let's list why we like skirts

[pelmut]

What I don't buy into is the idea that someone can just decide they wish to opt-out of the sexual dimorphism by which nature divides all mammals like us into male and female.

Stu, you are becoming really tiresome. Sexual dimorphism is an artificial concept taught to children to simplify a complex subject -- which you do not seem to be capable of understanding or even acknowledging.  Please do not keep referring to it as if it were a biological fact; it is not.

[rivegauche]

I agree with Pelmut. Behaviour and appearance can and do confound the biology of sex. It is entirely possible for a man to adopt the clothes and mannerisms and even voice of a feminine woman and if he is good at it and has a body type that permits it, he will be assumed by most people to be a biological woman. In almost all circumstances that will have zero impact on their lives. This goes on in society below the radar because some men are good at this. It is a reality of modern life - get over it. Sometimes also you encounter people whose gender is unclear. You can impose one on them, which is arrogant and possibly cruel, or you can just interact with them politely as another human being. You don't ever NEED to use gendered pronouns or gendered forms of address and if you seek to impose them on someone against their will then you are the one with the problem. You don't even need to ask them about pronouns - just use ungendered language - or is that beyond your ability?

[Warren]

I belong to the 'gender is a man made construct' school of thought.

Gender really gets on my wick, my sex is male my gender is none.

[TSH]

I wrote those last three paragraphs in my previous post to get this thread back on rails... here I go, again — further derailing it.

Stu, you are becoming really tiresome. Sexual dimorphism is an artificial concept taught to children to simplify a complex subject -- which you do not seem to be capable of understanding or even acknowledging.  Please do not keep referring to it as if it were a biological fact; it is not.

Come again? Sexual dimorphism is the physiological, biological, and chemical differences in the sexes of the same species. It very much isn't an artificial concept, as various organisms require this distinction in order for them to reproduce. You must be confusing that with something else.

I belong to the 'gender is a man made construct' school of thought.

Gender really gets on my wick. My sex is male; my gender is none.

This is also factually incorrect, as gender is influenced by biological and environmental factors. Saying it's a social construction doesn't help us.

[pelmut]

Sexual dimorphism is the physiological, biological, and chemical differences in the sexes of the same species. It's very much isn't an artificial concept, as various organisms require this distinction in order for them to reproduce.

This subject has been argued to death and it keeps coming back. Sexual differences form a complex spectrum, we have created two artificial categories for explaining it simply to people who don't want to look any further into it and for breeding, when that is the main consideration. There are more humans who cannot reproduce than there are who can and yet we continue to categorise everyone according to criteria that are only important if we are interested in breeding with them.

Humans are polymorphic, regarding them as dimorphic may be convenient in some circumstances but doesn't fully represent reality where genetics, physiology and body chemistry vary widely and independently of each other.

[Stu]

Stu, you are becoming really tiresome. Sexual dimorphism is an artificial concept taught to children to simplify a complex subject -- which you do not seem to be capable of understanding or even acknowledging.  Please do not keep referring to it as if it were a biological fact; it is not.

It is a biological fact. There are two sexes - male and female. That's how reproduction works.

You may prefer to believe something else, but it's not real. It's imaginary.

[TSH]

Sexual dimorphism is the physiological, biological, and chemical differences in the sexes of the same species. It's very much isn't an artificial concept, as various organisms require this distinction in order for them to reproduce.

This subject has been argued to death and it keeps coming back. Sexual differences form a complex spectrum. We have created two artificial categories for explaining it simply to people who don't want to look any further into it and for breeding, when that is the main consideration. There are more humans who cannot reproduce than there are who can and yet we continue to categorise everyone according to criteria that are only important if we are interested in breeding with them.

Humans are polymorphic; regarding them as dimorphic may be convenient in some circumstances but doesn't fully represent reality where genetics, physiology and body chemistry vary widely and independently of each other.

Sexual dimorphism is polymorphism. It doesn't matter that it doesn't fully "represent" all of those things. Humans creating "artificial categories" doesn't mean anything; we create abstract concepts to explain natural phenomena that happen in the nautral world. Why would this be any different? Humans being polymorphic doesn't mean they aren't also largely SEXUALLY dimorphic (Note: "SEXUALLY") — it's a useful term to highlight said sexual differences. You're talking about something that goes beyond just sex — which isn't relevant when we're only talking about that specific subject.

[pelmut]

Stu, you are becoming really tiresome. Sexual dimorphism is an artificial concept taught to children to simplify a complex subject -- which you do not seem to be capable of understanding or even acknowledging.  Please do not keep referring to it as if it were a biological fact; it is not.

It is a biological fact. There are two sexes - male and female. That's how reproduction works.

You may prefer to believe something else, but it's not real. It's imaginary.

Stu, are you deliberately baiting us by posting the same falsehoods time after time, or are you unable to remember that we have explained it to you many times before?  If this is a game, you have had your fun, now please stop wasting our time. If not, then it would be helpful if you let us know what sort of mental condition you have, so that we can make allowances for you and offer some sympathy.

[rivegauche]

It is a biological fact. There are two sexes - male and female. That's how reproduction works.

You may prefer to believe something else, but it's not real. It's imaginary.

I despair. How many times do we have to point out that this is scientifically ignorant? Insisting repeatedly that there are only two sexes and that it is all based solely on reproduction will not make it so. Someone else's gender or sex is a matter only for them and their partner. Imposing your (inaccurate) views on them is extremely antisocial behaviour. Someone else's sex or gender is none of your business and overriding their views on the subject of their own sex or gender is unbelievably arrogant and intolerant.

