harmless wrote:
However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.
Can you expand on that a bit? I get that there are a range of atypical sexual phenotype expressions out there, such as hermaphrodites, but I don't recall reading about chromosomal pairings other XX, XXY, XY having any measurable frequency in the population, let alone enough to define biological sex as a spectrum. Maybe there is more recent stuff out there (last 10 years).
harmless wrote:
However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.
Can you expand on that a bit? I get that there are a range of atypical sexual phenotype expressions out there, such as hermaphrodites, but I don't recall reading about chromosomal pairings other XX, XXY, XY having any measurable frequency in the population, let alone enough to define biological sex as a spectrum. Maybe there is more recent stuff out there (last 10 years).
The range of possible gender variants and expressions, including the biological spectrum from male to female (and it is a spectrum, given the many human traits which can't be trusted as signifiers of 'male' and 'female' in a binary sense, and considering inter-sex, the condition of being born with biological and physical aspects of both genders) make me distrustful of 'sex' as a category. But then there are many medical categories I don't trust; remember, when we say chromosomes (and nothing but chromosomes) indicate male and female, we're going strictly by the medical model. There are other ways of reading it. I remember reading an article which went through the chromosomes and argued we had around seven 'sexes' / genders, but I can't find it now. I'm not a scientist, this is just my opinion. There are too many variants to simply think in terms of two, and too many physical bodies would be classed, even in a scientific sense, as neither or both.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
So I do think 'male' and 'female' exists (and most people would identify as one or the other), but not exclusively.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
harmless wrote:
However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.
Can you expand on that a bit? I get that there are a range of atypical sexual phenotype expressions out there, such as hermaphrodites, but I don't recall reading about chromosomal pairings other XX, XXY, XY having any measurable frequency in the population, let alone enough to define biological sex as a spectrum. Maybe there is more recent stuff out there (last 10 years).
The range of possible gender variants and expressions, including the biological spectrum from male to female (and it is a spectrum, given the many human traits which can't be trusted as signifiers of 'male' and 'female' in a binary sense, and considering inter-sex, the condition of being born with biological and physical aspects of both genders) make me distrustful of 'sex' as a category. But then there are many medical categories I don't trust; remember, when we say chromosomes (and nothing but chromosomes) indicate male and female, we're going strictly by the medical model. There are other ways of reading it. I remember reading an article which went through the chromosomes and argued we had around seven 'sexes' / genders, but I can't find it now. I'm not a scientist, this is just my opinion. There are too many variants to simply think in terms of two, and too many physical bodies would be classed, even in a scientific sense, as neither or both.
According to Dallas News, Munoz, who is from Fort Worth, Texas, was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital on Nov. 26 after her husband, Erick Munoz, discovered her collapsed and unconscious on their living room floor. Doctors later declared Marlise Munoz brain dead, meaning there was no neurological activity in her brain. Erick, a firefighter and a paramedic, told the hospital that his wife’s wishes were to never be placed on life-support machines.
“She did not want to be on life support,” her mother, Lynne Machado, told CBS News. “We knew what her wishes were as well as her husband’s, so we were all on the same page.”
But when the family was prepared to say their final goodbyes and to pull the plug, the hospital said they couldn’t comply with the family’s wishes. According to multiple reports, the hospital said that because Marlise Munoz was pregnant, Texas law dictated that the hospital could not remove her from a ventilator, regardless of the condition of the fetus.
“It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” Machado told the New York Times. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”
Texas is one of two dozen states that prohibit doctors from cutting off life support to patients who are pregnant. The law in Texas was first passed in 1989 and amended in 1999.
According to Dallas News, Munoz, who is from Fort Worth, Texas, was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital on Nov. 26 after her husband, Erick Munoz, discovered her collapsed and unconscious on their living room floor. Doctors later declared Marlise Munoz brain dead, meaning there was no neurological activity in her brain. Erick, a firefighter and a paramedic, told the hospital that his wife’s wishes were to never be placed on life-support machines.
“She did not want to be on life support,” her mother, Lynne Machado, told CBS News. “We knew what her wishes were as well as her husband’s, so we were all on the same page.”
But when the family was prepared to say their final goodbyes and to pull the plug, the hospital said they couldn’t comply with the family’s wishes. According to multiple reports, the hospital said that because Marlise Munoz was pregnant, Texas law dictated that the hospital could not remove her from a ventilator, regardless of the condition of the fetus.
“It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” Machado told the New York Times. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”
Texas is one of two dozen states that prohibit doctors from cutting off life support to patients who are pregnant. The law in Texas was first passed in 1989 and amended in 1999.
According to Dallas News, Munoz, who is from Fort Worth, Texas, was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital on Nov. 26 after her husband, Erick Munoz, discovered her collapsed and unconscious on their living room floor. Doctors later declared Marlise Munoz brain dead, meaning there was no neurological activity in her brain. Erick, a firefighter and a paramedic, told the hospital that his wife’s wishes were to never be placed on life-support machines.
“She did not want to be on life support,” her mother, Lynne Machado, told CBS News. “We knew what her wishes were as well as her husband’s, so we were all on the same page.”
But when the family was prepared to say their final goodbyes and to pull the plug, the hospital said they couldn’t comply with the family’s wishes. According to multiple reports, the hospital said that because Marlise Munoz was pregnant, Texas law dictated that the hospital could not remove her from a ventilator, regardless of the condition of the fetus.
“It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” Machado told the New York Times. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”
Texas is one of two dozen states that prohibit doctors from cutting off life support to patients who are pregnant. The law in Texas was first passed in 1989 and amended in 1999.
Couldn't the husband sue to force an abortion? If that is truly what he wants.
According to Dallas News, Munoz, who is from Fort Worth, Texas, was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital on Nov. 26 after her husband, Erick Munoz, discovered her collapsed and unconscious on their living room floor. Doctors later declared Marlise Munoz brain dead, meaning there was no neurological activity in her brain. Erick, a firefighter and a paramedic, told the hospital that his wife’s wishes were to never be placed on life-support machines.
“She did not want to be on life support,” her mother, Lynne Machado, told CBS News. “We knew what her wishes were as well as her husband’s, so we were all on the same page.”
But when the family was prepared to say their final goodbyes and to pull the plug, the hospital said they couldn’t comply with the family’s wishes. According to multiple reports, the hospital said that because Marlise Munoz was pregnant, Texas law dictated that the hospital could not remove her from a ventilator, regardless of the condition of the fetus.
“It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” Machado told the New York Times. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”
Texas is one of two dozen states that prohibit doctors from cutting off life support to patients who are pregnant. The law in Texas was first passed in 1989 and amended in 1999.
Couldn't the husband sue to force an abortion? If that is truly what he wants.
If I'm reading this right, Texas law may prevent such a suit.
According to Dallas News, Munoz, who is from Fort Worth, Texas, was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital on Nov. 26 after her husband, Erick Munoz, discovered her collapsed and unconscious on their living room floor. Doctors later declared Marlise Munoz brain dead, meaning there was no neurological activity in her brain. Erick, a firefighter and a paramedic, told the hospital that his wife’s wishes were to never be placed on life-support machines.
“She did not want to be on life support,” her mother, Lynne Machado, told CBS News. “We knew what her wishes were as well as her husband’s, so we were all on the same page.”
But when the family was prepared to say their final goodbyes and to pull the plug, the hospital said they couldn’t comply with the family’s wishes. According to multiple reports, the hospital said that because Marlise Munoz was pregnant, Texas law dictated that the hospital could not remove her from a ventilator, regardless of the condition of the fetus.
“It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” Machado told the New York Times. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”
Texas is one of two dozen states that prohibit doctors from cutting off life support to patients who are pregnant. The law in Texas was first passed in 1989 and amended in 1999.
Couldn't the husband sue to force an abortion? If that is truly what he wants.
If I'm reading this right, Texas law may prevent such a suit.
I didn't see anything in the article about aborting the fetus, just that they cannot mercy-kill the mom. It might be precedent setting if they were to perform an abortion on a brain dead mother in order to allow her the right to die afterwards. A bit of a pickle, this one.
malice wrote:oh, yay! broken iris is talking about abortion in the feminism thread.
finally!
In fairness to b_i, I was the one that first brought it up.
well, yeah, but I don't really have any old arguments I can bring up with you in hopes of opening up a new can of worms so it's no fun picking on you :/
Green Habit wrote:Here's a study that I think you and I will both find disturbing:
i guess I don't find that study to be disturbing because I'm not surprised at all by it. image is so much more important to people than substance that this is just another example.
what I'd like someone to explain someday to me is why that's the case? why are we so hung up on how we look to other people that we're willing to sacrifice our ideals and aspirations for making things better when it might give the 'wrong' impression to other people?
I know the immediate answer has to do with people wanting acceptance and being socially motivated animals etc- but what is that gaining us? security? and is that security- whatever that really means, because I'm not sure I know - does that security mean anything when you're forced into tiny little boxes with labels on them that define you, as long as it's the same label as everyone else?
is that all we want?
my existential angst cup runneth over
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
malice wrote:i guess I don't find that study to be disturbing because I'm not surprised at all by it. image is so much more important to people than substance that this is just another example.
I think it's for the very reason that I wasn't surprised that I found it disturbing.
malice wrote:what I'd like someone to explain someday to me is why that's the case? why are we so hung up on how we look to other people that we're willing to sacrifice our ideals and aspirations for making things better when it might give the 'wrong' impression to other people?
I know the immediate answer has to do with people wanting acceptance and being socially motivated animals etc- but what is that gaining us? security? and is that security- whatever that really means, because I'm not sure I know - does that security mean anything when you're forced into tiny little boxes with labels on them that define you, as long as it's the same label as everyone else?
I think it may have less to do with security and more to do with wanting to be absolved of taking responsibility for the world. It isn't fun to have people really confront you about the existence of injustice, because once they do, and you see it, you are forced to either get involved or acknowledge that you are morally compromised for not doing so.
malice wrote:oh, yay! broken iris is talking about abortion in the feminism thread.
finally!
In fairness to b_i, I was the one that first brought it up.
well, yeah, but I don't really have any old arguments I can bring up with you in hopes of opening up a new can of worms so it's no fun picking on you :/
I have an aztec calender type device I use to make sure I post something obnoxious every so often. I don't want you getting too comfortable.
malice wrote:oh, yay! broken iris is talking about abortion in the feminism thread.
finally!
In fairness to b_i, I was the one that first brought it up.
well, yeah, but I don't really have any old arguments I can bring up with you in hopes of opening up a new can of worms so it's no fun picking on you :/
I have an aztec calender type device I use to make sure I post something obnoxious every so often. I don't want you getting too comfortable.
without littlewing around, you're all i have to keep me afloat in N&D, b_i. I just want you to know that.
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
malice wrote:oh, yay! broken iris is talking about abortion in the feminism thread.
finally!
In fairness to b_i, I was the one that first brought it up.
well, yeah, but I don't really have any old arguments I can bring up with you in hopes of opening up a new can of worms so it's no fun picking on you :/
I have an aztec calender type device I use to make sure I post something obnoxious every so often. I don't want you getting too comfortable.
without littlewing around, you're all i have to keep me afloat in N&D, b_i. I just want you to know that.
