostly by the "scum". Much like if someone called me "white scum" or "male scum" or "straight scum".
The "cis" part doesn't bother me.
But yeah, I get that the words are chosen to be opposites. It's still not the same as just adding a not. Maybe because cisgender parses out as (not-trans)gender, rather than as not-(transgender).
I smile when people call me rebel scum.
Aranna |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One could look at stuff like this another way. The goal is to communicate with other people. If you use language they will misinterpret then you have failed to communicate. Sometimes this is unavoidable especially on the Internet but too many times I see people who refuse to adapt their speech to their audience and I can only shake my head in sadness, these people won't be understood clearly in fact they may even be communicating meanings they don't intend.
Now if you don't know your audience then try to be more like Tacticslion and make each point clear regardless of the amount of text it requires.
Let's look at cis. If you were speaking to an LGBT crowd then you could probably use the term without misunderstanding. However if you were speaking to a group of straight people you aren't familiar with then you should use another term as it's more likely the only use of the term some of these people will have heard of it was as an insult if they even know the term at all. That is of course if your intention is not to insult or confuse people... Which isn't a given on the internet.
thejeff |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One could look at stuff like this another way. The goal is to communicate with other people. If you use language they will misinterpret then you have failed to communicate. Sometimes this is unavoidable especially on the Internet but too many times I see people who refuse to adapt their speech to their audience and I can only shake my head in sadness, these people won't be understood clearly in fact they may even be communicating meanings they don't intend.
Now if you don't know your audience then try to be more like Tacticslion and make each point clear regardless of the amount of text it requires.
Let's look at cis. If you were speaking to an LGBT crowd then you could probably use the term without misunderstanding. However if you were speaking to a group of straight people you aren't familiar with then you should use another term as it's more likely the only use of the term some of these people will have heard of it was as an insult if they even know the term at all. That is of course if your intention is not to insult or confuse people... Which isn't a given on the internet.
The problem still is that there really isn't another common term, so what I'd be likely to do in a case where I was bringing it up would be to use "cisgender", explain it the first time, and then use it thereafter rather than say "people whose gender identity matches their assigned gender" every time.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem still is that there really isn't another common term, so what I'd be likely to do in a case where I was bringing it up would be to use "cisgender", explain it the first time, and then use it thereafter rather than say "people whose gender identity matches their assigned gender" every time.
You can probably do that with A term.
But there are posts on the thread, ironically discussing how hard it is to communicate this stuff, where I've had to crash my browser opening wiki pages to translate sentences.
thejeff |
The jeff wrote:The problem still is that there really isn't another common term, so what I'd be likely to do in a case where I was bringing it up would be to use "cisgender", explain it the first time, and then use it thereafter rather than say "people whose gender identity matches their assigned gender" every time.You can probably do that with A term.
But there are posts on the thread, ironically discussing how hard it is to communicate this stuff, where I've had to crash my browser opening wiki pages to translate sentences.
That's true. But that's because it's hard to talk about and uses a lot of concepts that really are outside of most people's experience. Even in that sentence, "assigned gender" probably requires more explanation and "gender identity" might.
But you can't talk about things if you have to explain them all down to the basics with every reference. That's not a problem with "cis", but with the actual concepts.BigNorseWolf |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
]That's true. But that's because it's hard to talk about and uses a lot of concepts that really are outside of most people's experience.
How does the jargon help that?
The jargon also gets used when its completely unnecessary.
Even in that sentence, "assigned gender" probably requires more explanation and "gender identity" might.
It seems to get used to push the idea that gender is an entirely arbitrary social construct rather than a mostly accurate description of of mammalian biology. I don't know if that's because a lot of the social justice types are into...well sociology and societal explanations.
But you can't talk about things if you have to explain them all down to the basics with every reference. That's not a problem with "cis", but with the actual concepts.
Most of the concepts don't seem that complicated. The ones that are aren't given extra enlightenment from the jargon: whether you define things in terms of privlidge or just "people treat other people differently based on a lot of stuff" you get the same idea. I haven't seen anything you couldn't put in a sentence of hulk speak if you keep it reality based and aren't trying to read something into how they're expressed.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
There's some pretty compelling evidence that your gender is hardwired into your brain whether you're cis or trans. That makes it just as biological and far more important than the plumbing.
thejeff |
Rynjin wrote:Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
There's some pretty compelling evidence that your gender is hardwired into your brain whether you're cis or trans. That makes it just as biological and far more important than the plumbing.
But there's a distinction to be drawn, whether you call it "sex" and "gender" or "biological" and "psychological". That's why I used the jargon "gender identity" and "assigned gender". At least if someone doesn't understand those terms, they'll probably realize they don't understand rather than just assume a common meaning and misunderstand.
