Political Crossfire Forums

Tracker · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: UNIONS -- AGAIN

I'm going to touch on some very touchy subjects. This is not to be 'offensive,' because people use words and subjects and smells and clotches and all kinds of things to loft themselves on 'victim-pity-me-stages' to project hate, shaming/blaming and hammering away, figurative carpentry, nailing others ruthlessly to the MercilessCrossOfShame in their so-called 'goodness.'

You see, there are people that live together, in 'alternative relationships.' They love each other. Sometimes two women and man. Sometimes two men and a woman. Sometimes, a combination of assorted genders. Sometimes, other genders entirely (there are more than two).

And they all love each other. And care for one another. And what they do with their crotches, or if they use them AT ALL, is NOT the issue, unless you are a PERVERT that wants to control and know what everybody ELSE does in the privacy of their own bedrooms. If so, put a 24/7 video-link to the internet online and prove your 'standards' are liveable, or STFU.

Who has the right to put conditions on the love shared within these families? And now we have touched upon the exact ROOT of hateful jealousy -- because those whom want to put conditions on that love are jealously DENYING love, formulating hate-groups to pass laws against it, and forcing cops and government in the middle of their own HatefulReligiousSupremacy.

And the first sound-bite response from the hateful is, "i'm worried about the children -- it's about the children -- we cry about the children."

The problem there is that this is an EXCUSE to HATE, and jealously DENY other people the freedom to unconditional love. Because what happens is, they concoct an environment where those kids are MISERABLE along with the parents, to ENSURE that their own 'conditional love' is MANDATED and FOLLOWED goose-step, in lock-step, or make others' unconditional-love MISERABLE on purpose, merely to say, "see, we told you so."

I have written Government on the meaning of the term 'marriage,' a religious sanctioned word and conditional-loving arrangement, which is far removed from the word, "UNION," which is DEFINED in the Constitution itself. In one of my online-blogs, OnMath, in entry number "Day10", I have discussed what a 'UNION" is EXACTLY.

(I also published the discussion of 'unions/marriages' as an article, but I just did a quick google search and could not find it -- which is strange).

ATTENTION: government is IMPROVED by registering relationship and familial situations, and protecting them in all forms. A UNION-tax, license-fee, whatever, is your SECURITY from hateful, jealous crotch-examining perverts, "CrotchWorshipers."

The more adults in the home raising a child, sharing their love and WISDOM and EXPERIENCES, the better for that child. Only religion makes them MISERABLE, kids and parents alike.

And don' forget, VOTE ME.

PS> Now, will someone please help me find Marcus? Please?

Thank you and Kind Regards, ALWAYS.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5400 Location: Fulton, Ks

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: ...wait... ah ha ha..wait.. ha ha... woo, this was supposed to be this funny right?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20599 Location: Minnesota

I would suspect that being raped by Micheal Jackson, or being poor and hungry, or being buried in a mudslide, would make achild far more "miserable" than religion. Other than that the reason why marriage has been the way it is is because there is two sexes and no, there are no "other genders" than male or female. As for the rest of it, I do not understand what you are talking about. Yes I understand that there are people who live in (not just experience) the house of three, or more. There are also women living under Mormon and Muslim subservance to men and become objectified far more than anything the media in this country supposedly does. What about them? There is a reason polygamy was outlawed, "now and forever."

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

The Underground wrote: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: ...wait... ah ha ha..wait.. ha ha... woo, this was supposed to be this funny right?
Don't make me slap you, Tracker has many wonderful points in his post...

Addison · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 126

Is this topic a joke?

If so, I don't get it.

"There are more genders than just two"

There are hermaphrodites, I guess, but what else?

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5400 Location: Fulton, Ks

Helena` wrote: The Underground wrote: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: ...wait... ah ha ha..wait.. ha ha... woo, this was supposed to be this funny right?
Don't make me slap you, Tracker has many wonderful points in his post...

I'm sorry but how can you take a post that calls people "jealous crotch worshipers seriously?

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:27 am Post subject:

Addison wrote: Is this topic a joke?

If so, I don't get it.

"There are more genders than just two"

There are hermaphrodites, I guess, but what else?
No, there aren't any hermaphrodites. It's an inaccurate term and considered a slur by some intersexed people.

