Gender identity

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

^^^ What ignorant biggoted intolerant hateful ravings of an obsolete dinosaur going down for the last time (Xtian?!). Hopefully 'your children' will rebel against such crap. Hopefully 'your children' will learn more from a tolerant and accepting society than from your ossified ignorance.
I, and all decent, honorable, compassionate, loving people reject your ignorance and hate. It will, i know, pass (perhaps only with your passing, but nontheless...). (See link below)
I would have said 'with all due respect', but such hateful intolerant ignorance is due no respect whatsoever!
(Know that any response that you make to this post will be ignored. You can present no 'justification' whatsoever!)
Pffft!

First let me apologize for my presumed ignorance. I am a child advocate and it is the concern for that child that possibly renders my thoughts about this subject a bit on the zealous side. I am a staunch advocate of mankind and I am not swayed by what is "popularly understood" and politically correct. Personally, I do not care to know what a person's sexual proclivities are in any aspect, but when force to be tolerant of one's personal desires regardless of what those may be, is something I am "not tolerant" too. Keep it to yourself. I don't need to know. The only reason anyone would want to "force" their sexuality on another is for personal reasons and more often than not to usher in acceptance of those desires especially if they are "different" from those deemed "normal". Even as I use the word "normal" many will take offense as most have been conditioned to react in a negative way as they proclaim "who" is to know what is "normal".

I don't have a problem with tolerance, it's just I will not be force to be tolerant simply because it is the "politically correct" thing to do. Under no circumstances. I will not be "tolerant" of a behavior that is arguably responsible for a genocidal disease costing the lives of innocent, naive people when measures could be taken to drastically decrease the spread of that disease.

In the past homosexuality was never an issue simply because it was not manifested in the public domain and all seemed to exist rather well in those times. A child going through puberty is trying enough with out the "open solicitation" overt homosexuality is attempting by redefining what "normal" is as the young and naive are being trained to believe it is nothing more than an "alternative lifestyle". On one hand "it cannot be helped" and on the other "it is a lifestyle choice". Okay, which is it?

It seems common place today for that community to ready and willingly spew words such as "hate, intolerance, and bigotry" to anyone who questions that lifestyle. I will not be "forced" through this means to change my views no matter how much hate talk is uttered.

In our courts as I speak, it is being argued as to the legality of NAMBLA, as they are seeking a legitimacy to the act of homosexual men having consensual sex with naive and willing young boys. In San Francisco there is a celebration called the "Folsum Street Fair".

You ask me to be tolerant. Not on your life if by any interpretation the above link is what homosexuality is about, in any context. For anyone who is gay and is as appalled by what is witnessed on this link as I am, of which I can only hope there are, what do you think? How can anyone justify such behavior. Heterosexual or homosexual.

William

@William,

William;35238 wrote:

In our courts as I speak, it is being argued as to the legality of NAMBLA, as they are seeking a legitimacy to the act of homosexual men having consensual sex with naive and willing young boys.

That is a red herring and is not the subject at hand. We were not discussing 'underage' sex, male or female.
Your notions of 'chosen identity' is refuted and absurd, obsolete. Never heard of 'genes'? Never read any studies? Or would that threaten your 'beliefs'?
Who died and left you arbiter of 'normality'?
Homosexuality is quite common amongst all mamalian species. That sounds like a vote for 'normalcy' to me. Do dogs 'choose'? Bears? Ya think?

A child advocate, huh? I pity the poor gay kids that have to undergo the hell of your notions! Is it the 'children' that you 'advocate' or your own ideas that you push down their throats? At least you are an advocate of keeping the therapists in BMWs.

Quote:

On one hand "it cannot be helped" and on the other "it is a lifestyle choice". Okay, which is it?

'Celibacy' is a 'lifestyle choice'. Gender identity is not. One can 'choose', perhaps, not to act on one's perceived gender identity, whatever it may be. That could be called a 'choice', but that's all.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

That is a red herring and is not the subject at hand. We were not discussing 'underage' sex, male or female.
Your notions of 'chosen identity' is refuted and absurd, obsolete. Never heard of 'genes'? Never read any studies? Or would that threaten your 'beliefs'?
Who died and left you arbiter of 'normality'?
Homosexuality is quite common amongst all mamalian species. That sounds like a vote for 'normalcy' to me. Do dogs 'choose'? Bears? Ya think?

A child advocate, huh? I pity the poor gay kids that have to undergo the hell of your notions! Is it the 'children' that you 'advocate' or your own ideas that you push down their throats? At least you are an advocate of keeping the therapists in BMWs.

