What's new
By:

Serious LGBT question - Keep it Nice!

What about butch lesbians that then turn into "transgender"? That happens all the time.

If Ellen came out and said she was going to grow a penis I don't think anyone would be shocked.
 
PearlWatson said:
This response illustrates how advocates try to have the issue of gender/sexuality both ways.
They say you are born with your sexuality (who you are attracted to) but that gender is merely a social construct.
Click to expand...

You say this as though it is clearly a contradiction, when in fact there's no clear-cut relation between the two. Certainly there is some relation, but it's very complicated, and generally speaking the two concepts can be quite easily distinguished.

As far as who you are sexually attracted to, clearly society does have an impact, especially over what sort of body types we find attractive, but there is a more important basis to sexual attraction in biology. For instance, there is no compelling reason to find rail-thin people attractive, but many people do, because rail-thin models are generally the people held up as being the most sexually desirable. But then, obviously procreation is the more compelling factor in sexual attraction, and indeed, most people in the world are hetero. As far as sexual orientation goes, I am not completely sold on the idea that it's all genetic/biological. Twin studies where one is gay and one isn't suggest otherwise (probably it is some combination of both biological and social factors). What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay. Hey, the world is overpopulated anyway (don't get me started on this issue), and gay people aren't hurting anyone by just existing.

But as far as gender goes, that is almost completely a societal construction. The most that can be said about a biological basis is very general characteristics, such as levels of aggressiveness -- and even then there are always variances, exceptions, outliers. Ninety percent of our ideas about gender have nothing to do with biology. To cite my earlier archetypical examples, there is no biological reason why males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. We teach kids that that's how it is and should be. But there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered with a person who is biologically one sex, but identifies more with the societally constructed gender of the other sex, because most of that construction is arbitrary anyway.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
You say this as though it is clearly a contradiction, when in fact there's no clear-cut relation between the two. Certainly there is some relation, but it's very complicated, and generally speaking the two concepts can be quite easily distinguished.

As far as who you are sexually attracted to, clearly society does have an impact, especially over what sort of body types we find attractive, but there is a more important basis to sexual attraction in biology. For instance, there is no compelling reason to find rail-thin people attractive, but many people do, because rail-thin models are generally the people held up as being the most sexually desirable. But then, obviously procreation is the more compelling factor in sexual attraction, and indeed, most people in the world are hetero. As far as sexual orientation goes, I am not completely sold on the idea that it's all genetic/biological. Twin studies where one is gay and one isn't suggest otherwise (probably it is some combination of both biological and social factors). What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay. Hey, the world is overpopulated anyway (don't get me started on this issue), and gay people aren't hurting anyone by just existing.

But as far as gender goes, that is almost completely a societal construction. The most that can be said about a biological basis is very general characteristics, such as levels of aggressiveness -- and even then there are always variances, exceptions, outliers. Ninety percent of our ideas about gender have nothing to do with biology. To cite my earlier archetypical examples, there is no biological reason why males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. We teach kids that that's how it is and should be. But there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered with a person who is biologically one sex, but identifies more with the societally constructed gender of the other sex, because most of that construction is arbitrary anyway.
Click to expand...

Color preference has nothing to do with the defining traits of males and females. We are talking abilities and brain differences such as spacial/math, language, IQ, information processing, emotions, aggression, etc.

I don't know how to say, "You pulled 90% out of your ***," in a nice way.
There are obvious biological reasons for boys to be attracted to army toys, and girls to baby dolls, but toy preference is only part of the difference. The way in which the toys are played with is the other part.
That being said there are obvious social reasons to support these innate differences, as well as allow room for variation without rejection/punishment.

What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay.
Click to expand...

I'm not informed about what you are talking about, but you are wrong about the ability to change.

Why should someone who has been molested be denied the opportunity to change their conditioned attraction.
Why should they be punished a second time by being told they must accept the "orientation" foisted upon them?
 
AtheistPreacher said:
You say this as though it is clearly a contradiction, when in fact there's no clear-cut relation between the two. Certainly there is some relation, but it's very complicated, and generally speaking the two concepts can be quite easily distinguished.

As far as who you are sexually attracted to, clearly society does have an impact, especially over what sort of body types we find attractive, but there is a more important basis to sexual attraction in biology. For instance, there is no compelling reason to find rail-thin people attractive, but many people do, because rail-thin models are generally the people held up as being the most sexually desirable. But then, obviously procreation is the more compelling factor in sexual attraction, and indeed, most people in the world are hetero. As far as sexual orientation goes, I am not completely sold on the idea that it's all genetic/biological. Twin studies where one is gay and one isn't suggest otherwise (probably it is some combination of both biological and social factors). What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay. Hey, the world is overpopulated anyway (don't get me started on this issue), and gay people aren't hurting anyone by just existing.

But as far as gender goes, that is almost completely a societal construction. The most that can be said about a biological basis is very general characteristics, such as levels of aggressiveness -- and even then there are always variances, exceptions, outliers. Ninety percent of our ideas about gender have nothing to do with biology. To cite my earlier archetypical examples, there is no biological reason why males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. We teach kids that that's how it is and should be. But there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered with a person who is biologically one sex, but identifies more with the societally constructed gender of the other sex, because most of that construction is arbitrary anyway.
Click to expand...

The Meat.
 
PearlWatson said:
Even in homosexual relationships the partners take on gender roles...one Lesbian usually likes to "wear the pants" literally and figuratively.
The homosexual males with feminine traits tend to take on the feminine roles.
Click to expand...

This is so ignorant that I found it painful to read.

People who need to see the world on a binary-gendered basis say "A is wearing the masculine attire and B is not". People who just let people be themselves don't need to make these categories.
 
Stoked said:
May take heat for it but I see the parenting issue this way.

Mother and Father
Two fathers/Two mothers
Single Parent (mother or father)

Effective in that order and generally speaking. I am sure we all know examples that throw that order into disarray. I do not think "married" is necessary but preffered.
Click to expand...

I see, in reverse order of preference:

one guardian
two guardians
three guardians
four guardians
etc.

Obviously, having more adults take responsibility for kids is better than fewer.
 
PearlWatson said:
We are talking abilities and brain differences such as spacial/math, language, IQ, information processing, emotions, aggression, etc.
Click to expand...

In each of these cases, the variance within a gender is larger than the difference of the means between the genders, making the difference meaningless in practical terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top