'Sex' and 'gender' are oftentimes used synonymously, but we should perhaps separate them. 'Sex' refers to the physical aspects that create a division between males and females. 'gender' might be considered more a combination of biological and psychological factors - creating a type that expresses varying degress of masculinity/femininity. This is not a wholly inaccurate representation of their etymology, as well. 'Sex' is usually divided between males and females, with the exception of intersexed persons. 'Gender' on the other hand might be seen as more of a continuum. On one end of the spectrum you have hyper-masculine men. Toward the middle you would have rather masculine women and effeminate men, and on the other end, very hyper-feminine women.

Unfortunately, our society seems to be stuck in the idea the males are supposed to be very masculine and females are supposed to be very feminine, such that people who are more toward the middle of the spectrum are made to feel that their expression of their gender is inadequate or unacceptable. It's like being a poorly cast actor in a role your don't really fit. The more you try to act the part, the more obvious it is that you aren't what you're trying to be.

Back to the actual topic:

Etymologies:

marriage
1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).

marry (v.)
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

union
1410, "action of joining one thing to another," from O.Fr. union (12c.), from L.L. unionem (nom. unio) "oneness, unity, a uniting," also in L. meaning "a single pearl or onion," from unus "one," from PIE *oinos (see one). Sense of "action of uniting into one political body" is attested from 1547. Meaning "group of people or states" is from 1660.

----

So the word 'marriage' seems specifically based on the idea of a man having been given a woman (*mari) as his wife - a 'married man' is literally a 'womaned man'. So what we have in the word 'marriage' is a reflection of a cultural concept - that a woman could be 'given' to a man, as if she were property.

But does this really mean that 'marriage' is strictly a male/female relationship? Not exactly. Etymology only provides us with the history of the word; it doesn't necessarily tell us a lot about its meaning today. In American culture, we have mostly ceased to view a marriage as the transfer of 'property' and have instead framed our idea of it around the concept of two people uniting to form a singular family unit together - a 'marital union'.

And so, Tracker is at least partially on the right track (so to speak, pun intended). To us, a marriage is a union; a very specific type of union. The question becomes whether or not the quality of one's sex is integral to the definition of that union.

I say it is not. People unite in marriage to form a family unit, to share resources and to support each other in various ways. It is not the sex of the participants that distinguishes this arrangement from that of other people just living together. It is the formal declaration and making of a commitment to stay together; elements that make it contractual in nature. Sex has nothing really to do with it. (nor procreation, as some are fond of arguing).

It isn't hard for us to recognize two people as being 'a couple'. But how do we know when they're more than just a couple, and should be recognized as a married couple? It is by their making the formal declaration of their marital contract, giving it a legal status; or by the formal blessing of that union giving it religious status.

I am quite willing to let religions do as they will on the question, restricting it as they please. I am not willing to let the status quo remain wherein secular government grants legal status only to certain marriages when it has no compelling reason to deny others.

Addison · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 126

There aren't hermaphrodites?

I know a bit about mythology, and Hermaphrodite was the son/daughter of Hermes and Aphrodite and "had the joy of being both sexes."

From this we get the term "hermaphrodite" which is a case of "ovatestis."
http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-025.htm
Read more here.

Tracker · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:15 am Post subject:

SkepticalMystic wrote: And so, Tracker is at least partially on the right track (so to speak, pun intended).

:lol:

SkepticalMystic wrote: To us, a marriage is a union; a very specific type of union. The question becomes whether or not the quality of one's sex is integral to the definition of that union.

A religious union, 'marriage,' in violation of 'separation between church and state.'

JealousUnderground wrote: I'm sorry but how can you take a post that calls people "jealous crotch worshipers seriously?

Maybe it's something to do with your Username? :lol:

Actually, I'm talking about 'marital-status-discrimination.' People are so jealous of their special-interest marital-status, they REVERSE DISCRIMINATE, using it as a WEAPON against all others. The first you are asked when you walk into a new work environment, is, most often, "so, are you married?" (I know personally) And it's discriminatory. A violation of law. And a single person feels violated. And someone in an alternative-relationship of any nature, has their peace-of-mind molested. And that's why we have that law, exactly, to prevent exactly that type of discrimination.

Helena wrote: Don't make me slap you, Tracker has many wonderful points in his post...

Thank you, Helena. :)

Addison wrote: There are hermaphrodites, I guess, but what else?

