• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Gender Roles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
 
And indeed, we reach the crux of your failing in this subject. You are insistent that your idea of their biological set up is the "objective reality". But in truth, it is just your unqualified opinion.
Sure, sure, it's my "unqualified opinion" that I have a vagina and my spouse has a penis. It's all just totally made up. And infants are placed under cabbage leaves by storks when the gods have decided to bless someone with a baby.

If I roll my eyes any harder, they're going to pop out of my head.
 
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
They're dating a dude...
 
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
They're dating a dude...
Are you of the opinion that "dating" is a physical characteristic of a person, akin to height, eye color, and melanin content? What part of the body is the "dating" part?
 
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
They're dating a dude...
Are you of the opinion that "dating" is a physical characteristic of a person, akin to height, eye color, and melanin content? What part of the body is the "dating" part?
You seem to be pathologically unable to make the connection between behavior and physicality in the brain.

The brain has different BEHAVIOR so the brain has a different PHYSICAL SHAPE because behavioral systems' behavior is a function of physical shape.

Do you not know what brains are? Do you somehow think they are not physical, that the things they do are not the result of their physical shape?
 
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
They're dating a dude...
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys.

Which part of "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" are you having trouble understanding?
Tom
 
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
They're dating a dude...
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys.

Which part of "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" are you having trouble understanding?
Tom
Your hubby isn't a physical organism? What did you marry, an elemental sprite? Behavior and physiology are physically observable, same as anything else.
 
Are you seriously going to try claiming that homosexuality in humans has nothing to do with the physical configuration of said humans?
Yes, absolutely. I am quite blatantly claiming that if you put a straight male and a gay male next to each other, you will not be able to point out a physical difference between them.

What do you - seriously - think the physical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person is?
They're dating a dude...
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys.

[Redacted]
Tom
No, I'm claiming the decision to marry a dude owing to your physical arousal in their presence makes you physically different from straight guys because straight guys don't decide to marry dudes.

It's precisely the physical mechanism that causes you to get erections from looking at "men" instead of "women" that makes you gay. That's physical
 
"
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys."

Nevermind.
You gender ideologues will not even notice anything that doesn't match your narrative.
Tom
 
Which part of "[inflammatory statement about fucking horses]" are you having trouble understanding?
Tom
I'm not interested. You're gonna have to try the horse. It's not my first choice for a sex partner, but you do you.

I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys
Because "straight guys" don't get erections from looking at men. What do you think is actually physically causing that? Fucking magic?!? Souls?!?!? An invisible pink penis pump?!?!?!?

There's a heuristic, a physically arranged series of switches. It is physically a part of you.
 
"
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys."

Nevermind.
You gender ideologues will not even notice anything that doesn't match your narrative.
Tom
Are you claiming that it would not be possible to physically observe that you are married to a man? That when you see him, your reaction to doing so is the same as that of a straight man? That when he says your name, your brain reacts the same way to his voice as it would to some stranger? We are physical organisms. Our social lives are instantiated in and governed by the physical limits and potentials of our mortal frames. There is no place else for your social self to be except in your body and those of the people you know.
 
I'm not interested.
I understand why you aren't interested.
Reality doesn't work for you.

Similarly, reality doesn't work for the Teaparty Christian Nationalists who live around here.

Okay. I get it.
I'm used to it.
Tom
 
Within the general population, it is well established that not all individuals conform to XY or XX. There are a number of variations, the true proportion of those variations is unknown because very few of us have our DNA analyzed.
Karyotype does not define sex.
I do think that as far as functioning in society, it is more important whether one feels themselves to be male, female, neither male or female or both male or female than what external or internal sex organs are present. Medically, there are different implications depending on what sex organs are present, both externally and internally.
Whether a person "feels themselves to be" male or female shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not they get to strip down in front of the opposite sex. Medically, yes, the presence of certain organs drives a lot of treatment. But as for society at large, I do NOT think that a person's subjective feelings is more important than their objective reality.

