[Closed] Why distinguish based on sex?

The W was dropped (officially) in 1999. It's like when a football commentator refers to the Czech Republic as "Czechoslovakia". It's just incorrect, probably down to habit rather than outright malice.

I'm heterosexual... I discriminate based on gender every time I think about sex, which according to popular lore, is roughly every 7 seconds.

It's only a matter of time before I get sued by the gays.

I'm heterosexual.

I discovered on Saturday that I am a cisgender straight male. Gonna make filling in forms more tricky - I used to just tick the M box.

You think that's weird, I saw a postman that was a woman. Political correctness gone mad.

I prefer the term carbon based life form.

Ugly giant bags of mostly water.

Graham, i thought about the exact same line after reading carbon based

cisgender straight male

You forgot 'privileged'.

HTH

I saw a manhole at the weekend, life will never be the same.

Fleshy Meat Sacks. Come the robot uprising, we're all screwed.

Had to google what "cisgender" meant... Has it really come to the point when we need to tell people that we're default, stock, bog-standard, OEM human beings???

I saw a manhole at the weekend...

I read willard's comment as 'Fleshy Meat Snacks'. Are the dinosaurs about to return?

Had to google what "cisgender" meant... Has it really come to the point when we need to tell people that we're default, stock, bog-standard, OEM human beings???

For some people, yes. I can get the meaning behind it as it allows people to correctly identify themselves however it's not something I think about too much. Of course it renders bi-sexuals redundant and you have to be polysexual if you're into everyone. Not sure what you would be if you are only into a few of the different gender states, probably something really complicated I'd imagine.

It's one of those bizarre things that in the pursuit of equality people feel the need to pigeon hole as many folk as possible instead of just accepting folk for who they are. I don't get it in the slightest but apparantly that's because I live with privilege and as such it's not really my place to say anything since we should all be equal. Or something.

Has it really come to the point when we need to tell people that we're default, stock, bog-standard, OEM human beings?

I suspect the idea that transgender and alternatively gendered people are [i]not[/i] normal standard human beings is part of what they are trying to fight.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, women and men are quite different. I personally am quite glad of the ability to distinguish between the two

[quote=GrahamS ]

Has it really come to the point when we need to tell people that we're default, stock, bog-standard, OEM human beings?

Ah, so it's other people pigeon holing us? 😉

Ah, so it's other people pigeon holing us?

I believe they prefer the term Columbidae Dwelling.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, women and men are quite different. I personally am quite glad of the ability to distinguish between the two

To be clear: I am interested only in why there is a convention of distinguishing between the sexes in a professional context.

Doesn't it seem weird to anyone else that (even if it is now no longer official) there was a convention of calling PCs 'WPCs'? Why not MPCs as well then? And why not 'Woman-Doctors' and 'Man-Doctors' as well?

Is Angela Merkel the 'Woman-Chancellor' of Germany? 🙄

It's when they stop differentiating between PC and PCSO, that I'll be more worried.

I'm heterosexual

Be honest now it's a spectrum, just because you sit at the greyer end rather than the rainbow one

Have a play with the gender unicorn chart

[img] [/img]

Can you still get mansize tissues. And a two man tent.

True. WPC is not PC. It would be more PC to use PC. 😀

But the press are what they are, and that means they like to highlight gender when they think it changes the tone of the story (e.g. everyone knows that "getting in a tussle with a coppa" is all part of a good Saturday night, but "striking a shapely WPC (Sharon, 23, from Bournemouth, 34D)" is a completely different matter.

Can you still get Man Flu?

I see everyone as 'Future life insurance payouts' I think we should have a mass wedding

Ah, so it's other people pigeon holing us?

No, it’s just basic latin… 8)

To be clear: I am interested only in why there is a convention of distinguishing between the sexes in a professional context.

The reason is, by convention, men ended up in a lot of roles - so the names of the roles took on the -man suffix. Chairman, Policeman, Fireman etc. When that situation started to change (oh there is a long way to go…) we mistakenly used Chairwoman, Policewoman, Firewoman not Chair, Police Office, Firefighter.

As it happens, I got a bit narked about having to fill in my gender for no apparent reason on a form recently and made some sort of New Year’s pledge thing to challenge each and every form where I’m required to fill it in without their being a legal requirement for the info (eg I was needing to stay in a women’s refuge or something). I’ve said I would use an alternative provider if the provider wouldn’t accept a form without the info. Going to try and keep it up for the whole year. (yes, I do realise this will be hard work)

I’ve only had one form to fill in so far (Cotswold Outdoor and they allowed for a non-answer) so not much to report, yet.

