Transgender 6 year old?!
07-02-2013, 09:36 PM
#61
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
So, because a certain culture or ethnic group has a religious custom which says that it is so, that over-rules science, biology, and several millennia of philosophical and sociological thought.
It's a good thing that no culture has ever idealized grown men having sexual relations with 5 year old girls as "ok."
Or human sacrifice.
Or the extermination of the Jews.
Or the enslavement of dark-skinned people of west African heritage, and their use as farm implements in Europe and the Americas.
Or burning people alive on suspicion of being a witch.
Of death by beheading as punishment for having sex with someone other than the person your parents sold you to.
Because if there were, then, you know... we'd have to accept all of those things as "natural" and "true."
It's a good thing that no culture has ever idealized grown men having sexual relations with 5 year old girls as "ok."
Or human sacrifice.
Or the extermination of the Jews.
Or the enslavement of dark-skinned people of west African heritage, and their use as farm implements in Europe and the Americas.
Or burning people alive on suspicion of being a witch.
Of death by beheading as punishment for having sex with someone other than the person your parents sold you to.
Because if there were, then, you know... we'd have to accept all of those things as "natural" and "true."
Reply
0
0
07-02-2013, 09:51 PM
#62
So, because a certain culture or ethnic group has a religious custom which says that it is so, that over-rules science, biology, and several millennia of philosophical and sociological thought.
It's a good thing that no culture has ever idealized grown men having sexual relations with 5 year old girls as "ok."
Or human sacrifice.
Or the extermination of the Jews.
Or the enslavement of dark-skinned people of west African heritage, and their use as farm implements in Europe and the Americas.
Or burning people alive on suspicion of being a witch.
Of death by beheading as punishment for having sex with someone other than the person your parents sold you to.
Because if there were, then, you know... we'd have to accept all of those things as "natural" and "true."
It's a good thing that no culture has ever idealized grown men having sexual relations with 5 year old girls as "ok."
Or human sacrifice.
Or the extermination of the Jews.
Or the enslavement of dark-skinned people of west African heritage, and their use as farm implements in Europe and the Americas.
Or burning people alive on suspicion of being a witch.
Of death by beheading as punishment for having sex with someone other than the person your parents sold you to.
Because if there were, then, you know... we'd have to accept all of those things as "natural" and "true."
/Oh snap!
Reply
0
0
07-02-2013, 10:06 PM
#63
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Yes, I'd consider these to fall into the same general category. They are all artificial constructs which attempt to shape, regulate and define natural phenomenon.
Reply
0
0
07-03-2013, 01:21 PM
#64
Does it matter if this behavior is natural or not? Just posing the question. I believe it has been shown homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom (see lions). Is this "3rd gender" just homosexuality?
Also, it is very natural for us to kill one another, and try to get others to do things for us (slavery). Because something is natural does not make it right or wrong.
Is everything we do natural since we are animals and a part of nature? Where is the destruction? Is it unnatural for a species to change its environment? Beavers build dams, having a negative effect on the environment.
Also, it is very natural for us to kill one another, and try to get others to do things for us (slavery). Because something is natural does not make it right or wrong.
Is everything we do natural since we are animals and a part of nature? Where is the destruction? Is it unnatural for a species to change its environment? Beavers build dams, having a negative effect on the environment.
Reply
0
0
07-03-2013, 02:51 PM
#66
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Define natural.
Yes. There are only two genders among ever mammalian species that I can think of- male and female.
A being of either gender can elect to have sex with whomever or whatever they want. That is a behavior, not a gender.
I agree.
The same basic fallacy is committed when marketing departments classify some product as "all natural," with the implication that it must be healthier, better for the environment, less toxic, etc., than a comparable product which is not "all natural."
Chlorine gas is all natural. So are cyanide, hemlock and cocaine.
It's interesting that you bring this up, since it's something which has always bugged me about the claims made by those (eg: greenpeace) who wish to see us all "get back to nature."
