I'm still not over this. I personally think that Alluka is, indeed, female and the reason why she is called as a "he" is because the family does not acknowledge her as family or human.
I'm still not over this. I personally think that Alluka is, indeed, female and the reason why she is called as a "he" is because the family does not acknowledge her as family or human.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, but skim reading it clearly hasn't worked since I've addressed literally every single point you have just made. I'll summarise briefly, though, since I don't want you to read massive paragraphs of text, and I don't really want to write them out, in all honesty.
People that identify as a gender other than that which they were born with, otherwise known as transgendered people, exist. This does not mean that if you are transgendered, you are the sex which you personally identify as.
Love is emotional, gender is biological. The two are not comparable.
Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, on both Kite's Talk Page and Olivemeister's GTK page(you need only read the second paragraph). In science, sex is determined via genitalia, the ability to produce sex cells and the presence of the XX or XY chromosome. Intersex women, for instance, who have an inactive Y chromosome, are still referred to as "woman" due to their ability to produce egg cells, just as men with functioning breasts are still referred to as "men" with functioning breasts. In cases where these biological factors cannot be determined, I have already conceded that self-identity may be an appropriate metric to determine a person's pronouns, instead.
Hair colour is cosmetic, gender is biological. Again, you are not comparing like with like.
Gender is not cosmetic, it is biological. It doesn't matter how masculine or feminine a person appears to be; gender is determined by chromosomes, genitalia and sex cells.
Determining pronoun usage is not refusing to acknowledge a transgendered person's identity. It is still possible to recognise their identity while using the correct pronouns to refer to them by.
Alluka identifies as a girl; this does not make him female. Referring to him as a male is not transphobic; it is grammatically correct. Insisting that he is a male because of the sex he was assigned at birth is not transphobic; it is blatantly accurate.
That is pure speculation, with literally zero evidence in support of it.
If your brain was transplanted into someone else's body, are you now that person or are you still you in someone else's body? If you were to tell me "I'm now that person" I'd call you a liar. I woud never believe that you would believe that.
Your brain, and your identification of yourself, is what matters.
Gender is a social construct. This fact is proven by the existence of nonbinary genders not linked to the sexual binary throughout history. Even in the modern world, these concepts remain: the hijra in India, two-spirits in different First Nations cultures, kwhaja sara in Pakistan, kathoey in Thailand, mahu in Hawai'i, waria in Indonesia. The gender binary is refuted all over history - it's a Eurocentric belief that was forced on other cultures when they were invaded and their own cultures suppressed or outright wiped out.
Your argument's asinine. Why do you consider body to be more important than mind when it comes to identity? And yes, using male pronouns for someone who identifies as a girl is in fact transphobia. I am confident that you know "transphobia" does not mean "scared of transgender people".
It is an arbitrary thing to put people in boxes based on parts. We could have chosen anything - but we don't have "brown eyes" bathrooms and "blue eyes" bathrooms. We chose "do you have a penis or a vagina", and "what skin color do you have", and assigned that importance.
Why does it matter so much to you to cling to "it's just biology" in the face of real people with real experiences who are hurt by your behavior?
If your brain were transplanted into someone else's body, that would not then make you that person. It would, however, make you that person's gender. Unless you were to argue, for instance, that the chromosomes in your brain are still the same as those of your original body, or that somewhere in the continuity of your life after birth, you were biologically the gender which you identify as; nevertheless, such an argument still places biology before self-identity.
Your brain is a biological entity. If I self-identified as brainless (feel free to make a joke about it), that would not then make it true, and you would not be obliged to refer to me as brainless from that point onwards (again, mock me all you want), simply because I identify as such.
Gender is not a social construct, it is a biological fact, and viewing it as anything other than this leads to the problems present in the next paragraph.
Because of the reasons I spoke to you about on your GTK, before you had a tantrum and refused to engage anymore after I refuted all of your points. There is no reason not to allow people to change absolutely any biological fact about themselves, as well as the way society views these people, if gender identity comes before biological sex. As I stated before on your GTK, which you refused to acknowledge, gender-identity is no different than species-identity, or age-identity, or even person-identity. If you believe that men who identify as women should be allowed to change in female dressing rooms, or go into female toilets, then why shouldn't 40-year-old men who identify as 6-year-old girls be allowed to go to primary schools, change in children's dressing rooms and play games with children in parks? Why shouldn't men who identify as women be allowed to beat the ever living shit out of them in MMA or boxing fights with all of their bone structure and muscle mass advantages intact? Why shouldn't young women be allowed to identify as 70 and apply for retirement in spite of them biologically being in their mid-twenties, or women who identify has different species be allowed to enter animal enclosures and have sex with animals without it being classified as bestiality?