[crfriend]

OK, this is going nowhere very, very fast, and with considerable energy and force. It's time to put the brakes on.

Claiming there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism in the Animal Kingdom is a fallacy -- it cuts across virtually all species, usually manifesting in size differences between male and female and colouration differences, especially in birds and fish. Hilariously, in birds, it's virtually always the male that is the most ornate; humans, primarily, have flipped that role -- and that's down to attire and adornment not natural plumage for humans are notoriously bereft of that.

It's also been pretty well beaten into the ground that "gender" is a somewhat different, but connected, thing than "sex" -- and we're primarily arguing semantics and sociology. The sad part of that manifests primarily with men who have been getting a very, very raw deal for the past half-century, primarily at the hands of the radical "feminists" (which are anything but "feminine" apparently being mainly lesbians). This has led to some rather "odd" thoughts manifesting in things like Jamie001's patterns.

As far as breeding goes, how much of that in humans is contaminated with the notion of human choice in whether to breed and whether it's ethical to bring another human being into this world as it's observably going. Just because we choose not to breed does not imply that we cannot.

There's also ample evidence that nerves are getting rubbed raw over this, and in light of that, if we can't ramp the rhetoric down and restore mutual respect I'll shut this thread down as pointless to continue.

[moonshadow]

I just wanted to say that I've never seen a post penned by Jamie that I found offensive.

I did PM Jamie what I hope will be taken as a note of encouragement. I do understand what SkirtCafe is about, there are parts of my "journey" I keep off site as the subjects get too far in the weeds. I suggested Jamie basically do the same.

Talking femme on skirtcafe is like talking politics at Thanksgiving... it *might* be tolerated... for a while, but most people don't want to hear it.

I personally understand what it's like to have femininity denied for so long then suddenly you are in a world where you can freely express and explore it. You get excited and want to talk about it, and nothing hits you in the gut like having someone shoot down something that means a lot to you.

Anyway... I'm not saying the statement above applies to Jamie, I'm just saying I've seen worse comments tolerated here.

The guy's been here since 2007 and has posted 278 times... I mean is he really THAT big of a nuisance?? Personally I think it would be a good sign of character if everyone would just lay off.

[Warren]

This is also factually incorrect, as gender is influenced by biological and environmental factors. Saying it's a social construction doesn't help us.

In a quiet non inflammatory way I would like to suggest that taking gender away would make life a whole lot easier. Imagine a world where some young kid can be anybody they want, no preconceived rules or mysterious hidden codes of compliance, no expectations placed upon them by adults or peers. So much angst and self harm, mental and physical must come from the expectations and demands of adults and peers.

[jamie001]

I wrote those last three paragraphs in my previous post to get this thread back on rails... here I go, again — further derailing it.

Stu, you are becoming really tiresome. Sexual dimorphism is an artificial concept taught to children to simplify a complex subject -- which you do not seem to be capable of understanding or even acknowledging.  Please do not keep referring to it as if it were a biological fact; it is not.

Come again? Sexual dimorphism is the physiological, biological, and chemical differences in the sexes of the same species. It very much isn't an artificial concept, as various organisms require this distinction in order for them to reproduce. You must be confusing that with something else.

I belong to the 'gender is a man made construct' school of thought.

Gender really gets on my wick. My sex is male; my gender is none.

This is also factually incorrect, as gender is influenced by biological and environmental factors. Saying it's a social construction doesn't help us.

This is incorrect. Biological sex is physical and you are either of the male or female biological sex. Gender is a continuum and you can be anywhere on that continuum. For example, my biological sex is male, and on the gender continuum my brain is very much on the female side.Why can't society get this right?!

[Warren]

What I am attempting to say and quite clearly failing to is that if we just based the differences between males and females on their sex then either gender wouldn't be needed or wouldn't exist. All the other stuff including emotions, clothes, lifestyle etc are not important, they are only perceived to be important by us due to the rules laid down by our peers.

What sort of things are on this continuum?

[crfriend]

Biological sex is physical and you are either of the male or female biological sex.

Correct -- to a point. There are instances where genetic "errors" occur in replication with can lead to inter-sex conditions and even chimera. They are, however, quite rare and usually resolve by the death of the embryo in utero because the errors were too great to allow survival. The ones that survive become research fodder -- and a source of much conversation.

Gender is a continuum and you can be anywhere on that continuum. For example, my biological sex is male, and on the gender continuum my brain is very much on the female side.

Again, mostly correct, but you seem to be discounting sociology and recent (the last 50 years) changes to the notion. A half-century ago, the latitude of expression "allowed" for men was vastly larger than it is now. Men have been being systematically shoved into the crematory-sized box for "ashes" of machismo for the past 50 years, and it's starting to bear the predictable fruit -- and it's not pretty.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are broadly a collection of traits that occur in all human beings. None are unique to one or the other. It's the distribution of said traits that tends to be the determinate. What happens when one "gender" is denied access to many of those traits by sociological pressure and the other is unconditionally granted unfettered access to all? I'll tell you what -- it's utter chaos. And it's where we are today.

Why can't society get this right?!

See my comment on sociological pressure. Society is screwed up at the moment.

Hell, by current standards I'm more "feminine" than several of the women I've dated -- and that is one uncomfortable space to be in. 50 years ago it'd have been completely different, and I've not really changed all that much.

Here's a concept: How about treating fellow human beings as human beings and not applying modern sociological standards to judge them by? How about treating them with dignity and respect?