Roseanne sitcom restart

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby pelmut » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:07 pm

moonshadow wrote:Still waiting on the placement of the trans line.... (the point where one ceases to be cis and starts being trans)

It is often taken to be when the honest answer is "Yes" to the question: "If pressing this button would make you wake up tomorrow morning and find you were female and everyone treated you as though you always had been - would you press it?"

Even though their answer may be "Yes", many transgender people decide to continue as they are because of the disruption that transitioning would cause in real life - so by that definition there could be many more transpeople around than the number who actually transition.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby moonshadow » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:34 pm

Understood pelmut.

I get the difference between sex and gender. Where I get hazy is where the line is. It seems based on what I read the line is more or less where the subject person says it is. On that note I can also understand the opponents resistance to the "trans experience" as from their (the opponents) point of view it appears as though what defines trans is somewhat arbitrary at best... outright fantasy at worst.

Where does my opinion lay? Well not that it matters, but as far as I'm concerned it really doesn't matter to me. I like ti think eventually it will get to the point where it won't matter to anyone and people will just be people. Trans and cis being rendered obsolete.

Additionally while the term "transgender" may be the newest trend, the difference between sex and gender is anything but new. What's "new" is the traditionalist and neo-cons insistence on calling them one and the same. I've read literature printed from the early 20th century to the 1960s that specified a difference. I can quote some of this later when I'm not in my phone and it's not trying to autocorrect pelmut to peanut. :lol:

Or of it doesn't matter to anyone I can save my time. Either or.... I present it just for reference. I'm not interested in a trans debate as I generally don't care either way. I personally am no more or less trans than a woman who hunts or fixes old cars or a man who tends flowers or raises children. People are going to do and say what they are going to do and say regardless of what I think or pull out of an old book. This is 2018 and opinions always win out.
"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."
-Manly Palmer Hall
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby pelmut » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:31 pm

moonshadow wrote:I get the difference between sex and gender. Where I get hazy is where the line is. It seems based on what I read the line is more or less where the subject person says it is. On that note I can also understand the opponents resistance to the "trans experience" as from their (the opponents) point of view it appears as though what defines trans is somewhat arbitrary at best... outright fantasy at worst.

The problem is that all of these definitions are based on attempts to impose a binary division on things which are, in reality, analogue. Human sex generally falls into one of two categories, but there are many rare intersex conditions that demonstrate clearly that an analogue spectrum exists and a binary classification is inappropriate in some cases. Even if the genitals appear unambiguous, it has now been discovered that different chromosomes can exist in the same body - so the result depends on which tissue you decide to examine.

Gender is even more obviously analogue, with very few at the extremely masculine or extremely feminine ends of the spectrum and far more people lying anywhere from a little way in from the ends to somewhere nearer the middle. It is clear that any attempt at binary division of that spectrum is going to be flawed in many cases and it is far more difficult to measure because there is no obvious indicator comparable to chromosomes or genitals. Many of the older psychological tests were based on the testers' own prejudices and were grossly flawed, the more recent tests are nearly as bad and little credance can be given to their results.

When trying to determine what constitutes transgender, we are looking at the similarity or difference between two properties, both of which are measured by flawed concepts, so it is hardly surprising that there is no hard-and-fast rule. This is where Gender Dysphoria comes in: it results from the situation where a person feels their gender is sufficiently different from the sex they were assigned at birth that they cannot fit into the rôle that society demands of them (usually because people make assumptions based on the appearance of their secondary sexual characteristics). Only they know what gender they are, so this is not something that can be measured; but there is clear physical evidence for the mismatch of sex and gender in the very real distress which it causes. Currently, the presence of some degree of gender dysphoria is the best indicator we have that the person might be transgender.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby Caultron » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:32 pm

moonshadow wrote:...I get the difference between sex and gender. Where I get hazy is where the line is...

In a global sense I don't think there is any discrete line, and trying to create one only leads to stereotyping.

Individually, though, we tend to draw lines that include labels we're comfortable with and exclude those we're not.
Courage, conviction, nerve, verve, dash, panache, guts, nuts, balls, gall, élan, stones, whatever. Get some and get skirted.

caultron
User avatar
Caultron
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby crfriend » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:38 pm

Caultron wrote:In a global sense I don't think there is any discrete line, and trying to create one only leads to stereotyping.

Well, per culture, there is a statistical "line", although that's frequently "fuzzy" to within a few percent. What's worse, is that much depends on individual preference, societal pressure, and propaganda. There's also the problem that the "line" has been being systematically moved in the direction of "masculine" for some time by the feminists and has gotten a hard shove towards outright machismo by the radial feminists. If a guy wants to "appear" as "normal" (and be attractive to potential friends and mates) then he's pretty much forced to comply with the "new normal" (which is anything but). This is what's causing the dissonance, and a "return to normal" is being actively ruled out by the propagandists by them redefining what used to be normal as trans-*.

