LGBTI?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

To be fair, call me prejudiced, call me old-fashioned, but when you have someone (a hypothetical example mind you)...

...who was physically born a man, but feels he is actually a woman, who is attracted to other women, well... At that point I throw in the towel and give up. I don't believe you, I don't acknowledge that to be real or true in any subjective or objective sense. Doesn't mean you can't "be" who you want to be/think you are. It's your life, you're not hurting me with it.

...but please, all these different categories are getting ridiculous. A shit is a shit, despite poop coming in different forms and shapes. We're all just humans, and we all just want to bone someone/something. Isn't that realisation enough?

-Edit-

The cold harsh point being that I personally think that a male who surgically "transforms" himself into a woman, is ultimately still a man.

I accept your right/desire to "become who you are", but don't expect me to accept your categorization of the world. In turn, I don't expect you to accept mine. Tolerance, people!

I take back everything I said. I was wrong; other posters were right. I'm sorry for any offence caused.

Now I need to stop procrastinating on my uni work and never come back to this Satan-spawned thread!

Thanks and goodnight!

image

Spinozaad:
To be fair, call me prejudiced, call me old-fashioned, but when you have someone (a hypothetical example mind you)...

...who was physically born a man, but feels he is actually a woman, who is attracted to other women, well... At that point I throw in the towel and give up. I don't believe you, I don't acknowledge that to be real or true in any subjective or objective sense. Doesn't mean you can't "be" who you want to be/think you are. It's your life, you're not hurting me with it.

...but please, all these different categories are getting ridiculous. A shit is a shit, despite poop coming in different forms and shapes. We're all just humans, and we all just want to bone someone/something. Isn't that realisation enough?

-Edit-

The cold harsh point being that I personally think that a male who surgically "transforms" himself into a woman, is ultimately still a man.

I accept your right/desire to "become who you are", but don't expect me to accept your categorization of the world. In turn, I don't expect you to accept mine. Tolerance, people!

So let's clear this up shall we?

"I don't understand you, therefore you do not exist!"

"Stop complicating my simplistic understanding of the world!"

"I don't believe that which contradicts my understanding of the world, therefore I am going to force my understanding on you instead, whether you like it or not."

Medical science disagrees with you, mate. Transgendered people in Canada and the US both have to prove to doctors that gender related issues have a great psychological toll on the individual in question, well before any surgery or hormone therapy can be approved. It is not a simple manner that one can dismiss as 'not true' merely because one is unable to comprehend it. When it comes to behaviour and variance, especially with humans, there is no such thing as 'simple'.

The labels are there for descriptive purposes, not to define a person in their entire being. If you are defining people with them as such, as though people can only be fit into categories if they attempt to use something to describe themselves with, then you are simply misusing language and conflating reality with your confusion. It is easier to say that I am asexual than it is to explain why I have no particular built-in inclination, something that I cannot help, for desiring sex with anyone of any gender. Does that mean I am purporting myself to be some stereotype like Sheldon Cooper off of the Big Bang Theory? Or that I am trying to cover up some sort of inadequacy? Not at all. To describe my sexuality is no different than me describing my hair colour as blonde, or saying my favourite food is vegetarian fresh rolls with peanut sauce. Some descriptions of others are going to be longer, depending on the context and how much detail there might be intertwined. Sexuality is anything but simple, and if we have to use a number of words to adequately convey the reality of the situation, so be it. It is much better to have a large number of descriptors that paint a more accurate picture than it is to distort reality by forcing everything to adhere to a few.

If there is a problem with defining people with labels, then it lies with those very same people who do not understand that the labels are mere descriptors for convenience-sake, not categories to 'fit people into boxes'. Language does not have to be simplified to avoid such conflicts; rather, people need to step back and take a good look at their own manner of perceiving things.

Hap2:

Spinozaad:
snip

So let's clear this up shall we?

"I don't understand you, therefore you do not exist!"

"Stop complicating my simplistic understanding of the world!"

"I don't believe that which contradicts my understanding of the world, therefore I am going to force my understanding on you instead, whether you like it or not."

You forgot:

"Be tolerant of my intolerance!"

