What Is A Man?

[Mare Tranquillity]

No single standard can be used in all cases. Obviously, if a person looks like a man or woman they are going to be admitted into a restroom regardless of what the person looks like without clothes.

In the case of sports, I think you are looking at technology that will be changing from year to year. Science journals, sports governing councils and in some cases the courts must make the determination of a "probability of gender".

Let's remember that we humans create situations where a determination of "man vs. woman" is necessary. One hundred years ago we didn't have women only sports. And if you define co-habitation in terms of a civil contract you eliminate the need to make a gender determination.

As long as society paints itself into a corner where a determination must be made, then someone in society is always going to be unhappy with the answer.

As with many things in life, you must accept that chaos within boundaries is the only answer.

This is an excellent summation with which I totally agree. Good for you, Hobo!

 

[PLC1]

INteresting discussion. We think we know what a man is, and what a woman is, but it isn't as simple a many might think.

Is Thomas Beatie a man? He/she looks like one to me, but....

Maybe the only course of action is to let the individual determine his/her gender. If government or society can't do it, what other alternative is there?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

INteresting discussion. We think we know what a man is, and what a woman is, but it isn't as simple a many might think.

Is Thomas Beatie a man? He/she looks like one to me, but....

Maybe the only course of action is to let the individual determine his/her gender. If government or society can't do it, what other alternative is there?

Absolutely!

 

[Lagboltz]

Yes Lagboltz, do get that link for us. If I spouted something to the opposite, I'd be required by much whining and ad hominems (that continue) to provide a source or be called a liar. We are operating under supposed conditions of equality...so...yeah, get that link.

I couldn't find the article I wanted, but there are other types of experiments that show the same thing. The following is one website. I pasted the title and first paragraph below.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiiYMI3HVWYzv6bcQKGakNWFbMRA

Homosexual brain resembles that of opposite sex: study

Jun 16, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The brains of homosexual men resemble those of heterosexual women, while lesbians' brains show similarities with those of straight men, a study published Monday showed.

 

[Dr.Who]

Mare,

As long as gender resides ONLY in the mind of the person claiming such a gender then I would suggest that it be left out of the consideration of the law 100% just as you said.

And as far as I know it is.

Sex is a consideration in the law and we agree that sex is not the same as gender. So any male can marry any female, consensually, regardless of what gender they perceive themselves to be. But why should the gov care about what sex marries what sex? They don't need to care? They only need to care about what partners are likely to produce children. And since same sex couples cannot produce children then there need be no law concerning them. which is the way it is - until such people adopt or get kids in the lab. but opposite sex couples have along history of producing children and there is a great need to regulate what they do.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare,

As long as gender resides ONLY in the mind of the person claiming such a gender then I would suggest that it be left out of the consideration of the law 100% just as you said.

And as far as I know it is.

Your own personal "gender identity" resides solely in your brain, but your gender presentation is how you present your "gender identity" to the outside world.

Sex is a consideration in the law and we agree that sex is not the same as gender. So any male can marry any female, consensually, regardless of what gender they perceive themselves to be. But why should the gov care about what sex marries what sex? They don't need to care? They only need to care about what partners are likely to produce children. And since same sex couples cannot produce children then there need be no law concerning them. which is the way it is - until such people adopt or get kids in the lab. but opposite sex couples have along history of producing children and there is a great need to regulate what they do.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking here. Marriage does not "regulate" what people with children do. Marriage as it is in the law is a legal contract giving and requiring certain rights and responsibilities. All consenting adult should have access to these rights and responsibilities, not just people with children. A lot of gay people have children, especially lesbians, and to deny them equality with other child-rearing people is unnecessary. Since we don't require heterosexual people to have children to enjoy the benefits of marriage, I fail to see why the possibility of child bearing has any impact whatsoever on who may legally marry. If I'm missing your point please explain.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your own personal "gender identity" resides solely in your brain, but your gender presentation is how you present your "gender identity" to the outside world.

Looks like gobeldygook to me. A man is a man and a women is a women makes a whole lot more sense. So what if some men feel like women. And so what if they portray how they feel to the outside world one way or another. They are still men and women.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking here. Marriage does not "regulate" what people with children do.

Of course it does. The reason that the state regulates marriage is so that the state is not burdened with abandoned children and so that inheritance can be passed on in an orderly way (with the state getting it's cut).

Marriage as it is in the law is a legal contract giving and requiring certain rights and responsibilities.

Yep. the responsiblities are the burden of the regulations and the perks are what the state does to sweeten the pot.

All consenting adult should have access to these rights and responsibilities, not just people with children.

the state need only regulate people who will have children to be possibly abandoned or left an inheritance. The difficulties the state has in knowing which couples will be fertile or infertile force the state to make a generality that is not absolutely fair to all. Infertile couples will be treated differently than fertile ones. Life sucks.

