Demographics Poll: What is your sex/gender?
semiticgoddess
Member Posts: 14,903
This is the first in a series of polls to measure the demographics of the Beamdog community (I was just curious). The poll is anonymous by default, but you're welcome to discuss the issue publicly if you like.
The other polls are here:
Race/Ethnicity
Nationality
Religion
Political Affiliation
The other polls are here:
Race/Ethnicity
Nationality
Religion
Political Affiliation
- Demographics Poll: What is your sex/gender?117 votes
- Female11.97%
- Male78.63%
- Trans Female2.56%
- Trans Male0.00%
- Non-binary1.71%
- Intergender0.85%
- Other (please specify via post or PM if you wish to remain anonymous)3.42%
- Just show me the results.0.85%
Post edited by semiticgoddess on
8
Comments
Non-binary and intergender through have no basis in science for what I know.
These terms are all very new, so their definitions are still very fuzzy. A lot of these ideas are pretty new, so people had to come up with new words to describe them. The meanings will probably shift in the coming years, so I wouldn't worry too much about knowing the exact difference between them. "Trans" is the big one.
Technically, there's a difference between a rock and a stone, and there's also a difference between a bug and an insect, but unless you're a geologist or an entomologist, you probably don't need to worry about which one is which.
I'll tag @GenderNihilismGirdle for her thoughts.
And then with gender, obviously the Western gender binary was imposed by colonization on a whole host of peoples who had not just "third genders" but in some cases a whole SYSTEM of genders in their cultures, some with sacred significance but often just culturally accepted expressions of who you are. Maria Lugones is a good academic to look into if you want to understand the ways this imposition of the colonial gender binary had all kinds of lasting damage and intergenerational trauma in colonized indigenous cultures, I won't go into detail here.
So to bring it back, I would say that sex and gender have a lot of forms and non-binary can be a way of expressing an outside to binary notions of gender, or a rejection of the binary for that person, but for some it can be more of an expression that there is some mix of binary expressions (this is controversial with some people using non-binary to express an outside or rejection of the binary but I've always thought since it always expresses something personal there's no need to apply a universalizing/totalizing notion to ANY idea of gender, much less non-binary ones that are meant to HIGHLIGHT that universalizing/totalizing gender is kind of messed up in the first place but I digress) and intergender I know is a controversial term with some intersex people because gender-as-separate from their varied karyotypes means anyone could use the term and intersex sort of covers both meanings within the community, so there's a sense of people trying to "Me too!" with a community of people who have to deal with all kinds of things because of their karyotype variation, including doctors and parents being able to make a decision at birth that the vast majority of intersex people feel should be left up to a teen or adult version of themselves, intersex folks often refer to it as a medical mutilation because of how strongly they feel about it and how much it impacts their life without their voice being able to be involved, and then there's all sorts of medical issues that certain karyotype variants can impose on one's life so...it kind of feels to intersex people I know like someone who isn't intersex using intergender is sort of trying to be "special" without understanding what it is to exist in that "inter" space. I've seen online dissenting opinions on that from intersex people who are fine with it but of the people I know personally it seems to be a consensus that it's an uncomfortable thing.
That's sort of my idk like LGBTI inside look at these terms. I marked Other by the way because I'm a non-binary trans woman (or agender trans woman or gender nihilist trans woman) which is sort of an expression of the fact that I'm still subject to misogyny and transmisogyny as someone who is visibly a trans woman. Like me saying I'm a gender nihilist/agender/nb trans person isn't going to make a difference to the kind of people who murder trans women for example. If I was followed out of a concert and killed in an alley for being a trans woman and provoking the insecurity and rage of a violent transmisogynist, holding out my hands and saying "wait, no, I think gender is a social construct that's socio-culturally conditioned in a dizzying diversity of ways and inherently devoid of meaning in each instance and am actually a nihilist with regard to gender" isn't going to make that violent transmisogynist reconsider lmao
If any of this was unclear lmk and I'll try to clarify!
I've been doing amazingly, actually, like really well. I'm in a wonderful non-monogamous relationship with an even more wonderful woman and my mental health hasn't been this great in like 7+ years!
Don't mind answering, woman which most know anyway.
What I'd find more interesting on this forum, is seeing whether male/female players react differently to the various NPC.
