Define the word human "male" for me

[g6civcx]

I am curious about what each person considers to be a human "male".

We can easily determine if you are a human being, i.e. Homo sapiens.

I'm interested in knowing what you would consider to separate a "male" from other types of human beings.

I'll start with the dictionary definition. Webster defines "male" as "an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female".



Please answer the following questions:

1. In your personal opinion, what is and is not a human "male"?

2. How did you come up with the answer to #1?

[zeitgeist]

Im not sure why this is a question haha
I think you're either thinking way too hard or Im missing some grand picture

I just think of a male as a person with a penis. and i came up with that answer cause well thats the common conception that man has used to describe this type of human since the beginning of our existence

[Matej]

Are you 'unsure'?
'Confused'?

;)

[kingkilburn]

It would be unfair for you not to give the proper context for your question.

[HalveBlue]

This question is actually more complicated than it appears.

But I'm not willing to go down the rabbit hole...

[kingkilburn]

I will ask this;

Are you speaking physical appearance wise, genetically, hormonally, socially . . .

[g6civcx]

I just think of a male as a person with a penis

This definition doesn't agree with the dictionary definition. Webster requires that you be able to produce sperms. Having a penis is not enough to produce sperms.

i came up with that answer cause well thats the common conception that man has used to describe this type of human since the beginning of our existence

Do you have any documentation or did you just learn by watching TV, talking to people, listening to radio, etc.?

[g6civcx]

It would be unfair for you not to give the proper context for your question.

The context can be whatever you want. If I showed you a person, how would you determined if this person is "male" or not?

[g6civcx]

Are you speaking physical appearance wise, genetically, hormonally, socially . . .

It can be whatever you see fit. I'm looking for an all-inclusive definition regardless of context.

[aznpoopy]

at its core, i believe the dictionary definition is correct, since that is really the core distinction between male and the opposite (i.e. female)

i'm not sure it (or any definition) can really capture the whole range of context however... i'm sure there's some weird hermaphrodite something or other that can fertilize itself etc.

[ineedone]

I am curious about what each person considers to be a human "male".

We can easily determine if you are a human being, i.e. Homo sapiens.

I'm interested in knowing what you would consider to separate a "male" from other types of human beings.

I'll start with the dictionary definition. Webster defines "male" as "an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female".



Please answer the following questions:

1. In your personal opinion, what is and is not a human "male"?

2. How did you come up with the answer to #1?

1. Penis + Testicles = Male
2. Nat. Geo Channel!

However, it is impossible to speak in absolutes about this topic. I do, however, feel this is more of what is a "man" and not a "male" conversation. If you look at what goes on in the wild, the male is the one that gets the female pregnant, and that is about where it begins and ends.

[g6civcx]

at its core, i believe the dictionary definition is correct, since that is really the core distinction between male and the opposite (i.e. female)

I neither agree nor disagree that this is the "core" distinction, but I understand what you're saying.

i'm not sure it (or any definition) can really capture the whole range of context however...

This. Given any human being, based on our current knowledge of science, it is not possible to provide a checklist that can be used to detemine if this person is "male".


Interesting story for you. I attended a seminar where a rep from the Solicitor's General was giving a presentation about law and biotech.

I asked her, "how do you differentiate human sex?"

Her response was, "Male. Female. What's left?"

I then asked her what the legal standard was for determining if a person is one or the other.

She thought deeply and declined to comment.

I think I just invalidated half of the biotech patents :)



i'm sure there's some weird hermaphrodite something or other that can fertilize itself etc.

Yes, I have seen rare cases where a human being can produce both sperms and eggs. These people don't have fully developed utarus though, and can't bring a fetus to term without artificial means.

[DALAZ_68]

I then asked her what the legal standard was for determining if a person is one or the other.



well, wouldnt that falter back to ye ole saying "Justice is blind"?

in other words justice doesnt judge by gender, but by the acts of the person, whether male or female...?

so technically...there is no "legal" standard way to define it...?

[g6civcx]

1. Penis + Testicles = Male
2. Nat. Geo Channel!

This definition appears to be narrower than Webster's. Webster's doesn't require the penis; it only requires sperms produced by the testicle.

However, it is impossible to speak in absolutes about this topic

Yes, but why is it impossible?

I do, however, feel this is more of what is a "man" and not a "male" conversation

Human male is not "man"?

If you look at what goes on in the wild, the male is the one that gets the female pregnant, and that is about where it begins and ends.

Since you watch Nat Geo, they were showing how endangered species were having problems reproducing because the males were infertile (pandas and primates mostly).

So in the wild you have animals with penis unable to impregnate females. Does it end here?

[g6civcx]

well, wouldnt that falter back to ye ole saying "Justice is blind"?

in other words justice doesnt judge by gender, but by the acts of the person, whether male or female...?

so technically...there is no "legal" standard way to define it...?

In patent law, we need to clearly disambiguate the terminology in order to determine if a particular thing or act is enveloped by a word.

For example, there are a lot of patents directed towards male and female genetic sequencing.