Well, in SkepticalMystics posts, s/he said that gender is a 'spectrum' where the 'center' is 'affeminate men' and 'butch women.' This is a stereotype, and the next paragraph disputes it. There are people with no gender at all, nor the mechanisms to produce those hormones. This is usually the result of surgical butchery, but some occur AS IS, just the way they are. When gender is combined with psychology, behavior, then we see a 'spectrum.' But that spectrum cannot be applied to sexuality, because people that are very comfortable AS IS, such as myself, may be 'too gay' for the 'straight crowd' and 'too straight' for the 'gay crowd.' It just depends on what type of people exist in your current surroundings, because there are no set-in-stone groups. We are TRAINED to goose-step in lock-step with stereotypes -- even when uncomfortable doing so. And this is HARMFUL to all.

=========================

John Galt, what makes you think MichaelJackson raped anyone? Are you jealous? Well, of course not. So let's not hammer Michael ruthlessly to the MercilessCrossOfShame today -- he's still hanging there, actually, all battered and bruised by no fault of his own, nailed up by those perverts CrotchWorshipping Michael Jackson -- and we hear about it so much, that we start spewing sound-bites unawares. Unless, you were a child at one time that was raped by him? I doubt that too.

JohnGalt wrote: There are also women living under Mormon and Muslim subservance to men and become objectified far more than anything the media in this country supposedly does. What about them? There is a reason polygamy was outlawed, "now and forever."

Lumped 'em together. Makes for a difficult response, eh? ;)

They do it anyway, see. Now, those whom consensually make those type of arrangements, have ZERO PROTECTIONS because their lawful participation has been DENIED.

I'll put up this post and offer another -- which is a longer commentary on this same topic.

Tracker · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:18 am Post subject:

So, I have fallen in love a few times. But I've spent the majority of my life celibate.

Even while living with someone for a decade. And I was trained to be ashamed of my love. And every love I've experienced (sex not a factor), uplifted me.

And I fell in love with a woman. And I love them both. Sex had nothing to do with it. But we are all trained to be hateful and jealous. Religion did that -- does it to everyone. You see, relationships are about love, any form of 'sex' is an 'eye-blink' and may have nothing to do with it. If the two are confused, love and sex, then every form of domestic-fallouts, jealous hatreds, violence, even murders, stem from here, EXACTLY, and it's a BLIGHT on society. I'm not suggesting that a couple start 'fooling around' with others. That is your own hateful programming -- brainwashing -- teaching you that any form of 'sex' is done behind the backs of your partner in 'affairs', deceitful and horrible lies -- all of it. But there are loving-relationships that do not involve sex AT ALL. And there are loviing-relationships where one or the other or both have 'sexual-encounters' with others. And everything in-between. Always has been. And it's nobody's business, as long as it's not lied about in a hateful, deceitful manner. Maybe not your relationship, -- but some do, and you KNOW this.

That is why mature-love, distanced from lust, doesn't end if a sexual-encounter is experienced by one or the other in a relationship. That is why we all love Hillary Clinton. She is wise. She has set a higher-example for all of us. A jealous-b**** would have lofted herself on a 'victim-stage' and screamed bloody-murder, harming her kids and all others, herself included. We don't know if Bill lied to her or not and it's really nobody's business. HatefulReligiousSupremacy FORCED perverse CrotchANALysis into all of our faces, to PROFIT from the Clintons.

And that's what religion does to all others.

A UNION is not written in stone with defined-penalties for that reason. Because they EVOLVE.
A UNION exists in many forms, and protecting equality FROM religious-marriage-status-discrimination STRENGTHENS all families in all nations.
A UNION between PEOPLE is about being protected from exactly the same marriage-status-discrimination that is amended to the Constitution via ACT of Congress.

A 'gay person' cannot get 'security clearance' to visit a head-of-state because they are considered a 'threat' due to POSSIBLE 'disease contamination?' HATEFUL_STEREOTYPE
A person that once used anti-depressents is considered a 'threat' in the same fashion? HATEFUL_STEREOTYPE

These are in violation of the Constitution itself. And so is religious-marital-status-discrimination.

So, there are people that love each other and sex has nothing to do with it -- but they are denied 'pursuit of happiness' by HatefulReligiousSupremacy.

A UNION between PEOPLE is about PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Only religion HATES that and puts conditions on their love.

