Yoyo (and anyone else who may be confused about the terms and what on earth all this confusion means) - this Genderbread Person is pretty good as far as definitions go:

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2015/03/the-genderbread-person-v3/

Also, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that most of the world fits into the "common clusters" along all of these spectra - most people are cis male/female gendered and sexed, straight orientation, etc. But *some* people most definitely aren't, and trying to squash them into little binary boxes is not very cool.

I am blessing you all by not posting in this thread. Also I don't want to be silenced :|

@thorfi, thanks, i love the genderbread person.

@Krellin, if you cared to read the link... No, i'm not goong to repeat myself. Mute this thread if all you can bring is anger an upset at the concept of an actual discussion

What this thread does highlight is that, as the progressive intelligentsia have no clear understanding of how all this fits together, there isn't a hope in hell for the rest of us.

What I would like to see is society move towards a new system with a far simpler set of definitions that can be easily understood. Straight (with the traditional split between male and female), Not Straight but Happy (the various incarnations of which, whilst important to the people involved, don't really matter to anyone else), and Not Straight and Unhappy (those unfortunate souls who are ill in the sense that they need medical assistance to live a decent life).

Octavious the simpleton.

I thank you, Jeff, for your detailed critique and sound reasoning. How more people are not swayed by your powerful arguments is beyond comprehension.

Your admittedly simplistic solution to a complex situation didn't merit more than a simple answer.

Simple is good. Simple and wrong, less so. A so called progressive using language offensive to those with intellectual disabilities is laughably absurd and you should be ashamed of yourself.

@Oct... your "system" encompasses sexuality, not gender.

I disagree, bo. I think it encompasses both quite satisfactory, regardless of the various definitions of them to subscribe to. What gender are you thinking of that doesn't have a place in it?

It ascribes gender to various sexualities, which is just plain stupid. If you don't have even a moderate understanding of gender and sexuality, don't comment on it. Don't simplify it to make it easier for yourself. That's selfish.

Give me an example of where it doesn't work and explain why.

"What I would like to see is society move towards a new system with a far simpler set of definitions that can be easily understood. Straight (with the traditional split between male and female), Not Straight but Happy (the various incarnations of which, whilst important to the people involved, don't really matter to anyone else), and Not Straight and Unhappy (those unfortunate souls who are ill in the sense that they need medical assistance to live a decent life)."

Identifying as straight has nothing to do with male or female and neither male nor female have anything to do with being straight.

Simply calling somebody "not straight" does not help identify who their potential partners may be at all. As a matter of fact, it makes it that much more ambiguous. I am bisexual. I am not straight. I am still with a woman. I might eventually be with a man, I don't know. By saying I am "not straight" you are implicitly suggesting that I will never partner myself with someone of the opposite sex. You have the same issue here with pansexuality.

You also imply that happiness and gender are correlated. The only reason happiness, gender, and sexuality all interrelate is because certain genders and sexualities are either discriminated against or dismissed, as you have done so beautifully here.

You also seem to have forgotten your "straight but unhappy" category. It's almost as if you're a homophobe. Hmmm....

Also, the change from "not straight but happy," as if happiness among individuals who do not identify as straight is somehow surprising, from "not straight and unhappy," as if that is the more natural combination, show just how fucked up your mindset is on this matter.

Really? You're saying you can identify as being straight if even if you don't see yourself as male or female? Are you sure?

I thought the meaning of the word happy in this context was obvious, but I guess not. I mean happy in the sense that you are satisfied with whatever your body happens to be. It is impossible to be a straight man and have a desperate need to have a female body, for example. The straight but unhappy category simply does not exist.

Happy and unhappy are normative terms, not merely descriptors. Your biases are implicit and obvious in your word choices.

Like you obviously hate the disabled because of your choice of words such as 'simpleton' as putdowns, you mean, Jeff?

Are you under the impression I represent the far right or something? Are you so far removed from reality that you believe I am an example of an ultra conservative? I am actually more liberal than the average man or woman on the street. Quite considerably so, in fact. If you have given up on trying to have a civil conversation with me then you have already written off over half the population, and have lost the argument before you have even begun.

It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the quality of people's lives were at stake. But who gives a damn about the real world as long as the progressive self appreciation society gets to congratulate itself over how superior you are to the rest of us?