Gender matters for certain things - frankly, I prefer intimate relationships with women more than men. Don’t see an issue with that. It doesn’t matter for virtually everything else, though - why would it?

Rachel

Good question: Is this going to be followed by a thread about being caught going into the ladies toilets at John Lewis's?

Anyway, I thought it was Police Officer these days.

Man/Woman, I feel like a Woman/Man...
[img] [/img]

Gender matters for certain things - frankly, I prefer intimate relationships with women more than men. Don’t see an issue with that. It doesn’t matter for virtually everything else, though - why would it?

I suspect the issue with forms is that they often ask for gender with perfectly good intentions (i.e. trying to get some measures of equality) but to someone who is transgender or "other gendered" it must come across as exactly the opposite of that.

I suspect the idea that transgender and alternatively gendered people are not normal standard human beings is part of what they are trying to fight.

This is where I get confused... I believe that people are what they are, and if they feel they're born with the wrong junk, they can do whatever they want to address that. But I always thought that their main motive was to change their outward physical gender and be accepted by society in their preferred gender role...

Now, as a red-blooded bloke, if things were getting frisky, I'd prefer to know... Not because I'm a homophobe, or because I think people shouldn't have the right to reassign their gender, but at the end of the day, I'm a straight bloke and my preference is for straight women. With small hands.

So from that POV, I don't have a problem with those who've "pimped their ride" to be labelled as such, but I thought they didn't want to be labelled, so I have a problem labeling them myself.

Wouldn't it be easier all round if we just described people by their outward appearance but tipped each other the wink if we used to be something else?

preference is for straight women. With small hands.

I’m actually imagining you, in the pub, walking around measuring people’s hands on a ruler and pronouncing “you’ll do…”

oh - and “junk”? Standards please - we’re not American.

Wouldn't it be easier all round if we just described people by their outward appearance but tipped each other the wink if we used to be something else?

It would apparently be easier for you. Methinks you watched The Crying Game at the wrong age...

But as a 'Red blooded chappie' You wouldn't notice. Thanks to modern plastic surgery and hormone treatment, you could live your whole life with the person of your dreams and never know (that goes for women not knowing about men as well)

If you love someone, why does it matter it's not like you'll catch anyting and start knitting or any other media stereotype definition people think of.

[quote=allthegear ]I got a bit narked about having to fill in my gender for no apparent reason on a form recently and made some sort of New Year’s pledge thing to challenge each and every form where I’m required to fill it in without their being a legal requirement for the infoOf course, some of that is down to targetted marketing - just like some sites want to know your prefence for sport, cars, pets etc. If you're a retailer of, say, mobile phone accessories it's important to know if your latest [s]spam[/s] mailshot should be pushing masculine black, anodyne white or girly pink.

That’s kind of my point, Scotroutes 🙂

Good to see Rachel sticking it to the man.

What about sport and athletics. Would you be happy with transgender woman competing in womens cycling events.

We walk among you, olegmcnoleg, you’d never know… 😈

(oh, and for example, I wear normal women’s size L biking gloves and have size 8 feet)

So far as biking events are concerned, I have no problem, so long as no unfair advantage is taken. In fact, I think we had a thread on this late last year.

I’m actually imagining you, in the pub, walking around measuring people’s hands on a ruler and pronouncing “you’ll do…”

oh - and “junk”? Standards please - we’re not American.

And I'm actually trying to imagine what a horrible world it must be if you're so devoid of a sense of humour that you take every word you read 100% literally.

Maybe we should have a niche just for you! 😉

[quote=allthegear ]That’s kind of my point, Scotroutes

You like anodyne white?

..I always thought that their main motive was to change their outward physical gender and be accepted by society in their preferred gender role...

But that assumes everyone wants to be identified as either male or female.

Some don't.

I don't have a problem with those who've "pimped their ride" to be labelled as such, but I thought they didn't want to be labelled

Yeah I think that is the tricky part. Humans love to categorise. It is a very basic part of how our minds work.

Labelling can be extremely useful (e.g. when trying to measure equality) but also extremely damaging when used to discriminate.

It's a tricky problem that I think we are still a long way from solving.

Wouldn't it be easier all round if we just described people by their outward appearance but tipped each other the wink if we used to be something else?

Like this?

Doesn't it seem weird to anyone else that (even if it is now no longer official) there was a convention of calling PCs 'WPCs'? Why not MPCs as well then? And why not 'Woman-Doctors' and 'Man-Doctors' as well?

