Gender fluid?

jimgoose

Semigeneric wrote: »

It's disgraceful that just because someone doesn't conform to the imposed social normalities set by society in an uneducated age, they are considered to be ill, or quote you, "mentally defective"...

As a wise man wrote, to go outside the mythos is to become insane.

The more educated we get as a society, the more "educated" seems to be synonymous with "whacko".

Spanish Eyes

OK, RTE have been totally PC here. That's great.

But the man woman Jonathon Rachel Clinch has just put it up to them. Is he a man or a woman or both?

Could he not do a man specific, or a woman specific when at work?

Radio days beckon for him/her. Nightmare for the station really.

And that is because he is not saying he will be one gender or the other. That is not fair on an employer IMV

Fukuyama

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

OK, RTE have been totally PC here. That's great.

But the man woman Jonathon Rachel Clinch has just put it up to them. Is he a man or a woman or both?

Could he not do a man specific, or a woman specific when at work?

Radio days beckon for him/her. Nightmare for the station really.

And that is because he is not saying he will be one gender or the other. That is not fair on an employer IMV

Well surely (s)he could just present the news or whatever the hell it is that (s)he does.

Cold War Kid

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd imagine he has sought same.

DK man

If an individual had of said that sometimes he wanted to be regarded and treated as dog and his new name is Mickey rover Murphy my reaction would have been no different.

Come on - I know we live in a world where we are expected to accept difference ect but are we stretching the letters PC a wee bit with this one?

I think this is more the stuff of psychiatric support rather than high fiving and fooling ourselves.

Jonathan is very good at his job and no matter what my views are his well being is paramount.

Fukuyama

DK man wrote: »

If an individual had of said that sometimes he wanted to be regarded and treated as dog and his new name is Mickey rover Murphy my reaction would have been no different.

Come on - I know we live in a world where we are expected to accept difference ect but are we stretching the letters PC a wee bit with this one?

I think this is more the stuff of psychiatric support rather than high fiving and fooling ourselves.

Jonathan is very good at his job and no matter what my views are his well being is paramount.

He may well need psychiatric help. For all any of us know, "gender fluid" might just be a symptom of an underlying condition.

However, I don't see how derogatory comments are appropriate. That was my original point in this thread. Hundreds of people will read your comment and will take it as how you would potentially see them.

It's not about insulating people from the big bad world. I imagine they're all to familiar. It's about no making it unnecessarily worse for them.

Lyaiera

Fukuyama wrote: »

See, this is the stop where I get off. I don't believe in just constructing vague "social science" argument which, lets be honest, don't stand up to scrutiny and answer exactly nobody's questions.

Imagine if homosexuality was never defined or studied. We'd have a bunch of people with zero evidence as to what they are.

Sexuality is not some made up construct of society as you infer. It is a primal compulsion which, although malleable, normally doesn't veer off course. It can be categorized and understood.

If we ignore fundamental parts of what makes us "us" then we might as well just ignore personality, dispositions to depression, psychopathy etc...

I am grateful that you tried to answer my question. But you basically just responded by telling me how wrong I am about the whole thing and that I'm pushing people in societal roles. If anything, I'm trying to uncover the exact opposite.

I really don't understand what issue you're having, or why you think I'm telling you your wrong. I'm not doing anything like that.

What is there to understand? Two people are attracted to each other, they like each other, they get on, they can talk for hours, the bedroom experience is exciting, they cheer each other up when they're down, they have similar interests, etc. What more is there to it than that? Does it matter if they're gay or straight, or trans, or male or female or whatever?

Are you asking why a specific person is attracted to another specific person? Because that's a question no-one has the answer to. You get people trying to break it down to basic animal type things like procreation, but there's millenia of evidence showing that humanity is far past basic biological processes.

The only answer I can give to you is on an individual, non-definitive level and that is that trans people are in happy relationships with other people, of every kind. Whether there's some imperative, or definition, or purpose to the relationship is a question for a philosopher.

eviltwin

I'm always puzzled when people get annoyed by decisions that other people makes, decisions that will have no impact on their lives at all. Why not just live and let live. I admire people like Jonathan Clynch speaking out on such divisive issues knowing what abuse and ignorance they are leaving themselves open to. He's not doing anyone any harm so why not just support him and wish him well

Fukuyama

Lyaiera wrote: »

I really don't understand what issue you're having, or why you think I'm telling you your wrong. I'm not doing anything like that.