Pathetic

Are you suggesting that you didn't imply meaning in your word choices?

You might find the link I posted above which includes the American Psychological Associations sexuality definitions. It pretty much covers all the bases without judgment which is the entire point.

"The straight but unhappy category simply does not exist."

All right, so by your definition, a straight person cannot be "[un]satisfied with whatever your body happens to be." Is that what you're saying?

"It is impossible to be a straight man and have a desperate need to have a female body, for example."

You can identify as straight without identifying as male or female. Gender and sexuality are not always together. This would assume that your body was assigned either male or female at birth and you have yet to change that, but you do not identify as either male or female. That's the difference between sex and gender.

@Oct, being liberal doesn't stop one from being wrong.

Being wrong doesn't make one ultra conservative.

You seem to feel like you're being attacked and responded defensively. You position was one which made others feel uncomfortable and they challenged you on it.

Gender, Sex, and Sexuality, as three seperate spectrums pretty simple. That way you don't get confused by mixing them.

You can replace homo- and hetro- with gyno- and andro- sexualities. IE attracted to women (gyno-) and attracted to men (andro-) that way you remove the link implicit in language between sexuality and sex/gender.

You also need to seperate expression from identity.

This is to avoid the confusion of defining people based on what they do. A gay man (androsexual cis-male) can have sex with a woman, this doesn't make him gynosexual.

A bisexual person can have a long term monogamous relationship with one person, they don't suddenly become gyno- / andro- sexual. They remain bisexual.

And a catholic priest can swear a vow of celibacy, and he wouldn't suddenly become asexual.

So with these three spectrums, reduced to their seperate components, and the seperation of expression and identity, we have the simplest of models which also describes accurately all the possible combinations.

The genderbread person is a pretty good infographic which contains and presents all of this in fairly clear terms: https://canterburyccq.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/genderbread-2_1.jpg

I would note it places gender expression on it's own axis. Whereas I think gender expression, and sexual expression (ie how you express your sexuality) are both important to help understand.

@ Octavious: "I am actually more liberal than the average man or woman on the street."

Asserting this does not make it true.

Actually, i think there is some merit to looking at the body (sex) as a physical expression of gender.

The body doesn't always match the gender identity, which sucks for trans people. But it is sexual expression, ie how the cells of the body are expressing features based either on the current hormonal balance, or the hormonal balance during some part of development.

So you get gender identity, body expression, gender expression. As three parts of the one thing. You can try to alter the body or your clothing (butch, femme, androgynous, neutral, hyper-masculine)

We currently have no methods which alter gender identity. It appears to be hard coded in the brain during development. Likewise with sexuality is hard coded. You can even read testimonies of people who have converted from trans/gay lifestyles for religious reasons, and they say how they are tempted every day, but resist.

As if they have not changed who the are (either gender identity, or sexuality) But they have changed their expression.

I fear this is a horrible thing to encourage someone to choose, but i also feel i should respect their rights to choose it. (just like my feelings on breast augmentation for cis-women who feel it will improve their self-esteem - i think a culture which encourages young women to have themselves cut open is messed up, but until we end that culture i support their right to make that choice)

@ Ora

I'd be interested in knowing how being called a "simpleton" and "fucked up" doesn't constitute an attack. It is the behavior of people like bo and Jeff who put people's backs up and holds back any message you're trying to present by decades.

What I am saying is that you are setting the bar too high. That gingerbread thing is nice enough, but totally irrelevant to most people. The vast majority of people are straight, by which I mean they have a distinct biological sex that they are comfortable with and they are attracted to members of the opposite distinct biological sex. There is a sizable minority who are gay in the traditional sense, and there is a small but significant minority who have unusual positions in different locations on that gingerbread man diagram.

My point is that whatever combination of positions they occupy doesn't matter to anyone else but them, unless they are in the position where there is something wrong with them that needs medical intervention to allow them to enjoy their lives.

It is important that people who need medical help can get it, and that need can be determined simply by asking them.

It is desirable that potentially vulnerable people are given privacy and respect. An obvious example is female changing rooms at swimming pools. These exist so that women may change without fear of harassment, whether by straight men or indeed transgender people or any combination you can think of. There should be an additional changing room where people who are not straight women can also enjoy that privacy and respect.

