Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Gender & Sexuality

Recommended Posts

Abel.

I think refusals should be circumstantial. I mean if a religious married couple run a B&B and refuse double beds for all but straight married couples, I can understand their point of view. I'd have to question their decision for getting into the business in this day and age but that's neither here nor there. Same goes for religious bakers not wanting to bake cakes for marriages they don't recognise on grounds of faith.

 

However, instances like refusing to let a gay couple eat at your restaurant or not serving them in your shop because they're holding hands or something really doesn't sit well with me. I mean religion isn't coming into it so there's no good reason not to serve them. The business owner in this case is basically inconveniencing gays because he doesn't like them, and bigotry like that should be challenged.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

I think refusals should be circumstantial. I mean if a religious married couple run a B&B and refuse double beds for all but straight married couples, I can understand their point of view. I'd have to question their decision for getting into the business in this day and age but that's neither here nor there. Same goes for religious bakers not wanting to bake cakes for marriages they don't recognise on grounds of faith.

 

However, instances like refusing to let a gay couple eat at your restaurant or not serving them in your shop because they're holding hands or something really doesn't sit well with me. I mean religion isn't coming into it so there's no good reason not to serve them.

If they are holding hands they should not be denied service, however, if they are "showing out" and making other customers uncomfortable, by all means the owner reserves the right to refuse to serve them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

That's reasonable, but the same goes for a straight couple. I've never seen gays "show out" in public and I don't get why some people think they do it more than their straight counterparts. It's a myth really. If anything they're less likely to broadcast their affections due to fear of reprisals from people not accepting of gays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

That's reasonable, but the same goes for a straight couple. I've never seen gays "show out" in public and I don't get why some people think they do it more than their straight counterparts. It's a myth really. If anything they're less likely to broadcast their affections due to fear of reprisals from people not accepting of gays.

Acceptance depends on the region, for example; I live in the South. Most Southerners(at least the normal, not inbred hick ones) believe in the teachings of the Bible and do not accept homosexuality. They view it as an abomination unto God. The further north you go, the less likely two gays are going to be denied service based upon their lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Rager

Tampa: I wasn't offended by the toaster metaphor, I just criticised it because it was asinine.

 

Your absolutist statements are the issue here. Are you gay? According to you, emphatically no, so how can you speak for them? I suppose gays might have a shallower relationship because they can't have the traditional nuclear family due to biology, but who's to say they aren't very intellectually and emotionally invested in their relationship?

 

I never asked you to apologise for your views--you're the one putting words in our mouths--but you did post an inflammatory one-line post with zero substance on a debating forum. By the nature of D&D you really have no right to complain about people deconstructing your post.

 

As for "most partake in homosexual acts", do you speak for all gays? In any case, so what? If you don't think it's right, that's fine, you don't have to comment. I don't particularly agree with sodomy but if people (gay or straight) do it, I don't care as it does not affect me in any way so I won't comment on it.

 

 

 

I fall in line with Canadian Badass when it comes to religious institutions and marriage because then it's at the discretion of religious authorities. I mean orthodox rabbis will absolutely refuse to marry a Jew and a non-Jew and this is as it should be in the religious Jewish world. However I do support civil marriages for gays which offer the same benefits and status in society.

 

I disagree totally with businesses refusing to serve gays because of their orientation unless they're specifically asking for a service for their marriage which the business owner doesn't recognise on religious grounds.

 

As for celebrating people coming out, I don't see this as a bad thing. When a gay person admits that they're gay they can stop living a lie and start taking control of their lives. Is that a bad thing? It's hardly "in your face" in any case.

That's fair. I feel like the right to refuse a service for any reason is a right a business owner should have, even if it isn't necessarily the right thing. Let the people decide where they want to shop. Celebrating is the over dramatization of the bravery of homosexuals, it's not true acceptance, it's people who are so convinced they are morally good they run around patting themselves on the back. The gay person gets lumped into that "token black guy" zone where it's always needed to be politically hip and trendy. Nothing against gays in the media, but they don't need to be treated like a hero or a novelty.

Edited by Canadian Badass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Tampa: Yeah I mean two men walking hand-in-hand through charedi (strictly orthodox Jewish) neighbourhoods in Stamford Hill would not be received well. If they did it in Gush Etzion they'd probably be shouted at or worse. As you say these attitudes go deep and I see what you're getting at. Best we can hope for from devout people is that they don't go out of their way to antagonise gays (which, to be fair, we see less of nowadays). I don't expect orthodox Jews or Christians to proclaim support for homosexuality as it goes against their ideals. Charedi Jews don't talk about it at all or interact with gays positively or negatively so it doesn't have to be a problem for anyone.

 

 

Canadian Badass: I see what you mean. I want the media to portray gays as who they are: regular people. The flamboyant gay man and butch lesbian we see in films and on TV do nothing but spread stupid stereotypes, and I imagine gays don't want to be patted on the back all the time. You have to understand that in some parts of the world gays do face genuine, life-threatening bigotry so the "bravery" label isn't always misapplied.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

Yeah I mean two men walking hand-in-hand through charedi (strictly orthodox Jewish) neighbourhoods in Stamford Hill would not be received well. If they did it in Gush Etzion they'd probably be shouted at or worse. As you say these attitudes go deep and I see what you're getting at. Best we can hope for from devout people is that they don't go out of their way to antagonise gays (which, to be fair, we see less of nowadays).

As I have friends who hate gays, they never really attack them, they just laugh at them for "being girly."

I have heard of someone smashing the glass of a gay guys car just to slit his throat, which is pretty extreme, but I'm sure it is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

Legally recognized marriage and having the same rights is one thing and that's perfectly reasonable. If someone works in the government and refuses to hand out marriage licenses (which we've seen relatively recently) they shouldn't have a position if they refuse to do their job.

 

However forcing religious institutions to marry is going a tad too far, as are with the occasional same-sex couple suing bakeries to make wedding cakes against their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Rager

Tampa: Yeah I mean two men walking hand-in-hand through charedi (strictly orthodox Jewish) neighbourhoods in Stamford Hill would not be received well. If they did it in Gush Etzion they'd probably be shouted at or worse. As you say these attitudes go deep and I see what you're getting at. Best we can hope for from devout people is that they don't go out of their way to antagonise gays (which, to be fair, we see less of nowadays). I don't expect orthodox Jews or Christians to proclaim support for homosexuality as it goes against their ideals. Charedi Jews don't talk about it at all or interact with gays positively or negatively so it doesn't have to be a problem for anyone.

 

 

Canadian Badass: I see what you mean. I want the media to portray gays as who they are: regular people. The flamboyant gay man and butch lesbian we see in films and on TV do nothing but spread stupid stereotypes, and I imagine gays don't want to be patted on the back all the time. You have to understand that in some parts of the world gays do face genuine, life-threatening bigotry so the "bravery" label isn't always misapplied.

That's very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Tampa: Well to be honest seeking out gays and making fun of or attacking them really can't be defended. Last year Yishai Schlissel (a supposedly religious Jew) stabbed a girl at a pride event in Jerusalem. From any point of view this was evil, but especially from a religious standpoint as 99% of rabbis will confirm. Schlissel really let down the religious Zionist camp, most of whose members are good people who rightly condemned him.

 

What I'm saying is that disapproving of homosexuality does not mean you can actively make fun of gays or make their lives hard. Society doesn't need more discord and gays certainly don't need more difficulties.

 

 

I'm sure your friends are decent people and don't do stuff like this. I mean nobody can control what people say in private to each-other or what kind of jokes are made. There's a difference between joking with friends, even distastefully, and shouting abuse at people.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

It feels like unfamiliar waters discussing homophobia on here. Seems we've been busy worrying about sharia law in Birmingham, there hasn't been much time for the gay agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I think refusals should be circumstantial. I mean if a religious married couple run a B&B and refuse double beds for all but straight married couples, I can understand their point of view.[...]The business owner in this case is basically inconveniencing gays because he doesn't like them, and bigotry like that should be challenged.

I mean they're throwing a tantrum over other peoples' sex lives either way. I get what you mean like if they're very religious they might not want to run a sex spot for affairs and casual flings, but they give people beds on which to f*ck either way so it's still kind of a spite thing. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

I don't care if you are in love with someone of the same sex, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me, which is what most are trying to do

Yea, no.

 

 

I mean "supposed" in terms of men and women are the only people that can naturally procreate. And we both know that a man and woman getting together is the only reason we are here.

Thus gay people are born from straight people as a result.

Most doesn't have to mean random people on a forum. I have encountered people who have tried to force their religious beliefs, as well as their sexualities onto me.

 

Hi Can I force my sexuality on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

 

I think refusals should be circumstantial. I mean if a religious married couple run a B&B and refuse double beds for all but straight married couples, I can understand their point of view.[...]The business owner in this case is basically inconveniencing gays because he doesn't like them, and bigotry like that should be challenged.

I mean they're throwing a tantrum over other peoples' sex lives either way. I get what you mean like if they're very religious they might not want to run a sex spot for affairs and casual flings, but they give people beds on which to f*ck either way so it's still kind of a spite thing. :p

 

 

Like I said this sort of thing goes with the territory of running a B&B in a Western country. I only used that as an example because I remember a gay couple on the news talking about how they were refused a double bed as the policy was to only allow married couples double beds. The owners were portrayed as bad people but I don't think that was fair. I do get why the couple was annoyed and, to be honest, nowadays it's hardly a freak occurrence for a gay couple to book a room at a B&B. It's a difficult situation. Ultimately though it's not a huge hindrance: there are plenty of B&Bs which would've been happy to give the couple a room. From the perspective of civil society it could be seen as a case of discrimination due to orientation (the couple were in a civil partnership, i.e., as close to married as they could possibly be), but it's always difficult when religion is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeroH

Legally recognized marriage and having the same rights is one thing and that's perfectly reasonable. If someone works in the government and refuses to hand out marriage licenses (which we've seen relatively recently) they shouldn't have a position if they refuse to do their job.

 

However forcing religious institutions to marry is going a tad too far, as are with the occasional same-sex couple suing bakeries to make wedding cakes against their beliefs.

 

 

I reject the thing about religion controls political decisions, many countries of this world are secular at all, except in North Africa and Middle East, where gay marriage is not allowed, I almost cried watching gays or lesbians being punished. I can even blame all the presidents of those nations, followed by their ambigious beliefs, no offence but religion is like a mind-control thing, religious people will still blaming, killing, insulting, rejecting LGBT people and investing money in monumental churches instead of helping the neighbor, making good actions or giving home to poor people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

 

It can fluctuate and there are outliers like with everything, but generally I think there are quite strong built in biological differences between men and women. Sex and gender are the same thing pretty much.

Except gender varies wildly from one society to the next. The ancient Greeks thought crying and getting blubberingly emotional was masculine, and that women were emotionless and only care about sex. Men were considered 'virtuous' for abstaining from sex, now they're considered strong for seeking it out. Teaching, social work and nursing are considered 'women's work' despite women being banned from such jobs historically and in many places today, it's arbitrary.

Well, this is where the conversation has by and large failed to make a distinction. I think that often, when the topic of gender arises, proponents of the social construct argument use it in two different ways without entirely acknowledging the difference, which leads to a lot of confusion. Really, I think there are three things we're looking at, as opposed to the standard two-category distinction, which states that there's sex and gender: The third is, in fact, gender role, which isn't gender proper. Sex is what you are born as, or what you are physically; gender is the innate self-awareness one possesses, which may or may not inform their desire to express that according to gender roles; gender roles are what society constructs, but even then, it's to a limited extent.

 

Undoubtedly, the wearing of a dress is one of our society's constructed ways of expressing womanhood. Even so, there are certain aspects of gender role, quite apart from gender itself, that emerge relative to physical and physiological features inherent in sex. Men tended to be the hunters, say, not because woman was incapable, but because men were more naturally built for the task, so parsing certain responsibilities according to sex made living easier. Even outside of gender and sex distinctions, parsing responsibilities has always had its benefits for society: if one person herd's sheep while another grows the carrots, and a third raises beef, and the fourth develops our language, it becomes a lot easier than if every person tries to do all of those things by himself, for himself. It's just not very conducive to the growth of society for every person to be excessively independent. But I digress.

 

So back to wearing that dress. Certainly, wearing a dress is a social construct, but the innate desire to express one's gender, whether or not according to the agreed upon rules, is not a social construct. One does not desire to express their physical sex, but rather their womandhood, manhood, both, or neither, regardless of what form their body takes. When my mom puts on a dress, it's not the dress the defines her as a woman, but the desire to express her womanhood. But that's why the idea of wearing the dress is quite amazing. All human desire is expressed through human creativity. So while the contemporary statement "just a social construct" seems to carry with it almost an abhorrence for social construction, it is precisely where humans develop social constructions that they are engaged in collaborative creativity, and on a level that runs through the very fabric of the human condition. And the idea that there is an expressive aesthetic speaks precisely to how strongly humanity wishes to expresses its innate self-awareness relative to gender.

 

The social construct of gender roles is always a temporary phenomenon, but one that is driven--and always will be--driven by the noumenon of gender.

Edited by AtchooMatchew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

 

It can fluctuate and there are outliers like with everything, but generally I think there are quite strong built in biological differences between men and women. Sex and gender are the same thing pretty much.

Except gender varies wildly from one society to the next. The ancient Greeks thought crying and getting blubberingly emotional was masculine, and that women were emotionless and only care about sex. Men were considered 'virtuous' for abstaining from sex, now they're considered strong for seeking it out. Teaching, social work and nursing are considered 'women's work' despite women being banned from such jobs historically and in many places today, it's arbitrary.

Well, this is where the conversation has by and large failed to make a distinction. I think that often, when the topic of gender arises, proponents of the social construct argument use it in two different ways without entirely acknowledging the difference, which leads to a lot of confusion. Really, I think there are three things we're looking at, as opposed to the standard two-category distinction, which states that there's sex and gender: The third is, in fact, gender role, which isn't gender proper. Sex is what you are born as, or what you are physically; gender is the innate self-awareness one possesses, which may or may not inform their desire to express that according to gender roles; gender roles are what society constructs, but even then, it's to a limited extent.

 

Undoubtedly, the wearing of a dress is one of our society's constructed ways of expressing womanhood. Even so, there are certain aspects of gender role, quite apart from gender itself, that emerge relative to physical and physiological features inherent in sex. Men tended to be the hunters, say, not because woman was incapable, but because men were more naturally built for the task, so parsing certain responsibilities according to sex made living easier. Even outside of gender and sex distinctions, parsing responsibilities has always had its benefits for society: if one person herd's sheep while another grows the carrots, and a third raises beef, and the fourth develops our language, it becomes a lot easier than if every person tries to do all of those things by himself, for himself. It's just not very conducive to the growth of society for every person to be excessively independent. But I digress.

 

So back to wearing that dress. Certainly, wearing a dress is a social construct, but the innate desire to express one's gender, whether or not according to the agreed upon rules, is not a social construct. One does not desire to express their physical sex, but rather their womandhood, manhood, both, or neither, regardless of what form their body takes. When my mom puts on a dress, it's not the dress the defines her as a woman, but the desire to express her womanhood. But that's why the idea of wearing the dress is quite amazing. All human desire is expressed through human creativity. So while the contemporary statement "just a social construct" seems to carry with it almost an abhorrence for social construction, it is precisely where humans develop social constructions that they are engaged in collaborative creativity, and on a level that runs through the very fabric of the human condition. And the idea that there is an expressive aesthetic speaks precisely to how strongly humanity wishes to expresses its innate self-awareness relative to gender.

 

The social construct of gender roles is always a temporary phenomenon, but one that is driven--and always will be--driven by the noumenon of gender.

 

Your response is confusing. Gender roles represent division of labour (and a division of social function more broadly, ie men and women are expected to complement each other's personalities in platonic friendships), necessitated by material conditions (men are stronger and women have wombs) and gender is the prevailing pattern of behaviour that is recognised after the fact.

 

Women wear dresses because that is women's fashion. I don't see how that represents a burning inherent desire to conform to binary gender. The use of the term 'social construct' is a reaction to gender essentialism, so I don't know why it's constantly interpreted as 'inherently pointless irrational behaviour.' That's not what a social construct is: a social construct is a shared societal understanding. If it's suits our interests, it's a positive thing, if it doesn't then it isn't. You seem to excited by our ability to divide our society- which I suppose is an example of our ability to cooperate- but it's not an inherently positive thing. Consistent violence is always a feature of division on this scale.

 

The issue isn't that we live in a gendered society, but that we live in a patriarchal society where women are oppressed. What form gender would take in a post-patriarchal society, I don't know. It may cease to exist (there's certainly no longer any utility) but men and women may continue to express themselves culturally in complementary ways, as this seems to be a constant in human society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

 

 

 

It can fluctuate and there are outliers like with everything, but generally I think there are quite strong built in biological differences between men and women. Sex and gender are the same thing pretty much.

Except gender varies wildly from one society to the next. The ancient Greeks thought crying and getting blubberingly emotional was masculine, and that women were emotionless and only care about sex. Men were considered 'virtuous' for abstaining from sex, now they're considered strong for seeking it out. Teaching, social work and nursing are considered 'women's work' despite women being banned from such jobs historically and in many places today, it's arbitrary.

Well, this is where the conversation has by and large failed to make a distinction. I think that often, when the topic of gender arises, proponents of the social construct argument use it in two different ways without entirely acknowledging the difference, which leads to a lot of confusion. Really, I think there are three things we're looking at, as opposed to the standard two-category distinction, which states that there's sex and gender: The third is, in fact, gender role, which isn't gender proper. Sex is what you are born as, or what you are physically; gender is the innate self-awareness one possesses, which may or may not inform their desire to express that according to gender roles; gender roles are what society constructs, but even then, it's to a limited extent.

 

Undoubtedly, the wearing of a dress is one of our society's constructed ways of expressing womanhood. Even so, there are certain aspects of gender role, quite apart from gender itself, that emerge relative to physical and physiological features inherent in sex. Men tended to be the hunters, say, not because woman was incapable, but because men were more naturally built for the task, so parsing certain responsibilities according to sex made living easier. Even outside of gender and sex distinctions, parsing responsibilities has always had its benefits for society: if one person herd's sheep while another grows the carrots, and a third raises beef, and the fourth develops our language, it becomes a lot easier than if every person tries to do all of those things by himself, for himself. It's just not very conducive to the growth of society for every person to be excessively independent. But I digress.

 

So back to wearing that dress. Certainly, wearing a dress is a social construct, but the innate desire to express one's gender, whether or not according to the agreed upon rules, is not a social construct. One does not desire to express their physical sex, but rather their womandhood, manhood, both, or neither, regardless of what form their body takes. When my mom puts on a dress, it's not the dress the defines her as a woman, but the desire to express her womanhood. But that's why the idea of wearing the dress is quite amazing. All human desire is expressed through human creativity. So while the contemporary statement "just a social construct" seems to carry with it almost an abhorrence for social construction, it is precisely where humans develop social constructions that they are engaged in collaborative creativity, and on a level that runs through the very fabric of the human condition. And the idea that there is an expressive aesthetic speaks precisely to how strongly humanity wishes to expresses its innate self-awareness relative to gender.

 

The social construct of gender roles is always a temporary phenomenon, but one that is driven--and always will be--driven by the noumenon of gender.

 

Your response is confusing. Gender roles represent division of labour (and a division of social function more broadly, ie men and women are expected to complement each other's personalities in platonic friendships), necessitated by material conditions (men are stronger and women have wombs) and gender is the prevailing pattern of behaviour that is recognised after the fact.

 

Women wear dresses because that is women's fashion. I don't see how that represents a burning inherent desire to conform to binary gender. The use of the term 'social construct' is a reaction to gender essentialism, so I don't know why it's constantly interpreted as 'inherently pointless irrational behaviour.' That's not what a social construct is: a social construct is a shared societal understanding. If it's suits our interests, it's a positive thing, if it doesn't then it isn't. You seem to excited by our ability to divide our society- which I suppose is an example of our ability to cooperate- but it's not an inherently positive thing. Consistent violence is always a feature of division on this scale.

 

The issue isn't that we live in a gendered society, but that we live in a patriarchal society where women are oppressed. What form gender would take in a post-patriarchal society, I don't know. It may cease to exist (there's certainly no longer any utility) but men and women may continue to express themselves culturally in complementary ways, as this seems to be a constant in human society.

 

Can you clarify why you claim gender is the pattern of behavior recognized ex post facto of gender role?

 

My understanding is that there is a rough trichotomy: sex, psychological gender, and gender role. When I speak of gender, I speak specifically of psychological gender, defined as one's personal identification based on internal awareness. The language on psychological gender, then, strongly suggests that gender does not emerge from gender role, but rather exists entirely independent from it. While you'll find that most transgender people behave according to the present trends and fashions, as well as roles consistent with their gender, I don't think you can convince a single one of them that their psychological gender (which precedes and drives the wish to alter their sex) has anything to do with the "prevailing pattern of behavior".

 

If gender roles were reversed, transgender individuals wouldn't find themselves any less predisposed to their psychological gender. And while it may just be that we're defining the words differently here, if as you say, "gender is [merely] a prevailing pattern of behavior", I suspect we wouldn't have a population of people identifying as the opposite gender and sex from their birth assignment, but simply a population of people who wish to express themselves according to a different role without regard for what's between their legs. But this is not the case. The desire among the transgender population to change their sex is inseparably linked with a static identification along the psychological gender spectrum. This spectrum ranges from womanness, manness, varying representations of fluidness, and non-binary, without the remotest relation to role or pattern. It is a sense of self that is with the individual prior to the emergence of their social function.

 

To say that what a transgender woman knows and feels herself to be deep down at her core is a mutable pattern which exists only because society has agreed that it suits its present interests and understanding is to say that she is misguided in her understanding of herself. It is to say that if she really took to heart the notion that gender is a prevailing pattern which follows emerging gender roles, and has no basis in the primordial human condition, she'd stop concerning herself over the matter of being a woman entirely. However, she won't stop concerning herself because her womanness has nothing to do with a desire to behave as society informs her a woman behaves; nor does it have anything to do with whether or not society says there's such a thing as "woman" at all.

 

You end by saying that "men and women may continue to express themselves in complementary ways, as this seems to be a constant in human society." It is precisely that constant that I am arguing for, and which I link to psychological gender--this constant will always drive a sense of complimentarity based on the fact that humans have identities inextricably bound up in gender, prior to defining it socially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Majestic81

I dont think it is society that makes men and women behave differently. Pretty sure its a biological thing. Women think differently than men. Its not something that society can create. There is obviously a biological reason behind that. Just like the sexes are physically different (men being sturdier, women being more delicate) I believe the mind is also shaped differently. I do think that society influences the way each sex should act and conduct themselves to a certain extent, sure. But other than that. There is clear differences in the two sexes, be it physically or mentally.

 

And I dont buy that sexuality is influenced. I'd say it is something you are born with. I dont think that someone who is straight can be turned gay or bisexual. No matter what situations he has been through. I mean sexuality is a very strong thing. Its not something you can influence or change.. You are either born straight or you are not. Someone who likes women only will always like women only. He/She is not suddenly going to prefer men instead or prefer men and women at the same time.

Edited by Majestic81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Can you clarify why you claim gender is the pattern of behavior recognized ex post facto of gender role?

Um, because that's what it is? Division of labour precedes gender. If gender is the expression of some innate drive for self expression then where does the division of labour fit into your understanding?

 

 

 

My understanding is that there is a rough trichotomy: sex, psychological gender, and gender role. When I speak of gender, I speak specifically of psychological gender, defined as one's personal identification based on internal awareness.

'Psychological gender' is the final product: the aggregate of sex, gender role and gendered expectations.

 

 

 

While you'll find that most transgender people behave according to the present trends and fashions, as well as roles consistent with their gender, I don't think you can convince a single one of them that their psychological gender (which precedes and drives the wish to alter their sex) has anything to do with the "prevailing pattern of behavior".

Perhaps I couldn't, but it does. They express gender as it exists in our society, and you're flirting with this 'born in the wrong body' narrative that suggests that through some physiological mishap men have been born with women's brains.

 

 

 

If gender roles were reversed, transgender individuals wouldn't find themselves any less predisposed to their psychological gender. And while it may just be that we're defining the words differently here, if as you say, "gender is [merely] a prevailing pattern of behavior", I suspect we wouldn't have a population of people identifying as the opposite gender and sex from their birth assignment, but simply a population of people who wish to express themselves according to a different role without regard for what's between their legs.

We do though? You just described the vast majority of trans and non conforming people. People who actively change their genitals are the minority.

 

 

 

The desire among the transgender population to change their sex is inseparably linked with a static identification along the psychological gender spectrum. This spectrum ranges from womanness, manness, varying representations of fluidness, and non-binary, without the remotest relation to role or pattern. It is a sense of self that is with the individual prior to the emergence of their social function.

I don't even really understand what you're arguing. Gender is a pattern of behaviour as is class, nationality, professional conventions etc. The existence of trans people doesn't challenge this at all. If anything it's an example of the arbitrary nature of gendered expectations.

 

 

 

To say that what a transgender woman knows and feels herself to be deep down at her core is a mutable pattern which exists only because society has agreed that it suits its present interests and understanding is to say that she is misguided in her understanding of herself.

Not at all? We can accept that the difference between Chinese and Japanese people is based on arbitrary factors like political and geographical division, it doesn't render Japanese culture illegitimate.

 

 

 

It is to say that if she really took to heart the notion that gender is a prevailing pattern which follows emerging gender roles, and has no basis in the primordial human condition, she'd stop concerning herself over the matter of being a woman entirely. However, she won't stop concerning herself because her womanness has nothing to do with a desire to behave as society informs her a woman behaves; nor does it have anything to do with whether or not society says there's such a thing as "woman" at all.

The conviction with which trans people feel their identity is meaningless (and also confusing; presumably cis people have just as much conviction in their expression). Class is a form of division which as well as being arbitrary is entirely illegitimate and unnecessary, and accepting that doesn't mean we stop using the slang and mannerisms associated with our upbringing.

 

Trans people are like .5% of the population in the West, but are a common sight in other societies and can represent up to 1/4 of the population. How does this fit into your 'being trans is inherent to the brain' thing.

 

 

 

You end by saying that "men and women may continue to express themselves in complementary ways, as this seems to be a constant in human society." It is precisely that constant that I am arguing for, and which I link to psychological gender--this constant will always drive a sense of complimentarity based on the fact that humans have identities inextricably bound up in gender, prior to defining it socially.

Men and women might continue to express themselves in complimentary ways, but I doubt they'd have their own colours associated with them, their own jobs etc. Tell me, in your view, how does gender change over time and why does it adapt to the material needs of a society if isn't a fluid series of expectations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

A great Tedx presentation by a decent, civil, and fair man:



And look at what these utterly insane highly privileged feminist dumbasses did when he spoke in Toronto



Extra for lulz, a nice feminist poem about the sexism of micowave ovens and science in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOJJg--74Vg

This actually got so much negative response on the web that the original is taken down. Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

brave gta enthusiast TAKEDOWN of feminism, more in 5

for real though, congratulations on posting some videos. That all sure had a point! :)

 

 

negative response on the web

 

 

 

generally a good thing imo.

Edited by Marwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Oh, I'm not judging the girl of the poem that much really. That poem gave me a good laugh. I think the harassment she faced was wrong, just like I think the harassment Warren Farrell faces is wrong, but the difference is that Warren Farrell is an intelligent decent man, and the girl who made that poem is a clown.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

I realized what is wrong with the world. Coupled with too many choices for video entertainment the educational series "Free To Be You and Me" is long gone.

 

 

 

"Free To Be You and Me" taught an entire generation that everyone is different...and that is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythical_Lotus

Acceptance depends on the region, for example; I live in the South. Most Southerners(at least the normal, not inbred hick ones) believe in the teachings of the Bible and do not accept homosexuality. They view it as an abomination unto God. The further north you go, the less likely two gays are going to be denied service based upon their lifestyle.

It also depends on the southern state. You seem to be painting the entire South with a broad brush.

I lived in Montgomery (AL), with both sides of my family largely hailing from Louisiana. From my experience as a gay millennial, the South is far from being a terrifying place for LGBTs.

I think the problem mostly lies with rural towns. The more you move away from the big cities, the more homophobia you find.

 

If one isn't careful, by stopping for a drink in some lost bar, you can wind up in a biker-nazzi club or some KKK gathering. :lol:

Edited by Mythical_Lotus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

People being born with a certain sexuality is a weak and illogical argument. It is uncertain what causes sexuality but it is certain that the brain is a very incomplete organ at birth. However to say that it's a choice isn't quite accurate either.

 

The current thinking is that sexuality is fluid and subject to manipulation. That isn't to say it can be changed with the ease of flipping a light switch but there is an obvious element of play. If the population hadn't stigmatized mental illness as some kind of debilitating issue that makes one individual inherently less of a person than another the APA wouldn't have been forced to make a save-face statement renouncing deviations from normal sexuality as such.

 

As for gender being a social construct or not that really just comes down to people redefining certain words. Biological sex is a hard, permanent assignment. For instance, some people are born with genitalia that makes it difficult to determine sex (adrenal hyperplasia) but they are not in between the two genders; they are one or the other. Ultimately it can be identified through laboratory evaluation and surgical correction can be made as well as other measures like glucocoritcoids. Consequently some may say that a person can undergo surgery to alter their sex and/or take hormone supplements to achieve their goal of abandoning their birth gender. I would counter with saying that cessation of the PO hormone supplements will lead to baseline levels and altering your genitals (obviously) doesn't truly change your sex just; it's purely cosmetic.

Edited by Chiari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

As for gender being a social construct or not that really just comes down to people redefining certain words.

Gender is the class system associated with biological sex. You seem to conflate the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Majestic81

People being born with a certain sexuality is a weak and illogical argument. It is uncertain what causes sexuality but it is certain that the brain is a very incomplete organ at birth. However to say that it's a choice isn't quite accurate either.

 

What does the fact that the brain is incomplete at birth have to do with it? And why people being born with a certain sexuality is a weak argument?

 

Genitalia and sexual parts also grow and develop as the person grows up, but they are already defined at birth. No baby ever had a dick and then grew a vagina instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

For starters the fact that children don't experience sexual attraction towards anyone until a certain age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

Regarding bakeries refusing gay couples to buy cakes, my main gripe with it is the lack of consistency.

 

Religion is nothing special. Religious beliefs is nothing special. Therefore, there is no need to reach for ''religious freedom''. Because religious freedom should not mean to do be able to do things that otherwise would not be acceptable. The law itself is therefore superflous. You do not need a law for religious freedom as little as you need a law for ''liberal freedom'' or ''conservative freedom'', ''secular humanist freedom'' All beliefs should be treated equally; to refuse someone to buy something at a bakery because of their gender, their skin colour, or their religion, should be equally acceptable IF one accepts that religious people should have the right to refuse gay couples buying wedding cakes. Because otherwise one is inconsistent. For example, is it is O.K to refuse a gay couple buying a cake because it goes against the owners religion, it should be equally O.K to refuse a black man to buy a cake because it goes against the owner's ideology (he may for example think that apartheid is justified; such people do actually exist, yet people claim it is correct to limit their freedom).

 

Sometimes, its as if people believe that their religion is something special. It is simply not; it is just a set of ideas among many others.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.