Male Nurse is still a well used term.

Or even worse "Murse"

[quote=allthegear ]So far as biking events are concerned, I have no problem, so long as no unfair advantage is taken. In fact, I think we had a thread on this late last year.

Indeed we did - regarding Molly Cameron being forced to compete in the women's category
http://road.cc/content/news/173121-transgender-cyclist-told-she-can-no-longer-compete-mens-events-despite-decades

So you meet a beautiful woman and fall in love.
Then you bring up kids and she says "about that"

Is Angela Merkel the 'Woman-Chancellor' of Germany?

No, she's the Chancellor of Gerwomany 😀

[quote=GrahamS ]Yeah I think that is the tricky part. Humans love to categorise. It is a very basic part of how our minds work.

Given the post you were replying to was discussing physical attraction, then it's a pretty fundamental issue for many (most?) people to categorise other people into the group they're attracted to and the group they aren't.

[quote=nealglover ]Male Nurse is still a well used term.

Is it? In any more than simply categorising into one of two types (as you might say "male doctor" or "male actor") or something more than that?

I think when it comes to relationships, it's more about honesty. The fact that a chick used to stand up to take a slash is a fair old skeleton-in-the-closet by anyone's standards*.

When it comes to sports, I guess this is the bit where my folks roll their eyes and say "See? This is what happens when you **** about in God's domain!"

Personally, the older I get, the less answers I seem to have.

*Tongue firmly in cheek (for Rachel's benefit)

Should the same rules around gender categorisation be applied to animals too?

I think the only reliable gender indicator is how long it takes to buy curtains.
Any longer than 30 minutes you are female.

[quote=johndoh ]Should the same rules around gender categorisation be applied to animals too?

Provided they've ticked the right box on the form.

What about the use of he or she does that not categorise us as in she is a good police officer.

squirrelking - Member

It's one of those bizarre things that in the pursuit of equality people feel the need to pigeon hole as many folk as possible instead of just accepting folk for who they are.

How do you accept someone for who they are, if you don't know? TBH I don't like the pigeonholing but it's got some very good things going for it- helps stop us thinking about normal vs different is the main one. All about defaults. I don't think the pigeonholing's very healthy myself but then neither is the whole assumption of mainstreamness that it's a reaction against.

(and with sexuality, there's that ugly catch 22 where people assume someone's straight then get uppity when they tell them they're not, "why do gays always go on about it".) Tons of stuff like this in many fields- see also, everyone on the internet is a man- but things that go to the heart of who you are and how you want to be seen are always going to promote strong opinions

Well, it might be complicated but you’re all going to have to get used to it quickly.

Judging by the sudden social acceptance of people living outside the simple genders they were born with, the number of people putting themselves forward for help from Gender Identity services in the NHS is going up exponentially. In 2014, 70 new cases were started in the Norwich trust and more than 100 are expected in 2016.

Rachel

Saxon rider wpc is not a term I would use.
But if I was stopped by a policeman and later that day someone asked how my day was I would say I had been stopped by a policeman and the same could be said if I was stopped by a policewoman.
Am I wrong.
That said I would always adress both as officer regardless of sex or rank.

I recall some time ago I wrote a message on here about an incident I encountered with a black bloke in a red Micra.

Some rather silly people tried to pull me up about the fact I had mentioned him being black.

Some rather silly people tried to pull me up about the fact I had mentioned him being black.

Wont be long before they are pulling you up for mentioning he was a man 😀

I think the only reliable gender indicator is how long it takes to buy curtains.
Any longer than 30 minutes you are female.

What if you post a "Recommend me some curtains" thread on here?

Wont be long before they are pulling you up for mentioning he was a man

La la la la Lola

I must have deleted 4 or 5 different posts as each one sounded like a comment from the Daily Mail.

Unless it's pertinent to the situation, gender is irrelevant, as is if someone is gay, straight, hair colour... Having said that, some things are a continuum (sexuality, hair colour, race), some things are distinct - like sex. Sex is a really simply definition and there's a very specific 'gender indicator'; male or female. There's no argument with chromosomes; you're XX or XY. How you percieve youself has many, many, many different answers and, honestly, does it matter?

I think I say policeman, fireman etc to mean either. If I offended a lady policeman by saying that, I think that's her issue. I don't want to be an arsehole but I really couldn't care less. People look for reasons to be offended nowadays. It was very recent that male pronouns were the norm. Most English laws use 'he' to mean, a person.

How about this for a PC question on a form?

