• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

What will the radical left do after the Trump win

Status
Not open for further replies.
mal3volent said:
Given gender is a social construct, do you think it's fair that it is considered to be protected in the same way as race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc? Should things that are essentially personality choices and expressions be weighted the same as immutable, fundamental characteristics of a person present since birth?
Click to expand...
Gender expression is inherent to a person the same way that race, sexual orientation, and ethnicity are, not choices
 
-=SS=- said:
By not exposing them to the idea in the first place. If it is a mental illness and/or a mental contagion, then there is no sense in confusing and terrifying otherwise healthy children about it. Like with 'demons' and other medieval hysterias, the solution is not to speak these things into existence in the first place but to come to a true understanding of the underlying malady and then apply solutions to those who are afflicted when encountered.

But this is a separate issue, the issue of stigma, which is not the fault of the afflicted at all but actually an issue of those projecting their judgement.. and that is something to be tackled separately, through better understanding and awareness (in the judging party). We should not seek to treat the symptom, protecting the judged, but treat the cause (the judging party).

It's not about hiding or forcing. We are all in this together. If it is a mental illness and/or contagion, then it is our duty to get to the bottom of the truth about it so we can then help those who are afflicted. Not out of a sense of puritanical moral imperative, but just as human beings wanting others to be healthy and happy. But the underlying point is, the truth is the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it may make us (or an afflicted person) feel, and we have to face it from that direction.

I keep saying I don't hate these people, perhaps I should also state I despise the attitude of the 'puritanical moral imperative' that seems to pervade many who ride on the criticisms of transgenderism (or homosexuality, etc). I'm interested in the truth, and in true well-being for the individual. If people choose to want to remain in their afflicted state as it were, that is their choice.. people have a right to refuse treatment.. but what I fundamentally do not agree with is those within that community who wish to forcibly push their state on to otherwise healthy people, especially children.

Like overweight people as you mention, or suicide rates amongst children, these are all ultimately symptoms of a sick culture itself. We owe it to each other to try and figure this all out, otherwise what the hell are we doing as humans anyway?
Click to expand...
Mental illnesses are not contagious, this needs citation
 
mal3volent said:
Given gender is a social construct, do you think it's fair that it is considered to be protected in the same way as race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc? Should things that are essentially personality choices and expressions be weighted the same as immutable, fundamental characteristics of a person present since birth?
Click to expand...
I dunno. I think that expressing your chosen gender and deciding to show a certain sexual orientation are pretty similar.
-=SS=- said:
By not exposing them to the idea in the first place. If it is a mental illness and/or a mental contagion, then there is no sense in confusing and terrifying otherwise healthy children about it.
Click to expand...
So, how do you "not expose children to the idea in the first place" while allowing transgender folk to make their own choices and live their life?
 
mal3volent said:
Ok, allow me to be more specific.

Should a person's choices related to gender expression be protected in the same way as physical characteristics like skin color, or hard wired immutable characteristics like sexual orientation?
Click to expand...
You're calling them choices again, it isn't a choice
 
mal3volent said:
Ok, allow me to be more specific.

Should a person's choices related to gender expression be protected in the same way as physical characteristics like skin color, or hard wired immutable characteristics like sexual orientation?
Click to expand...
I would think that gender expression might be hard wired as well. A person's sexual orientation can certainly affect their gender expression.
 
brokedownpalace10 said:
I dunno. I think that expressing your chosen gender and deciding to show a certain sexual orientation are pretty similar.
Click to expand...

Well the key difference as you yourself pointed out is that one is chosen and the other isn't.

"Chosen gender" versus "deciding to show"

someguyontheinternet said:
You're calling them choices again, it isn't a choice
Click to expand...

The manner in which a person expresses their gender is full of choices and also depends heavily on an endless number of factors. Where they're born, when they're born, their own personal aesthetic, etc etc.

I tend to think gender in the way people think of it now is basically just another word for personality... no? The way a person perceives themselves based on an infinite number of factors?

brokedownpalace10 said:
I would think that gender expression might be hard wired as well. A person's sexual orientation can certainly affect their gender expression.
Click to expand...

If you take a baby and raise them in isolation, then release them into society as an adult...things like sexual orientation, skin color, sex, etc will not be affected at all. They're innate characteristics. It would take them a long time to even gain an understanding of what gender is and how they choose to express that aspect of themselves would vary greatly based on all kinds of things.
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Gender expression is innately tied to hormones particularly during development in utero

Click to expand...

The study references "male-typed" toys and occupations.

Excuse me, but what the fuck?

Are we separating gender and sex, or not?
Is it harmful to engage in stereotypes, or not?
Seems to me that even within these types of academic sources terms are used loosely and often interchangeably.

Again, my opinion is that there is sex. Male and female. And then there are qualities and behaviors associated with each sex that vary dramatically based on geography, history, time, culture, individual personality etc etc. (what we now describe as gender).

A child has no "innate" sense of gender. If I'm wrong here, which I freely admit maybe I am, try engaging with what I'm actually saying rather than dropping a link that actually says very little about the subject at hand.
 
A child has no innate sense of gender within a social framework because they haven't learned the framework yet, but the behavioral patterns remain consistent based on hormones and neuronal development.

The study is using those terms to describe how things, the toys, are considered gendered within that specific cultural framework. What they're examining is the innate behavior and using the cultural framework as a measurement.
 
someguyontheinternet said:
A child has no innate sense of gender within a social framework because they haven't learned the framework yet, but the behavioral patterns remain consistent based on hormones and neuronal development.

The study is using those terms to describe how things, the toys, are considered gendered within that specific cultural framework. What they're examining is the innate behavior and using the cultural framework as a measurement.
Click to expand...

Is this not circular reasoning?
 
brokedownpalace10 said:
I would think that gender expression might be hard wired as well. A person's sexual orientation can certainly affect their gender expression.
Click to expand...
How can this possibly be the case when taking examples of sexual orientation that fall beyond the binary choice of male-female, as in those who are attracted to children, animals, or even inanimate objects. Clearly there is a mental component to all of this, whether we're talking sexual orientation or gender as a loose social construct. Hormones can not be the beginning and end of the argument when a human being is clearly capable of projecting onto external objects sexually or projecting internally on to sense of self. Hormones certainly play a role in the whole picture, but they are not the whole picture, and neither is genetics.

A foetus in the womb hasn't even opened its eyes to the world, it has no pre-programmed visual neurological capacity beyond the innate ability to triangulate its mothers facial features at birth, there is no way.. not without a non-local phenomena.. that a foetus could possibly be hardwired for sexual orientations that fall outside the male-female binary. And even with the male-female binary, again the entire sexual orientation process is predicated on projection, the process of taking a visual image and then projecting upon that a sexual quality which is then witnessed a second time. This demonstrates in a nutshell why sexual orientation (and gender) are mental phenomena.

The insistence that the whole thing can be reduced to bio-chemistry is just a continuation of the underlying neurosis of science itself, that refuses to incorporate or investigate things which fall beyond the realm of its analysis. But just because it dismisses and excuses itself, does not mean that which it can't see or analyse is not there.
 
Last edited:
mal3volent said:
Using our current, subjective concept of gender to make conclusions on behavior that will influence future concepts under various much different cultural frameworks.
Click to expand...
They're using the current societal concept as a measure of gender expression in the context of a person observing a behavior of a child and the assumptions that observer would likely make based on that framework.

The idea of behaviors being gendered already existed so the investigators are working to understand how variations in hormones influence those innate behaviors in that specific framework.

Yes absolutely, there are limitations with many different studies relying on some patient or volunteer population, how they are recruited and from where, inclusion or exclusion criteria may induce bias if not managed carefully. This is a fairly well known issue and it is reasonable to assume there may be small differences between populations that may not be included in a study. Generally researchers need to find a balance between generalizability and feasibility because recruiting from many different countries would be insurmountably expensive both in funding and staffing.

Studies like this are just pieces in long networks of evidence which other researchers build on in various different contexts. Examining these behaviors within other cultural frameworks is a great idea and I would genuinely be surprised if there weren't other studies either completed or in process elsewhere in the world.
 
-=SS=- said:
sexual orientations that fall outside the male-female binary. And even with the male-female binary
Click to expand...
Your entire argument is based on the false premise that sexual orientation, or gender or whatever you might be referring to here, is binary when in reality it is a spectrum, just like nearly everything else in behavior and physiology
 
mal3volent said:
Given gender is a social construct, do you think it's fair that it is considered to be protected in the same way as race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc? Should things that are essentially personality choices and expressions be weighted the same as immutable, fundamental characteristics of a person present since birth?
Click to expand...

it's a good question mal. thanks.

honest answer is, i don't know but i lean towards believing that gender identity is not a choice - it's an innate sense of ones self (i.e. nature). does that mean it's not influenced by various social, and other factors? i doubt it - maybe there's a bit of nurture too.

if there are only two genders then why do we even have the concept of a masculine female? or a feminine male?

i note that ss can't or won't answer the very simple question about the definition of "gender" and the difference between male/masculine or female/feminine which leaves me to draw my own conclusion.

to answer your question directly, i don't think it's necessarily a choice so i think it should be protected. on the weighted issue, i just don't know.

alasdair
 
mal3volent said:
Seems to me that even within these types of academic sources terms are used loosely and often interchangeably.
Click to expand...
Well, let me propose this thought. If a male is sexually attracted to other males, that's protected, right? But, if that male dresses more as a female to attract those males, that's not?
mal3volent said:
Again, my opinion is that there is sex. Male and female. And then there are qualities and behaviors associated with each sex that vary dramatically based on geography, history, time, culture, individual personality etc etc. (what we now describe as gender).
Click to expand...
I like that statement. It does make a good point. But to me, it really hammers home that people should therefore be allowed to act and dress however they want in those regards. Freedom of expression is freedom of speech.

@-=SS=- I don't think you do think that even sexual orientation is hard wired. TBH, I'm really not sure you really think transgender folk should be allowed to freely express themselves either.

Call being transgender a preference, a perversion, or a disorder. I don't really care. I do think that it's something a person does which does not hurt another human being and that it's their own damn business. Being outraged is not being hurt.

57394955-0A75-43E4-B78F-2FEF75F7F1D5_360x.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top