What is there to understand? Two people are attracted to each other, they like each other, they get on, they can talk for hours, the bedroom experience is exciting, they cheer each other up when they're down, they have similar interests, etc. What more is there to it than that? Does it matter if they're gay or straight, or trans, or male or female or whatever?

Are you asking why a specific person is attracted to another specific person? Because that's a question no-one has the answer to. You get people trying to break it down to basic animal type things like procreation, but there's millenia of evidence showing that humanity is far past basic biological processes.

The only answer I can give to you is on an individual, non-definitive level and that is that trans people are in happy relationships with other people, of every kind. Whether there's some imperative, or definition, or purpose to the relationship is a question for a philosopher.

But you're ignoring science which is just silly. Sexuality and attraction can and has been studied. Without it, it could be argued that gay rights would have struggled to get off the ground.

I always knew that trans people have relationships where two people care for one another etc... I was just wondering about the specifics of it. And to be honest it remains unanswered.

However, I've no doubt that science can and will understand it. Nobody falls into their own individual category when it comes to universal concepts.

I would guess (and that's all it is), is that a straight man solely attracted to straight females, and a straight man who is attracted to transsexual females have different sexualities, even if their societal "sexualities" are both technically the same.

I'm not hung up on assigning people to these labels. I was initially more interested in the logistics of the whole thing when it came to finding people who were open to it etc.. There's a lot to be tackled and understood there.

Menas

fartingforfun wrote: »

So you are one of these white knights riding to the rescue of the damsel in distress, don't see any women denying it.

I suspect no one else could be bothered to respond to your anti woman posts.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm always puzzled when people get annoyed by decisions that other people makes, decisions that will have no impact on their lives at all. Why not just live and let live. I admire people like Jonathan Clynch speaking out on such divisive issues knowing what abuse and ignorance they are leaving themselves open to. He's not doing anyone any harm so why not just support him and wish him well

It's not the individual's decision that annoys me, it's the acceptance of it without question. Like all of a sudden we have to accept that this is going to be the norm from now on. If the guy I sit beside in work turned up on Monday morning in a dress and high heels, am I expected to sit there and pretend everything is normal? Maybe I'm narrow minded but I just don't buy it.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not the individual's decision that annoys me, it's the acceptance of it without question. Like all of a sudden we have to accept that this is going to be the norm from now on. If the guy I sit beside in work turned up on Monday morning in a dress and high heels, am I expected to sit there and pretend everything is normal? Maybe I'm narrow minded but I just don't buy it.

I don't think it's going to come close to ever being the norm but on the off chance a guy you work with does turn up in heels and a dress just ask him about it. What's the problem?

gormdubhgorm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Fair play to Jonathan Rachel. As a cis man I don't fully understand non binary myself and it must be incredibly to come out in the public eye as non binary.

What is non-binary is this a kind of non-computer code or what?

padd b1975

Penny Tration wrote: »

As a straight woman, born biologically matching my gender, I have little experience of the whole area of trans people dating.

However, personally, I would probably date a trans man. I mean, why not? He's a man in my eyes, simple as. If he hadn't had full surgery then I wouldn't have a sexual relationship because to be blunt, I find the female form beautiful, but not sexually attractive as I'm straight.

Another blunt part is that if I were to date a post-op trans man, a question I would have to ask would be - Is everything down there working as it should? I haven't a clue how long it takes to recover from surgery, and obviously there are risks involved. but I'm not willing to be in a relationship where sex is not a possibility.

My trans friend is in a relationship. She's with a lady who identifies as gay. My friend is pre-op, and her girlfriend does what I would do - no sexual contact with the 'male' anatomy. they'll make do with other stuff til my friend has had her surgery.

It's bound to be a little more complicated than your typical straight or gay relationship, but it's really only as complicated as you choose to make it.

Don't like penis? Don't have sex with your trans girlfriend before her surgery.

Don't like vag? Don't have sex with your pre-op boyfriend before his surgery.

Simple really!

Can you not just type 'lesbian'??

