Lazy8 wrote: 
Are you telling me to F off and get over it ?

I'm not trolling.  I have not said we should do this or do that.  I'm asking honest and real questions just like sird did earlier in trying to get a handle on this.
  

This is big stuff.  This is just as big as saying that the sun does not revolve around the earth.  You want to say deal with it and get over it ?   If as in the most recent link provided by Richard is true, this has always been with us, but never understood, same as the earth revolves around the sun was always true, but only recently understood in the long scope of human history.  I've already made some adjustments in my thinking because of the most recent link provided by Richard.

You obviously have given this much thought already.  So how do we address this as a society with rules and norms, force acceptance and move on ?  Do I sound like I'm trolling now ?  Yes, I am, cuz you responded to me in that way.
  

So much for polite and honest discussion or in other words, never mind.  At least I made an effort to try to learn and gain an understanding of a revolutionary development that challenges thousands of years of conventional thinking. 

Have a nice day.

 R_P wrote: 
That was most helpful.  Time to reflect.

 kurtster wrote: 
What if the state of mind has a biological source?

 kurtster wrote:
I think you are missing the real transition that is going on.

It's not so much about making the old distinctions between genders but changing the definitions of the genders as it is about making gender irrelevant, and recognizing that a lot of the assumptions our society (and its ancestors) made about gender were not accurate. That human variability is so large and traditional gender roles so restrictive that forcing people to fit within a defined role didn't match their individual natures.

You want to look at a baby's junk and know all you need to about a lot of that baby's future. The baby (and the person it grows up to be) doesn't get a say in that. And truthfully a lot of what you want to assume about that baby and that person isn't just wrong—it's not yours (or anyone else's) to decide.

There are times and places where biological gender matters, mostly medical situations. If you're not treating a patient...what's it to you?.

 kurtster wrote: 
Well, yeah.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Yes, they were here at RP.

But my questions are serious.  Its not at all about disagreeing or delegitimizing the state of mind that is the source of this discussion.  That is real. 

We apparently have established a new dichotomy.  That being between the biological / factual and perceived.

What are the rules going to be ?  There has to be rules.  As in the link posted by Richard below, transgender is now a protected class.  It was his link that inspired me to ask. That means rules are now required.

I've been following this thread and get the idea and accept it.  Until seeing the link below I saw no reason to get into this thread.  Now I have one.

 kurtster wrote: 
those people who told you that.... were they local?

So we now have two cases for gender, eh ?  The biological and self identity.

Or does the biological even matter anymore ?

Or after further thought, does gender only apply to the mental state ? 

If so, how do we describe the physical state and what do we call it ?

In that I mean, how can we ignore the physical reality ?

One is reality and the other is imagined / perceived ...

I remember some 10 or so years ago I put forth the notion somewhere here that reality is a local event and immediately was told I was crazy.

Now it appears to be true.

A check on bigotry...

A federal judge late Friday barred the federal government from implementing President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender members of the military, finding that the ban had to be subject to a careful court review before implementation because of the history of discrimination against transgender individuals.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington ruled that transgender people were a protected class and that the injunctions against the implementation of the ban that had been issued in December should remain in place. She wrote that there was a “long and well-recognized” history of discrimination and systemic oppression against transgender people, that discrimination against transgender people was clearly “unrelated to their ability to perform and contribute to society,” that transgender people have immutable characteristics and that they lacked relative political power.

“Transgender people have long been forced to live in silence, or to come out and face the threat of overwhelming discrimination,” Pechman wrote.

“The Court also rules that, because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. Therefore, any attempt to exclude them from military service will be looked at with the highest level of care, and will be subject to the Court’s ‘strict scrutiny.’ This means that before Defendants can implement the Ban, they must show that it was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype, and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests,” Pechman wrote.

While Trump had tweeted that he consulted generals and military experts about the ban, Pechman wrote that the government had “failed to identify even one General or military expert he consulted, despite having been ordered to do so repeatedly.”

Noting that Pentagon officials were surprised by the announcement and that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis got a heads up only one day beforehand, the judge wrote that she “is led to conclude that the Ban was devised by the President, and the President alone.” (...)

 R_P wrote:

 
Pakistan!

Marvia Malik - Pakistan TV airs first transgender anchor

 sirdroseph wrote:

 
that's your identity

and what might be good for you to come to understand is that for some people, there's a  difference between gender assignment and gender identity.

 meower wrote: 
I can't help but think about this in the context of someone who lives in a smaller society. It's one thing in the Big City to talk about gender fluidity but when you're on a Pacific island or a multi-acre farm - there's no cultural support for a "let's explore it" option and I'd be very surprised if there was a high suicide component because of that lack. In the Tipping Point, Gladwell tries to explore the idea of how on an island there was basically no suicide until someone hung themselves, and then it suddenly became part of the society there.

To what extent are people growing up influenced as to how they feel as a result of the diffuse acceptance/rejection/ignorance of ways of behaving around them?

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Whether the judge rules or not, the norms will stay in place (and likely will do so for a long time esp. in some places). Now you can also imagine what happens when certain people want to choose which bathroom to enter or to enlist. Some people will (and have) put up barriers...

PS: ... because other people do not conform to their views (norms) on gender.

 R_P wrote: 




Funny you should use that as an example, A judge in a circuit court in Colorado just ruled that requiring females over the age of 9 to wear shirts is unconstitutional. Something I fully support, free the nipple! lol

 Lazy8 wrote: 




I get that, it does help somewhat in my understanding.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
You live in a society, and that society has gender norms. It should be rather obvious that we are to some extent shaped by those norms (often starting with blue and pink). It doesn't matter whether you yourself accept it or not, it will be impressed upon you or even forced if needed.

To give you a simple example of how these things come into play. If you were to take your lady to town during a sunny day, nobody would think twice if you walked through town in shorts and bare-breasted while your lady is dressed. Now reverse that.

As meower already pointed out (via an appeal to equal rights), in some ways the cards are stacked against one gender (let alone more complicated forms). That's why there is such a thing as feminism. To break barriers and tear down some privileges that one side has, while the other(s) has/have (not).

 sirdroseph wrote:
Our nature is more than the hardware we were born with.

You have accepted the gender your body has, and have never questioned it. That just means that you don't have a conflict with your gender identity, not that you don't have one. That process of acceptance wasn't conscious for most of us, as we never saw (or needed) an option. It's one of those things we don't notice until it doesn't happen.

 meower wrote: 





Yea I guess we are getting our signals crossed. lol I have just never been one big on identity or culture, I guess it stems from my intense individualism. I think we are all too caught up in our geographical backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so forth. I don't love being a man anymore than I were a woman, I just happen to be one so I go through life as such and as for myself feel that way about all the labels. I am a big believer in nature whether it be natural herbs as opposed to pharmaceuticals or being able to freely express in all ways who you truly are and were born as and it seems contraindicated to freely express your natural born sexuality, but not accepting your natural born gender. Struggle with it, but I guarantee you this I have never treated anybody I come in contact any different than anyone else regardless of their gender real or perceived or anything else for that matter and that is far more important than whether I understand it or not.

 sirdroseph wrote:

 
honestly, I think that you are the one with the phenomenon. No offense

I'm a woman. I love being a woman. I've struggled with what my body looks like, but I've never ever wanted a penis () I want the rights that men have, but I sure as SHIT don't want to be one. I appreciate my estrogen and everything else that keeps me from being a man.