Getting rid of categories

[Fawkes]

Do you think it possible that humans will ever reach a point where people are not categorized in socially constructed groupings? In other words, do you think we'll ever be able to get past the concrete distinctions drawn between things such as race, gender, sexuality, and even sex? Of course, these things are totally transient, I mean, here in the U.S. the racial options on the census are different every 10 years without fail. As people become more "accepting" of differing sexualities, bi and pan have been added to the homo/hetero dichotomy. Of course, this ignores the fact that there are as many sexualities as there are faces, but can the most we hope for be just a lessening of the social importance of these distinctions, as I really don't see it plausible for them to be entirely eradicated. Perhaps there's even an evolutionary trait rooted in survival that is the cause of humans' consistent need to categorize people.

Whatchyall think?

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not sure that much progress would be represented by not distinguishing between sexualities, it seems rather more likely to cause some degree of confusion. I am an asexual, and I imagine that any heterosexual would wish to know this before entering a relationship; there is an actual difference here, and simply not categorizing people into the two wouldn't really accomplish much. While it is possible that people's sexuality is not necessarily completely 'heterosexual' (although I don't see that we can say a priori that this cannot be the case), what matters here is how these words are actually to be used, and I don't think that the fact that they may not be entirely exact invalidates their use any more than it does the request, "Stand about there."

I'm not sure that it's a question of an innate human need to categorize people in the sense that most people have an innate urge towards sexual attraction, but rather it just seems fairly useful in this case. Similarly, even if we weren't going to use the terms 'female', 'male', etc, (and does this have to apply to other animals as well?) we'd still have to make the distinction when it comes to sex ed, teaching people about their anatomies in general, biology, discussing and planning for prgnancy, and so on, and ultimately you'd just end up with something awkward like 'Well, there are people with penises, and they are like this, and there are people with vaginas, and they are like this' in sex ed lessons.

[Fawkes]

My bad on the really late response.

I'm not sure that much progress would be represented by not distinguishing between sexualities, it seems rather more likely to cause some degree of confusion.

I think it would much more likely cause the opposite. "Well, I'm straight, I've been attracted to women my whole life, but now I like this guy. What does that make me? Am I bi? But it's only this one person...." That's a very realistic scenario and causes an identity crisis because of the sexual binary/trinary (?) that exists, and that identity crisis can also easily be manifested in violence.



I am an asexual, and I imagine that any heterosexual would wish to know this before entering a relationship; there is an actual difference here, and simply not categorizing people into the two wouldn't really accomplish much.
Okay, but it's more complicated than that for a lot of people. What am I supposed to say? "I'm a bisexual person but I'm also attracted to trans people and primarily emotionally attracted to women and equally physically attracted to men, women, and trans people, yet more likely to engage in a romantic relationship with a woman." I'm not bisexual or trisexual or whatever, I'm me. And in your case, just simply tell them you're not a particularly sexually-inclined person, there's no need for the pigeon-holing that comes from categorization.


While it is possible that people's sexuality is not necessarily completely 'heterosexual' (although I don't see that we can say a priori that this cannot be the case), what matters here is how these words are actually to be used, and I don't think that the fact that they may not be entirely exact invalidates their use any more than it does the request, "Stand about there."
But the usage of words like heterosexual and homosexual serves to further propagate the belief that sexuality is a dichotomy, when in fact it exists on a spectrum, or perhaps a better analogy would be a scatter plot. There are as many sexualities as there are faces.


Similarly, even if we weren't going to use the terms 'female', 'male', etc, (and does this have to apply to other animals as well?) we'd still have to make the distinction when it comes to sex ed, teaching people about their anatomies in general, biology, discussing and planning for prgnancy, and so on, and ultimately you'd just end up with something awkward like 'Well, there are people with penises, and they are like this, and there are people with vaginas, and they are like this' in sex ed lessons.
It's not that difficult, just teach them that the seemingly concrete distinctions between male and female actually exist on a spectrum, and that roughly 1 in 100 people are not easily classified as male or female.

[mikelepore]

Why can't we just say that people with with xx chromosomes are female, and people with xy chromosomes are male? It's not a social convention. We have this fact in common with fruitflies. I'm not saying that society has to USE this information, for example, it may not be wise to require people to indicate this on their driver's licence or school application. But the fact is there.

[Fawkes]

Okay, I understand the problems posed with the issue of sex, I just think more attention needs to be paid to the fact that it's not a black/white issue. However, I was referring more to the categorizing of sexuality and gender.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Why can't we just say that people with with xx chromosomes are female, and people with xy chromosomes are male? It's not a social convention. We have this fact in common with fruitflies. I'm not saying that society has to USE this information, for example, it may not be wise to require people to indicate this on their driver's licence or school application. But the fact is there.

What about xxy?

[Quail]

I tend to think of sexuality as more of a spectrum than categories. It is useful to have labels to avoid confusion. It's useful to know whether someone is attracted to men or women (or both), although we don't necessarily need labels to do that. I don't think that people should see their sexuality as a definite label or try to put themselves into categories. This is where this problem comes in:

I think it would much more likely cause the opposite. "Well, I'm straight, I've been attracted to women my whole life, but now I like this guy. What does that make me? Am I bi? But it's only this one person...." That's a very realistic scenario and causes an identity crisis because of the sexual binary/trinary (?) that exists, and that identity crisis can also easily be manifested in violence.
A person's level of interest in men and women can change. For example I used to give myself the label "bisexual and prefers men" but then I began to question whether I actually did prefer men. So in that way it was unhelpful to give myself that label.

Breaking down the "definiteness" (sorry, couldn't find the right word) of the labels could be beneficial and make people more accepting of sexuality. In my opinion it would be much more helpful to look at things such as sexuality and gender in terms of a spectrum than in binary terms. I think it would make it easier for people to accept things that aren't the norm.

[Kotze]

Gender and race categories can be quite annoying, but aren't they also needed for affirmative action?
What about xxy?Do you ask because of that misleading movie with that name? The vast majority of XXY people identifies as and looks male, even though a slightly effeminate appearance is common. The fraction of XXY people who are attracted to males is higher than in the population as a whole and getting bald as they age is unlikely, but that doesn't make a majority of them being identified or self-identify as trans. You can't just call everybody with moobs trans.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Do you ask because of that misleading movie with that name? The vast majority of XXY people identifies as and looks male, even though a slightly effeminate appearance is common. The fraction of XXY people who are attracted to males is higher than in the population as a whole and getting bald as they age is unlikely, but that doesn't make a majority of them being identified or self-identify as trans. You can't just call everybody with moobs trans.

Do you have any stats to back up this post?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Gender and race categories can be quite annoying, but aren't they also needed for affirmative action?Do you ask because of that misleading movie with that name? The vast majority of XXY people identifies as and looks male, even though a slightly effeminate appearance is common. The fraction of XXY people who are attracted to males is higher than in the population as a whole and getting bald as they age is unlikely, but that doesn't make a majority of them being identified or self-identify as trans. You can't just call everybody with moobs trans.
I actually should have referred to the entire variety of intersexed variations in this.

But that aside using chromosome based statistics should never be grounds to force an identity on someone.

[Kotze]

Do you have any stats to back up this post?It's called Klinefelter's syndrome. What I said regarding being male with some effeminate features (like often moobs) is not exactly secret knowledge, and a minute with a search engine of your choice backs that up. People with Klinefelter have a penis and scrotum, lower levels of male hormones which result in softer facial features (whereas high levels are linked with male pattern baldness).

Speaking about using a search engine for a minute I have to take back one thing though: The claim about a higher fraction of homosexuality among XXY was based on stuff I read that was a bit old (as in decades) and what I know from support groups; but the newer the articles get the less frequent the claim appears (or it's even explicitly said that there is no difference) and it's almost entirely absent in the newest articles, and support groups are of course not representative. Ahem. :blushing:

So it looks like the difference between the usual XXY and XY is even less than what I said.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It's called Klinefelter's syndrome. What I said regarding being male with some effeminate features (like often moobs) is not exactly secret knowledge, and a minute with a search engine of your choice backs that up. People with Klinefelter have a penis and scrotum, lower levels of male hormones which result in softer facial features (whereas high levels are linked with male pattern baldness).

Speaking about using a search engine for a minute I have to take back one thing though: The claim about a higher fraction of homosexuality among XXY was based on stuff I read that was a bit old (as in decades) and what I know from support groups; but the newer the articles get the less frequent the claim appears (or it's even explicitly said that there is no difference) and it's almost entirely absent in the newest articles, and support groups are of course not representative. Ahem. :blushing:

So it looks like the difference between the usual XXY and XY is even less than what I said.

You made the claims, the ownes is on you to provide evidence.