Unfortunately, one upshot of all of this is that the redefined line has become "hardened" and attitudes about it have become similarly so. This makes acceptance of differences vastly more difficult for many, and utterly impossible for some. Most of the outright trouble comes from the latter.
Individually, though, we tend to draw lines that include labels we're comfortable with and exclude those we're not.

Yes, we still do, but our views -- unless we're very sceptical about external inputs -- can be, and frequently are, swayed by public opinion and propaganda (and we can safely state that much of what Hollywood is shoving out is propaganda).

To be honest, the only time I bother to cogitate on the matter very much depends strongly on whether I'm interested in a relationship with somebody. If I'm not, I simply don't much care because it's not important. I get along with most folks anyway, so it's just not an issue in everyday life. Live and let live.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9526
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby moonshadow » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:08 pm

Caultron wrote:In a global sense I don't think there is any discrete line, and trying to create one only leads to stereotyping.


Isn't that what gender roles are?

If you want to be a woman, you've got to grow your breast, hike your voice, grow your hair, shave your legs, wear makeup, skinny jeans, etc etc....

None of what I just described is a requirement for womanhood as I know flat chested, deep voiced, short head haired, hairy legged, cargo pants wearing genetic women.

They are... stereotypes.

Hell the trans agenda is nothing but stereotypes... just ask any radical feminist!
pelmut wrote:Gender is even more obviously analogue, with very few at the extremely masculine or extremely feminine ends of the spectrum and far more people lying anywhere from a little way in from the ends to somewhere nearer the middle. It is clear that any attempt at binary division of that spectrum is going to be flawed in many cases and it is far more difficult to measure because there is no obvious indicator comparable to chromosomes or genitals. Many of the older psychological tests were based on the testers' own prejudices and were grossly flawed, the more recent tests are nearly as bad and little credance can be given to their results.


Which is why I nominate we just drop "gender" from the equation and let people be people. Just apply the same standard we use on the animals: male, female, unsexed, neuter, etc... These classifications are really only needed for medical purposes and do not need to be everyone's business. (nobody needs to know if a man accidentally had his penis cut off)

BUT.... that will NEVER happen.... No it's much more fun, and profitable to bicker, fight, and offend everyone by calling transgender women men and men who wear skirts trans-women. After all... if we all got along... think of how the news ratings would suffer! :roll: :lol:
"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."
-Manly Palmer Hall
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby moonshadow » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:45 pm

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a problem. It's just very confusing, and the definitions do seem to change regularly. I try to be supportive, but it's hard to support something that's all over the damned place. It's like trying to move a big piece of furniture with nothing to grab a hold of. Understand my nature, I am very obsessive and compulsive about things. Stuff has to "line up" a certain way, and generally everything must balance or I get a tic about it. [0]

Regarding the OP... the kid will be trans if the network determines it would be profitable for the show. And since controversy is highly profitable, and trans-issues are highly controversial, then yes, I tend to believe that he will be trans before it's said and done.

[0] I told you I was insane.
"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."
-Manly Palmer Hall
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby Kirbstone » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:49 am

Inscribed on he famous British comedian Spike Milligan's gravestone:

'I told you I was ill !'

Tom
Carpe Diem......Seize the Day !
User avatar
Kirbstone
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby pelmut » Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:47 am

moonshadow wrote:... I nominate we just drop "gender" from the equation and let people be people. ...

Seconded.

...but while society still insists on drawing a line which determines who can do what, there will be people who feel they have been wrongly classified (because the division was based on the wrong parameter). Transgender occurs because of the interaction of sex, gender and society ; if society could be changed to get it right, apparent sex wouldn't need to be changed and gender wouldn't matter. See: "Fix society please"
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby crfriend » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:58 pm

pelmut wrote:Transgender occurs because of the interaction of sex, gender and society ; if society could be changed to get it right, apparent sex wouldn't need to be changed and gender wouldn't matter. See: "Fix society please"

Haven't I been saying that for quite some time now?