We need to know if a particular gene sequence would be considered male or female in order to determine patentability and infringement.

If we don't actually know what is and is not included by "male" or "female", then we don't know the scope of the patent coverage.

[DALAZ_68]

***blew my mind***

[g6civcx]

I'll give an example. We'll use this one from 1973 since it's expired now: MALE URINARY INCONTINENCE DEVICE - Google Patent Search (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=s30tAAAAEBAJ)

The patent talks about "a male urinary incontinence device comprising an elogated tubing for fitting over the male organ".

If you can't tell what is and is not a "male" organ, then you can't tell if someone is infringing this patent or not. The patent is worthless because it is ambiguous.

[sirfallsalot243]

Dick n Balls.

/thread

[kingkilburn]

Define what is and is not pornography.

[ronmcdon]

at its core, i believe the dictionary definition is correct, since that is really the core distinction between male and the opposite (i.e. female)

i'm not sure it (or any definition) can really capture the whole range of context however... i'm sure there's some weird hermaphrodite something or other that can fertilize itself etc.

this is the most convincing explanation so far imo.

there's a grey area.
the grey area is made up of hermaphrodites for the most part.
maybe there's also some percentage made up of ppl suffering from defects/mutations/other conditions that makes the Webster distinction ambiguous.

Most definitions are almost always ambiguous.
There are almost always exceptions to the rule, however rare.

Webster was thoughtful to make their definition likewise ambiguous & brief.
At the very least you can't blame them for bieng incorrect,
even if slightly unscientific (can neither prove nor disprove).

In terms of what's practical/common, the Webster defintion is also convincing.
Rule applies to perhaps well over 99% of mammals, without researching the specifics.

[amdnivram]

1. Male: designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.

2. Well if your looking for just a specific definition for male, as a sex then i don't see any other definition besides the biological one. Having a penis doesn't necessarily mean your not a male because it can be absent due to many circumstances. Now if you want to talk about gender in which characteristics and physical appearances that we deem to be man then that has nothing to do with sex. Since sex and gender are not mutually exclusive certain gender characteristics can be seen in the other sex or produced by other means. So you can change from man to women or vice-versa in terms of gender, but in terms of sex you can only be what you started off with. You are either a male, female, or in rare cases hermaphrodite.

[ronmcdon]

gender is completely meaningless imo, as you can say whatever you want.
for instance, I can say I identify with both ( I am both man & wo-man),
and nobody can refute that

[drift freaq]

Male or Female is determined by the number of X and Y chromesomes in the human body. Now given that a male would have a penis and testicles, though would not immediately need to produce sperm to still qualify. Men can be impotent and it has no bearing on the fact that they still genetically are men.

Now socially certain traits are attributed to males vs females. Higher voices for females lower voices for males etc...
as well as men having an Adams apple and the female not.

Females having pectoral muscles like a male but being much differently shaped i.e. the Female breast, which has a unique function that male pectorals lack.


Now if the legal definition is not clear on this perhaps the lawyers working on Biotech law( you I assume) should indeed be asking the Biotech people and or medical professionals the clear definition and establishing it.

As far as sexuality itself goes that is a whole other can of worms open to lots of debate.

Though for the hard and fast definition of male vs female sex that is clearly a chromosomal situation and technically the women you debated it with,should have been aware of that.

[kingkilburn]

You can be genetically one and hormonally the other. Your body will listen to the hormones and not care what the genes say.


None of this has to do with what the OP is looking for though.

[g6civcx]

Now if you want to talk about gender in which characteristics and physical appearances that we deem to be man then that has nothing to do with sex. Since sex and gender are not mutually exclusive certain gender characteristics can be seen in the other sex or produced by other means. So you can change from man to women or vice-versa in terms of gender

How did you come up with this?

[aznpoopy]

Male or Female is determined by the number of X and Y chromesomes in the human body. Now given that a male would have a penis and testicles, though would not immediately need to produce sperm to still qualify. Men can be impotent and it has no bearing on the fact that they still genetically are men.

...

Though for the hard and fast definition of male vs female sex that is clearly a chromosomal situation and technically the women you debated it with,should have been aware of that.

i thought of this as well and looked into it

turns out there are men with XX and women with XY

not that i understand the intricacies of these disorders

XX male syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome)
Swyer syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome)

[g6civcx]

i thought of this as well and looked into it

turns out there are men with XX and women with XY

not that i understand the intricacies of these disorders

XX male syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome)
Swyer syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome)

Traditionally scientists have set an arbitrary length when a Y chrom becomes an X, i.e. how much the arm length needs to crossover to become an X.

Graphically we tend to think of Y as one length intersecting two equal lengths. We tend to think of an X and two equal length bisecting each other.

In the past we neatly grouped chroms into X or Y without really measuring the arm lengths.

But recently they have found that the distinction between Y and X is smaller than previously thought.

We have unequal length arms and the arm lengths are much more varied than we think.

