Is the whole show couped?

[easytiger95]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Lord spare us from moral panics!

Lads, if you look hard enough you'll find something that'll convince you that the world is coming to an end. No problem with that in itself, but please try and realise that every generation since Eve was in the Garden has had their own chicken lickens, crying that the sky is coming down.

It's a bit much to worry about the decline and collapse of civilisation because of Facebook's gender policy, at the same time as we are seeing real climate change and weather disasters, an apparent resumption of the Cold War (with an option for hot, if needed), and income inequality not seen since the end of the 19th century.

These are real problems for people of all genders.

and BTW if you're interested in the subject, Jeffrey Eugenides book "Middlesex" is absolutely brilliant, one the best reads of the past ten years IMHO

[deiseach]

One last time. There is no more science behind Facebook's 51 genders than there is behind the idea that once you open a jar of Pringle's you are not ever going to be able to stop eating them. If you are going to cling to a marketing strategy as evidence that we are somehow diminished as a species then you are not looking to have a serious discussion.

[The Iceman]

One last time. There is no more science behind Facebook's 51 genders than there is behind the idea that once you open a jar of Pringle's you are not ever going to be able to stop eating them. If you are going to cling to a marketing strategy as evidence that we are somehow diminished as a species then you are not looking to have a serious discussion.

Perhaps you should actually read the posts and see I cited facebook as one example. I wrote of more scenarios. So address the questions or find somewhere else to police...

[Hardy]

Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)

I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.

I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves

[ONeill]

What the fcuk is this all about?

It's like Burn After Reading. Or Jaws 3.

[laoislad]

I'm just not sure where are we going as a race, a people, a world?

I think we'll get by just fine.

Do 51 categories of gender help people or create even more confusion?

It helps people who are caught between male and female to accept that they don't have to artificially squeeze themselves into a category that they're not going to fit into. It's not about "creating confusing," it's about accepting the diversity that exists in the human race without putting artificial constraints on people just so that they can make the majority feel more comfortable.

Again, I compare it to the way left-handed people used to be mis-treated.  Accepting that some people prefer to write with their left hand has not "created confusion" or led to the collapse of the human race.

I think thats an unfair comparison Eamonn and a very strategic slight of hand in many ways. Comparing it to something we can all relate to and to which we would all stand behind conjuring up emotions based on something it isn't.
This isn't about left hand or right hand (two choices) this is about at least 51 choices. It's about taking something which your rock of science (which you cling to when it would seem to suit) says is either male or female and turning it into something different. What is gender-fluid two spirits in the world of science?

I think we're spiraling out of control as a people.

Instead of worrying about it why not just strap yourself in and enjoy the ride....

[deiseach]

One last time. There is no more science behind Facebook's 51 genders than there is behind the idea that once you open a jar of Pringle's you are not ever going to be able to stop eating them. If you are going to cling to a marketing strategy as evidence that we are somehow diminished as a species then you are not looking to have a serious discussion.

Perhaps you should actually read the posts and see I cited facebook as one example. I wrote of more scenarios. So address the questions or find somewhere else to police...

It's the example you keep quoting even though it is a deeply dishonest one. I'm not stopping you saying it, but if you are not going to engage in an honest manner then I'll pass on the discussion. Starting now.

[The Iceman]

Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)

I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.

I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves

I'm certainly not having a swipe at science and if it comes across that way it wasn't my intent. I'm looking for a scientific answer. And my motives are I suppose two fold:
1. On all the religion threads that have been done to the death - science has the trump card - its the final answer - but all I hear on this topic is crickets...... and science seems to be quite specific on how many genders there are - but the science champions remain quiet or explain it away with unconvincing arguments. Which I find hypocritical.
2. None of these genders (I'm sure there are more than 51) make any sense to me. I'm looking for answers or for perspective. Am I the only one who finds it strange? The only one shocked that there are that many and it's apparently normal? I wanted to be a ninja when I was small, I was also convinced I could fly if I only had the nerve to jump off the branch and find out, but thankfully my parents convinced me otherwise. It didn't affect my mental state that my parents didn't embrace my identification with ninja's or my belief that I could fly.

I just don't know where all this is headed. I am not crying this is the end of the world. I am doubting the direction we are headed as people though.

[Hardy]

Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)

I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.