So far as I am aware, homo sapiens evolved naturally alongside the rest of the terran biosphere. We were not artificially engineered and transported to planet Earth in a bunch of spaceworthy DC-8s by Xenu the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.
That being the case, we are no less a part of the "natural ecosystem" than any other animal, nor are we the only one which chooses to modify its surroundings to better suit us. Birds build nests, insects and rodents bore holes in things, beavers build dams, etc.
We just happen to be more successful at it, because our brains are better developed.
Is this "3rd gender" just homosexuality?
A being of either gender can elect to have sex with whomever or whatever they want. That is a behavior, not a gender.
Because something is natural does not make it right or wrong.
The same basic fallacy is committed when marketing departments classify some product as "all natural," with the implication that it must be healthier, better for the environment, less toxic, etc., than a comparable product which is not "all natural."
Chlorine gas is all natural. So are cyanide, hemlock and cocaine.
Is everything we do natural since we are animals and a part of nature?
So far as I am aware, homo sapiens evolved naturally alongside the rest of the terran biosphere. We were not artificially engineered and transported to planet Earth in a bunch of spaceworthy DC-8s by Xenu the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.
That being the case, we are no less a part of the "natural ecosystem" than any other animal, nor are we the only one which chooses to modify its surroundings to better suit us. Birds build nests, insects and rodents bore holes in things, beavers build dams, etc.
We just happen to be more successful at it, because our brains are better developed.
Reply
0
0
07-04-2013, 05:20 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
All the things you listed earlier (slavery, etc.) all have negative impacts on other individuals. You showing up to work in a dress, doesn't have anywhere the impact on other sentient individuals as selling human beings. No harm, no foul, in my mind.
Reply
-1
-1
07-04-2013, 07:27 PM
#71
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Later, different processes were developed which utilized various organic solvents, of which Kerosene is one example. All of the required ingredients are naturally occurring, and the extraction of cocaine in many areas of the world predates the availability of electricity, laboratory-style chemistry, etc.
While cocaine *can* be produced synthetically, the vast majority of commercial cocaine production still utilizes the traditional (and cost-effective) methods which have been around for quite a while.
You might as well claim that tobacco must be synthesized, simply by pointing to the modern, complex processes which Philip Morris uses to produce a factory-made cigarette.
Reply
0
0
07-04-2013, 09:10 PM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
Traditionally, the coca leaves were simply chewed directly much as with chewing tobacco. So, even simpler than the brown M&Ms.
Later, different processes were developed which utilized various organic solvents, of which Kerosene is one example. All of the required ingredients are naturally occurring, and the extraction of cocaine in many areas of the world predates the availability of electricity, laboratory-style chemistry, etc.
While cocaine *can* be produced synthetically, the vast majority of commercial cocaine production still utilizes the traditional (and cost-effective) methods which have been around for quite a while.
You might as well claim that tobacco must be synthesized, simply by pointing to the modern, complex processes which Philip Morris uses to produce a factory-made cigarette.
Later, different processes were developed which utilized various organic solvents, of which Kerosene is one example. All of the required ingredients are naturally occurring, and the extraction of cocaine in many areas of the world predates the availability of electricity, laboratory-style chemistry, etc.
While cocaine *can* be produced synthetically, the vast majority of commercial cocaine production still utilizes the traditional (and cost-effective) methods which have been around for quite a while.
You might as well claim that tobacco must be synthesized, simply by pointing to the modern, complex processes which Philip Morris uses to produce a factory-made cigarette.
Still, I wouldn't call a cigg or 8ball "natural". I
at semantics. 
Reply
-1
-1
07-17-2013, 06:19 PM
#73
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
So am I right in looking over the thread that there's not one mention of the scenario of a hermaphrodite birth, where the child quite clearly develops toward one gender/sex/whatever (and yeah that can happen by say the age of 6) and would quite probably have a much less traumatic development if they did not have the confusion of multiple sex organ types as they start the very early stages of awareness about that whole aspect of their existence? Does that count as transgender? I suppose it does on some level.
