I use to be friends with another ts and I could never understand her behavior. All I know is that it reminded me of the way some gay men act.
For example, when we use to go out cruising in the car, she would roll down her window and start yelling at guys and say. "hey baby, i'm horny" or some sleazy comment like that. She was always VERY obnoxious and loud. Her mannerisms are also very exaggerated.
She flirts with almost every man she comes in contact with and has even performed oral sex to a complete stranger in front of a nightclub for the public to see.
The reason I compare her to some gay men is because I've seen a lot of them who act the same way. I don't understand how she expects people to view her as a woman acting the way she does.
What could it be?
I think it is because different people behave differently. That is all.
I don't think that is acting like a gay man. That is just how some people act, gay or straight, men or women.
Quote from: Bird on October 26, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
I think it is because different people behave differently. That is all.
I was about to say something, but this actually says everything I wanted to say, without the ire that it may have invoked in me.
Sounds like one of my sisters.
Nope not a gay male thing. It is a problem with self esteem stemming from their perception of themselves as sexualy attractive and desireable being the only thing they can define themselves with.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 12:52:00 PM
I use to be friends with another ts and I could never understand her behavior. All I know is that it reminded me of the way some gay men act.
For example, when we use to go out cruising in the car, she would roll down her window and start yelling at guys and say. "hey baby, i'm horny" or some sleazy comment like that. She was always VERY obnoxious and loud. Her mannerisms are also very exaggerated.
She flirts with almost every man she comes in contact with and has even performed oral sex to a complete stranger in front of a nightclub for the public to see.
The reason I compare her to some gay men is because I've seen a lot of them who act the same way. I don't understand how she expects people to view her as a woman acting the way she does.
What could it be?
Also, you're perpetuating the stereotype that gay men are promiscuous, which is not cool.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 01:07:21 PM
Also, you're perpetuating the stereotype that gay men are promiscuous, which is not cool.
Well, sorry to burst your bubble but SOME are. At least, SOME that I've met.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 01:11:07 PM
Well, sorry to burst your bubble but SOME are. At least, SOME that I've met.
And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data'.
Some people are promiscuous. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad, and it definitely doesn't mean that we should compare them to an often-maligned oppressed minority.
I have a feeling the original post would've sounded better with a few insertions of this word: "stereotypical"
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 12:52:00 PM
I use to be friends with another ts and I could never understand her behavior. All I know is that it reminded me of the way some gay men act.
When I went to divas nightclub. There was this 40+, tootless TS there who solicited every guy that walked by her. Most of the men seem mortified.
I think because they think they can....
Quote from: Amaranth on October 26, 2011, 01:16:44 PM
I have a feeling the original post would've sounded better with a few insertions of this word: "stereotypical"
That's still an implicit sanction of stereotyping gay men as promiscuous, which is
still wrong.
Some people just can't behave in public.
Why equate it to acting like gay men?
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 01:11:07 PM
Well, sorry to burst your bubble but SOME are. At least, SOME that I've met.
So are some: gay women, straight women, straight men, bi women, bi men, pansexuals, etc.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 01:11:07 PM
Well, sorry to burst your bubble but SOME are. At least, SOME that I've met.
Some being the operative word.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/ (http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/) Scroll down to "Gay people aren't promiscuous."
Median Reported Sex Partners
straight men: 6
gay men: 6
straight women: 6
gay women: 6
Taken from a data set of 3.2 million people. Data is the plural of datum!
I act like a campy gay man sometimes. Mainly to annoy my boyfriend and people who call the house.
statisticaly speaking...Gay men have more sex than other demographic groups.
If we were to take the numbers and compare them to the averages....gay men are indeed much more promiscuous than the general populace.
And there is nothing wrong with anyone being sexualy active or promiscuous. The only thing really informing peoples decisions on who is promiscuous, is the amount of sex they themselves are getting.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
That's still an implicit sanction of stereotyping gay men as promiscuous, which is still wrong.
Very true...but the inaccuracy of a stereotype doesn't take it out of existence.
Quote from: Amaranth on October 26, 2011, 01:34:34 PM
Very true...but the inaccuracy of a stereotype doesn't take it out of existence.
I mean, let's put it this way. What if I were to start a thread this way: "Why does X group behave like stereotypical Hispanic people?"
Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean that one should continue to use it.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
I mean, let's put it this way. What if I were to start a thread this way: "Why does X group behave like stereotypical Hispanic people?"
Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean that one should continue to use it.
Hm...point taken. Perhaps I've been watching too much Family Guy.
Quote from: Amaranth on October 26, 2011, 01:46:23 PM
Hm...point taken. Perhaps I've been watching too much Family Guy.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for subversive humor that mocks every class of people under the sun, as long as the mutual teasing is made in good fun and it's spread around equally to all kinds of people.
But this isn't a good-natured prod at gay men, and that's why I find it to be disconcerting.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
I mean, let's put it this way. What if I were to start a thread this way: "Why does X group behave like stereotypical Hispanic people?"
Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean that one should continue to use it.
I'm using it, not because it's a stereotype but because I've seen it with my own eyes. When I use to consider myself a gay male, I had two gay friends who were VERY promiscuous. Going into glory holes just to suck some stranger off. And the ts I'm referring to acts the same way, probably even worse. Women don't typically act this way. So, how does she expect to be viewed as one?
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 02:00:11 PMWomen don't typically act this way.
It really depends on where you're from and what connections you have. lol
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 02:00:11 PM
I'm using it, not because it's a stereotype but because I've seen it with my own eyes. When I use to consider myself a gay male, I had two gay friends who were VERY promiscuous. Going into glory holes just to suck some stranger off. And the ts I'm referring to acts the same way, probably even worse. Women don't typically act this way. So, how does she expect to be viewed as one?
As a former gay man, that stereotype is completely true. I had to get tested every few months to make sure i wasn't +.
Gay men are extremely promiscuous. They have "dating" websites dedicated to screwing and noshing. My ex boyfriend was screwing me, my ex, and our hag.
Jenjen...I agree 100%
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 02:05:11 PM
As a former gay man, that stereotype is completely true. I had to get tested every few months to make sure i wasn't +.
Gay men are extremely promiscuous. They have "dating" websites dedicated to screwing and noshing. My ex boyfriend was screwing me, my ex, and our hag.
Jenjen...I agree 100%
Right! Wonderdyke doesn't get it because she wasn't a former gay man.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 02:05:11 PM
As a former gay man, that stereotype is completely true. I had to get tested every few months to make sure i wasn't +.
Gay men are extremely promiscuous. They have "dating" websites dedicated to screwing and noshing. My ex boyfriend was screwing me, my ex, and our hag.
Anecdotal experience =/= fact or even the experience of everyone.
Straight people have sites just like that.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 02:29:03 PM
Right! Wonderdyke doesn't get it because she wasn't a former gay man.
Well I was gay since 18, but I was old enough to go to bars when I turned 21. Bars are all about hooking up. Gay men are incredibly promiscious...It's no wonder a lot of transgirls who go from gay man to straight girl want stable relationships. I love gay culture and am still part of it passively(I didn't make a 180 turnaround)... But glad I don't have to be in a relationship with a man who is screwing 10 other men besides me.
In the gay world, there are many good men... Do you know where they are?
I don't think a lot of transgirls understand gay culture, since many of them have never lived it. Hell, one of my gay guy friends is transitioning and was still acting queeny and embodying many of the gay stereotypes last time I saw her.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 02:43:53 PM
Well I was gay since 18, but I was old enough to go to bars when I turned 21. Bars are all about hooking up. Gay men are incredibly promiscious...It's no wonder a lot of transgirls who go from gay man to straight girl want stable relationships. I love gay culture and am still part of it(I didn't make a 180 turnaround)... But glad I don't have to be in a relationship with a man who is screwing 10 other men besides me.
Right. Adam4Adam is a prime example.
QuoteIn the gay world, there are many good men... Do you know where they are?
I don't but I'm sure they're somewhere over the rainbow.
Quote from: Andy8715 on October 26, 2011, 02:34:09 PM
Anecdotal experience =/= fact or even the experience of everyone.
Straight people have sites just like that.
You know what? How about instead of saying. "well not everyone is like this" we hear the OP out? I am so sick of arguing with people about if stereotypes are legit. They are stereotypes for a reason.
People are so quick to argue instead of listening. Jenjen wouldn't write this stuff if there wasn't some basis in reality for her statements. Stop trying to have the whole "well not everyone is like that" attitude and her hear out.
Regardless of the TS status, someone does retain their former self even if its an illusion. Many TS women do act like cisgay men, I know I did the first year of my transition.
Therefore, Jenjen is completely right.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 02:43:53 PMone of my gay guy friends is transitioning and was still acting queeny and embodying many of the gay stereotypes last time I saw her.
Yup. Sounds familiar.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 02:48:06 PM
Right. Adam4Adam is a prime example.
People gave me guff on this board for pranking that site. As much as I miss Dustin, I can't help but think I was another hole for him to penetrate on the physical level of our relationship. He even said, "I might have to pretend you're a man" no surprises there, he loved men who resembled young dykes. He loved my old boy photos and wanted that guy in the photo to top him. But since that horse had won the race, he went for me in my current form. He also loved pussy and breasts...Like most horny gay men. LMAO.
After all, he was getting boned by 4 other men. My ex b/f frequents bathhouses, another one of my friends admits to being a "bottom slut".
As for monogamous gay men. I knew a few... Enough to count on one hand.
Haveing been a 'bi male' ::) I have seen very much the stereotypes seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
Quote from: cynthialee on October 26, 2011, 02:55:36 PM
Haveing been a 'bi male' ::) I have seen very much the stereotypes seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
I have a preference for "bi" men. I think they can appreciate the beauty aesthetics of a transgirls much more than "straight arrows". But a lot of them seem to be closet cases who are
"softening the blow" when they come out of the closet.
My ideal man is a gay acting bi cisman thats monogamous...come to think of it, I want an open minded straight guy. The former sounds like a mythological creature.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 02:48:51 PM
You know what? How about instead of saying. "well not everyone is like this" we hear the OP out? I am so sick of arguing with people about if stereotypes are legit. They are stereotypes for a reason. People are so quick to argue instead of listening. Jenjen wouldn't write this stuff if there wasn't some basis in reality for her statements. Stop trying to have the whole "well not everyone is like that" attitude and her hear out.
Nope. It's people who want to shy away from the "well everyone is not like that" attitude and say "well everyone who has
this particular background is going to act like that" who perpetuate stereotypes and hurt everyone in the long run.
Quote from: Andy8715 on October 26, 2011, 02:58:42 PM
Nope. It's people who want to shy away from the "well everyone is not like that" attitude and say "well everyone who has this particular background is going to act like that" who perpetuate stereotypes and hurt everyone in the long run.
You know what... Read Randy Shilts "And the band played on" or Larry Kramer's "->-bleeped-<-gots"...
Those people lived in that culture.Do you live in gay man culture? Nope.
Gay stereotypes are totally true. I used to live in the Castro. I was a stereotypical gay. I know what I am talking about.
Cis gay men culture is incredibly hyper masculine, promiscious, etc... Those men want straight men to go "Roman". Yes, there are many gay men who aren't the stereotype...But they aren't on A4A, Afterelton, or in the Castro.
Now enough arguements about the actual stereotype and how about you support Jenjen's arguement with a real rebuttal.
The straight open minded man exists...but he married my sister in law.
;D
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 02:29:03 PM
Right! Wonderdyke doesn't get it because she wasn't a former gay man.
I used to identify as a gay male, but thanks for making an assumption about me.
Quote from: Andy8715 on October 26, 2011, 02:34:09 PM
Anecdotal experience =/= fact or even the experience of everyone.
Straight people have sites just like that.
This, this, and this a thousand times over.
Your experiences identifying as a gay male do not constitute every gay male's experience ever. That's reductionist and insulting.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 03:00:50 PM
You know what... Read Randy Shilts "And the band played on" or Larry Kramer's "->-bleeped-<-gots"... Those people lived in that culture.
Do you live in gay man culture? Nope.
Gay stereotypes are totally true. I used to live in the Castro. I was a stereotypical gay. I know what I am talking about.
Cis gay men culture is incredibly hyper masculine, promiscious, etc... Those men want straight men to go "Roman". Yes, there are many gay men who aren't the stereotype...But they aren't on A4A, Afterelton, or in the Castro.
Now enough arguements about the actual stereotype and how about you support Jenjen's arguement with a real rebuttal.
You know a lot of gay males that fit the stereotype? Great. I know many gay males, and not a single one that fits that mold. Does that prove either of our points? Nope.
The point is, there's no such thing as an "archetypal gay male", or, for that matter, an "archetypal woman" or "archetypal transsexual woman". Just because society genders and orients behavior as either belonging to men or women, straight people or gay people, cis people or trans people doesn't mean that these behaviors are gendered or oriented.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 02:48:51 PM
You know what? How about instead of saying. "well not everyone is like this" we hear the OP out? I am so sick of arguing with people about if stereotypes are legit. They are stereotypes for a reason. People are so quick to argue instead of listening. Jenjen wouldn't write this stuff if there wasn't some basis in reality for her statements. Stop trying to have the whole "well not everyone is like that" attitude and her hear out.
Regardless of the TS status, someone does retain their former self even if its an illusion. Many TS women do act like cisgay men, I know I did the first year of my transition.
Therefore, Jenjen is completely right.
Just because Jen makes a valid point (that certain transsexual women that she knows act like certain gay men that she knows, something that I am not debating) doesn't mean that I think she's framing it in anything approximating a respectful manner (for either the trans women or the gay men). I'm contesting her use of "gay men" as a stereotype for promiscuity, and taking issue with the fact that she presents it in a manner that demonizes a female acting as a forward or dominant potential sexual partner (which borders dangerously close to slut-shaming).
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 03:18:31 PM
I used to identify as a gay male, but thanks for making an assumption about me.
This, this, and this a thousand times over. Your experiences identifying as a gay male do not constitute every gay male's experience ever. That's reductionist and insulting.
You know a lot of gay males that fit the stereotype? Great. I know many gay males, and not a single one that fits that mold. Does that prove either of our points? Nope.
The point is, there's no such thing as an "archetypal gay male", or, for that matter, an "archetypal woman" or "archetypal transsexual woman". Just because society genders and orients behavior as either belonging to men or women, straight people or gay people, cis people or trans people doesn't mean that these behaviors are gendered or oriented.
Just because Jen makes a valid point (that certain transsexual women that she knows act like certain gay men that she knows, something that I am not debating) doesn't mean that I think she's framing it in anything approximating a respectful manner (for either the trans women or the gay men). I'm contesting her use of "gay men" as a stereotype for promiscuity, and taking issue with the fact that she presents it in a manner that demonizes a female acting as a forward or dominant potential sexual partner (which borders dangerously close to slut-shaming).
You're in college, aren't you?
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 03:20:04 PM
You're in college, aren't you?
How does that relate to anything I just said?
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 03:21:30 PM
How does that relate to anything I just said?
It sounds like the kind of argument I'd have with someone who was just starting college. Not that there's anything wrong with going to college...I went for a few years.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 03:25:04 PM
It sounds like the kind of argument I'd have with someone who was just starting college. Not that there's anything wrong with going to college...I went for a few years.
And yet you seem to act as if I'm some sort of petulant, impetuous child. I may not have however many years of experience in the "real world" as you seem to think I need, but that doesn't mean you can ignore everything I said and claim experiential superiority.
I mean, you
can, I guess, but you're certainly not helping your own point by trying to divert the argument into some sort of "you're too young to understand anything, ever".
Not that there's anything wrong with going to college...I went for a few years.
Probably should have gone for a few more then. The argument you want to make, but failed to is this: though insanely promiscuous sex is rampant in both the homo and hetro-sexual cultures, the homosexual sub-culture made it much more open, public and accessible part of the culture - and thus, highly visible - then it is in the heterosexual culture where it tends to the down-low, QT and behind-closed-doors style and is invisible to the general population.
So it's seen, especially to the casual observer that the gay culture is much more promiscuous, that may - or may not - be the reality.
Two major reasons:
1. Simply because many ts women lived as gay men earlier in their lives.
2. Deliberately changing behavior and personality is something that most people are not willing to do, even transgendered people.
Quote from: Graverobber9 on October 26, 2011, 04:09:48 PM
Two major reasons:
1. Simply because many ts women lived as gay men earlier in their lives.
2. Deliberately changing behavior and personality is something that most people are not willing to do, even transgendered people.
2. FTW
You still retain your previous personality. But the other argument could be that a lot of society considers us
gay men drag queens with hormonally grown boobs. Rather than fighting it, others have embraced the stereotype.
hell if I know.....maybe they're drama queens?
I'm not even gonna touch this one lol.
Quote from: tekla on October 26, 2011, 03:51:34 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with going to college...I went for a few years.
Probably should have gone for a few more then.
That was uncalled for. - 1 :police:
Bring this back on topic and stop the personal insults or the topic will be locked.
Quote from: original postI use to be friends with another ts and I could never understand her behavior. All I know is that it reminded me of the way some gay men act.
For example, when we use to go out cruising in the car, she would roll down her window and start yelling at guys and say. "hey baby, i'm horny" or some sleazy comment like that. She was always VERY obnoxious and loud. Her mannerisms are also very exaggerated.
She flirts with almost every man she comes in contact with and has even performed oral sex to a complete stranger in front of a nightclub for the public to see.
The reason I compare her to some gay men is because I've seen a lot of them who act the same way. I don't understand how she expects people to view her as a woman acting the way she does.
What could it be?
Does she drink allot of booze?
Because it's funny.
Gotta agree with Wonderdyke on this one. The stereotype came around because those are the most visible kind of gay guys, not because they are the only ones. It's the same reason the vocal minority in any community is thought to be far larger than it really is: high visibility. For every promiscuous gay guy being obnoxiously out and proud, there is another who stays away from all the noise and lives with their partner in a monogamous relationship.
If anything Mahsa, living in the Castro would have swayed your point of view a lot. Of course you would know tons of gay guys like that because social gay people flock there to socialize. But I bet you never met or even saw those who stayed away from that aspect of the community.
To answer the question posed by the title: my best guess is "old habits die hard" or "that's just the way they are." I know a girl like that personally, and tbh she seems to annoy the bejeezus out of everyone.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 03:18:31 PM
I used to identify as a gay male, but thanks for making an assumption about me.
You're welcome.
QuoteThis, this, and this a thousand times over. Your experiences identifying as a gay male do not constitute every gay male's experience ever. That's reductionist and insulting.
Please quote where I said my experience living as a gay male was EVERY gay male's experience.
QuoteJust because Jen makes a valid point (that certain transsexual women that she knows act like certain gay men that she knows, something that I am not debating) doesn't mean that I think she's framing it in anything approximating a respectful manner (for either the trans women or the gay men). I'm contesting her use of "gay men" as a stereotype for promiscuity, and taking issue with the fact that she presents it in a manner that demonizes a female acting as a forward or dominant potential sexual partner (which borders dangerously close to slut-shaming).
How the hell should I have "framed it" or "presented it", according to you? If you don't like it, move on to the next thread. I don't see how anything you've said answers my original question.
Quote from: cynthialee on October 26, 2011, 05:25:28 PM
Does she drink allot of booze?
If you consider once or twice every weekend a lot, then yes.
other drugs?
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 06:36:51 PM
You're welcome.
Please quote where I said my experience living as a gay male was EVERY gay male's experience.
How the hell should I have "framed it" or "presented it", according to you? If you don't like it, move on to the next thread. I don't see how anything you've said answers my original question.
Do you want me to validate your anecdotally-"proven" wrongheaded stereotypes? I didn't answer your question because I found the question to be offensive at baseline.
"Some AMAB transsexuals" do not behave like "gay men" (note that neither is a monolith, hence the scare quotes). Some of these transsexuals may have formerly identified as gay men and continue to act the way that they used to when they identified as such (which may be a way that other gay men have acted), but like I've said: there's no archetypal gay male, and so these trans people are acting like themselves, not "like gay men".
I'm not here because I "like your thread". I'm here because I'm trying to fight what I see to be misrepresentative and harmful to both transsexual females and gay males.
It has to do with male and female subjective consciousness. The male objective consciousness on sexuality is visual oriented, whereas in the female it is emotional ly oriented. If a male is interested in male or female, it is easy to turn on visually alone as there is no need for emotional involvement. This ease on getting involved sexually translate as promiscuity, it is the stereotype for cis-male both straight or guy, differ only in their object, i.e. male or female. For MTF behaving indecently or promiscuously in public is due to this male consciousness that is still latent. No doubt, some cis-male can behave decently and faithful to a partner, but these are rare cases, the fact is male response to opportunities, if they are more opportunities to meet their objects, and they have the qualities that attract their objects, then opportunity will not allow them to be decent and faithful. In case of MTF with the latent male consciousness who become more attractive to male, then the condition will allow them to be promiscuous.
The female objective consciousness has a filtering mechanism, it seek security as well as emotional feelings, so the object has to be able to fulfill these requirements before she can open herself to the relationship. So female consciousness != male consciousness, and this difference exists as stereotypes of the two groups (male and female consciousness whether it is in the cis-male, gay or MTF). Lesbians have female-consciousness (thus more emotionally oriented and faithful to their partner), even FTM carry this latent tendencies (but successful FTM may adapt to the male culture and completely changed their subjective consciousness).
Whereas the female subjective consciousness is highly self-conscious, i.e. care about gracefulness, decency and morality in self behaviour, speech, looks, etc. Thus this consciousness expresses motherhood in the female, it opposed to behaviour can be potentially attract harm to their children through indecent, and promiscuous behaviour. Successful MTF should be able to adapt to this female consciousness which prepared them to be good mothers (though they may not be one naturally).
In response to this whole thread:
"It happened to me twice and her twice, therefore it must be true for everyone everywhere" is not a valid argument and I hope simplifying it like that helps you to see how/why.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 26, 2011, 07:16:09 PM
It has to do with male and female subjective consciousness. The male objective consciousness on sexuality is visual oriented, whereas in the female it is emotional ly oriented. If a male is interested in male or female, it is easy to turn on visually alone as there is no need for emotional involvement. This ease on getting involved sexually translate as promiscuity, it is the stereotype for cis-male both straight or guy, differ only in their object, i.e. male or female. For MTF behaving indecently or promiscuously in public is due to this male consciousness that is still latent. No doubt, some cis-male can behave decently and faithful to a partner, but these are rare cases, the fact is male response to opportunities, if they are more opportunities to meet their objects, and they have the qualities that attract their objects, then opportunity will not allow them to be decent and faithful. In case of MTF with the latent male consciousness who become more attractive to male, then the condition will allow them to be promiscuous.
The female consciousness has a filtering mechanism, it seek security as well as emotional feelings, so the object has to be able to fulfill these requirements before she can open herself to the relationship. So female consciousness != male consciousness, and this difference exists as stereotypes of the two groups (male and female consciousness whether it is in the cis-male, gay or MTF). Lesbians have female-consciousness (thus more emotionally oriented and faithful to their partner), even FTM carry this latent tendencies (but successful FTM may adapt to the male culture and completely changed their subjective consciousness).
No. I do not carry "latent male tendencies", and promiscuity on the part of transsexual females is not a "latent male tendency". Likewise, an emotionally-oriented transsexual male is not indulging in "latent female tendencies".
(This does sound suspiciously like an evo-devo psychological perspective, which I've spent the last two weeks passionately arguing against in my developmental psychology class. The weight of evidence regarding sex differences in jealousy and sexual response supports some aspects of the double-shot hypothesis, but I think that the discrepancy noted in this hypothesis points to socialized gender role differentiation.)
I thought we had moved past the assumption that we're all this exotic mix of male and female.
Old habits really do die hard. You can take the flaming gay man out of a club and turn him into a beautiful woman, but you can't always keep that gay man from dropping in from time to time. I've seen it happen in a few of my friends, many, many times. I think it some cases it sort of evolves into it's own little subculture, because a lot of the have their own form of slang and phrases ( certain phrases that i've adopted into my own vocabulary, because I think it's fun to use among my fellow sisters, haha.) And I think I know exactly who Amy is talking about and I am going to have to agree with ya, girly! :P
Also, not to offend Wonderdyke but she kind of reminds me of the blonde girl in this comic! http://transgirldiaries.com/?p=1842 (http://transgirldiaries.com/?p=1842) :laugh:
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 26, 2011, 07:36:27 PM
No. I do not carry "latent male tendencies", and promiscuity on the part of transsexual females is not a "latent male tendency". Likewise, an emotionally-oriented transsexual male is not indulging in "latent female tendencies".
Rather than apprehending their differences, you equate them nonetheless. This only lead to explaning things away, but without having pointed out the main reasons. Also this sexuality consciousness, it differed due to be male and female forms. Female is beautiful/attractive, male is not, this is universal (regardless of sexual orientation). Why would the attactive (female) being attracted to the unattractive (male)? Answer: It doesn't, but has to do with the emotional and biological demand latent in the female subjective consciousness toward an object. For a female to want sex with any person regardless of the filtering mechanism of consciousness is strictly a male consciousness. Since the unattractive (male) simply attract to an object which it find attractive (i.e. man for gay, woman for straight male).
In other words, the male consciousness is object-dependent (he doesn't care about himself but care about the object he is interested in), whereas the female consciousness is subject-dependent (she cares about herself feelings more, and the object she would be interested has to be able to direct the attention back to herself).
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 26, 2011, 08:04:37 PM
Female is beautiful/attractive, male is not, this is universal (regardless of sexual orientation).
You must not have heard of ancient Greece?
Notions of what it means to be male and what it means to be female, and all that entails, are socially constructed by societies. Gender is not a cultural universal.
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 26, 2011, 08:52:31 PM
Gender is not a cultural universal.
Biological gender in physical form is universally distinguishable, not indistinguishable by society's norm (whatever subjective cultural distortion that might be). Also beauty versus ugliness is of universal distinction and has a biological basis. Beauty is related to healthy gene, ugliness is related to unhealthy/inferior gene and so on. Sexual attraction based on physical attractiveness is for propagation of healthy genes in all the living species (not just in human).
Very low self steam comes to mind, that is regardless of sexual orienntation or gender identity
Jen61
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 26, 2011, 09:37:30 PM
Also beauty versus ugliness is of universal distinction and has a biological basis. Beauty is related to healthy gene, ugliness is related to unhealthy/inferior gene and so on. Sexual attraction based on physical attractiveness is for propagation of healthy genes in all the living species (not just in human).
beauty is cultural not universal.