I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves

I'm certainly not having a swipe at science and if it comes across that way it wasn't my intent. I'm looking for a scientific answer. And my motives are I suppose two fold:
1. On all the religion threads that have been done to the death - science has the trump card - its the final answer - but all I hear on this topic is crickets...... and science seems to be quite specific on how many genders there are - but the science champions remain quiet or explain it away with unconvincing arguments. Which I find hypocritical.
2. None of these genders (I'm sure there are more than 51) make any sense to me. I'm looking for answers or for perspective. Am I the only one who finds it strange? The only one shocked that there are that many and it's apparently normal? I wanted to be a ninja when I was small, I was also convinced I could fly if I only had the nerve to jump off the branch and find out, but thankfully my parents convinced me otherwise. It didn't affect my mental state that my parents didn't embrace my identification with ninja's or my belief that I could fly.

I just don't know where all this is headed. I am not crying this is the end of the world. I am doubting the direction we are headed as people though.

You're not looking for a scientific answer, are you? What "science champions" are quiet about this? Who have you asked? I've given you my answer, which is effectively that I don't think it's a question for science at all. 

[AZOffaly]

I agree with hardy. It's not a science question. If anything it's sociological.  People are more free to express or identify with what they feel they are. Apparently the term gender means more than what sex you are, which I think is what you are driving at with the science angle. In this case it's more like what religion you are, rather than what species you are.

I think someone who selects some of those genders is probably as mad as a box of frogs, but it doesn't bother me, and if it's doing no harm to anyone, who cares what they describe themselves as?

[The Iceman]

There are two sexes - male and female - according to science. Gender is a little more complicated and more about which traits we have as humans that are typically associated with a particular sex - again just male or female. I understand you can have a feminine male or a masculine female and that I understand. Science explains this and we all agree and live with it (from what I understand).
Now we have another scenario whereby people are essentially making up genders for which there appears to be no scientific definition for. Even on a sociological basis  - there isn't a lot out there.

I hoped to get the opinions of science champions like Eamonn and MGHU who regularly play the "if it isn't explained by science it's not real" card.

[AZOffaly]

But why? It's not a scientific question.

[The Iceman]

But why? It's not a scientific question.

Nor is religion - but science is used to explain it away.... why not ask for a scientific response to this? Surely Sex is biological and gender looks to be replacing the term sex, so why not have a scientific response?

And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....

[J70]

Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)

I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.

I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves

I'm certainly not having a swipe at science and if it comes across that way it wasn't my intent. I'm looking for a scientific answer. And my motives are I suppose two fold:
1. On all the religion threads that have been done to the death - science has the trump card - its the final answer - but all I hear on this topic is crickets...... and science seems to be quite specific on how many genders there are - but the science champions remain quiet or explain it away with unconvincing arguments. Which I find hypocritical.

Assuming the arguments are not forthcoming or are legitimately unconvincing, what exactly is hypocritical about that?

I've never heard any scientist or science advocate claiming that science has the answers to every question. If it did, science would cease as there would be nothing left to study.

[J70]

But why? It's not a scientific question.

Nor is religion - but science is used to explain it away.... why not ask for a scientific response to this?

Hold on there - many, many claims have been and are made by religions and their advocates that can be addressed and critiqued by science. Are you suggesting that its not appropriate to apply scientific evidence and analysis to those claims?

Surely Sex is biological and gender looks to be replacing the term sex, so why not have a scientific response?

Leaving aside the sex/gender distinction and the Facebook nonsense, yes, I think sexuality IS obviously an area where scientists can and should weigh in. In purely anatomical terms you mostly have males and females, but you also have hermaphrodites. And I see no reason why hormones, gene expression and whatever else biologically determines sexuality wouldn't, like much else about us, produce at least some people who fall, psychologically, somewhere along a continuum between the two opposite sexes (this may be the case with the hermaphroditic condition too - various grades of male/female genitalia - I honestly don't know either way). However, this is not an area of expertise for me, and perhaps not for any of us here, which might explain the lack of, in your mind, satisfactory responses. I'm sure if you're genuinely interested, and not just trying to score points against the science advocates here, that the information is, at least to some extent, out there.

And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....

Isn't the whole point of the abhorrance of paedophilia that sexual relations with children IS harmful? I had no idea that there was a movement afoot to legitimize it - is that really true and if so, who are the actors?

Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.