A lot of gay people have children, especially lesbians, and to deny them equality with other child-rearing people is unnecessary.

Except in rare instances they don't have children with each other. Therefore the state only needs to regulate the relationships that the parents have (as in mommy 1 and her child's birth father) and not the relationships that mommy one has with her new lover or her own mother or her grandmother or her roommate...

now that people are starting to have children with people of the same gender through in vitro the state should get with the times.

Since we don't require heterosexual people to have children to enjoy the benefits of marriage, I fail to see why the possibility of child bearing has any impact whatsoever on who may legally marry. If I'm missing your point please explain.

As I said above the state does not treat fertile and infertile couples the same or fairly. That is the way of it. I don't see action groups of infertile couples lobbying for their rights.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Looks like gobeldygook to me. A man is a man and a women is a women makes a whole lot more sense. So what if some men feel like women. And so what if they portray how they feel to the outside world one way or another. They are still men and women.

So you are willing to let people present themselves as they perceive themselves to be without respect to physical sex organs? Okay with me, but how about the people who are androgynous, is it acceptale for them to be neither?

Of course it does. The reason that the state regulates marriage is so that the state is not burdened with abandoned children and so that inheritance can be passed on in an orderly way (with the state getting it's cut).

Man, you have a lot of assumptions about marriage! First off, of the 1132 Federal laws giving rights and privileges to legally married couples, none of them dictate how the parents must care for or treat the children. There are laws, mostly at the State level governing the abandonment of children and child support payments. Let's be very clear on this, Doc, there is nothing in the marriage contract or the ceremony about children or how the children must be cared for or loved. Nothing. Inheritance tax law is something entirely different from the marriage contract.

Yep. the responsiblities are the burden of the regulations and the perks are what the state does to sweeten the pot.

Twaddle, the perks are only what the heterosexual community has voted for itself, and nothing in any of those laws says anything about a requirement for children to be eligible--the only requirement is legal marriage, which is catagorically denied to gay people whether they have children or not. If children are the litmus test for marriage I'm okay with that, but only if it applies to all consenting adults equally: childless couples cannot marry. Old people whose spouses have died cannot remarry if they are too old to have more children. I want the law to apply equally across the board to all consenting adult citizens like the US Constitution requires.

the state need only regulate people who will have children to be possibly abandoned or left an inheritance. The difficulties the state has in knowing which couples will be fertile or infertile force the state to make a generality that is not absolutely fair to all. Infertile couples will be treated differently than fertile ones. Life sucks.

I'm curious where you live, your laws seem somewhat foreign to the US. The Federal government does not regulate people who will have children--abandoning children is illegal whether you are married or not, whether the children are adopted, or even stolen from other cultures. Unmarried people can't abandon children despite the fact that they are not married. Marriage is not about children.

Infertile HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES are not treated any differently than fertile heterosexual couples, the only couples treated differently are homosexual ones. Gay and trans people pay the same taxes and are guaranteed the same rights according to the US Constitution--just like black people we are fighting for our legal rights.

Except in rare instances they don't have children with each other. Therefore the state only needs to regulate the relationships that the parents have (as in mommy 1 and her child's birth father) and not the relationships that mommy one has with her new lover or her own mother or her grandmother or her roommate...

You seem to be ruling out all step-parents, adoptive parents, and all the infertile couples who use surrogate mothers or invitro fertilization. But wait, all of those people get all the rights because all of them can marry--it's only gay people who cannot. Doesn't seem right to me that just a few percent of the population are 2nd class based on religious dogma.

As I said above the state does not treat fertile and infertile couples the same or fairly. That is the way of it. I don't see action groups of infertile couples lobbying for their rights.

Yes, it does treat fertile and infertile couples the same IF THEY ARE HETEROSEXUAL, it's only if they are gay that they are denied legal marriage even if they have children. Hardly fair to the children is it? Especially when marriage is SUPPOSED to be about children, right? And yes, you do see infertile action groups lobbying for their rights: gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are doing that very thing right now.

 

[Dr.Who]

So you are willing to let people present themselves as they perceive themselves to be without respect to physical sex organs? Okay with me, but how about the people who are androgynous, is it acceptale for them to be neither?

Well of course. We have both freedom of thought and of speech. They can present themeselves any way they want to. I don't have to believe them but it is still their right.

Man, you have a lot of assumptions about marriage! First off, of the 1132 Federal laws giving rights and privileges to legally married couples, none of them dictate how the parents must care for or treat the children. There are laws, mostly at the State level governing the abandonment of children and child support payments. Let's be very clear on this, Doc, there is nothing in the marriage contract or the ceremony about children or how the children must be cared for or loved. Nothing. Inheritance tax law is something entirely different from the marriage contract.