And yeah, the real danger is that people will change their gender identity to hang out in the girls room. I would totally remodel down there for that. I am such a horn-dog hetero that I will mangle my junk to the point of precluding ever getting laid as I know it to be in closer proximity to (but not actually watching) chicks doing bodily functions. Makes total sense. OMFG. And while on that subject, now that DOMA is struck down I figure all society will crumble because you just know that now someone will marry a bird or something. Because that's a real danger. And hetero people will marry just for the tax break. We can't have tax fraud. It'll rip the country apart. God knows no man and woman ever had a sham marriage for tax/legal purposes.
And yeah, the real danger is that people will change their gender identity to hang out in the girls room. I would totally remodel down there for that. I am such a horn-dog hetero that I will mangle my junk to the point of precluding ever getting laid as I know it to be in closer proximity to (but not actually watching) chicks doing bodily functions. Makes total sense. OMFG. And while on that subject, now that DOMA is struck down I figure all society will crumble because you just know that now someone will marry a bird or something. Because that's a real danger. And hetero people will marry just for the tax break. We can't have tax fraud. It'll rip the country apart. God knows no man and woman ever had a sham marriage for tax/legal purposes.
Reply
0
0
08-20-2013, 08:47 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
I wouldn't really call "indeterminate" a gender. That's a fancy way of the doctor saying "WTF is this ****", when examining a newborns nether regions. Remember, it's technically sex which a doctor would define at birth.
Regardless of the sex/gender semantics, why gender needs to be so thoroughly documented, when it serves so little purpose, is the real stump-er. I suppose it's a step in the right direction though. Kinda like calling gay couples "butt-buddies". Yeah, it's legal the same as marriage, except that's it's not.
I forget if it was justice Marshal, or another justice on the court at the time who wrote a concurring opinion, but the paraphrased quote about "separate but equal" went something like; It doesn't matter which group is at a disadvantage. The fact that two groups are separated, is by definition, a disparity in some form. Separate but equal, requires inequality to exist, and thus, is not equal.
Regardless of the sex/gender semantics, why gender needs to be so thoroughly documented, when it serves so little purpose, is the real stump-er. I suppose it's a step in the right direction though. Kinda like calling gay couples "butt-buddies". Yeah, it's legal the same as marriage, except that's it's not.
I forget if it was justice Marshal, or another justice on the court at the time who wrote a concurring opinion, but the paraphrased quote about "separate but equal" went something like; It doesn't matter which group is at a disadvantage. The fact that two groups are separated, is by definition, a disparity in some form. Separate but equal, requires inequality to exist, and thus, is not equal.
Reply
-1
-1
08-21-2013, 10:17 AM
#79
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pensacola, Fl.
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 1
So am I right in looking over the thread that there's not one mention of the scenario of a hermaphrodite birth, where the child quite clearly develops toward one gender/sex/whatever (and yeah that can happen by say the age of 6) and would quite probably have a much less traumatic development if they did not have the confusion of multiple sex organ types as they start the very early stages of awareness about that whole aspect of their existence? Does that count as transgender? I suppose it does on some level.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2013, 06:17 PM
#80
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
The idea that "gender" is somehow separable from "sex" is a modern invention, and represents more than a bit of revisionist history.
The concept of "gender" arose in the Greek classical period (5th century BC) during an era of great advancement and thought in medicine and philosophy.
From that time until the mid 20th century AD, the words "gender" and "sex" described different aspects of the same phenomenon. "Sex" was typically used when speaking in a biological or reproductive context, whereas "gender" typically described the social and psychological ramifications of "sex." The two concepts, however, were fundamentally inseparable and defined in simple genetic terms (or in simple physical terms, prior to the understanding of heredity & genetics.) For nearly 2,500 years, an effeminate man was still "male" in any context.