Personally, I've always loved Marcus McKibben and was TRAINED to be ashamed of it. We weren't even sexual. We just had a great relationship, ups and downs. He thinks he made me miserable. WRONG. HatefulReligiousSupremacy did. People TOLD me I was 'gay' so I just say I am -- sometimes -- just to see what people say about it. I'm just ME. FORCED, brainwashed into being ASHAMED of my LOVE. Now, I can't even find him to tell him I finally figured all that out (he knew most of it, but didn't understand because I said all the WRONG THINGS -- we all do in these situations). I should have a life-UNION with him, because half of everything I own I feel is his -- or should be -- not to sound like a 'bribe' to 'entice' him back into my life -- and if I experienced OnLove right now with a certain female that's always on my mind, or found out I had a child nobody told me about (none I'm aware), things would change -- but I'd be dead without Marcus' love uplifting me in LIFE, through thick and thin. I owe it to him. I'd share it anyway. Anytime. We still have beloved pets we raised together, although two are now dead. One is still THRIVING: Rama. Rah-ma-ma-ma-maaahhh (from a motorcycle in a Rainier Beer tv-advertisement -- the sound a motorcycle makes -- get it? :lol: ). And that cat is now a Teenager. RamaOnEarth.

Too 'straight' for the 'gay-crowd' and too 'gay' for the 'straight-crowd.' Hmmm ... JUST FINE ... FAIR AND BALANCED. Only the brainwashed HATE it.

Since, I would have formulated new UNIONS with women I've met, but they didn't work out. If you get a divorce, or break up with someone, does that mean you are 'gay'? If you have sex with a man, then sex with a woman, on WHICH DAY were you 'gay'? If you are in a male-female relationship, and the female has a girlfriend, and the male is fine with that, whose concern is it? Why are you focused on sex? Maybe sex has nothing to do with it. Are you a pervert? A molestive CrotchPsychologist? WTF is YOUR problem? Your concocted excuses to FORCE government to wage-war at great expense against BelovedNeighbors is preventing funds for research to relieve GRIEF and MISERY and CURES to all, even kids. You HATE kids?

A UNION is involvement between people that share living together, physically or emotionally, for whatever reason. Only religion HATES it and voodoo-projects HatefulReligiousSupremacy with LABELS of antagonistic anguish associated with 'gay-marriage.' See my article on 'UNION' and you'll wonder why anybody would want it, anyway -- it doesn't work -- because it's a concoction of HatefulReligiousSupremacy, excuses to be 'supremely-marital-status-discriminatory.' (onomonopia! antagonistic anguish associated :lol: )

Either all relationships are 'marraiges' or 'unions' -- take your pick -- but don't deny 'pursuit of happiness' for others, putting conditions on their love, nor deny government much-needed TAXES by selfishly and jealously using your own perverse CrotchPsychology to shame/blame and hammer others ruthlessly to the MercilessCrossOfShame, thusly putting conditions on their love.

A UNION between PEOPLE is the definition of SECURITY, well-being, PeaceOfMind (POM), ensuring encouragement and care. 'Stuff' is entirely seperate from it. That's why some millionaires love paupers and vice versa, and there is no 'pimp my ride' involved AT ALL.

A UNION is a thing of TREASURE, for it is BEAUTY, the sharing of BEYOND-substance. That's where 'pre-nuptual agreements' come from. Because in this hateful-religious-supreme environment, we've all been deceived into StuffWorship as 'higher-priority' than LOVE, which puts just enough conditions on our love to FORCE 'stuff-retaliations,' which is hateful religious 'eye-for-an-eye' VINDICTIVENESS.

I'm proud of my UNION with Marcus McKibben, every second of it. And I'll NEVER DENY IT. And only HatefulReligiousSupremacy RUINED it, confusing everybody in the process.

-- they all denied knowing me. They all lied about how they knew me.

I don't know what UNIONS I'll develop in future -- I like girlfriends, obviously, and wish I had one, but I don't so I remain celebate, but that's just me -- but whatever UNIONS they are, they are TREASURES, and it may be a sex-same UNION, too. I can't predict who may or may not love me, nor whom I may rise to OnLove with, or whether or not sex has anything to do with it AT ALL. But I am monogomous and have had very little sex. No question about that. But that's just me.

And that's why UNIONS are multi-faceted, and denying them to others is HATEFUL, and costs our government a fortune when UNIONS should be helping to LIBERATE the TaxBase.