Quote from: Mariposa on October 26, 2011, 07:39:52 PM
Old habits really do die hard. You can take the flaming gay man out of a club and turn him into a beautiful woman, but you can't always keep that gay man from dropping in from time to time. I've seen it happen in a few of my friends, many, many times. I think it some cases it sort of evolves into it's own little subculture, because a lot of the have their own form of slang and phrases ( certain phrases that i've adopted into my own vocabulary, because I think it's fun to use among my fellow sisters, haha.) And I think I know exactly who Amy is talking about and I am going to have to agree with ya, girly! :P
Also, not to offend Wonderdyke but she kind of reminds me of the blonde girl in this comic! http://transgirldiaries.com/?p=1842 (http://transgirldiaries.com/?p=1842) :laugh:
Thanks for the link to Transgirl Diaries Mariposa! I do think its a "little" harsh on Wonderdyke, she's still pretty young :laugh:!
Quote from: Andy8715 on October 26, 2011, 09:49:25 PM
beauty is cultural not universal.
Beauty is individual in addition to culture, when the objects are more or less pretty, so is the definition of urgliness is individual as well as culture when the objects are more or less urgly. But when the objects are obviously mixed between extreme of beauty and ugliness, then the universal knowledge of their differences exist.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 26, 2011, 09:37:30 PM
Biological gender in physical form is universally distinguishable, not indistinguishable by society's norm (whatever subjective cultural distortion that might be). Also beauty versus ugliness is of universal distinction and has a biological basis. Beauty is related to healthy gene, ugliness is related to unhealthy/inferior gene and so on. Sexual attraction based on physical attractiveness is for propagation of healthy genes in all the living species (not just in human).
1) You mean "biological sex," and in fact there is such a thing as ambiguous genitalia. Seriously, wave hi to the intersex people in the LGBT(I) community.
2) You're assuming that maleness is inherently ugly, when there is no basis whatsoever for that assumption. I offered the example of ancient Greeks regarding men as beautiful (an example of beauty being defined by a culture, by the way), but you've conveniently ignored it. And why do advertisers successfully use male models to sell things if they're supposedly inherently ugly?
If you're trying to be philosophical, you're failing in logic, and if you're trying to be empirical, you're failing in data.
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 26, 2011, 10:07:31 PM
1) You mean "biological sex," and in fact there is such a thing as ambiguous genitalia. Seriously, wave hi to the intersex people in the LGBT(I) community.
They are not normal biological trait and depend on cases may required surgical correction in order to lead a normal life desired by the person concerned.
Quote2) You're assuming that maleness is inherently ugly, when there is no basis whatsoever for that assumption. I offered the example of ancient Greeks regarding men as beautiful (an example of beauty being defined by a culture, by the way), but you've conveniently ignored it. And why do advertisers successfully use male models to sell things if they're supposedly inherently ugly?
I meant 'beautiful', not 'handsomeness' in my definition of the extreme opposite of this, which is ugliness. The extreme of maleness in a woman fit in the ugliness features, the extreme of maleness in a man does not extremely effect 'handsomeness' as it does to woman. If man has beautiful features, then those features are feminine rather than masculine feature. For example, if a beautiful woman is pretending to be a man by dressing as a man, she will be considered as a beautiful man. The opposite is a handsome man with extreme of male features pretending to be a woman, he will be considered as an ugly woman. But a handsome man with average feminine features pretending to be a woman, he will be considered as a beautiful woman.
QuoteIf you're trying to be philosophical, you're failing in logic, and if you're trying to be empirical, you're failing in data.
The fact is beauty is relative to feminity, there are beautiful men but their beauty is attributed to their feminine features. Speaking of data, consider beauty contest, there is a standard to beauty within a range where individual judgement is needed but outside that range, they are not qualified to enter the contest, and these criterial for selection are universal all over the world. Consider also about passing, without a universal knowledge of beauty that is inherein biologically in our species, MTF never need to bother about the criteria for passing. However, speaking of extreme in feminine and masculine, the extreme in feminine is not beauty, because extreme in related to unhealthy development of gene, but the average is considered the healthy development and so the average in feminity is beauty, the same apply to handsomeness.
Lastly, consider our biological default mode which is female, i.e. age between 10-13, this form in healthy state is considered beautiful, the effect of T causing the maleness is the diminishing of this beauty mode. Thus, it can be logically inferred that the result of T which is maleness opposes the definition of feminism and beauty.
This reminds me of my old tg support group, always arguing with each other and getting off the subject. ::)
Quote from: Mariposa on October 26, 2011, 07:39:52 PM
Old habits really do die hard. You can take the flaming gay man out of a club and turn him into a beautiful woman, but you can't always keep that gay man from dropping in from time to time. I've seen it happen in a few of my friends, many, many times.
You see it on my fb page all the time. My friends are all gay men.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 01:11:07 PM
Well, sorry to burst your bubble but SOME are. At least, SOME that I've met.
The qualities that you've described cannot be exclusively ascribed to homosexual men. I invite you to attend Mardi Gras and have a look around you. The behavior that you've described is normative to virtually ALL attendees. The behaviors that you are demanding that this person assume are also not exclusively ascribed to women, they're standards of public decency which apply to both sexes and all sexual orientations.
Ye be the one in the bubble, me lass.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 26, 2011, 10:31:00 PM
I meant 'beautiful', not 'handsomeness' in my definition of the extreme opposite of this, which is ugliness
Why are you setting up men and women as extreme opposites? They are not, and that notion is particularly harmful because it's what helps perpetuate strict gender socialization (and thus separation) in the U.S.
QuoteLastly, consider our biological default mode which is female, i.e. age between 10-13, this form in healthy state is considered beautiful, the effect of T causing the maleness is the diminishing of this beauty mode. Thus, it can be logically inferred that the result of T which is maleness opposes the definition of feminism and beauty.
People who are attracted to 10-13 year olds' beauty are considered pedophiles.
Stop trying to strictly equate "feminity" (which is part of socially constructed gender) to "beauty". Paintings can be beautiful, a heap of neatly arranged garbage could probably even be beautiful in some way. Do these things have gender? No.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 26, 2011, 11:04:34 PM
The qualities that you've described cannot be exclusively ascribed to homosexual men. I invite you to attend Mardi Gras and have a look around you. The behavior that you've described is normative to virtually ALL attendees. The behaviors that you are demanding that this person assume are also not exclusively ascribed to women, they're standards of public decency which apply to both sexes and all sexual orientations.
Ye be the one in the bubble, me lass.
Women don't usually ..............................
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 26, 2011, 11:05:53 PM
Paintings can be beautiful, a heap of neatly arranged garbage could probably even be beautiful in some way. Do these things have gender? No.
The garbage heap that was talking to me one day was male. He told me.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 11:06:10 PM
Women don't usually get their bungholes screwed in gloryholes.
I have known three that would take up that offer....
edit...also there is plenty of GH pron that features women.
just sayin'
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 11:06:10 PM
Women don't usually ..........................
Oh, so? Even if that's correct, some women do, right (as per your use of the word usually instead of never)? Then you haven't invalidated my argument, ma'am. My argument isn't about "typical" behavior, it's about ascribing a set of behaviors to a group universally without justifiably being able to do so. There's a difference between acting in a manner that many homosexual men do and "acting like a gay man". It's subtle, but the difference IS there.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 11:07:12 PM
The garbage heap that was talking to me one day was male. He told me.
Was his name oscar the grouch by any chance? :D
Quote from: Rukia87xo on October 26, 2011, 11:19:11 PM
Was his name oscar the grouch by any chance? :D
BA-HAHAHA---A! That's a good one! ;D
Quote from: Rukia87xo on October 26, 2011, 11:19:11 PM
Was his name oscar the grouch by any chance? :D
I was on like 5 tabs of acid... No his name was "Roy Red Rammerslammer"
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 26, 2011, 11:15:35 PM
Oh, so? Even if that's correct, some women do, right (as per your use of the word usually instead of never)? Then you haven't invalidated my argument, ma'am. My argument isn't about "typical" behavior, it's about ascribing a set of behaviors to a group universally without justifiably being able to do so. There's a difference between acting in a manner that many homosexual men do and "acting like a gay man". It's subtle, but the difference IS there.
How many gay men have you hung out with? I know hundreds of them and I've been there. So I guess I don't know my former culture now. Even gay men within the culture see the stereotypes and they are true.
What next? Gonna question me knowing my Persian history?
Post modernist thinking....
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 26, 2011, 11:05:53 PM
Why are you setting up men and women as extreme opposites? They are not, and that notion is particularly harmful because it's what helps perpetuate strict gender socialization (and thus separation) in the U.S.
I'm describing things in scientific context, not by political and cultural context. Male and female are biologically distinctive, and this distinction lead to other pschological distinctions, to be successful MTF we must understand the biological and pschological differences, obstacles, and what can and cannot be resolved, while we correct what can be corrected while accept what cannot be corrected. There is a difference between facts and self-acceptance.
QuotePeople who are attracted to 10-13 year olds' beauty are considered pedophiles.
There is a biological basis for male sexual attraction toward the female to be based on the image of this human biological default build. The biological reason is that estrogen permanently fixed (stop growing) the default bone structure at around age 13 for female. This timing is considered healthy and biologically attractive to our species (in the universal perception of our species) as healthy mean capable of reproduction, unhealthy development (too much bone growth) reflect lack of the estrogen (or unhealthy reproductive system) or abnormal development. Pschologically male considered a well-build figure like himself to be a direct competitor, thus arise resentment and hostility which is the opposite of sexual attraction, whereas the opposite is automatically associated with the biological sexual object, thus the universal definition of female beauty based on default human build. The fully matured male build was not biologically design as an object of sexual attraction, but as a capable agent of acquiring the object of attraction (female) through stronger physical capability, this is manifest in men's desire for war (in order to achieve money, power, sex), whereas women are the opposite (desire for peace).
QuoteStop trying to strictly equate "feminity" (which is part of socially constructed gender) to "beauty". Paintings can be beautiful, a heap of neatly arranged garbage could probably even be beautiful in some way. Do these things have gender? No.
The word should mean 'feminine', excuse my poor english.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 26, 2011, 11:38:25 PM
How many gay men have you hung out with? I know hundreds of them and I've been there. So I guess I don't know my former culture now. Even gay men within the culture see the stereotypes and they are true.
What next? Gonna question me knowing my Persian history?
Post modernist thinking....
You need to stop taking this personally. As in, RIGHT NOW. I don't have to deal with having words shoved into my mouth, and don't think for a second that I will anyway. The fact that you know hundreds of gay men, and even the testimony of those gay men, is absolutely IRRELEVANT to the fact that the behaviors described are not exclusively attributable to homosexual men, nor are they universal behaviors within the homosexual male community. As such, they cannot be described as "acting like a gay man".
This is nothing more and nothing less than a failure to establish a universal argument as valid. Universal arguments fail if even ONE counter-example can be found, no matter how many examples fitting the universal paradigm exist simultaneously with the counter-example. Get it? This isn't about you, this isn't about your friends, this is simply me saying that there is no such thing as "acting like a gay man", because there are no universal behaviors for gay men beyond having a sexual interest in men.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 26, 2011, 11:59:40 PM
You need to stop taking this personally. As in, RIGHT NOW. I don't have to deal with having words shoved into my mouth, and don't think for a second that I will anyway. The fact that you know hundreds of gay men, and even the testimony of those gay men, is absolutely IRRELEVANT to the fact that the behaviors described are not exclusively attributable to homosexual men, nor are they universal behaviors within the homosexual male community. As such, they cannot be described as "acting like a gay man".
This is nothing more and nothing less than a failure to establish a universal argument as valid. Universal arguments fail if even ONE counter-example can be found, no matter how many examples fitting the universal paradigm exist simultaneously with the counter-example. Get it? This isn't about you, this isn't about your friends, this is simply me saying that there is no such thing as "acting like a gay man", because there are no universal behaviors for gay men beyond having a sexual interest in men.
Here my ex b/f is acting like a straight dude:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprofile.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhprofile-ak-snc4%2F370142_688877197_632782912_n.jpg&hash=caf9f1da2485270e2549b30c9bff8dfdd19e5f81)
(I think that may be a ->-bleeped-<-...can't tell)
Guess you were right.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 26, 2011, 11:59:40 PM
You need to stop taking this personally. As in, RIGHT NOW. I don't have to deal with having words shoved into my mouth, and don't think for a second that I will anyway. The fact that you know hundreds of gay men, and even the testimony of those gay men, is absolutely IRRELEVANT to the fact that the behaviors described are not exclusively attributable to homosexual men, nor are they universal behaviors within the homosexual male community. As such, they cannot be described as "acting like a gay man".
This is nothing more and nothing less than a failure to establish a universal argument as valid. Universal arguments fail if even ONE counter-example can be found, no matter how many examples fitting the universal paradigm exist simultaneously with the counter-example. Get it? This isn't about you, this isn't about your friends, this is simply me saying that there is no such thing as "acting like a gay man", because there are no universal behaviors for gay men beyond having a sexual interest in men.
Quoted for absolute truth. This cannot be stressed enough.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 26, 2011, 11:58:24 PM
I'm describing things in scientific context, not by political and cultural context. Male and female are biologically distinctive, and this distinction lead to other pschological distinctions, to be successful MTF we must understand the biological and pschological differences, obstacles, and what can and cannot be resolved, while we correct what can be corrected while accept what cannot be corrected. There is a difference between facts and self-acceptance.
There is a biological basis for male sexual attraction toward the female to be based on the image of this human biological default build. The biological reason is that estrogen permanently fixed (stop growing) the default bone structure at around age 13 for female. This timing is considered healthy and biologically attractive to our species (in the universal perception of our species) as healthy mean capable of reproduction, unhealthy development (too much bone growth) reflect lack of the estrogen (or unhealthy reproductive system) or abnormal development. Pschologically male considered a well-build figure like himself to be a direct competitor, thus arise resentment and hostility which is the opposite of sexual attraction, whereas the opposite is automatically associated with the biological sexual object, thus the universal definition of female beauty based on default human build. The fully matured male build was not biologically design as an object of sexual attraction, but as a capable agent of acquiring the object of attraction (female) through stronger physical capability, this is manifest in men's desire for war (in order to achieve money, power, sex), whereas women are the opposite (desire for peace).
The word should mean 'feminine', excuse my poor english.
Just because there are quantifiable biological distinctions between male and female bodies doesn't mean there are quantifiable social distinctions between males and females not ascribable to social construction, and as such, real distinctions between (for example) females and trans females beyond the chromosomal. And when you consider conditions such as complete androgen insensitivity, the argument falters further. Their SRY ain't doin' much of anything, even though it's an encoded genetic difference.
This is more evo-devo stuff, and frankly, transsexuality (and, for that matter, homosexuality and plenty of other gender variance) kind of fly in its face a great deal of the time. It's why I don't lend it much credence.
As long as you understand what I am and am not saying. I don't want to fight with you, and I never intended to upset you. I'm not on these boards to find fights, I'm here to find friendly and intelligent conversation. I'd be glad to have both with you in the future, Mahsa. Maybe sometime we can chit-chat over Persian history, a topic I admit to having essentially NO knowledge of.
When a straight person hooks up with a random person... they are normal, no one even thinks about it.
When a gay person hooks up with a random person... they are sexual deviants and sex-crazed maniacs.
Cool.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 27, 2011, 03:30:01 AM
When a straight person hooks up with a random person... they are normal, no one even thinks about it.
When a gay person hooks up with a random person... they are sexual deviants and sex-crazed maniacs.
Cool.
Last I checked straight people didn't have bathhouses, etc... Ever been to Folsom street fair? Men blow each other randomly on the streets.
SF has 5 gay sex clubs, 1 co-ed sex club, and 1 kink place. Promiscuity is encouraged in the gay culture at large. Again, unless you're part of that culture...you'll never know.
As for trans women who used to be gay men, I suppose there is some carry over.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 03:35:27 AM
Last I checked straight people didn't have bathhouses, etc... Ever been to Folsom street fair? Men blow each other randomly on the streets.
Really? Because I live down the street from a couple strip clubs? TONSSSSSSS of straight prostitutes around and plenty of other things like that. Of course, straight people also have sex in public... and do some kinky stuff to eachother.
Ever been to mardi gras?
The thing is, straight people being overly and publicly sexual is SOOOO mainstream that we don't even notice it. Heck, in football, you have them dressing up women in almost naked outfits to dance around for them! If gay guys were to have a sport and dress up half naked and dance around, we would all look in disgust at the "perverted behaviour".
Quote from: Rabbit on October 27, 2011, 03:43:14 AM
straight people also have sex in public... and do some kinky stuff to eachother.
Mostly straight males with paid prostitutes, no descent cis female will associate with such activities which is purely for sex. Cis females are not sexually oriented, and very conscious of what is indecent and what is perverts. Even for the few cis women who would pay for the service of male prostitutes did so in revenge toward their unfaithful partner and not for purely sexual reason. Though they are cases of sexual obsession (due to mental disorder) that exist in female, it doesn't belong to the majority of mentally healthy cis women.
You associate straight versus non-straight with regard to the issue of promiscuous which is incorrect. Promiscuous has nothing to do with being straight or non-straight (gay) but has to do with the male consciousness. So both straight males and gays who are male conscious oriented about themselves will be more promiscuous than those with female subjective consciousness (cis women, genuine MTFs, lesbians).
I'd say - because that's what they are, gay men.
Just a bit confused I guess, ->-bleeped-<-e happens, eh?
Axelle
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 27, 2011, 07:38:08 AM
Cis females are not sexually oriented, and very conscious of what is indecent and what is perverts.
LOL nope... there are plenty of super frisky girls. The idea that girls don't like or enjoy or seek out sex is very...old fashioned.
I know plenty of girls who go after that. Of course, they aren't running around telling people (wonder why), but they chat about it with their friends a lot.
The idea that a woman wanting sex is because of a mental disorder? hahaha, that is a good one :P
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 27, 2011, 12:27:06 AM
Just because there are quantifiable biological distinctions between male and female bodies doesn't mean there are quantifiable social distinctions between males and females not ascribable to social construction, and as such, real distinctions between (for example) females and trans females beyond the chromosomal. And when you consider conditions such as complete androgen insensitivity, the argument falters further. Their SRY ain't doin' much of anything, even though it's an encoded genetic difference.
Due to standard biological parameters exist as binary genders that relatively affect the pschological parameter, the rest of the pschological gender variants can be accurately measure in degrees based on this parameters as their standard quantification. In other words, the diversity of gender variants does not invalidate the basic parameter exists as a binary gender but support them both ways, i.e. one can quantify the division of pschological binary gender (subjective and objective consciousness) within both lesbians and gays relationship.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 27, 2011, 08:06:55 AM
The idea that a woman wanting sex is because of a mental disorder? hahaha, that is a good one :P
I mean being obsessed with the idea of sex all the time is not normal for cis women (because it is normal only for male behaviour), it is okay for cis women to want sex but with conditions of stable relationship and emotional involvement.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 27, 2011, 07:38:08 AM
Mostly straight males with paid prostitutes, no descent cis female will associate with such activities which is purely for sex. Cis females are not sexually oriented, and very conscious of what is indecent and what is perverts. Even for the few cis women who would pay for the service of male prostitutes did so in revenge toward their unfaithful partner and not for purely sexual reason. Though they are cases of sexual obsession (due to mental disorder) that exist in female, it doesn't belong to the majority of mentally healthy cis women.
You associate straight versus non-straight with regard to the issue of promiscuous which is incorrect. Promiscuous has nothing to do with being straight or non-straight (gay) but has to do with the male consciousness. So both straight males and gays who are male conscious oriented about themselves will be more promiscuous than those with female subjective consciousness (cis women, genuine MTFs, lesbians).
Thanks, but it doesn't work that way. (First of all, blanket statements like "cis females are not sexually oriented" are not only weird sweeping generalization, but also
wrong.) The fact that I choose to express my sexuality with pride doesn't mean that I'm secretly engaging in a cis male kink or that I'm not a "genuine" transsexual. It means I'm a proud female who isn't afraid to be open and out about her sexual orientation. I can choose to want casual sex over a relationship and if you think that makes me less of a female, then you're making totally false judgments.
Promiscuity doesn't have anything to do with intrinsic maleness; it's perpetuated by a culture that rewards male promiscuity and punishes any expression of sexuality by females. This is propelled by two different dichotomies: the stud/slut double standard and the Madonna/whore dichotomy. In both cases, women are criticized heavily for owning their own sexuality, whereas for men it is permitted or even lauded.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 27, 2011, 08:16:29 AM
I mean being obsessed with the idea of sex all the time is not normal for cis women (because it is normal only for male behaviour), it is okay for cis women to want sex but with conditions of stable relationship and emotional involvement.
Wow, this is really sexist. Like, blatantly so.
This stereotype hurts men and women. See above! Turns out female-identified people can like casual sex! Imagine that.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 27, 2011, 08:16:29 AM
I mean being obsessed with the idea of sex all the time is not normal for cis women (because it is normal only for male behaviour), it is okay for cis women to want sex but with conditions of stable relationship and emotional involvement.
Lol you need to meet / chat with some more women :P In the 20-30 age range maybe.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 27, 2011, 08:52:54 AM
Lol you need to meet / chat with some more women :P In the 20-30 age range maybe.
Thank you for being a reasonable human being.
First time I encountered fisting it was a cis female that showed me the ropes....
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 27, 2011, 08:16:29 AM
I mean being obsessed with the idea of sex all the time is not normal for cis women (because it is normal only for male behaviour), it is okay for cis women to want sex but with conditions of stable relationship and emotional involvement.
You need to get your head out of sexist western doctrine and into the real world
Noting a decided lack of reality here...
+ 1 tekla
oh my....
Axelle
PS: Why does the word "Kindergarten" keep coming up for me?
Quote from: Rabbit on October 27, 2011, 03:30:01 AM
When a straight person hooks up with a random person... they are normal, no one even thinks about it.
When a gay person hooks up with a random person... they are sexual deviants and sex-crazed maniacs.
Cool.
yup. that's called heterosexual privilege.
Quote from: Torn1990 on October 27, 2011, 05:24:02 PM
yup. that's called heterosexual privilege.
Oh, yet another thing to blame on "privilege". This thread has gotten so far from the Ops original intent.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
Oh, yet another thing to blame on "privilege". This thread has gotten so far from the Ops original intent.
This thread came from a white privileged, heteronormative perspective that's obviously problematic. We're on topic.
No one is being blamed for anything, people should be aware of how their language can be a problem. Your white privilege
will never go away, you can just explain it away, but why not be aware of it?
Quote from: Torn1990 on October 27, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
This thread came from a white privileged, heteronormative perspective that's obviously problematic. We're on topic.
No, we aren't. Sick of people blaming the white male for everything and using fancy post modern words to do it. Look in the mirror, you are white and privileged. I can tell by just looking at your avatar.
We're discussing gay men here. Race is not even an issue.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 05:38:35 PM
No, we aren't. Sick of people blaming the white male for everything and using fancy post modern words to do it. Look in the mirror, you are white and privileged. I can tell by just looking at your avatar.
We're discussing gay men here. Race is not even an issue.
For a trans woman, you sure take up a lot of masculine space.
Why is it you get to gate keep dialogues? Just because youre sick of a conversation shouldn't mean everyone has to start talking about what you want to talk about. That's your white male privilege and that's where race comes into play in a conversation about gay men being related to trans women.
Quote from: Torn1990 on October 27, 2011, 05:56:50 PM
For a trans woman, you sure take up a lot of masculine space.
Was that insult? Wait, do you see it...there is goes...It bounced off of me. LOL.
Second of all, I am Iranian.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Was that insult? Wait, do you see it...there is goes...It bounced off of me. LOL.
Second of all, I am Iranian.
You still yield white privilege. "I can tell by your avatar." You don't have to be caucasian to yield white privilege.
Quote from: Torn1990 on October 27, 2011, 05:59:59 PM
You still yield white privilege. "I can tell by your avatar." You don't have to be caucasian to yield white privilege.
Your college rhetoric doesn't scare me.
Lions, tigers and bears oh my! How this thread degenerated.
I am not gonna argue with you anymore. It's not worth it.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Was that insult? Wait, do you see it...there is goes...It bounced off of me. LOL.
Second of all, I am Iranian.
You do know the etymology of the word "Iran" then? ::)
Quote from: mimpi on October 27, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
You do know the etymology of the word "Iran" then? ::)
What does that have to do with anything?
What do you think, look it up and learn. If you are really Iranian you shouldn't have to.
Quote from: mimpi on October 27, 2011, 06:21:21 PM
What do you think, look it up and learn. If you are really Iranian you shouldn't have to.
Yeah, it's not wise to tell me I don't know about my own race.
*looks for the block button*
There's only one race: the human one. Live with it.
Being Iranian does not define a body type. I could be from Nigeria and possess all Danish blood. Generally Persian is used as the body type, and it's not its own type either, because they're still "White" more similar to Semites than the Danish of course ;D. Saying "Iranian" isn't white, is like saying Greek or Italian are not white, which they are.
Where in the world is this topic going? None of these recent posts have anything to do with the OP.
Let's get back on track folks.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on October 27, 2011, 06:28:33 PM
Where in the world is this topic going? None of these recent posts have anything to do with the OP.
Let's get back on track folks.
Mod,
Read the topic. it's riddled with homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and begs to talk about it. I think these dialogues are necessary.
Omg stop arguing with each other! This kind of behaviour is embarrassing....this is one example of why many ts girls leave the tg community. ::)
Stay on topic people!
Well put Rukia.
Quote from: Torn1990 on October 27, 2011, 06:41:02 PM
Mod,
Read the topic. it's riddled with homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and begs to talk about it. I think these dialogues are necessary.
She has a valid point here.
Dialog might be necessary, but the personal insults and digs are not. That is why so many good topics end up being locked.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on October 27, 2011, 07:04:16 PM
Dialog might be necessary, but the personal insults and digs are not. That is why so many good topics end up being locked.
agreed
Quote from: Morrigan on October 27, 2011, 06:25:45 PM
Being Iranian does not define a body type. I could be from Nigeria and possess all Danish blood. Generally Persian is used as the body type, and it's not its own type either, because they're still "White" more similar to Semites than the Danish of course ;D. Saying "Iranian" isn't white, is like saying Greek or Italian are not white, which they are.
Yay! Someone mentioned Denmark! ;D
Why is there so much anger? It's an argument of entailment. We can't argue that something is a universally applicable characteristic if it's not universally applicable. For example:
"Jack is acting like a person from Kentucky."
What constitutes acting like someone from Kentucky? Is it the southern drawl? The love of country music? The Conservative bent toward social and economic issues? All of these are things you find in many a Kentucky citizen, but they're not universal things for Kentucky's citizens. Now let's try it with gay men:
"Sam is acting like a gay man."
What constitutes acting like a gay man? Is it the frequent sexual promiscuity? Is it the willingness to offer and receive sexual favors in bathrooms? Is it being loud, boisterous, and flamboyant in public? All common things in homosexual male subculture to be sure, but not universal.
Why is this so difficult? This argument should've ended at page one.