Skin and eye colour don't affect you toilet habits, as far as I'm aware; sex, on the other hand, does. Different toilets are meant to protect women and girls from sexual predators, who, by following your logic, could easily identify as women in order to gain access to the bathrooms in question.
Because I don't want to refer to Otherkin as dragons and werewolves, or 40-year-old men as 6-year-old girls, and I don't believe you do either. Facts don't care about your feelings, and just because you feel one way does not change the truth, nor does it make you any less of a hypocrite by not following your logic fully.
A debate; not a freakout. Though some people have been more inflammatory than others, regarding this matter...
Here's the fundamental thing we're not going to get past - you believe sex and gender are the same thing, I do not, and academia and social sciences agree with me.
Age is a concrete thing. Your age is the same thing as how long you've been in the world, which is why you can't identify as an age that you're not. Species is a concrete thing. Your species is determined by your genetics. Gender and sex have been long considered to not be the same thing, and a quick google search would be indicative of that.
The World Health Organization: "Gender refers to socially constructed roles". The WHO also notes that the "rules" of it vary from culture to culture, which you haven't addressed. No comment on alternative genders in other societies throughout history?
The American Psychological Association: "Gender is cultural".
Medical News Today, Science Direct, the FDA, all of them distinguish between sex and gender along the same lines: sex is biology, gender is cultural.
I am fully confident that you don't care about this and we're never going to see eye to eye on it. That's why I left - it's not worth it to debate with you, because you're not actually interested in learning and you're not interested in empathy.
As for the matter of Alluka - this is a fictional series with fantasy elements, so if you're going to stick with your idea of what the Real World is like, you're operating fundamentally on a flawed model because HxH world is not the real world. Unless you think your idea of reality's rules should supercede what the author is contextually stating, your arguments don't have any relevance re: Alluka.
I'm unfollowing this thread, I don't have time for this.
GTK Olivemeister. Read the second to last line of the second paragraph and tell me what it says, because I've repeated it three times at this point and you still don't understand. I also elaborated on it further in the response as well, but at this point, the only way you'll realise that I don't think sex and gender are synonymous is if you say it yourself.
Age is a concrete thing. Age is determined by how long you've been in this world. Species is a concrete thing. Species is determined by genotype. Sex is a concrete thing. Sex is determined by chromosomes, genitalia and gamete production. Do you know why gender emerged as a word? In order to differentiate self-identified sex from biological-sex. So why can't the same thing be said about the other two, then? Because you're not just saying that Gender and Sex are completely different, you're saying that gender, self-identified sex, should be the baseline by how we treat different people in society. So why can't the same thing be said about the other two, then? Why shouldn't self-identified species or age be used as the baseline by how we treat people? Are you confused because I'm not using a different word in order to differentiate the two concepts? Are you ignoring me on purpose? Are you just missing out whole paragraphs on accident? Do you not understand the problem here? Do you not see the problem with placing self-identity before biology?
I don't care if social sciences and academia agree with you; unless you or either of them can justify your arguments, you're all wrong. It doesn't matter how many people agree with the argument; all that matters is the argument itself. Are you going to call this absurd? Does this debase my whole argument? Then tell me how. Don't just leave the discussion and pretend like you've won.
I do care about this! You're just not reading what I'm saying, and when you've ignored 90 percent of what I've said and misinterpreted and responded to the other 10, you just take the moral high ground and walk out the door. Well? Are you going to do the same here?
And about the different gender-identities throughout history; I didn't ignore it:
"Gender is not a social construct, it is a biological fact, and viewing it as anything other than this leads to the problems present in the next paragraph". That is me addressing your point. If different cultures throughout history has rejected biology in favour of self-identification, they face the same problems which you do today.
Also, I must apologise, since the last paragraph contradicts the first entirely; gender is cultural and biological, but it is neither exclusively the latter nor exclusively the former, which still debases the idea that gender is purely a social construct.
Ok... I sincerely believe this topic has been argued for far too long and has caused way too much stress upon others on both sides. So as of now I believe the best solution is to lock this topic, bury all hatchets and just go back to editing the Hunter x Hunter wikia.
Also from anyone on either side of the argument that feel the need to say any other comments/opinions/thoughts/etc. can take it else where. I will either lock that topic up or delete it depending on my mood and the person whoever posted said topic will be banned temporary.
I can honestly understand everyone's thoughts and feelings on this topic, but whenever it's brought up nothing good ever comes from it, just toxic mish-mash. Also many if not nearly all of the comments posted on here can be frustrating and stressful to those who read and write them on here, so let's put an end to it all. Whoever wins/loses who cares I just want to move on and put this all behind us.