It was not until Freud rose to prominence in the early 1900s and inspired a whole generation of followers who chose to invent their own methods of abstracting content from reality that the idea of "gender identity" came into existence, and was subsequently gang-raped until it became loose enough to be stretched across a continuum of identities.
In other words, the term was appropriated quite recently by a bunch of psychobabble soft-science types to describe a made up "feel-good" concept which allowed them to ramble endlessly in dissertations and academic presentations.
And so no, I don't buy that specific interpretation. Taking hormone pills and flipping the dick inside-out to simulate a vagina no more makes a woman than putting a body kit onto a Fiero makes it a Lamborghini.
The concept of "gender" arose in the Greek classical period (5th century BC) during an era of great advancement and thought in medicine and philosophy.
From that time until the mid 20th century AD, the words "gender" and "sex" described different aspects of the same phenomenon. "Sex" was typically used when speaking in a biological or reproductive context, whereas "gender" typically described the social and psychological ramifications of "sex." The two concepts, however, were fundamentally inseparable and defined in simple genetic terms (or in simple physical terms, prior to the understanding of heredity & genetics.) For nearly 2,500 years, an effeminate man was still "male" in any context.
It was not until Freud rose to prominence in the early 1900s and inspired a whole generation of followers who chose to invent their own methods of abstracting content from reality that the idea of "gender identity" came into existence, and was subsequently gang-raped until it became loose enough to be stretched across a continuum of identities.
In other words, the term was appropriated quite recently by a bunch of psychobabble soft-science types to describe a made up "feel-good" concept which allowed them to ramble endlessly in dissertations and academic presentations.
And so no, I don't buy that specific interpretation. Taking hormone pills and flipping the dick inside-out to simulate a vagina no more makes a woman than putting a body kit onto a Fiero makes it a Lamborghini.
While it has been fashionable in certain circles to assert that men and women are functionally equivalent in all capabilities outside of procreation, it remains a claim bereft of empirical support. In fact, the opposite is heavily supported. Within the brain there are distinct physiological, chemical, and behavioral differences independent of sexual orientation or "gender identity". The physiological differences exist because the differences in the DNA produce either testes or ovaries and the hormones generated by each cause gender-specific development within the brain. The hormone levels obviously exist on a continuum for both males and females, as Andre' the Giant and Justin Bieber stand to attest.
As has been eloquently stated previously, don't confuse behavior with physiology. You will only anger B.F. Skinner (psychology major humor). As has been relayed to me recently, "there is no gene that makes gay men speak and act flamboyantly or lisp." Much, but not all, of what people blame on hormones or genetics is simply a chosen behavior. But it is a crutch that people use to dissociate themselves from responsibility for their choices or actions. I have only recently taught my daughter to take responsibility for the choice to act out when she is moody and hormonal. She controls her behavior when she is feeling those urges much better now.
I know a very butch woman who operates heavy construction equipment and puts underground pipe in the ground for a living. She and her ladyfriend of many decades have adopted the ladyfriend's young grandson. She will be the first to tell you (in her gruff voice) that even though she cuts the grass, goes fishing, changes the brake pads on her 3500 Dodge diesel truck, and dresses up like Santa for Christmas, her adopted son still needs and looks for a father figure in his life. She knows she can't really do it all in the same way and accepts it. More should.
No, it wouldnt count as transgender as it already is defined as a naturally occurring phenomenon. If one were born a hermaprhodite, one is not simply chosing to be one over the other, because one was born as both. Yes, the body will develope leaning towards one or the other, and then you choose. It is different in that one is not predetermined at brith, and then chosing later to become the other.
For many centuries up until less than 100 years ago, eunuchs were commonplace throughout the world's cultures. Nobody considered them transgendered even though they were definitely post-operative. They did have special statuses and duties, but that is always a cultural distinction.
Reply
0
0
