Quote from: Miniar link=topic=108807.msg822719#msg822719
date=1320083795
Unless he's gay. Gay men experience zero arousal from looking at attractive
women. This is one of the ways you're failing to take into account the fact that
non-heterosexual people exist.
Gay still have biological need for seminal release, he may has no interest in
women, but if the object is male, he will perceived the sexual attraction. It is his
male biological mechanism that make him different from gay women (lesbians).
The latter must relied on romantic sentiments, and physical sex is secondary to
romantic elements.
QuoteTwo words, nocternal emissions. That is to say, if one doesn't masterbate,
or have sex, the body will ejaculate on it's own.
Not necessary, it just mean the male will, after a period of sexual abstinate, find
sexual release more explosive due to more accumulation of the seminal fluid, the
pleasure is then amplified by visual stimulation. The latter amplifying element is
what motivate men to seek more than one partner. This is purely a biological
differences that effect their pschological demands.
Quote
Your words.
You are nick picking, and not reading into the meaning.
Also merely citing others' words without inputing your own is pointless, if I'm
going to cut and paste oppositing views from others, then it will again neutralize
their validity, and the last one who cut and paste would win. Such exercise is
pointless. The same applied to so called statistic studies of gender pschological
behaviours, one just have to find opposing statistic studies to neutralize the point
you try to bring up with them. You have to bring up your own valid rationale to
against a view, not due to your attachment to specific words of others regardless of
source. Validity is not due to to something is being said by someone, it is whether
it is sound, reasonable and biologically valid.
Quote
Tell me, what is the meaning of life? Why is there something rather than
nothing? What is knowledge? What is consciousness?
These are all very common philosophical questions. They are aimed at things
which we can never find a solid, provable, demonstrable answer to.
Apparently this is not the place for this type of topic, but it doesn't mean that
there is no solid, provable, demonstrable answer, otherwise why would philosophy
be required in the first place.
Quote
Yes, science requires doubt, but it also requires measurable evidence, "proof",
before anything asserted as scientifically valid is accepted by the scientific
commuinty at all. Philosophy doesn't deal with things that are demonstrable,
measurable, etcetera and therefore it's impossible to assert a philosophical stance
or argument as "truth".
There is no such thing as "truth" in philosophy.
It is over-generalization that there is no truth in philosophy, philosophy may be
just an acedemic game to non-philosophers, but to living philosophers, it is their
parameters for knowledge.
Science is mere libraries of data on past causes and results of experimentation and
practical application in the medical and engineering fields, their combination
which is proven technology. But their existing theories are doubted, and new test
always carried out to fulfil the skeptism. This skeptism component is cause of new
innovation and discovery, without which science will simply stagnant with old
theories, and advancement is not motivated.
Philosophy is a form of science, not science a form of philosophy (or derived from
philosophy). Philosophy concerned reality, existence, mind, and consciousness, so
philosophy is also the science of reality, existence, mind, and consciousness. So
one can say that the science of reality, existence, mind, and consciousness is
philosophy, but that the science of matters (pschology), and physics is not
philosophy. And that this type of science concerned the complex technicalities
that are subjected to changes and continual improvement are non-issue to
philosophy. Philosophy does not concerned the complex (segmented)
technicalities of cause and effect components of physics, but of general (whole)
that is based empirically on the experience of reality, existence, mind, and
consciousness. It employed the devise of logic and words for understanding, after
attaining certainty of the meaning, one incorporates the knowledge (truth) in
one's thinking, this is what being a philosopher is.
Quote
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person
asserting a claim. This means that when you assert, directly or indirectly, that the
simple binary gender mechanism is the unversal parameter that the burden of
proof lies on you to not only demonstrate that gender is binary and simple but
that it also is applicable universally (universal parameter).
Anyone can begin with experimenting with his / her body to demonstrate this
gender binary. For pre-op MTF it is easy to confirm that ejaculation associating
with a sensual visual object would be more intense and satisflying. Even for post-
op MFT with significant past experience as a normal cis-male should be able to
recall the fact. Whereas for women and FTM, they will confirm negatively of
this possibility for visual dependencies and for biologically based orgasm
mechanism. There are others biological and pschological distinctions and are what
constituted the gender division in binary mode. So the burden of prove is in
anyone who wishes to opposed the binary gender distinctions, who wishes to
neutralize it for their own versions.
Quote
But, since you asked so nicely;
Gender taxonomy includes;
* chromosomes (46,XX; 46,XY; 47,XXY ("Klinefelter's syndrome"); 45,X0
("Turner syndrome"); 47,XYY; 47,XXX ("Triple X syndrome"); XXXX syndrome;
XXXXX syndrome, 48,XXYY syndrome, 46,XX/XY mosaic, other mosaic, and
others)
* gonads (testes, ovaries, one of each, ovotestes, other types of gonadal dysgenesis)
* hormones
* genitals (primary sexual characteristics — see
diagram for the "six class system")
* secondary sexual characteristics
* brain structure
* gender identity
* gender role
* erotic preference
Since there are people who's gender identity is neither male nor female, it is fair
to say that there aren't just those two gender identities. If there are other gender
identities, then gender isn't a simple binary where everyone is either male or
female. If gender were a "simple" binary, then everyone would be either male or female
and no other variations would exist outside of those two classifications though
there could be some variation within such classifications.
It is a misconception that there exist a gender identity that is neither male nor
female (neither XX or XY), XXY is just 2x more female signaling in the gene,
whereas XYY is 1.5x more male signaling in the gene. XXX is 1.5x more female,
XXXX is 2x more female, XXYY and XX/XY is 1x male + female, and so on.
They are all variants within the default XX and XY binary, so how can one say
there is neither XX or XY when all of the variants contained either the XX or
XY genes.
Quote
Not when you define males as "attracted to females" and females as "receptive to
male sexual attention".
The biological features communiucate the body messages, one is free to oppose
nature, but it is not compatible without difficulties. Nature (biological traits) is a
force over mental decision / motivation, one who live in hormony with it harnest
the force for one's wishes, but one who opposes it, lived in dishormony with self
and others. One valid reason for some who wishes to transition is due to
pschological inclination that opposes the biological imperative, a person trap in a
male body who is pschologically "receptive to male sexual attention". So without
acceptance of this gender binary distinction, then what would that valid reason
be? Anyone will just be asexual pschologically and biologically, since all gender
distinction are neutralized (luckily this will never happened!).
QuoteSee, just proved my point.
If all female persons are "receptive" then what is lesbian sex?
Both lesbian and gay have different degree of subjective and objective gender
perception than cis male and cis female, The intensity of subjective gender
clinging in lesbian and gay is less than that of the cis male and cis female,
whereas the intensity of objective gender clinging in lesbian and gay is more than
that of the cis male and cis female, so cis male and cis female are direct opposite
of the lesbian and gay in their subjective and objective gender clinging. Since in
lesbian and gay, the clinging to the objective gender is stronger, there is a sense of
giving, than receptive in both partners. So both partners can usually interchange
or shift role in different occasion in order to give to the other.
There is a valid reason that MTF who has stronger wishes to be receptive to
another advances, find preference for male partner than female partner
(lesbianhood), even though, in pre-transition their objective preference is a
female partner.
Quote
If all female persons are "receptive" then how do they "pursue" their own sexual
pleasure?
Women pursue romantic advances by enticing guys through dressing and makeup,
gestures, soft and feminine voices. Women are more successful attained what they
want by being passive, allowing room for the guy to make his move. Physical
attraction is key, and women are very much aware and being beauty conscious for
the sake of the male's attention. If a guy behave like this, it simply turn women
off, as women expecting the opposite of the guys.
Quote
That is not taking this into account but brushing it off as irrelevant.
As mentioned, women heavily relate sex with romance, physical orgasm is not
directly relevent to this pschological expectation. Sure if come it is better, but it is
not a big issue, if it failed to come. And this failure is not relevent to her sexual
satisfaction which can be pschologically based.
Quote
By defining males as strictly as you have, using references to their sexual arousal
pattern and genitals specifically, you've inadvertedly defined all trans women as
men.
Ironically affirmative, especially for MTF who transition after full maturity of the
male sexual reproduction system, the sex center is fully, physically developed, the
resultant higher sexual awareness cannot be reduced, but can only be transform
and channel into passive mode, if they wish to behave like the cis women. But
even with this pschological transformation, their sexual awareness still higher
than the cis women, only that it does not manifest in the manner of the male
consciousness. This is actually an advantage over the cis women, not a handicape,
since they will be able to perceive the sexual requirement of their male partner
the same level as them.
Quote
Unless it applies universally, it isn't universal, therefore it does not take into
account those that do not conform to what you are calling a universal standard.
It's not universal unless it applies Universally.
It's not universal unless it applies Universally.
What is universally applicable and is causes of compatibility and harmony, just
because someone who wishes to oppose the signal of biological design, does not
mean that decision against nature is universal (as it is against nature decision), but
the criteria of biological design is universal.
Quote
You can't say "All X are Y", holding it up as a "universal standard", and then
when people call you on how inaccurate that is and that not all X are Y, citing
sources and examples to back them up say that just because not all X are Y that
all X are still Y...
I mean, that's just intellectually dishonest!
No, I implied X is X, Y is Y. Male is male, female is female, there is no neutralization of their distinctions. Even in their variants, there is support of the distinctions, as without the binary distinction, there will be absence of any variants. In other words, if there is no male and female, than no transgenders, no lesbians and gays, anyone will be asexual.
