Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Tracker wrote: The problem in our communication here is using like-terms with multiple definitions. Firstly, our LAWS regard 'gender-discrimination' to mean what is PHYSICALLY your body. That means, whether or not your have a penis (gender type-A), a vagina (gender type-B), neither (gender-type-C), either (gender-type-D).
Actually, I'd have to say that most laws only deal with male/female, not the exceptions. That's a failure of the law, not of people's physical sex.

Quote: SEX, on the other hand, is what you do with your physical gender. Sex is sex. Anybody can do it. It is an ACT ... not a physical-form.
It is actually defined (and I mean by way of accepted usage) as either one - your physical sex (which I have already acknowledged is sometimes used synonymously with 'gender'), or the act of sexual intercourse.

Quote: SEXUAL-ORIENTATION is what types of sex-ACTS you engage your physical-gender WITH.
NO IT IS NOT!!!

This drives me insane. Sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as sexual behavior. The behavior doesn't determine one's orientation. In fact, they don't necessarily always match. 'Sexual orientation' is a matter of which gender/sex one finds most strongly attractive.

Quote: "Gender Identity" is the psychological study of sexual-orientation "the use of your physical-gender while engaging in sexual-acts and how that relates to your human-existence and interpersonal relationships."
Link? Sexual orientation certainly may be the focus of some gender identity studies, but not all of them. It encompasses a lot more than just sexual orientation.

Quote: These are also the definitions used by all religions. Therefore, LAW and IDEALOGY argree. The only one's whom do not, are a few posters here in this forum, quoting text-books written by those whom didn't consult with either LAW or IDEOLOGISTS before writing their reports.
:rotf: Now you're just making s**t up!

Quote: SM >>> again, your posts are highly contradictory -- (the words, I don't know you as a person or whom you are -- just the words on the screen) -- and when pointing out these contradictions, you resort to accusations of 'personal attacks.'
Oh, please - it definitely was a personal attack. Not only that, it was an attack based on a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote because you inferred things that weren't intended.

[Prole]

John Galt wrote: Prole wrote: John Galt wrote:
I think you are confusing the concept of gender, which is made up, with facts. Prove me wrong. You can't.

I will submit that while I can prove Tracker's position and Skeptical Mystic's position wrong, I can not "prove" yours wrong other than I know it is wrong as biology tells me so, but you cannot "prove" my position wrong either. Your careful use of the words make me unable to prove you wrong (basically since you said "gender identities"). Skeptic and Tracker, though, are wrong. In any event, I am not confusing anything. I know what you are trying to say. I understand the "reasoning," if I can so liberally call it that, behind the "concept of gender." But I know it is wrong. You can say all you want that there is some psychological gender identity. But just because no one can prove for a fact that that is incorrect since it is impossible does not mean you are objectivley correct.
Sticking your head in the sand and dogmatically repeating your viewpoint with no evidence whatsoever proves nothing except for your own closed-mindedness.

As opposed to what other people are doing here? I'm not sorry if I am going with what thousands of years of expreience and science has tought us rather than a few decades of some femisist propoganda.

Those decades of "feminist propoganda" are science, and some of the first formal scientific research into human thinking and behavior as it pertains to sexuality. There has been no science in the past describing addressing such things. Your denial of gender mirrors that of 1500s European denying that the Earth was round, that prior experience and "science" proves otherwise. Just as the Earth is very much round, genders very much exist in a manner far beyond what you acknowledge.

Furthermore, engendering has been a part of EVERY society in the history of the earth. Though to various extents sex has equated to gender on a societal level, on a personal level there are certainly people (just as there are today) for whom their sex and gender do not match.

Lastly, while the above paragraph universally true for some societies, it is not true for all. Eunachs in the Assyrian empire, for instance, were legally identified and treated as neither women nor men. Many Native American tribes had crossdressers in them. These are but a small portion of those who have in society been neither of male nor female genders, but you get the gist.

John Galt wrote:
OK, sure, society makes "roles" up, to an extent. I don't see why that matters.
It matters because these roles are exactly what gender addresses.

John Galt wrote: I am not feminine since I cook and clean and do the ironing, nor am I masculine because I kill and skin things and am the bread winner.
Some cultures would identify the former traits as feminine and the latter as masculine. Whether they make you one or the other, or whether such a culture judges you as one or the other (or doesn't at all), is subjective. That does not mean that such labels do not exist.

