Why do some MTF's act like gay men?

[Sailor_Saturn]

I demand nothing....

It would be nice but demand is too strong a word.

You are perhaps a vegetarian? I suppose we could accept a scientific salad...

[cynthialee]

Nope, I am primarily a carnivore.

[tekla]

I wonder sometimes what it's like to walk through a world that is so clean cut, where everything fits into nice boxes and everyone does as they ought.  It's nice, it's orderly, it makes the trains run on time and all that.  But in the 49 square miles surrounded by reality I live in I just have to say, quoting the master philosopher of real life on the streets of LA - Ice T: ->-bleeped-<- ain't like that.  It's real ->-bleeped-<-ed up.  And I'm OK with that.

Because in all of its' splendid ->-bleeped-<-ed-upedness, whatever else it is, it's sure not black and white.  It's all the colors, with all the pastel shadings and vivid psychedelic-electric day-glo highlights, it's fireworks, Calliopes^* and clowns, and everybody's dancin'.  And, when I see an explanation of humans that doesn't have all the shades, and hues, that doesn't have the loud and soft dynamics, that has no humor or explosiveness to it, well that stuff ain't dancin' at all.  It's not even twirling. 

And that's how you know, at a very basic level that the explanation is wrong without having to even dissect it.  (Which given the usual pedantic presentation and didactic (in the worst sense of that word) style that such explanations always seem to arrive in is saving the reader valuable time they could be spending doing something else - anything else, really - and no doubt saving brain cells too.  God, 9 out of the top 10 things I hated about teaching college was having to read an endless parade of this kind of stuff. )  One of my better teachers, and one of the best philosophers I've ever known loved to tell me that the only universal explanation in life is that there are no other universal explanations for anything else in life.

So, sex is a biological function based on a simple stimulus/response model?  Sure, I'm sure sometimes you can see it that way.  But sex is one of the few places in life where fantasies become reality and the reality, in turn, becomes fantasy.  I know on the most empirical of all levels, that sex is determined by a lot more than mere biologic needs because it's also: play, ritual, magic, divine, theatrical performance, and athletics.  It's desire, lust, wanton depravity, delectable decadence, pleasure, ecstasy even sometimes, and it can be bad stuff too like punishment, or power, or any form of physical force or coercion.  It's casual, formal, sacred, and profane all at the same time.  Tender or rough, silly or serious, mature or juvenile, or, or, or...  No universal explanation is possible because the human sexual experience is far too varied even within one individual to really nail down.

Because sex is all the colors, with all the pastel shadings and vivid psychedelic-electric day-glo highlights.  Sex has fireworks, calliopes and clowns, and even if everybody is not dancin', rest assured that lots of people are.





* - either as a steam-powered musical instrument or as the wisest of the Muses, or both.

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

Furthermore, how does female/male in utero translate to normally female traits?

Basically, the environment determines how an individual is ultimately going to turn out. I was a feminine gay kid growing up, but my parents stepped in the way every step to make me not... Thus, the environment is a bigger influence than genes ever will be.

normally female traits are definately socially sanctioned from subculture to subculture, but i don't understand how your parents resisting you being feminine and gay is a good example for environment being the determining factor. you've transitioned, so it didn't really make any difference, did it?

[Bea]

Good topic.

I find myself balancing my woman side with the fact I still present myself as a man because I don't want to be labeled gay; on the other hand I don't care if someone thinks I'm gay. Having an active or above average sex-drive is cool but I think "cat calling" is more reckless than masculine or feminine. 

- work it girl -

[Jacelyn]

Research shows that men that do not obtain manual release (due to, for example, asexuality) have nocturnal emissions.
Men do not have a "biological" need to masturbate or have sex at regular intervals.
Any emissions they "need" to do are done naturally, by the body, if no sex nor masturbation takes place..

There is no requirement for emissions, as the excess seminal fluid is absorpt by the body for its benefit, excess emissions due to excessive sexual activities, harm the body (causing weaker immunity to illness) as the needed proteins are drained from the body. Nature emission only occurred in youth, due to lesser experience in ejaculation control, and highly sexual vitality at this age. It is correct that emssion is not required and that biological need related to emission through sex or masturbation is not require. But it should not be associated with the absence of biological need for sex (not for the purpose of emission), the need for sex is direct associated with higher seminal level due to period of sexual abstinent.

I am addressing your statements.
You are arguing that you didn't state what you had stated.
Thus, quoting the original statement was required.

You are nick-picking because regarding women's sexual satisfaction in term of of physical attraction (appearance) in their partner, is associated with the terms like 'non-exclusive', 'less critical' and 'optional', these terms do not oppose each other in the meaning of the context.

It is believed that only about 30% of human interaction is the words used, the rest is body language, tone and patterns of speech. Without tone, patterns or body language all we have is the words, which is why I make a point to say what I mean as I mean it to the best of my ability, it also means that I can not address a meaning you have not expressed. If you feel I'm not addressing your meaning, then you haven't expressed your meaning accurately enough in the words used.

As for the meaning, it simply that men and women have different dependencies for sexual satisfaction. To men, physical attractiveness of their partner is directly related to sexual satisfaction. This is being expressed previously but you are not reading into it.

Also, do you have any link to a statistical study, similarly modern, which has an exact opposite result of the one I posted, thus neutralizing them?

Again you are not reading the meaning that I have indicate this exercise is pointless.

I have provided sound research and analysis from reliable sources. Would you like to address the research, the analysis, and provide sound sources of your own to the contrary rather than simply stating that I "need" to provide my own rationale?