Do you see yourself as

male I---------------------------------------------------------------I female

Sexuality

homo I---------------------------------------------------------------I hetero

Just let everyone tick somewhere on the line.

Had to google what "cisgender" meant... Has it really come to the point when we need to tell people that we're default, stock, bog-standard, OEM human beings???

Brilliantly answered your own question there - as long as some gender identities are considered "normal" and the others are considered "weird" than yes, I reckon it's necessary, for that very reason.

Confused though, I came here expecting a thread about sex, but all I can find is a discussion about gender. Disappointed.

Oh, and race. Don't recall the thread in question, but I've seen others where stating ethnicity gets questioned where there is no apparent pertinence to its mention, and its context suggests that it's only mentioned to either emphasise diference and /or imply some stereotyped behaviours of people with that characteristic (which might be race, or, yes, might be gender) - examples I recall seeing here or elsewhere are, for example, threads criticising poor driving where it goes "driver" "driver" "driver" "driver" "woman driver" "driver" "driver" "black man" "driver" "driver" - it's blindingly obvious to me why that attracts raised eyebrows...

There's no argument with chromosomes; you're XX or XY

[url= http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency ]Oh - if only it was so simple…[/url] 🙄

Judging by the sudden social acceptance of people living outside the simple genders they were born with, the number of people putting themselves forward for help from Gender Identity services in the NHS is going up exponentially. In 2014, 70 new cases were started in the Norwich trust and more than 100 are expected in 2016.

There's a rise, but it's hardly going to make a dent in statistics when you look at the number of people served by the Norwich NHS Trust (around 655,000).

It's risen from from 0.0107% to 0.0152%.

Now, call me old fashioned, but assuming Norwich is fairly representative of the rest of the UK (which we all know it isn't due to the shallow gene pool), should we really need to re-label 99.99 percent of the population on the off chance that 0.0152% *might* be offended?

makecoldplayhistory

If I offended a lady policeman by saying that, I think that's her issue. I don't want to be an arsehole but I really couldn't care less.

Well, that’s because you’re sat in a situation where you are unlikely to feel excluded by such a statement. When you hear the same thing, over and over and over again, it starts to get just a little bit annoying.

I do get why you think that’s “her problem” - you don’t experience it. It’s difficult to see from the inside.

Can I suggest (once Radio 6 has stopped playing Bowie) you listen to an excellent comedy set Marcus Brigstocke did? It’s very silly but really does help explain why this stuff matters.

olegmcnoleg - erm - that’s new cases per year - it adds up. Generally, about 1% of the population is gender non-conforming but growing.

Rachel

Sex is a really simply definition and there's a very specific 'gender indicator'; male or female. There's no argument with chromosomes; you're XX or XY.

Do you mean sex or gender? Assuming gender. And you're wrong. That's not a political point, you've got the science wrong, people are born with the physical distinctions not as clear cut as you assert. You may have heard of Caster Semanya (not sure on spelling there) - she was not the first human born where the issue arose.

As a medical term I agree completely that it is useful. As a day to day thing, not really. As long as you know what a person identifies as and respect that then that's all that is really necessary IMO.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, women and men are quite different. I personally am quite glad of the ability to distinguish between the two

See sex vs gender. See also transgender issues (but you're a man! Er, no I'm not...). Not a simple as all that.

[quote=chip ]Wont be long before they are pulling you up for mentioning he was a man

I was wondering why nobody is concerned about the typecasting of cars by colour

Wont be long before they are pulling you up for mentioning he was a man

I was thinking that as I wrote it

olegmcnoleg - erm - that’s new cases per year - it adds up. Generally, about 1% of the population is gender non-conforming but growing.

Erm, these people die too... We're not going to end up with a majority population of trans-gender folk strutting around with their big hands and feather boas!*

And christ knows where you get 1% from, the most commonly touted figure is 0.3% which is SIGNIFICANTLY less than 1%.

*Again, tongue-in-cheek facetious language used for humourous effect (for Rachel's benefit).

What about the Micra? Was it really communist?

Generally, about 1% of the population is gender non-conforming but growing.

Never try to be funny/facetious on here!

A few years ago I was on the wrong end of a homophobic attack by an idiot in a car while out riding. On mentioning the homophobic aspect I said "Well I was in Lycra on my road bike" and got the kind of shoeing on here that made wish I was still on the A6 dodging abuse and cans of Carling!

