LGBT and other labels

Here Rests A Cemetery · Post by **Here Rests A Cemetery** » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:48 pm

I didn't say anything about intersex, Roo. I was talking about gender non-binary, which isn't a physical issue.

Shake · Post by **Shake** » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:28 pm

I don't have a lot to add as my knowledge on these issues is rather limited. I did learn a lot though, by reading Galileo's Middle Finger, which has nothing to do with telescopes and astronomy, but rather opened my eyes to the whole T and I parts of the LGBTQI acronym.

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:21 am

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]...
I agree that we should have another word for it. Because in everyday language we equate gender with body dimorphism. That leads the queer theoreticians and the other side (what are they called? biologists?) talking past each other.[/quote]

There's that psychological dimension, which obviously is not firmly tied to an X or Y chromosome. 'Gender' is a word I grew up understanding as two-valued, either male or female; so I also think another word, more to do with sexual psychology than with sexual biology, would be a very good idea. But I don't know what that word would be.

Roo St. Gallus · Post by **Roo St. Gallus** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:24 am

[quote=""Here Rests A Cemetery""]I didn't say anything about intersex, Roo. I was talking about gender non-binary, which isn't a physical issue.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you chimed in on a thread segment specifically and exclusively addressing that subtopic. I posted the entire thread segment when I asked you.

Go ahead. Go back and look. (Post #131 ITT)

It looks like your tugboat missed the dock on this one.

Here Rests A Cemetery · Post by **Here Rests A Cemetery** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:25 am

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

Here Rests A Cemetery;680265 wrote:I didn't say anything about intersex, Roo. I was talking about gender non-binary, which isn't a physical issue.

I'm sorry, but you chimed in on a thread segment specifically and exclusively addressing that subtopic. I posted the entire thread segment when I asked you.

Go ahead. Go back and look. (Post #131 ITT)

It looks like your tugboat missed the dock on this one.[/QUOTE]

Oh, LGBTQ apparently means intersex now, which would imply genetic abnormalities such as XXX chromosomes.

Still wasn't talking about intersex. Gonna just throw you on ignore. 7 years and still the same dweeb.

Roo St. Gallus · Post by **Roo St. Gallus** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:38 am

That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.

DrZoidberg · Post by **DrZoidberg** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:42 am

[quote=""Jobar""]

DrZoidberg;680206 wrote:...
I agree that we should have another word for it. Because in everyday language we equate gender with body dimorphism. That leads the queer theoreticians and the other side (what are they called? biologists?) talking past each other.

There's that psychological dimension, which obviously is not firmly tied to an X or Y chromosome. 'Gender' is a word I grew up understanding as two-valued, either male or female; so I also think another word, more to do with sexual psychology than with sexual biology, would be a very good idea. But I don't know what that word would be.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that will catch it. It's not just psychology. Some people build muscle faster than others. Some men have bigger penises. Some have bigger beards. Women have differently sized boobs. Body hair varies a lot. Anybody who has messed around with psychoactive medication, drugs or steroids knows how much our psychology is influenced by hormones.

I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of a mind/body dualism. I think it's an obsolete way to think of it. They're connected.

ruby sparks · Post by **ruby sparks** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:31 am

There's no doubt the existing words cause confusion. As in this headline:

"KIM KARDASHIAN WEST ACCIDENTALLY REVEALS THE GENDER OF HER BABY"

That's her baby that hasn't been born yet.

I could even quibble about the word 'baby' but...that wouldn't help matters.

ruby sparks · Post by **ruby sparks** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:36 am

What about 'sexual identity' instead of gender? Not perfect, I know (already in use so may cause confusion of a different sort), but it's not going to get confused with 'sex' (and I do think that arguably the biggest issue of usage comes from confusion and conflation). One could even argue that it encompasses the psychological and the cultural/social/role aspects, as well as catering for (encompassing) orientations (which is what sexual identity currently covers, as I understand it). And Kim Kardashian West could never be said to accidentally reveal the sexual identity of her unborn baby.

I read that it was Sexual Identity that John Money was investigating when in 1955 he (wisely? unwisely?) decided to appropriate the word gender to describe it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Wiki says the terminological distinction he made did not become widespread until the 1970's when it was adopted by Feminist Theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

At the moment we already appear to have:

Sex
Gender
Orientation
Sexual identity
Gender identity
Sexual orientation
Gender orientation
Sexual orientation identity......

I couldn't find gender orientation identity when googling. Not sure why not, but there could be a gap in the market for a new phenomenon or at least a new label.

DrZoidberg · Post by **DrZoidberg** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:13 am

[quote=""ruby sparks""]What about 'sexual identity' instead of gender?

Not perfect, I know (already in use so may cause confusion of a different sort), but it's not going to get confused with 'sex' (and I do think that arguably the biggest issue of usage comes from confusion and conflation). One could even argue that it encompasses the psychological and the cultural/social/role aspects, as well as catering for (encompassing) orientations (which is what sexual identity currently covers, as I understand it). And Kim Kardashian West could never be said to accidentally reveal the sexual identity of her unborn baby.

I read that it was Sexual Identity that John Money was investigating when in 1955 he (wisely? unwisely?) decided to appropriate the word gender to describe it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Wiki says the terminological distinction he made did not become widespread until the 1970's when it was adopted by Feminist Theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

At the moment we already appear to have:

Sex
Gender
Orientation
Sexual identity
Gender identity
Sexual orientation
Gender orientation
Sexual orientation identity......

I couldn't find gender orientation identity when googling. Not sure why not, but there could be a gap in the market for a new phenomenon or at least a new label.

[/quote]

The problem with that one is how do you measure it? If we look at it scientifically, if you just allow people to decide for themselves what gender they consider themselves, then how will you sort that out from... I don't know... trends?

The more accurately/objectively we can measure something, the more confidence we'll have when generalising.

I'm not saying you are wrong. It's more that I don't think there's a good answer at the moment.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:08 pm

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]

ruby sparks;680393 wrote:What about 'sexual identity' instead of gender?

Not perfect, I know (already in use so may cause confusion of a different sort), but it's not going to get confused with 'sex' (and I do think that arguably the biggest issue of usage comes from confusion and conflation). One could even argue that it encompasses the psychological and the cultural/social/role aspects, as well as catering for (encompassing) orientations (which is what sexual identity currently covers, as I understand it). And Kim Kardashian West could never be said to accidentally reveal the sexual identity of her unborn baby.

I read that it was Sexual Identity that John Money was investigating when in 1955 he (wisely? unwisely?) decided to appropriate the word gender to describe it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Wiki says the terminological distinction he made did not become widespread until the 1970's when it was adopted by Feminist Theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

At the moment we already appear to have:

Sex
Gender
Orientation
Sexual identity
Gender identity
Sexual orientation
Gender orientation
Sexual orientation identity......

I couldn't find gender orientation identity when googling. Not sure why not, but there could be a gap in the market for a new phenomenon or at least a new label.

The problem with that one is how do you measure it? If we look at it scientifically, if you just allow people to decide for themselves what gender they consider themselves, then how will you sort that out from... I don't know... trends?

The more accurately/objectively we can measure something, the more confidence we'll have when generalising.

I'm not saying you are wrong. It's more that I don't think there's a good answer at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Err, people's own words about what they are aren't scientific data? Where people are concerned, objective data is often about subjective truths. We are all subjects. Data is objective because it is collected in such a way as to eliminate the effect of the researcher's bias, not because it topically concerns objects, or humans being turned into objects by silencing their perspective on themselves.

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:29 pm

I agree with Ruby; 'orientation' seems a better word than 'gender' when we're discussing something other than the basic duality of biological sex.

I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of a mind/body dualism. I think it's an obsolete way to think of it. They're connected.

No argument- I never thought otherwise. It's a polarity, not a pure either/or duality. But the rainbow of sexual orientations still has more to do with the mental aspect or pole of sexuality than it does with the physical, bodily aspect, I would say. Yes, there are people whose bodies don't allow a clear division into male or female; but from what I know of it, those are far rarer than people who are plainly male or female in body, but not comfortable in the role their body would have them fill.

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:53 pm

I do admit that one might call the subtle differences in brain chemistry and/or architecture, which modern science can identify in some LGBT+ people, physical- more to do with the body than the mind. But those differences are not externally visible, of course.

ruby sparks · Post by **ruby sparks** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:20 pm

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]The problem with that one is how do you measure it? If we look at it scientifically, if you just allow people to decide for themselves what gender they consider themselves, then how will you sort that out from... I don't know... trends?

The more accurately/objectively we can measure something, the more confidence we'll have when generalising.

I'm not saying you are wrong. It's more that I don't think there's a good answer at the moment.[/quote]

I guess I was aiming only at 'better', in terms of clarity. And I was particularly aiming at the confusion between the terms sex and gender, which is not helped by the fact that in certain sciences, they are used interchangeably. But I accept that in trying to make one issue more clear, it may muddy the waters in another.

As to measuring, yes, although I agree with Poli that in several sciences, and probably in this one, until we can find something to measure (a gene? A hormone? A combination of both? Something else?) which physically explains what people feel, then the best we can do is subjective data, which as Poli says, is admissible.