There is no sound sources, what is sound to one group is not sound to another group, as long as each group hold a pre-concieved standard. And I don't need to provide a sound sources since I already indicated the explanation as basing on empirical evidence of each individual's perception dependence on their biological traits. That's why I demand your own rationale (not words of others) since you raise an opposing stance.

I could go on and on about the sky being purple, using all the big words I can think of, but without being able to demonstrate the colour of the sky (through evidence) it does not matter whether my arguments, in and of themselves, make sense. Without a sound premise, the logic can not be sound.

Evidence must be repeatable in each individual, if it is a fact then anyone can duplicate in their own experience. Statistics is just collection of opinions in majority, but I do not demand opinions but empirical evidence.

Strictly speaking, is philosophy "required"?
And does it need to have a demonstrable answer to be required?

It is required if empirical truth is to be discussed, science can only substantiate conditional truth. Any demonstrable answer does not exist in death statistics, it is in truth that is repeatable empirically by all.

See, here's the thing.
I study philosophy and have for a long time.
I am often referred to as philosophically minded and have found myself often referred to as a philosopher.
Philosophy translates to a love of knowledge.
I have socialized with philosophers and scholars half my life.
None of them agree with you on this.

Philosophy has to be lived and specialized in their types (lineages), philosophical education is only the introduction of various philosophical lineages. It is not immersive in any of the lineages. 

Just because one associates oneself with philosophical education and philosophers does not mean they themselves are one. The more they know of the various lineages of thought, the less they specialize in any particular view, and as a result they knew only half truth in all.  It is fine none you knew agree with me, because no one should expect all philosophers should agreed with one another as not all of them share the same lineage and philosophical view. Further, it only common for philosophers to debate in their view points even from the same lineage of view.

Skepticism comes from philosophy.
It is one of the oldest philosophical movements and arguably it's the very thing that philosophy is born from.

There is skeptism in philosophy, but it is the certainty in conclusion that is aimed in the various skeptism motivated debates. And those in the know merely debate to reinstate their view in others, not because they are skeptical of their own view, an apparent different against those of science stream.

All the well-established religions in the world are backed by philosophical theory of their own, including anti-religious atheists, none of them are subject to doubt in those adhering to it, otherwise they won't become followers.

Empiricism as a philosophical school of thought is the theory that the only way to gain knowledge is through observation and experience.
It is the origin of the scientific need for empirical evidence.

No, empiricism is related to consciousness and reality, not physics.  Science tends toward collective statistic, even if it is just opinions which they render as objective data, but discredit individual experience (empiricalism) which they render as subjective data (thus doubtful). Generally speaking the mechanism of physical and biological cause and effect is science, it doesn't not need to understand the empiricism of consciousness and reality (content of philosophy). The differences between philosophy and main stream science is simply in content. Both are science in strictest sense of the word.

Empirical evidence is when you can measure and/or display the evidence to support your theory.

For main stream science, it has to be able to measure with scientific instrument, other than human sensory faculties (empirical evidence of consciousness). Psychology (science) is based statistically (objective opinions) rather than empirical evidence (subjective perceptions). Thus anything involving empirical evidence has to fall in the realm of philosophy.

What you have described is science.

Philosophy is science, differed only in content and biased in methods.

After attaining certainty of the meaning, one incorporates the knowledge in one's thinking.
To attain certainty via logic and empirical data is the primary component of the scientific method.

Science do not entertain certainty of idea (meaning), but of result of test data, while all the time, entertaining a skepical attitude toward the whole idea (if any), there certainly no entertainment of holding the idea as faith. The last thing science rely on is human logic, many law of physics is beyond the human logic, even maths can barely simulate approximately the nature of physics, but not master it with absolute certainty. Scientist can merely specializes in specific field but cannot fully grasped the various specialization due to limited lifespan and capacity toward their complexities. Scientific discoveries / new theory is mixtures of curiousity, surprises, and crazy idea (result of brain storming / flashes of intuition) without reliance on prior logical pattern or data.

The reliance of logic and empirical knowledge exclusive to the field of philosophy, their mental exercise lead to certainty (faith), faith is religious (which opposes the attitude of main stream science).

Incorrect.
The burden of proof always lays with the person that asserts something as true.
If you can not prove that gender is a binary you have not met that burden of proof.

This is where you show ignorant of what is empirical data (proof) as exclusively derived from subjective perception only, this is also the reason that main stream science showed preference of average statistical data (objective opinion) and disregard all personal / subjective opinion (empirical data). I have expressed a subjective view, it is of empircal data derived subjectively, but this to another is just subjective opinion, it will be of empirical data (proof) once it is experienced by the readers themselves (the previous statement proposes just that).

You've committed a fallacy here by equating sex-chromosomes with gender identity.
A gender identity is the way in which an individual identifies with a gender category, for example, as being either a man or a woman, or in some cases being neither, which can be distinct from biological sex.
Chromosomes refer to the genetic makeup of the body which (in most cases) dictates the development of biological sex.
Nowhere did I state that there were those who were neither xx nor xy, but I did state that there are those who's gender identity is not male nor female, which is a completely different thing. As such, your final argument in this case is a straw man.

