Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread

<< < (74/80) > >>

wiserd:

--- Quote from: Valdís on 06 Aug 2013, 20:25 ---
1) We are not a damn "notion", nor are we a political statement on gender roles. Stop treating us as such.

--- End quote ---


I want you to be happy and comfortable, Valdis.

And I think this conversation has strayed a very long way from it's origin.

Every label is, in part, a category/construct/concept which attempts to have some predictive relevance to the material world.  Every publicly recognizable choice has social significance. I'm not giving anyone special treatment here. If you want me to not have any opinion about people's identities, you're welcome to return the favor and not have an opinion on anything anyone else says or does publicly. Ever. But nobody really manages that. The best we can really do is have opinions which are more-or-less accurate and compassionate.

I'm going to assume that a lot of what you've written isn't a response to me, because it doesn't seem related to what I've written. If it's just explaining your situation or venting, that's cool. But I want to correct any misunderstandings.

""Cultural interactions" <- What is that even supposed to mean? "

Gender identity ( or lack thereof ) involves intrapersonal and interpersonal interactions. (i.e. internal thoughts + doing stuff with other people.) I could have found a better term, but I've really spent far too much time on forums today, and haven't been proofreading what I write. (Obviously?) I can polish writing till it shines, but not on the fly.


--- Quote ---" It isn't something to be ashamed of.
--- End quote ---

I did not suggest trans-sexuality was something to be ashamed of. Can I assume you agree? I simply noted that people payed a high price in one way or another for expressing trans-identities. That's an expensive signal indicating that something is very important to them. You seem to agree... I think... 


--- Quote ---Saying I don't look "trans" is not a compliment.
--- End quote ---

Can we at least agree that this isn't a response to anything I've written? I'm not sure if you're venting a feeling on something unrelated to my post (all good if so) or if you've completely misunderstood what I've said and I need to correct the misinterpretation.

Method of Madness:
I could be wrong (and Valdis already said it well, I thought), but it's not about expressing identity. It's about being who you are and feeling comfortable in your own skin. If one has to alter their body so their outside matches how they feel on the inside, then so be it.

SageJiraiya:
So far I don't like May. I think her character is designed to be that way. I bet she has some deeper rooted issues that she keeps hidden, covered up with the prickly coat that is her personality.

I can't say May is acting unladylike, as much as she is just being an ass. There are rude, unkind, and annoying people, and although experiences in their individual gender roles may affect their personalities, appearing more male or female does not do a great job of determining personality.

Just because she appears female doesn't mean she fits into any or all female stereotypes, just as Claire being trans makes no implications about her sexual preference, as it's only her form.

Maybe May's not actually female, or maybe she's been forced to believe she is, but none of that seems to matter as much as her wacky personality.

wiserd:

--- Quote from: Akima on 06 Aug 2013, 21:08 ---
--- Quote from: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 16:34 ---But from a strictly theoretical standpoint I truly don't see why one (or a constellation) of your abilities couldn't possibly be unusual for women but common for men.
--- End quote ---
Even if that were true, it would still not make me a man, or reflect on my femininity except in other people's heads, and it certainly would not justify saying "Is it just me, or does Akima really not seem female?". That is the attitude of the "boy-brain" jokers. Regardless of disclaimers, there really isn't a good, or even neutral, way to tell any woman that she doesn't "seem female" based on anything about her, and I'm at a bit of a loss to understand any good reason for doing so.

--- End quote ---

Okay, just to be clear...
1. I didn't TELL anyone anything. I was discussing a character. There's a difference between not being able to say something to a person and not being allowed to think it about anyone.
2. Femininity is typically different from being biologically female. I can talk about feminine males and masculine females and people would know what I was talking about. They might consider what I said discourteous or obscene, but they probably wouldn't be outright confused. Heck, I bet if you did a motion capture of an individual you could tell their sex +50% of the time (especially within a culture), just from gestures and body language. College majors aren't divided evenly by gender, either.
3. What can be said directly to a person depends a lot on the person. I've dated girls who didn't mind calling themselves tomboys. (That's often been my preference. I love a girl who knows how to use a rapier and I'm not fond of shopping in groups as many women do.) My wife says she tends to be more masculine than most women in terms of her interests and doesn't really identify much with a particular gender, except that she wants kids. Gender identification describes a broad constellation of her behaviors and helps me understand her and others better. I've dated more than one woman with PCOS, her inclusive. PCOS involves having an elevated level of male hormones. This reinforces to me the notion that my sexual preferences have some kind of biological correlate related to a certain degree and type of masculinity (more masculine than most women, but less masculine than most men) but to female sex.


--- Quote ---I would argue that if a woman doesn't fit some model of "what women are", it reflects on the model, not on the woman.
--- End quote ---

At this point, we're repeating ourselves, so maybe this discussion won't be productive even with one more spin around the merry-go-round. But why isn't it possible for a particular behavior to be unusual for a woman but usual for a man? Why isn't it possible for the long tail of one bell curve to correspond to the median of another?

I mean, most dogs play fetch. Most cats don't. A friend of mine has a cat that likes to play fetch and is friendly. We joke that the cat is doglike or "is a dog." It's obviously a cat. Nobody questions the cat's status 'as a cat.'  But the comment succinctly expresses an idea; the cat is closer to a behavioral norm of a different species, in some way, than its own species.

The issue becomes even more difficult when behavior doesn't have a clear biological basis but norms associated with biologically influenced behavior seem to still exist, such as with AI.


--- Quote ---You appeal to the "predictive power" of your model, but I would ask why anyone needs a predictive model of what men and women are "really like" in any context other than biological or medical.
--- End quote ---

People interact socially, and some behaviors are clustered.


--- Quote ---Why do the "boy-brain" jokers need to predict my mathematical ability based on my sex?
--- End quote ---

I'm not here to explain their motivations. Their motivations are subjective and obscure to me. For all I know, they could be expressing pent up frustration that their girlfriends and wives aren't interested in their work. However some traits tend to cluster, so if you had several stereotypical male interests that might indicate other traits ( increased aspergers tendencies relative to females, decreased verbosity, increased likelihood of PCOS or elevated androgens, etc.)  At least it could allow succinct expression of those traits metaphorically (i.e. "That man acts like a puppy. I know he's NOT a puppy. But he acts puppy-like") even if there was no underlying biological correlate.


--- Quote ---Why mention my sex at all, or deny my femaleness, when it is their model, and not I, that proved inadequate? Unless they are Eve-baiting sexist douchebags, that is.
--- End quote ---

Unless I've misread what you've written or you've left things out it doesn't seem like they were calling you "inadequate" in any way.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 20:36 ---Did people hear wiserd as meaning "She's so unladylike she can't be a REAL woman"?
--- End quote ---
Something along those lines, certainly. I am not sure what other conclusion I might have been expected to draw. As I have pointed out above, it is no different from saying "Akima is so good at maths, she can't be a REAL woman".

--- End quote ---

You've misunderstood me, then. My point, simply put, is; "behavior which violates social norms is likely to be significant."


--- Quote ---That is the attitude of the "boy-brain" jokers.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, as a guy this happens to me all the time with female coworkers as well... no, wait. It doesn't. It does sound a little like May, though. Doncha think?

Is it cold in here?:
Come to think of it, Dickmouth Stinkface is not much of an outlier among females in the QC universe. She has never expressed a desire to commit murder and is cleaner in her speech than Harriet.

Yes, everyone knows what is meant by saying a cat is a little dog-like, but that's a much more emotionally neutral statement than one involving groups with a history of vicious oppression.

EDIT:
DS has never specified a gender assignment, and is so routinely dishonest we might not believe it anyway. All we know for sure within the strip is the holographic presentation, and we know DS detests that. Outside the strip, Jeph said "she" in a news post, so I guess we should take that as definitive and move on.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page