Cold War Kid

Menas wrote: »

I suspect no one else could be bothered to respond to your anti woman posts.

I know the "white knight" thing does exist (been on the receiving end of it myself) but I cannot understand how it could be deduced that you are a white knight for saying it's rare for women to play the "women's problems" card at work based on your own experiences as a manager.

I have worked with a lot of women over the years, and a total of one has been out a lot because of her period, and she genuinely was in an awful way every month (she got disciplined for it too). Some women are, because of conditions like endometriosis.

gormdubhgorm

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not the individual's decision that annoys me, it's the acceptance of it without question. Like all of a sudden we have to accept that this is going to be the norm from now on. If the guy I sit beside in work turned up on Monday morning in a dress and high heels, am I expected to sit there and pretend everything is normal? Maybe I'm narrow minded but I just don't buy it.

I agree with the above. Fanatical nudist's come out with the same sort of argument. They want everybody else to walk around naked all the time like them. Only the reality is that it is not feasible imagine cutting a hedge in the nip. One slip and yer f**ked.
Also if a person is this fluid gender thing what does it mean practically Which toilets do they go into? What about a fluid gender sports person do they compete with the men or the women or both?
It seems very silly to me its just a guy dressing up wearing women's clothes when he feels like it. Yet they have to make up stupid name for it like "Gender Fluid"!

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think it's going to come close to ever being the norm but on the off chance a guy you work with does turn up in heels and a dress just ask him about it. What's the problem?

It's just feels like we're being asked to accept something which is a bit too out-there. I understand they want to feel comfortable in their own skin, but in doing that they end up making everyone else feel uncomfortable.

The King of Moo

To those suggesting people should just avoid the internet if they're abused:

Would you say the same to someone who goes to the same pub regularly, until a new bunch of people show up and start shouting abuse at them every time they go there?

Should someone being bullied in the workplace just quit and look for another job?

The onus should always be on the d*ckheads to stop being d*ckheads.
Don't blame people for being upset when arschlochs deliberately say upsetting things to them.

And to pre-empt any "it's not real abuse If it's online" comments:

Why? It's still people communicating their belief that they find the entire essence of another person's being abhorrent.
I don't see why the method of communication matters.

And for the hilarious people saying they identify as a left-handed tin opener or Afghan goatherd:
Gender is such a fundamental concept and with such overlap that the idea of degrees of gender fluidity, like a spectrum of sexuality, seems logical to me.
It's a world apart from arbitrarily deciding to identify as something entirely unrelated to your prior physical, mental or emotional experience.

Just live and let live you daft f*ckers.

Semigeneric wrote: »

Gender is an imposed social norm. Sex is not. I completely agree that from a biological stance there are two sexes, male and female. Gender is something entirely different, so educate yourself.

You do not have me in tears, I think someone should stand up and challenge you on your opinion.

You cannot presume anything about my life so don't try to.

Why because masculinity and toughness seeps out of a building site? I thought it was rudeness, illiteracy and poor life choices.

It'd be a shame for you to leave the thread on this unfortunately classist note, as you'd done a good job of calling others out on their prejudices till then.

Lyaiera

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not the individual's decision that annoys me, it's the acceptance of it without question. Like all of a sudden we have to accept that this is going to be the norm from now on. If the guy I sit beside in work turned up on Monday morning in a dress and high heels, am I expected to sit there and pretend everything is normal? Maybe I'm narrow minded but I just don't buy it.

What blind bit of difference does it make to you? How does anything like that have any effect on you whatsoever. A guy is wearing a dress? So ****ing what? Two men are kissing? So ****ing what? Someone doesn't like mushroom on their pizza? Why the **** should I give any thought to it?

Maybe he likes the dress? Maybe the dress was a gift from his mother who's dying wish was that he look fabulous? Maybe he let his four year old son dress him that day? Maybe an oily mushroom from his pizza fell and stained his shirt and the dress was the only change of clothes in his car?

If you're an accountant, working in an accountancy office, with other accountanty type people how does someone wearing a dress, or shorts, or a pair of pants make any difference to writing up an excel formula?

It's different, seems to be the sum of it. You didn't expect it. After that, who cares?