If we were to take your statement as fact, then the result is that if a male person with an entirely male body thinks of themselves as a woman... then because of what they claim to feel, they get placed into female prisons with female inmates. They get to strip down and use the female side of the Korean Spa, because their internal feelings are more important than the objective fact that they're a male who is showing off their male genitals to a bunch of women without their consent. Your position argues that if a person merely says that they feel like a women, then they can demand to be housed in a female-only rape shelter, play in female athletic sports, and provide intimate care to female patients who have requested a female carer.
I personally believe that rigid norms as to what is considered male and what is considered female behavior or what are considered male or female attributes is artificially constructed and is damaging.
I agree that rigid norms regarding behavior are damaging.

On the other hand, our bodies aren't artificial constructs, nor is the abuse and discrimination that women have faced throughout the millennia as a result of our sexed bodies. Young women aren't having their clitorises removed and their vaginas sewn shut because their sex is an artificial construct, nor is it because they "feel like a girl" inside their brains. Infants aren't having their foreskin cut off because of an artificial construct, nor because of how they view their personalities with respect to gendered stereotypes. 98% of rape victims aren't being raped because of an artificial construct, nor are they raped because of how they feel on the inside.
As far as I can tell, in your opinion, a person’s compliment of X and Y chromosomes does determine their biological sex. I agree that this does determine a persons biological sex. However, for some small number of individuals, their self perception is at odds with their compliment of X and Y chromosomes. This may be and likely is caused by some differences in some of their brain structures, with possibly other physical differences at play. Possibly and perhaps probably for some individuals, there are psychological issues involved. I’m no kind of MD, much less any kind of specialist in body synoptic or gender dystopia.

I think that everyone’s rights stop where they infringe upon the rights of other persons, at least with respect to privacy and bodily autonomy. A person who is born with male external sex organs who feels themselves to actually female might feel very comfortable naked in the presence of cis females. But those cis female persons have every right to feel their privacy is violated by sharing space with a male appearing body and they have a right that to that privacy. Transgender individuals are rare. Even more rare are individuals who pretend to be trans for the purposes of exploiting others and gaining access to females. Everyone: make, female, straight, queer, trans, bi, gay, whatever, has the right to privacy and not to be forced to share space with an individual who makes them feel unsafe or uncomfortable. I’ve long advocated for private dressing stalls and private toilets and showers with doors.

Some individuals simply have no inhibitions about being exposed to any other person or having themselves be exposed to any other person. More power to them, but it is wrong to expect everyone else to be so uninhibited.

FWIW, I think that the tendency to require a great deal of privacy or to eschew it altogether —and the whole spectrum is largely inborn. Among my own offspring, there were individuals who were naturally nudists and those who were shy about their bodies at a fairly early age. We respected each and reminded the nudists that not everybody was as comfortable with naked people and that everyone was expected to wear clothes when they opened the door.
 
I understand why you aren't interested.
Reality doesn't work for you.
The comment you are responding to was a statement of disinterest in sex, because I don't like you that way.

I reiterate Politesse's statement:
"
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys."

Nevermind.
You gender ideologues will not even notice anything that doesn't match your narrative.
Tom
Are you claiming that it would not be possible to physically observe that you are married to a man? That when you see him, your reaction to doing so is the same as that of a straight man? That when he says your name, your brain reacts the same way to his voice as it would to some stranger? We are physical organisms. Our social lives are instantiated in and governed by the physical limits and potentials of our mortal frames. There is no place else for your social self to be except in your body and those of the people you know.
 
"
I've been married to a dude for over thirty years.
You are claiming that that makes me physically different from straight guys."

Nevermind.
You gender ideologues will not even notice anything that doesn't match your narrative.
Tom
Are you claiming that it would not be possible to physically observe that you are married to a man? That when you see him, your reaction to doing so is the same as that of a straight man? That when he says your name, your brain reacts the same way to his voice as it would to some stranger? We are physical organisms. Our social lives are instantiated in and governed by the physical limits and potentials of our mortal frames. There is no place else for your social self to be except in your body and those of the people you know.
JFC, you're stretching the concept of a phenotype so far into po-mo ridiculousness that I don't know how you can pull it off. Are you having a laugh and this is all a troll job?
 
