I hate to be mean but describing Brian as a beauty is a ... stretch of epic proportions. Never the less, "she/he" won and will receive some sort of scholarship.
It was an online People's poll in 1998 and the guy was popular on the Howard Stern Show.
article said:
Hank voters say they are trying to make a larger symbolic point by touting a candidate who has become the antithesis of celebrity culture by being featured on Mr. Stern's show in a drunken stupor, vomiting on himself and falling down stairs.
I suppose the NHL also selected John Scott for the All-Star game in 2016.
All of which has nothing to do with drag shows, being transgendered, and what not. Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.
That's ridiculous. Humans were made by evolution. Everything about us is the way evolution made us. There is no Platonic Form of the Human Essence that human evolution was making, while something else was making actual humans to be pale cave shadows who fall short of that essence. No, evolution made Metaphor gayer than most of us every bit as much as it made him larger than most of us. You're making the same kind of mistake a Christian makes who says gays aren't following God's Will, as though anybody could possibly be different from however his omniscient and omnipotent Creator willed him to be.
I'm disputing your third sentence above, not your first or second. I took your claim that he rejected the way evolution has made us to be a reference to his seeking out same-sex partners while being of a species that relied on opposite-sex copulation to evolve, i.e., that you were tacitly assuming humans evolved to be heterosexual. If that's not what you meant, sorry to misunderstand. What is your evidence that "Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us"?
If humans weren't primarily heterosexual we would have died out long ago. Of course evolution made us that way. Probably the most primal function of our being is the desire to reproduce. Metaphor has rejected the way we were made to reproduce. I have no problem with that. I made a similar choice when I decided I didn't want children.
If I got your meaning wrong above, then I don't know what you meant by that sentence either. What is it that trans people do that you're calling "do the same as him"? Do trans people also "reject the way evolution has made us"? If that's what you mean, what does that refer to?
I'm saying evolution made Metaphor gay. I'm saying evolution made trans people trans. I have no problem with either of them. But Metaphor has a problem with trans people.
He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means. He clearly has a double standard.
Not sure if you're counting "No." as one of the statements. Be that as it may, what evidence do you have that Metaphor rejects either the statement "Evolution made Met gay." or the statement "Evolution made trans people trans."?
Did you not read his posts. He constantly put trans people down as being trans only because of the "thoughts in their heads". He specifically rejected that they could have been that way because of their brain states. We've all seen it numerous times.
I hate to be mean but describing Brian as a beauty is a ... stretch of epic proportions. Never the less, "she/he" won and will receive some sort of scholarship.
It was an online People's poll in 1998 and the guy was popular on the Howard Stern Show.
article said:
Hank voters say they are trying to make a larger symbolic point by touting a candidate who has become the antithesis of celebrity culture by being featured on Mr. Stern's show in a drunken stupor, vomiting on himself and falling down stairs.
All of which has nothing to do with drag shows, being transgendered, and what not. Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.
I hate to be mean but describing Brian as a beauty is a ... stretch of epic proportions. Never the less, "she/he" won and will receive some sort of scholarship.
It was an online People's poll in 1998 and the guy was popular on the Howard Stern Show.
article said:
Hank voters say they are trying to make a larger symbolic point by touting a candidate who has become the antithesis of celebrity culture by being featured on Mr. Stern's show in a drunken stupor, vomiting on himself and falling down stairs.
Hockey fans voted for who made the All-Star team. For whatever reason, they latched onto a not all-star player. And he got voted onto into All-Star game. It was a farce. The NHL tried to manage it but failed. So the guy got to play in the All-Star games. Good for him was that it was 3 v 3, I think. And when it is 3 v 3, pretty much any NHL player looks like a god, because they are all awesome hockey players. So it worked out in the end. But the NHL didn't select Scott to the All-Star team, much like People didn't name a Howard Stern guy most beautiful person in the world.
A healthy 18 y/o male could make 30 in a summer. A healthy female could make another baby every year or so, with only a few minutes of fertile sex.
Heterosexual nonsense is clearly a result of irrational behavior. If rational adults weren't trained by instincts and rewarded with dopamine or something, they wouldn't bother.
Tom
All of which has nothing to do with drag shows, being transgendered, and what not. Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.
I hate to be mean but describing Brian as a beauty is a ... stretch of epic proportions. Never the less, "she/he" won and will receive some sort of scholarship.
All of which has nothing to do with drag shows, being transgendered, and what not. Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.
Nah, as long as humans have lots of sex with lots of partners, they could be primarily bisexual or homosexual, and the species would persist.
As long as sexual encounters massively outnumber pregnancies (as they certainly do in humans) being primarily heterosexual isn't necessary for the species to persist and even thrive.
The only questions that remains are, how much do people not want to believe gender is more than genitals, how much do people want to belittle what people say they feel within the core of their being, and how much belittling does one want to do to those that are Standard of Deviations away from the peak of the bell?
Yeah--the issue is whether deviations from that baseline are an issue or not. I don't care how many standard deviations away it is, just whether it causes harm to society. Things like sexual alignment and gender can be an issue for the person but they do no harm to anyone else.
The only questions that remains are, how much do people not want to believe gender is more than genitals, how much do people want to belittle what people say they feel within the core of their being, and how much belittling does one want to do to those that are Standard of Deviations away from the peak of the bell?
Yeah--the issue is whether deviations from that baseline are an issue or not. I don't care how many standard deviations away it is, just whether it causes harm to society. Things like sexual alignment and gender can be an issue for the person but they do no harm to anyone else.