And this is the SunnyPlatform that treasures the beauty of UNIONS and liberates Unconditional_LOVE, AGAIN for all of us, all of them, all of you, all things.

I've provided bullet-proof protection against hateful 'marriage-amendment' SHAME-legislation -- it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL before it begins, even legislating for it is -- and I fought that battle for all, before HatefulReligiousSupremacists concoct civil-war, AS PLANNED, to DIVIDE and CONQUER, AS USUAL. Now, you know how to be HEALED from the shame/blame cycle. Even if some form of legal quagmire is concocted, it's more PROOF of HatefulReligiousSupremacy -- that religions are perverse HATE, a total DECEPTION -- TERRORISM.

Treasure your loves, unconditionally, and show forgiveness and compassion toward the perverse CrotchWorshipping haters -- they know not what harm they do ... to you ... to all ... to the government UNIONS, and the multiform UNIONS between PEOPLE.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:20 am Post subject:

Addison wrote: There aren't hermaphrodites?

I know a bit about mythology, and Hermaphrodite was the son/daughter of Hermes and Aphrodite and "had the joy of being both sexes."

From this we get the term "hermaphrodite" which is a case of "ovatestis."
http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-025.htm
Read more here.
Don't even try this with me. The conditions experienced by some intersexed people have NOTHING to do with mythological hermaphrodites, which were outwardly half male, half female. In the case of an ovatestis you're talking about something that isn't itself outwardly apparent, and the outwardly apparent physical manifestations that accompany it are a far cry from the classic mythological idea of a hermaphrodite.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5400 Location: Fulton, Ks

Tracker wrote:

JealousUnderground wrote: I'm sorry but how can you take a post that calls people "jealous crotch worshipers seriously?

Maybe it's something to do with your Username? :lol:

Actually, I'm talking about 'marital-status-discrimination.' People are so jealous of their special-interest marital-status, they REVERSE DISCRIMINATE, using it as a WEAPON against all others. The first you are asked when you walk into a new work environment, is, most often, "so, are you married?" (I know personally) And it's discriminatory. A violation of law. And a single person feels violated. And someone in an alternative-relationship of any nature, has their peace-of-mind molested. And that's why we have that law, exactly, to prevent exactly that type of discrimination.

yes, and i thought your post had some good points. Still i can't get over the jealous crotch worshippers thing. :lol:

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:33 am Post subject:

Tracker wrote: Well, in SkepticalMystics posts, s/he said that gender is a 'spectrum' where the 'center' is 'affeminate men' and 'butch women.' This is a stereotype, and the next paragraph disputes it.

There are people with no gender at all, nor the mechanisms to produce those hormones. This is usually the result of surgical butchery, but some occur AS IS, just the way they are.
This is because you have misunderstood what I have said, which was: "'Gender' on the other hand might be seen as more of a continuum. On one end of the spectrum you have hyper-masculine men. Toward the middle you would have rather masculine women and effeminate men, and on the other end, very hyper-feminine women."

I did NOT say these types were in the center. I said they were 'toward the middle', as opposed to being closer to the polar opposites. Certainly, there may be men or women who actually cross the center, to be mistaken for the opposite sex, and people in the actual center who cannot be distinguished as male or female.

I am not speaking about subjective cultural perceptions of what is masculine or feminine behavior, except to illustrate that they ARE subjective and not necessarily strictly male or female behaviors; that not all people experience being male or female in the same way, probably due to differences in biology among males or among females, such that some men wind up being perceived as effeminate or some women as 'butch' because their appearance/behavior is not typical of what we generally associate with being of a particular sex.

Quote: When gender is combined with psychology, behavior, then we see a 'spectrum.'
This is more or less what I was saying, except you're using the term 'gender' where I would say 'sex'; the spectrum is one of gender identity. And don't make the additional mistake of thinking that I mean 'sexuality' when I say 'sex'.

When I speak about 'sex' in this context, I generally mean having male or female sexual organs or one's 'genetic' sex (XX vs. XY chromosomes), recognizing full well that there are people who don't fit neatly into the male/female categories on a physical basis.

Quote: But that spectrum cannot be applied to sexuality, because people that are very comfortable AS IS, such as myself, may be 'too gay' for the 'straight crowd' and 'too straight' for the 'gay crowd.'
On the contrary, a spectrum does apply. You're talking not about the spectrum of sexuality that all people's sexual orientation falls along, but rather people's cultural misperceptions in ignorance of the spectrums. Most people still try to define others as strictly male/female, gay/bi/straight - ignoring the continuums of both gender identity and sexual orientation.

