No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Please note I’m typing this as a trans man. Being “cis” or “trans” stems from someone’s gender.
Basically, do you identify as your birth gender (not sex, gender and sex are different)? If the answer is yes, you are “cis”. If the answer is no, like I my case, I was born female, I identify as a male, then you are are trans.
I hope this answers your question.
I understand what they are, I'm asking if there is a name for the category of characteristic that they both belong to.
I'm not entirely sure there is a word for it. If not, maybe there should be.
You're not getting an answer to your question because the question, as stated, is incomprehensible. You're asking for a "category of characteristic" that a pair of antonym adjectives "belong to"? That doesn't make sense. They apply to a whole host of characteristics, because they're not describing a specific characteristic, but how a characteristic relates to the whole. Just like "homo" and "hetero"; homozygous, heterogenous, homocystine, and heterophony are all words that use the "homo" or "hetero" prefix to describe how those words relate to other concepts in their category. It's the same with "cis" and "trans". The prefixes don't "belong" to a category of characteristics, they explicitly exist outside of the characteristics of the words their modifying.
That's the best I can do with the way you've chosen to phrase your question, and I admit it's a reach, but your question is gibberish.
Male, female or nonbinary are a person's gender.
White, black, asian (nonexclusively) are a person's race.
Right, left are a person's handedness.
Gay, straight, bi are a person's sexual orientation.
Cis, trans are a person's ________.
"gender identity" might fit. "Identity" taken literally, to mean if the birth sex/gender and the actual expressed gender are identical.
Edit: or "gender divergence" if you want to focus on the difference instead of the sameness.
Cis and trans don’t really describe a person in the same way as the others. They describe a relationship between characteristics, which none of the other descriptors you list do. You could argue, almost correctly, that cis and trans are part of a person’s gender, but neither one of them is a person’s anything.
Gender modality
We could call it "gender metadata" ;p
I'm not actually sure if there's a real term for this. If nothing else, "trans status" works but there should be a better term I think ^.^
Maybe "genderdivergence"?
I think it would have to be "Gender " rather than a single word.
Gender identity.
I talked about that in the original post.
"Relationships between gender identity and birth sex."
The additional explanation actually confused me. Let's compare the two sentences:
A) Basically, do you identify as your birth gender?
B) Basically, do you identify as your birth sex?
I assume biological sex can be identified by looking at your body as a new born baby, and gender is usually inferred accordingly. So I would assume new borns are being assigned a gender which mathes their biology, although they probably don't have any opinions themselves on the topic.
Anyways, what's the difference between A and B? I feel you felt it was important to point it out, and I just can't see any.
Shouldn't it be that you identify with your birth sex? If gender is a social construct you don't have a gender at birth. When the doctor says "It's a boy" they're referring to the genitalia you have, not assigning you a social position.
You might not believe in the social construct at birth, but the social construct believes in you. Children are treated differently based on assigned gender from birth.
No, gender is a social construct and the doctor is assigning a gender to you when you are born based on what he sees as your genital configuration. This is then used to determine nearly everything about you through the social framework of gender.
What colors you're allowed to like, what games you can play, what names you can have, what words are acceptable to refer to you with, who you're allowed to be friends with, what foods your supposed to like, what clothes you're allowed to wear, how people should speak to you, how people should praise you, how people should scold you, whether or not misogyny should be applied to you, and so on and so forth.
Those things are determined based on the gender you are assigned at birth. Those things are enforced across all society at all social levels and in all settings. Parents are the first people to enforce gender onto their children, intentionally or not. Then every single other adult and child they meet or interact with throughout their childhood will continue to enforce gender upon them until they themselves become adults and repeat the cycle with their own kids. Media perpetuates gender, government laws enforce gender, education systems are filled with people who systematically enforce gender upon children.
Thats what we mean when we say gender is a social construct. And you're assigned one at birth.
No, sex is a biological characteristic and the doctor is describing your phenotypic sex based on observable characteristics. This really isn't that complicated. There are two* combinations of chromosomes that determine sex, so there are two sexes. This is basic biology and has absolutely fuckall to do with gender as a social construct.
* Really there are around a half dozen sex chromosome combinations because they occasionally get duplicated. Functionally there are two because all of the combinations except 1 have a y chromosome and are male
Nope. They don't even check your chromosomes when you're born. There are also at least 30 different possible genital configurations at birth. Odd that we don't treat every one of those possibilities uniquely and instead force them to get surgery so the doctor can assign a gender to them. You'd think if it was all basic biology we would just have a unique gender for every one wouldn't you?
There are also many, many more possible configurations of your chromosomes than half a dozen lol. You can also have XY and be assigned female at birth. And vice versa.
Your doctor is assigning you a gender. Thats what he's doing. He calls you either a boy or a girl based on your genital configuration and then as I said in my previous comment that assigned gender goes on to affect every single aspect of your life for the rest of your life.
You don't seem to know what we're even talking about. Sex is not binary and is not enshrined in biology. If we wanted to talk about biology, if the point was biology, if the doctor assigning genders to babies primary concern was biology, then he would assign a unique gender to every single possible genital configuration at birth. All of them would be unique. Instead he's assigning you a gender so that society can treat you a certain way. It's that simple.
Nothing in biology is exactly identical between individuums. A common eye color is brown, although there are as many shades of brown as there are people.
It is just practical and how language, or even perception works, that we tend to categorize similarities, and strongly favor common occurrances over outliers.
Maybe you two aren't even disagreeing?
I'd say the doctor tries to assign the new born into male or female according to biological sex, and gender is inferred from that.
Yes, that's what I mean. A two-step process. First, biological expression is assessed. Next, based on #1, social gender is inferred.
Youre right, we do just use language to describe things in a convenient manner that is not actually universally true. Do you think language just springs out of the ground or something? Humans make it. We make it socially. One might say we socially construct these concepts.
Biological sex is not a thing. There are people with dicks and people with vaginas and people with neither and people with both and people with stuff that isn't even classifiable in terms of the terms dick and vagina. Why is there not a sex for each possible genital configuration? Why not one for each possible chromosomal configuration? Because sex is a concept we as humans created that does not map 1 to 1 with biological reality. Biological sex is not a thing, there is biology and then there is the human made concept of sex. They are 2 different things.
Your doctor assigns you a gender at birth. In most countries he is legally required to mark down one at the time of your birth. That gender is used for all the reasons I listed in a previous comment. Your mother then picks you up and affirms that gender assessment. From then on your gender is assigned until you yourself revoke it.
Sexing in humans isn't phenotypic though. It is chromosomal.
It's both. Phenotyping sex is the common method of determining it because it's really easy and it's accurate enough in 99% of cases.
Sexing through genotyping is 100% accurate, but it's time consuming, comparatively expensive, and only relevant in a tiny handful of cases.
Phenotype doesn't determine sex. It's a function of it. You literally agreed with me on this.
I'm terribly sorry that I've had to dumb down my point so far for people to understand it that you now think it's yours.
Good day.
If your point is that phenotype at all defines sex, you are objectively wrong. It is a function of sex. If your point is that phenotype is a reliable indicator of sexing in humans, you are also objectively wrong.
I rest my case. I guess I can add wrong and objectively to the list of words you don't know.
See now you're both wrong and a prick.