[quote=""Jobar""]I agree with Ruby; 'orientation' seems a better word than 'gender' when we're discussing something other than the basic duality of biological sex.[/quote]

Well, actually, I had suggested 'identity'

Though Im like orientation too. As things stands, it seems to me (I stand to be corrected) this is currently used to describe how one feels about others, but in principle I can't see a good reason why it shouldn't also encompass what one feels about oneself.

[quote=""Jobar""]No argument- I never thought otherwise. It's a polarity, not a pure either/or duality.[/quote]

Right. A polarity not a duality. I liked your 'U-shaped distrobution' model.

[quote=""Jobar""]I do admit that one might call the subtle differences in brain chemistry and/or architecture, which modern science can identify in some LGBT+ people, physical- more to do with the body than the mind. But those differences are not externally visible, of course.[/quote]

There may, I suppose, come a time when we can measure something inside people which would allow us to predict their...oh what to call it.....gender identity? Sexual Identity? Orientation? Whatever.

But for now, asking people might be the only way, with all the subjective reporting issues which that unfortunately entails.

DrZoidberg · Post by **DrZoidberg** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:47 am

[quote=""Politesse""]

DrZoidberg;680394 wrote:
ruby sparks;680393 wrote:What about 'sexual identity' instead of gender?

Not perfect, I know (already in use so may cause confusion of a different sort), but it's not going to get confused with 'sex' (and I do think that arguably the biggest issue of usage comes from confusion and conflation). One could even argue that it encompasses the psychological and the cultural/social/role aspects, as well as catering for (encompassing) orientations (which is what sexual identity currently covers, as I understand it). And Kim Kardashian West could never be said to accidentally reveal the sexual identity of her unborn baby.

I read that it was Sexual Identity that John Money was investigating when in 1955 he (wisely? unwisely?) decided to appropriate the word gender to describe it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Wiki says the terminological distinction he made did not become widespread until the 1970's when it was adopted by Feminist Theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

At the moment we already appear to have:

Sex
Gender
Orientation
Sexual identity
Gender identity
Sexual orientation
Gender orientation
Sexual orientation identity......

I couldn't find gender orientation identity when googling. Not sure why not, but there could be a gap in the market for a new phenomenon or at least a new label.
The problem with that one is how do you measure it? If we look at it scientifically, if you just allow people to decide for themselves what gender they consider themselves, then how will you sort that out from... I don't know... trends?

The more accurately/objectively we can measure something, the more confidence we'll have when generalising.

I'm not saying you are wrong. It's more that I don't think there's a good answer at the moment.

Err, people's own words about what they are aren't scientific data? Where people are concerned, objective data is often about subjective truths. We are all subjects. Data is objective because it is collected in such a way as to eliminate the effect of the researcher's bias, not because it topically concerns objects, or humans being turned into objects by silencing their perspective on themselves.[/QUOTE]

It has to do with communication. I'm straight as an arrow. The term needs to be something that can communicate to me what's going on regardless if you're in the club or not. Otherwise it's not communicating.

"I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it" is an example of a bad definition.

For example, "I know I was born a women, but I feel as a man". How does this person define woman? How does this person define man? It's not clear.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:47 pm

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.[/quote]

You're just as easy to get along with as ever, Roo. Keep up that consistency, buddy!

Roo St. Gallus · Post by **Roo St. Gallus** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:14 am

[quote=""Pandora""]

Roo St. Gallus;680388 wrote:That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.

You're just as easy to get along with as ever, Roo. Keep up that consistency, buddy![/QUOTE]

Really? And I thought I had reduced the scatological content.

Oh, well...

Here Rests A Cemetery · Post by **Here Rests A Cemetery** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:17 am

[quote=""Pandora""]

Roo St. Gallus;680388 wrote:That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.

You're just as easy to get along with as ever, Roo. Keep up that consistency, buddy![/QUOTE]

I was talking about transgender suicide rates, hence the 41% statistic. He rambles on about intersex. He's obtuse & thick as shit.

Roo St. Gallus · Post by **Roo St. Gallus** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:45 am

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

Pandora;680545 wrote:
Roo St. Gallus;680388 wrote:That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.
You're just as easy to get along with as ever, Roo. Keep up that consistency, buddy!

Really? And I thought I had reduced the scatological content.

Oh, well...[/QUOTE]

There it is now.

Hermit · Post by **Hermit** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:40 am

[quote=""Here Rests A Cemetery""]I was talking about transgender suicide rates, hence the 41% statistic.[/quote]You obviously have not read up on what you are talking about. Firstly, the report on which that number is based concerns suicide attempts. That is why it is titled Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults. According to the American Association of Suicidology the overall ratio between attempted and successful suicides is 1:25. For people aged 15 to 24 it is somewhere between 100 and 200:1. Among the elderly it is 4:1. Secondly, the report itself suggests under the heading "Methods and Limitations" on page 3 that the percentage of 41% of attempted suicides may actually be as low as 20%, though it also says that number cannot be ascertained.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:04 pm

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

Pandora;680545 wrote:
Roo St. Gallus;680388 wrote:That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.
You're just as easy to get along with as ever, Roo. Keep up that consistency, buddy!