Now you use the chromosomes as an excuse for your error in psychological gender identity. Neither did I leave out the psychological gender, and my view apply similarly to psychological gender, it is either male or female, or their combination depending on which side is stronger. You, however, do refer to a state which is neither male or female, this is where I correct you in saying that there is no such non-gender psychological state, a person gender identity differ in degree according to the combination of the gender binary, not completely absence of combination or their default (in concordance with the biological gender), unless the person is unconscious, then there will be no such combination or default subjective gender perception. So you are refering logically to a death or unconscious state, as long as the person is awaken with observable bahaviour, based on various psychological parameters, we could determine a kind of gender combination in the psychological make-up of the person.

This argument right here suggests that being transgender or not heterosexual is "opposing nature" and using the phrase "one is free to" suggest that both are a choice.
Secondly, it fails to address that the gender distinction as asserted by you is the "only" valid gender distinction and that without it there is no gender or that without the binary there is no gender distinction.
This means you're committing two logical fallacies.
One being the straw man of indirectly suggesting that anyone is arguing that the concept of gender be abandoned, the other being an appeal to consequence wherein you suggest that your statement is true because if it wasn't true there would be (unproven) negative consequences.

Two questions:
1. Why would you find the need to argue the concept of gender and not abandoned it due to understanding?
2. Are you negating the GID and the difficulty of treatment (the negative consequences) due to the discordance of a person's psychological gender with the biological gender?

Do you have any link to any documented, empirical evidence of this claim?

All claim here is empirically and thus subjectively based, but what you read become third party opinion (the same if I'm to quote any words from authoritative source), it only become empirical evidence when you carry out the internal perception yourself. If you yourself are neither of this mentioned category of gender default or combinations, then you cannot confirm empirically what is stated.

Secondly; How do you explain the vast female following and attraction to androgynous/femnine appearing/presenting male artists/preformers?
(examples; Bill Kaulitz, Gackt, David Bowie, Johhny Depp, etc)

Girls in late teens to early twenties are learning to accept the attraction of the opposite sex, due to earlier (pre- and early teen) influence they are more easily associated contemporaries with forms similar to themselves (feminine), as even boys at that age looks feminine, it takes years to outgrowth this psychological barrier to be able to accept more masculine or even older man not of their age group, unless these girls lacked a father, and psychologically they desire a fatherly figure. Even in behaviour feminine men tends to share a common expression with these young female, the way they smile and joke, etc., thus tend to easily build rapport than extremely masculine men who never smile or joke, etc. As women matured sexually, then the expectation change, those who understand the psychological demand of women tend to win them easily even though they may not be handsome, but may be considered as ugly by younger girls standard. This is merely a general view, by no means exhaustive of the reasons nor exclusive of variants and exceptions. After all, girls in particular, are highly subject to peers' influence, even later being influence by the type of men they associate with. Those behaviours due to influence differed with culture as well, one reason I do not recomment relying blindly on statistical data of behaviours without studying the biological impetus.

This point has been addressed, repeatedly, by information provided and proven to be incorrect.

Information by particular group regardless of authority, if not accepted by another group is useless, how many groups in the whole world about gender binary, yet not all agreed among themselves on various matters. Thus, I said simply cut and paste information to prove a point is useless exercise. Also if someone limit another on specific group as authority, then what is to prevent your opponent to limit you on his prefered group as acceptable reference. To discredit a view, you need to bring up your own rationale.

You have not yet demonstrated that your universal definition is universal even if only among cisgender heterosexuals.
If your definition were universally true of all human beings then we can safely say that everyone would be cisgender heterosexuals.
For something to be universally true it has to apply to every single human being. To be a universal truth means that there are no exceptions.

It is easy to demonstrate that those who is psychological in concordance with their binary gender, does not need to undergoes surgical gender correction in order to live happily (harmonously) with self and others. Not everyone of us wishes to submit to universal/biological impetus, but wishes to act psychologically in discordance with the biological gender, since they have valid psychological impetus that reflect the discordance. But you inclined to believe there is no universal gender distinctions (biological and psychological), then there is no means to determine whether there is a valid discordance (GID) to required a biological gender correction.

You are not only saying "male is male" you are defining what it means and is to be "male" in an extremely narrow and largely demonstrably inaccurate manner.
You are not only saying "female is female" you are defining what it is and means to be "female" in an extremely narrow and largely demonstrably inaccurate manner.
You are also stating that your definition of what it is and means to be male and female is universally true, which again, is demonstrably false.

Again you have not prove your rationale for the opposing views, just simple negation.

No one is arguing that there is no such thing as male or female.
People are informing you that it's clearly demonstrable that your definitions of male and female are inaccurate and not at all universal.
People are also informing you that there are individuals (not everyone) who are/identify as neither male nor female.

Instead of yourself, you relate others as not agreeing with such definitions, but fail to provide their rationale.

That means that your idea of a simple gender binary as a universal definition of human beings is false.
It doesn't mean that there are no males or females, it means that it isn't as simple as either one or the other, that there are those individuals who exist who are both or neither (something that you yourself admitted in reference to homosexuality, essentially proving yourself wrong in the process.)

Homosexuality is not an independent state devoid of gender (neither sexes), these are cis-male who subjectively considered themselves as male and objectively desire a male partner. Thus all referring to this male gender mechanism.

If gender is a simple binary then people are either male or female with no one falling in between the two points.

Then you utterly confused the termed binary as exclusive of their combination which is the gender variants/diversities.  What make up the computer code is a binary digits, within this binary, all diversities of messages is possible to be encoded. Binary is universal code for diversity, to negate the binary is therefore refute this universal mechanism of all diversities in our existence. The negation of binary diversity is also negation of dynamism underlying all processes, but is fixate on a fixed (death) state, the believe in existences as unity of many single entities separate from another, so you have propose different genes (different independent gene code entirely separated from possibilition of combination) in different gender mode instead of as variant from a binary code. As for psychologically, you are proposing a permanent personality (or non-personality) with a fixed identity (or non-identity), devoid of all connection / causes from the binary gender expression. My words of course, but other than this, you are unable to provide a valid rationale which I can either expand coherantly or refute.