This is the history of marriage. The fact that today it has gotten outdated and more complicated than the statute of federal tax laws is irrelevant unless one wants to say we should change the marriage laws. Which I would agree with.

Twaddle, the perks are only what the heterosexual community has voted for itself, and nothing in any of those laws says anything about a requirement for children to be eligible--the only requirement is legal marriage, which is catagorically denied to gay people whether they have children or not. If children are the litmus test for marriage I'm okay with that, but only if it applies to all consenting adults equally: childless couples cannot marry. Old people whose spouses have died cannot remarry if they are too old to have more children. I want the law to apply equally across the board to all consenting adult citizens like the US Constitution requires.

Well when I said the state sweetened the pot I never said that they did not do it as a result of a strong lobby that cared about nothing other than its own interest. And yes I have already stated that the state applies the laws unequally.

I'm curious where you live, your laws seem somewhat foreign to the US. The Federal government does not regulate people who will have children--abandoning children is illegal whether you are married or not, whether the children are adopted, or even stolen from other cultures. Unmarried people can't abandon children despite the fact that they are not married. Marriage is not about children.

The state of the written law today bears little resemblence to the intention of the people who wrote the first laws on marriage. All the more reason to make some changes. Like getting the state out of our private lives whether or not we are gay.

Infertile HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES are not treated any differently than fertile heterosexual couples, the only couples treated differently are homosexual ones. Gay and trans people pay the same taxes and are guaranteed the same rights according to the US Constitution--just like black people we are fighting for our legal rights.

In a sense they are treated differently because they have not been forced into a contract that is designed for the benefit of the state. yep. In another sense they are treated the same because they also can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want to. I normally don't bring that up but because of what you say next it is relevant.

You seem to be ruling out all step-parents, adoptive parents, and all the infertile couples who use surrogate mothers or invitro fertilization. But wait, all of those people get all the rights because all of them can marry--it's only gay people who cannot. Doesn't seem right to me that just a few percent of the population are 2nd class based on religious dogma.

Yes the state rules our all sorts of people from getting married even when they are raising children together. so even though those people who are raising children together cannot get married would you argue that gay people who are raising children together can then get married. You have just provided an excuse for the state to deny marriage to gay parents.

Yes, it does treat fertile and infertile couples the same IF THEY ARE HETEROSEXUAL, it's only if they are gay that they are denied legal marriage even if they have children. Hardly fair to the children is it? Especially when marriage is SUPPOSED to be about children, right? And yes, you do see infertile action groups lobbying for their rights: gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are doing that very thing right now.

That has already been addressed. It is too difficult for the state to know which hetero couples will be infertile and it really doesn't seem to care as long as it can promote the marriage of other hetero couples. And since forcing infertile hetero couples to stay together unless they get a legal decree of divorce strengthens the states right to force hetero couples with children to stay married that is what the state will do. IN the case of homo couples the state can predict with almost 100% accuracy that they will not produce children so they have no leg to stand on if they want to infringe on the rights of gay couples to do whatever they want in the bedroom. That is until now. Now that they both just might have children and the state can say that broadening their powers to include forcing gay people to stay together would strengthen straight marriage it has two new reasons to create laws that apply to gay people.

In fact that is the argument you need to be making if you want to gain any headway. You need to argue that broadening the states powers to regulate the marriages of gay couples increases the ability of the state to strengthen straight marriage.

 

[Chip]

It appears there is no new concensus here about how to determine what is a man or what is a woman when the situation obviously calls for it.

Thus, the previous defacto standard, accurate admission of qualifying genitalia, rationally continues to hold sway.

 

[Chip]

It appears there is no new concensus here about how to determine what is a man or what is a woman when the situation obviously calls for it.

Thus, the previous defacto standard, accurate admission of qualifying genitalia, rationally continues to hold sway.

 

[Dr.Who]

It appears there is no new concensus here about how to determine what is a man or what is a woman when the situation obviously calls for it.

Thus, the previous defacto standard, accurate admission of qualifying genitalia, rationally continues to hold sway.

Between the few who have posted on this thread there is not concensus. But I bet if there were an honestly worded poll most would agree with the more traditional concept of man and woman as the two sexes; that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, i.e. that we can tell who is who just by their genitals and that exceptions are exceptions that don't really effect the definition of a man or woman.


Something like:

Pick the best option:

Option 1) There are men and men have penises and there are women and women have vaginas and we can tell which is which.

Option 2) There is a continuum of sexes with some people being more male genetically and some people being more female genetically and we can't know what sex a person is.