Darken12:
Oh, sorry, I thought you were serious. Poe's Law and all that.

Well, I'll try to give you the best explanation I can:

Gender constructs and gender roles are arbitrary. They aren't biological, they are entirely made up by society and sustained by cultural inertia and traditionalism. Men are taught and pressured to be manly, and what constitutes as manliness varies from culture to culture and generation to generation, but it is always a list of traits and behaviours that all men are taught to strive for. Women, too, are taught to strive to be womanly. People are also taught to police each other's masculinity and femininity. Men are taught to mock and denigrate men who are not sufficiently manly or who are less manly than them, and women are taught to do the same with women who are less feminine than them or do not meet standards of femininity.

Some people do not agree with the message they are taught by society. They do not identify as the gender they are born in, and instead identify with the physical appearance, traits and behaviours of the opposite gender. These people are transgendered/transexuals, and most of them do believe in upholding traditional gender constructs- they just identify with the opposite gender they were born as.

Other people do not identify with either gender, and instead identify with either both genders simultaneously or with neither. These people are usually against traditional gender constructs, as they feel a very strong social pressure to conform to the gender they were born as, just like trans people, but they do not have the option of "passing" for either gender, which is an option that trans people do have (and often strive for). These people want to be allowed to be androgynous, agendered, third-gendered or whatever gender identity they identify as, but they are constantly policed by society, who sees them as a threat to the established gender constructs (because gender constructs are a tool of oppression, so without gender roles, it becomes very hard to convince men that risking their lives for the country is manly, or that women are supposed to be physically weak to be attractive, for example).

Does that help any?

When I say I don't understand it's not that I don't know what it's about, it's more that I can't see things from their perspective as I have nothing comparable in my own life. I guess maybe discovering that I loved leather and metal rather than pretending to like rap and tracksuits might be somewhat similar if on a completely different scale...

I must say I disagree with gender constructs as a tool of oppression, or at least I disagree with that being their original intention or purpose. (I'm going to include a disclaimer here that I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean by gender construct while I attempt to crawl across this minefield with two broken legs and one arm.) The idea of the male as the protector and the female as the child bearer probably originated as a primal thing necessary for the continuation of the species while we were still at threat from predators. Considering the rather slow rate at which humans produce offspring it would have been necessary for the males to protect the females while they were pregnant and vulnerable so as to preserve the continuation of the pack/tribe/whatever.

I'm not sure. I've never felt pressured to act a certain way because I'm biologically male but that doesn't mean others haven't. It's a large and complex issue that I don't really know where I fit into.

You know what I don't understand? People who don't understand transsexuality. First, you need to understand the difference between gender and sex. For transgendered people, the gender (mind) and sex (body) are opposites of each other. They're not doing it for attention or to make themselves feel "special"; it's a genuine condition named "gender dysphoria" (I think it used to be called "gender identity disorder".

I watched this teenage trans boy (I think it was some kid from Cumbria) go onto a talk show tearfully attempting to persuade his parents to let him do surgery (or hormones; I can't remember), but they were refusing - for better reasons that others, to be fair (the father had heard of numerous people that'd undergone surgery, regretted it, and been unable to go back) - but refusing nonetheless. And you could see the emotion in his face, his eyes. He can't have been faking it. Why would he? He has nothing to gain by faking it, by pleading his parents on national television to let him become who he'd always wanted to be.

I can comprehend this, and I'm neither gay nor transgender, but I have one of the most important assets to humanity: empathy. I've had my friends try to deny my OCD for no other reason than "You don't do all the clean stuff as those people do, therefore you're just being weird". So why can I understand this, but others can't? None of you can know what other people feel in their bodies. You're not them, are you? You can't just smugly say, "You can do whatever you want to your own body, but don't expect me to tolerate your wishes - I'll still be thinking of you as another gender behind your back!", when you take for granted the fact that you were luckily born with the same gender and sex, therefore you've never been pressured to conform accordingly to whatever arbitrary gender guidelines have been set out before your birth into this society.

In a nutshell...it's not your body, so don't assume that you know everything there is to know about it, when you're not them. You're not even a psychologist.