Really? And I thought I had reduced the scatological content.

Oh, well...[/QUOTE]

A healthy repertoire of expletives can, in many cases, increase the enjoyment of any given interaction; a lack of them does not necessarily do so

Mostly, my observation is that you sorta lack diplomacy. You come across as fairly abrasive a lot of times. But no worries - I'm pretty well used to it at this point.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:08 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]

Here Rests A Cemetery;680554 wrote:I was talking about transgender suicide rates, hence the 41% statistic.

You obviously have not read up on what you are talking about. Firstly, the report on which that number is based concerns suicide attempts. That is why it is titled Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults. According to the American Association of Suicidology the overall ratio between attempted and successful suicides is 1:25. For people aged 15 to 24 it is somewhere between 100 and 200:1. Among the elderly it is 4:1. Secondly, the report itself suggests under the heading "Methods and Limitations" on page 3 that the percentage of 41% of attempted suicides may actually be as low as 20%, though it also says that number cannot be ascertained.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Allow me to interject a perspective here.

At what percentage does the rate of attempted suicides among this particular sup-population become acceptable?
If it is above an acceptable level... is it by a negligible percentage?
If it is not a negligible difference... what is gained by quibbling about the specific percentage?

Roo St. Gallus · Post by **Roo St. Gallus** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:14 pm

[quote=""Pandora""]

Roo St. Gallus;680550 wrote:
Pandora;680545 wrote:
Roo St. Gallus;680388 wrote:That sounds excellent to me.

If you cannot comprehend simple explanatory sentences and respond accordingly, then there is no real purpose in attempting to communicate with you.

Come back when you learn to correctly parse English sentences.
You're just as easy to get along with as ever, Roo. Keep up that consistency, buddy!

Really? And I thought I had reduced the scatological content.

Oh, well...

A healthy repertoire of expletives can, in many cases, increase the enjoyment of any given interaction; a lack of them does not necessarily do so

Mostly, my observation is that you sorta lack diplomacy. You come across as fairly abrasive a lot of times. But no worries - I'm pretty well used to it at this point.[/QUOTE]

Heh...Yeah. My friends tend to call it 'blunt'. As in 'blunt instrument'.

I forget which 'moderator' it was who told me they thought I had a 'loose contact'....I thought it a modicum of improvement over 'loose cannon'...and appended it as my member title here. Truth in advertising, and all.

Hermit · Post by **Hermit** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:25 am

[quote=""Pandora""]At what percentage does the rate of attempted suicides among this particular sup-population become acceptable?[/quote]
After excluding euthanasia 0% would make the suicide rate among any population acceptable. So, if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sup-population is three times higher than that of the total population, it is three times less acceptable.

[quote=""Pandora""]If it is not a negligible difference... what is gained by quibbling about the specific percentage?[/quote]
Perspective. Here Rests A Cemetery asserts that the suicide rate in the LGBTQIA+ sup-population is 315 times greater than that of the general US population. The practical implications do not make the discrepancy a quibble, especially when you compare the actual difference (3x) with the different suicide rates between men and women (3.5x).

[quote=""Pandora""]If it is above an acceptable level... is it by a negligible percentage?[/quote]
See above.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:43 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]

Pandora;680686 wrote:At what percentage does the rate of attempted suicides among this particular sup-population become acceptable?

After excluding euthanasia 0% would make the suicide rate among any population acceptable. So, if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sup-population is three times higher than that of the total population, it is three times less acceptable.

[quote=""Pandora""]If it is not a negligible difference... what is gained by quibbling about the specific percentage?[/quote]
Perspective. Here Rests A Cemetery asserts that the suicide rate in the LGBTQIA+ sup-population is 315 times greater than that of the general US population. The practical implications do not make the discrepancy a quibble, especially when you compare the actual difference (3x) with the different suicide rates between men and women (3.5x).

[quote=""Pandora""]If it is above an acceptable level... is it by a negligible percentage?[/quote]
See above.[/QUOTE]

I clearly didn't read the link. Also, I pretty much sucked at angling in on a point. I was aiming for a discussion of materiality. We don't need to settle on what the exact percentage is. It's sufficient to be able to answer those three questions - What is 'normal', and are we close to it? If the answer is that we're far from the norm, then it doesn't really matter if it's 50% or 95% - it's too much, The actual specific percentage only matters if we're close to the norm, and then it's a question of whether the difference is statistically significant.