With the advent of biogenetics, we're discovering new things about chroms and it's become much hard to neatly classify a chrom as an X or Y.

I need a chalkboard :)

[amdnivram]

How did you come up with this?


I'm not exactly sure what your asking. Now if your asking , about gender traits not being mutually exclusive then i can just say that since gender is socially constructed and that nowhere in nature are any personality based characteristics set based on each sex. Now we say that being a man is exclusive to the male gender but its not because only males can act that way but because we say that it is so. I've talked to some males who act like females and have real identity issues and that is enough to say that sex and gender are not mutually exclusive. You can look at people who try to become a different sex because they don't identify with that gender which is another example. When people get a sex change they change their gender, but nothing else. Nothing biological has actually changed since their new organ isnt actually a vagina or penis, just some flesh shaped to be it. I really don't want to get in detail, but in the actual sex organs certain cells respond to testosterone or progesterone( Even if someone takes high amounts of testosterone as a female, their new organ's cells will not react to the hormones as they should). Now there are always cases when some of these are missing or not as they would normally be, but for the most part these are outliers and cant be used to account for the majority. I might be misunderstanding what your asking, but im pretty sure i went through everything i typed.

[zac 3ne2nr]

I think and belive it's defined by anatomy and further compounded by male hormones being present in the system which aid in the physical,psychological and social traits.

[g6civcx]

I'm not exactly sure what your asking. Now if your asking , about gender traits not being mutually exclusive then i can just say that since gender is socially constructed and that nowhere in nature are any personality based characteristics set based on each sex. Now we say that being a man is exclusive to the male gender but its not because only males can act that way but because we say that it is so. I've talked to some males who act like females and have real identity issues and that is enough to say that sex and gender are not mutually exclusive. You can look at people who try to become a different sex because they don't identify with that gender which is another example. When people get a sex change they change their gender, but nothing else. Nothing biological has actually changed since their new organ isnt actually a vagina or penis, just some flesh shaped to be it. I really don't want to get in detail, but in the actual sex organs certain cells respond to testosterone or progesterone( Even if someone takes high amounts of testosterone as a female, their new organ's cells will not react to the hormones as they should). Now there are always cases when some of these are missing or not as they would normally be, but for the most part these are outliers and cant be used to account for the majority. I might be misunderstanding what your asking, but im pretty sure i went through everything i typed.

Where did you learn this information? Did you learn it in school? Random research? Some other way?

Did somebody teach you this?

[amdnivram]

Where did you learn this information? Did you learn it in school? Random research? Some other way?

Did somebody teach you this?
ahh ok, yeah school. Most of this is from the biology classes that i've taken. I'm a biology major so its not just intro biology. I've also done a report on gender and did research through scholarly journals.

[g6civcx]

ahh ok, yeah school. Most of this is from the biology classes that i've taken. I'm a biology major so its not just intro biology. I've also done a report on gender and did research through scholarly journals.

I thought so.

It's really easy for biogenetic people to pick up this gender stuff.

You deserve a beer emoticon.

[amdnivram]

I thought so.

It's really easy for biogenetic people to pick up this gender stuff.

You deserve a beer emoticon.


Yeah that is true, but in some sociology classes and philosophy i've also been taught that gender is nothing but a social construction and not something found in nature.

[g6civcx]

Yeah that is true, but in some sociology classes and philosophy i've also been taught that gender is nothing but a social construction and not something found in nature.

You are exactly correct.

[g6civcx]

Define what is and is not pornography.

Anything that has sexual connotations for a person, which could be anything and everything.

[theicecreamdan]

Check your birth certificate.

[drift freaq]

I think and belive it's defined by anatomy and further compounded by male hormones being present in the system which aid in the physical,psychological and social traits.

General Anatomy is determined by Genetic chromosomes. Hormones though affect the way a particular body looks though. That is way trans sexual's take hormones of the opposite sex or the sex they feel they really are. To further promote the physical traits of that sex.

Sexuality is an interesting subject because if you are willing to step out of typical societal bonds you will see that it could almost be on sliding scale.

You have the hard and fast heterosexual and you have the hard and fast homosexual/lesbian. Though you also have the in between i.e. the bisexual who may desire both sexs in a physical form but may only desire a loving relationship with one sex. Or the one who can have a loving relationship with both sexes, but desires sex with only one.

Now mind you this offends some people to even think about this stuff it does require a very open minded person.

It also can through confusion into the male female identity question.

Though if you look at nature you see these traits in nature as well with animals. It definitely makes one think that defined sexual preferences are indeed societal.

I do feel there is specific gender distinction in nature from a physical standpoint. As to Sociologists who profess its strictly a constraint of society, that is somewhat right and somewhat wrong.

Naturally there is a male, female sexual pattern in nature though there are deviations of it as well. If it was strictly a societal construct than how could animals instinctually know to have sex with the opposite sex to create offspring?

That is definitely not a societal situation.


Though quite often what general nature intends and what winds up happening can be two different things.

[g6civcx]

Check your birth certificate.

Mine does not say.

[g6civcx]

If it was strictly a societal construct than how could animals instinctually know to have sex with the opposite sex to create offspring?

I know the answer to this one.

Animals have sex with everything! :hide:

[rc1honda]

You have the hard and fast heterosexual and you have the hard and fast homosexual/lesbian. Though you also have the in between i.e. the bisexual who may desire both sexs in a physical form but may only desire a loving relationship with one sex. Or the one who can have a loving relationship with both sexes, but desires sex with only one.

Now mind you this offends some people to even think about this stuff it does require a very open minded person.

It also can through confusion into the male female identity question.

Though if you look at nature you see these traits in nature as well with animals. It definitely makes one think that defined sexual preferences are indeed societal.


Though quite often what general nature intends and what winds up happening can be two different things.


A lot of this is true. i work in a academic center that performs sex changes. And sex, and gender are defintley not mutually exclusive. I have seen many couples who take on the oppistie of their birth gender and still mate and have sex with thier opposite birth gender.

I.E. A man becomes a woman through surgery, but still has sex with a woman and loves a another woman. Or vice versa. So does that make that kinda a person a heterosexual male? Or a homosexual female?

[g6civcx]

i work in a academic center that performs sex changes

This is awesome. I bet you get exposed to a lot of stuff that could definitely shape your world view.

[rc1honda]

This is awesome. I bet you get exposed to a lot of stuff that could definitely shape your world view.


It was funny when i first told we did sex changes and then i started to see my first pre-op patients. At first i looked at some poeple and couldn't figure them out. You know the type you don't wanna stare but your just not really sure whats going on with them.

Then i saw my first pre-op patient and it all began to fall into place. A alcoholics "moment of clarity".

[g6civcx]

You probably see things that 99% of the population doesn't see or want to see.

I think it's great to get exposure to different things.

[ineedone]

This definition appears to be narrower than Webster's. Webster's doesn't require the penis; it only requires sperms produced by the testicle.

I am sorry it has taken me this long to get back into this thread! Summer school is tough man! Take whatever you did for just one class and double it! I was once told (by a absolutely insane man at a coffee shop, while I was studying) that the dictionary was made by liberals, and there is a conservative dictionary with the real meaning of words in it. So HAH! yeah I have no idea what that means. If all it takes is to be a "genetic" male is the production of sperm I am fine with that!



Yes, but why is it impossible?

Because like every thing in this world, an exception exist! The first real lesson I learned in law school man, never speak in absolutes! (was there not a man who gave birth somewhere in this world? I forget if that was just some weird hoax or if it really happened)

Human male is not "man"?

Being a "genetic" Male and being a "societal" Man are different things. A lot of species have the roles we humans possess flipped. I guess what I am trying to say it takes a lot more to be a "Man" then to be a "Male".

Since you watch Nat Geo, they were showing how endangered species were having problems reproducing because the males were infertile (pandas and primates mostly).

Does infertile mean they can not produce sperm at all? Or does it mean the sperm they produce is flawed? A quick reference and it seems there is no single cause to "infertility".

So in the wild you have animals with penis unable to impregnate females. Does it end here?

Just because fertilization did not happen, does not mean it "can not" happen. I guess if there is even the slightest of chances it happens, it would still be considered correct. Which, I think, comes back to this whole talking in absolutes thing. There is never a complete and definitive answer if any exception has existed or may still exist... kinda... sorta?

[fckillerbee]

ummm...here's a simple one...


NOT A WOMAN

CANNOT GIVE BIRTH TO A BABY

you can be a man with a cut off dick, no nutts, man boobs, female features, etc....but in my opinion, a "man" cannot have a baby.

Now a woman, that thinks she's a man, with male reproductive parts, that can give birth to a baby...is still a fucking woman.

[amdnivram]

Does infertile mean they can not produce sperm at all? Or does it mean the sperm they produce is flawed? A quick reference and it seems there is no single cause to "infertility".

Being infertile usually means that the sperm produced is defective like two flagellum or two sperm connected with one flagellum. Either way the defects cause the sperm to become unproductive and unfit to fertilize the follicle.

[theicecreamdan]

ummm...here's a simple one...


NOT A WOMAN

CANNOT GIVE BIRTH TO A BABY

you can be a man with a cut off dick, no nutts, man boobs, female features, etc....but in my opinion, a "man" cannot have a baby.

Now a woman, that thinks she's a man, with male reproductive parts, that can give birth to a baby...is still a fucking woman.

what about "women" who can't have babies?

I think you're using "man" where you mean male. And in my response the right word is "female."

Avoiding absolutes, I agree, is a must. Especially when talking about life. Because when it comes to living things, mother nature was nursing a hell of a hangover.

Dealing with every single "what if" can tear apart a lot of decent arguments. If you're going to distinguish between "male" and "female" you need a middle ground because those words describe the sex. And there are a lot of people who do not necessarily function sexually. For most of them fitting in as a male or female isn't an issue.

I am friends with somebody who is going through a gender change process. I don't understand why he wants to be "him." I just accept it. Other people don't understand it, and it actually makes them angry.

[lflkajfj12123]

Sex and Gender have two different meanings. Sociology defines this.

[iamtheyi]

holy **** I read through everything and still confused. I wish I didn't open this stupid thread....

[lou's40sx]

Male, Noun, "Any living thing that uses logic and common sense."
ie: "Oh, this 240sx is a transportation that will take the female and I to dinner."

Female, Noun, "Any living thing that uses it's physical characteristics and "emotion(s)" to refute logic and common sense."
ie: "Oh, is that your car? uuh uhh, you ain't getting none of this until you get rid or that."

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

before we're born there's these male genes that swim around and shit and they beat the shit out of the female genes and make the female genes their bitches. When the male genes take over they, ya see, then they steal the female genes' oil and publically hang their leader.....wait, what are we talking about?

[g6civcx]

I am sorry it has taken me this long to get back into this thread!

Thank you for your response.

I want you to note something as you go through your coursework.

Any time you see male and female in your case review, really ask yourself what is the requisite standard to qualify a person as one or the other?

In legal procedures, how do you know if a person is one or the other? Do we actually have a standard or is it just random people agreeing together?

What if we can't tell? What do we do? Where do send them, incarceration for example?


I hope one day you can read/listen to my arguments to the US Supreme Court on this very issue :-)

[Walperstyle]

Man is no 1 because women have emotions and rule by them. Being emotions get f-ed up ever month or so, its best to let Men be the best.

[klits562]

I.E. A man becomes a woman through surgery, but still has sex with a woman and loves a another woman. Or vice versa. So does that make that kinda a person a heterosexual male? Or a homosexual female?

Now thats a brain blower outter.:Ownedd:

[bb4_96]

If gender is a social facility then wouldn't society define what a "man" is?

In order to function (without discrimination or being seen as different in society) wouldn't you choose a gender that best suits you based on society's definitions?

Under that train of thought wouldn't "gender definitions" vary by region based on that region's beliefs?

I think(imo) mainstream US society chooses to define their gender sexually(sexual preference and/or repro organ) and by appearance more then anything. ie: It carries a feminine connotation if: it wears a dress, it "catches", it wears makeup in a traditionally feminine fashion, it has a vagina per say. And it carries a masculine connotation if it: has a penis, doesn't wear dresses etc.

^Although clearly you don't need one reproductive organ or the other to identify with a specific gender. I only mention it in society's definition as it is the most widely accepted means for identifying with a gender seeing as it is applied upon birth if applicable and carried through childhood and early adulthood(boy/girls restrooms).

Most hobbies/social activities don't really define a gender anymore. Sports have been opened up to both genders. Hobbies have been opened up to most genders. I've seen "women" turn a wrench like I can only aspire to.

[Okinawandrifter87]

The context can be whatever you want. If I showed you a person, how would you determined if this person is "male" or not?

You couldn't determine if a person was a male or not because even women have masculine features that males have so it can be hard at times to judge who is a male and who is not if you really want to get technical about it. The only way to tell would be from who were you born as a baby gender cause obviously there are gender changes. Am I heading off topic with this or is this the type of arguements that you are looking for?

[ripnbst]

I say you need sperm and the means to deliver that sperm. So my definition is penis+testes=man. Webster says you only need the testes but what good are they if you cant get your little guys out into the world? I think you should need both to be considered male.

[GabeS14]

Is someone coming Out Of the closet?

Jk. But. Are you
Referring to hermafrodites?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ineedone]

Thank you for your response.

I made someone mad and I was in Pinkville for a bit, however, I kept up with the thread (as long as you do not log in, you still have access to read all the forums they block when you get pinked!).

I want you to note something as you go through your coursework.

Any time you see male and female in your case review, really ask yourself what is the requisite standard to qualify a person as one or the other?

Well, depending on whose opinion you are reading this could all change. For example, Scalia, will not go anywhere near this type of question. He is also terrified (not really) of attempting to define adjectives. Even if the courts were to take on this though, how much process would you really recieve on a decision by an agency who designates your gender? Something like that, in my opinion, would be a quick decision which would not give much room for one to challenge. LGBT is not necessarily a juggernaut when it comes to lobbying so I really do not see much changing (whether that is better or worse, who knows...). Just think of all the "extra" time and money it would take just to define every plaintiff/defendant as Male/Female.


In legal procedures, how do you know if a person is one or the other? Do we actually have a standard or is it just random people agreeing together?

What if we can't tell? What do we do? Where do send them, incarceration for example?

I can not really see why it would matter though to differentiate between male/female in a legal proceeding, and I am assuming, if it did become a question the legal standard would be whatever is on a government ID. Philosophical debate aside, even if you want to be a woman, but your ID says Male... You will be treated, legally that is, as a Male. At least that is what my knowledge of how it works as of right now. I could be completely wrong though!


I hope one day you can read/listen to my arguments to the US Supreme Court on this very issue :-)

If you get to the SCOTUS I will come and observe your arguments! I will be transferring to AU-Law in the spring so at least try and wait till then! (I have a feeling that this will not be happening within any reasonable time frame... How many cases do they typically hear now a days?). Hopefully by then I will have some working knowledge of patent law and be able to follow what is going on!

[bb4_96]

If OP's question was asked with reference to legal matters then all you've done is ask a question. What is your argument to the supreme court? Do you have some sort of proposal for the requisite standard to qualify a person as a certain gender? Or do you dislike the current system but have no solution? Its apparent this forum(majority) leans towards the age old physical features for defintion.

[ineedone]

If OP's question was asked with reference to legal matters then all you've done is ask a question. What is your argument to the supreme court? Do you have some sort of proposal for the requisite standard to qualify a person as a certain gender? Or do you dislike the current system but have no solution? Its apparent this forum(majority) leans towards the age old physical features for defintion.

Defining just about anything in a "legal" sense is extremely difficult. Just within the 9 SCOTUS Justices we have now, there are at least 4 completely different philosophical schools of thought (Form, Intent, Realism, Modern Dynamics). It is also impossible for anyone to really know which, if any, is the best/most correct. We usually go with whoever seems least wrong.

However, it is very important that a definition exist in a "legal" sense. So you can see how this topic would be extremely controversial and important. With the way the court is as of right now, and this is not a very informed opinion, I do not think the argument about gender would go much further then whatever your government issued ID considers you. I do not see the court as being "liberal/progressive" enough to really change that.

[Mikey213]

Originally Posted by amdnivram http://icandy.zilvia.net/img/zilvia/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://zilvia.net/f/325109-define-word-human-male-me-2.html#post3474104)
Yeah that is true, but in some sociology classes and philosophy i've also been taught that gender is nothing but a social construction and not something found in nature.


But the social construction itself is nature, is it not?

[bb4_96]

I just hope this isn't an argument that individuals that have had sex changes ought to have special accomidations ie. Man gets sex change and hopes to be detained with women. Now it's a different story if sex was unclear at birth. But I think thats far from mainstream.

[ineedone]

I just hope this isn't an argument that individuals that have had sex changes ought to have special accomidations ie. Man gets sex change and hopes to be detained with women. Now it's a different story if sex was unclear at birth. But I think thats far from mainstream.

It is much more than just where to detain a perpetrator. But to your hypothetical, why would someone who had a sex change not be incarcerated with whatever they are technically classified as? Should we be building prisons (spending more tax dollars!) specifically for persons with sex changes? Why would the sex being unclear at birth be any different then a person having a sex change later in life?

[bb4_96]

It is much more than just where to detain a perpetrator. But to your hypothetical, why would someone who had a sex change not be incarcerated with whatever they are technically classified as? Should we be building prisons (spending more tax dollars!) specifically for persons with sex changes? Why would the sex being unclear at birth be any different then a person having a sex change later in life?

We can chase around sex changes all day and the associated bs. It needs to be based on what you are classified as at birth not what you decided to be. Consider this.. Why not(as a man) get a sex change then try to rob a bank. That way if you end up in jail you end up with females or other post ops instead of males.

We should not be building prisons for people who decide to get a sex change. Prison spending would run rampant in efforts to accomidate everyones sexuality.

Sex unclear at birth isn't a choice. A sex change later in life is very very optional. Why should you be specially accomidated(in legal system) based on a surgery you elected to have?

And this is all just in terms of anatomy. How can you tell someone that can't afford a sex change that although they feel like a _____ they have to be detained with _____ just because they couldn't afford the operation? Thats a monetary discrimination.

At the end of the day prison is prison. It isn't supposed to be a special place where you get your own little personal bubble to be your own special you with others like you.

My arguments are fairness of proposed modification to current system and where the funding will come from?

[ineedone]

We can chase around sex changes all day and the associated bs. It needs to be based on what you are classified as at birth not what you decided to be. Consider this.. Why not(as a man) get a sex change then try to rob a bank. That way if you end up in jail you end up with females or other post ops instead of males.

Why would it matter either way? If you have a legal sex change than, legally, you are whatever you changed too. Correct? How would anyone know what you were at birth? Again, why does it matter what you were born as? As of right now, and G6civicx will have to verify this, I believe the standard is just whatever you are considered as the most recent government ID.


Sex unclear at birth isn't a choice. A sex change later in life is very very optional. Why should you be specially accomidated(in legal system) based on a surgery you elected to have?

Well, this is a philosophical debate. There are very strong arguments out there that say that gender does not necessarily correlate with physical attributes. The brain is a very complicated thing, and I doubt anyone can say they have the right answer on this subject.

And this is all just in terms of anatomy. How can you tell someone that can't afford a sex change that although they feel like a _____ they have to be detained with _____ just because they couldn't afford the operation? Thats a monetary discrimination.

Not sure how this would be an issue. The issue should only present itself at the time a crime is committed and/or sentencing. Whatever you are at that moment is what would matter. Not what you intend to be or want to be (I think??? again G6civicx would have to clarify).

Legal opinions and decisions very often turn on definitions of words that are extremely difficult to define (like any adjective in the English language). As the world progresses and changes, so do the definitions of words. For example, the constitution says "All men are created equally" do you see how this could become an issue?

The classic lawschool example of this is "No vehicles in the park" if you can figure that one out, you will be way ahead of the game!

[bb4_96]

I maintain all my points:
My first point- How do you prevent intentional gender manipulation for enjoyment of time served? I think that was missed altogether.

Second point- why are we accomidating an elective surgery? Are you saying whether or not a sex change is a elective surgery is a philisophical debate? I'm confused.

Third point stands- Why are going so far as to make accomodations to people with sex changes why not for people who feel the same but can't afford the op? I don't think it's right to discriminate.

Opening this can of worms on the judical system will be a huge clusterfuck at the taxpayers expense.

So far all I've gotten is haggle. Where is the damn resolution? Throw tax dollars at it? Help me out. Tell me this wasn't an issue proposed with no resolution.

[ineedone]

I maintain all my points:
My first point- How do you prevent intentional gender manipulation for enjoyment of time served? I think that was missed altogether.

Do we prevent gay men from entering jail with straight men? Inmates who have good behavior get more privileges. We separate prison population by gangs, ethnicity, religion, etc. I do not see separating by gender as any real issue that would be that difficult to implement. I think you would be hard pressed to find even one case of "gender manipulation" for the sake of being in a different prison/jail. Also, I doubt there is much of any difference between a "male" jail/prison or a "female" jail/prison. Incarceration is incarceration, example - maximum security is not gender specific

Second point- why are we accomidating an elective surgery? Are you saying whether or not a sex change is a elective surgery is a philisophical debate? I'm confused.

I am saying defining someone as male/female is a philosophical debate. People do not get sex changes for fun. It is usually do to a severe disconnect, in the brain, between the physical attributes one has and the way they process what gender they themselves wish to be. The surgery is just their way of "fixing" what they know in their mind was originally not right.

Third point stands- Why are going so far as to make accomodations to people with sex changes why not for people who feel the same but can't afford the op? I don't think it's right to discriminate.

We make reasonable accommodations for a lot of issues (diseases, mental disabilities, sexual orientation, what neighborhood you grew up in, etc.). I think G6civicX issue is more with defining it as to issues in patent law. Not quite sure though, but we discriminate for a lot of things, others not so much. And again, I doubt it would be that difficult to have a area in a prison/jail be allocated for "mixed gender" inmates if they wish to be separated. Besides, when we legalize marijuana, there will be a lot of extra room in those jails!

Opening this can of worms on the judical system will be a huge clusterfuck at the taxpayers expense.

So far all I've gotten is haggle. Where is the damn resolution? Throw tax dollars at it? Help me out. Tell me this wasn't an issue proposed with no resolution.

How would this be a "clusterfuck" we already deal with these types of issues/questions on a daily basis. Can you correctly tell me what "No vehicles in the park" means? The legal system is all haggle, generally speaking, we never have one "correct" answer. Every issue is always different. Again, I think this is pretty apparent through much of life, we are not looking for the "right" answer because we will never truly know that until we meet our maker (or not?), but we are looking for the "least wrong" answer.... I just got a little to deep there...

[bb4_96]

Im still going to stand by my first point. If i knew i was going away for life I'd be half tempted to get the op. I firmly feel I'd rather bunk with sandra than bubba. I don't think the general pop knows you can get away with it or more people would.

If sex change is a way of fixing onesself how is it any less elective than female breast augmentation in such a judgemental super critical society? Only part of that point i succeed is the neccessity of accomidating sex changes in prison, seeing as you aren't proposing to.

On the third point: Where does it end? When everyone in jail has there own swell little cubbyhole to serve out their time? How is something like that managed? How much manpower is involved? To me all this catering to inmates looks expensive in staffing alone, much less structurally facilitating isolation of every little group.

So this was just as i suspected. This was a very costly problem proposed with no reasonable resolution other than a costly one... at taxpayers expense. People are already a touch sensitive about prison spending. Let me ask you this. Would you be in support of this if you had to secure the funds privately? It's easy to propose fun ideas like this when it's coming out of the infinite pool of tax dollars but what if you were put in charge of securing private funding source for this special interest agenda? Corrections officers top out at about 100K with benefits paid around here... a piece. This is just more justification for state/local governments not to fix the potholes that jar my bones every morning. I don't know how many people you'll be able to convince that prison isn't cushy enough already.

In other facets of life that don't dig into US tax dollars I'm all for accommodating gender/sexuality movements. Just not in the ones that effect this country's bottom line.

[ineedone]

Im still going to stand by my first point. If i knew i was going away for life I'd be half tempted to get the op. I firmly feel I'd rather bunk with sandra than bubba. I don't think the general pop knows you can get away with it or more people would.