I see atypical people to be the source of most of the most celebrated ideas throughout history even if some of them aren't exactly great in hindsight.
it is the willingness to boldly live one's own life without giving into the pressures of the world around them that defines the innovator. Being able to say "no, thanks" to the things everyone else does and thinks is important. For whatever reason, abnormal sexuality has a high comorbidity to other atypicality.
I don't think they are an issue to the person. Rather, I think it might be more feature shaped than bug shaped: knowledge one will not reproduce the normal way drives other forms of social contribution and frees the individual up for other interests, amid the clear ability to find some things more important than reproduction.
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
I will note, I don't really see a CIS person promoting becoming a eunuch. It's really the sort of thought you only communicate if it's a thought you yourself have, and so I claim the author of even a gospel of the bible as one of our number of gender "atypicals".
Even hyper-religious people tend to downplay the significance of it. Rather it wasn't suggesting that to be "holy" you have to be celibate, but rather stating that it's OK to want to be or to want to be a eunuch.
Again, while I'm not religious, I find that to be a really important discussion to have.
If it does harm to society, the harm comes as a mixed blessing, and is part of a larger trait structure that is vital to the evolution of the species through memetic rather than genetic contribution.
It is the "freak" and the "weirdo" that our best stories celebrate, and "having children and a family" is rarely the selling point, except for Disney princesses.
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.
That doesn’t mean they’re changing their gender. It means they’re denying themselves earthly sexual pleasure. Transgenderism was simply unknown in the Roman world.
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.
That doesn’t mean they’re changing their gender. It means they’re denying themselves earthly sexual pleasure. Transgenderism was simply unknown in the Roman world.
It means their gender wasn't changed, it was always assumed wrongly.
In the roman world, people didn't carry cards that proclaimed them men or women, and have to identify themselves as such before leaving and going somewhere else, for the most part.
You could just go somewhere, live quietly, and nobody would ask questions about social role changes or personal representation, and generally take people at face value. For the most part. I suspect some people such as yourself existed even then.
As can be seen in documents about eastern culture, though, we can clearly see many instances of social transition. It's a common archetype throughout history.
You are hopelessly misinformed if you don't think that trans ideations are absent from long history.
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.
That doesn’t mean they’re changing their gender. It means they’re denying themselves earthly sexual pleasure. Transgenderism was simply unknown in the Roman world.
It means their gender wasn't changed, it was always assumed wrongly.
In the roman world, people didn't carry cards that proclaimed them men or women, and have to identify themselves as such before leaving and going somewhere else, for the most part.
You could just go somewhere, live quietly, and nobody would ask questions about social role changes or personal representation, and generally take people at face value. For the most part. I suspect some people such as yourself existed even then.
As can be seen in documents about eastern culture, though, we can clearly see many instances of social transition. It's a common archetype throughout history.
You are hopelessly misinformed if you don't think that trans ideations are absent from long history.
Effiminate men who act lady like or males who take on female roles does not "third gender" make. They're just gay guys in times and places where homosexuality was highly discouraged. No need to retcon the past.
All of which has nothing to do with drag shows, being transgendered, and what not. Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.
Mocking what I said, the "stolen valor" of objectivity. As for the derail/point bit, TSwizzle can clarify if he wants, but it looks to me like his post was neither a derail nor a mockery of the contestant -- it looks to me like his point was to criticize the beauty contest judges for choosing to pick the winner of a beauty contest by virtue signaling instead of by judging beauty, and to criticize this type of choice for the effect it has on women. Which brings us to point 2, which is...
Dear Sweet Jesus...
The USA has descended to the point that the Miss America Contest matters on IIDB.
It's over Lord. Please Rapture me as soon as convenient for your Heavenly Plan.
I won't just do it! I'll like it and thank you for the taste of your...
heavenly...
Frankly, while I am not religious, I think a certain verse in Matthew about eunuchs is a lot more important than most people realize to understanding the phenomena. Gender Atypicality was documented in ~200ce and LAUDED!
Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.
That doesn’t mean they’re changing their gender. It means they’re denying themselves earthly sexual pleasure. Transgenderism was simply unknown in the Roman world.
It means their gender wasn't changed, it was always assumed wrongly.
In the roman world, people didn't carry cards that proclaimed them men or women, and have to identify themselves as such before leaving and going somewhere else, for the most part.
You could just go somewhere, live quietly, and nobody would ask questions about social role changes or personal representation, and generally take people at face value. For the most part. I suspect some people such as yourself existed even then.
As can be seen in documents about eastern culture, though, we can clearly see many instances of social transition. It's a common archetype throughout history.
You are hopelessly misinformed if you don't think that trans ideations are absent from long history.
Effiminate men who act lady like or males who take on female roles does not "third gender" make. They're just gay guys in times and places where homosexuality was highly discouraged. No need to retcon the past.
The past needs no retcon to say exactly what it says: throughout history, people have represented themselves differently than others try and represent them.
The fact that people recognize "the third gender", and the fact that it has been an observable phenomena recorded since the end of prehistory, and the fact that people are throughout time insisting on treatment different from the kind prescribed by cultural norms for people who "look like them" is enough.
It's there, and your attempt to claim it is not is naive, and suspiciously borders on maliciousness.
You are blithely trying to hand wave away recorded history of gender non-conformity.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Now being gay or trans is a choice, is it?
