The discussion on Andrej Pejic made me think of the distinction between gender, sex, presentation and sexuality, and I decided to toss out a quick post explaining the differences. Obviously, we are all Advanced Gender Warriors here, saving the Internet with the power of our keyboards, and so need no review, but for the few unenlightened philistines who will come across this post while searching for man-on-dog porn, here it is.
Sex is a person’s “bits”: the physical, biological shape of their body. Generally, there are considered to be three sexes: male, female and intersex. “Male” is a person with XY chromosomes, a penis, sperm and the ability to grow a beard; “female” is a person with XX chromosomes, a vagina, eggs and the ability to bleed for a week every month and not die; “intersex” is a person born with a combination of these characteristics or ambiguous characteristics. Some people regard trans as a separate sex, since trans people usually have different bits from cis people; others do not, because that leads the way into thinking that trans people are somehow less the gender they identify as.
Gender is a person’s identity: what they say that they are. Usually, people identify as a “man” or a “woman,” which are called the binary genders. Other people identify as “genderqueer,” which is the usual catchall term for hundreds of possible non-binary gender identities, from neutrois to bigendered to genderfluid. A special shoutout must be made to the agendered, who do not have a gender identity at all; they identify with their current sex, but if they woke up one morning in the body of another sex, would feel little to no dysphoria.
Presentation is whether a person tends to have more of the traits usually associated with women, or the traits usually associated with men. Lipstick-wearers are called “feminine; buzzcut-bearers are called “masculine”; people with lipstick and buzzcuts are called “androgynous.” Sometimes this is called gender performance by sociologists and people who read too much Judith Butler.
Sexual orientation is which gender or genders a person tends to be sexually attracted to. A person who likes people of the same gender is called “homosexual”; a person who likes people of the opposite gender is called “heterosexual.” People who don’t experience sexual attraction are called “asexual.” People who like multiple genders usually identify as bisexual, but can have a plethora of other labels (pansexual! trysexual! sapiosexual! homoflexible!) that describe particular variations on the theme. Sexual orientation gets very complicated very quickly, as you can see by all the labels for people attracted to multiple genders and issues like some kinky people who identify as orientationally into BDSM, but that’s enough for a quick summary.
The most important thing to notice is that all of these are independent axes. Of course, there are some correlations, and the most common forms are feminine female heterosexual woman and masculine male heterosexual man; however, it is completely possible for a person to be a feminine agendered bisexual man, or a masculine male* straight woman, or any other combination you care to name. This is the wonderful diversity of human sexuality and genders. Therefore, you cannot assume from someone being feminine that that person is a woman, or from someone being interested in women that that person is male, or whatever. Gender identity just doesn’t work like that.
*Presumably she wouldn’t be out yet…
“Sexual orientation gets very complicated very quickly, as you can see by all the labels for people attracted to multiple genders….” I have friend who recently revealed to me that he was gay. Visibly he was quite stressed and concerned at how I would react when he told me. He talked about how he struggled for years with the label of being gay. He handle his fear by trying to be “straight”. He even married and tried to have children. He still is not completely comfortable with his sexual orientation, saying there is no way in the world he would… Read more »
“Anti discrimination laws covering things people can’t change about themselves” Is proving immutability necessary for nondiscrimination? If so, should religion/nonreligion be removed as a protected class? What about choice things like refusal to move out of area? Repression based around choice isn’t good either.
@Toysoldier A ‘natural hair colour’ rule would not be covered under section 1. And 3a) is not impractical, it’s just anti-sexist… it says that employers cannot force gender presentation on an employee. Businesses may want this right to repress their workforce but, as I said earlier, any gains they may enjoy are the result of adverse choices made through game theory. There is no legitimate productivity interest served by consistent binary gender presentation. 3c) And again, it’s an illegitmate restriction you’re defending. 3d) again, it’s an idiotic business model with no legitimate purpose… a sweater vest’s presence will have no… Read more »
From the top: Items 1 and 2 are currently the standard used by businesses. Item 3 is where things start to get tricky. For example, 3a is impractical because it renders the separate dress codes for men and women moot. It also ignores that businesses may want their male and female employees to dress differently for business-related reasons. The next one, 3b, seems to bar employers from deciding their own dress code. Subsection 3c undermines the purpose of the dress code. If the code only lists certain items as appropriate, then only those items should be allowed. Subsection 3d makes… Read more »
Well… let’s begin by setting some universalist standards in a proposed Greater Presentation Act 1. Presenatation: An employer can circumscribe, within reason a modality of presentation if it can be said to: a) Interfere with necessary lines of sight for any worker or customer. b) Impedes the safety or security of the employee or others. c) Makes an explicit political statement, in areas including but not limited to: Partisan views, religious views, views on sexual freedom, ethnicity, class, or why a beer is better than a woman. 2. Uniform: An employer can prescribe a level of shared dress deemed necessary… Read more »
Not employers. And it needn’t be part of a dress code either, or specifically prohibited.
Actually, such speech is protected under the law. The only the expression that is banned if it directly incites violence or if it is determined to be socially obscene. Otherwise you can say or wear whatever you want, even if it bothers other people.
“Similarly, what happens if one of the green hair person’s co-workers comes in wearing a shirt, or with a tattoo that says “green haired people are an abomination”. The employer can’t do anything about it because the co-worker also has a right to present themselves however they choose.”
Wrong, hatred has no right to be legitimated. It is expression, but it is also incitation to violence, so it’s legal to ban such.
darksidecat, Anti discrimination laws covering things people can’t change about themselves is a completely different issue to what Valerie was suggesting. Putting too much emphasis on favouring the employees can result in some pretty crazy outcomes. Adding more legislation can have a negative effect as it adds to the bureaucracy, it enables people to abuse it to the detriment of people who weren’t doing wrong in the first place, and it may not be all that effective at stopping the problem in the first place. For example, Valerie suggests that employees have the right to present themselves anyway they want.… Read more »
@desipis, you might want to study a bit of history and look up terms. National socialist does not equal socialist, it is a misnomer, as these fascist groups were explicitly capitalist. In addition, communists and marxists were amoung the first targets and were sent to prisons and concentration camps. Being caught in possession of the works of Marx or Engel (or a number of other socialists, including the more totalitarian Leninist and Stalinist works) was enough to get a person killed or sent to a concentration campt Nazis burned buildings and blamed it on communists as large part of their… Read more »
In Alberta they take my word for it, but I do have to affirm it… anyway, we’d be way off topic if I went on about how much better common law is, but it does ensure something doesn’t necessarily have to be strictly codified to be part of the body of law. Plus it took Quebec until last year to effectively fund vaginoplasty (I say effectively because they said they’d fund it in any public hospital but no doctor in the public system agreed to provide the service… inflexibility can often have significant negative effects.) Here it was funded for… Read more »
@Valerie
That is a difference between the French (as in France’s) civil law code and the English common law. And we use both, imagine. But for paperwork stuff it’s civil law. So I have to prove my innocence in changing name (my non-fraudness).
And yet, in Alberta, on the right, I can change my name without a doctor’s note, or go to school in French or English regardless of where my parents were born and what their first language was.
This, by the by, is my problem with rights being understood collectively instead of individually or through the polity.
Oh and religious practice is legal. Theocratic reign and the likes is not. Michele Bachmann would have 1% vote here, maybe in the best climate possible. People who speak to God and want to ban social programs? Would never get elected even in war time.
Did I mention that Quebec province is so left it makes the province look extremely left compared to the US? We don’t make any allowance for religion. Circumcision is a barbaric practice best left to others, not financed. Religious reasons won’t cut it. Abortion is legal across the board. Same-sex marriage legal and no religious opposition to it. Universal healthcare, in bad shape almost solely due to the US offering the best-wages-in-the-world for doctors (and paying a damn lot for it, too – given the US spend twice as much on healthcare per capita). But that does not turn away… Read more »
I mean, does not = totalitarian oppression.
“If you want to differentiate yourself from capitalism without inferring government control over the economy you might want to chose a different label from ‘socialist’.”
Government control = Totalitarian oppression
So a government that works for the greater good of its people, without FIRST concerning itself with pecularities about the economics profit, would be socialist. One with universal healthcare and safety nets for people who can’t work or who have other issues that make employment too difficult to accomodate (and being trans is almost that).
Well I don’t know to whom you refer in that last paragraph, but I can tell you I’ve consistently fought against hate speech laws… to quote an old prime minister I’m rather fond of when he spoke against the outlawing of the Communist Party:
You can outlaw wrongdoing but you can’t outlaw wrong thinking.
That is, however divorced from calling out the aforementioned thoughts as shoddy, disingenous, badly reasoned, and ultimately, as evidence is presented, increasingly willfully ignorant to the point of bigotry.
darksidecat, but capitalism doesn’t get the blame for the nazis. That’s because the Nazi’s were “National Socialists”. They were the “everybody working together for Germany” to the Soviet “everybody working together for the world” and in stark contrast to the Anglo “everybody free to do their own thing”. If you want to differentiate yourself from capitalism without inferring government control over the economy you might want to chose a different label from ‘socialist’. Leftists also are not given credit for things like the social progresses of their union movements or education movements To a certain extent, I agree. However, those… Read more »
“If you look at the history of the last century you’ll see that socialist countries (both right wing and left wing) the outcomes for everyone (including minorities) tend to be a lot worse. As soon as you centralise economic power, it tends to centralise political power and minorities become much more vulnerable to popularist or ideological threats.” Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. “centralise economic power” Who says socialism does this? Your statement here is one sort “citation needed”. Especially considering how influential socialist groups have been in social progress within some western powers as well. For example, the March on… Read more »
Valerie, Schala:
I’d rather focus on learning to cure the people with brain damage who believe they are chair legs or pretty ballerinas whilst extending more rights and protections to trans people than to argue with either of you.
Schala: You cannot have it both ways. If you want to define a person’s identity based on their brain, you have to give a reason this should only apply to trans people and no one else. A few weeks ago I had to explain to David Futrelle that just because two groups of people share similar ideas does not mean they influenced each other. I do not think the Darth Vader “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy” tact works in your favor. As for the brain not changing, ask someone with post traumatic stress disorder about that.… Read more »
What I’ve read from the opposition so far is what amounts to justifications for ignoring my humanity, because science (at least the part you reference) says I’m bonkers, so I must be. And dress codes are fine, because they what, promote more business? I’m not convinced.
Dress codes and mandatory haircuts are there to subsume individuality into a collective. Maybe useful for the army, but useless for individuals and employees who aren’t working on a chain.
Clarence: I object as well, I just didn’t know how to say so without insulting you and unintentionally dripping of snark. Because that’s my inclination after reading so obtuse posts.
@Clarence I suppose by saying that I become a “cis -realityist”? Oh well. Again, I don’t know where you would ever have gotten that impression… honestly, sarcasm in this case doesn’t make you look incisive, namely because it lacks the ring of truth. It makes you look like a tool. I see the idea that we can make those differentiations as the cause of a great deal of current suffering. To this point the quest to delineate the ‘true transsexual’ has been out of the goal of reducing the provision of treatment, treatment with a 98% success rate, by orders… Read more »