If gender is a scale (as many feel it is) then people can be male and female to a varying amount, allowing for people who identify as more male than female, or more female than male, or both, or neither (as a person perfectly between the two poles might.)

If it is a scale, then the weight on both sides form a binary distinctions, but a scale is bad analogue for gender, since the function of the scale is balance, gender is not about balance between the binary, it is about the opposite attracts, even homosexual is based on the opposites, by finding a female (receptive) and male (giver) within both male bodies and consciousness.

[Butterflyhugs]

Shut up and go away.

Isn't arguing in favor of a gender binary against the rules anyway?

[lilacwoman]

there always has been and always is and always probably will be a constant stream of transphobia on television and in the slummy papers that promotes the idea that TS/Tg is gay/perversion.

If had had the stomach and stamina to watch telly 24/7 for just one week I'm sure I'd be able to log dozens of transphobic comments and scenes which link TS/TG to gay/pervert.

Even though there are laws against all sorts of transphobia and homophobia it just seem sthat due to all this brainwashing so many people cannot help but open their mouths and utter something t or h phobic if they spot a person who displays the slightest trans gendered behaviour.

[lilacwoman]

there is a definite need for male emissions as failure to empty the seminal vesicles will make them susceptible to blocking and infections...been there and had that and its frightening and painful.

homosexuals are noted for being able to start, consummate and end a sexual encounter without any speech whatsoever.   
I doubt if lesbians could do this but some films seem to give that impression but do they do so in real life?

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

Jacelyn, beyond the fact that I've read your post three times and literally can't make heads or tails of its utter word salad, you still haven't provided any credible scientific evidence to back your claim.  You simply can't continue to claim that "philosophy", or whatever you're trying to claim is the ironclad evidence against all of Miniar's not only credible but scientifically supported points, is so much more correct when you don't even have a whisper of a scholarly article suggesting truth in your statements.

There is no requirement for emissions, as the excess seminal fluid is absorpt by the body for its benefit, excess emissions due to excessive sexual activities, harm the body (causing weaker immunity to illness) as the needed proteins are drained from the body. Nature emission only occurred in youth, due to lesser experience in ejaculation control, and highly sexual vitality at this age. It is correct that emssion is not required and that biological need related to emission through sex or masturbation is not require. But it should not be associated with the absence of biological need for sex (not for the purpose of emission), the need for sex is direct associated with higher seminal level due to period of sexual abstinent.

Again, do you have any reason for believing this or does it just sound nice to you and as such you internalize it?

You are nick-picking because regarding women's sexual satisfaction in term of of physical attraction (appearance) in their partner, is associated with the terms like 'non-exclusive', 'less critical' and 'optional', these terms do not oppose each other in the meaning of the context.

As for the meaning, it simply that men and women have different dependencies for sexual satisfaction. To men, physical attractiveness of their partner is directly related to sexual satisfaction. This is being expressed previously but you are not reading into it.

Maybe he's not 'reading into it' because you're providing no reason behind this loose-cannon claim for which he should believe you.  Conversely, one could argue that you're not 'reading into' anything he's saying anyway.

Again you are not reading the meaning that I have indicate this exercise is pointless.

There is no sound sources, what is sound to one group is not sound to another group, as long as each group hold a pre-concieved standard. And I don't need to provide a sound sources since I already indicated the explanation as basing on empirical evidence of each individual's perception dependence on their biological traits. That's why I demand your own rationale (not words of others) since you raise an opposing stance.

Evidence must be repeatable in each individual, if it is a fact then anyone can duplicate in their own experience. Statistics is just collection of opinions in majority, but I do not demand opinions but empirical evidence.

It is required if empirical truth is to be discussed, science can only substantiate conditional truth. Any demonstrable answer does not exist in death statistics, it is in truth that is repeatable empirically by all.

This is objectively wrong.  Science is about empirical replication of results.  The statistical results of a scientific source contain, by definition, zero opinion. 

Philosophy has to be lived and specialized in their types (lineages), philosophical education is only the introduction of various philosophical lineages. It is not immersive in any of the lineages.

Just because one associates oneself with philosophical education and philosophers does not mean they themselves are one. The more they know of the various lineages of thought, the less they specialize in any particular view, and as a result they knew only half truth in all.  It is fine none you knew agree with me, because no one should expect all philosophers should agreed with one another as not all of them share the same lineage and philosophical view. Further, it only common for philosophers to debate in their view points even from the same lineage of view.

Except the points you're trying to prove with regard to human sexuality aren't philosophical in nature.  You can argue all you want about philosophy, but it's ultimately irrelevant and not constructive if you're trying to prove that male and female sex roles follow oppositionally sexist lines.

There is skeptism in philosophy, but it is the certainty in conclusion that is aimed in the various skeptism motivated debates. And those in the know merely debate to reinstate their view in others, not because they are skeptical of their own view, an apparent different against those of science stream.

All the well-established religions in the world are backed by philosophical theory of their own, including anti-religious atheists, none of them are subject to doubt in those adhering to it, otherwise they won't become followers.

No, empiricism is related to consciousness and reality, not physics.  Science tends toward collective statistic, even if it is just opinions which they render as objective data, but discredit individual experience (empiricalism) which they render as subjective data (thus doubtful). Generally speaking the mechanism of physical and biological cause and effect is science, it doesn't not need to understand the empiricism of consciousness and reality (content of philosophy). The differences between philosophy and main stream science is simply in content. Both are science in strictest sense of the word.

For main stream science, it has to be able to measure with scientific instrument, other than human sensory faculties (empirical evidence of consciousness). Psychology (science) is based statistically (objective opinions) rather than empirical evidence (subjective perceptions). Thus anything involving empirical evidence has to fall in the realm of philosophy.

Philosophy is science, differed only in content and biased in methods.

Science do not entertain certainty of idea (meaning), but of result of test data, while all the time, entertaining a skepical attitude toward the whole idea (if any), there certainly no entertainment of holding the idea as faith. The last thing science rely on is human logic, many law of physics is beyond the human logic, even maths can barely simulate approximately the nature of physics, but not master it with absolute certainty. Scientist can merely specializes in specific field but cannot fully grasped the various specialization due to limited lifespan and capacity toward their complexities. Scientific discoveries / new theory is mixtures of curiousity, surprises, and crazy idea (result of brain storming / flashes of intuition) without reliance on prior logical pattern or data.

The reliance of logic and empirical knowledge exclusive to the field of philosophy, their mental exercise lead to certainty (faith), faith is religious (which opposes the attitude of main stream science).

"Objective opinion" is an oxymoron, and this fact literally invalidates your entire argument.  Empiricism does support that sensory experience is critical in obtaining data to support an argument, but this is actually in FAVOR of collection of data from scientific experiments aggressively.  You're trying to use an concept you evidently don't understand to support your claims, and it shows.

This is where you show ignorant of what is empirical data (proof) as exclusively derived from subjective perception only, this is also the reason that main stream science showed preference of average statistical data (objective opinion) and disregard all personal / subjective opinion (empirical data). I have expressed a subjective view, it is of empircal data derived subjectively, but this to another is just subjective opinion, it will be of empirical data (proof) once it is experienced by the readers themselves (the previous statement proposes just that).

It shows because you call statistical observations "objective opinions" and you call subjective opinions "empirical data".  This is running directly contrary to the central dogma of empiricism.

Now you use the chromosomes as an excuse for your error in psychological gender identity. Neither did I leave out the psychological gender, and my view apply similarly to psychological gender, it is either male or female, or their combination depending on which side is stronger. You, however, do refer to a state which is neither male or female, this is where I correct you in saying that there is no such non-gender psychological state, a person gender identity differ in degree according to the combination of the gender binary, not completely absence of combination or their default (in concordance with the biological gender), unless the person is unconscious, then there will be no such combination or default subjective gender perception. So you are refering logically to a death or unconscious state, as long as the person is awaken with observable bahaviour, based on various psychological parameters, we could determine a kind of gender combination in the psychological make-up of the person.

Try telling that to agender- or neutrois-identified people.  Your claims would place them squarely in the "comatose" male-female-knocked out ternary you have constructed out of thin air.  That's incredibly erasing and offensive, to be honest.

Two questions:
1. Why would you find the need to argue the concept of gender and not abandoned it due to understanding?
2. Are you negating the GID and the difficulty of treatment (the negative consequences) due to the discordance of a person's psychological gender with the biological gender?

No, I'm pretty sure he's pointing out that your claims don't have anything to do with the argument you're making in this case, which is (kill me now) objectively true.

All claim here is empirically and thus subjectively based, but what you read become third party opinion (the same if I'm to quote any words from authoritative source), it only become empirical evidence when you carry out the internal perception yourself. If you yourself are neither of this mentioned category of gender default or combinations, then you cannot confirm empirically what is stated.

"Empirical" does not mean "subjective".  "Empirical" means "a theory or hypothesis measurable (through experimentation) against natural observations".  If you have a study that you've published supporting your claims, then by all means show us, because right now you're relying on a priori reasoning which is actually the direct opposite of empiricism.

Girls in late teens to early twenties are learning to accept the attraction of the opposite sex, due to earlier (pre- and early teen) influence they are more easily associated contemporaries with forms similar to themselves (feminine), as even boys at that age looks feminine, it takes years to outgrowth this psychological barrier to be able to accept more masculine or even older man not of their age group, unless these girls lacked a father, and psychologically they desire a fatherly figure. Even in behaviour feminine men tends to share a common expression with these young female, the way they smile and joke, etc., thus tend to easily build rapport than extremely masculine men who never smile or joke, etc. As women matured sexually, then the expectation change, those who understand the psychological demand of women tend to win them easily even though they may not be handsome, but may be considered as ugly by younger girls standard. This is merely a general view, by no means exhaustive of the reasons nor exclusive of variants and exceptions. After all, girls in particular, are highly subject to peers' influence, even later being influence by the type of men they associate with. Those behaviours due to influence differed with culture as well, one reason I do not recomment relying blindly on statistical data of behaviours without studying the biological impetus.

Jacelyn, the only way to study a biological impetus for a behavior is to measure it statistically.  This is kind of the point to all of the the Skinner box-style experiments.

Information by particular group regardless of authority, if not accepted by another group is useless, how many groups in the whole world about gender binary, yet not all agreed among themselves on various matters. Thus, I said simply cut and paste information to prove a point is useless exercise. Also if someone limit another on specific group as authority, then what is to prevent your opponent to limit you on his prefered group as acceptable reference. To discredit a view, you need to bring up your own rationale.

Okay, fair enough, you don't have to believe anything we say.  That doesn't make you more right than us, and it certainly doesn't mean that you can claim that empiricism is on your side.

It is easy to demonstrate that those who is psychological in concordance with their binary gender, does not need to undergoes surgical gender correction in order to live happily (harmonously) with self and others. Not everyone of us wishes to submit to universal/biological impetus, but wishes to act psychologically in discordance with the biological gender, since they have valid psychological impetus that reflect the discordance. But you inclined to believe there is no universal gender distinctions (biological and psychological), then there is no means to determine whether there is a valid discordance (GID) to required a biological gender correction.

Calling on universal gender distinctions (and universal sex distinctions) assume that male and female are the only scientifically valid genders and sexes.  The fact that there are people for whom your theories do not ring true means that you can't call them empirically based; you are willfully ignoring a percentage of your data because you don't like it.

Again you have not prove your rationale for the opposing views, just simple negation.

I'm pretty sure Miniar has provided rationale, whereas you seem to be doing the simple negation.

Instead of yourself, you relate others as not agreeing with such definitions, but fail to provide their rationale.

Homosexuality is not an independent state devoid of gender (neither sexes), these are cis-male who subjectively considered themselves as male and objectively desire a male partner. Thus all referring to this male gender mechanism.

Then you utterly confused the termed binary as exclusive of their combination which is the gender variants/diversities.  What make up the computer code is a binary digits, within this binary, all diversities of messages is possible to be encoded. Binary is universal code for diversity, to negate the binary is therefore refute this universal mechanism of all diversities in our existence. The negation of binary diversity is also negation of dynamism underlying all processes, but is fixate on a fixed (death) state, the believe in existences as unity of many single entities separate from another, so you have propose different genes (different independent gene code entirely separated from possibilition of combination) in different gender mode instead of as variant from a binary code. As for psychologically, you are proposing a permanent personality (or non-personality) with a fixed identity (or non-identity), devoid of all connection / causes from the binary gender expression. My words of course, but other than this, you are unable to provide a valid rationale which I can either expand coherantly or refute.

If it is a scale, then the weight on both sides form a binary distinctions, but a scale is bad analogue for gender, since the function of the scale is balance, gender is not about balance between the binary, it is about the opposite attracts, even homosexual is based on the opposites, by finding a female (receptive) and male (giver) within both male bodies and consciousness.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding, now, of the concept of the gender binary.  That concept postulates that there are two genders, two sexes, mutually exclusive.  The gender binary is not "universal code for diversity", or a ternary male-female-dead system, it's a repression of everyone who identifies somewhere in between the gender spectrum or outside of it altogether.

Breaking down the gender binary doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to identify at either the male pole or female pole.  It just means that people are then able to identify somewhere in the middle, which a binary doesn't allow.

You haven't evinced anything coherently, and you haven't refuted anything that doesn't rely on your personal dogma.

[lilacwoman]

I can turn the telly off but the lower lifes can't.

[Sailor_Saturn]

Jacelyn, beyond the fact that I've read your post three times and literally can't make heads or tails of its utter word salad, you still haven't provided any credible scientific evidence to back your claim.  You simply can't continue to claim that "philosophy", or whatever you're trying to claim is the ironclad evidence against all of Miniar's not only credible but scientifically supported points, is so much more correct when you don't even have a whisper of a scholarly article suggesting truth in your statements.

A useful pair of articles that I give to both you and Jacelyn. For Wonderdyke, the articles are helpful in understanding why it is fruitless to continue speaking to Jacelyn. For Jacelyn, the articles explain what you're doing and why I'm done dealing with you.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

[Morrigan]

For Jacelyn, the articles explain what you're doing and why I'm done dealing with you.

"It's the kind of logic that just can't be argued with, not because it's right, but because the insane troll is so demented, so lost in his own insanity that any attempts to correct him [them] will be met with more gibberish."

Thanks, should have found these references earlier 

[Princess of Hearts]

There is a culture, I forget where, where the women are expected to not say very much and when they do speak they are supposed to speak in an emotionally uninvolved monosyllabic manner.   Men on the other hand are not only encourage to talk all the time,but the more flowery, ornate and emotional a man's speech the higher his status will be.  In this culture men all talk like teenage girls and the women grunt and mutter their way through life.

So you see femininity is to a large extent socially conditioned in some places.

[Morrigan]

There is a culture, I forget where, where the women are expected to not say very much and when they do speak they are supposed to speak in an emotionally uninvolved monosyllabic manner.   Men on the other hand are not only encourage to talk all the time,but the more flowery, ornate and emotional a man's speech the higher his status will be.  In this culture men all talk like teenage girls and the women grunt and mutter their way through life.

I can't say I've heard of a culture quite like that, but it sounds very similar to
culture in modern Islamic countries, and ancient Greek city-states.

Young Men in both of these examples are encouraged to seek older male mates,
and flaunt their sexuality. It is not something of focus in most middle-eastern
countries, but in Greek culture it was far more acceptable (to the point of some
city-states having laws and regulations on the matter). Women, on the other hand,
are not allowed to display anything of sexual nature. In traditional Islamic culture,
a woman is not supposed to talk to men beyond her family.

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

i can't read all this since my attention span just can't handle it. it's just entertaining.

[Mahsa Tezani]

  In this culture men all talk like teenage girls and the women grunt and mutter their way through life.

OMG, LIKE TOTALLY BISSSSSH!!!

[Mahsa Tezani]

I can't say I've heard of a culture quite like that, but it sounds very similar to
culture in modern Islamic countries, and ancient Greek city-states.

Young Men in both of these examples are encouraged to seek older male mates,
and flaunt their sexuality. It is not something of focus in most middle-eastern
countries, but in Greek culture it was far more acceptable (to the point of some
city-states having laws and regulations on the matter). Women, on the other hand,
are not allowed to display anything of sexual nature. In traditional Islamic culture,
a woman is not supposed to talk to men beyond her family.

I never thought I could say something about hijacking a thread... But the towliban are.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

A useful pair of articles that I give to both you and Jacelyn. For Wonderdyke, the articles are helpful in understanding why it is fruitless to continue speaking to Jacelyn. For Jacelyn, the articles explain what you're doing and why I'm done dealing with you.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

Heh.  I've long since recognized its fruitlessness, or else I'd already have left this site altogether. 

[Jacelyn]

Jacelyn, beyond the fact that I've read your post three times and literally can't make heads or tails of its utter word salad, you still haven't provided any credible scientific evidence to back your claim.  You simply can't continue to claim that "philosophy", or whatever you're trying to claim is the ironclad evidence against all of Miniar's not only credible but scientifically supported points, is so much more correct when you don't even have a whisper of a scholarly article suggesting truth in your statements..

I do not make claim outside direct personal subjective experience and perception, and I do require that others who wish to refute such to bring out a valid rationale. I can't exclude philosophy since I'm not interested in the provisional statistical data of socialogy, psychology, and specific 'gender politics' regardless of division. I'm interested in hard science, and medicinal data which are fixed and does not differ due to culture and geographical differences (with these I always would bring reference, as my personal opinion has no value). But gender psychology is an area which differ with culture and geographical differences, including influence of 'gender politics'. All of these studies are provisional and not absolute. Citing these as reference merely serve to win an argument unfairly, but it make discussion pointless, as winning and losing make no difference with regards to element of truth which will be absence. Human behaviour and gender perception if covered by philosophy, then definitive view can be established based on philosophical approach to evidence, i.e. direct empirical experience which is strictly at subjective level.

Again, do you have any reason for believing this or does it just sound nice to you and as such you internalize it?

I have a male biological body, even though it is now feminized by hrt, I can still recall what it is like when the reproductive mechanism is fully functional as male, with the addition of a psychological state that is in concordance with the biological impetus. What is more valid, memory of an empirical experience, or a statistical data that is not directly relevent to oneself personally? Now those who have the male reproductive mechanism which is fully functional without negatively influence by hrt should be able to personally experience what is being stated and confirm it as empirical evidence.

Maybe he's not 'reading into it' because you're providing no reason behind this loose-cannon claim for which he should believe you.  Conversely, one could argue that you're not 'reading into' anything he's saying anyway.

This is based on my years of personal observation of men and women intereaction both east and west, and through direct personal experience as a psychological female (MTF), I can confirm the shift of male consciousness to female results in marginally weak focus on the partner (male) attractiveness, and that within this weak attention to the partner's feature, it is not handsomeness (face) but the height and shoulder width appears to be more important. Whereas in the male consciousness, the attractiveness of the female partner is most important than all other critera, as long as higher sexual satisfaction is aimed. He refused whatever view points that are said, yet failed to provide his own rational, except someone else words (as statistics, not rational explanation) to support his opposing stance. I can bring out supportive views of others, but that is pointless in a discussion, if a personal view is worth zero value, there is no point for a discussion,  since all views exist out there and that these are considered valid objective data (false of course).

This is objectively wrong.  Science is about empirical replication of results.  The statistical results of a scientific source contain, by definition, zero opinion.

I would avoid using the term 'empirical' for science, instead 'practical' should be the word for science that is near the meaning of empiricism. Science cannot be associated with empiricism, as empiricism required an experience which is lived, scientific instrument still required a human observer, but science at this stage completely disregard the factor of this observer, while all credits are due to these scientific instruments, what does work is considered practical, empiricism is concerning consciousness, it is outside the scope of physics. Something as empirical cannot be detected by instrument of physics, for example, the experience of another person, no instrument of science can sense that, this experience can be describe by this person experiencing it, by writing or speech, but these words that describe the experience are not in an empirical state, then scientific instrument cannot simulate an empirical state as it involved the consciousness of the person. To be in the empirical state one must duplicate the experience as describe in the words in one's personal experience which is strictly subjective, but science reject all personal subjective 'opinions'. Gender perception involved empirical experience, it is a field of philosophy, not science, much less of statistical data which is information that is death long ago, not living experience (empirical truth).

Except the points you're trying to prove with regard to human sexuality aren't philosophical in nature.  You can argue all you want about philosophy, but it's ultimately irrelevant and not constructive if you're trying to prove that male and female sex roles follow oppositionally sexist lines.

I didn't bring out statistical data but empirical experience that involved consciousness, the latter is field of philosophy, science does not cover this field. You can dismissed the philosophy basis and render my statement as personal opinions, thus invalidate by your version of science, but you will be missing the point in this discussion.

"Objective opinion" is an oxymoron, and this fact literally invalidates your entire argument.  Empiricism does support that sensory experience is critical in obtaining data to support an argument, but this is actually in FAVOR of collection of data from scientific experiments aggressively.  You're trying to use an concept you evidently don't understand to support your claims, and it shows.

Empiricism directly opposes any statistical datas, datas are based on causes and conditions are death statistics, they are changed the moment they are outside of empirical experience of their observers. Past data can never keep up with empirical data found only in each flesh moment of personal experience. Why would someone value a data that was collected several months or years ago over an empirical experience of perception (or memory event) that occurred as one is writing? Just because it is subjective, of one individual, does not make it less reliable, as collective data is also the sum of individual testimony (except you could also have mixture of individuals who could be confused and ignored about their own gender, thus making the statistic much unreliable).

Sensory experience is individual based, science discredit the individual opinion (as any words from an individual is an opinion), it favour collection of individual data simply because it didn't trust individual but the mass. In other words, it favour collective opinions, over empircal experience. You don't need mass data,  since empirical experience of each individual is identical in the rest, consciousness is the same in each and everyone (a philosophical view). Thus science is ignorant of what empirical experience is, and it does not cover consciousness as it does not embrace the philosphical view that will enable it to rely on individual data, instead of blindly reliance on mass data.

How many times have you exchange idea with me, yet you are implying you know more, how old are you?

It shows because you call statistical observations "objective opinions" and you call subjective opinions "empirical data".  This is running directly contrary to the central dogma of empiricism.

There is no such thing as 'objective opinion' as empirical, as empiricism demand an experiential state, with consciousness directly experienced as lived. So it is a mode of existence which can only be personally experienced (to another this is considered as subjective / personal opinions), what is obtained from others are not empirical to oneself, until the experience is duplicate directly in one's immediate experience. My empirical theory is strictly of buddhist philosophy, so do not be surprise it would differed from what you would have knew, you could continue to argue definitions, but make sure you also grasped mine if you desire to understand what is being discussed.

Try telling that to agender- or neutrois-identified people.  Your claims would place them squarely in the "comatose" male-female-knocked out ternary you have constructed out of thin air.  That's incredibly erasing and offensive, to be honest.

The agender reality is nothing new to me, even my philosophy cover it as universal, but it simply mean the essence of mind is beyond gender, but mind do seek to become male or female. Thus gender can be fluid, not fixed, because in existence (physical), there will always be charateristics of gender in the body, the mind simply adapt to it or against it toward the opposing gender. Since there is presence of desire within the mind, there is a need to become either male or female. Only in the unconscious or death state, where desire/passion is completely absence, that there will be absence of any becoming, that the state of agender is possible (there is no such state as permanent of course).

"Empirical" does not mean "subjective".  "Empirical" means "a theory or hypothesis measurable (through experimentation) against natural observations".  If you have a study that you've published supporting your claims, then by all means show us, because right now you're relying on a priori reasoning which is actually the direct opposite of empiricism.

As mentioned, my version is of buddhist philosophy. The focus apparently different, the buddhist version is strictly philosophical that concerned the empirical experience of consciousness. It concerns little about material objects, but what affecting the mind and its psychological state in experiential mode. So arguing on definition is meaningless since your version of empirism is inapplicable to the version that I used, but to refute those views with basis in this philosophical view, you need to provide a valid rationale. So far such statistic and simple negation failed to address the mind and its craving toward becoming as well as toward the object of desire, neither did they address the biological gender distinctions which clearly have psychological impact on the mind.

Jacelyn, the only way to study a biological impetus for a behavior is to measure it statistically.  This is kind of the point to all of the the Skinner box-style experiments.

My philosophy view already had the impetus (both biological and psychological) covered,  so there is no requirement to learn from statistical data, the desire component of mind is known as the motivating force behind all variations, and that the gender polerity is what the mind seeks, to fulfill its craving subjectively and objectively. To neutralize the gender binary is therefore neutralize the polerity from which desire can be based.

Okay, fair enough, you don't have to believe anything we say.  That doesn't make you more right than us, and it certainly doesn't mean that you can claim that empiricism is on your side.

I have different requirement of empiricism, your defined version does not fulfill the requirement. Therefore based on your version, you still have the need to rely on statistical data, my version does not need that, as it is self-sufficient (self-verified) due to the higher requirement.

Calling on universal gender distinctions (and universal sex distinctions) assume that male and female are the only scientifically valid genders and sexes.  The fact that there are people for whom your theories do not ring true means that you can't call them empirically based; you are willfully ignoring a percentage of your data because you don't like it.

As mentioned, agender do have the same mind with desire for a gender identity, and that gender discordance (GID) is showing discordance, not the non-existence of gender distinctions. In fact, it is the existence of the gender distinctions that is the cause of discordance, not its absence.

I'm pretty sure Miniar has provided rationale, whereas you seem to be doing the simple negation.

Circular! How can I do a simple negation for not having your rationale to negate in the first place?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding, now, of the concept of the gender binary.  That concept postulates that there are two genders, two sexes, mutually exclusive.  The gender binary is not

"universal code for diversity", or a ternary male-female-dead system, it's a repression of everyone who identifies somewhere in between the gender spectrum or outside of it altogether.

The condition of in between gender required the existence of the gender binary, in the absence of the two gender characteristics, the state of in-between does not have a basis for independent existence.

Breaking down the gender binary doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to identify at either the male pole or female pole.  It just means that people are then able to identify somewhere in the middle, which a binary doesn't allow.

Again you showed a notion of binary as male and female, and that the middle is outside the two poles, this is a logical fallacy, without the two poles, the definition of middle does not exist!

Buddhist philosphy is much strict on the requirement for logical consistency.

You haven't evinced anything coherently, and you haven't refuted anything that doesn't rely on your personal dogma.

Since you have not present any valid rationale, it is enough just to refute your logical consistency and demonstrate your lack of the required empiricism in method.