Tracker · Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:29 am Post subject:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Tracker wrote: Well, in SkepticalMystics posts, s/he said that gender is a 'spectrum' where the 'center' is 'affeminate men' and 'butch women.' This is a stereotype, and the next paragraph disputes it.

There are people with no gender at all, nor the mechanisms to produce those hormones. This is usually the result of surgical butchery, but some occur AS IS, just the way they are.
This is because you have misunderstood what I have said, which was: "'Gender' on the other hand might be seen as more of a continuum. On one end of the spectrum you have hyper-masculine men. Toward the middle you would have rather masculine women and effeminate men, and on the other end, very hyper-feminine women."

I did NOT say these types were in the center. I said they were 'toward the middle', as opposed to being closer to the polar opposites. Certainly, there may be men or women who actually cross the center, to be mistaken for the opposite sex, and people in the actual center who cannot be distinguished as male or female.

I am not speaking about subjective cultural perceptions of what is masculine or feminine behavior, except to illustrate that they ARE subjective and not necessarily strictly male or female behaviors; that not all people experience being male or female in the same way, probably due to differences in biology among males or among females, such that some men wind up being perceived as effeminate or some women as 'butch' because their appearance/behavior is not typical of what we generally associate with being of a particular sex.

Quote: When gender is combined with psychology, behavior, then we see a 'spectrum.'
This is more or less what I was saying, except you're using the term 'gender' where I would say 'sex'; the spectrum is one of gender identity. And don't make the additional mistake of thinking that I mean 'sexuality' when I say 'sex'.

When I speak about 'sex' in this context, I generally mean having male or female sexual organs or one's 'genetic' sex (XX vs. XY chromosomes), recognizing full well that there are people who don't fit neatly into the male/female categories on a physical basis.

Quote: But that spectrum cannot be applied to sexuality, because people that are very comfortable AS IS, such as myself, may be 'too gay' for the 'straight crowd' and 'too straight' for the 'gay crowd.'
On the contrary, a spectrum does apply. You're talking not about the spectrum of sexuality that all people's sexual orientation falls along, but rather people's cultural misperceptions in ignorance of the spectrums. Most people still try to define others as strictly male/female, gay/bi/straight - ignoring the continuums of both gender identity and sexual orientation.

Yeah, that's why I put 'and the next paragraph disputes it' in there.

So, in your view, outside of the text-books, 'gender' is physical -- or psychological?

I say it's physical.

You are born a blank-slate. You learn to do whatever with whatever tools you have. Your environment trains you specific 'identities' -- 'cookie-cut' examples -- choose one, and there are many in the 'spectrum' you speak, and always many others to hate you for your choices, concocting problems for far too many, arguably ALL.

Tracker · Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:31 am Post subject:

Well, I didn't word that very well, did I? :lol:

If unclear -- clarifications are simple. It's a great discussion. It's not discussed often enough.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject:

Tracker wrote: So, in your view, outside of the text-books, 'gender' is physical -- or psychological?
In my view, one's gender is the manifestation of an interaction between one's physical sex and psychological identity. But as I intimated before, if you lookup a dictionary definition you're likely going to find it used interchangeably with 'sex'.

Quote: I say it's physical.

You are born a blank-slate.
I disagree. I think the physical influences the psychological. I think whether some personality traits are influenced by genetic or biological factors is also open to debate, but not something that can be proved/disproved satisfactorily at this time.

Quote: You learn to do whatever with whatever tools you have. Your environment trains you specific 'identities' -- 'cookie-cut' examples -- choose one, and there are many in the 'spectrum' you speak, and always many others to hate you for your choices, concocting problems for far too many, arguably ALL.
Again, I disagree. While I think a major portion of our behavior is indeed learned, I wouldn't say all. I also disagree with the use of the word 'choice' regarding these matters, as it implies conscious decision making. I think whatever path one takes is very much influenced by various factors operating in the subconscious. As an example:

If a person chooses to study music and doesn't take an interest in advanced math, that certainly will shape their future identity. So on that level I will agree that our choices do shape our identities. But you need to dig deeper. What influenced this person to choose music studies over pursuing a knowledge of advanced mathematics? Our personalities and their influence on the choices we make depend on something more than prior decision making. They depend at least somewhat on natural aptitudes and personal tastes - things that one cannot prove to result entirely from learned behavior and prior choices.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8469

Helena` wrote: The Underground wrote: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: ...wait... ah ha ha..wait.. ha ha... woo, this was supposed to be this funny right?
Don't make me slap you, Tracker has many wonderful points in his post...