'Celibacy' is a 'lifestyle choice'. Gender identity is not. One can 'choose', perhaps, not to act on one's perceived gender identity, whatever it may be. That could be called a 'choice', but that's all.

Nameless,
I don't pretend to be an arbiter. I have expressed my views and have not resorted to any "hate speech" of which you have. This is what these forums are all about. Obviously you have different views and that is your right. I will not resort to belittling you for your thoughts, though you seem to think you are entitled otherwise. I indicated this sort of reprisal in my post of which you are living up to. I personally think that is sad, IMO. I am not of the mentality that leads me to believe I must follow popular thought. I have stated my case and I am totally comfortable with how I feel no matter how you effort to "slam" it. Regardless of our differences, I will respect your right to think the way you do.

William

@William,

William wrote:

I don't have a problem with tolerance, it's just I will not be force to be tolerant simply because it is the "politically correct" thing to do. Under no circumstances. I will not be "tolerant" of a behavior that is arguably responsible for a genocidal disease costing the lives of innocent, naive people when measures could be taken to drastically decrease the spread of that disease.

Because of course homosexuals were the sole cause of the spread of AIDS worldwide (Opportunistic Infections and Kaposi's Sarcoma among Haitians in the United States).

Condemning homosexuality for AIDS is a very strenuous argument to sustain. Not only are they not soley at fault for doing do (rates were more common amongst interveneous drug users) but there was no way for them to know that they were carrying the disease. Unlike many other STDs HIV does not manifest for a varying length of time; one knows that they have Chlamydia, not so with HIV.

Would this argument work if heterosexuals had been the ones spreading the disease (much like they had historically for the other prominent STDs)? The argument that homosexuals as a whole are responsable for the AIDS epidemic offers nothing for the conversation anymore: homosexuals shouldn't be blamed any more for AIDS than heterosexuals for Syphilis. It was a condition they could not have anticipated, a disease that remained unknown until it was largely too late for anyone (homosexual or otherwise) to "decrease the spread of the disease."

Quote:

In San Francisco there is a celebration called the "Folsum Street Fair".

You ask me to be tolerant. Not on your life if by any interpretation the above link is what homosexuality is about, in any context.

What exactly is your concern regarding this fair? First off, it is not representative about what "homosexuality is about;" this is a specific group of people who gather in a public forum to celebrate their own lifestyles. Not every homosexual is there, nor would they necessarily support this lifestyle choice. Simply some of the individuals there identify as homosexual, does not mean every homosexual identifies with those there.

And what about these pictures offends you? Is it the public displays of sexuality, which you think is something that should be kept private. Because, of course, doing basic research into the fair illustrates that it primarily celebrates the "BDSM" and "leather" subcultures, not explicity or exclusively the homosexual community. While the pictures appear to speak one story, and certainly some homosexual organizations attach themselves to this festival, there are many heterosexuals who come to the event: it is not drawing attention to the homosexual elements as much as the BDSM elements (which are not specifically homosexual). So, do you condemn this fair because of the public displays of sexuality? Because this is not linked soley with the homosexual community and should not be used to attack that particular lifestyle.

I find it objectionable that "The fracas expanded when images of young children attending the 2005 Folsom Street Fair," but only because of the inclusion of young children (which it should be noted that occurred in 2005, not in subsequent years).

Quote:

How can anyone justify such behavior.

They don't feel that sexuality is anything to be hidden. Exploring sexuality, for many, is not an immanently private affair but instead something that needs to be done socially. It is hard to understand your sexuality without others; sexuality (in any sense) requires more than one person to be understood, and when it is ambiguous then there is more of a need for greater social exploration.

And those who are comfortable with their sexuality are just that, comfortable. Fully accepting of their lifestyle they feel no reason to hide it. The arguments against seem to be people who do not want to see it, which is why such festivals exist for short times in specific places: you do not have to go to these fairs, nor look at the pictures (up until 20 minutes ago I had only a nominal idea that this kind of fair existed, and I have been to the Toronto Gay Pride Parade). As a community of people comfortable with their lifestyle they have no problem celebrating it, just as people of all other walks of life celebrate their similarities (sporting events, musical concerts, etc).

Quote:

A child going through puberty is trying enough with out the "open solicitation" overt homosexuality is attempting by redefining what "normal" is as the young and naive are being trained to believe it is nothing more than an "alternative lifestyle". On one hand "it cannot be helped" and on the other "it is a lifestyle choice". Okay, which is it?

You assume it is one or the other; why can't it be both, or some combination of the two? The rhetoric that defines one often translates into the other: people say they are born heterosexual, but when faced with the "alternative lifestyle" (such as viewing the pictures of the Folsom Street Fair) they make the choice to refuse that lifestyle. It isn't necessarily a simple choice or condition, sexuality is not an easy matter so easy to reduce.

And you describing homosexuality as "nothing more than an 'alternative lifestyle'" is troubling, and speaks to your condemnation of homosexuals with extreme prejudice. I cannot recall any attempt that "overt homosexuality" is making to "solicit" children, although many children are exposed to the notion that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. Importantly, however, is that is not "nothing more than" an alternative lifestyle. It is a critical part of many people's lives, and something many feel is normal for themselves, so when they present this issue to children it is not an attempt to try to 'bring them over to the dark side' but to simply inform them of their lifestyle. I fail to see the problem with redefining what is 'normal', and from your statement that "I do not care to know what a person's sexual proclivities are in any aspect" neither do you. So rather than expose children to heteronormativity alone (which is a prevalent force in everything from fairy tales to video games) the gay community does make efforts to show how their lifestyle is also an acceptable choice.

You want sexuality to be kept private, but that is socially impossible. The redefinition of 'normal' to include homosexuality does not attempt to add more sexuality to the public sphere, but simply change the notions of the sexuality that is present.

@William,

William wrote:

First let me apologize for my presumed ignorance. I am a child advocate and it is the concern for that child that possibly renders my thoughts about this subject a bit on the zealous side. I am a staunch advocate of mankind and I am not swayed by what is "popularly understood" and politically correct. Personally, I do not care to know what a person's sexual proclivities are in any aspect, but when force to be tolerant of one's personal desires regardless of what those may be, is something I am "not tolerant" too. Keep it to yourself.

Why must a homosexual keep his views to himself and yet you have the right to preach your own views, loudly and with no respect for others? The difference is...? The difference can only be prejudice.

You state in one paragraph...

Quote:

I don't have a problem with tolerance,

and further down you say

Quote:

You ask me to be tolerant. Not on your life

I think that is sufficient for all of us to know that it is a waste of time talking to you.

I will say 2 things then I will leave this argument, because it is no longer on the same subject that I started the thread to be.

1) The Folsom street fair is not typical of all homosexuals. It represents only a tiny part of the community. Most gay people actually look so normal you wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you.

2) NAMBLA is a despicable organisation and I can't understand how its not illegal. BUT it is a logical fallacy to assume that all homosexuals are pedophiles, again its only a tiny portion. Heck, not all pedophiles are homosexual either. The majority of them actually prefer little girls.

Now, Mr William. Perhaps you would like to follow your own advice, and keep your opinions to yourself, because they are getting repetitive.

I started the thread to discuss gender identity, not sexual orientation. In your ignorance you took the two to be the same and you have derailed the thread. I would very much like to get the thread back on topic and respectfully suggest that if you wish to continue a discussion on sexual orientation, that you please do so in a new thread.[/SIZE][/SIZE] I have nothing more to say to you because you are clearly too closed-minded to listen to anything that does not already agree with your own views.

Now to get the thread back onto the topic of gender identity...

What makes a person male or female?

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

What makes a person male or female?

Good redirect.

Considering this question alone, absent of the other issues we've discussed thus far, my immediate answer would be "physiology". If we transition towards the mind; however, then other aspects might enter in.

Simplistic, perhaps. But that's what comes to mind right off.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Good redirect.

Considering this question alone, absent of the other issues we've discussed thus far, my immediate answer would be "physiology". If we transition towards the mind; however, then other aspects might enter in.

Simplistic, perhaps. But that's what comes to mind right off.

If it's entirely physiology, then why do I, and many people like myself, find ourselves so much at odds with the bodies we're born with? I know what I experience but I cannot fathom out WHY I experience this. If gender was purely to do with the physical body then it follows that I would naturally be content with the body I have, but I'm not.

So, what else is there that could contribute to this state?

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

If it's entirely physiology, then why do I...

Not saying it's entirely physiology.

What these "other aspects" are, I think, the crux of your original question. Hoping others can contribute.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Not saying it's entirely physiology.

What these "other aspects" are, I think, the crux of your original question. Hoping others can contribute.

What I'm suspecting is a combination of factors, if not for me as an individual, then for transgendered people as a whole. Maybe something to do with the hormone cocktail in the womb. Maybe something that happened afterwards. I had a number of health issues as a baby, none specific to gender but I wonder if the numerous spells in hospital, including surgery, were somehow traumatic enough to be a cause.

I could say that my body is female but my soul is male. Except I don't really believe that souls exist.

Philosophy Forum

Gender identity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know