It's arguable that "society" thinks that we're "broken". However, the raw fact that many of us -- at least here -- enjoy high-functioning lives, respect within our communities, and are generally liked rather than merely tolerated points up that society's interpretation of our "broken" status is erroneous. Moreover, when looking at how badly (what passes for) society is broken, and in how many myriad places, it becomes abundantly clear that it's vastly worse off than we are. This observation kicks off the usual set of questions: "Is it really broken?" (A basic question to establish a starting point.) Then, "If it's broken, why hasn't it been fixed already?" (The "Nature abhors a vacuum" thesis.) And, ultimately, "If it's broken and hasn't been fixed, why not?" Finally, and this one has resonances here due to recent local events, "If society isn't broken, then why is the suicide rate so high?" (An acquaintance of mine knew the individual in question.)
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9526
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby moonshadow » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:08 pm

Very good points all, much to chew on.

In seeking possible solutions, I believe we need not look further then our female counterparts. Females (women) have been playing both genders for the better part of half a century now, and for the most part are generally not "confused" about their place, and society respects and accepts them as they are (just normal women mostly).

Now I realize that asking, or even expecting society in general to apply the same set of social standards to men would be like trying to lasso the moon and pull it to Earth, perhaps the only thing that "men in skirts", as well as transgender women can do to lessen their social drama is to just try not to worry about it. In my observation, people can not be forced to change, it almost always has to be voluntary. In other words, just be who you are. Forgive the haters, cherish the friends, and carry on with life.

As for the haters, well, as an old friend of mine used to say, "he'll get over it or die miserable".

Though I may not be changing any closed minds here in Lebanon Virginia, God only knows how many young boys (children) I've encountered who, despite the warnings from their parents, will remember that odd guy in a skirt they saw at Walmart back when they were 8 years old. Now that they're in their 20's or 30's... they might try to give it a go.

Us doing what we do in public, the Roseanne show, and others.... we're just planting seeds for the future. And just as when you plant a seed, you don't reap the yield immediately. It takes time for the idea to grow.
"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."
-Manly Palmer Hall
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby skirtyscot » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:58 pm

I think I'm with Moon and Carl on this. If we stop saying that men must behave in certain ways (and, importantly, must not behave in certain other ways), and the same for women, then most of the problems will disappear.

Most of the pressure is in the one direction. Women are celebrated for breaking into traditionally male areas; men are still often ridiculed for moving into traditionally female areas. And as Carl says, the effect of this is to move the boundary towards the masculine end so that men have less and less room to manoeuvre.

My sons were in the Boys' Brigade. The object of the BB is "The advancement of Christ's kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-respect and all that tends towards a true Christian manliness." That was written a while ago and it feels old-fashioned now. But it is a damn sight better than the current suggestions for masculine behaviour. It would be good for everyone if we backtracked.
Keep on skirting,

Alastair
skirtyscot
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:44 pm
Location: West Kilbride, Ayrshire, Scotland

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby crfriend » Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:47 pm

moonshadow wrote:Us doing what we do in public, the Roseanne show, and others.... we're just planting seeds for the future. And just as when you plant a seed, you don't reap the yield immediately. It takes time for the idea to grow.

What happens if (when) the "Roseanne seed" goes toxic? Then, all of what we've been doing will be immediately, and potentially irrevocably, undone because of the exposure and hype? That's not a future I want to look forward to.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9526
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby moonshadow » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:17 am

crfriend wrote:What happens if (when) the "Roseanne seed" goes toxic? Then, all of what we've been doing will be immediately, and potentially irrevocably, undone because of the exposure and hype? That's not a future I want to look forward to.


Ahhh.. it may be a rough couple of months for sure. But they'll just cancel the show, and once the press finds their new flavor of the month they'll forget all about it.

The television industry is trying to get ratings... thus they have to be pleasing to millions of viewers otherwise their advertisers pull out.

Me? I'm jut trying to please me. I accomplish this daily. :D The approval of the public at large is always nice, but never required. :alien:
"We all have the tendency to make simple things difficult, but the spirit that abides within us achieves its own ends by making all difficult things simple."
-Manly Palmer Hall
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby crfriend » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:48 am

moonshadow wrote:it may be a rough couple of months for sure. But they'll just cancel the show, and once the press finds their new flavor of the month they'll forget all about it.

The television industry is trying to get ratings... thus they have to be pleasing to millions of viewers otherwise their advertisers pull out.

The trick here is to think several moves ahead of where the game is now. The show will eventually get cancelled, that's pretty much a given. The question becomes, "How much damage can it do in the interim?", and that's a tough one to quantify.
Me? I'm jut trying to please me. I accomplish this daily. :D The approval of the public at large is always nice, but never required. :alien:

Agreed, but some level of approval definitely "greases the skids" a bit.

I wore my dress today as it was actually warm-ish outdoors. It seems that gals in their 30s seem to think it looks OK on me, but, sadly, that's not my "target audience"...
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9526
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

PreviousNext

Return to In the News / Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests