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. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

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

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    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 IV 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 SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

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

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

Chiarii

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

 

Thank you for proving my point. Anyways do you think you can go 1 month without mentioning class? I don't think you can.

 

 

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.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. In case you're serious: the answer to your second question is the basis of your first question.

 

It's amusing when a layperson equates his opinion to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Majestic81

 

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

 

Thank you for proving my point. Anyways do you think you can go 1 month without mentioning class? I don't think you can.

 

 

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.

 

 

It's amusing when a layperson equates his opinion to mine.

 

Haha.. holy sh*t. What, you have flawless opinions or some sh*t? You're so dense you didnt even understand the point I was making, so sit the f*ck down ya self entitled expert.

 

I asked you a question and you didn't even answer it, I guess it didn't go through. Its amusing when people hold themselves in high regard when in fact, they aint sh*t.

Edited by Majestic81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

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

 

Thank you for proving my point. Anyways do you think you can go 1 month without mentioning class? I don't think you can.

 

"You say 'class' a lot." Ouch.

 

Tell me, do you think you could go a month without failing to engage with criticisms while smugly assuring us of your superiority? I'm not sure you can.

 

 

 

It's amusing when a layperson equates his opinion to mine.

 

:dozing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

I asked you a question and you didn't even answer it

 

You conveniently edited it out. You also made a weird equivalency between hard anatomical and fluid psychiatric development. Look at my initial post and look at your response to it.. you should be grateful that I responded to your question at all. I'll reiterate though. A newborn doesn't even recognize the people around it as separate entities from itself --> it is laughable to think that said newborn has a sexual preference.

 

If you think I'm wrong produce your evidence.

 

"You say 'class' a lot." Ouch.

 

 

Tell me, do you think you could go a month without failing to engage with criticisms while smugly assuring us of your superiority? I'm not sure you can.

 

 

You have neither disputed nor conferred with anything I've said. Apart from your n=1 definition of gender you're not doing anything aside from following me around like a dog begging for treats, quoting my posts to spam me with notifications, and being a belligerent child in general. Typical Melchior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

If you think I'm wrong produce your evidence.

 

You haven't really produced any evidence yourself whatsoever. And apart from that, the fact that you say things like "you should be grateful that I responded to your question at all" proves that even in the case that you are right, you are also an asshole and a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

You have neither disputed nor conferred with anything I've said

 

I pointed out that 'gender' refers to the behaviours associated with biological sex. That is the definition used everywhere by everyone. It is not controversial, and simply pointing that out is a valid response to someone who denies this.

 

 

 

Apart from your n=1 definition of gender you're not doing anything aside from following me around like a dog begging for treats, quoting my posts to spam me with notifications, and being a belligerent child in general.

I'm not 'following you around' lol I'm a regular in this section, where you've just busted in and posted condescending bollocks on every thread. I don't want 'treats' son, I want you to defend some of the absolute nonsense you've been posting. You don't seem interested in that and prefer to make vague, extremely uncontroversial and incoherent claims and then smugly lecture everyone on what an intellectual juggernaut you are.

 

Typical neckbeard tbh. Antagonise everyone, give your sh*t opinion where ever you can, then accuse everyone of being obsessed with you because your stomach drops whenever you get a notification. Maybe getting a notification wouldn't be such a daunting experience if you didn't run around calling everyone drooling retards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper
Some people here seem to be confused about the concept of ’’gender’’.


Gender is an umbrella term that may refer to two distinct concepts. The first is biological gender which is defined by properties such as genitals, chromosomes, hormone levels, etc. The second type of gender is gender identity. Gender identity is an inviduals experience of his or her own gender. This experience is based on psychological traits. It is, for example, possible for a person to have the biological gender ''man'' while the brain telling the person he’s a women.


Regarding gender being a social construction, it is important to bear in mind that it does not it does not exclude gender being biological; expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman is something that our culture affects. These expectation is different in different cultures. These expectations affect our behavior. If you live in a culture where the norm is that women should not be in the labor market, it means that the majority of all women in that culture will folow that norm because people are conformists. From that it does not, however, follow that biological gender does not exist. It only means that the concept of ''gender'' contains much more than than biological explanations.


If one want to bring a fruitfull discussion it can be helpful to define the terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Sex is the term for the two biological categories into which human beings are divided. 'Gender' is the caste system forced onto people according to their biological sex. It is not an identity so much as a restrictive set of roles and expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Majestic81

 

I asked you a question and you didn't even answer it

 

You conveniently edited it out. You also made a weird equivalency between hard anatomical and fluid psychiatric development. Look at my initial post and look at your response to it.. you should be grateful that I responded to your question at all. I'll reiterate though. A newborn doesn't even recognize the people around it as separate entities from itself --> it is laughable to think that said newborn has a sexual preference.

 

If you think I'm wrong produce your evidence.

 

"You say 'class' a lot." Ouch.

 

 

Tell me, do you think you could go a month without failing to engage with criticisms while smugly assuring us of your superiority? I'm not sure you can.

 

 

You have neither disputed nor conferred with anything I've said. Apart from your n=1 definition of gender you're not doing anything aside from following me around like a dog begging for treats, quoting my posts to spam me with notifications, and being a belligerent child in general. Typical Melchior.

 

I never said that newborn babies have sexual feelings. But does that mean that their sexual preference wasn't already determined before birth? Just because they didn't experience the feelings yet doesn't mean that their sexuality wasn't already predetermined. Ask homosexuals if they think they are this way because of nature or nurture, and most say its both factors.

 

Lets say you are right, what determines sexuality then if its not already established before birth?

 

Im open to the idea that nurture might be involved in some way, since some pedophiles report that they have been molested themselves when they were at a young age, however not all of them have suffered from child sex abuse, and not all who did, eventually became pedophiles themselves. So this is still not evidence enough, and even if it was, its only limited to the subject of pedophilia.

 

Right now, saying that people are not born with a certain sexuality doesn't really have any evidence to back it up. The fact that babies don't yet have sexual feelings isn't really a proof of any sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DaWiesel

Regarding gender being a social construct: If we look at Norway which is regarded as one of the most equal countries in the world, we can see that most men still prefer jobs like engineering and most women still prefer jobs like nursing. So personally, I don't think it's a social construct.

 

I recommend you to watch this informative norwegian documentary about the topic:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

The fact that in Western countries women more often tend to choose for traditional female work, than in some developing countries, is indeed very strong empirical evidence against the delusion known as liberal feminism. Actually, the only society where male and female gender roles are very similar are in very primitive hunter gatherer tribes, who don't have private property or agriculture, and where both men and women take care of children and hunt. Gender roles seem to entirely depend on materialistic societal circumstances, and that seems to indicate that gender roles arise by a combination of material economic and biological causes. Any liberal feminist arguing in favor of a combination of capitalism and equality of outcome concerning gender, is essentially aruing in favour of extreme social coercion and oppression of human nature. The only way a society that is not based on scarcity and a lack of agriculture or industrialization is going to have an equal outcome relating to gender is through extreme oppression.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

The fact that in Western countries women more often tend to choose for traditional female work, than in some developing countries, is indeed very strong empirical evidence against the delusion known as liberal feminism. Actually, the only society where male and female gender roles are very similar are in very primitive hunter gatherer tribes, who don't have private property or agriculture, and where both men and women take care of children and hunt. Gender roles seem to entirely depend on materialistic societal circumstances, and that seems to indicate that gender roles arise by a combination of material economic and biological causes. Any liberal feminist arguing in favor of a combination of capitalism and equality of outcome concerning gender, is essentially aruing in favour of extreme social coercion and oppression of human nature. The only way a society that is not based on scarcity and a lack of agriculture or industrialization is going to have an equal outcome relating to gender is through extreme oppression.

 

What I've always found funny about it as well is that you never really see the reverse where anyone is really arguing and pushing extremely for men to go in what women have traditionally done. A good example of this is the massive push for more women in S.T.E.M. fields. I've never seen a massive push for more men to go into things like elementary education or social work (let alone anything like hairdressing or ballet) if you usually said something like that I think most people would just say most men aren't really interested.

Edited by Gay Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

The fact that in Western countries women more often tend to choose for traditional female work, than in some developing countries, is indeed very strong empirical evidence against the delusion known as liberal feminism. Actually, the only society where male and female gender roles are very similar are in very primitive hunter gatherer tribes, who don't have private property or agriculture, and where both men and women take care of children and hunt. Gender roles seem to entirely depend on materialistic societal circumstances, and that seems to indicate that gender roles arise by a combination of material economic and biological causes. Any liberal feminist arguing in favor of a combination of capitalism and equality of outcome concerning gender, is essentially aruing in favour of extreme social coercion and oppression of human nature. The only way a society that is not based on scarcity and a lack of agriculture or industrialization is going to have an equal outcome relating to gender is through extreme oppression.

I don't get it. Gender roles vary wildly in between societies, and this is damning empirical evidence that gender roles are innate? You also admit that gender roles are based on material factors, but then go on to say that resisting this is fighting human nature and can only be done with massive violence?

 

I think you're confused about 'liberal feminism' as well. The liberal feminists are the moderates who say 'men have problems too!', who embrace every oppressive sexual more in our society, and are always willing to organise with men. Radical feminism would make your head explode.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Gender roles are not innate, obviously, because exactly as you say they vary wildly between societies. But there is an innate cause to gender roles, and then there is a materialist economic cause.
So in a society where economic decisions are based more on scarcity, women more often go into STEM than in highly developed capitalist countries where resources are abundant, like Norway. So liberal feminism is incoherent, because a combination of capitalism and feminism has been proven to be empirically incoherent by that data. When resources are abundant and women don’t have to make life choices based on scarcity, they more often make a traditional female career choice.

The obvious question is then, why this is so? And the only reasonable explanation seems to be that when women don’t have to make choices based on the basis of scarcity and pragmatism, that the role of innate causes becomes more pronounced. The reason I’m mainly attacking liberal feminism is because you have a stronger case for feminism if you oppose private property. But I think even if you abolish private property, if you have an economy that is not based on scarcity, and that has some division of labour, men and women will still make different choices on the basis if innate differences. The only cultures that are strongly egalitarian relating to outcome of gender roles are hunter gatherer tribes who live in scarcity, who have no private property or agriculture, and probably another factor is whether a culture is accustomed to war.
Any egalitarian ideology should be intent on making sure people have equality of opportunity. Too often modern progressives seem intent on wanting to establish equality of outcome, however much coercion is needed to achieve that.
What the innate differences that cause different choices are, I do not feel qualified to point out. Of course I have strong suspicions, and I have lay knowledge, but I think it would be getting ridiculous if I were to construct a theory on that basis. What I can conclude from what I know is that these innate differences combined with economic material causes, form the best rational understanding of gender roles. Gender roles don’t, unlike what many naive modern neoliberal progressive half wits think, follow from arbitrary historical choice and ideology. Ideas are caused by material circumstances, and not the other way around.

I know radical feminism. A close relative of mine is on the way to becoming a gender studies doctorate, and I've followed a gender course in college, so you don't have to lecture me on it.
Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Those are some massive, specific extrapolations from broad trends. Teaching, hairdressing... basically anything that isn't domestic labour was historically done by men, and is not considered 'women's work' outside of the West. The idea that 'women are bad at math' only makes sense if you think they are good at sociology and literature, an idea that doesn't exist where women are purposefully not taught to read. I'd also question whether upper and middle class women in the third world make choices based on 'scarcity.' Or whether a physicist makes more money than a historian.

 

You're also attributing magical powers to sex hormones. STEM didn't exist for most of human history, so saying women have a 'natural' aversion to it makes no sense. It's as if our bodies were designed for the modern world. There is no reason for the males of a species to be better at math, and as you admit it's a Western notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

Regarding gender being a social construct: If we look at Norway which is regarded as one of the most equal countries in the world, we can see that most men still prefer jobs like engineering and most women still prefer jobs like nursing. So personally, I don't think it's a social construct.

 

 

 

You don't actually get to decide whether or not it is a social construct. :sigh:

 

Since you're talking vague anectodal evidence, here's my own:

 

I'm Norwegian. I was born and raised here. It's not as if it is some genderless, isolated utopia; we have the same media as you do. We watch the same TV shows. We listen to the same kind of music. We wear the same clothes. Do you see where I'm going with this?

We're brought up with the same attitudes towards gender and its "norms" as they are imposed upon us, and internalize them to an equal extent.

 

x

 

I've never seen

 

 

Is it just me or is every reactionary argument almost always an anecdotal one?

 

edit: unrelated good post from a facebook friend

5g0Mh6S.png

Edited by Marwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Sex is the term for the two biological categories into which human beings are divided. 'Gender' is the caste system forced onto people according to their biological sex. It is not an identity so much as a restrictive set of roles and expectations.

You are talking about gender roles, aren't you? As far as I can tell when a trans person says they identify with a different gender they don't really mean that they don't like the expectations of the gender they were assigned at birth. It's mostly their subjective experience that's causing them to want to identify with something else. I think it would be weird if someone chose to be trans solely on the basis of the perceived unfairness of these roles and expectations.

 

Also, what does it mean when people say that a trans person is someone who was born a woman in a man's body or vice versa? It seems to suggest that it is a brain thing, therefore gender is not a social construct of any sort. Feminists and trans activists need to make up their mind about which is true: the brain thing or the social construct idea.

edit: unrelated good post from a facebook friend

5g0Mh6S.png

There are so many things wrong with that post. First of all, it's not arbitrary. Forget about gender because arguing about semantics is boring. Sex characteristics are real and therefore impossible to completely ignore.

 

Second, real subjugation happens in developing countries, not so much in the West. You're making a mockery of women who really suffer by saying that women in developed countries are suffering at the hands of men.

 

Third, the media doesn't really do sh*t. Sexism existed before the media was invented and it spread because ideas spread through people. I mean if we didn't have TV or the Internet certain people would still be sexist because that's what poorly educated people tend to be.

Edited by ΣΓ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

Sex is the term for the two biological categories into which human beings are divided. 'Gender' is the caste system forced onto people according to their biological sex. It is not an identity so much as a restrictive set of roles and expectations.

You are talking about gender roles, aren't you? As far as I can tell when a trans person says they identify with a different gender they don't really mean that they don't like the expectations of the gender they were assigned at birth. It's mostly their subjective experience that's causing them to want to identify with something else. I think it would be weird if someone chose to be trans solely on the basis of the perceived unfairness of these roles and expectations.

This is the impression you get from listening to detransitioners, and to the wealth of young people (80%) who express gender dysphoria but never go on to transition. Most are gay or lesbian. Transgenderism is, by and large, the medicalisation of gender non-conformity. In Iran- the place where transgenderism is most common- it is literally used as a correction of homosexuality.

 

 

 

Also, what does it mean when people say that a trans person is someone who was born a woman in a man's body or vice versa? It seems to suggest that it is a brain thing, therefore gender is not a social construct of any sort. Feminists and trans activists need to make up their mind about which is true: the brain thing or the social construct idea.

Trans activists are wrong tbh. It is a social construct. There is no such thing as innate gender identity, and radical feminism is not compatible with queer theory at all. Hence trans activists and libfems will lash out at these women with violent threats for opposing their dogma, labeling them 'TERFs' and other misogynistic slurs. It's a real sh*t show.

 

 

 

First of all, it's not arbitrary.

Indeed it isn't. It exists to subjugate women.

 

 

 

Second, real subjugation happens in developing countries, not so much in the West. You're making a mockery of women who really suffer by saying that women in developed countries are suffering at the hands of men.

Runaway sexual violence, exclusion from public life, prostitution, domestic violence, coerced emotional labour subordination of their sexual wants... are you being serious?

 

 

 

Third, the media doesn't really do sh*t. Sexism existed before the media was invented and it spread because ideas spread through people. I mean if we didn't have TV or the Internet certain people would still be sexist because that's what poorly educated people tend to be.

Before TV we had books and literature intelligentsia and clergy to read those books to us. Before that we had medicine men. It's just become more technologically advanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

There are statistics that show that men are the victims of domestic and sexual violence too. That's not the point I was making. The average woman in the West has a much better life (pretty much on par with that of the average man) than a woman in a developing country like Afghanistan. So when a middle class feminist complains about sexism in the West and how oppressed she is the only thing I can think of to tell her is to get f*cked. Guess what? Most women aren't feminists because life isn't bad for them, certainly not as bad as certain feminists put it.

Back to the trans topic, so why do trans people want to identify with a different gender then? Is it really just about not wanting to identify with the gender roles? That doesn't strike me as a good basis for such a desire\choice. I don't like gender roles either but I'm not going to switch any time soon. I don't think it would really change anything substantial about me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Well you didn't respond to any of the issues I raised and just said women can get f*cked for complaining because they are not our literal slaves. Telling women they should be happy we don't make them sleep in the dirt is a petty knee jerk reaction.

 

 

 

That doesn't strike me as a good basis for such a desire\choice.

They suffer from very powerful dysphoria and transgenderism is the treatment we offered. A patriarchal society is not capable of telling these people that they can live as their own biological sex while still being a sensitive man or an assertive woman, so it transforms them into the opposite sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Well you didn't respond to any of the issues I raised and just said women can get f*cked for complaining because they are not our literal slaves. Telling women they should be happy we don't make them sleep in the dirt is a petty knee jerk reaction.

 

They suffer from very powerful dysphoria and transgenderism is the treatment we offered. A patriarchal society is not capable of telling these people that they can live as their own biological sex while still being a sensitive man or an assertive woman, so it transforms them into the opposite sex.

It depends on the nature of their complaints. Some of these complaints are grossly exaggerated, especially when they use terms like "rape culture" when there is basically nothing even resembling that in the West (but there is in some developing countries where honor killings are common for instance). Then there's the conflation of sexual objectification and actual harassment. I've been objectified by women myself a bunch of times. It happens mostly because of group mentality. When you walk by a group of people of the opposite sex, chances are that they will talk about you if they aren't getting enough attention. I've had women say negative sh*t about me loudly enough for me to hear it because I'm skinny but I never got the idea to call that sexual harassment. It's just people being douchey to get attention. I've done it too so I'm not so quick to judge others for doing it.

 

I also think that these ideas that a man can't be sensitive or that a woman can't be assertive are harmful and untrue but that doesn't really change the way I feel about my identity. I mean there's nothing about my experience that is distinctly characteristic as being male. I can be a sensitive person with the right people but I can also be strong if the situation demands it. I see no contradiction between these two emotional states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Then why does rape occur if there is nothing sociocultural facilitating it? Are we just naturally rapey? And I don't know how you can seriously suggest that women are not reduced to sex objects, that their own sexuality isn't adapted to serve men's.

 

I don't understand what you want clarified with your second paragraph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Then why does rape occur if there is nothing sociocultural facilitating it? Are we just naturally rapey?

 

And I don't know how you can seriously suggest that women are not reduced to sex objects, that their own sexuality isn't adapted to serve men's.

I'm only arguing that the term is misused because it suggests that our society condones rape, which would be reflected in our laws, don't you think? I mean the same feminists will not dare to say that a rape culture exists in Muslim majority countries where women are treated like dirt.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I literally said that it happens but it happens to men too and there's not much you can do about it. I mean you can't police what people say on the street. My point was that it doesn't always constitute harassment (e.g.

).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I mean the same feminists will not dare to say that a rape culture exists in Muslim majority countries where women are treated like dirt.

I think you'll find most would, just that they wouldn't ascribe such factors to religious identity but instead sociopolitical factors. I don't think anyone would argue that Turkey, which has seen a 1200% rise in violence against women over the last 8 years and which very nearly passed a law legalising child rape didn't have a serious problem with sexual violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

This is sort of a related topic to sexuality, but what do you guys think about the conservative stance on same-sex marriage? I frequently listen to conservatives such as Ben Shapiro because I think there are people on any side making good arguments on various topics even though I think I am somewhere in the center of the political spectrum (maybe a bit biased towards the left). He presented an argument against same-sex marriage that I rarely hear from public figures at least. He was basically saying that the only reason why the government subsidizes marriage is the possibility of any resulting children. I think that he thinks that it should be the only reason for the government to get involved (i.e. to only give couples with children tax cuts or whatever they get). I might have heard him acknowledge the possibility of adoption for gay couples but apparently he thinks that gay parents don't make good parents because children need a male and female figure (although I don't remember exactly what he said).

 

My take on it is that it is unreasonable to expect gay parents to be near-perfect parents. After all, straight parents aren't that great either on average. I mean no one even questions their qualifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

I usually don't like to boil down complex issues such as these to such a sweeping statement, but this is a case where I simply say let folks do what they want. If you're an asshole to someone because of their gender, sex, or orientation, you're an asshole. I mean, you're sexist and homophobic too, but it should be enough to simply say you're an asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I really think if your only possible response to an argument you disagree with is "you're an asshole" that you should step back until you have something constructive to contribute. I understand politics is an emotional matter, but I think it's irrationality and sweeping statements based on nothing that is the exact issue in the current political atmosphere.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

sure Euty.

I see what you're saying in principle. but in this case? he's just right.

 

he's not saying asshole "based on nothing."

gay people. gender queers. they're f/cking as natural as a limestone rock formation and - like said geology - they're not f/cking going anywhere. they're human beings who exist and deserve the exact same rights and privileges across the board as any other fellow human being.

 

to deny them this (regardless of your reasoning) represents sheer ignorance, a basic failure of human empathy, and probably says a lot about how you were raised. maybe you're not truly an asshole but somewhere along the line some asshole fed you a bunch of assholery information that made you believe gay people are sub-human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Obviously I agree with your opinions on gay marriage. But I don't share the opinions that we should call everyone who disagrees with us on gay marriage 'assholes'. Pretty much any religious or traditional society worldwide thinks marriage should remain heteronormative. If you think all those people are assholes, then you are opining that most of the world is made up of assholes, which is a bullsh*t thing to say. But in the end the only people you want to call assholes is white conservative christians as an act of virtue signalling. And it is exactly sh*tty disrespectful behaviour like that which politically polarizes the West currently. It makes me wonder sometimes on what side the real assholes are on. Probably on both sides to a similar extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

the world isn't "made up" of assholes.

but by and large it's run by assholes and assholes are the ones who tend to make rules and laws and institutions that dictate how other people should live their lives.

 

I don't believe in respectfully disagreeing with disrespectful opinions.

at some point bullsh/t needs to be called what it is; a giant pile of illogical excrement. if the person who believes in bullsh/t can't handle criticism and isn't willing to self-analyze then I don't really see why we need to keep capitulating to their lack of understanding. I don't want to hold their hand and lead them across the bridge step by step. I'd rather cut the bridge behind me and let them die off.

 

save for immediate revolutions, that's more or less how progress happens.

you push progressive ideas. you call out bad ideas for being bad. and you march forward. the dinosaurs will die off. progress is slow but progress doesn't go backwards.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.