Techno Squidgy:
I must say I disagree with gender constructs as a tool of oppression, or at least I disagree with that being their original intention or purpose. (I'm going to include a disclaimer here that I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean by gender construct while I attempt to crawl across this minefield with two broken legs and one arm.) The idea of the male as the protector and the female as the child bearer probably originated as a primal thing necessary for the continuation of the species while we were still at threat from predators. Considering the rather slow rate at which humans produce offspring it would have been necessary for the males to protect the females while they were pregnant and vulnerable so as to preserve the continuation of the pack/tribe/whatever.

I'm not sure. I've never felt pressured to act a certain way because I'm biologically male but that doesn't mean others haven't. It's a large and complex issue that I don't really know where I fit into.

Uh, no, not really. Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves while pregnant, particularly in the early stages where being with child doesn't really impair a woman in the slightest (in fact, in the last few days before giving birth, women often get a rush of energy and activity). In fact, there are many anthropological studies that report different tribes giving men and women different roles (such as one tribe giving basket-weaving to men while another gives it to women, one tribe giving agriculture and housekeeping to men and another giving them to women, and so on).

If you ask me, the origin of oppression began with segregation. When men and women were segregated to be socialised differently (out of biological reasons, yes, but it was completely unnecessary), and the different socialisation led to both genders being unable to understand each other because each was being taught things that the other had no clue about. And since fear of the unknown is the strongest fear, men felt the need to control women, because they were unknown, and that made them dangerous. This rationale is also observed racially. A lot of races warred with, enslaved and killed other races because they saw them as different and unknown.

A man will trust another man from the same race/tribe because they were both socialised in the same way. They both engage in the same tasks and are often physically placed in the same areas. That man will not trust a woman of his own race or a man of another race (and much less a woman of another race), because he doesn't know them. He doesn't know what they think, what they value, what they do, what they've been taught, and so on.

This is why gender roles are oppressive, because they are used as tools to segregate and indoctrinate. A woman who is socialised differently (and even today women are socialised differently than men) is always going to be an unknown to a man, because society has given a discourse that isn't the same as the one it's given women. This is the root of all those "I can't understand women!" and "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus!" things you hear so often. The idea that both genders are irreparably different and must always be apart is the main reason there is still oppression to this day.

That's also why trans and genderqueer people get a lot of flak from pretty much all aspects of society, because refusing to conform to the gender role society assigns to you at birth undermines the necessity of those gender roles. And if those gender roles aren't necessary, then the entire system of oppression built upon them crumbles down.

Hap2:

Snip.

I really don't give a rat's arse, really. However you chose to define yourself is your business. To me, ultimately, you're a human being.

If people go to great complicated lengths to define their sexuality, go ahead. Don't expect me to applaud it. People think they're born in the wrong body and feel like they're of the opposite sex, and want to change this to surgery? Go ahead, if it makes you happy; more power to you.

To me, you're ultimately still your original sex. But in this case, who cares what I think? Again, if that's what these people want; more power to them and I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their bodies. It's just that I frown my brows and move on with my life.

boots:

[quote="Hap2" post="18.401421.16560880"]
You forgot:

"Be tolerant of my intolerance!"

Quite the contrary. Tolerance is the willingness to allow and/or accept things you disagree with, you dislike or are not (willing) to understand, because you acknowledge that even some asshat is still a human being. It's not the same as love, a positive attitude towards or a benign indifference to all living things.

bananafishtoday:

My bad, imprecise word choice. What I meant to communicate was more like "deviation from the norm." One side wishes to establish and promote a set of behaviors/appearances/etc that can be accepted by society as "normal" (generally embracing the nuclear family and demanding gender conformity.) The other side argues that the marginalization of those with more "deviant" behaviors/appearances just to benefit those willing to "normalize" is unjust (and that "true" acceptance even for "normalized" individuals is impossible anyway without broader changes to society.)
Basically, assimilationists vs. activists. "Queer" has a lot of sociopolitical connotations within the community.

Imprecise choice of words, maybe. But (and again I should probably stress I'm not ranting at you nor angry at you) the thing is, there's also this politically correct prejudice on the word "normal", as if to say that labelling anything as normal is a bad thing.