Most people don't have to deal with these concepts, because they all line up and get lumped together into a single thing: assigned gender, gender identity, sex, gender, it all matches, so it's easy to think of as just one concept. Often gender role gets blurred into it as well. In order to talk about it, you have to learn new concepts.And that's the point of jargon, in nearly any field. To give you words to go with those new concepts or to draw distinctions not made in normal language.
CBDunkerson |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin wrote:Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
There's some pretty compelling evidence that your gender is hardwired into your brain whether you're cis or trans. That makes it just as biological and far more important than the plumbing.
There are also more than two variables involved in 'sex/gender';
Genotype - Genetic gender. XX 'female', XY 'male', and various less common results which may be classified as male, female, both, or neither.
Phenotype - Physical gender. May be different than genotype gender due to biological processes or chemical/surgical alterations.
Gender identity - The gender someone perceives themselves as. Again, not a binary choice.
Sexual identity - Usually defined as the gender 'opposite' that which someone is attracted to. Itself a multi-dimensional variable given the existence and possibility of being attracted to multiple 'genders' of multiple different types.
Cultural gender - The gender that someone's behaviour as perceived as based on cultural norms. E.g. 'boys like sports'.
Which is why even newish classifications like 'cisgender' are inadequate to describe the complexity. For example, many people with AIS are genetically XY 'male', have the external physical characteristics usually associated with 'females' (though with internal testes rather than ovaries), and think of themselves as 'male'. Their sexual and cultural identity could then also be male, female, or something else.
A 'better' system in my opinion would be to have terminology for the more frequent variations and then an umbrella "it's complicated" term.
MMCJawa |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin wrote:Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
There's some pretty compelling evidence that your gender is hardwired into your brain whether you're cis or trans. That makes it just as biological and far more important than the plumbing.
All I can say is that in my field, sex (marine mammal biology) sex is always used for the plumbing, while gender is considered to be something you apply when dealing with humans. If I were to write a sentence that said "For this study, I sampled 10 individuals for both genders of Harbor Seal", it would come back with lots of red ink requiring changing gender to sex" That is in general how it sex and gender is treated in biology, because a seal can't really articulate the concept of gender.
Orfamay Quest |
Rynjin wrote:Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
That's not right, and ignores everything that's been learned about the nature/nurture debate over the past century. Some psychology is biology, some is experiential. One of the big questions is how much of "gender" falls in which camp.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf wrote:That's not right, and ignores everything that's been learned about the nature/nurture debate over the past century. Some psychology is biology, some is experiential. One of the big questions is how much of "gender" falls in which camp.Rynjin wrote:Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
In a strict reductive sense it's all biology. Just horribly complicated, emergent biology.
We just call that part of biology: psychology.
Orfamay Quest |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:That's not right, and ignores everything that's been learned about the nature/nurture debate over the past century. Some psychology is biology, some is experiential. One of the big questions is how much of "gender" falls in which camp.Rynjin wrote:Re: Biology, you're confusing sex and gender.
Quick and dirty: Sex is biological, gender is psychological.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
In a strict reductive sense it's all biology. Just horribly complicated, emergent biology.
We just call that part of biology: psychology.
Not in a meaningful sense. Anything that is learning-dependent hinges too much on the learning experience to be "biology."
If I ask you why the Cowboys lost a particular game, and you answer that the starting quarterback was hurt and the backup didn't know the playbook, that's a meaningful answer.
If you tell me that they lost because of horribly complicated emergent biology, you've told me nothing.
BigNorseWolf |
For example, many people with AIS are genetically XY 'male', have the external physical characteristics usually associated with 'females' (though with internal testes rather than ovaries), and think of themselves as 'male'. Their sexual and cultural identity could then also be male, female, or something else.
AIS= androgen insensitivity syndrome? If that's the case when its total the person tends to identify as female and has about the same rate of a preference for males as other women.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cultural gender - The gender that someone's behaviour as perceived as based on cultural norms. E.g. 'boys like sports'.
This is what I was disagreeing with before when someone mistakenly thought i was confusing terms: I was not. The vast majority of "cultural norms" are descriptive of underlying biologically driven behavior. The exact form they take is cultural (football, soccer, lacrosse, kicking a ball through a hoop) but "boys like sports" is prevalent in far too many cultures and has too many analogs in our closest relatives to be a cultural phenomenon. Society certainly exacerbates it to different degrees (no women allowed and you will play football boy and you will like it!) but it doesn't do so ex nilo.
Scythia |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are arguments against "non-transgender" as well, generally that identifying people specifically by what they are not isn't usually a good idea.
For those who have a difficult time understanding this, try something: think about how any people of colour you know would react if you called them non-white. Think about how any women you know would like being called non-male. Think about how Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim people you know would like being called non-Christian. Think about how any older adults you know would like being called non-young.
I bet they wouldn't like it very much.