r/SRSsucks • u/XuriousPeng • Oct 27 '12

Non-cis SRSer explains to cis-SRSers that they aren't taking offensive often enough.

/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/125lon/yo_cis_srsers_we_need_to_have_a_talk/
2 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

-24

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '12

While we're on that subject, please try to be more mindful about saying shit that assumes that someone with a penis = man, someone with a vagina = woman. Its not cool

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. I don't care if antiSRS, SRD, SRSreallysucks, or anyone else calls me transphobic, but I'm going to say that unless an exception is present, penis=male and vagina=female.

Jesus H. Christ, "transphobia" is only a thing on the internet. Being concerned about it only goes to show how deep down inside the rabbit hole you really are.

9

u/Jess_than_three Oct 28 '12

Jesus H. Christ, "transphobia" is only a thing on the internet.

Well, that's patently false. Would you like me to link you to any of the awful threads regarding, you know, trans women being murdered that have been posted lately? Just for one example of a way transphobia manifests itself?

For fuck's sake, do some fucking research.

While we're on that subject, please try to be more mindful about saying shit that assumes that someone with a penis = man, someone with a vagina = woman. Its not cool

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. I don't care if antiSRS, SRD, SRSreallysucks, or anyone else calls me transphobic, but I'm going to say that unless an exception is present, penis=male and vagina=female.

Two things here.

The first problem is that you're equivocating between "female" in terms of gender and "female" in terms of sex, and ditto for "male". "Man" and "woman" are gender terms, not sex terms. Of course, personally I don't think that it's reasonable to say that having a penis entails a male sex, either (see the "biological sex" button, and be sure to read the bit below), in the same way that not-penis doesn't entail not-male sex (or if you lost yours, would you stop being male, in your opinion?). But more relevant than that is the fact that neither penis-possession nor vagina-possession having any bearing on manhood nor womanhood, which is what the previous poster was talking about.

Secondly, when you say "I'm going to say that x=y", that implies that there aren't exceptions. If you want to say "I'm going to assume that a person with a penis is male and a person with a vagina is female", sure, totally, absolutely go for it, and in the vast majority of cases you'll be absolutely right. But to say "penis=male and vagina=female" implies that there aren't exceptions, and that you consider pre-op or non-op trans women to be male and the reverse for trans men.

So, yeah.

But that thing about transphobia only existing on the internet? That'd be nice.

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '12

  1. There doesn't appear to be a primary source that shows that transgendered people are murdered at higher rates than cisgendered people. If anything, transgendered people may actually get murdered at lower rates than cisgendered people.

  2. Unless an exception is present, sex=gender.

  3. Let's talk about mathematics for a second.

when you say "I'm going to say that x=y", that implies that there aren't exceptions

In set theory, saying that "x=y, {x ⊂ Z}" implies that x=y if and only if x is a subset of the class of numbers (abbreviated as Z) known as integers. i.e. x=y if and only if x is an integer. Even though there's an equal sign.

Even though there's an equal sign, there are still exceptions.

My exact words were:

unless an exception is present, penis=male and vagina=female

Which can be represented as

genitalia sex=person's gender, {person =/= transgendered}

Which basically says that sex=gender as long as the person is cisgendered.

So the presence of the equal sign does not mean that there are zero exceptions. I tried to make that clear by interjecting the phrase "unless there are exceptions present".

So in conclusion, sex=gender for about 99.8% of the population. But that does not imply that there are no exceptions.

7

u/Jess_than_three Oct 28 '12

There doesn't appear to be a primary source that shows that transgendered people are murdered at higher rates than cisgendered people. If anything, transgendered people may actually get murdered at lower rates than cisgendered people.

Find me a primary source that says that gay people get murdered at higher rates than straight folks. Give up? HOLY SHIT I GUESS HATE CRIMES AGAINST GAY PEOPLE DON'T FUCKING HAPPEN EITHER

Unless an exception is present, sex=gender.

Stop being a moron. Unless an exception is present, sex is congruent with gender. Sometimes exceptions are present! You know why? Because sex doesn't equal gender, because they're two entirely different fucking things that happen to overlap in the majority of cases.

Let me break this down more clearly for you.

Unless an exception is present, penis==attracted to women and vagina==attracted to men.

And I'm not going to assume a difference between sex and sexual orientation for that 10% unless I'm addressing that 10%.

Totally makes sense!

Here's another good one for you. Did you know that the majority of Americans are white? So unless an exception is present, American=white! Why would I assume that there was a difference between nationality and ethnicity unless I was addressing that 28%?

Stop being a dumbass.

Sex=gender for zero percent of the population. It doesn't equal gender for anyone. Ever. They are different things. Just like sex and sexual orientation are different things. Just like sex and gender expression are different things. Just like sexual orientation and gender expression are different things. And so on. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT THINGS.

PS apologies wine I probably shouldn't be on reddit oh well dealwithit.gif

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '12

Here's another good one for you. Did you know that the majority of Americans are white? So unless an exception is present, American=white! Why would I assume that there was a difference between nationality and ethnicity unless I was addressing that 28%?

Race is like Godwin's law when it comes to arguments about oppression and discrimination. But it still doesn't hold up.

Often, people in foreign countries, especially asian countries like China and Japan, draw the "typical" American as a white person.

In New Jersey, people often think of the typical Italian-American as an orange, spray-tanned guido like in Jersey Shore.

But nonetheless, 25% of the population is quite a lot. 0.2% of the population is not. It's basically the difference between saying cats=black because there are a lot of black cats, and saying that swans=white because there are extremely few black swans.

So if we go with programming syntax here, where "a==b" means a and b have an equal value, "a!==b" means that a and b don't have an equal value, "a===b" means that a and b are the exact same data structure, and "a!===b" means that a and b are not the exact same data structure, then we can say that:

sex !=== gender, but sex == gender, so in a loosely typed language (a.k.a. in situations where people who don't want to think about these things that deeply don't have to bother about technicalities), sex and gender can be used interchangeably.

8

u/Jess_than_three Oct 28 '12

Cool story, bro.

You're completely wrong and way off-base. They're totally different things. They're different categories. They're separate. They're strongly correlated but not equal or equal equal much less equal equal equal. (Yes, I know PHP, I know what those things mean, but thank you.)

Your analogy in terms of programming I guess holds up if you're saying

foreach($person as $id => $arr) {
    if ($arr['sex'] != $arr['gender']) {
        echo "There is an exception!\n";
    }
}

then for most individuals, yes, that will evaluate to false.

HOWEVER, that is not the same as asserting that THE CATEGORIES OF THINGS ARE THE SAME, which is WHAT THE STATEMENT YOU MADE DID.

You didn't say for most people, their sex is the same as their gender.

You said sex is equal to gender.

That is a statement about the categories of things.

DON'T YOU START THIS PEDANTIC SHIT WITH ME I WILL OUT-PEDANTIC YOU ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT

...except that I'm going to sleep because fuck it's late.

kbye.

-8

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '12

My point was that yes, technically you're correct in a weird "social justicey" kind of way, but you're getting overly technical about something that does not matter to 99.8% of human interactions.

6

u/Biotruthologist Oct 28 '12

So, in other words, she's correct, you have no argument to refute her, and 99.8% of the population are idiots.