Maybe if he were more easily understood, or wrote more clearly, people wouldn't laugh.

But, to comment on the "gender continuum" debate, it is sociologically accepted that there are six genders: Masculine Male, Androgynous Male, Feminine Male, Masculine Female, Androgynous Female, and Feminine Female.

Tracker, you stated:

Quote: So, in your view, outside of the text-books, 'gender' is physical -- or psychological?

I say it's physical.

That is only half true. Gender is a combination of physical sex (male vs. female) and psychological expressions of said sex (Masculine, Androgynous, Feminine). Gender is both a physical and psychological trait.

Tracker · Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject:

Gender is the tools you are born with. The psychological instructions you LEARN, regarding 'appropriate-use,' is TAUGHT within your environment.

That is why we have terms such as, "SEXUAL ORIENTATION."

When it comes to how to use your 'tools' -- an isolated tribe figures out all sorts of uses.

Only this society concocts IRSSS (infinite reasonable sounding stupid s**t) to turn something so obvious and simple into huge volumes of $billion$-dollar studies.

I express my honest opinions. It's sad that some choose to use expression of evolutionary-opinion as an excuse to hate those whom share them. If the words on the screen, AS TYPED, are unclear, well, clarifications are simple. It says more about the individual scorning the one sharing, than the one being scorned.

Skeptical Mystic, as for the study of TOPIC-A over TOPIC-B, that is a matter of PROPENSITY. Perhaps there is zero for TOPIC-B -- OR, TOPIC-B is so OBVIOUS that further study is superfluous?

What your words imply, is that anyone that chooses one topic over another, ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS, is 'sub-human' to YOU -- 'deficient' -- 'inferior.' And that is nothing more than the expression of HatefulReligiousSupremacy -- be you religious or NOT.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:

Deleted by the poster - because I misinterpreted another poster's response at first. See the next post instead.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject:

Tracker wrote: Skeptical Mystic, as for the study of TOPIC-A over TOPIC-B, that is a matter of PROPENSITY. Perhaps there is zero for TOPIC-B -- OR, TOPIC-B is so OBVIOUS that further study is superfluous?

Is this what you're referring to?

Skeptical Mystic wrote: If a person chooses to study music and doesn't take an interest in advanced math, that certainly will shape their future identity. So on that level I will agree that our choices do shape our identities. But you need to dig deeper. What influenced this person to choose music studies over pursuing a knowledge of advanced mathematics? Our personalities and their influence on the choices we make depend on something more than prior decision making. They depend at least somewhat on natural aptitudes and personal tastes - things that one cannot prove to result entirely from learned behavior and prior choices.

If so, I fail to see how what you're saying refutes my assertion. If anything, it actually supports it.

Quote: What your words imply, is that anyone that chooses one topic over another, ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS, is 'sub-human' to YOU -- 'deficient' -- 'inferior.'
BS. There was nothing in my example that implied the choice of music was superior to advanced math, or vice versa. You're reading something into this that wasn't at all intended. I'm merely saying that while some choices do shape our identity, you need to consider what's behind those choices, and that what's behind it may initially be something that isn't learned but instead natural aptitude or personal tastes.

Try it this way: Person A has a natural talent with regard to music. He learns quickly and with little effort. Person B on the other hand has to really struggle to acquire any musical skill at all - it isn't something that comes naturally to him, it's a chore. Do you think person B is more or less likely than person A to pursue a career in music?

My central point, as before, is that not every trait that shapes our identity is dependent upon some prior choice or social conditioning - some of it is possibly reliant on something else. Whether that something else is bological or genetic or environmental or a combination of more than one of these is something we don't have the scientific capacity to determine at this time.

Quote: And that is nothing more than the expression of HatefulReligiousSupremacy -- be you religious or NOT.
Not this again. Look, just because someone disagrees with you, that isn't automatically an expression of hateful religious supremacy. I thought we were having a thoughtful discussion, but if you're going to turn it into a diatribe on religion or resort to personal attacks then we're done here.