Or on the flipside, whether the number is actually growing or (more likely) the number of people who are now comfortable enough to state they have a non-conforming gender is growing.

i.e. they don't see more cases because incidents of Gender Identity Crisis are growing; they see more cases because people are realising that Gender Identity Crisis is a thing and there is help available to them.

Now, as a red-blooded bloke, if things were getting frisky, I'd prefer to know... Not because I'm a homophobe, or because I think people shouldn't have the right to reassign their gender, but at the end of the day, I'm a straight bloke and my preference is for straight women. With small hands.

Do you want to screw them, or not? If you do, but they're transgender, have you got a tiny little bit of cognitive dissonance, given how indisputably straight you are? Are you going to be a dick about it? #BigQuestions.

🙂

To be clear: I am interested only in why there is a convention of distinguishing between the sexes in a professional context.

I think the official convention nowadays is to use gender neutral terms, e.g. firefighter, police officer, actor, nurse etc although gendered terms are obviously still used informally by many people, because they have been around for so long.
Seems like common sense and more accurate to use gender neutral terminology, when it's the role that is important, not the gender of the person doing the job.

Do you want to screw them, or not? If you do, but they're transgender, have you got a tiny little bit of cognitive dissonance, given how indisputably straight you are? Are you going to be a dick about it? #BigQuestions.

Depends, there's probably a long list of other things you'd want to know as well though isn't there that aren't to do with whether their bits dangle or not?

Are they thick as 2 short planks and unable to hold a conversation?
Are they really into S&M?
Do they vote Tory?
Are they only sleeping with you because they're a dirty old man and you're a 14yr old boy?

None to do with the dangly bits, all mostly in the mind, but it would still inform your decision wouldn't it?

You're awfy choosie. I thought the standard STW requirement was "is it breathing?"

Stop being so discriminatory to the living impaired.

Should we really only say what is pertinent.
I actually like a bit of detail. If it was a matter a pertinence a black man in a red micra becomes someone in a car.
God would life not be so boring.

It's more about people who are quick to judge others because they think they are judging others.
We had it here when that poor young girl disappeared when lots of people went potty because the media mentioned the main suspects nationality. Young girl murdered by Latvian man and people were upset because they did not believe Latvian was pertinent. Why is Latvian not pertinent but young girl and man are, should it not be one person is murdered by another and no more.

They deliberately did not report the cologne sex attacks as according to the female exec they did not want to report it as she said it would be unfair on other immigrants.

PC correctness is dangerous as recently proved.

all the gear "Oh - if only it was so simple… "

It is.

For example, gonadal dysgenesis is divided into XX gonadal dysgenesis and XY gonadal deygenesis.

Another, vaginal agenesis, is a physical abnormality. Not saying it's anything other than terrible, but it's not the same as sex / gender issues (that's sex as an adjective). It may cause mental issues as a side effect, but it's a physical issue.

______________________________________________________________________

If I offended a lady policeman by saying that, I think that's her issue. I don't want to be an arsehole but I really couldn't care less.

Well, that’s because you’re sat in a situation where you are unlikely to feel excluded by such a statement. When you hear the same thing, over and over and over again, it starts to get just a little bit annoying.

I do get why you think that’s “her problem” - you don’t experience it. It’s difficult to see from the inside.

If something is just a little bit annoying then the best thing to do is ignore it. Spend the time you've saved on something more meaningful.

I'm bi-polar but don't get offended by mental jokes.

__________________________________________________________________________

Do you mean sex or gender? Assuming gender. And you're wrong.

I had no idea there was a difference.

people are born with the physical distinctions not as clear cut as you assert

ambiguous genitalia is different to what I'm talking about. I'm sure it must be very difficult to deal with. You're still XX or XY though. There are very, very, very few people with chromosonal abnormalities like XXY. So few, it's not worth discussing unless you're a geneticist, specialist or have a particular need to know about it.

___________________________________________________________________________

I think the official convention nowadays is to use gender neutral terms, e.g. firefighter, police officer, actor, nurse etc although gendered terms are obviously still used informally by many people, because they have been around for so long.

Honestly, I didn't pay that much attention in biology, but isn't female the [u]default sex[/u], until some of us become men in utero? Hence both sexes having nipples. Therefore a police officer, we would assume to be a lady?

It seems like those who don't like labels, the one's who aren't normal*, are the ones seeking labels for themselves, it's just that the list of labels grows as it attempts to accomodate everyone. As I said earlier though, with this stuff being a continuum, there will never be enough labels!

*I mean 'normal' in a non-offensive way. Average may be a better word. I mean something like 'born a man, in a man's body. Sexualy attracted to females in female bodies...