You seem to be pathologically unable to make the connection between behavior and physicality in the brain.

The brain has different BEHAVIOR so the brain has a different PHYSICAL SHAPE because behavioral systems' behavior is a function of physical shape.

Do you not know what brains are? Do you somehow think they are not physical, that the things they do are not the result of their physical shape?
By your logic, there's a physical difference between a catholic and an atheist. We can put six random people in a line-up, and then we can observe their physical bodies, and identify which of them are the catholics and which are the atheists.
 
Also, still waiting on that answer, Tom...
Ok
I pointed out the facts.
And you seem unable to differentiate with a "trivial fact", a fact owing to momentary arbitrary state, and a "nontrivial fact", a fact owing to some deep relationship in nature.
Children are not expected or legally able to make all of the choices adults are able to choose.
This is a "trivial fact". The "is" of the law, and of social expectations, do not make any justification to the continuation of said temporary condition.
I explained why, at length. I provided examples of similar situations.
No, you produced analogically dissimilar situations, which I addressed.
I made a fact based assertion Non Sequitur. Backed it up with flawed reasoning. And some hyperbolic and inappropriate examples.
FTFY
You don't understand that sort of argument if it doesn't work for your gender ideology so you just don't see it.
I literally dissected it, complete with handy FYI on why your argument fails.
You may as well be a creotard rational person explaining to a creotard why you know that Jesus wasn't was riding dinosaurs 5,000 years ago.
Fixed that, too.
 
Also, still waiting on that answer, Tom...
Ok
I pointed out the facts.
And you seem unable to differentiate with a "trivial fact", a fact owing to momentary arbitrary state, and a "nontrivial fact", a fact owing to some deep relationship in nature.
Children are not expected or legally able to make all of the choices adults are able to choose.
This is a "trivial fact". The "is" of the law, and of social expectations, do not make any justification to the continuation of said temporary condition.
I explained why, at length. I provided examples of similar situations.
No, you produced analogically dissimilar situations, which I addressed.
I made a fact based assertion Non Sequitur. Backed it up with flawed reasoning. And some hyperbolic and inappropriate examples.
FTFY
You don't understand that sort of argument if it doesn't work for your gender ideology so you just don't see it.
I literally dissected it, complete with handy FYI on why your argument fails.
You may as well be a creotard rational person explaining to a creotard why you know that Jesus wasn't was riding dinosaurs 5,000 years ago.
Fixed that, too.
You have a good day.

You've demonstrated what I meant and said.
Quite clearly.

Thanks for being such a sport.
Tom
 
And you seem unable to differentiate with a "trivial fact", a fact owing to momentary arbitrary state, and a "nontrivial fact", a fact owing to some deep relationship in nature.
The process of an individual mammal developing from juvenile to adult is something you consider to be "trivial", but a feeling inside your brain is something you consider to be "nontrivial".

We have very different understandings of what those terms mean.
 
The process of an individual mammal developing from juvenile to adult is something you consider to be "trivial"
We have already established that your understanding of that topic is shallower than a paper cut that doesn't even draw blood, and that your opponent is made of straw, constructed by your own hand.

The process of an individual mammal becoming a functioning adult member of its species does not require gonadal hormones, nor does it require such hormones to be endogenous, when they are available.

This is somehow a fact that is stunningly hard for some people to understand.

Edit: further, this isn't even the direct subject of triviality. The direct subject of triviality was the existence of the law, the existence of the social convention. These do not serve to philosophical discussion except when being pro-normalist". The triviality is in what makes some stated fact a fact. The facts being referenced were the fact that it is a law.

It is indeed a deep fact of nature that how we develop relates to our hormones, but this was quite my point insofar as we accept, through whatever expectation or allowance, some children blithely having some experience, and thus we cannot really justify denying someone else that experience, especially when it is the most intensely satisfying things that most people experience, being able to to decide that:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom