kurtster wrote: 
As language evolves meanings change. Why do we have two words: gender AND sex?

My understanding is that "sex" has a scientific connotation. It refers to genotype and phenotype - the reproductive role. Male or female (from Latin roots).

While "gender" is undergoing a semantic shift to a more social connotation. It refers to social function - homemaker or breadwinner (or some other status). Man or woman (from Old English roots) but increasingly other, newer categories.

Not to say this is universally accepted, in fact, far from it. I believe most people still use male and female to describe gender, and therein lies this issue, IMO. We aren't all speaking the same language.

It is quite common in English for two words to have similar but not identical meanings, and even more common for people to disagree on exactly what words mean (often citing whichever dictionary or reference favors their argument).

Some people believe sex and gender are 100% synonymous, some do not. However, language does not respect the opinion of the minority. As times change it really doesn't matter if thousands of years a word meant something, once the paradigm shifts, it means what the consensus (and yes, this need only be a local consensus) understands it to mean. So it goes.

I'm curious about your response to Lazy8's post, tho. I didn't see the words "get over it" in there at all, but in your response you repeat the phase twice as though you were issued it as a command. Why is this? You were asked a reasonable question IMO. If someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with you identifies with a gender that does not match their biology, how are you affected? And how much does that affect weigh on you compared to the affect on them? How, really, does it matter?

 haresfur wrote: 
That sounds like something HITLER would say!

 kurtster wrote: 
Pretty simple: Don't be an asshole to other people. Base how you treat them on their abilities, not on your pre-conceived notions of who they are.

 kurtster wrote: 
This is interesting. I found Lazy's post to be thoughtful and thought-provoking, and it challenged me a bit. I did not find it dishonest or impolite. But you got your back up over it. We are clearly primitive animals, if we're presented with perfectly reasonable arguments that challenge our worldview and our response is hostility. I'm not judging; I have the same reaction sometimes, and those facebook memes that try to scare us away from this behavior or that rely on our response to be irrational.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Are you telling me to F off and get over it ?

I'm not trolling.  I have not said we should do this or do that.  I'm asking honest and real questions just like sird did earlier in trying to get a handle on this.
  

This is big stuff.  This is just as big as saying that the sun does not revolve around the earth.  You want to say deal with it and get over it ?   If as in the most recent link provided by Richard is true, this has always been with us, but never understood, same as the earth revolves around the sun was always true, but only recently understood in the long scope of human history.  I've already made some adjustments in my thinking because of the most recent link provided by Richard.

You obviously have given this much thought already.  So how do we address this as a society with rules and norms, force acceptance and move on ?  Do I sound like I'm trolling now ?  Yes, I am, cuz you responded to me in that way.
  

So much for polite and honest discussion or in other words, never mind.  At least I made an effort to try to learn and gain an understanding of a revolutionary development that challenges thousands of years of conventional thinking. 

Have a nice day.

 R_P wrote: 
That was most helpful.  Time to reflect.

 kurtster wrote: 
What if the state of mind has a biological source?

 kurtster wrote:
I think you are missing the real transition that is going on.

It's not so much about making the old distinctions between genders but changing the definitions of the genders as it is about making gender irrelevant, and recognizing that a lot of the assumptions our society (and its ancestors) made about gender were not accurate. That human variability is so large and traditional gender roles so restrictive that forcing people to fit within a defined role didn't match their individual natures.

You want to look at a baby's junk and know all you need to about a lot of that baby's future. The baby (and the person it grows up to be) doesn't get a say in that. And truthfully a lot of what you want to assume about that baby and that person isn't just wrong—it's not yours (or anyone else's) to decide.

There are times and places where biological gender matters, mostly medical situations. If you're not treating a patient...what's it to you?.

 kurtster wrote: 
Well, yeah.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Yes, they were here at RP.

But my questions are serious.  Its not at all about disagreeing or delegitimizing the state of mind that is the source of this discussion.  That is real. 

We apparently have established a new dichotomy.  That being between the biological / factual and perceived.

What are the rules going to be ?  There has to be rules.  As in the link posted by Richard below, transgender is now a protected class.  It was his link that inspired me to ask. That means rules are now required.

I've been following this thread and get the idea and accept it.  Until seeing the link below I saw no reason to get into this thread.  Now I have one.

 kurtster wrote: 
those people who told you that.... were they local?

So we now have two cases for gender, eh ?  The biological and self identity.

Or does the biological even matter anymore ?

Or after further thought, does gender only apply to the mental state ? 

If so, how do we describe the physical state and what do we call it ?

In that I mean, how can we ignore the physical reality ?

One is reality and the other is imagined / perceived ...

I remember some 10 or so years ago I put forth the notion somewhere here that reality is a local event and immediately was told I was crazy.

Now it appears to be true.

A check on bigotry...

A federal judge late Friday barred the federal government from implementing President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender members of the military, finding that the ban had to be subject to a careful court review before implementation because of the history of discrimination against transgender individuals.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington ruled that transgender people were a protected class and that the injunctions against the implementation of the ban that had been issued in December should remain in place. She wrote that there was a “long and well-recognized” history of discrimination and systemic oppression against transgender people, that discrimination against transgender people was clearly “unrelated to their ability to perform and contribute to society,” that transgender people have immutable characteristics and that they lacked relative political power.

“Transgender people have long been forced to live in silence, or to come out and face the threat of overwhelming discrimination,” Pechman wrote.

“The Court also rules that, because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. Therefore, any attempt to exclude them from military service will be looked at with the highest level of care, and will be subject to the Court’s ‘strict scrutiny.’ This means that before Defendants can implement the Ban, they must show that it was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype, and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests,” Pechman wrote.

While Trump had tweeted that he consulted generals and military experts about the ban, Pechman wrote that the government had “failed to identify even one General or military expert he consulted, despite having been ordered to do so repeatedly.”

Noting that Pentagon officials were surprised by the announcement and that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis got a heads up only one day beforehand, the judge wrote that she “is led to conclude that the Ban was devised by the President, and the President alone.” (...)

 R_P wrote:

 
Pakistan!

Marvia Malik - Pakistan TV airs first transgender anchor

 sirdroseph wrote:

 
that's your identity

and what might be good for you to come to understand is that for some people, there's a  difference between gender assignment and gender identity.

 meower wrote: 
I can't help but think about this in the context of someone who lives in a smaller society. It's one thing in the Big City to talk about gender fluidity but when you're on a Pacific island or a multi-acre farm - there's no cultural support for a "let's explore it" option and I'd be very surprised if there was a high suicide component because of that lack. In the Tipping Point, Gladwell tries to explore the idea of how on an island there was basically no suicide until someone hung themselves, and then it suddenly became part of the society there.

To what extent are people growing up influenced as to how they feel as a result of the diffuse acceptance/rejection/ignorance of ways of behaving around them?

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Whether the judge rules or not, the norms will stay in place (and likely will do so for a long time esp. in some places). Now you can also imagine what happens when certain people want to choose which bathroom to enter or to enlist. Some people will (and have) put up barriers...

PS: ... because other people do not conform to their views (norms) on gender.

 R_P wrote: 




Funny you should use that as an example, A judge in a circuit court in Colorado just ruled that requiring females over the age of 9 to wear shirts is unconstitutional. Something I fully support, free the nipple! lol

 Lazy8 wrote: 




I get that, it does help somewhat in my understanding.