Gender is just that; a label. Biological sex does play a part for many and probably most people. But it is not sole determining factor for all people, and for some it is not a factor at all (such as with Skeptical Mystic's example of intersexed people).

John Galt wrote:
I don't see why a person would be one or the other or why this crap matters. That is a bunch of nonsense, much like the idea of "gender" in the first place. There are males, and then there are females. I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to accept the fact that men and women are the only two sexes that exist.

Of course men and women are the only two sexes who exist as far as biology is concerned. No one is disputing that. This is fixed, unchanging, and has been so since the dawn of humanity.

But gender is seperate (though not completely so) from sex. Gender is a label, a way that people identify themselves and are identified by others. The reason that it matters is because identity is very important to people, regardless of whether it is gender identity or any other type. Being denied rights solely because of one's identity is an injustice.

[Tracker]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Tracker wrote: The problem in our communication here is using like-terms with multiple definitions. Firstly, our LAWS regard 'gender-discrimination' to mean what is PHYSICALLY your body. That means, whether or not your have a penis (gender type-A), a vagina (gender type-B), neither (gender-type-C), either (gender-type-D).
Actually, I'd have to say that most laws only deal with male/female, not the exceptions. That's a failure of the law, not of people's physical sex.

Quote: SEX, on the other hand, is what you do with your physical gender. Sex is sex. Anybody can do it. It is an ACT ... not a physical-form.
It is actually defined (and I mean by way of accepted usage) as either one - your physical sex (which I have already acknowledged is sometimes used synonymously with 'gender'), or the act of sexual intercourse.

Quote: SEXUAL-ORIENTATION is what types of sex-ACTS you engage your physical-gender WITH.
NO IT IS NOT!!!

This drives me insane. Sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as sexual behavior. The behavior doesn't determine one's orientation. In fact, they don't necessarily always match. 'Sexual orientation' is a matter of which gender/sex one finds most strongly attractive.

Quote: "Gender Identity" is the psychological study of sexual-orientation "the use of your physical-gender while engaging in sexual-acts and how that relates to your human-existence and interpersonal relationships."
Link? Sexual orientation certainly may be the focus of some gender identity studies, but not all of them. It encompasses a lot more than just sexual orientation.

Quote: These are also the definitions used by all religions. Therefore, LAW and IDEALOGY argree. The only one's whom do not, are a few posters here in this forum, quoting text-books written by those whom didn't consult with either LAW or IDEOLOGISTS before writing their reports.
:rotf: Now you're just making s**t up!

Quote: SM >>> again, your posts are highly contradictory -- (the words, I don't know you as a person or whom you are -- just the words on the screen) -- and when pointing out these contradictions, you resort to accusations of 'personal attacks.'
Oh, please - it definitely was a personal attack. Not only that, it was an attack based on a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote because you inferred things that weren't intended.

Am I debating with "LearnToSwim" again? :lol: We went round-n-round in this same fashion once.

I do not engage in personal-attacks, SkepticalMystic. There are no personal-attacks in any of my posts AT ALL. Please stop saying that or PROVE IT.

Religion and LAW's use of 'sex' and 'gender' are quite clear and well known facts. If you'd like me to provide a link to 'family values' websites, well, google it yourself, then spend a dozen days or so reviewing law libraries. I just gave my honest opinion -- an REDUX -- of infinite reasonable sounding stupid s**t (IRSSS) -- that is the commonly accepted summary.

Now the part where you said 'sexual orientation' has nothing to do with your sexual-behaviors, that is a fascinating position for you to take. Would you please explain that more? How could that be? You said it drives you insane -- so it must be a big issue with you. Please explain.

And please remember, these are words on the screen -- I don't know you personally -- I have no idea who you are or what you do or where you live or anything about you -- and we all type contradictory things from time-to-time. If I've addressed some crap on the screen poorly, or misinterpreted, well, clarifications are easy. I'm a very easy-going person. So it doesn't mean I am judging you as a person or vice versa. And all of our opinions EVOLVE.