What I'd like to see, and maybe this is completely unrealistic, is the day when we all just stop being afraid of people who aren't like us, and shed our own guilt about it too. I don't see why we can't call a majority position "normal" without the inference that "abnormal" or "different" are bad things. Do heterosexual people make up the majority of people on Earth? S'far as I know, yes. Is heterosexual "normal" as far as almost the whole animal kingdom? Seems so.

Does that view imply in any way that non-heterosexual people or animals are in any way worse? It shouldn't.

azukar:
What I'd like to see, and maybe this is completely unrealistic, is the day when we all just stop being afraid of people who aren't like us, and shed our own guilt about it too. I don't see why we can't call a majority position "normal" without the inference that "abnormal" or "different" are bad things.

Oh, I completely agree with you on this. If I were to try and sum up the queer side of the argument in a pithy slogan, it'd prolly go like, "Yes, we're different. If you don't like it, fuck you."

Queer activism by and large embraces abnormality and seeks to make the spectrum of human sexuality and gender identity visible and acceptable to the general pop. This necessarily entails challenging and fighting back against a variety of oppressive ideas and institutions within society.

Homonormative assimilation accepts the prejudice against the abnormal. Folks adhering to this view are more interested in codifying and enforcing a set of behaviors and appearances for members of the LGBT community that the similarly prejudiced general pop can accept as normal. Those who are willing and able to conform to this ideal will do quite well for themselves within this paradigm, while those who are not or cannot can kick rocks.

I'm in the former camp.

Techno Squidgy:
The idea of the male as the protector and the female as the child bearer probably originated as a primal thing necessary for the continuation of the species while we were still at threat from predators. Considering the rather slow rate at which humans produce offspring it would have been necessary for the males to protect the females while they were pregnant and vulnerable so as to preserve the continuation of the pack/tribe/whatever.

On the contrary, these roles originated as a way to limit population. The biggest problem that hunter-gatherer societies faced was availability of resources. Tribes/groups had no way to increase their land's carrying capacity, so population levels needed to be relatively stable. Infant/child mortality was incredibly high compared to what it is in modern societies, but mortality dropped off immensely every year the kid remained alive. (The whole "average life expectancy of 30" thing is very misleading, since it averages in a large number of infant/child deaths.) And all it takes is two children who grow up to have two children apiece to achieve the replacement rate.

According to this paper, which surveyed extant pre-industrial civs:

On average 57 percent, 64 percent, and 67 percent of children born survive to age 15 years among hunter-gatherers, forager-horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers. Of those who reach age 15, 64 percent of traditional hunter-gatherers and 61 percent of forager-horticulturalists reach age 45. The acculturated hunter-gatherers show lower
young adult mortality rates, with 79 percent surviving to age 45, conditional on reaching age 15.

So if we lowball it and say 50% of children live long enough to reproduce, the average woman only needs to be pregnant for 36 months (3 years) of her life.

The actual reason women in these societies didn't do all the same jobs as men (specifically big-game hunting) was family planning. A woman who nurses and stays with her child can remain infertile anywhere from 1 to 3 years after giving birth (lactational amenorrhea.)

Considering how... reluctant, to say the least, people are to be all, "You're right, it would be illogical for us to have sex," it's pretty much the best way to limit population in hunter-gatherer societies that would quickly outstrip their resources and collapse were they to reproduce unchecked. (Incidentally, this illustrates beautifully why the abstinence-only sex-ed crowd is so dumb.)

Techno Squidgy:
I'm not sure. I've never felt pressured to act a certain way because I'm biologically male but that doesn't mean others haven't. It's a large and complex issue that I don't really know where I fit into.

Consider the incredible pressure put on boys and men to reject anything stereotypically feminine. Consider how readily boys and men who engage in behavior, wear clothes/makeup/hairstyles, pursue hobbies or professions, or consume media that are seen as "feminine" are denigrated as sissies, girly, faggy, bitches, or pussies. There is incredible social pressure put on all boys and men to conform to gender roles.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked