Do we really need Gender?

[Geronimo]

Any women's or men's groups that have had positive impact on its members are argument enough that if organized religion has any value at all, then gender also has.

We would be saying that to the extent that particular religions can have net benefit giving potential value to religion in general then that gender has value to the extent that particular men and women's groups can have net benefit that gender based groups can have value at all. So are you on record as saying that gender has value but that religion has none because men and women's groups are more valuable than religions? Why? If this means that we 'need' gender then we also end up saying that we 'need' religion. Is this your stance?

Also in many respects much of the world has already decided to eliminate religion from the public space in an enormous number of ways. Typically even religious holidays are secularized and religious conversations in the public space are discouraged. Religion persists in these societies in part because its organization can be entirely private. For the overwhelming majority of religions there is no need for the larger society to acknowledge the existence of these religions in any manner to function. take aware their charitable organization tax breaks and otherwise refuse to acknowledge their existence as a society and most of them can still function with no concessions from the society as a whole. Even if groups were forbidden from excluding members on the basis of religion most religions could take that in stride. If society decided to discourage recognition of religion as a society the religions could continue. On the other hand, if society discourages recognition of gender things can get much more precarious for the women's or men's groups especially if the groups are forbidden from excluding members on the basis of gender.

I have to confess that from the first I ever learned of a men's or women's group I found the idea offensive. Why must they exclude people on the basis of something over which they have no control? Apart from some very interesting exceptions take any men's or women's group and it is obvious that the group should be perfectly capable of doing its good work as an inclusive organization and there's countless examples of this inclusive transformation occurring. The interesting exceptions however all tie to differences and considerations of sex rather than of gender. Women's sports is established to level a biological playing field. Women's shelters in no small part due to the biological physical conflict edge given to males and some others due to that edge in combination with perceived threats and vulnerabilities associated with any sort of male/female sexual intercourse. Perhaps gender has nothing to offer for good of these organizations either?

Your post has helped me realize however that getting rid of gender will do no good at all if it just leads to it returning rebranded as another facet of sex differences. That would actually be more harmful than the status quo in most cases.

Your post has also helped me realize that religion is already largely removed from society. It persists as a shared private experience only. Why shouldn't we remove gender from the public space as well?

[Dauphin]

At least your proposal would assert some kind of functionality for gender. The problem is that while a nickname has a real relationship with your legal name in that it points to the same thing that is certainly not the case for gender to sex.

I had a boss who went by the name Bud. His legal name was Martin. No connection between legal name and preferred name.

[Dauphin]

I think the better question is, when should society require sex to be the determining factor for something, vs gender.

you want me to call you her, him or their. Sure no problem. You want to have access to a non-unisex communal shower room, I think we may need to go by legal sex. You want to compete in a sex split event - define the split in the competition rules and let the market decide what is permitted. Etc. The issue should be to make sure discrimination laws are flexible enough to recognise freedoms and to limit abuse. Not to freeze out a minority because of their identity, or bend to unreasonable (ie abusive) demands from that minority.

[Dauphin]

A doctor friend refers to males and females. Years ago I would laugh and say why not say men and women like most people. Today it may make more sense if you want to use those terms for gender identity (man-woman) or sex (male-female). A thought.

[Geronimo]

I had a boss who went by the name Bud. His legal name was Martin. No connection between legal name and preferred name.

I disagree. they both pointed to the same person and they both serve the same primary function. the only difference being possibility for nuance of preferred context and/or differing sets of people who may have access to manner in which either name connects to that person. Serving the same basic function is the connection I was referring to. I did not imply that when things have multiple names that I think that somehow the additional names derive from or have some deterministic relationship to the "real" or "legal" or to any other name. The connection is just that they are doing the same thing. People can then choose to selectively use one or the other or both based on whatever rules or whims they see fit but both are serving the same function. Gender and Sex have no discernible relationship at all. They do not refer to the same thing in different settings or contexts. As near as I can tell the label of gender does not refer to anything whatsoever apart from the label itself.

[Serb]

The Holy Bible says there are only two genders.
The Satan says there is plenty.

Simple as that.

[Geronimo]

Afaik the Bible makes no distinction between gender and sexes

[Serb]

Yeah. That is why genders are a Satan's fake.

[Serb]

"If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them".
​
- Leviticus 20:13

​

[Serb]

Yeah! I am Christian! Sue me!!!

[giblets]

⁹ These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

¹⁰ And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

¹¹ They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

¹² Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
​

Sound advice, don't let the devil deceive you

[Ming]

"If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them".
​
- Leviticus 20:13

​

So I guess it's OK for a woman to lie with another women

[N35t0r]

Does this mean we now get to bring all the ridiculous crap out of Leviticus?

[BeBMan]

I understand people can lie together in whatever combination, but only if the number is above 2

[N35t0r]

Wait, if two men should not lie together under threat of death, does that mean we can let loose the trebuchet barrage against law firms with at least two male employees?