How we discuss things on-screen, making judgments or not on a personal basis, is reflective of our interpersonal relationship skills, too -- regardless of words used or 'presentation' or 'tone' or 'appearances' or 'stupid s**t' or not. And I say lots of stupid s**t -- sometimes unintentionally, usually ... sometimes not. Kindness helps everyone instead of knee-jerking hateful excuses to 'never talk to someone' again over misunderstood words. Otherwise, wars and fights are concocted.

Anyway, please explain/clarify your position on 'sexual orientation' not having anything to do with sexual-behavior. I've never heard anybody dispute that before. Thank you, and kind regards. Sorry to 'push your buttons.' I am not the kind of person that dislikes someone just because we disagree on something.

[Tracker]

Prole wrote: Of course men and women are the only two sexes who exist as far as biology is concerned. No one is disputing that. This is fixed, unchanging, and has been so since the dawn of humanity.

That is invalid, Prole. Biology recognizes those whom are neither 'man' nor 'woman.' Religion does NOT. Law DOES. Biology DOES. That's where the term 'hermaphroditic' comes from, after all, and there are other terms that biology uses for those whom are neither 'male' nor 'female' in comparison to what is commonly observed in 'nature' as being 'male' or 'female.' There are those born with just a pee-hole and butt-hole, afterall, and no 'sex'-hormonal producing 'parts' at all. What 'morals' are attributed to them?

LAW MUST PROTECT THEM AND APPLY TO THEM EQUALLY, TOO. And that is why marriage amendments will FAIL.

[Tracker]

And that is why UNIONs between PEOPLE, now called 'marriage,' are hatefully discriminatory towards other intelligent species. THERE ARE AND WILL BE MORE. (no, I'm human) :lol:

[Prole]

Tracker wrote: Prole wrote: Of course men and women are the only two sexes who exist as far as biology is concerned. No one is disputing that. This is fixed, unchanging, and has been so since the dawn of humanity.

That is invalid, Prole. Biology recognizes those whom are neither 'man' nor 'woman.' Religion does NOT. Law DOES. Biology DOES. That's where the term 'hermaphroditic' comes from, after all, and there are other terms that biology uses for those whom are neither 'male' nor 'female' in comparison to what is commonly observed in 'nature' as being 'male' or 'female.' There are those born with just a pee-hole and butt-hole, afterall, and no 'sex'-hormonal producing 'parts' at all. What 'morals' are attributed to them?

Allow me to clarify; within the human race, there have been two distinct sexes since the dawn of humanity. The way of classifying sex is the presence of a "Y" chromosome or an "X" chromosome being paired with the other "X" chromosome. Physical attributes do not dictate sex; it is (usually) the other way around. This is, as your rightly point out, only true in humans, however.

[OT]
Thinking about it though, now, I do remember hearing something about double "Y" chromosome humans. I don't exactly see how this is possible (where is the second Y chromosome going to come from?) and it seems doubtful that the offspring would be viable, but it's interesting nonetheless.
[/OT]

[Enoch]

Prole wrote: Allow me to clarify; within the human race, there have been two distinct sexes since the dawn of humanity. The way of classifying sex is the presence of a "Y" chromosome or an "X" chromosome being paired with the other "X" chromosome. Physical attributes do not dictate sex; it is (usually) the other way around. This is, as your rightly point out, only true in humans, however.

[OT]
Thinking about it though, now, I do remember hearing something about double "Y" chromosome humans. I don't exactly see how this is possible (where is the second Y chromosome going to come from?) and it seems doubtful that the offspring would be viable, but it's interesting nonetheless.
[/OT]

Actually, it is possible to be born with two Y chromosomes, but it is paired with an X chromosome. YY is not a possibility, as any children who begin to develop without an X die quickly as a fetus and do not develop to the point of viable birth.

However, according to Webmd:

Quote: XYY syndrome is a rare chromosomal disorder that affects males. It is caused by the presence of an extra Y chromosome. Males normally have one X and one Y chromosome. However, individuals with this syndrome have one X and two Y chromosome. Affected individuals are usually very tall and thin. Many experience severe acne during adolescence. Additional symptoms may include antisocial or behavioral problems and learning disabilities. Intelligence is usually normal, although IQ, on average, is 10 to 15 points lower than siblings.

WebMD - XYY Syndrome