The King of Moo

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not the individual's decision that annoys me, it's the acceptance of it without question. Like all of a sudden we have to accept that this is going to be the norm from now on. If the guy I sit beside in work turned up on Monday morning in a dress and high heels, am I expected to sit there and pretend everything is normal? Maybe I'm narrow minded but I just don't buy it.

More than likely, they'd have already informed you, or would tell you then.
If not you could ask them about it.

But what if you did act like everything was normal? Would that be so bad, or hard?
Their choice of clothes doesn't affect you, so why not?

Hoe do you think you'd react in such a situation? Would you get angry, refusing to accept your colleague's choice of attire?

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's just feels like we're being asked to accept something which is a bit too out-there. I understand they want to feel comfortable in their own skin, but in doing that they end up making everyone else feel uncomfortable.

So he wants to wear a dress sometimes, so what? There was a time a woman in trousers was risque. Of course it would be weird but you'd get used to it. He'd still be the same person doing the same job.

frostyjacks

Lyaiera wrote: »

What blind bit of difference does it make to you? How does anything like that have any effect on you whatsoever. A guy is wearing a dress? So ****ing what? Two men are kissing? So ****ing what? Someone doesn't like mushroom on their pizza? Why the **** should I give any thought to it?

Maybe he likes the dress? Maybe the dress was a gift from his mother who's dying wish was that he look fabulous? Maybe he let his four year old son dress him that day? Maybe an oily mushroom from his pizza fell and stained his shirt and the dress was the only change of clothes in his car?

If you're an accountant, working in an accountancy office, with other accountanty type people how does someone wearing a dress, or shorts, or a pair of pants make any difference to writing up an excel formula?

It's different, seems to be the sum of it. You didn't expect it. After that, who cares?

I guess it's human nature. When I hear about a man in a dress, I usually think of Norman Bates in Psycho. Maybe the next generation will look differently upon it.

KERSPLAT!

frostyjacks wrote: »

I guess it's human nature. When I hear about a man in a dress, I usually think of Norman Bates in Psycho. Maybe the next generation will look differently upon it.

Maybe this generation is already looking differently on it.

SterlingArcher

Haha people are funny. All arguing.

I'm sure yall can get over strangers being guys/girls depending on how the mood takes them.

I can honestly say I wouldn't give 2 ****s if people woke up tomorrow and decided they wanna wear dildo masks all year round. Would I laugh and in a heated confrontation with one perhaps call them a dickhead. Maybe. Either way they carry on having dildo faces, I carry on not caring. And we all float on ok.

Panthro

I've decided I'm going to raise the bar on this one.
I'm going to be a giraffe for most of tomorrow, might become a cowboy tomorrow evening.
Be Rachel Reilly before I head off to bed.
It'll be a good day.

The King of Moo

frostyjacks wrote: »

I guess it's human nature. When I hear about a man in a dress, I usually think of Norman Bates in Psycho. Maybe the next generation will look differently upon it.

You're lagging a bit, most people haven't really cared for about a generation and a bit, roughly.
Well, that's in terms of popular representations of tranvestitism.
I don't think the majority of free-thinking people have ever really cared about other people's clothes.

Lyaiera

Panthro wrote: »

I've decided I'm going to raise the bar on this one.
I'm going to be a giraffe for most of tomorrow, might become a cowboy tomorrow evening.
Be Rachel Reilly before I head off to bed.
It'll be a good day.

I bet you won't. Just like the guy who's a helicopter won't chug down some jet fuel, I bet you'll pass plenty of trees and won't even think of having a nibble on the luscious leaves right at the top.

Lord Riverside

The most famous Irish cross dresser was develera.
Says all you need to know about this country.

DK man

Fukuyama wrote: »

He may well need psychiatric help. For all any of us know, "gender fluid" might just be a symptom of an underlying condition.

However, I don't see how derogatory comments are appropriate. That was my original point in this thread. Hundreds of people will read your comment and will take it as how you would potentially see them.

It's not about insulating people from the big bad world. I imagine they're all to familiar. It's about no making it unnecessarily worse for them.

One mans derogatory is another mans honesty - I think it's important that people can say how they feel about an issue. Otherwise we might as well engage in a big game of pretence

alan partridge aha

This rte person has it sussed, he/she can head into the jacks with Miriam and Claire etc. when wearing a dress. Deadly.