ancientjaguar (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lady_kishiria) wrote2007-05-12 07:41 am
lady_kishiria) wrote2007-05-12 07:41 am
Entry tags:
Sex is to Gender as Hacker is to ______
This is driving me up a wall.
It is SEX discrimination, not GENDER discrimination. That ridiculous 18th-sonogram-for-your-pregnancy determined your baby's SEX not your baby's GENDER. Having the surgery that turns your innie into an outie or vice versa is SEX reassignment, not GENDER reassignment.
Your SEX is what you have in your pants. Your GENDER is the societal role you play, which usually, but does not always or necessarily, coincide.
I admit, it'd be kinda cool to have true gender discrimination. Imagine being able to get the raises that the hot chicks are getting simply by putting on a dress, wearing makeup, and taking your social cues from "Cathy". It'd make much life easier for trannies too, because Becky wouldn't need expensive surgery to become Brian; all she'd have to do is put on a suit and play out the male role. Bingo! Relatively instant change of gender!
If I ever played out my threat to dress my girl baby entirely in blue or my boy baby entirely in pink, would I be arrested for changing my baby's sex without its consent?
I am starting to realize that sex/gender is the social studies equivalent of the hacker/cracker word pair in the computer geek culture. We all know that hackers are not necessarily crackers, and that most aren't, but how many people know or care about that distinction? I still back up those who do, because I like calling things by their properly descriptive names. For instance, if you are one of the aboriginal people of the Americas, I will never call you an Indian unless you've somehow obtained citizenship in a certain Asian sub-continent.
I can tell you why this distinction bothers me so much, and it's because I'm accutely aware that gender is for many people, sometimes my good self included, something you put on, that you wear. To define people entirely by a role that they may only play for a certain number of hours a day is to lack any sort of grasp on who that person actually is.
Of course, this would be easier if we could tear interests, activities, and emotional reactions away from their being assigned to gender roles. I wrote earlier about the Dangerous Book for Boys and Hilary Clinton acting like the worst female stereotype. It wasn't Hilary acting like a "girlfriend" to win votes--that was a drag show.
I really need to wrap all this up; I started thinking about how drag is dependent on clear gender markers and all of a sudden imagined a gang of angry drag queens at my door, fearing extinction. Got to go.
It is SEX discrimination, not GENDER discrimination. That ridiculous 18th-sonogram-for-your-pregnancy determined your baby's SEX not your baby's GENDER. Having the surgery that turns your innie into an outie or vice versa is SEX reassignment, not GENDER reassignment.
Your SEX is what you have in your pants. Your GENDER is the societal role you play, which usually, but does not always or necessarily, coincide.
I admit, it'd be kinda cool to have true gender discrimination. Imagine being able to get the raises that the hot chicks are getting simply by putting on a dress, wearing makeup, and taking your social cues from "Cathy". It'd make much life easier for trannies too, because Becky wouldn't need expensive surgery to become Brian; all she'd have to do is put on a suit and play out the male role. Bingo! Relatively instant change of gender!
If I ever played out my threat to dress my girl baby entirely in blue or my boy baby entirely in pink, would I be arrested for changing my baby's sex without its consent?
I am starting to realize that sex/gender is the social studies equivalent of the hacker/cracker word pair in the computer geek culture. We all know that hackers are not necessarily crackers, and that most aren't, but how many people know or care about that distinction? I still back up those who do, because I like calling things by their properly descriptive names. For instance, if you are one of the aboriginal people of the Americas, I will never call you an Indian unless you've somehow obtained citizenship in a certain Asian sub-continent.
I can tell you why this distinction bothers me so much, and it's because I'm accutely aware that gender is for many people, sometimes my good self included, something you put on, that you wear. To define people entirely by a role that they may only play for a certain number of hours a day is to lack any sort of grasp on who that person actually is.
Of course, this would be easier if we could tear interests, activities, and emotional reactions away from their being assigned to gender roles. I wrote earlier about the Dangerous Book for Boys and Hilary Clinton acting like the worst female stereotype. It wasn't Hilary acting like a "girlfriend" to win votes--that was a drag show.
I really need to wrap all this up; I started thinking about how drag is dependent on clear gender markers and all of a sudden imagined a gang of angry drag queens at my door, fearing extinction. Got to go.
no subject
But, really, I'm wondering if the word did not fall into disfavour precisely because it also does mean teh seks. So the censors axed it. Anyway, that's just my morning meandering. If I were to want to get bent out of shape, I'd start a thread on WHY so many forms need to know WHAT you are. What difference does it make? Exactly.
Simple hugs,
H.
no subject
And like you, I wonder why it's on so many forms. On MySpace (yech, phtooey, but it's how I keep track of
no subject
no subject
no subject
I have uploaded those photos: here and here.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Say hi to Rudy for me.
=D