Also, I kept reading "political affliction", which I felt was very apt.
Also, you using terms like "pop science reductive understanding" is a red flag in itself.
Conceptions of gender which are not the Western binary have been going on since the first recorded civilization in history though, so I don't know why you'd be surprised or skeptical prima facie of claims of cultures with more than three genders (and "third gender" is easy enough to google if you want OODLES of examples of cultures with those, but I assume what you meant was examples of cultures with more than three since every continent on Earth has multiple examples of cultures with third genders...although again that term is one that presumes the binary, which from the Sumerians to the Buginese it can be shown is not presumed with the kind of universality the West would like to believe, neither through time nor space).
Also, your assertion that pointing out that science is plagued by pop science reductive understandings of science is a "red flag" is a weird dig at literally every STEM major ever LMFAO
But there was one time my girlfriend did my eyelashes and I felt really awesome. Shame I couldn't show up in work like that...
By "pop science" you either expressed lack of understanding of what science and scientific method is or you are trying to suggest that science is catering to popular beliefs, which is evidently not true. In layman terms science does not care how you feel about it. True, there are instances in which the researcher is corrupted and tries to push his/her agenda (example that fits this topic nicely: dr John Money) rather than face reality (and in Money's particular example, at expense of his test subject), but what's notable of instances like those is disregard of scientific method.
Second, I wanted you to back yourself up with facts because you did a serious mistake. You pointed out at earlier civilizations to say "see? there always were multiple genders!". What's wrong with your reasoning here is as following:
1) You cherry picked examples of a beliefs that fit your overall world view.
2) You disregarded all other beliefs those civilizations held.
3) I don't know how you came to the conclusion that, since early civilizations believed in more than two genders/non-binary genders etc, then it proves you right. Your belief requires similar leap of logic like that of creationist's using fine-tuning argument to "prove" that the universe was created by god. At surface it might sound convincing and profound, but when you dig a little bit deeper into it, you'll see the argumentation is simply invalid.
4) Finally, I asked you for citation because, while weak, your argument appears to be profound and nobody here questioned it. So somebody had to start questioning you and it just happens that person is me.
Finally, let's discuss the links you provided. First, the books. They might be worth of a read, but still only one of them appears to be covering the topic of general beliefs of said civilization - native Americans in this case. So only one of them potentially will allow you to find out about their gender-based believes, compare them to their other beliefs and see how valid all of them are in light to what science has to say about it.
The article on the other hand, is not valid at all. To sum it op: it appears the general world view on gender was tied to, let's say "functionality" of the gender rather what the gender actually is. I am pretty sure I'm still male, even if I don't conform to social standards. I'm also pretty sure that male still remains as male, even if he's sexually passive. In a way, the beliefs presented there were similar to how Israelites used to divide animals into "kinds" - that is based on what the animal does (bats fly, therefore they're birds kind of logic), rather what the animal actually is because they didn't know any better. So, dividing things into function rather than what those things actually are. Same mistake, same lack of knowledge. This is not something anyone should base their world view on!
I have found @GenderNihilismGirdle ‘s post most insightful - and I am thankful for your insights and lenghty posts.
I dont need a quote to find them more insightful, but take them for what they are: some very insightful post about genders on a forum otherwise devoted for great RPG’s set in the made up land of Faerun.
@O_Bruce you do have point. Civilizations and people are different, and not all are alike. It may be me reading a context into @GenderNihilismGirdle’s post, but I didnt see them as trying to shoehorn a wider understanding of the sexes into all cultures - but only to some/many. So I do think that your closer to a common understanding than you suspect. But then again I am just a book...
And how about them Yankees?
Even if you are to make the point that social expectations, then please consider the following: boys are more attracted to technical toys than girls, and girls are attracted more to social toys. To find out whether it is due to social conditioning or not, you would need a subjects that were not conditioned by people. Enter the monkeys. For some reasons males preferred more technical toys, while females - more social type of toys. Were the monkeys under pressure of our social/cultural expectations or maybe they were just biologically hardwired to this? Another thing to look up.
All that being said, I want to make some things clear. First, I will try to find one of those books you mentioned previously. Second, I want you to know that by saying all this I don't mean you any disrespect.