Smasharoo wrote:
OK. Not sure what that has to do with a statement about what someone "should be". If she'd said someone was born a male but felt like a female, I'd have had no issue with it. My beef was with the phase "should be" in reference to being male or female. As I said, it implies that there was some kind of intent. I suppose it also implies that there's some proper configuration, but again that becomes purely subjective. Who gets to decide what gender someone "should be"?
The person, moron. Where's the confusion. You get to decide what gender you should be. I get to decide what gender I should be. Which word about "gender is probably more than sex organs" confused you so? Was it "probably"?
At the risk of beating this into the ground. Given that the use of the word gender here assumes we're talking about "gender vs sex", then gender always refers to what someone believes/feels they
are. Not what they "should be". Since gender in this context is always about current self perception, it can never (or should never) be expressed as a future condition or potential condition, which are the two interpretations of the phrase "should be".
The phrase only makes sense in the context of something that isn't currently in its proper configuration. If we were talking about biological sex, you could use the phrase to describe how a pre-op transexual feels their sex "should be" in order to match what their gender identity *is*, but it's absurd to say it the other way around. Gender identity always is what it is right now. It can't be anything else. It's what it means in this context.
Again, you don't get to decide what gender you "should be", but what gender you "are". You can then decide that this doesn't match your sex and try to change your sex to what you think it "should be". It just doesn't make any sense to use that phrase in reference to gender. And no Alma, this has nothing to do with my disagreement's with Rachel regarding other aspects of transgender issues. Some of us are capable of disagreeing on one thing, but agreeing on something else. I just think that if we're going to use sex and gender in very specific and distinct ways when discussing a subject like this (cause we kinda have to), we should be consistent with how we treat those differences. And in this context, gender is always what you identify it as right now. It's axiomatic to the use of the word itself. Saying it "should be" something implies that gender identity can be wrong, but by definition it's always what you think it is at the moment. It just can't "should be" anything. It "is" something.
Yeah, yeah, grammar ****, whatever.