I think that is a very extreme view, and something that no one has ever done, or even considered doing, in light of jail time. However, if you had a sex change in anticipation of committing a crime and being caught... well.. kudos to you. You deserve it.

If sex change is a way of fixing onesself how is it any less elective than female breast augmentation in such a judgemental super critical society? Only part of that point i succeed is the neccessity of accomidating sex changes in prison, seeing as you aren't proposing to.

This is not so much about determining where someone goes to prison as much as patent issues. I think...

On the third point: Where does it end? When everyone in jail has there own swell little cubbyhole to serve out their time? How is something like that managed? How much manpower is involved? To me all this catering to inmates looks expensive in staffing alone, much less structurally facilitating isolation of every little group.

The prison system is privately owned in many cases. Non-violent offenders, a majority are in for marijuana possession, are what drives the cost of prisons. Not the guards, or segregating the prisoners for the protection of those guards and themselves.

So this was just as i suspected. This was a very costly problem proposed with no reasonable resolution other than a costly one... at taxpayers expense. People are already a touch sensitive about prison spending. Let me ask you this. Would you be in support of this if you had to secure the funds privately? It's easy to propose fun ideas like this when it's coming out of the infinite pool of tax dollars but what if you were put in charge of securing private funding source for this special interest agenda? Corrections officers top out at about 100K with benefits paid around here... a piece. This is just more justification for state/local governments not to fix the potholes that jar my bones every morning. I don't know how many people you'll be able to convince that prison isn't cushy enough already.

In other facets of life that don't dig into US tax dollars I'm all for accommodating gender/sexuality movements. Just not in the ones that effect this country's bottom line.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but every issue (especially social) can be broken down to economic terms.

But like I said before, this is more of a "No vehicles in the park" issue. Not a "where does the perp go?" question.

[bb4_96]

Obviously every issue can be broken down into economics terms. That doesn't mean me need to.

I don't understand "no vehicles in park" or "patent issue"

[ineedone]

Obviously every issue can be broken down into economics terms. That doesn't mean me need to.

I don't understand "no vehicles in park" or "patent issue"

What does "No vehicles in the park" mean? Of course, your first instinct will be "oh, just cars" well, trust me, you can have an entire class full of debate as to what a vehicle may be. It is all about defining a word, and how to interpret what congress lays out as law and how to follow/enforce that. This also has a lot of legal theory as to how to interpret the constitution. (Textual, Purpose, Realism, Modern Dynamics)

Patent law deals with exclusive rights granted by a state/government to an inventor for a period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention. So you can see why a definition could mean all the difference. Especially when it comes to bio-genetics, and other scientific patents (I am assuming this is where the whole male/female distinction may become quite the problem). Again, G6civicx is the real attorney so whenever he chimes back in I am sure he will be correcting a lot of what I said, but my limited, but growing, knowledge of it all has at least given me some sort of idea as to what it all is.

[Walperstyle]

You guys take things way too far.

I will simplify this in pictures.
http://www.lamemovies.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/commando.jpg
http://www.pittsburghurbanmedia.com/clientfiles/image/terry_crews-get_smart_premiere-2008.jpg
http://img.listal.com/image/68562/500full-john-wayne.jpg
http://www.evanflys.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Lt_Chuck_Yeager_after_his_first_kill_-_march_44.19674328_std.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1414/1270080108_b79e64cac0_o.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:OG47XemQiIJjIM:http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7664/hartmannlastkz4.jpg&t=1
http://www.topnews.in/light/files/Bruce-Lee.jpg
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/country/img/15875_mahatma-gandhi-indian-hero.jpg
http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/tesla%2002.jpg
http://einestages.spiegel.de/hund-images/2007/09/24/66/b7bd350ac3df47ba9988370377095049_image_document_la rge_featured_borderless.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bSwuUSF_Rqs/SIeYjjnD8TI/AAAAAAAADog/nb8Q0DQKy80/s400/02.jpg
http://www.3cmc.org/carroll-shelby.jpg
http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/260px-Isoroku_Yamamoto.jpg
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/mandela.jpg
http://capetownnews.co.za/images/clint-eastwood.jpg


That is the complete list. The end.

[erikbanana]

define justice.

[HPKMotorsports3]

Male= Superior Being... and i say that because "God" created who? thats right adam first!!! lol

[hang_510]

Any time you see male and female in your case review, really ask yourself what is the requisite standard to qualify a person as one or the other?

In legal procedures, how do you know if a person is one or the other? Do we actually have a standard or is it just random people agreeing together?

What if we can't tell? What do we do? Where do send them, incarceration for example?
the standard is: the box you check, M or F, :l101: there is no 3rd choice!



does it matter? if we are equal, then the law applies equally and there is no need to define it further.

:ssex:

the reproducitve organs of mammals are unique to the gender (mutations aside)




cant tell? what are they trying to hide?
kill em, decision time is over.:zombie:



the decision was made on the olympic runners gender, s. african or chinese??? about what gender class IT was permitted to run in.

since there are apparently differences in performance, if you try to cheat, you WILL get caught and exposed.