Frankly the infinite number of combinations are not important to anyone who doesn't happen to be one. The definitions are fine for them in looking for similar people, or academics looking into it, but there is no reason whatsoever for anyone not closely linked to them from having more than a vague awareness.

"I'd be interested in knowing how being called a "simpleton" and "fucked up" doesn't constitute an attack."

Did i tell you that you're not being attacked?

"It is the behavior of people like bo and Jeff who put people's backs up and holds back any message you're trying to present by decades."

How does their behaviour stop you from listening to what i'm saying? Tell me.


"My point is that whatever combination of positions they occupy doesn't matter to anyone else but them, unless they are in the position where there is something wrong with them that needs medical intervention to allow them to enjoy their lives. "

I entirely disagree, where a person sits on the spectrum is their own personal business, but when people see you in the street and discriminate against you because you are different, then we have a problem.

Everyone needs to know that these differeces exist, and that it is perfectly ok.

Imagine replacing what you are saying with a conversation about race.

"What I am saying is that you are setting the bar too high...The vast majority of people are white, by which I mean they have a distinct biological skin colour that they are comfortable with and they are interested in [making friends with] members of their own race. There is a sizable minority who are black, in the traditional sense, and there is a small but significant minority who have unusual mixed racial backgrounds"

This is literally about understanding other people. So you feel comfortable with them and as a society we discriminate less. You could very well apply that lesson to any other minority.

It is not an infinite number of combinations, it is a simple model of gender, sex, expression, sexuality and sexual expression. Five pretty clear spectrums, to which everyone you meet belong. And you are one combination - you happen to have the proviledge of never having your identity question because it is the norm.

Social norms are decided at a social level, and the gingerbread person is a perfectly good, and more importantly inclusive norm.

Your use of the phrase 'You seem to feel like you're being attacked and responded defensively' implies that you didn't. It acknowledges my perception of an attack but deliberately avoids acknowledging the attack itself. It is, however, a small point. Bo and Jeff don't stop me listening to you (you will note me replying), but they do make it very easy to ignore everything they have said. What could have been an argument of several valid opinions has instead become just you along with a very loud reminder that quite a lot of progressives are little more than angry self obsessed berks.

Your race analogy fails, by the way. I don't understand how a segregation of friendship has anything to do with anything I've said.

Actually, your gingerbread person fails, not only because of its unnecessary complications, but because, as you have said, it implies they are all perfectly good. This is blatantly not the case. Some combinations are not good at all and demand medical assistance to help. To pretend otherwise is to suggest to these tortured souls "stop complaining. Your pain is of your own making and your desire to change is an insult to those like you". That, I feel, is both unhelpful and dangerous.

I does not make that claim at all.

And i suggest you actually talk to some of the people concerned, they know their own bodies and minds far better than you, and really like the simplicity of the genderbread person, and how it manages to represent them without leaving out the details and without telling them there is a right or a wrong way of being.

Frankly your presumptions are insulting and arrogant.

Your choice of words are interesting. It is clear on that gingerbread diagram that all people are covered by it, so when you say "people concerned" who do you mean? I suspect that you actually view the situation in a way that more closely resembles the system I jotted down, and that "people involved" are people not traditionally straight?

The arrogance here is that you assume I don't talk to such people. I do. We discuss many things in detail, such as the football season, politics, beer, family, and who won in that drinking competition that has become a tad fuzzy in the memory. Because, when it comes down to it, they are just like everyone else.

What I am asking is what are these labels of yours even for? I can see them being of some use to the people involved, so that is great if they want to use them. For close friends or family it may be a useful tool in the discussion if they wish to discuss it. That is fine.

For everyone else it is an unnecessary complication. People have no more need to know all this than they need to know about blood types. It is good to know your partner's or children's, but everyone else can look after themselves. To the idea that these spectrums are more inclusive I'll say this. Everyone is on the IQ spectrum, but that doesn't stop people of unusually low or high IQs being bullied. What stops that is a damned good telling off when you step over the line, and being exposed to a culture of respect for others and an understanding that everyone is different.

" I suspect that you actually view the situation in a way that more closely resembles the system I jotted down, and that "people involved" are people not traditionally straight?"

The people not priviledged by your 'traditionally straight' view of the world.

The people that this scheme is meant to benefit. Which is rather clear.