Just as we seem to have moved on from one divisive topic of discussion another one seems to have come along. I don't know anything about gay men or gay culture,and as I only did sociology in first year at university I don't feel qualified to start quoting theory.
straight MTF's have a lot in common with gay men to begin with, there's always the possibility
that they were meant to be a gay man? Silly speculation
Maybe the gay men which don't act in this manner weren't meant to be gay men? Sillier speculation?
People who are different, and proud of it, often like to scream it at the top of their lungs.
Both gay men and transgenders are very different from the social norm, and it's easy to
elicit a response by doing so.
The idea of being "Lady-like" is something that started with conservative views about the fairer
gender, much of it being religious. A transwoman is usually too old when they transition, to have
been raised in that manner, and if they were young, had liberal, feminist, etc parents perhaps.
Boys are also raised to be achievers, to pride their accomplishments, and generally just "be crazy".
It's a far cry from traditional ladyhood, but it's not something that every transwoman just forgets.
Actually my mother has certain conservative views regarding girls and young women and she holds me especially to them.
I don't know, but I hear that MTFs are even allowed to have different personalities!
Off topic but OMG happygirl! that puppy is sooooo cute!! I want one... :(
Quote from: pretty on October 27, 2011, 07:31:24 PM
I don't know, but I hear that MTFs are even allowed to have different personalities!
As I understand it, this is actually a major concern in countries with free healthcare, and some of those therapists demand a strict
and old fashioned, "womanly" dress and attitude. That doesn't seem to be the case in the US, as it's more about finding
a therapist that deals with transgender at all. >:(
i dont know, maybe because some MTF also identify as gay?
Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 27, 2011, 07:56:04 PM
i dont know, maybe because some MTF also identify as gay?
+1
Or maybe they are questioning. they thought they were gay but then realized they could be a girl. Who knows.
some of them might act like gay men just because they might be in a stage where they are trying to exxaggerate their femininity. gay men seem to have flamboyant personalities, but i've seen some who are well balanced. it's just stereotypes, they do nothing good.
Quote from: Morrigan on October 27, 2011, 07:36:54 PM
As I understand it, this is actually a major concern in countries with free healthcare, and some of those therapists demand a strict
and old fashioned, "womanly" dress and attitude. That doesn't seem to be the case in the US, as it's more about finding
a therapist that deals with transgender at all. >:(
Well I would expect an MTF to be feminine (but if they don't want to that's their choice, w/e) but it's not like all women are the same... there's plenty of flamboyant or even obnoxious women, just like there's plenty of other types of women.
The best way to control someone is not to control them at all.
If you don't like a person's behaviour then don't try to control them by asking them to change or hoping your attitude towards them changes. All you need to do is stop being with this person. Perhaps if several people did this, and without saying why, the person my change their behaviour as it seems to have cost them friends. Or again they might never realise this. Either way it does not matter.
Quote from: pretty on October 27, 2011, 07:31:24 PM
I don't know, but I hear that MTFs are even allowed to have different personalities!
STONE THE HERETIC!!
:P
If I don't act like a flaming gay boy, then who will?
I did the first year of my transition... Now I just act like a bitchy girl, as many of you on this board have seen.
Oh! Here's a great way of getting back on topic: Take this how you will, but a lot of you ladies should stop bickering and trying to get the last word in. To be blunt, the more I read some (not all!) of these posts, the more I can't help but think of a couple of guys having a pissing match. (Yeah, I totally went there!)
Old habits really do die hard, I guess. ;)
Quote from: Mariposa on October 27, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
Oh! Here's a great way of getting back on topic: Take this how you will, but a lot of you ladies should stop bickering and trying to get the last word in. To be blunt, the more I read some (not all!) of these posts, the more I can't help but think of a couple of guys having a pissing match. (Yeah, I totally went there!)
Old habits really do die hard, I guess. ;)
Best statement in this thread. *hugs*
Quote from: Mariposa on October 27, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
Oh! Here's a great way of getting back on topic: Take this how you will, but a lot of you ladies should stop bickering and trying to get the last word in. To be blunt, the more I read some (not all!) of these posts, the more I can't help but think of a couple of guys having a pissing match. (Yeah, I totally went there!)
Old habits really do die hard, I guess. ;)
the whole "mine is bigger than yours" idea? lol
I've certainly heard about people comparing vagina lengths. That doesn't remind me of anything... >_>
Here's a suggestion:
Why don't someone ask a MTF who "acts like a gay man" and ask them in person rather than speculating about it? I always found that going right to the source saves a lot of time.
Not sure what the response from them would be but at least you'll know!
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 27, 2011, 10:31:33 PM
I've certainly heard about people comparing vagina lengths. That doesn't remind me of anything... >_>
ahhh the ol 9 incher depth!
Quote from: Annah on October 27, 2011, 10:34:38 PM
ahhh the ol 9 incher depth!
I'm not even sure that's anatomically possible without doing very strange things to the rectum or bladder. o_o
I had a really tasteless thing I wanted to say....
but I think I will pass it up this time.
If we travel back in time, I am bigger than everyone on this thread.
But gosh darnit, I am not a man anymore.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 11:08:28 PM
If we travel back in time, I am bigger than everyone on this thread.
But gosh darnit, I am not a man anymore.
Not as big as Mariposa!
....Cause...damn
Quote from: A_Dresden_Doll on October 27, 2011, 11:10:13 PM
Not as big as Mariposa!
....Cause...damn
Why yes, my heart IS big! It's so big it's practically bursting out of my chest! You're so sweet!!! Thank youu! :)
Quote from: Mariposa on October 27, 2011, 11:12:07 PM
Why yes, my heart IS big! It's so big it's practically bursting out of my chest! You're so sweet!!! Thank youu! :)
Why are you so adorable? I so need to go to MGM studios.
Quote from: Mariposa on October 27, 2011, 11:12:07 PM
Why yes, my heart IS big! It's so big it's practically bursting out of my chest! You're so sweet!!! Thank youu! :)
Zing!
Well, I meant the other thing that is like your heart, that is to say, black and veiny...
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 27, 2011, 11:15:22 PM
Why are you so adorable? I so need to go to MGM studios.
You do!!! Come to Orlando to visit!!! I promise you will have amazing time!! :D
Quote from: A_Dresden_Doll on October 27, 2011, 11:15:57 PM
Zing!
Well, I meant the other thing that is like your heart, that is to say, black and veiny...
Your personal massager is hardly relevant to this topic! Stop de-railing this already de-railed thread!
Quote from: Mariposa on October 27, 2011, 11:19:45 PM
You do!!! Come to Orlando to visit!!! I promise you will have amazing time!! :D
Your personal massager is hardly relevant to this topic! Stop de-railing this already de-railed thread!
Don't you DARE bring Wesley into this! Low blow, low blow...
Speaking of de-railing, don't you loan yours out to do just that for run-away trains?
*pets* You're pretty!
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 27, 2011, 10:31:33 PM
I've certainly heard about people comparing vagina lengths. That doesn't remind me of anything... >_>
that just sounds like an mtf post op thing. i thought it was just breast size at first. around here, it's another story. there's people who practically pledge allegiance to the vagina. i get tired of the word, and i think there's more to life than vaginas.
Quote from: FullMoon19 on October 28, 2011, 12:02:00 AM
that just sounds like an mtf post op thing. i thought it was just breast size at first. around here, it's another story. there's people who practically pledge allegiance to the vagina. i get tired of the word, and i think there's more to life than vaginas.
Personally, I'm a pretty huge fan of the vulva.
It's so much more of an egalitarian comparison to the penis than the vagina.
(Also, I like my girlfriend's vulva. :D )
Quote from: Annah on October 27, 2011, 10:33:55 PM
Here's a suggestion:
Why don't someone ask a MTF who "acts like a gay man" and ask them in person rather than speculating about it? I always found that going right to the source saves a lot of time.
Not sure what the response from them would be but at least you'll know!
That's why I created this thread. To see if there were any MTF's who act like gay men on Susan's who would be so kind enough as to answer the question. But once again, people get way off topic. Like anyone really cares about others fascinations with vulvas.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 28, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
That's why I created this thread. To see if there were any MTF's who act like gay men on Susan's who would be so kind enough as to answer the question. But once again, people get way off topic. Like anyone really cares about others fascinations with vulvas.
"Are there any MTFs who act like black people on Susan's who could answer some questions for me? I just want to know...why do you steal so much? And what's with eating so much fried chicken? You know it's really not even that good."
I hope you see what I did there, and realize why this thread got off topic quickly.
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 28, 2011, 08:43:07 AM
"Are there any MTFs who act like black people on Susan's who could answer some questions for me? I just want to know...why do you steal so much? And what's with eating so much fried chicken? You know it's really not even that good."
I hope you see what I did there, and realize why this thread got off topic quickly.
Oh, that's what you think of black people? Shame on you for reinforcing the stereotype. ::)
No, seriously. I think I've gotten your point. Your still off topic.
It seems you didn't if you're using the same words on page 8 as the title and OP ;)
Back on TOPIC,
yes I have noticed some gay male behaviour in MtFs, - fresh out of SRS in that case.
It was NOWHERE as unsubtle as some earlier posts mentioned - YET, there it was.
It was that lightly over the top mincing "sugar queen" walk (even after SRS), the over-subtle pronunciation of words/speech, the affected shake of one's hair, THAT LOOK, like ohhhh dea..., etc. etc. All of it so thespian, theatrical, staged...
In deed in that case the person was presenting VERY gay-male sugar queen before and ONLY ever had intimacy with males and very much liked anal intercourse, like sooo: divine it was, hey.
So there you have it. I was just hoping for her, she HAD in deed made the right decision with her SRS, as she also numerous times point out how much she disliked, abhorred women... her gg platonic friend was present. Poor girl.
You go figure this one out. Turn yourself physically into something you hate? Hello! Also didn't like breasts just to fill the measure.
It also is why I said in short: They ARE gay men, and after SRS, gay men with a vagina, YMMV.
Axelle
Quote from: Axélle on October 28, 2011, 10:03:43 AM
Back on TOPIC,
yes I have noticed some gay male behaviour in MtFs, - fresh out of SRS in that case.
It was NOWHERE as unsubtle as some earlier posts mentioned - YET, there it was.
It was that lightly over the top mincing "sugar queen" walk (even after SRS), the over-subtle pronunciation of words/speech, the affected shake of one's hair, THAT LOOK, like ohhhh dea..., etc. etc. All of it so thespian, theatrical, staged...
In deed in that case the person was presenting VERY gay-male sugar queen before and ONLY ever had intimacy with males and very much liked anal intercourse, like sooo: divine it was, hey.
So there you have it. I was just hoping for her, she HAD in deed made the right decision with her SRS, as she also numerous times point out how much she disliked, abhorred women... her gg platonic friend was present. Poor girl.
You go figure this one out. Turn yourself physically into something you hate? Hello! Also didn't like breasts just to fill the measure.
It also is why I said in short: They ARE gay men, and after SRS, gay men with a vagina, YMMV.
Axelle
A good read. Thanks! ;D
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 28, 2011, 09:27:37 AM
Oh, that's what you think of black people? Shame on you for reinforcing the stereotype. ::)
No, seriously. I think I've gotten your point. Your still off topic.
You don't seem to have gotten the point that you're perpetuating a malicious stereotype. Butterflyhugs is being on topic and her comparison to the ways in which African Americans suffer from terrible prejudice based on stereotype is similar to the fashion in which you're othering gay men.
Quote from: Axélle on October 28, 2011, 10:03:43 AM
Back on TOPIC,
yes I have noticed some gay male behaviour in MtFs, - fresh out of SRS in that case.
It was NOWHERE as unsubtle as some earlier posts mentioned - YET, there it was.
It was that lightly over the top mincing "sugar queen" walk (even after SRS), the over-subtle pronunciation of words/speech, the affected shake of one's hair, THAT LOOK, like ohhhh dea..., etc. etc. All of it so thespian, theatrical, staged...
In deed in that case the person was presenting VERY gay-male sugar queen before and ONLY ever had intimacy with males and very much liked anal intercourse, like sooo: divine it was, hey.
So there you have it. I was just hoping for her, she HAD in deed made the right decision with her SRS, as she also numerous times point out how much she disliked, abhorred women... her gg platonic friend was present. Poor girl.
You go figure this one out. Turn yourself physically into something you hate? Hello! Also didn't like breasts just to fill the measure.
It also is why I said in short: They ARE gay men, and after SRS, gay men with a vagina, YMMV.
Axelle
I don't care if a trans woman decides to act like she's being directed by Sasha Baron Cohen in full-on Brüno mode. She isn't acting like a gay male, she's acting however she wants, and good for her.
If she self-identifies as female, then she's female. Not a gay man in a woman's body. This kind of language has been used to seriously insult, discriminate against, and deny the identity of trans women before; using it here, of all places, is retrograde engagement of both trans and gay erasure.
Here is an excerpt of my facebook status today:
I don't have a brother....don't know who that guy in Miami is who is using my bathroom to take pouty photos. But I hope his jock boyfriend slaps that bitch silly.
LikeUnlike · · 2 minutes ago
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 28, 2011, 07:30:24 AM
That's why I created this thread. To see if there were any MTF's who act like gay men on Susan's who would be so kind enough as to answer the question. But once again, people get way off topic. Like anyone really cares about others fascinations with vulvas.
I act fabulous and do cosmetics. Does that count? :D
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 12:00:42 PM
You don't seem to have gotten the point that you're perpetuating a malicious stereotype. Butterflyhugs is being on topic and her comparison to the ways in which African Americans suffer from terrible prejudice based on stereotype is similar to the fashion in which you're othering gay men.
I don't care if a trans woman decides to act like she's being directed by Sasha Baron Cohen in full-on Brüno mode. She isn't acting like a gay male, she's acting however she wants, and good for her.
If she self-identifies as female, then she's female. Not a gay man in a woman's body. This kind of language has been used to seriously insult, discriminate against, and deny the identity of trans women before; using it here, of all places, is retrograde engagement of both trans and gay erasure.
I never implied that
ALL gay men act this way but the
MAJORITY that
I KNOW do act promiscuous so yes, I will compare the promiscuous MTF to them. How else do you think the stereotype came about? They didn't pull it out their asses. (No pun intended)
Quote from: Axélle on October 28, 2011, 10:03:43 AM
In deed in that case the person was presenting VERY gay-male sugar queen before and ONLY ever had intimacy with males and very much liked anal intercourse, like sooo: divine it was, hey.
When you don't have "other parts"... your only real option is from behind :P
I don't get it. Liking anal and only having intimacy with men makes you a gay guy? Woaa, I don't know how I'm going to break the bad news to my friend :( She has gone her entire life thinking she was female! She will be devistated!
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 28, 2011, 12:26:18 PM
I act fabulous and do cosmetics. Does that count? :D
Have you been to any gloryholes within the past week? >:-)
One word in the title of this thread says it all "SOME" and that is probably right, "Some" MtF's act gay.
So What?
Is there something wrong with being Gay?
Is it Gay for a MtF who considers themself to be a woman to want a man?
Being promiscuous isn't owned by any one group, it seems that all groups of people have those who are promiscuous.
Lets end this ranting. Lets conduct ourselves as reasonable adults in our comments.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 28, 2011, 12:39:33 PM
I never implied that ALL gay men act this way but the MAJORITY that I KNOW do act promiscuous so yes, I will compare the promiscuous MTF to them. How else do you think the stereotype came about? They didn't pull it out their ass. (No pun intended)
Know where it came from? Because heteronormative privileged cis straight males decided that any display of gay sexuality was verboten, because it conflicted with what they thought was "natural" and "moral", heterosexuality. Under this, any gay male who expressed anything about his sexuality was branded as a deviant—and public promiscuity, of course, was another deviance, so the two got lumped together.
Just because stereotypes don't imply that everyone follows them doesn't mean it doesn't harm the entire community one-dimensionalized in that way. After all, it's no secret that in popular culture, transgender people are often stereotyped as "drag queens gone too far". Should we condone that stereotype just because drag queens who later come out as trans exist?
My vote's on no, at least.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on October 28, 2011, 12:49:22 PM
Lets end this ranting. Lets conduct ourselves as reasonable adults in our comments.
I don't see where anyone's ranting. We're having a civil discussion; that doesn't mean we're not allowed to disagree, even vehemently so.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 28, 2011, 12:42:09 PM
When you don't have "other parts"... your only real option is from behind :P
I don't get it. Liking anal and only having intimacy with men makes you a gay guy? Woaa, I don't know how I'm going to break the bad news to my friend :( She has gone her entire life thinking she was female! She will be devistated!
LOL
Think I need to call my ex and let her know she needs to transition because she is really a male.
:P
One of the reason my mum think I can't be female is because I don't behave like an overtly flamboyant homosexual man. ;~;
Quote from: JenJen.
What could it be?
/quote]
the person is effeminate homosexual not TS.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 27, 2011, 08:52:54 AM
Lol you need to meet / chat with some more women :P In the 20-30 age range maybe.
I dated these women (including the mentally abnormal one who is under psychiatry care) in my early years as a cis male, I certainly can understand their perception differences related to sex. Even in western culture, their women are not as open as men about sex. They will talk about the topic generally but not in details. Men like to explore in details, as if out of curiosity or in need of excitement, women avoid such exploration in details, they are satisfied knowing the general picture, and will be more concern about the emotional side than the act itself.
If we simply neutralize the differences between male and female perception, then how can one become a successful MTF, without knowing what to adapt to the culture of cis women, in such case, I assume that if one carried over previous male habitual consciousness, even though one dressed up as woman, and believe oneself is a woman, but one will easily act in manners contrary to what a cis woman will behave.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 28, 2011, 09:40:47 PM
Even in western culture, their women are not as open as men about sex. They will talk about the topic generally but not in details. Men like to explore in details, as if out of curiosity or in need of excitement, women avoid such exploration in details, they are satisfied knowing the general picture, and will be more concern about the emotional side than the act itself.
If we simply neutralize the differences between male and female perception, then how can one become a successful MTF, without knowing what to adapt to the culture of cis women, in such case, I assume that if one carried over previous male habitual consciousness, even though one dressed up as woman, and believe oneself is a woman, but one will easily act in manners contrary to what a cis woman will behave.
I have to disagree with this!
I hang out cis girl friends of mine and trust me...when it comes to sex or talking about sex they are no different than the males. The only difference is many girls don't talk about it as much in front of guys like the guys do.
The times I went into an adult store was with cis girl friends of mine. We would also spend hours talking about boyfriends, sex, waxing, etc etc...mostly all tied to sex.
Now, I am not saying that what we only talked about but the things the cis girl friends and I talked about made me blush...and guys and sex chat never could accomplish that in me. Trust me, my girl friends do not avoid such explanations.
So I think it is misconceptions about sexual talk and openness relating to gender.
And Cis females don't all act the same either. Some are demure, some are adventures, others are sexually open, others are conservative in their sexuality. Others are femine, others are butch, etc etc.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 27, 2011, 08:20:45 AM
Wow, this is really sexist. Like, blatantly so.
This stereotype hurts men and women. See above! Turns out female-identified people can like casual sex! Imagine that.
You may want to reconsider making this unsound association with the word 'sexist' on anything related to male and female pschological differences, unless you wish to dismissed anything related to gender pschology and its biological relevance.
You may have to look up on the texts on the human brains, cognitive science, on the differences in development in the male and female sex center within the brain. The brain of the male is much larger than female, the portion responsible for sex function is larger and more developed in the male. This difference is expressed in their behaviour, male think about sex all the time, women simply don't. It is being demonstrated that male response to sexual stimulus primary through visual excitement, but women relied on various senses more than visual.
Biologically, the instinct to multiple by intercourse with as many female as possible make men promiscuous, whereas to need to protect the offspring keep women from being unfaithful (from bringing other men into the competition). Women has no sexual thought unless being emotionally activated by the foreplay of the male, whereas male can immediate arose sexually and ready for intercourse on sight only, a biological requirement for reproduction.
These biological motivate behaviours are encoded within our genes, mental conditioning does not change this fact, as not anyone has such a duty to conditioning his/her mind to become 'non-sexist', also there is no such need to intentionally altered one's biological signal and the subsequent behaviour, unless one is attempting the transgender route and need to mold one's behaviour after the target's gender.
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 28, 2011, 12:43:08 PM
Have you been to any gloryholes within the past week? >:-)
I went to the Castro today... my jaw aches, my knees hurt, and my throat tastes like salty saliva.
But no gloryholes...
I got asked out by a straight guy.
I would be more worried about catching a "bug" if I were her. She should be more careful! :(
Quote from: The Passage on October 28, 2011, 10:30:00 PM
I would be more worried about catching a "bug" if I were her. She should be more careful! :(
Me? Uhhh yeah, I was kidding. No guy in the Castro pays attention to me like that anymore...
Plenty of trans women (of whatever orientation) have socialization that they learned when presenting as a guy. Is it so startling that that would persist post-transition?
I'm lucky in that I never really learned very much or very well. (Well lucky now, at the time it was pretty bad.) Others were better able to pick up the codes of behaviour for whatever reason. That can end up being a handicap. Or it can just be a variance of personality. Whichever.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 28, 2011, 10:01:59 PM
Women has no sexual thought unless being emotionally activated by the foreplay of the male,
^^ Things that will not turn me on. :P
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 28, 2011, 10:01:59 PM
You may want to reconsider making this unsound association with the word 'sexist' on anything related to male and female pschological differences, unless you wish to dismissed anything related to pschology and its biological relevence.
Spewing false hundred-year-old rhetoric about women being inherently passive and demure is sexist. That is a socially constructed value of "feminine" used to facilitate male dominance in patriarchal cultures.
QuoteWomen has no sexual thought unless being emotionally activated by the foreplay of the male
Please stop making extremely ignorant generalizations about the sexual natures of all women. Your incorrect belief that a woman can only be "activated" for sex by first being coddled by a man literally belongs to a different era of history (back when women were still property and couldn't vote in the U.S.). That should clue you in on how wrong it is.
Met this guy I had known on fb for a year. We were talking...and he was like, "Girl, you're so crazy...I've seen you post on fb. You act like a gay man"
I was like, "Umm, you know I am trans?"
And he was like, "Wait, you got a penis?"
*showed him my boy photo*
He was like, "Thats you? Looks like your brother"
I was like, "Thats me"
He started whigging out and went, "Is this a joke? I've known you a year on fb and never thought you were remotely trans"
I was like, "I am.."
Then he said, "I thought you were just some ->-bleeped-<- hag that went too far or some crazy lesbian who was obsessed with gay men. I can normally spot transgenders and you look amazing"
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 28, 2011, 09:40:47 PM
I dated these women (including the mentally abnormal one who is under psychiatry care) in my early years as a cis male,
Uhhhh.... what a girl is going to chat with about with the guy they are dating is VERY VERY VERY VERY different than what they are going to chat with to other girls.
In my "straight guy" world, guys would actually stay a bit far away from details. They weren't very open with what they liked sexually (unless it was "normal") and generally just avoided serious talks about sex at all (jokes about big boobs isn't talking about sex).
In contrast, as a "gay guy" or "trans whatever", when I chat with girls who have accepted me as "on their side", they go into a LOT more detail and aren't shy about saying what they like. Stories about sex are common and even chatting about some very private things (and insecurities! guys will rarely be so open about themselves as I have found women to be... even relative strangers confide in me some very personal things).
So, as a "cis male" dating girls... you are still very very on the "outside" of the female world.
QuoteYou may have to look up on the texts on the human brains, cognitive science, on the differences in development in the male and female sex center within the brain.
Haha you aren't going to learn what women are really like by stuff like that LOL. If you go by that, then all women only want sex to reproduce or some crazy thing like that? haha, it is nice disney idea, but sooooooooo far removed from reality.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 28, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
So, as a "cis male" dating girls... you are still very very on the "outside" of the female world.
I hung out with some straight guy who had the hots for me today. I told him I was a ts and he said, "We can hang out, we can get to know each other and be friends. But although you're extremely beautiful... I can't have sex with you. I've never had sex with someone who was born a man." I thought this guy was after my penis and was a ->-bleeped-<-. But he was another straight arrow.
But then he said he would continue supporting me and would be a fan of me. He also wants to stay in touch....but no sex.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 28, 2011, 10:42:56 PM
Me? Uhhh yeah, I was kidding. No guy in the Castro pays attention to me like that anymore...
Unless you're the woman being described in the OP, then I don't believe so, no. XD
I actually have to go to the Castro, or at least somewhere very near to the Castro, every time I go to Dimensions. Yeah... what an interesting day that always ends up to be! Last week was casual nudists. I'm fully expecting to see both casual nudists AND dancing nudists next week. *Prepares umbrella for departure* :o
Quote from: The Passage on October 28, 2011, 11:07:58 PM
Unless you're the woman being described in the OP, then I don't believe so, no. XD
I actually have to go to the Castro, or at least somewhere very near to the Castro, every time I go to Dimensions. Yeah... what an interesting day that always ends up to be! Last week was casual nudists. I'm fully expecting to see both casual nudists AND dancing nudists next week. *Prepares umbrella for departure* :o
They want to bone my old photos. God I got so much yogurt as a gay boy.
I miss those days. Every weekend was an orgy.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 28, 2011, 11:12:10 PM
They want to bone my old photos. God I got so much yogurt as a gay boy.
I miss those days. Every weekend was an orgy.
Wait, nudists do? Right... thanks for sharing! ;)
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 28, 2011, 11:12:10 PM
They want to bone my old photos. God I got so much yogurt as a gay boy.
I miss those days. Every weekend was an orgy.
you get yogurt for being gay? is that dannon or yoplait?
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 28, 2011, 10:01:59 PM
You may want to reconsider making this unsound association with the word 'sexist' on anything related to male and female pschological differences, unless you wish to dismissed anything related to gender pschology and its biological relevance.
You may have to look up on the texts on the human brains, cognitive science, on the differences in development in the male and female sex center within the brain. The brain of the male is much larger than female, the portion responsible for sex function is larger and more developed in the male. This difference is expressed in their behaviour, male think about sex all the time, women simply don't. It is being demonstrated that male response to sexual stimulus primary through visual excitement, but women relied on various senses more than visual.
Biologically, the instinct to multiple by intercourse with as many female as possible make men promiscuous, whereas to need to protect the offspring keep women from being unfaithful (from bringing other men into the competition). Women has no sexual thought unless being emotionally activated by the foreplay of the male, whereas male can immediate arose sexually and ready for intercourse on sight only, a biological requirement for reproduction.
These biological motivate behaviours are encoded within our genes, mental conditioning does not change this fact, as not anyone has such a duty to conditioning his/her mind to become 'non-sexist', also there is no such need to intentionally altered one's biological signal and the subsequent behaviour, unless one is attempting the transgender route and need to mold one's behaviour after the target's gender.
You're one step short of claiming that human behavior all boils down to "stimulus/programmed response" (if even a step away). We're not bacteria, dear. Genetics and chemistry alone do not dictate our behavior, though they are certainly relevant. We would exhibit differences in behavior exclusively attributable to our lineage if this were the way things worked. And this claim that women don't have sexual thoughts or experience arousal until manually stimulated? I recommend that you burn whatever textbook you found that in, because it's worthless except as a parody of a scientific text. Women are perfectly capable of becoming aroused without manual stimulation.
Reductionism can be quite helpful, but you and your sources are taking it WAYYYYY too far.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on October 28, 2011, 11:12:10 PM
They want to bone my old photos. God I got so much yogurt as a gay boy.
I miss those days. Every weekend was an orgy.
Quote from: Rabbit on October 28, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
even relative strangers confide in me some very personal things
I think this has been proven valid. A bit disturbing, perhaps.
What is this yogurt exactly? not my yummy strawberry yogurt I hope *noms*. I hear
yogurt is considered gay in the straight male world, glad I dodged that bullet.
Quote from: Morrigan on October 28, 2011, 11:35:00 PM
I think this has been proven valid. A bit disturbing, perhaps.
What is this yogurt exactly? not my yummy strawberry yogurt I hope *noms*. I hear
yogurt is considered gay in the straight male world, glad I dodged that bullet.
Yeah... I love yogurt. It's an acquired taste.
I was gay from 14-25...so yeah
Quote from: FullMoon19 on October 28, 2011, 11:30:23 PM
you get yogurt for being gay? is that dannon or yoplait?
I prefer filipino style yogurt on a nice longanisa.
I like me some Greek yog.... Uh, never mind.
Quote from: Michelle. on October 29, 2011, 12:03:11 AM
I like me some Greek yog.... Uh, never mind.
The first time I had it was with a Puerto Rican.
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 28, 2011, 11:00:50 PM
Spewing false hundred-year-old rhetoric about women being inherently passive and demure is sexist. That is a socially constructed value of "feminine" used to facilitate male dominance in patriarchal cultures.
I say nothing about women being inherently passive and demure in society, except sexually, thus your association of 'sexist' is out of line. Socially constructed value of "feminine" does not facilitate male dominance, this is clearly demonstrated in today's feminist movement which not only accept their differences but as a reason to grant welfare benefits especially for women. Without biological distinctions and their recognition, these welfare will have no ground for justification.
QuotePlease stop making extremely ignorant generalizations about the sexual natures of all women. Your incorrect belief that a woman can only be "activated" for sex by first being coddled by a man literally belongs to a different era of history (back when women were still property and couldn't vote in the U.S.). That should clue you in on how wrong it is.
You are trying to contradict a well known biological fact that the majority of women from teen up to their late 20s are sexually immature, and have difficulty reaching organism. They become fully mature after 30 (especially after given birth) and able to enjoy sex thereafter. Prior to that, all sex is only to for the sake of pride, and for showing off to peers with their partners (a need to be confirmed as an attractive women and that virginity is sign of unpopularity and so on, where in fact they don't really enjoy physcally apart from the feeling of intimacy as there is no guarantee of organism). Women are expert at pretending to enjoy sex, even by their making of the sound and so on. In other words, apparent biological differences exist in female and it is relative to their pschological behaviour (including the claims of enjoying sex, interested in sex, and so on, just to build up personal pride from a peer or a love-competitor rather than as a fact). Cis women univerally (majority) want love, and will associate sex with love, in order to gain love. So they will easily satisfied their need for love with one partner. Cis men universally have no requirement for love when an attractive woman is presented in order to initiate intercourse. So there is no limitation with the number of partners if the opportunity allows.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 29, 2011, 12:30:17 AM
I say nothing about women being inherently passive and demure in society, except sexually, thus your association of 'sexist' is out of line. Socially constructed value of "feminine" does not facilitate male dominance, this is clearly demonstrated in today's feminist movement which not only accept their differences but as a reason to grant welfare benefits especially for women. Without biological distinctions and their recognition, these welfare will have no ground for justification.
You are trying to contradict a well known biological fact that the majority of women from teen up to their late 20s are sexually immature, and have difficulty reaching organism. They become fully mature after 30 (especially after given birth) and able to enjoy sex thereafter. Prior to that, all sex is only to for the sake of pride, and for showing off to peers with their partners (a need to be confirmed as an attractive women and that virginity is sign of unpopularity and so on, where in fact they don't really enjoy physcally apart from the feeling of intimacy as there is no guarantee of organism). Women are expert at pretending to enjoy sex, even by their making of the sound and so on. In other words, apparent biological differences exist in female and it is relative to their pschological behaviour (including the claims of enjoying sex, interested in sex, and so on, just to build up personal pride from a peer or a love-competitor rather than as a fact). Cis women univerally (majority) want love, and will associate sex with love, in order to gain love. So they will easily satisfied their need for love with one partner. Cis men universally have no requirement for love when an attractive woman is presented in order to initiate intercourse. So there is no limitation with the number of partners if the opportunity allows.
I take offense to nearly this whole post, but mostly the part about cis men. That is
COMPLETELY untrue, people are not carbon copies, and you cannot label them as such. Thanks for ruining a thread that was just barely recovering from petty bickering once already.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 28, 2011, 11:32:18 PM
You're one step short of claiming that human behavior all boils down to "stimulus/programmed response" (if even a step away). We're not bacteria, dear. Genetics and chemistry alone do not dictate our behavior
Unfortunately it is a sad fact that mind is not over matter when it come to transforming our biological body to match our gender identity, that is the reason those within the transgender umbralla cannot escape GID without srs and ffs. It is affirmative that our biological appearance determined our pschological behaviour, and that the effect of the male's brain development by T leading to fully maturity of the sex center make them superior in sexual response, and allow them to take the lead over sexual activity. It is also a fact it is incredibly unfortunate to a woman who has a husband who cannot take the initiative in bed, as she will completely miss the feeling of being loved which is needed by typically all women.
Quote from: Morrigan on October 29, 2011, 12:47:28 AM
I take offense to nearly this whole post, but mostly the part about cis men. That is COMPLETELY untrue, people are not carbon copies, and you cannot label them as such. Thanks for ruining a thread that was just barely recovering from petty bickering once already.
Please understand the concept of majority versus special cases. The reason women fall for special men who would love them as one and only. Love does exist and it is required to be special.
not really sure, not that positive i've ever noticed it
Quote from: Morrigan on October 28, 2011, 11:35:00 PM
What is this yogurt exactly? not my yummy strawberry yogurt I hope *noms*.
According to Masha it is the Crème de la crème.
lol...why has this gone beyond 200 posts?
lmao.
goddamn simple question.
goddamn simple answer,
it was past lifestyle for them.
Quote from: JoeyD on October 29, 2011, 02:08:38 AM
lol...why has this gone beyond 200 posts?
lmao.
goddamn simple question.
goddamn simple answer,
it was past lifestyle for them.
WERQ THAT ANSWER HUN!!!!
Why over 200 posts?
Because it is also, yet another a battle about validation, that's why :-)
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck - we guess it's a duck.
If not? Well, then it's not a duck, right?
Take care, and try some more if you wish,
Axelle
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 29, 2011, 12:30:17 AM
I say nothing about women being inherently passive and demure in society, except sexually, thus your association of 'sexist' is out of line. Socially constructed value of "feminine" does not facilitate male dominance, this is clearly demonstrated in today's feminist movement which not only accept their differences but as a reason to grant welfare benefits especially for women. Without biological distinctions and their recognition, these welfare will have no ground for justification.
You are trying to contradict a well known biological fact that the majority of women from teen up to their late 20s are sexually immature, and have difficulty reaching organism. They become fully mature after 30 (especially after given birth) and able to enjoy sex thereafter. Prior to that, all sex is only to for the sake of pride, and for showing off to peers with their partners (a need to be confirmed as an attractive women and that virginity is sign of unpopularity and so on, where in fact they don't really enjoy physcally apart from the feeling of intimacy as there is no guarantee of organism). Women are expert at pretending to enjoy sex, even by their making of the sound and so on. In other words, apparent biological differences exist in female and it is relative to their pschological behaviour (including the claims of enjoying sex, interested in sex, and so on, just to build up personal pride from a peer or a love-competitor rather than as a fact). Cis women univerally (majority) want love, and will associate sex with love, in order to gain love. So they will easily satisfied their need for love with one partner. Cis men universally have no requirement for love when an attractive woman is presented in order to initiate intercourse. So there is no limitation with the number of partners if the opportunity allows.
Again this is a stereotype.
You are trying too hard to sound like an expert on this with your word choices, etc., but sadly, you have missed the mark on the general meaning of the point.
Your views of women do not constitute factual data and/or experience for women on the whole. Every single woman I have met or dated did not fit the "parameters of female socio/sexual behaviors." You say this has to be right because you read in out of a book but you may want to look at the beginning of the book to see what year it was printed because your viewpoints on women are not true.
The issues and conceptions you raised is like something you read it out of a 1970 Psychology Textbook or even the 1870 Psychology Textbook. That's why I want to make sure you look in the front of those books to see the year it was printed.
Also, women act differently than what a textbook writes on how they should act.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 29, 2011, 12:30:17 AM
I say nothing about women being inherently passive and demure in society, except sexually, thus your association of 'sexist' is out of line. Socially constructed value of "feminine" does not facilitate male dominance, this is clearly demonstrated in today's feminist movement which not only accept their differences but as a reason to grant welfare benefits especially for women. Without biological distinctions and their recognition, these welfare will have no ground for justification.
You are trying to contradict a well known biological fact that the majority of women from teen up to their late 20s are sexually immature, and have difficulty reaching organism. They become fully mature after 30 (especially after given birth) and able to enjoy sex thereafter. Prior to that, all sex is only to for the sake of pride, and for showing off to peers with their partners (a need to be confirmed as an attractive women and that virginity is sign of unpopularity and so on, where in fact they don't really enjoy physcally apart from the feeling of intimacy as there is no guarantee of organism). Women are expert at pretending to enjoy sex, even by their making of the sound and so on. In other words, apparent biological differences exist in female and it is relative to their pschological behaviour (including the claims of enjoying sex, interested in sex, and so on, just to build up personal pride from a peer or a love-competitor rather than as a fact). Cis women univerally (majority) want love, and will associate sex with love, in order to gain love. So they will easily satisfied their need for love with one partner. Cis men universally have no requirement for love when an attractive woman is presented in order to initiate intercourse. So there is no limitation with the number of partners if the opportunity allows.
"Well-known biological fact" according to who, exactly? And where do lesbians fit in your supposedly ironclad retrograde evo-bio approach? Are they just faking it until age 29?
You probably won't take my testimony as evidence (nor should you, to be fair; after all, anecdotes prove nothing), but I have plenty of female friends looking for just casual sex and no relationships. Hell, the same is true for me.
Meanwhile, the suggestion that men are just automatic erection machines in the presence of women, without any need for love—well, that's insensitive and offensive, too.
Quote from: JoeyD on October 29, 2011, 02:08:38 AM
lol...why has this gone beyond 200 posts?
lmao.
goddamn simple question.
goddamn simple answer,
it was past lifestyle for them.
good point. some people have lots of time to waste away i guess. i just answered, and then saw that mahsa got yogurt for being a gay boy.
I never got yogurt.
It would have been nice, I like strawberry from Yoplait.
I will never eat yogurt again without thinking about this thread. Thank you, you're all so kind.
QuoteI will never eat yogurt again without thinking about this thread.
Mmmm yogurt.....hey mines salty! :o :D
Quote from: Rukia87xo on October 29, 2011, 05:07:59 PM
Mmmm yogurt.....hey mines salty! :o :D
Hot but gross. Really gross.
I usually put sugar and oats in mine but I guess a little extra salt works for some folks... >.>
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 29, 2011, 12:49:26 AM
Unfortunately it is a sad fact that mind is not over matter when it come to transforming our biological body to match our gender identity, that is the reason those within the transgender umbralla cannot escape GID without srs and ffs. It is affirmative that our biological appearance determined our pschological behaviour, and that the effect of the male's brain development by T leading to fully maturity of the sex center make them superior in sexual response, and allow them to take the lead over sexual activity. It is also a fact it is incredibly unfortunate to a woman who has a husband who cannot take the initiative in bed, as she will completely miss the feeling of being loved which is needed by typically all women.
I can't help but notice that you're making claims which do not at all match the empirical data. There ARE transgender people who are perfectly satisfied with stopping at HRT (and they're not exceptional cases, they're a relevant proportion of the population). There ARE women who engage in sexual activity regularly and report genuine enjoyment without the involvement of a masculine figure (they're called lesbians). And arbitrarily assigning pride as the motive for pursuit of sex by women, then claiming that any women who don't admit to this are fooling themselves or lying is not only reckless, it's dishonest science. You've established an unfalsifiable hypothesis which uses the exact same logic that J. Michael Bailey and his cohorts use to claim that MtF transsexuals are extraordinarily effeminate gay men just lying about wanting to be women.
To claim that any woman under 30 has sex exclusively for the sake of pride and public image, and any statements she makes about enjoying sex are simply reflective of her expertise at pretending is utter nonsense. Your paradigm is unfalsifiable, and therefore NOT scientific.
Wow the egos of some people. We have moved on - temporarily I am sure - from the '->-bleeped-<-r than you' debate and now some people seem intent on proving that they are 'more intellectual than you'. This constant need to be 'one-up' on others is I am sorry to say a sign of masculine thinking. Men are always on the lookout for ways to raise their status or lower the status of others. By bashing each other and trying to appear intelligent by vomiting up half digested sociological theory you only prove that there is still a lot of the male in you.
I think that the OP was wrong to make such a generalisation. However, the OP could have had her say if she had phrased her post more carefully and used some qualifiers. It is usually a good idea in speech and in writing to use words like: 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'to what extent', etc.
Quote from: Happy Girl! on October 29, 2011, 06:24:16 PM
Wow the egos of some people. We have moved on - temporarily I am sure - from the '->-bleeped-<-r than you' debate and now some people seem intent on proving that they are 'more intellectual than you'. This constant need to be 'one-up' on others is I am sorry to say a sign of masculine thinking. Men are always on the lookout for ways to raise their status or lower the status of others. By bashing each other and trying to appear intelligent by vomiting up half digested sociological theory you only prove that there is still a lot of the male in you.
There's no such thing as "masculine thinking", except as a social construction and societal expectation. Also, if you're trying to tell us to stop "bashing" (though to be honest I have no idea when disagreement became bashing), you might want to refrain from saying that you disagree with our "vomited up half-digested sociological theory"—though, trust me, this has ruminated in my stomach long enough for the gastric juices of queer and feminist theories of social construction to permeate it to the core—because isn't that doing what you're trying to prevent here?
Quote
I think that the OP was wrong to make such a generalisation. However, the OP could have had her say if she had phrased her post more carefully and used some qualifiers. It is usually a good idea in speech and in writing to use words like: 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'to what extent', etc.
The OP is allowed to say whatever she wants, and I will fight for her right to be able to do so. I'm also allowed to voice my concerns about the very validity of the question she's asking.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 29, 2011, 05:57:29 PM
I can't help but notice that you're making claims which do not at all match the empirical data.
Anyone with a long internet experience will recognized that the topic on sex in women-only forum is usually initiated by male members. Also in dating sides, the focus on sex is often of the male participants and female prostitutes soliciting business. Those who visit pronographic sides are largely males. Sexuality distinction between male and female is of reality, one just have to look for it in real life, it is not a fantasy.
QuoteThere ARE transgender people who are perfectly satisfied with stopping at HRT (and they're not exceptional cases, they're a relevant proportion of the population).
Even CDs are under the transgender umbralla, everything is possible. People are Cds because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations which they are awared of, none of these implicate such constrains are ideal. But in the ideal world, physical transition should be possible and complete with no limitation that can't be overcome, so I'm basing the transgender view on this ideal as universal parameter, without taking the constrains as a guide and mold it into a parameter to define the TS road map. Pre-op is never an ideal end goal, period. One is living in constrained, and is satisfied with it, but it is strictly personal, not a universal ideal to worth propagating. The medical and scientific community should embraced the universal TS ideal (perfect physical transition) and aimed to materialize it through research and devevelopment, and not stop and satisfied at HRT, simply because it resolved GID of a minority of less immersive transgenders with various constrains.
QuoteThere ARE women who engage in sexual activity regularly and report genuine enjoyment without the involvement of a masculine figure (they're called lesbians). And arbitrarily assigning pride as the motive for pursuit of sex by women, then claiming that any women who don't admit to this are fooling themselves or lying is not only reckless, it's dishonest science. You've established an unfalsifiable hypothesis which uses the exact same logic that J. Michael Bailey and his cohorts use to claim that MtF transsexuals are extraordinarily effeminate gay men just lying about wanting to be women.
I don't denial women can enjoy intimacy with another women, but organism and penetration is not the primary aim for women (inclusive of lesbians) than it is for men (inclusive of gays). Men (and gays) desire to penetrate or be penetrated and organism, with or without love, whereas women (and lesbians) only desire intimacy, feeling of love amnd security, with or without organism. Male and female, lesbian and gays, these are eternal opposites, opposites can never be equalized, as these are based biologically (physical), in our world, physics determined everything, mind is mold after the physical opposites that defined its capability and limitations, and so is powerless to mold (transform or equalize) the physical opposites in the absence of scientific and medical means.
QuoteTo claim that any woman under 30 has sex exclusively for the sake of pride and public image, and any statements she makes about enjoying sex are simply reflective of her expertise at pretending is utter nonsense. Your paradigm is unfalsifiable, and therefore NOT scientific.
I didn't mean 'any', when the simple reference to 'women' is concerning the majority, but without rejecting the opposite possibility in the minority. Please do not nick pick in words selectively just to generate an argument.
You can take the psuedo scientific babble and peddle it to someone who is easily baffled by BS, because you have failed to dazzle me with your brilliance.
You do realise that this is a group of fairly well read people who keep on top of the current trends in pychology and medicine because it directly effects our lives on a daily basis? Or perhaps you think we are collectively the standard issue internet dweller who does not do our own due dillegence?
I assure you that we do.
So now if you would care to join the 21 century and get a few modern texts and catch up with the rest of the class that would be spiffy as can be.
:)
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 29, 2011, 10:37:51 PM
Anyone with a long internet experience will recognized that the topic on sex in women-only forum is usually initiated by male members. Also in dating sides, the focus on sex is often of the male participants and female prostitutes soliciting business. Those who visit pronographic sides are largely males. Sexuality distinction between male and female is of reality, one just have to look for it in real life, it is not a fantasy.
This isn't accurate either.
"A long internet experience" does not make anyone the expert of gender related sociology.
Also, there are many women who initiated sexual discussions on women only forums. And I don't just look at the internet; I use real life experiences. Women talk about sex just like men do.
Also, pornography is also viewed by women too. The only reason why men view pornography more than women is because some men tend to be look oriented but you cannot base gender sociology and mentalities to pornography. Because both men and women view it.
QuoteEven CDs are under the transgender umbralla, everything is possible. People are Cds because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations which they are awared of, none of these implicate such constrains are ideal.
This isn't accurate either. You cannot state that CDs are CDs because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations "which they are awared of" (Whatever that means???).
Some CDs are CDs because they enjoy wearing clothing of the opposite gender. For whatever reasons, they enjoy wearing those type of clothing. It is inaccurate to say crossdressers are crossdressers because "they cannot go all the way."
QuotePre-op is never an ideal end goal, period.
Depends on how you define pre op. Pre Ops are Pre Ops for a number of reasons. For some it is not an ideal end goal for others there are alternatives.
QuoteThe medical and scientific community should embraced the universal TS ideal (perfect physical transition) and aimed to materialize it through research and devevelopment, and not stop and satisfied at HRT, simply because it resolved GID of a minority of less immersive transgenders with various constrains.
This is based on individual convictions. Also, I would be interested in how you define "perfect physical transition." Because for some trans people their perfect physical transition is different than another transgirl's idea of a perfect physical transition.
For some transgirls, HRT is good enough for them. For other girls it is dressing in their gender presentation. For others, it could be SRS/GCS, FFS, or a myriad of other steps.
QuoteI don't denial women can enjoy intimacy with another women, but organism and penetration is not the primary aim for women (inclusive of lesbians) than it is for men (inclusive of gays).
I am assuming you mean orgasm rather than organism. If that is the case, you are utterly wrong about that. If you go to your girlfriend and say "oh baby...but you having an orgasm is not your primary aim" let's see how fast she breaks up with you.
Orgasm is desired by both men and women and all those in between and outside. To say orgasm is not the aim for women is basically denying their sexual right to be equals.
QuoteMen (and gays) desire to penetrate or be penetrated and organism, with or without love, whereas women (and lesbians) only desire intimacy, feeling of love amnd security, with or without organism.
Again, I am assuming you mean orgasm versus organism. As I stated earlier, your views are inaccurate. Men have a desire for intimacy, love, and security too. Women have a desire for orgasms as well.
QuoteMale and female, lesbian and gays, these are eternal opposites, opposites can never be equalized, as these are based biologically (physical),
Did you make that up? It makes no sense. I'm trying to understand it but it makes no sense. Please clarify if you can.
QuoteI didn't mean 'any', when the simple reference to 'women' is concerning the majority, but without rejecting the opposite possibility in the minority. Please do not nick pick in words selectively just to generate an argument.
It isn't nitpicking. You are very inaccurate and your ideas are very "stereotyped."
You cannot stick all transgirls with one label. You cannot place male and female gender roles in one box either.
I've taken numerous sexuality courses in undergraduate and graduate levels and I can tell you for a fact that gender and sexuality is not as simple or as how you explained it. Your version is clearly from your experiences and does not relate to the general mass.
I also mean no offense to this, but I swear you are making this up and throwing complicated words in there to make it sound "valid." Anyone can do that. Watch:
Inter cellular micro biological mass can be produced with the introduction of a stable nuclei to an unstable element (such as an electron or related). In an ideal environment this stabilization will occur by introducing carbonated hydrogen to two parts hydrogen with oxygen and then keeping this mass sustained through a macro dense layer of electron particle burst.
I've been following this thread, just not saying anything, but I can no longer just sit by idly here.
The discussions in this thread are quite likely the most pointless ones on this whole forum since I joined. It's just filled with BS arguments and the only redeeming quality is the mention of yoghurt.
Quote from: Annah on October 29, 2011, 11:08:46 PM
This isn't accurate either.
"A long internet experience" does not make anyone the expert of gender related sociology.
It helps to have the general picture about the community one is facing.
QuoteAlso, there are many women who initiated sexual discussions on women only forums. And I don't just look at the internet; I use real life experiences. Women talk about sex just like men do.
Sure they do, but not in the sense of hoping to get arose in sharing the details, do you think women will write x-rated sex novels? Women will write about the sex act, but tend to add in some romantic elements. The same for women directors of movie, sex always involved sentimental element. But male directors concentrate on x-rated contents.
Quote
Also, pornography is also viewed by women too. The only reason why men view pornography more than women is because some men tend to be look oriented but you cannot base gender sociology and mentalities to pornography. Because both men and women view it.
Out of courousity yes. But after watching a few times, they will complaint of the taste of those who like these pornography. If a guy openly confessed to like porn or share porn with his new gf, then it is highly certain that she will dump him imediately or sometime later. Men and women do view it, but with different results. Never heard of any member of the feminist group complaint about porn depict women as sexual object? When did a member of the male species ever made such a compaint?
QuoteThis isn't accurate either. You cannot state that CDs are CDs because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations "which they are awared of" (Whatever that means???).
Aware of physical characteristics that cannot be resolved by surgical means, such as height (>180cm), extremely masculine facial features beyond ffs, extremely broad shoulder width and so on. They hesitate srs simply because after the operation, they cannot lead a normal life as a presentable woman, not even as a male like they are at present.
Quote
Some CDs are CDs because they enjoy wearing clothing of the opposite gender. For whatever reasons, they enjoy wearing those type of clothing. It is inaccurate to say crossdressers are crossdressers because "they cannot go all the way."
Here I'm not stating the type of MTF CDs that considered themselves as male, but as MTF who refused HRT due to health constrains and reservation for possible change of mind if they wish to de-transition and being capable bearing children.
QuoteDepends on how you define pre op. Pre Ops are Pre Ops for a number of reasons. For some it is not an ideal end goal for others there are alternatives.
As mentioned, it is due to constrains, not ideal (having a penis should not be consider as the ideal physical state for MTF). It is the lack of disatisfaction with the constrained that is not consistent with their motive for transition. It is okay to accept constrains (as knowledge) but not satisfaction with the condition without complaint but actually promoting such condition as universal acceptance, or projecting a third gender umbralla as an acceptable society standard for such physical abnormality, without needing surgical correction for improvement of their image.
Quote
This is based on individual convictions. Also, I would be interested in how you define "perfect physical transition." Because for some trans people their perfect physical transition is different than another transgirl's idea of a perfect physical transition.
The state of 'perfection' is open for improvement by the medical and scientific field, perfection is an object to be sought by transgender in their path to gender perfection which is conformity to the biological gender binary characteristics, not ignored due to being satisfied via self-acceptance with the constrained or GID.
Quote
For some transgirls, HRT is good enough for them. For other girls it is dressing in their gender presentation. For others, it could be SRS/GCS, FFS, or a myriad of other steps.
Half-way is acceptance of self-constrains, all the way to SRS is accepting the perfection in transition. It is an individual choice, but the TS road map is not individually based (but is based universally on the mold of default gender binary), the map lied out the ultimate goal of perfection (post-op). One is free in how one may tranverse the map, the destination is there to be accepted, not ignored, discouraged, or slighted by the arrogance of self-acceptance.
Quote
I am assuming you mean orgasm rather than organism. If that is the case, you are utterly wrong about that. If you go to your girlfriend and say "oh baby...but you having an orgasm is not your primary aim" let's see how fast she breaks up with you.
It just mean one should be more sensitive of her emotionally need for love and security than just physical intercourse. A simple way to make a woman crazy about him.
Quote
Orgasm is desired by both men and women and all those in between and outside. To say orgasm is not the aim for women is basically denying their sexual right to be equals.
Sex is not all about orgasm, and its importance to women is the physical intimacy, the fun in fore-play and the pschological feelings from the act itself. It is standard male misconception that women also should orgasm every time like they do. If it come fine, if not, it is also fine. It is a none issue to women in majority.
Quote
Again, I am assuming you mean orgasm versus organism. As I stated earlier, your views are inaccurate. Men have a desire for intimacy, love, and security too. Women have a desire for orgasms as well.
Orgasm is heavily promoted by male stereotype misconception, men do have a desire for intimacy, love, and security, but it is entirely optional for intercource. It a simple fact that when the male lost sexual interest in a woman, any force sex only bring displeasure. Male is a sexual being, even love is sexually motivated. But for women, for relationship wise, intimacy, love, and security are of priority, physical attraction is optional, it is fine to have, it is fine not to have, since they derived pleasure in receptive mode, not in one's acting, or doing something to the women after being attracted visually by the woman.
Quote
I've taken numerous sexuality courses in undergraduate and graduate levels and I can tell you for a fact that gender and sexuality is not as simple or as how you explained it. Your version is clearly from your experiences and does not relate to the general mass.
Science lead to complexity and philosophy lead to simplicity. One cannot strayed to science and ignored the philosophical part if one is to make sense of any discussion with the complexity of scientific technicalities. Neither gender and sexuality has to be complex if the simple binary gender mechanism is fully acknowledged as universal parameters for their variants.
Am I accused of being a part of the supposed ego contest? Because I fail to see how calling misinformation such is stoking one's ego and trying to feel intellectually superior, if I am.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AM
the destination is there to be accepted, not ignored, discouraged, or slighted by the arrogance of self-acceptance.
arrogance of self-acceptance
arrogance of self-acceptancearrogance of self-acceptanceWhatever drugs you are on, they are gooooooood.
Is anyone else around here sick of reading about fake science, terrible psychology,
and completely off-topic, offensive rhetoric?
This has nothing to do with gay men. If you say MTF's are like gay men, I won't
argue that a straight MTF has similarities, but I couldn't even comprehend half of
the responses in that last post.
Quote from: Morrigan on October 30, 2011, 03:31:37 AM
arrogance of self-acceptance
arrogance of self-acceptance
arrogance of self-acceptance
Whatever drugs you are on, they are gooooooood.
Is anyone else around here sick of reading about fake science, terrible psychology,
and completely off-topic, offensive rhetoric?
This has nothing to do with gay men. If you say MTF's are like gay men, I won't
argue that a straight MTF has similarities, but I couldn't even comprehend half of
the responses in that last post.
ive tried to read her posts with an open mind. I've tried parsing her words, reading it one way and then another and I came to the conclusion that I do not think she even knows what she is writing. She's using "complicated words" but then spelling them wrong or writes the wrong word for the word she is meaning to say (organism = orgasm).
She is also writing down her version of facts that are found nowhere else in any scholarly book or article. These are the writings of someone who has a stereotypical mindset of what a man and a woman and how a man and a woman should act.
She's so convinced that her versions are truth because of her experiences. I really don't think the rest of the forums telling her if she is wrong is going to change her mind (even tho most of us would say "ok....i must be saying something inaccurate if the rest of the forums disagree with me").
She has gone so far down the rabbit hole that if she can not provide citations....
Then lock her out.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 30, 2011, 01:20:59 AM
Am I accused of being a part of the supposed ego contest? Because I fail to see how calling misinformation such is stoking one's ego and trying to feel intellectually superior, if I am.
You're only part of the supposed ego contest if you think this
song is about you. :P
maybe you could ask one to get a better answer?
Okay, I've stayed out of this thread because... well, I've been busy, but now I've got to comment.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMSex is not all about orgasm, and its importance to women is the physical intimacy, the fun in fore-play and the pschological feelings from the act itself. It is standard male misconception that women also should orgasm every time like they do. If it come fine, if not, it is also fine. It is a none issue to women in majority.
You're right, but you're also absolutely horribly wrong.
It IS an issue to women whether or not they are able to orgasm.
Since you take "I've seen it posted on forums" as reasonable proof, here http://www.google.is/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=unable+to+orgasm+%22forum%22 (http://www.google.is/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=unable+to+orgasm+%22forum%22) have a simple google search that yielded about 28.600.000 results where majority of the results are women posting about their own concerns regarding their own inability to orgasm.
Yes, "sometimes" it doesn't matter if you orgasm or not, but it's not something that all women think, nor do all men want to orgasm every time, sometimes guys just want to be intimate too, orgasm being unnecessary.
Yes, it's a pretty big misconception that women have orgasms every time from penetrative sex, but it's also a complete falsehood that the orgasm is a de-facto "non issue" to all women.
If you have any link to any scientific research with which to back up your claims, please provide them.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMOrgasm is heavily promoted by male stereotype misconception, men do have a desire for intimacy, love, and security, but it is entirely optional for intercource.
This is also true, and utterly and completely false.
What's true is that men do need intimacy, love, and security.
What's false is "entirely optional"...
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMIt a simple fact that when the male lost sexual interest in a woman, any force sex only bring displeasure. Male is a sexual being, even love is sexually motivated.
... No...
Love isn't more sexually motivated in men than it is in women.
If you have any scientific evidence to the contrary, cite it!
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMBut for women, for relationship wise, intimacy, love, and security are of priority, physical attraction is optional, it is fine to have, it is fine not to have, since they derived pleasure in receptive mode, not in one's acting, or doing something to the women after being attracted visually by the woman.
Jacelyn... what did you just say....
Did you just say that women don't care whether their partners are physically attractive?
That they just enjoy being... well... used, by a man who's "nice"?
I mean...
"physical attraction" is not optional! If a woman is not physically/sexually attracted to a guy she will not enjoy having sex with him.
Women derive pleasure from their own actions as well, not just being used as a semen receptacle.
Honestly! This part of your post, it made me sick!
What you're preaching is a "like back and think of the flag" mentality as a "good" one!
It's rather repugnant!
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMScience lead to complexity and philosophy lead to simplicity.
You obviously do not know much at all about philosophy nor science!
Philosophy is the mother of science, it's the original science. The various sciences we have today are derived from philosophy.
Philosophy was initially directed at asking "why" and "how" of things that we had not asked these questions of before. Philosophy took the "simple" answer of saying that the gods did it and made it complicated by trying to work out things way beyond that.
Today, science is what tries to understand what we can measure, count, etc, etc, etc, while philosophy is left with the unanswerable questions, meaning that science is simpler (deals with things we can reliably consider true) while philosophy is more complicated (deals with no utter certainties what so ever).
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMOne cannot strayed to science and ignored the philosophical part if one is to make sense of any discussion with the complexity of scientific technicalities.
This again is utter nonsense.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AMNeither gender and sexuality has to be complex if the simple binary gender mechanism is fully acknowledged as universal parameters for their variants.
...
You do realize that what you just said is terribly rude?
The "simple binary gender mechanism" you've described is not a "universal parameter" as it is;
- Not accurate nor real in any sense of the term.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that non-heterosexual couples exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that women have a sense of sexuality along with sexual attractions and sexual desires.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that majority of women do desire the orgasm and will seek it.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that transsexuals exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that promiscuous women exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that strictly monogamous men exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that not everyone are born with standard external genitalia.
And so on and so forth.
Want to simplify things? Try starting with being accurate.
Yea I stopped responding to Jacelyn a while back when I realized that 1) she really had no idea what she was talking about, and 2) she isn't interested in the least bit about refining her views to be more in line with reality.
Quote from: Akashiya Moka on October 30, 2011, 10:11:59 AM
You're only part of the supposed ego contest if you think this song is about you. :P
was just watching the movie 'bout the runaways! love that song!
Philosophy is the mother of science, it's the original science. The various sciences we have today are derived from philosophy.
Philosophy was initially directed at asking "why" and "how" of things that we had not asked these questions of before. Philosophy took the "simple" answer of saying that the gods did it and made it complicated by trying to work out things way beyond that.
Yeah. Kinda of. Sort of. Not really.
Quote from: Miniar link=topic=108807.msg822064#msg822064
date=1319998163
It IS an issue to women whether or not they are able to orgasm.
Yes, "sometimes" it doesn't matter if you orgasm or not, but it's not something
that all women think, nor do all men want to orgasm every time, sometimes guys
just want to be intimate too, orgasm being unnecessary.
Men have biological need for seminal release after a period of sexual abstinent,
and the pleasure is directly related to the presence of an attractive woman who
can excite him visually. This is the reason men like to masturbate by looking at
pronographic picture of such woman. The pleasure of the release is not as intense
and pleasant if visually there is absence of the attractive sexual object. Man
literally project all his emotion and energy into his member, and when these
accumulated emotion of lust/love explode in the release, the feeling is
uncomparable than by nature release without the emotional accumulation due to
visual excitation. Women don't have this biological need for sexual release and
the visual dependencies, and is contended to be on the receptor side of man's
sexual release (since he will project his love intensely in his own release), women
are sensitive to such momentary emotional release of men and can find
enjoyment in it physically and pschologically.
QuoteYes, it's a pretty big misconception that women have orgasms every time
from penetrative sex, but it's also a complete falsehood that the orgasm is a de-
facto "non issue" to all women.
It only become an issue when orgasm is completely impossible (thus indicating a
medical condition), but orgasm is not the primary objective of a woman having
sex. Of course a man who spend the time and effort to make her come would be
appreciated by her. The differences between male and female in this area is
distinctive, the occasional lack of orgasm in the female is not indication of
abnormality, but if a man in any occassion failed to orgasm, it immediately
implicate a medical condition.
Reference:
http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp (http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp)
"Many women enjoy the closeness and physical intimacy of sex and are satisfied
even if they do not, or do not always, have an orgasm."
Quote
This is also true, and utterly and completely false.
What's true is that men do need intimacy, love, and security.
What's false is "entirely optional"...
... No...
Love isn't more sexually motivated in men than it is in women.
As stated men have biological need for seminal release, and the pleasure is
directed related to visual excitation that has nothing to do with intimacy, love,
and security from a stable relationship. Men do have emotional need for intimacy,
love, and security, but these have nothing to do with his sexuality expression and
receptivity.
Reference:
http://site.themarriagebed.com/physiology-of-the-male-sex-drive (http://site.themarriagebed.com/physiology-of-the-male-sex-drive)
"Two glands, called the seminal vesicles, produce the majority of the fluid which
makes up semen. This fluid is stored in the seminal vesicles until an ejaculation is
about to occur. Think of the seminal vesicles as two small bladders; and like the
urinary bladder, they fill up. The fullness may or may not be noticeable as a slight
pressure inside the body (not the testes), but the body signals the brain that
release is needed. In a normal healthy man under 50, it takes 24 to 72 hours for
the vesicles to fill up. While not getting release doesn't result in damage to the
body, it can cause a sense of discomfort and make the fellow "grumpy." This is one
biological reason a man feels a regular need for release."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1102/1224282474265.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1102/1224282474265.html)
"I don't think it is exactly earth shattering to discover that women are not as
interested in sex as men are. Libraries of scientific data exist confirming exactly
that. Men have a much stronger chemical response to sexual stimuli."
http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/why-women-need-romance-463.php (http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/why-women-need-romance-463.php)
"An unknown portion of this romantic need in women is probably related to
genetic influences implemented by the hypothalamus region in the brain. Beyond
this, the characteristic features probably result from differences in early
experiences of girls and boys. The entire orientation for little girls in our society is
toward romantic excitement."
QuoteDid you just say that women don't care whether their partners are
physically attractive?
That they just enjoy being... well... used, by a man who's "nice"?
I mean...
"physical attraction" is not optional! If a woman is not physically/sexually
attracted to a guy she will not enjoy having sex with him.
I don't exclude physically attractiveness such as height, broad shoulders in the
male, but these are physical features are less critical in a woman's demand than in
the man's demand for the partner's physical attractiveness. The latter is due to the
male sexuality mechanism. Women can easily find financial security, positive /
pleasant character in the man as attractive feature for acceptance of the
relationship. Men don't really care about what job the woman has, her past and so
on, if she attracts him physically.
Quote
Women derive pleasure from their own actions as well, not just being used as a
semen receptacle.
As mentioned the woman's sexual enjoyment is receptive, there is no object of
sexual attraction nor the requirement (she doesn't get arouse sexually by the
presence of the man, but get aroused after being touched, hearing his sweet voice,
smelling his scent and so on), the pleasure is her body's sensory perception and
emotional feeling in intimacy. Without the devise for immediate arousal, and
pleasure through physical moves, a woman is not sexually aggresive by biological
design. A man on the contrary, upon seeing an attractive woman, he can
immediately aroused (erected) and immediately be on top of her and derived
pleasure by the actions perform upon her with his body.
Quote
Philosophy is the mother of science, it's the original science. The various sciences
we have today are derived from philosophy.
Not necessary, sometime friction novels and religious faiths can motivate
curiousity leading to scientific discovery. Scientific breakthrough and innovation
required doubts of existing theories and extensive brain-storming activities. There
is no conclusion in science, it is a never ending road of skeptism and complexity.
Complexity is in various data of elements that constitutes causes and results of
experiments and practical applications. There is no understanding of the general
philosophical picture underlying these various elements.
QuotePhilosophy was initially directed at asking "why" and "how" of things that
we had not asked these questions of before. Philosophy took the "simple" answer
of saying that the gods did it and made it complicated by trying to work out
things way beyond that.
Making things more complicated does not exclusively define what philosophy is.
Philosophy is aimed at understanding matters in logical coherant context,
whether it is to simplify the complex, or to proliferate the simple to inclusive its
fuller scope. But it doesn't lead to infinite, ungraspable complexity with an
unknown factors (doubts) as the case of scientific technicalities.
QuoteToday, science is what tries to understand what we can measure, count, etc,
etc, etc, while philosophy is left with the unanswerable questions, meaning that
science is simpler (deals with things we can reliably consider true) while
philosophy is more complicated (deals with no utter certainties what so ever).
This again is utter nonsense.
Depend on your philosophy, if yours has unanswerable questions, it is not logically
coherant with existing concepts, nor these concept are validly established. In other
words, you are still speculating a half truth and called it philosophy.
Quote
You do realize that what you just said is terribly rude?
So anything in disagreement with your views is called rude. You merely expecting
an unconditional agreement, not intellectual discussion.
QuoteThe "simple binary gender mechanism" you've described is not a "universal
parameter" as it is;
- Not accurate nor real in any sense of the term.
Try to refute the biological and pschological distinctions first before rendered it
inaccurate.
Quote
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that non-heterosexual couples
exist.
You are mistaken. Non-heterosexual couples also taken account here as male vs.
male, female vs. female combination, which is supported as variants (the four
alternative pairings of the gender binary) by the default gender binary of male
and female.
Quote
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that women have a sense of
sexuality along with sexual attractions and sexual desires.
This is being taken into account as the receptive (female) mode of human sexual
response.
Quote- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that majority of
women do desire the orgasm and will seek it.
It is being taken in account as having biological difficulty in comparison with the
male. And that such desire is not entirely relevent to lack of sexual satisfaction.
Quote- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that transsexuals
exist.
Both MFT and FTM are taken into account as the two subjective variants within
the default binary gender (self identity as male or female).
Quote- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that promiscuous
women exist.
As mentioned previously, the simple mentioned of the term 'women' refer to the
majority, but the usage does not exclude the existence of the special minority. But
minority cannot be taken as standard parameters for judgement which aimed at
universal consensus.
Quote- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that strictly
monogamous men exist.
This has being taken into account as special cases. But the discussion is aimed at
revealing male's universal behaviourial pattern.
Quote- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that not everyone are
born with standard external genitalia.
Abnormal physical development exists as biological variants which is also taken
into account.
Quote from: Akashiya Moka on October 30, 2011, 10:11:59 AM
You're only part of the supposed ego contest if you think this song is about you. :P
Sorry, being accused of still bearing masculine characteristics is a sore spot for me. I really had my feelings hurt. Not a big thing, but it's true.
Oh, what a mess this has become. My screen just exploded from Jacelyn's MASSIVE post! WHAT HAS SCIENCE DO----NE?!!!! O_O
As for those "sources,":
1) themarrieagebed.com is a site containing "Biblical information about sex and intimacy for married or soon to be married christians" (To be honest, I Lol'd)
2) In the irishtimes.com article, the writer's talking about the same man who also said this: ""I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want."
3) Your growthtrac.com article is talking about marriage (specifically how to maintain a healthy marriage with romance), and makes no mention of relationships in any other context (like a woman looking for casual sex on a saturday night out or casual dating in general--which is what we've been discussing)
4) Your sogc.org quote that many women still enjoy sex without always having an orgasm does not directly support your statement that orgasms aren't important to women at all.
Still laughing about themarriagebed.com by the way...
"Many women enjoy the closeness and physical intimacy of sex and are satisfied even if they do not, or do not always, have an orgasm."
Oh yeah. You can see their happy faces all over town, but mostly at Good Vibrations. I know several who forgo the entire deal if they aren't going to get the complete package, and yes they do gain intimacy from other kinds of activities, but if they can get one of those eye-rolling, back scratching, toe-curling OhMyGodOhMyGod kind of shaggs, they will take it, and they do like it.
Fact is, that at different ages and times in their lives men and women have a wide and huge variation in sexual activity and sexual notions. It's all cute and all that you can divide it into 'men' who are all like A, and 'women' who are all like B - no matter what - but it doesn't work out so well in real life.
Just go to themarriagebed.com, it'll tell you all you need to know. Right Jacelyn?
Sex for men and women straight from the Bible! Where could you go wrong?!
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 30, 2011, 11:48:37 PM
Still laughing about themarriagebed.com by the way...
I've been laughing about this thread since page 1.
You guys take debating to a whole new level. :laugh:
Quote from: Rukia87xo on October 30, 2011, 11:58:26 PM
I've been laughing about this thread since page 1.
You guys take debating to a whole new level. :laugh:
It's brain exercise :angel:
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 31, 2011, 12:03:33 AM
It's brain exercise :angel:
Lol...i stopped reading after page 4. :D
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PM
Men have biological need for seminal release after a period of sexual abstinent,
and the pleasure is directly related to the presence of an attractive woman who
can excite him visually.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMThis is the reason men like to masturbate by looking at
pronographic picture of such woman.
Unless he's gay... or blind.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMIt only become an issue when orgasm is completely impossible (thus indicating a
medical condition), but orgasm is not the primary objective of a woman having
sex.
I take it you didn't look at any of the posts from women regarding their difficulty reaching orgasm?
It is an issue even if it's situational and many of these posts revolve around women looking for ways to orgasm during sex with their partners.
As such, these women would disagree with you.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMOf course a man who spend the time and effort to make her come would be
appreciated by her.
To quote your own source (http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp (http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp))
"While there are many ways a loving partner can help a woman reach orgasm, in the end, a woman is responsible for her own sexual pleasure. That does not mean her partner should not be involved. Communication between partners is very important. It is up to the woman to inform her partner her likes and dislikes in their love making."
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMThe differences between male and female in this area is
distinctive, the occasional lack of orgasm in the female is not indication of
abnormality, but if a man in any occassion failed to orgasm, it immediately
implicate a medical condition.
This is incorrect.
"Anorgasmia is defined as failure to experience an orgasm." (note the word "an" not "any" just "an")
About 8% of men suffer from Anorgasmia. (source (http://www.maleproductreview.com/how-common-is-male-anorgasmia))
It is estimated that around 90 per cent of anorgasmia problems are related to psychological issues.(source (http://menshealth.about.com/cs/stds/a/anorgasmia.htm))
"Patients with male orgasmic disorder can achieve firm erections and have normal sexual intercourse with penetration. Some patients reporting male orgasmic disorder with intercourse can achieve orgasm through manual or oral stimulation or at least report orgasm through nocturnal emissions (ie, "wet dreams")." (source (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/295379-overview))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMReference:
http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp (http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp)
"Many women enjoy the closeness and physical intimacy of sex and are satisfied even if they do not, or do not always, have an orgasm."
"Affectionate hugs trigger the release of brain endorphins, which medical experts claim have an even more powerful effect on our sense of well-being than heroin or morphine. A recent Kinsey Report has turned traditional Western views about men and women upside down. The report says men need more hugs and tenderness in long-term relationships, while women lean more toward sexual satisfaction."(source (http://www.newsytype.com/8638-men-need-hugs-kinsey-report/))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMReference:
http://site.themarriagebed.com/physiology-of-the-male-sex-drive (http://site.themarriagebed.com/physiology-of-the-male-sex-drive)
"While not getting release doesn't result in damage to the
body, it can cause a sense of discomfort and make the fellow "grumpy." This is one
biological reason a man feels a regular need for release."
Two words, nocternal emissions.
That is to say, if one doesn't masterbate, or have sex, the body will ejaculate on it's own.
No, there's no research what so ever that backs up the claim made on this entirely nonscientific webpage that I can find, but if you can find it, go ahead and link it.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMhttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1102/1224282474265.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1102/1224282474265.html)
"I don't think it is exactly earth shattering to discover that women are not as
interested in sex as men are. Libraries of scientific data exist confirming exactly
that. Men have a much stronger chemical response to sexual stimuli."
"Perhaps not. Fisher, Moore, and Pittenger (2011) set out to substantiate the axiom of men's hyperactive sexual cognitions. Female and male undergraduates used tally counters to record the number of times that they thought about sex, food, or sleep over the course of a week. The results indicated that, yes, men thought about sex modestly more frequently than women did. However, men also thought about both food and sleep significantly more often than women did. Thus, men reported a greater number of personal-need-based thoughts than did women overall."
&
"Do women desire and actually have fewer sexual partners than do men? No, gender differences in reported sexual partners stem less from sexual appetites and more from inappropriate use and interpretation of statistics and social desirability."
(source (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.full))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMhttp://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/why-women-need-romance-463.php (http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/why-women-need-romance-463.php)
"An unknown portion of this romantic need in women is probably related to
genetic influences implemented by the hypothalamus region in the brain. Beyond
this, the characteristic features probably result from differences in early
experiences of girls and boys. The entire orientation for little girls in our society is
toward romantic excitement."
"Conventional wisdom suggests that men and women have different dating goals. Men want a partner who is sexy (i.e., physically attractive), whereas women want a partner with high status (Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). This notion is often supported by examining young adults' ideal mates (see Eastwick & Finkel, 2008, for a review). And, one assumes, we need to look no further than the routine relationships of octogenarian Hugh Hefner with Playboy models a fraction of his age for supportive (albeit anecdotal) real-world evidence.
But what happens when we empirically consider perceptions of potential partners that participants have met in person? Eastwick and Finkel (2008) hosted a series of speed-dating events in which participants rated the importance of attractiveness and status among the individuals with whom they interacted. Contrary to conventional wisdom, when the object of one's potential affection shifted from ideal to actual, gender differences in preferred qualities of partners disappeared. Specifically, attractiveness and status were found to be equally important to men and women when considering actual dating partners (both in initial speed-dating encounters and a month after those encounters) across a variety of dependent measures (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Moreover, gender differences in preferences for status and attractiveness were absent in the judgments of current romantic partners as well (Eastwick, Finkel, & Eagly, in press).
Bottom line: Do women and men have gender-specific preferences for qualities of partners? Not in real-world contexts, which are presumably more valid than hypothetical musings."
(source (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.full))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMI don't exclude physically attractiveness such as height, broad shoulders in the
male, but these are physical features are less critical in a woman's demand than in
the man's demand for the partner's physical attractiveness.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 01:10:49 AM
for women, for relationship wise, intimacy, love, and security are of priority, physical attraction is optional,
Your words.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMThe latter is due to the
male sexuality mechanism. Women can easily find financial security, positive /
pleasant character in the man as attractive feature for acceptance of the
relationship.
"Bottom line: Do women and men have gender-specific preferences for qualities of partners? Not in real-world contexts, which are presumably more valid than hypothetical musings."
(source (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.full))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMMen don't really care about what job the woman has, her past and so
on, if she attracts him physically.
"Bottom line: Do women and men have gender-specific preferences for qualities of partners? Not in real-world contexts, which are presumably more valid than hypothetical musings."
(source (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.full))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMAs mentioned the woman's sexual enjoyment is receptive, there is no object of
sexual attraction nor the requirement (she doesn't get arouse sexually by the
presence of the man, but get aroused after being touched, hearing his sweet voice,
smelling his scent and so on), the pleasure is her body's sensory perception and
emotional feeling in intimacy.
"Men are drawn to visual erotica, explaining the lure of magazines such as Playboy. Meanwhile female desire is supposedly fueled by a richer cognitive and emotional texture. "Women experience desire as a result of the context in which they are inserted—whether they feel comfortable with themselves and the partner, feel safe and perceive a true bond with the partner," opines urologist Jennifer Berman of the Female Sexual Medicine Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Yet sexual imagery devoid of emotional connections can arouse women just as it can men, a 2007 study shows. Psychologist Meredith Chivers of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and her colleagues gauged the degree of sexual arousal in about 100 women and men, both homosexual and heterosexual, while they watched erotic film clips. The clips depicted same-sex intercourse, solitary masturbation or nude exercise—performed by men and women—as well as male-female intercourse and mating between bonobos (close ape relatives of the chimpanzee).
The researchers found that although nude exercise genitally aroused all the onlookers the least and intercourse excited them the most, the type of actor was more important for the men than for the women. Heterosexual women's level of arousal increased along with the intensity of the sexual activity largely irrespective of who or what was engaged in it. In fact, these women were genitally excited by male and female actors equally and also responded physically to bonobo copulation. (Gay women, however, were more particular; they did not react sexually to men masturbating or exercising naked.)"
(source (http://www.mindpowernews.com/OrgasmicMind.htm))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMWithout the devise for immediate arousal, and
pleasure through physical moves, a woman is not sexually aggresive by biological
design.
"Sprecher and other sex researchers speculate that society's norms suggest that men should pursue and women should be pursued. The result may be that women tend to be less comfortable initiating sex."
&
"The information about initiation was then compared to how couples rated their sexual satisfaction. Partners who reported equal initiation and female initiation patterns also tended to report greater sexual satisfaction for both partners. This finding, according to Sprecher, is also consistent with other studies suggesting that relationships with the most balance are the most satisfying."
(source (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51114))
"A belief that one will be stigmatized harshly partially explains gender differences in casual sex. Gender differences are minimized when women feel that they can avoid being stigmatized for their behavior.
Most strikingly, when both proposer sexual capabilities and stigma associated with participation in casual sex are accounted for, the giant gender differences in acceptance evaporate completely."
(source (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.full))
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMA man on the contrary, upon seeing an attractive woman, he can
immediately aroused (erected) and immediately be on top of her and derived
pleasure by the actions perform upon her with his body.
Again, unless he's GAY!
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMNot necessary, sometime fiction novels and religious faiths can motivate
curiousity leading to scientific discovery.
The curiosity may begin the scientific process, but without the actual scientific process, no discovery is made.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMMaking things more complicated does not exclusively define what philosophy is.
Nor did I say so.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMPhilosophy is aimed at understanding matters in logical coherant context,
whether it is to simplify the complex, or to proliferate the simple to inclusive its
fuller scope. But it doesn't lead to infinite, ungraspable complexity with an
unknown factors (doubts) as the case of scientific technicalities.
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"."
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.
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".
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMDepend on your philosophy, if yours has unanswerable questions, it is not logically
coherant with existing concepts, nor these concept are validly established. In other
words, you are still speculating a half truth and called it philosophy.
There is no such thing as "truth" in philosophy.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMSo anything in disagreement with your views is called rude. You merely expecting
an unconditional agreement, not intellectual discussion.
No, it's not. Thank you for the ad hominem.
The specific statement is rude for the reasons expressed.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMTry to refute the biological and pschological distinctions first before rendered it
inaccurate.
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).
In other words, I can assert your claim to be inaccurate if you've failed to prove it without assuming the burden of proof as you've failed to meet the burden of proof yourself.
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 (http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/parents/handout_genital_development.html) 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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMYou are mistaken. Non-heterosexual couples also taken account here as male vs.
male, female vs. female combination, which is supported as variants (the four
alternative pairings of the gender binary) by the default gender binary of male
and female.
Not when you define males as "attracted to females" and females as "receptive to male sexual attention".
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMThis is being taken into account as the receptive (female) mode of human sexual
response.
See, just proved my point.
If all female persons are "receptive" then what is lesbian sex?
If all female persons are "receptive" then how do they "pursue" their own sexual pleasure?
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMIt is being taken in account as having biological difficulty in comparison with the
male. And that such desire is not entirely relevent to lack of sexual satisfaction.
That is not taking this into account but brushing it off as irrelevant.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMBoth MFT and FTM are taken into account as the two subjective variants within
the default binary gender (self identity as male or female).
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.
Hencem your definitions do not take transsexuals into account.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMAs mentioned previously, the simple mentioned of the term 'women' refer to the
majority, but the usage does not exclude the existence of the special minority. But
minority cannot be taken as standard parameters for judgement which aimed at
universal consensus.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMThis has being taken into account as special cases. But the discussion is aimed at
revealing male's universal behaviourial pattern.
It's not universal unless it applies Universally.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 30, 2011, 10:59:29 PMAbnormal physical development exists as biological variants which is also taken
into account.
It's not universal unless it applies Universally.
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!
I don't know why people keep dissecting Jacelyn's posts. She's never gonna stop. And it's all still irrelevant to the topic.
Well, we can just let her type it all out and to let her believe in all of what she says because I am pretty positive no one else here finds any credibility behind her arguments.
Jacelyn is an armchair gender analyst. She gets her experience from 4chan.com
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 31, 2011, 01:34:19 PM
I don't know why people keep dissecting Jacelyn's posts. She's never gonna stop. And it's all still irrelevant to the topic.
Stubborn...
Don't really like letting misinformation stand unaddressed and unchallenged.
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 (http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/parents/handout_genital_development.%3Cbr%20/%3Ehtml) 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.
Jacelyn, I believe you've stated your opinions as facts, but don't fret,
I'm providing a training aid that can help!
I have some worksheets for you. Please go to the below website
and browse the "Facts and Opinions Mixed Review" section.
Please answer the questions as best you can.
http://edhelper.com/language/facts_and_opinions.htm (http://edhelper.com/language/facts_and_opinions.htm)
In the future we hope to debate your opinions at great length!
JenJen, I apologize, and I hope you can excuse this interruption, sometimes an "on the spot correction" is necessary :(
Quote from: Jacelyn
It is a misconception that there exist a gender identity that is neither male nor
female
Then please, explain to me my spouse who is androgyn.
Not female or male but both.
And I can assure you that my spouse is 100% an androgyn. Being seen as female or male is very distressing to hir. When socially accepted as an androgyn by hir peers ze is completely well adjusted and experiances no distress.
Kinda throws that only male and female thing out the window.
Personally I do not understand it. It confuses the heck outa me but I accept that the gender binary is not flawless.
Is the binary right in most cases? Yes. Absolutely.
However there are exceptions that disprove the rigid binary as being universal.
All I need to do is look at my spouse sitting across the room from me and I can see for a fact the gender binary is not absolute.
Don't really like letting misinformation stand unaddressed and unchallenged.
True that. If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, then it's a lot easier to let ignorance flourish (just ask Fox News). But we seem to be stocked up on dumb these days, so ya got to do what you can to try to stem the rising tide of bad, incorrect, wrong or just absurd (dividing all people into two groups, say...) information.
what motivate men to seek more than one partner
also: boredom, bad sex, easy opportunity (low-hanging fruit), and that 'nag-nag-nag' thing ain't helping either.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PM
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.
+1
Furthermore how do genes corellate to someone to grow the hair long and wear makeup? It doesn't. To think our genes influence our actions and not our environment is wrong. It is a smaller part of the overall puzzle.
I am proud to be born male...as I don't normally subscribe to the intersex theory. Physical biology is where sex and gender characteristics are going to be judged, not to be confused with actual aesthetics.
To address the original post, I have never met an MTF or gay male who acted this way, and I live in the SF Bay Area so I've met many of each category.
Quote from: Shades O'Grey on October 31, 2011, 10:38:09 PM
To address the original post, I have never met an MTF or gay male who acted this way, and I live in the SF Bay Area so I've met many of each category.
I live in the SF bay area too...
But do you go to the Castro?
As my spouse just had a breast reduction due to gender issues, ze has been on T almost 2 years, and there are no other issues ze needs to adress about hir body at this point..... I would have to say that my spouse is a post op androgyn.
Quote from: cynthialee on October 31, 2011, 09:49:03 PM
Then please, explain to me my spouse who is androgyn.
Not female or male but both.
And I can assure you that my spouse is 100% an androgyn. Being seen as female or male is very distressing to hir. When socially accepted as an androgyn by hir peers ze is completely well adjusted and experiances no distress.
Kinda throws that only male and female thing out the window.
Personally I do not understand it. It confuses the heck outa me but I accept that the gender binary is not flawless.
Is the binary right in most cases? Yes. Absolutely.
However there are exceptions that disprove the rigid binary as being universal.
All I need to do is look at my spouse sitting across the room from me and I can see for a fact the gender binary is not absolute.
these are the kinds of viewpoints that somehow are an insult to post ops around here. anyway, out of curiousity. how does one get to being androgyne. biology has basically proven that gender identity is an inborn trait. the hormone mechanisms that cause a brain to develop as either male/female in utero are quite simple, but what would take place hormonally for an androgynous brain to be created?
Quote from: cynthialee on October 31, 2011, 09:49:03 PM
Then please, explain to me my spouse who is androgyn.
Not female or male but both.
And I can assure you that my spouse is 100% an androgyn. Being seen as female or male is very distressing to hir. When socially accepted as an androgyn by hir peers ze is completely well adjusted and experiances no distress.
Kinda throws that only male and female thing out the window.
Personally I do not understand it. It confuses the heck outa me but I accept that the gender binary is not flawless.
Is the binary right in most cases? Yes. Absolutely.
However there are exceptions that disprove the rigid binary as being universal.
All I need to do is look at my spouse sitting across the room from me and I can see for a fact the gender binary is not absolute.
100% androgyn implied that the body will be female by default, it depend on him / her pschological adaptation to this default female appearance. If he / she pschologically opposes this female appearances, then FTM transition is the option but will be more difficult to achieve by present technology due to compplexity to mimic the sexual function of the male reproductive organ.
Here being androgyn obviously does not neutralize the existence of either physical or pschological gender binary, but automatically demonstrate a default female biological form.
Quote from: FullMoon19 on October 31, 2011, 11:38:03 PM
these are the kinds of viewpoints that somehow are an insult to post ops around here. anyway, out of curiousity. how does one get to being androgyne. biology has basically proven that gender identity is an inborn trait. the hormone mechanisms that cause a brain to develop as either male/female in utero are quite simple, but what would take place hormonally for an androgynous brain to be created?
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.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 01, 2011, 03:29:02 AM
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.
Using "Thus" does not make a scientifically inaccurate statement any less grossly scientifically inaccurate.
Quote from: Butterflyhugs on November 01, 2011, 05:56:44 AM
Using "Thus" does not make a scientifically inaccurate statement any less grossly scientifically inaccurate.
+1
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMYou are nick picking, and not reading into the meaning.
I am addressing your statements.
You are arguing that you didn't state what you had stated.
Thus, quoting the original statement was required.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMAlso 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.
I had previously addressed that statement and did not see the need to re-address it, therefore the posting of simply your words.
If you'd like to address what I said of that statement instead, then go ahead.
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?
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?
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMApparently 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.
Strictly speaking, is philosophy "required"?
And does it need to have a demonstrable answer to be required?
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMIt 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMScience 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.
Skepticism comes from philosophy.
It is one of the oldest philosophical movements and arguably it's the very thing that philosophy is born from.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMPhilosophy 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.
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.
Empirical evidence is when you can measure and/or display the evidence to support your theory.
What you have described is science.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMAnyone 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMIt 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMThe 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!).
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMBoth 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.
Do you have any link to any documented, empirical evidence of this claim?
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMThere 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.
Do you have any link to any documented, empirical evidence of this claim?
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMWomen 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.
Do you have any link to any documented, empirical evidence of this claim?
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)
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMAs 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.
This point has been addressed, repeatedly, by information provided and proven to be incorrect.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMIronically 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.
Do you have any link to demonstrable, empirical evidence of this statement?
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMWhat 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on October 31, 2011, 09:04:37 PMNo, 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.
Another straw man and a failure to address the counterarguments made.
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.
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.
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.)
If gender is a simple binary then people are either male or female with no one falling in between the two points.
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.)
Hence the disagreement.
You are nick picking, and not reading into the meaning.
Actually, it's 'nit picking' - as in removing the eggs of lice from the hair of mammals with your fingernails.
Quote from: Jacelynbeing androgyn obviously does not neutralize the existence of either physical or pschological gender binary, but automatically demonstrate a default female biological form.
That won't wash either.
I know at least 4 male bodied androgynes.
RRRRRRAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! >:O
Jacelyn, unless you can provide sources for your information with links containing ".gov" or ".edu" as their extensions, peer-reviewed and thoroughly vetted journal articles (anything from the ACS, APA, NSF, the Danish Ministry of Health and Prevention, the CDC, or the WHO for example), legal documentation, or some other SUBSTANTIVE source, your views will NEVER be taken seriously by anyone with even a HINT of a scientific background. Do you understand? You are speaking against the findings of not one, not a couple, not a few, not many, but ALL of these sources and more. Show some meta-studies which confirm your findings regarding female sexual response/behavior. Show some arguments by accredited scientists who have had their views examined by other accredited scientists regarding gender identity development and human sexuality (that is, don't give me any crap from NARTH or some other pseudo-scientific agency). Show evidence other than what Johnny McPreacher said on his BLOG last Thursday.
Stop feeding us word salad and start giving us scientific steak! We DEMAND it! Or else admit that you're a pseudo-intellectual troll bent on ruining threads, and be DONE with it!
I demand nothing....
It would be nice but demand is too strong a word.
Quote from: cynthialee on November 01, 2011, 11:16:44 AM
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...
Nope, I am primarily a carnivore.
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.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 01, 2011, 03:29:02 AM
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?
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. :laugh:
- work it girl -
Quote from: Miniar on November 01, 2011, 09:12:43 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote
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.
QuoteAlso, 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteWhat you have described is science.
Philosophy is science, differed only in content and biased in methods.
QuoteAfter 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).
Quote
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).
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
QuoteDo 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.
QuoteSecondly; 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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteYou 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.
Quote
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.
QuoteNo 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Shut up and go away.
Isn't arguing in favor of a gender binary against the rules anyway?
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 03, 2011, 04:08:30 AM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
I can turn the telly off but the lower lifes can't.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 03, 2011, 11:34:54 AM
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/InsaneTrollLogic)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense)
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 03, 2011, 02:45:55 PM
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 8)
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.
Quote from: Happy Girl! on November 03, 2011, 05:57:17 PM
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.
i can't read all this since my attention span just can't handle it. it's just entertaining.
Quote from: Happy Girl! on November 03, 2011, 05:57:17 PM
In this culture men all talk like teenage girls and the women grunt and mutter their way through life.
OMG, LIKE TOTALLY BISSSSSH!!!
Quote from: Morrigan on November 03, 2011, 07:07:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 03, 2011, 02:45:55 PM
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/InsaneTrollLogic)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense (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.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 03, 2011, 11:34:54 AM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteMaybe 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).
Quote
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).
QuoteExcept 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.
Quote
"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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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).
Quote
"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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteCalling 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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Now you guys are gonna probably hate on this comment.
But you still retain your former selves through transition. HRT basically covers a male skeleton with female fat distributions, FFS/SRS just enhance that image. But the outside is not always reflective of what is in inside.
Before transition...I was an bitchy, slutty, catty gay boy.
After transition(HRT): I was a bitchy, slutty, catty girl.
Nothing actually changed. I'm still a troublemaker...I still see a lot of my relationships as expendable. But to my best friends, I only changed the outward appearance. I'm more comfortable right now, but my new "form" allows me to get away with more troublemaking.
You still retain your former selves. HRT and whatever else, it isn't gonna magically disappear. Thus, the essence of trans is duality... Even if the core is still the same.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 04, 2011, 02:19:22 AM
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.
You're making diversionary statements. You talk about "hard science", yet you're resolute in denying the fact that empiricism and the empirical method have no place in science, which is totally bizarre considering that the empirical method is one of the core tenets by which science is practiced today.
Also, this has nothing to do with "gender politics". Last I heard we were talking about male and female psychosexual and sexuality dimorphism and dichotomy, unless you've decided to give up on that and continue this exercise in futility of referring over and over again to the vague amorphous blob you're hurling around called "philosophy".
Quote
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.
What your male-bodied experience was does not constitute all male-bodied sexual experience. The only credible, largely applicable conclusions to be drawn about sexuality are not from personal anecdotes but from...you guessed it,
empirical statistical results. Your claims about your own male sexuality are not falsifiable, because nobody else can experience them to prove or disprove them. Karl Popper, who you doubtless know about if you're this interested in empiricism and philosophy, states that something is only functionally observable if it is falsifiable. Your claims aren't, so...they don't function as an empirical datum.
Quote
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).
You can confirm all you want about your own experiences, but that means literally zero because your experiences are not observable by anyone except for you.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but evidentially-backed explanations (which are empirical, not rational, true, although why would you care if they're rational considering you're trying to appeal from an empiricist's point of view?) are precisely what you need to prove an argument. You know, argument and evidence? The entire foundation of persuasive speaking?
Quote
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).
See above. The empirical method is a pillar of modern science.
Quote
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.
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).
See above. Empiricism directly opposes a priori reasoning, which is what you're doing here by championing your own understanding of your own experiences and drawing conclusions from them. Without empirical results (i.e., data, experimental evidence), you are supporting the polar opposite of the concept you claim to be.
Subjectivity doesn't necessarily mean it's less "reliable", inasmuch as there can be reliability in a subject like one's own understanding of one's own sexual identity and sexuality, but it does mean that it's not participating in an empirical model, where the collection of experimental evidence is critical.
Let's put it this way. We are both trans females, yet my experiences are totally different from yours. Under your model, I could extrapolate all manner of claims stemming from my own understanding of my own sexuality and apply these claims to everyone, and that would be perfectly normal and logical use of "empirical data". Even though it would directly violate your beliefs and would also be completely unfalsifiable.
Quote
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.
*sigh* Science is not opinion.
Science is not opinion. It's the collection of...empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world! This is not really an opinion, either. You're free to have your own ideas and beliefs about the definition of "science" and "empiricism", but in that case you would be holding an opinion.
Quote
How many times have you exchange idea with me, yet you are implying you know more, how old are you?
I'm implying nothing. Also, my age is irrelevant. Perhaps a better question to ask is, "how much experience do you have within the fields of science and philosophy?" To that I will happily answer that I am relatively well-versed in the fields, though admittedly I have more experience with more recent philosophies and philosophers. Foucault, Derrida and other post-structuralists are my favorites, though I'm also familiar with several empiricists like Locke, and, to some extent, Hobbes. In terms of scientific knowledge, I have several years of experience in biology, and my parents' jobs as physicians has instilled in me a fascination for human physiology, something I've also pursued vigorously.
Quote
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.
So basically, pretty much all of the concepts you outlined as empirically sound because you experienced them are now no longer so because they don't apply to me at all.
Quote
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).
Don't tell other people what their identifications are. Someone who identifies as agender is identifying as neither male nor female (not partially male and partially female). I don't think they have a need to become either male or female or anything in between, because their identity lies outside the concept of gender in the first place, and I don't think an agender person would take kindly to the suggestion that they can only be agender when they're sleeping or dead.
Quote
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.
Okay, now that I see where you're coming from in terms of spirituality, and from my knowledge of studies of Buddhism and empiricism, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. The problem is that, if you're going to accept the validity of the individual experience, you can't invalidate someone else's individual experience, even if the way they publish those observations is in the form of data.
Quote
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.
...Pardon? I don't think my mind is seeking the gender polarity, whatever that means.
Quote
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.
It's difficult to have an argument regarding empiricism when you spontaneously decide you want to call something else entirely empiricism.
Quote
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.
Uh, no, if I understand correctly (from the agender people I know! Look, ma, empirical evidence!), agender is the lack of a gender identity. Some agender people may not have any body dysphoria at all.
Quote
Circular! How can I do a simple negation for not having your rationale to negate in the first place?
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.
Which is why it's a spectrum, and /not/ a binary. See below re: binary.
Quote
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!
"Binary" does not mean that there are two poles and a spectrum. "Binary" means there are two options, one and zero, pink and blue, female and male. That's why people identifying between the two poles want to break down the binary, because the binary prevents people from their right to self-identification wherever they want in the spectrum.
Quote
Buddhist philosphy is much strict on the requirement for logical consistency.
I don't see where you're pointing out logical inconsistencies, except in your own decision to define empiricism however you want so that it fits better with your own beliefs. I'm perfectly fine with that; just be aware that there is an entire scientific community that will disagree with you on your use of the world "empirical" as incorrectly applied.
Quote
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.
Pardon? Less word salad, please.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 04, 2011, 03:42:15 AM
Now you guys are gonna probably hate on this comment.
But you still retain your former selves through transition. HRT basically covers a male skeleton with female fat distributions, FFS/SRS just enhance that image. But the outside is not always reflective of what is in inside.
Before transition...I was an bitchy, slutty, catty gay boy.
After transition(HRT): I was a bitchy, slutty, catty girl.
Nothing actually changed. I'm still a troublemaker...I still see a lot of my relationships as expendable. But to my best friends, I only changed the outward appearance. I'm more comfortable right now, but my new "form" allows me to get away with more troublemaking.
You still retain your former selves. HRT and whatever else, it isn't gonna magically disappear. Thus, the essence of trans is duality... Even if the core is still the same.
Before transition, I was a shell.
Now, I'm a human being.
I'm not the same person, though that's more due to personal maturation; otherwise, I agree with you on the concept of retention of self, even if I'll respectfully disagree on your point that "the essence of trans is duality". I don't have anything dual about me.
I'd like to meet a genderless person one day.
I have worked among a huge number of males and a huge number of females but I've never seen anything approaching genderless.
I have noticed many whose beliefs, upbringing, sexual desires or lack of makes them try to eliminate stereotypical behaviour, clothing, work and lifestyles but they always display one or other of the two genders.
To be truthful I can't imagine how a person could be genderless.
Any person claiming to be genderless would probably display gender by the way they claim to be genderless and the evidence they use.
Never seen a truely genderless person IRL.
But I have met people who you would have to ask to know if they were male or female due to having enough of both genders secondary traits to confuse the internal gender determiner.
My spouse is well on the way to that state. Soon my spouse will be so blended in apearance that you will not be able to easily gender hir.
So while that is not a state of genderlessness, it is definatly a state of existance where you will not be able to easily gender hir, and as such, ze will be in a state of genderlessness in the minds eye of the beholder.
savvy?
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 04, 2011, 05:17:11 AM
You're making diversionary statements. You talk about "hard science", yet you're resolute in denying the fact that empiricism and the empirical method have no place in science, which is totally bizarre considering that the empirical method is one of the core tenets by which science is practiced today.
Also, this has nothing to do with "gender politics". Last I heard we were talking about male and female psychosexual and sexuality dimorphism and dichotomy, unless you've decided to give up on that and continue this exercise in futility of referring over and over again to the vague amorphous blob you're hurling around called "philosophy"...
I don't denial cause and effect component of science, it is this component that required empirical (real time) observation, but it is not about empiriciam which involved consciousness and time that is related to consciousness and mind. Such empiricism is field of philosophy. Gender is not hard science, it is field of socialogy and psychology, it is also of humanity which involved statistical survey to substantiate their studies. Gender biology is actual science, but not the psychological gender. So all discussion involving sensitivity of gender is of politics and cultural norms. Science has no such sensitivity. That said, sexuality is about binary dichotomy, it ultimately involved philosophy, its socialogy/humanity component is optional which is fine for politics but not science.
Quote
What your male-bodied experience was does not constitute all male-bodied sexual experience. The only credible, largely applicable conclusions to be drawn about sexuality are not from personal anecdotes but from...you guessed it, empirical statistical results.
Exception is not the rule, being male share a similar biological mechanism with similar males, thus share a common biological response. If this is a gamble of yes or no (to sharing a common biological response), then the odd of being positive is too high. The same apply to male and female consciousness, male and male as well as female and female shared a common impetus and traits.
This is simple logic in determining odds.
Quote
Your claims about your own male sexuality are not falsifiable, because nobody else can experience them to prove or disprove them. Karl Popper, who you doubtless know about if you're this interested in empiricism and philosophy, states that something is only functionally observable if it is falsifiable. Your claims aren't, so...they don't function as an empirical datum.
Why falsify when the premise is being biologically healthy and that psychological it is in concordance with the biological impetus? If you falsify it, then the premise is false, that would defeat the logical statement. The premise states a condition for it to be true. I can also make a premise that say that I'm psychologically in discordance with the biological impetus, and that I have an experience of feminine sexual response, with the aid of the male biological sexual mechanism which enhance the desire for sex, this would equally apply to number of males who share similar discordance, and be true as long as the premise or condition applied.
Quote
You can confirm all you want about your own experiences, but that means literally zero because your experiences are not observable by anyone except for you.
This is just question of trust, but has nothing to do with the capacity for the claim to be true, since all conditions are available subjectively. If you want to argue the problem of trust, then you should not involved in a discussion, as it demand too much work for someone who is merely interested in sharing a knowledge, not working on a job for you. That is, I'm not getting paid to get you to become convinced. In an intellectual discussion, even the question of trust don't exist, since both parties merely interested in logical consistency, i.e. if a statement is logical true, why it has to concern you whether the person just make it up? It's aim could be just educational.
Quote
Also, I hate to break it to you, but evidentially-backed explanations (which are empirical, not rational, true, although why would you care if they're rational considering you're trying to appeal from an empiricist's point of view?) are precisely what you need to prove an argument. You know, argument and evidence? The entire foundation of persuasive speaking?
Concerning empirical standard, it is not there because of the need to prove to another, but it is a method for oneself to verify a truth concerning perception, i.e. in this case of gender. Science do that because of the need to substantial the cause and effect component in real time. Empirical truth is itself the basis of rationality, so I also demand a rationale basis for any opposing views. In other word, I'm able to show my rationale for the claim as basing on empirical standard despite being subjective and personal, but what it is the rationale of those opposing it?
QuoteEmpiricism directly opposes a priori reasoning, which is what you're doing here by championing your own understanding of your own experiences and drawing conclusions from them.
Without empirical results (i.e., data, experimental evidence), you are supporting the polar opposite of the concept you claim to be.
Subjectivity doesn't necessarily mean it's less "reliable", inasmuch as there can be reliability in a subject like one's own understanding of one's own sexual identity and sexuality, but it does mean that it's not participating in an empirical model, where the collection of experimental evidence is critical.
Let's put it this way. We are both trans females, yet my experiences are totally different from yours. Under your model, I could extrapolate all manner of claims stemming from my own understanding of my own sexuality and apply these claims to everyone, and that would be perfectly normal and logical use of "empirical data". Even though it would directly violate your beliefs and would also be completely unfalsifiable.
In similar conditions (both biologically and psychologically), the experience would be similar, the minor difference can then be ignored, and the result taken as prove of universal similarity. It is all about causes and conditions, no one gender variant is so unique that there is no universal explanation for it, such as agender and so on, as even this term it is not absolute exist as such, it is just a suitable labeling, the trait of gender binary can still be trace. Biologically there is really no such thing as agender, since the body by default is female, it is due to healthy development in the direction of male, that maleness is determined. As for psychological gender, it depends on the mental factors, the degree of desire to be of either gender, however minimum, there will always be a degree that can be determine, unless the person is unconsciousness, death or mentally handicapped. Even the wishes to be agender psychologically exist, such as monks and nuns who only interested in the passionless lifestyle, even though biologically they do have gender distinctions (thus being called nun and monk respectively), however this agender is simply the result of having both gender distinction neutralized, in other words, without the gender binary, then this state of agender does not exist (note the 'a' in agender still dependence on 'gender'). The neutralization of gender is clearly the neutralization of desire, this is what monkhood attempting to communicates in their outward appearance. For normal person with healthy desire not being restrained artificially, there is no such thing as no desire to be male or female.
Quote
*sigh* Science is not opinion. Science is not opinion. It's the collection of...empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world! This is not really an opinion, either. You're free to have your own ideas and beliefs about the definition of "science" and "empiricism", but in that case you would be holding an opinion.
I'm refering to 'gender science' which should more accurately be called gender psychology, it is not hard science but under socialogy / humanity.
Quote
So basically, pretty much all of the concepts you outlined as empirically sound because you experienced them are now no longer so because they don't apply to me at all.
They don't apply to you in the form of words, but apply to your own empirical mode basing on those words as guidelines. In other words, only in a subjective state, not in objective form of data.
This is what empiricism mean. You don't need 1,000,000 statistical data, as they all useless to you, since it is beyond your capability to demonstrate empirically one by one. If only one is sufficient, the rest 999,999 statistical data is wasted in term of time and expenses of collecting them due to ignorance of empiricism.
Quote
Don't tell other people what their identifications are. Someone who identifies as agender is identifying as neither male nor female (not partially male and partially female). I don't think they have a need to become either male or female or anything in between, because their identity lies outside the concept of gender in the first place, and I don't think an agender person would take kindly to the suggestion that they can only be agender when they're sleeping or dead.
From behaviour it is easy to tell if a person has desire for gender or sex. The absence of desire is rare but possible due to abnormality, and does indicate gender neutrality, but again this is basing on standard gender binary as criteria for the definition of gender neutrality, in other words, you don't called something neutral if reality is absence of polerity.
QuoteOkay, now that I see where you're coming from in terms of spirituality, and from my knowledge of studies of Buddhism and empiricism, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. The problem is that, if you're going to accept the validity of the individual experience, you can't invalidate someone else's individual experience, even if the way they publish those observations is in the form of data.
Unless they provide their rationale or method, then I'm afraid if it is not sound, I have no reason to accept it. One should not believe anything that is read, unless it is sound, such as basing on personal experience stating their conditions.
Quote
..Pardon? I don't think my mind is seeking the gender polarity, whatever that means.
But your avatar clearly identify as MTF, and you claim of having no need for your mind to seek the female polarity?
Quote
It's difficult to have an argument regarding empiricism when you spontaneously decide you want to call something else entirely empiricism.
There is no exact similar of what is empiricism between scientific and philosophical approaches. Their perspective is different, what philosophy can accept in science, does not entails science can accept in philosophy. Buddhist philosophy fully acknowledge cause and effect components of scientific method, but it is also a field that is alien to science.
Quote
Uh, no, if I understand correctly (from the agender people I know! Look, ma, empirical evidence!), agender is the lack of a gender identity. Some agender people may not have any body dysphoria
at all.
The lack of gender identity indicate a gender identity in others, if there is no gender identity in others, the notion of the lack of gender identity cannot be established. Thus, the mere labelling of agender in this case confirm the world of gender. Existence is all about polerity opposite, even agender has its opposite which is gender.
Quote
"Binary" does not mean that there are two poles and a spectrum. "Binary" means there are two options, one and zero, pink and blue, female and male. That's why people identifying between the two poles want to break down the binary, because the binary prevents people from their right to self-identification wherever they want in the spectrum.
Thus your binary has no literal meaning, but a label with an interpreted meaning to prevents people from their right to self-identification. Why not just open up to its literal meaning, so that it can be logical mean standard traits of gender opposites, where standard gender and its variants can be distinguished, there is no preventing people from their right to self-identification here.
Quote
I don't see where you're pointing out logical inconsistencies, except in your own decision to define empiricism however you want so that it fits better with your own beliefs. I'm perfectly fine with that; just be aware that there is an entire scientific community that will disagree with you on your use of the world "empirical" as incorrectly applied.
Your logical weakness is clearly demonstrate in your labeling the binary as the cause of preventing people from their right to self-identification, where in reality its literal meaning has no such implication. It is just the required parameters where gender and its variants can be determined.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 04, 2011, 03:42:15 AM
Now you guys are gonna probably hate on this comment.
But you still retain your former selves through transition. HRT basically covers a male skeleton with female fat distributions, FFS/SRS just enhance that image. But the outside is not always reflective of what is in inside.
Before transition...I was an bitchy, slutty, catty gay boy.
After transition(HRT): I was a bitchy, slutty, catty girl.
Nothing actually changed. I'm still a troublemaker...I still see a lot of my relationships as expendable. But to my best friends, I only changed the outward appearance. I'm more comfortable right now, but my new "form" allows me to get away with more troublemaking.
You still retain your former selves. HRT and whatever else, it isn't gonna magically disappear. Thus, the essence of trans is duality... Even if the core is still the same.
clearly, the effects of hormones change depending on your genetics and age. i agree that i'm still the same individual, but in a new and right light.
Quote from: FullMoon19 on November 04, 2011, 01:58:11 PM
clearly, the effects of hormones change depending on your genetics and age. i agree that i'm still the same individual, but in a new and right light.
Still the same person more or less biologically...
Hormones aren't magic and surgery isn't magic.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 04, 2011, 10:48:22 AM
I don't denial cause and effect component of science, it is this component that required empirical (real time) observation, but it is not about empiriciam which involved consciousness and time that is related to consciousness and mind. Such empiricism is field of philosophy. Gender is not hard science, it is field of socialogy and psychology, it is also of humanity which involved statistical survey to substantiate their studies. Gender biology is actual science, but not the psychological gender. So all discussion involving sensitivity of gender is of politics and cultural norms. Science has no such sensitivity. That said, sexuality is about binary dichotomy, it ultimately involved philosophy, its socialogy/humanity component is optional which is fine for politics but not science.
This is word salad again. Gender can be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, sexually, yes, but also scientifically, and the biology of gender can
also be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, and sexually. That's the beauty of interdisciplinary study.
Also, sexuality is not about "binary dichotomy". It's spectral in exactly the same way that gender and sex are spectral.
Quote
Exception is not the rule, being male share a similar biological mechanism with similar males, thus share a common biological response. If this is a gamble of yes or no (to sharing a common biological response), then the odd of being positive is too high. The same apply to male and female consciousness, male and male as well as female and female shared a common impetus and traits.
And yet you're assuming that you are the rule and everyone else is the exception. Also, you still haven't even defined "male and female consciousness", and you're making a big assumption suggesting those are even a thing.
Quote
This is simple logic in determining odds.
Why falsify when the premise is being biologically healthy and that psychological it is in concordance with the biological impetus? If you falsify it, then the premise is false, that would defeat the logical statement. The premise states a condition for it to be true. I can also make a premise that say that I'm psychologically in discordance with the biological impetus, and that I have an experience of feminine sexual response, with the aid of the male biological sexual mechanism which enhance the desire for sex, this would equally apply to number of males who share similar discordance, and be true as long as the premise or condition applied.
I would suggest learning what falsifiability is before you throw out the concept as unnecessary. Falsifiability is a pretty darn important concept in science.
Quote
This is just question of trust, but has nothing to do with the capacity for the claim to be true, since all conditions are available subjectively. If you want to argue the problem of trust, then you should not involved in a discussion, as it demand too much work for someone who is merely interested in sharing a knowledge, not working on a job for you. That is, I'm not getting paid to get you to become convinced. In an intellectual discussion, even the question of trust don't exist, since both parties merely interested in logical consistency, i.e. if a statement is logical true, why it has to concern you whether the person just make it up? It's aim could be just educational.
Yet you seem to distrust the observations of scientists. Whence the hypocrisy?
Quote
Concerning empirical standard, it is not there because of the need to prove to another, but it is a method for oneself to verify a truth concerning perception, i.e. in this case of gender. Science do that because of the need to substantial the cause and effect component in real time. Empirical truth is itself the basis of rationality, so I also demand a rationale basis for any opposing views. In other word, I'm able to show my rationale for the claim as basing on empirical standard despite being subjective and personal, but what it is the rationale of those opposing it?
Empiricism and rationalism are in opposition. Whoopsy-daisy.
Quote
In similar conditions (both biologically and psychologically), the experience would be similar, the minor difference can then be ignored, and the result taken as prove of universal similarity. It is all about causes and conditions, no one gender variant is so unique that there is no universal explanation for it, such as agender and so on, as even this term it is not absolute exist as such, it is just a suitable labeling, the trait of gender binary can still be trace. Biologically there is really no such thing as agender, since the body by default is female, it is due to healthy development in the direction of male, that maleness is determined. As for psychological gender, it depends on the mental factors, the degree of desire to be of either gender, however minimum, there will always be a degree that can be determine, unless the person is unconsciousness, death or mentally handicapped. Even the wishes to be agender psychologically exist, such as monks and nuns who only interested in the passionless lifestyle, even though biologically they do have gender distinctions (thus being called nun and monk respectively), however this agender is simply the result of having both gender distinction neutralized, in other words, without the gender binary, then this state of agender does not exist (note the 'a' in agender still dependence on 'gender'). The neutralization of gender is clearly the neutralization of desire, this is what monkhood attempting to communicates in their outward appearance. For normal person with healthy desire not being restrained artificially, there is no such thing as no desire to be male or female.
I'm not talking about sexual dimorphism and development. Agender is a valid identity, and it's erasure to suggest otherwise.
Quote
I'm refering to 'gender science' which should more accurately be called gender psychology, it is not hard science but under socialogy / humanity.
And psychology, as a social science, also...relies on empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world.
Quote
They don't apply to you in the form of words, but apply to your own empirical mode basing on those words as guidelines. In other words, only in a subjective state, not in objective form of data.
This is what empiricism mean. You don't need 1,000,000 statistical data, as they all useless to you, since it is beyond your capability to demonstrate empirically one by one. If only one is sufficient, the rest 999,999 statistical data is wasted in term of time and expenses of collecting them due to ignorance of empiricism.
That doesn't mean you can claim your experiences to be universally valid, nor do they automatically invalidate the experiences of others.
Quote
From behaviour it is easy to tell if a person has desire for gender or sex. The absence of desire is rare but possible due to abnormality, and does indicate gender neutrality, but again this is basing on standard gender binary as criteria for the definition of gender neutrality, in other words, you don't called something neutral if reality is absence of polerity.
And now you're calling asexuals "abnormal" and also "gender neutral" (which is not necessarily true at all).
Also, there is /no/ /such/ /thing/ as gender neutrality in a gender binary system.
Quote
Unless they provide their rationale or method, then I'm afraid if it is not sound, I have no reason to accept it. One should not believe anything that is read, unless it is sound, such as basing on personal experience stating their conditions.
So...you're arguing from a rational perspective (which is not empirically sound), and thus I have no reason to accept it.
Quote
But your avatar clearly identify as MTF, and you claim of having no need for your mind to seek the female polarity?
I don't identify as "MTF" because that term is loaded with meaning that I don't want to convey. I was assigned male at birth, which doesn't mean I was ever male in any respect. When provided a chance to express self-identity, "male" was never an identity I used, so "male to female" is an erroneous way to classify me. Even "trans*", "trans", "transsexual" and "transgender" are not aspects of my identity but simple historical facts. I am only trans in the context of someone asking me whether I am trans or cis; that doesn't mean I identify as trans, as MtF, or as anything beyond female.
That said, just because I'm female doesn't mean that I want polarity. I want to be able to express my (mostly female) gender identity (which is separate from my female sexual identity) however I want.
Quote
There is no exact similar of what is empiricism between scientific and philosophical approaches. Their perspective is different, what philosophy can accept in science, does not entails science can accept in philosophy. Buddhist philosophy fully acknowledge cause and effect components of scientific method, but it is also a field that is alien to science.
The lack of gender identity indicate a gender identity in others, if there is no gender identity in others, the notion of the lack of gender identity cannot be established. Thus, the mere labelling of agender in this case confirm the world of gender. Existence is all about polerity opposite, even agender has its opposite which is gender.
I'm not saying that gender doesn't exist. I'm saying that some people can have no gender, and stressing the existence of the gender binary is erasure of those people.
Quote
Thus your binary has no literal meaning, but a label with an interpreted meaning to prevents people from their right to self-identification. Why not just open up to its literal meaning, so that it can be logical mean standard traits of gender opposites, where standard gender and its variants can be distinguished, there is no preventing people from their right to self-identification here.
Your logical weakness is clearly demonstrate in your labeling the binary as the cause of preventing people from their right to self-identification, where in reality its literal meaning has no such implication. It is just the required parameters where gender and its variants can be determined.
"My binary" has no literal meaning because I
don't believe in binaristic constructions of gender and sexuality. You can identify at a pole of the spectrum, which is fundamentally equivalent to identifying at a pole of the binary. However, when you stress the existence of the binary, that means everyone who doesn't identify strictly as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, is denied an opportunity to self-identify. That is why binaristic constructions of gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression prevent people from self-identifying.
I'm calling the 300th post.
Just saying, no one better touch that shhhi.
Any way to contest an inappropriately given negative to your rep? Jacelyn slapped me with a negative one for telling her she's a troll. Or, as she put it:
"Falsely labeling other without right cause"
I guess it doesn't matter in the long run, but getting a negative to my rep for no good reason just pisses me off. Meh. It's still a 6/1 ratio as of this writing. You're a troll, Jacelyn. I'll say it as many times as I damned well please, because it's TRUE. Get back under your bridge.
Quote from: JoeyD on November 04, 2011, 09:00:17 PM
I'm calling the 300th post.
Just saying, no one better touch that shhhi.
this will probably be turned into a sticky.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 04, 2011, 09:13:53 PM
I guess it doesn't matter in the long run, but getting a negative to my rep for no good reason just pisses me off. Meh. It's still a 6/1 ratio as of this writing. You're a troll, Jacelyn. I'll say it as many times as I damned well please, because it's TRUE. Get back under your bridge.
I am gonna be the first to defend Jacelyn... her points are well researched and she makes good points. It may not be what you want to hear...But that's how life is outside of the transcommunity.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 04, 2011, 09:13:53 PM
Any way to contest an inappropriately given negative to your rep? Jacelyn slapped me with a negative one for telling her she's a troll. Or, as she put it:
"Falsely labeling other without right cause"
I guess it doesn't matter in the long run, but getting a negative to my rep for no good reason just pisses me off. Meh. It's still a 6/1 ratio as of this writing. You're a troll, Jacelyn. I'll say it as many times as I damned well please, because it's TRUE. Get back under your bridge.
I received one as well, merely for agreeing with you. This is getting out of hand.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 04, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
I am gonna be the first to defend Jacelyn... her points are well researched and she makes good points. It may not be what you want to hear...But that's how life is outside of the transcommunity.
If well researched, the sources are not credible. If that logic was to be the norm again, we would be thrust back into the dark ages of segregation. It's offensive and TOS violating material.
Quote from: Morrigan on November 04, 2011, 11:32:16 PM
If well researched, the sources are not credible. If that logic was to be the norm again, we would be thrust back into the dark ages of segregation. It's offensive and TOS violating material.
Yeah, isn't part of being supportive also being honest with yourself? I think if anything her ideals are preparing people here for the larger picture. This may be a support board...But I'd rather keep my mouth closed than lie to people.
Sorry she's not saying what you want to hear. But that's life... Furthermore, we have many different kinds of idealogies in the community.
Mahsa I fail to understand why you would support someone who attacks others' credibility
while feeding us "Word Salad Philosophy". If you can make sense of the numerous unrelated
ramblings and sum it all up, I would actually appreciate it.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 04, 2011, 05:28:32 PM
This is word salad again. Gender can be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, sexually, yes, but also scientifically, and the biology of gender can also be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, and sexually. That's the beauty of interdisciplinary study.
Also, sexuality is not about "binary dichotomy". It's spectral in exactly the same way that gender and sex are spectral.
.
As mentioned the present 'scientific method' of exploring gender is mere statistical survey to aim for objective data, and I already mentioned the significance of empiricism over objective data. They have no mean to measure gender perception empirically, as it involved element of consciousness which is beyond the grasp of present scientific method.
Binary dichotomy exists in everything, it is basic mechanism of existence, the binding of atomic mass of matter, including the operation of computer and our thought processes. The spectral is based on the binary as variant. By deciphering the spectral, only the binary mechanism is found.
Quote
And yet you're assuming that you are the rule and everyone else is the exception. Also, you still haven't even defined "male and female consciousness", and you're making a big assumption suggesting those are even a thing.
The rule has nothing to do with me, the law of nature is independent of the individual, but it make a different whether a person understands this law as it is, or is confusing political concept as this nature law. As for consciousness, the male consciousness has a image of himself as the male form, and associate behaviours and emotional pattern specific to this male form, whereas the female consciousness has a image of herself as the female form, and associate behaviours and emotional pattern specific to this female form. Thus the gender consciousness involved a mental form of the gender physical characteristics as well as the behaviours and emotional pattern.
Quote
I would suggest learning what falsifiability is before you throw out the concept as unnecessary. Falsifiability is a pretty darn important concept in science.
Science does not resolved the gender question definitively, and that skepism is the very basis of science, here you just bring in the element of science that does not help this gender issue, and one that have me preferred the philosophical approach. So you can argue such scientific definition, but it doesn't apply well to the objective here.
Quote
Yet you seem to distrust the observations of scientists. Whence the hypocrisy?
I trust science in field of medicine and engineering only, on issue of gender I avoid the opinion of sociologiest and humanists. But I could accept any philosophical view if they are reasonable, I don't need to know whether it is just a sound theoritical example, or an actual empirical fact, since I would be able to demonstrate that rationale and confirm its usefulness subjectively.
Quote
Empiricism and rationalism are in opposition. Whoopsy-daisy.
No, a rationale that is based empirically does not oppose each other, but mutually supportive. An example is an empirical rationale in form of words, can become an empirical evidence in anyone subjective experience, and that the empirically manifested evidence is in support of this empirical rational in form of words.
Quote
I'm not talking about sexual dimorphism and development. Agender is a valid identity, and it's erasure to suggest otherwise.
I'm not saying there is no variation of gender in spectral diversity, but that the labeling of agender to a variation of gender is not a precise determination of their gender condition. It is fine if the subject accept such labeling, but not to one who oppose it. And the labeling is not precise, any number of variation, including monks, nuns, could be included under the agender umbralla, hence falsely established as agender absolutely, where in reality their body is still possessing the gender characteristic (only the outside appearance look agender). If there is no such agender labeling, then the problem of precision will not arise.
Quote
And psychology, as a social science, also...relies on empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world.
These techniques will always biased at mass data over individual, selective opinions. And demonstrate the lack of confidence in such technique itself. Perception / consciousness is a field of philosophy, not science. The adepts of philosophy become advance meditators themseves and observe their own mind in order understand themselves and reality, they don't need to go out and ask anyone in the street about personal details.
Quote
That doesn't mean you can claim your experiences to be universally valid, nor do they automatically invalidate the experiences of others.
As the element of consciousness is like the element of earth, water, air, fire and wind, they constitutes the elements of our existence, these elements are universal, they are the same in whoever perceived them. That is, no matter who in the world perceive this consciousness, it is the same consciousness that is perceived by oneself subjectively. This being subjective is also universal when one is involving these universal elements. The same with any hard science, when one confirmed matter behave in certain manner due to certain causes, even thought only one individual knows, but the knowledge is universal, because cause and effect is a universal principle. Thus, in my gender theory, it very much involved the universal element of consciousness, as well as the universal principle of causes and effects. That is, if the causes enable me to perceive a reaction in feelings in consciousness, I'm of certainty that the same causes will produce the same reaction in anyone in their consciousness. On the other hand, if someone give me a rationale which by my subjective experience failed to yield the result of the stated claims, then I know the rationale is invalid.
Quote
And now you're calling asexuals "abnormal" and also "gender neutral" (which is not necessarily true at all).
Also, there is /no/ /such/ /thing/ as gender neutrality in a gender binary system.
Gender variants are abnormal because the variants cause dishormony with society where the majority is of standard binary characteristics. Normal people have difficulty determine their gender in order to understand them.
Again gender neutrality is a term dependence on the fact of gender binary. The same with urgliness and beauty, if this binary does not exist, then there is no such thing as average looking, because there is no reference to what is common and uncommon (pretty or urgly). Thus, whenever we involved a middle, that is due to those binary polerity exists. This apply to thoughts, as well as the appearances of phenomenas. In other words, the binary dichotomy is the building blocks of diversity of existence.
Quote
So...you're arguing from a rational perspective (which is not empirically sound), and thus I have no reason to accept it.
Again a distorted reasoning. The soundness of a rational perspective is dependence on its empiricism, one can't determine rationally whether a reasoning is sound, unless prior empirical experience relative to the reasoning can be recall. In normal situation, not a lot of claim in various reasoning can't be recall in oneself to determine their soundness or unsoundness.
Quote
I don't identify as "MTF" because that term is loaded with meaning that I don't want to convey. I was assigned male at birth, which doesn't mean I was ever male in any respect. When provided a chance to express self-identity, "male" was never an identity I used, so "male to female" is an erroneous way to classify me. Even "trans*", "trans", "transsexual" and "transgender" are not aspects of my identity but simple historical facts. I am only trans in the context of someone asking me whether I am trans or cis; that doesn't mean I identify as trans, as MtF, or as anything beyond female.That said, just because I'm female doesn't mean that I want polarity. I want to be able to express my (mostly female) gender identity (which is separate from my female sexual identity) however I want.
There is no female in a TG forum or group, as people associate with these group automatically implied they are not of cis gender. The outside world is better place to pretend to be female, and even I won't addressed you as MTF in the outside world. Thus within the TG forum there is no need to be afraid of label if it apply to you technically as there is no discrimation. When you desire to become female, you are desiring the feminine polarity of gender, but it seems you are confusing about this.
Quote
I'm not saying that gender doesn't exist. I'm saying that some people can have no gender, and stressing the existence of the gender binary is erasure of those people.
As mentioned if there is a concept of no gender, that is due to having the concept of gender, one cannot reach an opposite polarity of a concept without having first perceiving the original concept. A person can mentally and psychological against the concept of gender and aimed for agender, but this concept is unreachable if the original gender concept does not exist.
Quote
"My binary" has no literal meaning because I don't believe in binaristic constructions of gender and sexuality. You can identify at a pole of the spectrum, which is fundamentally equivalent to identifying at a pole of the binary. However, when you stress the existence of the binary, that means everyone who doesn't identify strictly as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, is denied an opportunity to self-identify. That is why binaristic constructions of gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression prevent people from self-identifying.
No, stressing the existence of the binary, does not means everyone who doesn't identify strictly as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, is denied an opportunity to self-identify., because there is no rationale for this. As the existence of the binary is a fact, stressing a fact does not negate the existence of gender diversity, nor limiting people their opportunity to self-identify, since the gender diversity is confirmed and established by the binary principle. You are stating an invalid rationale to quantify your opposing stances against the 'binary' labeling, you also admit it is not literal in meaning but of interpreted meaning, then you show yourself of having an agenda, possibly a political one.
Jacelyn, you keep using these words and their related forms: gender, binary, sexuality, dichotomy, spectrum, science, philosophy, objective, subjective, opinion, fact, data, variant, polarity, empiricism, rationalism, male, female.
I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 05, 2011, 02:47:42 AM
There is no female in a TG forum or group, as people associate with these group automatically implied they are not of cis gender. The outside world is better place to pretend to be female, and even I won't addressed you as MTF in the outside world. Thus within the TG forum there is no need to be afraid of label if it apply to you technically as there is no discrimation. When you desire to become female, you are desiring the feminine polarity of gender, but it seems you are confusing about this.
While the rest of this has moved towards literally incomprehensible rote, blind repetition of your beliefs on concepts of which you clearly don't have a firm grasp, and I'm going to allow you to read about them before actually responding to anything anymore, I will address this because it's specifically addressed to me.
I am female. I am not pretending to be female. I don't desire to become female, and I'm hardly confused as to where I stand on the gender spectrum. I also do not identify with the terms "MtF", "trans*", "transgender", or "transsexual". I don't identify with these not because I'm "afraid of labels" (though I do find labels to be limiting in some fashions, in others they're useful, and I will, for example, readily identify with the labels "female" and "dyke"). I don't identify with those terms because they are not a part of my identity. Trans* is a fact or condition describing my body, just like "diabetic" might describe someone else's body. It is not a term I use when defining my identity.
I'm not scared to be trans*. I am trans*. But that doesn't mean that trans* is me. I'm not only "so much more than a condition affecting my body", I'm not at all a condition affecting my body.
300TH POST AWH YEAH.
Yeah.
I'm sexy.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 04, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
I am gonna be the first to defend Jacelyn... her points are well researched and she makes good points. It may not be what you want to hear...But that's how life is outside of the transcommunity.
She has not cited one credible, reliable source.
She has refused to even acknowledge the linked, credible, peer reviewed, scientific research that contradicts her statements.
It's not about whether or not we "want to hear" what she's saying, it's about whether or not what she's saying is factually true (since she's presenting it as factually true) and the scientific consensus on the matter is that it is not factually true, the philosophical consensus (what there is of it that exists) is that it is not factually true AND the psychological consensus on the matter (what there is of it that exists) is that it's not factually true.
Which means, insisting on saying it's factually true when all the reliable, peer reviewed, scientific research available on the matter, along with all the psychological and philosophical theorem disagrees with one's statements, is makes us either willfully ignorant/misinformed, delusional or purposely lying.
Personally, I'm going to go with the willfully ignorant/misinformed as that's the most common cause for this sort of behaviour.
We, as human beings, have a tendency to become emotionally attached to our ideas of what is or isn't true and admitting one's ideas to be false can be an incredibly difficult experience and thus, many of us fall into the trap of going further and further away from logic and reason to try and defend one's demonstrably false statements with more and more convoluted explanations just to have to avoid admitting we were wrong.
To do this we have to make the (sometimes subconscious) choice to carry on being ignorant/misinformed and this is more common that anyone among us would like to admit.
So yeah.... Zero credible research sited =/= well researched.
Convoluted and demonstrably false =/= good points.
Pointing out how/why/what is false =/= "don't want to hear".
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 04, 2011, 02:19:22 AMI'm interested in hard science.
As you consider yourself a philosopher I'll point out that the philosophic burden of proof always rests on the person asserting a claim.
You asserted a claim (the definition of gender and it's functions according to you) thus the burden of proof rests on you.
You've also expressed a desire for "hard science" for evidence that you're misinformed.
Thus, I have this request.
Can you provide any link to any peer reviewed, scientific research that demonstrates your asserted claim as "true" using "hard science"?
If yes, please do.
If no, can you please stop claiming to be factually correct in your statements when you can not demonstrate (prove) them to be factually true?
Personally I would not hold up the peer review process as the final word in anything.
The peer review system is full of croneyism and near nepotistism. Truely groundbreaking research is stifled if the wrong people are involved or the research might jepordise the precious held beliefs of those who sit at the top of the ivory tower.
Oh yeah...
I still think you are full of it Jacelyn.
Quote from: Mariposa on October 27, 2011, 11:19:45 PM
You do!!! Come to Orlando to visit!!! I promise you will have amazing time!! :D
I've been to Orlando once and I totally loved it there. And there are two schools there that I want to go to: Full Sail and The DAVE School.
Personally, I'm going to go with the willfully ignorant/misinformed as that's the most common cause for this sort of behaviour.
I'll go with that too, adding in what the good Doctor Asimov said thirty years ago, long before in internet enshrined them.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"[/i] - Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)
Adding in that it's not only the US that suffers from this anymore.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 04, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
I am gonna be the first to defend Jacelyn... her points are well researched and she makes good points. It may not be what you want to hear...But that's how life is outside of the transcommunity.
Have you READ what Jacelyn has been saying, Mahsa? Let's have a review of some of the "well-researched" arguments she's made:
(a) Womens' sexual response up until age 30 is essentially non-existent, and any woman who says otherwise is a liar trying to promote her self-image.
(b) Only cis-gendered females are
actual females.
(c) Perception and empiricism are the same thing.
(d) Binary dichotomy is the mechanism through which
everything functions. Put more simply, there are only ever two kinds of anything. EVER.
Choose your allies more wisely.
And Jacelyn? Your arguments about psychology being a bunch of subjective bull-crap don't hold water. Do you know what a meta-study is? It's a compilation of large numbers of research data to point out generic trends therein. Hundreds and hundreds of studies' results are compiled and analyzed statistically. If those studies were all a bunch of subjective hooey, they wouldn't create any generic trend
at all. In other words, you'd expect RANDOM DATA. Sorry to report for your side that meta-studies are not a bunch of bull, and careful examination of the methodology of any published work (meta-study or no) is STEP ONE of the review process. Among the things to be weeded out? Subjective, non-scientific bull-crap which doesn't actually gather a conclusion through data.
Oh no, somebody was wrong on the internet!!
Quick, debate squad! Win them over to your point of view! Because that's how it always ends!
This thread has generated a great deal of unwanted negative energy! I can remember a time when Susan's was a much gentler less argumentative time, has that been lost?
i also know some girls that act like gay guys and yell out the car window at guys but dont get accused of acting like gay guys beacuse they look like girls.
i also know some transexuals that act like gay guys but dont get accused of it cuz there so damn passable
it seems to me that the ones that get refered to as acting like gay guys are usually the ones that look kinda like guys and dont pass very well. it just proves that physical appearance is more powerful than ones mannerisms
Kia Ora,
::) When it comes to philosophical debates of this kind
::) It would seem East is East and West is West and never to two shall meet...
Unless one[from a Western perspective] can make sense out of non-sense=[which I might add making sense through 'non-sense' is the Buddhist approach to things] only then will one find the answer =a deeper understanding...
"Whoever sees dependent origination sees the Dharma; whoever sees the Dharma sees dependent origination !"
::) Back to the original question
"Why do some M2Fs act like gay men?"
In short 'spontaneity' = The quality of being spontaneous and coming from natural feelings without 'constraint'...They are just being their 'true selves' warts and all ...
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Miniar on November 05, 2011, 07:29:36 AM
As you consider yourself a philosopher I'll point out that the philosophic burden of proof always rests on the person asserting a claim.
You asserted a claim (the definition of gender and it's functions according to you) thus the burden of proof rests on you.
You've also expressed a desire for "hard science" for evidence that you're misinformed.
You failed to understand empirical evidence is never in the form of words, gender is not material science, it is of subjective perception, it cannot be demonstrated as an objective phenomena.
Quote
Thus, I have this request.
Can you provide any link to any peer reviewed, scientific research that demonstrates your asserted claim as "true" using "hard science"?
I have mentioned I believe in hard science, but not gender science which is not hard science but of sociology, humanity and politics. Thus apparently you have not read the points I've made and just wish to argue for argument's sake only.
maybe they're confused?
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 12:52:00 PM
I use to be friends with another ts and I could never understand her behavior. All I know is that it reminded me of the way some gay men act.
For example, when we use to go out cruising in the car, she would roll down her window and start yelling at guys and say. "hey baby, i'm horny" or some sleazy comment like that. She was always VERY obnoxious and loud. Her mannerisms are also very exaggerated.
She flirts with almost every man she comes in contact with and has even performed oral sex to a complete stranger in front of a nightclub for the public to see.
The reason I compare her to some gay men is because I've seen a lot of them who act the same way. I don't understand how she expects people to view her as a woman acting the way she does.
What could it be?
QUE BOLAAA NINA? LOL
Ever heard the sayin you can take em out da ghetto but u cant take the ghetto out them. lol.
thats pretty much how it izzzz. for some trans girls anyhow. lol
I actually agree with that lol.
It's depends on how you grew up, fa real~
Quote from: JoeyD on November 05, 2011, 10:03:06 PM
I actually agree with that lol.
It's depends on how you grew up, fa real~
yea it sucks for me cuz i grew up around flamers since the age of 14. although i had a blast. i think people today can see that flamboyant-ness in my persona and voice, and i think that gives me away a great deal, im working on correcting it.
ive noticed trans girls that grow up and hang around people that are not flamboyant seem to pass really well with their mannerisms.
me on the other hand. honey i grew up in south beach miami fla wit the MISS THING DRAGGGG QUEENS...lol. nuff said!
Quote from: JenJen2011 on October 26, 2011, 12:52:00 PM
I use to be friends with another ts and I could never understand her behavior. All I know is that it reminded me of the way some gay men act.
For example, when we use to go out cruising in the car, she would roll down her window and start yelling at guys and say. "hey baby, i'm horny" or some sleazy comment like that. She was always VERY obnoxious and loud. Her mannerisms are also very exaggerated.
She flirts with almost every man she comes in contact with and has even performed oral sex to a complete stranger in front of a nightclub for the public to see.
The reason I compare her to some gay men is because I've seen a lot of them who act the same way. I don't understand how she expects people to view her as a woman acting the way she does.
What could it be?
maybe they're a
drag drama queen? lol
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 05, 2011, 07:04:32 PM
You failed to understand empirical evidence is never in the form of words, gender is not material science, it is of subjective perception, it cannot be demonstrated as an objective phenomena.
I have mentioned I believe in hard science, but not gender science which is not hard science but of sociology, humanity and politics. Thus apparently you have not read the points I've made and just wish to argue for argument's sake only.
Actually, I was (to be perfectly honest) hoping you would respond with this.
Since you yourself assert that gender is not a hard science, but a subjective perception, would you concede that there is no way to assert factual truth regarding gender?
If you agree that there's no way to assert factual truth regarding gender, will you refrain from asserting factual truth regarding gender?
Quote from: Miniar on November 06, 2011, 06:18:16 AM
Since you yourself assert that gender is not a hard science, but a subjective
perception, would you concede that there is no way to assert factual truth
regarding gender?
If you agree that there's no way to assert factual truth regarding gender, will you
refrain from asserting factual truth regarding gender?
.
Such questions showed that you are confusing truth as objective perception, whereas subjective perception is not truth. Objective perception is dependence on subjective perception. Objectivity simply means the subjective perception can be replicate in one or more persons. Subjective perception is also required for empirical evidence, but in the process of communication, the evidence in the form of words is not empirical, it only become empirical when replicated subjectively in the person who required the evidence. Thus the term subjective is intimately associated with truth, whereas objectivity is not independent of subjectivity in each individual.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 06, 2011, 09:29:14 AM
Such questions showed that you are confusing truth as objective perception, whereas subjective perception is not truth. Objective perception is dependence on subjective perception. Objectivity simply means the subjective perception can be replicate in one or more persons. Subjective perception is also required for empirical evidence, but in the process of communication, the evidence in the form of words is not empirical, it only become empirical when replicated subjectively in the person who required the evidence. Thus the term subjective is intimately associated with truth, whereas objectivity is not independent of subjectivity in each individual.
I think you're confusing objective with subjective.
When something's objective, it's not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
When something's subjective (such as in a subjective opinion or thought or experience) it belongs to the person (who has the opinion, thought or the experience) and is affected by that person.
As such, the term subjective is intimately associated with bias while objective is intimately associated with truth.
An objective opinion is repeatable not only in more than one person, but it's demonstrably accurate outside of subjective experience or perception. An objective opinion is based on research and factual information gathered through controlled parameters which includes the use of statistical analysis.
If you can not demonstrate that your definitions are "true" then they are your personal subjective opinions and thus it is dishonest to present 'em as factually or objectively true.
Quote from: Miniar on November 06, 2011, 10:56:10 AM
I think you're confusing objective with subjective.
You are confused because in reality there is no such thing as an objective view, it is but a collection of a number of similar subjective views that can be replicated in others.
QuoteWhen something's objective, it's not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
No, if the object is about feelings, one cannot then associate the perception of feelings as not objective, if the subjective perception of the feelings can be replicated objectively in others. As for interpretation, if it is in concordance with the subjective perception and can be replicated in others, it is also objective. The same if there is a valid rationale in a prejudice and that such rationale can be replicated in others.
Thus objectivity has to do with a subjective perception that can be replicated in others. But there is no such thing as objective perception if there is no subjective perception.
QuoteWhen something's subjective (such as in a subjective opinion or thought or experience) it belongs to the person (who has the opinion, thought or the experience) and is affected by that person..
As such, the term subjective is intimately associated with bias while objective is intimately associated with truth.
Not if there is valid rationale for the bias, and the rationale for the bias can be considered objective if it can be replicated in others. But you won't have any objective basis, if there is no subjective perception.
You are a literalist (rigidly attached to words but not the meaning) if you only considered bias as bias, and associate bias literally as non-objective and non-truth, since objective and truth is none other than subjective opinion (or bias) that can be replicated in others.
Quote
An objective opinion is repeatable not only in more than one person, but it's demonstrably accurate outside of subjective experience or perception. An objective opinion is based on research and factual information gathered through controlled parameters which includes the use of statistical analysis.
No, even the objective opinion gathered from research through whatever parameters would have ultimately come from the individual subjective perception, unless you are dealing with tangible, physical objects, but with gender perception you cannot avoid the subjective element of perception. And for one to rely on such method demonstrates the lack of understanding of empiricism, that is, the requirement of real time observation as evidence, and that mere verbal testimonies are not empirical evidence regardless of volume (statistical quantities).
Quote
If you can not demonstrate that your definitions are "true" then they are your personal subjective opinions and thus it is dishonest to present 'em as factually or objectively true.
.
ditto.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 06, 2011, 06:09:01 PM
You are confused because in reality there is no such thing as an objective view, it is but a collection of a number of similar subjective views that can be replicated in others.
No, if the object is about feelings, one cannot then associate the perception of feelings as not objective, if the subjective perception of the feelings can be replicated objectively in others. As for interpretation, if it is in concordance with the subjective perception and can be replicated in others, it is also objective. The same if there is a valid rationale in a prejudice and that such rationale can be replicated in others.
Thus objectivity has to do with a subjective perception that can be replicated in others. But there is no such thing as objective perception if there is no subjective perception.
Not if there is valid rationale for the bias, and the rationale for the bias can be considered objective if it can be replicated in others. But you won't have any objective basis, if there is no subjective perception.
You are a literalist (rigidly attached to words but not the meaning) if you only considered bias as bias, and associate bias literally as non-objective and non-truth, since objective and truth is none other than subjective opinion (or bias) that can be replicated in others.
No, even the objective opinion gathered from research through whatever parameters would have ultimately come from the individual subjective perception, unless you are dealing with tangible, physical objects, but with gender perception you cannot avoid the subjective element of perception. And for one to rely on such method demonstrates the lack of understanding of empiricism, that is, the requirement of real time observation as evidence, and that mere verbal testimonies are not empirical evidence regardless of volume (statistical quantities).
ditto.
Really? No such thing as objectivity? You ranted about scientific "objective opinion" for a couple pages.
Also, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof still rests with you, Jacelyn.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 06, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
Really? No such thing as objectivity? You ranted about scientific "objective opinion" for a couple pages.
Also, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof still rests with you, Jacelyn.
It mean objectivity ultimate rest on subjective view. Subjective perception need no objective dependence for external proof, but you are damanding such external proof. Anything that is communicated is a form of words, words are not empircal evidence, but of inference, inference is of valid cognition, and it linked to the empirical evidence termed direct perception which is strictly subjective.
We're at 17 pages now. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I've learned you don't mention cisgay men or drag queens here.
To do so, is to evoke the wrath of the endless argument.
That being said, SF has some of the best drag queens ever.
I really need to shave down there, guys.
It's scaring me.
Quote from: JoeyD on November 06, 2011, 09:03:03 PM
I really need to shave down there, guys.
It's scaring me.
OMG!!!!!!! SHAVE IT OFF! SHAVE IT OFF!
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 06, 2011, 09:03:38 PM
OMG!!!!!!! SHAVE IT OFF! SHAVE IT OFF!
I'll see if I can go borrow my neighbor's lawnmower.
Quote from: JoeyD on November 06, 2011, 09:06:10 PM
I'll see if I can go borrow my neighbor's lawnmower.
My boyfriend complains that I act like a catty, bitch, self absorbed gay man...
Do I act like a catty bitch self absorbed gay man?
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 06, 2011, 09:08:05 PM
My boyfriend complains that I act like a catty, bitch, self absorbed gay man...
Do I act like a catty bitch self absorbed gay man?
self absorbedBut you're the ~pretty nD perfect transgendered woman~ so you have a right to be self absorbed.
It's nice being attractive.gay manThe gay man personality just got stuck with you,
That's his way of getting back at the fabulous girl who took over his body.
Quote from: JoeyD on November 06, 2011, 09:12:46 PM
self absorbed
But you're the ~pretty nD perfect transgendered woman~ so you have a right to be self absorbed.
It's nice being attractive.
gay man
The gay man personality just got stuck with you,
That's his way of getting back at the fabulous girl who took over his body.
JoeyD....you're perfect too. I thought that the moment I saw you on this board. You missy are extremely attractive, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
As for the gay man personality, the boyfriend wants that part of me dead. I guess it's time to rehearse, "MIKI'S NEXT BISEXUAL BOYFRIEND" coming on LOGO
Quote from: Laura91 on November 06, 2011, 09:00:24 PM
It's like a ball of crap that gets larger and larger.
I tell you what, we've got some
darn good trolls on this site. Even I got pulled into the fray by a couple of them! They know what buttons to
push!
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 06, 2011, 09:26:02 PM
I tell you what, we've got some darn good trolls on this site. Even I got pulled into the fray by a couple of them! They know what buttons to push!
I'm not a troll. I am just honest.
Especially in the "will I pass one day thread?" sorry, I bring my objectivism with me when I go on this site.
Quote from: ClosetClownsInBadDrag on November 06, 2011, 09:35:20 PM
I was in a monogamous relationship with a man for 6 years, just cause you were all whores sucking guys off in glory holes doesn't mean all gay men are. I mean you gotta be far in the closet to create a whole delusional world where you're a woman just so you can suck a guy off and not be called gay. Massive closet cases in drag. Gay men are fat and thin, and flaming and macho, all kinds of different people. idiots. Hey you go to the community center and there's clowns in bad drag running down gays and harrasing lesbians in the washroom and ->-bleeped-<-s standing around in pantyhose in stupid poses, wtf where did you people come from?
You mentioned gay men and drag queens in the same paragraph!
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 06, 2011, 09:31:39 PM
I'm not a troll. I am just honest.
Especially in the "will I pass one day thread?" sorry, I bring my objectivism with me when I go on this site.
*pats Mahsa on the shoulder*
Not you, dear. Not you. I was talking about Jacelyn and Dahlia.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 06, 2011, 06:09:01 PMYou are a literalist (rigidly attached to words but not the meaning) if you only considered bias as bias, and associate bias literally as non-objective and non-truth, since objective and truth is none other than subjective opinion (or bias) that can be replicated in others.
"I" am quite literal minded, in no small part because english is my second language and therefore I do not tend to take words used outside of context or their meaning as "accurate".
See, here's the thing. Words actually have a meaning, a definition if you will.
If you say one thing and mean something completely different then you're using the word incorrectly.
For example, if I say blue, but mean black, then you would be correct to to point out that what I've described as blue is not blue.
Words have meaning, without meaning words are pointless.
It's a bit of an oxymoron to suggest that I'm hung up on the words and not the meaning because I'm pointing out that the way you are using your words is in opposition with the meaning of the words.
Whether or not something can or can not be objective doesn't change the meaning of the word objective nor the meaning of the word subjective.
If you need to redefine words to support your claims then perhaps your claims aren't strong enough to hold water to start with.
Quote from: Miniar on November 08, 2011, 03:21:27 AM
See, here's the thing. Words actually have a meaning, a definition if you will.
If you say one thing and mean something completely different then you're using the word incorrectly.
For example, if I say blue, but mean black, then you would be correct to to point out that what I've described as blue is not blue.
In different context, the same word can have different meaning. Therefore, one rely on the meaning, but not on the words. That is, before one write anything, first there must have a meaning (a valid rationale to oppose something), only then one begin using words to describe the meaning. But the literalist person who rely on the word and not the meaning, will begin with a word of choice according to their common sense of winning an argument and then associate that word with other words, words always have some common associations which may or may not related to the context being discussed. In this case you did not possess your own rationale (meaning), but simply associate the words such as bias, prejudice with non-objectivity which is a common association, and I simply point out that the association is invalid in previous example. I'm able to do that simply because I have the meaning with me from the very beginning, but you don't, the whole exercise is in vain as separate people here did not start argue with a valid rationale, but it is just there wishing to oppose something said, that is without having a sound foundation (of meaning / reasoning) to begin with.
Quote
Words have meaning, without meaning words are pointless.
Wrong, word is simply word, meaning is meaning, thus word != meaning. Words are pointers (inference) of meaning, in order to point, a combination of words and sentences are needed to reinforce a meaning stated. Meaning is not just a reference to an object, but include the reason. Thus it is more than simple gathering of words with their common associations, worse is someone who is basing argument on cut and paste words of others, or of statistical data (of affirmation or negation of associated words).
Quote
It's a bit of an oxymoron to suggest that I'm hung up on the words and not the meaning because I'm pointing out that the way you are using your words is in opposition with the meaning of the words.
Again words have no direct relevence to meaning, so I'm communicate meaning using whatever style of words I prefer, if someone fail to apprehend or confused, then they may have to exam their method, whether it is necessary to be rigidly attached to words and their common usage, while shutting themselves up to perceiving the meaning another person trying to communicate using uncommon style which may actually serve deeper understanding than otherwise.
Quote
Whether or not something can or can not be objective doesn't change the meaning of the word objective nor the meaning of the word subjective.
Except that you got it wrong, there is no such thing as objective according to empirical evidence which itself is universal. Science (humanity, socialogy, political science) still rely on objective data, as it believe the average of the mass opinion is more accurate than individual, minor opinion. But if the mass opinion is not empirical evidence, then it is of no use, but if individual, subjective perception is having empirical evidence, than nothing can refute it (thus universal).
It is due to common usage of the term 'objective', that the term is still being use as an example to demonstrate subjective perception is actually the basis of such objectivity, but for a person who understand the mechanism of empirical evidence, there does not necessitate the mentioning of objectivity.
Quote
If you need to redefine words to support your claims then perhaps your claims aren't strong enough to hold water to start with.
I'm communicating a meaning that is apparently alien to you, it is the reason I still use the term that you are familiar, but it doesn't mean you can then grasp the meaning by understanding the words as it is meant to you, yet despite the pointing out of you being rigid on words, here you still show a wish to be rigid to your pre-defined words and oppose any attempt to redefine words. By equating such attempt as having a claim which is false, you merely prove being defensive.
18 pages now because Jacelyn is right and everyone else is wrong /sarcasm
At least it's kept her confined to one thread so she hasn't had the time to go caroming off through the board doing this to ever other post.
Kia Ora Jacelyn,
::) Remember, people tend to fear what they don't understand...
::) Your debate with Minar is an interesting one in that it would seem you're both holding two 'separate' conversations on different plains=levels of understanding ...And never the two shall meet...
And even though I can see where you're coming from through your detachment [in a Buddhist sense], sadly for many here this tends to be a little too deep at times...
In a sense what you both say is the 'truth' according to your understanding....
And as for my 'truth'... "It's all in the mind of the beholder" [even the answer to the original question]...
Metta Zenda :)
I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!
Quote from: Zenda on November 08, 2011, 01:24:07 PM
Kia Ora
What is Kia ora and why do you keep saying it?
I swear some transwomen are beyond strange. I mean I support you and stuff...But you're a bit on the eccentric side.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 08, 2011, 05:09:46 PM
What is Kia ora and why do you keep saying it?
I swear some transwomen are beyond strange. I mean I support you and stuff...But you're a bit on the eccentric side.
I think it's a Kiwi thing. I think it's sort of cute.
As for being strange, that's hardly exclusive to trans* women.
Quote from: Zenda on November 08, 2011, 01:24:07 PM
And even though I can see where you're coming from through your detachment [in a Buddhist sense], sadly for many here this tends to be a little too deep at times...
At first I thought it is enough just to describe common sense about what male and female differences should be, this is where I found out there are several individuals here strongly oppose to such common, conventional knowledge, in favour of the questionable statistical data that is limited to times and geographical regions, in addition to the questionable basis behind these method, that is where I gave up that common sense approach, and bring up the core approach to ascertaining truth. We are at a point of discussing such method here, the point is that an inferior, provisional method has to submit to a method that bear universal significance (for example bearing the similar cause and effect component of hard science).
So far we are at a consensus that gender science is not a hard science, this pretty much invalidate what they have, they are now left with nothing, except mere desire to argue pre-defined definitions, and the only way they have a point is by being rigid to such definitions and their common associations. But the latter would only make them appear sensible to the people sharing similar rigidity, in term of the method, it is purely wrong as it won't qualify the cause and effect component of hard science.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 08, 2011, 05:09:46 PM
What is Kia ora and why do you keep saying it?
I swear some transwomen are beyond strange. I mean I support you and stuff...But you're a bit on the eccentric side.
Pot, meet kettle. You're a bit eccentric too. :P
Anyway, here's a post she made explaining the terms a while back.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,102771.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,102771.0.html)
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 06:11:14 PM
At first I thought it is enough just to describe common sense about what male and female differences should be, this is where I found out there are several individuals here strongly oppose to such common, conventional knowledge, in favour of the questionable statistical data that is limited to times and geographical regions, in addition to the questionable basis behind these method, that is where I gave up that common sense approach, and bring up the core approach to ascertaining truth. We are at a point of discussing such method here, the point is that an inferior, provisional method has to submit to a method that bear universal significance (for example bearing the similar cause and effect component of hard science).
So far we are at a consensus that gender science is not a hard science, this pretty much invalidate what they have, they are now left with nothing, except mere desire to argue pre-defined definitions, and the only way they have a point is by being rigid to such definitions and their common associations. But the latter would only make them appear sensible to the people sharing similar rigidity, in term of the method, it is purely wrong as it won't qualify the cause and effect component of hard science.
I know you're all for validity of individual opinions, but you can't call your own beliefs "common, conventional knowledge" simply because you say so. That's flatly not true. (In addition, "common knowledge" in the eyes of most people is going to boil down to a bunch of cissexist, misogynistic, heteronormative pop psychology hash that is useless in the first place.) Also, if you're trying to claim that social (as opposed to 'hard') sciences can't use objective data to quantify truths about the world, I suggest you read a psychology or linguistics journal.
We haven't even really gotten into the concept of gender as performance or as social construction, which totally discredits this "common, conventional knowledge" which is, in reality, none of the three.
350th post.
wut wut.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 06:11:14 PM
So far we are at a consensus that gender science is not a hard science, this pretty much invalidate what they have, they are now left with nothing, except mere desire to argue pre-defined definitions, and the only way they have a point is by being rigid to such definitions and their common associations. But the latter would only make them appear sensible to the people sharing similar rigidity, in term of the method, it is purely wrong as it won't qualify the cause and effect component of hard science.
For people who don't want the world to judge them, they sure come up with a lot of terms for what they are. I don't really care what I am called... I just live my life. Pontificating on my identity all day long is a huge waste of time and there are better ways to make friends than that.
I mean this entire board is just self indulgent thoughts on people's identity. Another reason I am wary of adding trans people on fb... I can't read post after post about gender/sexuality and srs/no srs. I am who I am...Not what I am.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 08, 2011, 06:47:25 PM
I know you're all for validity of individual opinions, but you can't call your own beliefs "common, conventional knowledge" simply because you say so. That's flatly not true. (In addition, "common knowledge" in the eyes of most people is going to boil down to a bunch of cissexist, misogynistic, heteronormative pop psychology hash that is useless in the first place.) Also, if you're trying to claim that social (as opposed to 'hard') sciences can't use objective data to quantify truths about the world, I suggest you read a psychology or linguistics journal.
We haven't even really gotten into the concept of gender as performance or as social construction, which totally discredits this "common, conventional knowledge" which is, in reality, none of the three.
It is what I perceived to be a common knowledge based on my own experience in a country that does not recognize transgender, and homosexuality is a crime that can be liable for imprisonment for decades in prison. This common sense if not accepted, and if being opposed, then as in this case, I'm forced to gave up ascertaining truth based on the basis of a common sense as it is not universal. But this common sense of mine is accepted as such, not solely because it is the common pettern of perception of the people here, but that I myself have examine my own perception, and understand the cause and effect component of its significance.
In other words, to argue to rationale behind what I have accepted as the standard distinction of the male and female binary, we have to focus on the core method of philosophy which is outside of common sense and conventional knowledge, even what you considered as valid objective data in psychology or linguistics journal.
A question: I've noted you have a very high number of smites on your avatar, where are they now, can you explained?
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 08, 2011, 07:10:45 PM
I mean this entire board is just self indulgent thoughts on people's identity. Another reason I am wary of adding trans people on fb... I can't read post after post about gender/sexuality and srs/no srs. I am who I am...Not what I am.
I agreed, I won't even identify myself as transgender but just female on my fb account ;)
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 07:26:42 PM
I agreed, I won't even identify myself as transgender but just female on my fb account ;)
+1
Same here. It helps to not "I'M TRANS...I'M TRANS" every status. You know, people actually see you as a woman more when you don't rationalize it.
But then there's those who don't have that option and you'll find that a lot of their lists are nothing but transwomen in the same boat.
About half my friends on FB are trans or queer of some flavor but I try and moderate my coments and not talk about trans stuff.
Although I do not make it secret I support LGBT issues and causes.
Quote from: cynthialee on November 08, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Although I do not make it secret I support LGBT issues and causes.
Stuff you'll never see on my fb page...besides gay men I'd like to bone or have them bone me.
I don't even talk about being trans... as I don't care.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 07:18:37 PM
It is what I perceived to be a common knowledge based on my own experience in a country that does not recognize transgender, and homosexuality is a crime that can be liable for imprisonment for decades in prison. This common sense if not accepted, and if being opposed, then as in the case, I'm forced to gave up ascertaining truth based on the basis of a common sense as it is not universal.
Simply because your country is a tyranny, that does not force anyone to identify differently.
They can take your bodies. They can never take your minds.
How is that common sense? Common sense says that you shouldn't punish someone for something that isn't harming anyone else.
Common sense does not have anything to do with a government's laws. The "ascertaining truth" should be that not everyone else
is like the bigoted officials of your country.
Is it possible, all this knowledge was from an education system funded by your oppressive government? If that is the case, then that
knowledge is rather construed. Nations with oppressive laws also tend to distort, and often re-write, information that is not in line with
their beliefs. In these nations it is common to find people who have been so brainwashed, that they have little to no true education on
the outside world.
Quote from: Morrigan on November 08, 2011, 08:22:17 PM
Simply because your country is a tyranny, that does not force anyone to identify differently.
They can take your bodies. They can never take your minds.
For MTF who have srs, they are not entitle to a change of the gender identity, not even a complete name change, and no amount of appeal in court will change that decision if a judge is strong on the opposition. Thus most MTF will be jobless (or force to work as prostitutes) as they can't hide the identity of being male, and cross dressing is considered an offense punishable for a fine. They does take away from us all the privileges enjoyed by the cis citizens (we have to finance our transition, including educating ourselves on the TS path). Many of us do have to ignore the law but we simply cannot lead a normal life in the prefered gender without worrying about being caught, being ill-treated such as stripped naked and humiliated by the officers. Thus we will be force to wear male clothing in the street even after srs.
Quote
How is that common sense? Common sense says that you shouldn't punish someone for something that isn't harming anyone else.
Common sense does not have anything to do with a government's laws. The "ascertaining truth" should be that not everyone else
is like the bigoted officials of your country.
That's not the common sense I'm refering to, I have nothing against the common consensus here on the gender binary as this match my own subjective perception, except that this Islamic dominated country does not accept the fluidity of gender but hold the idea that gender is a divine decision, as such it is sanctified which should not be tempered by human. This clearly oppose my buddhist philosophy that all phenomena is not due to a supreme creator, but of dependent origination (cause and effect).
Quote
Is it possible, all this knowledge was from an education system funded by your oppressive government? If that is the case, then that
knowledge is rather construed. Nations with oppressive laws also tend to distort, and often re-write, information that is not in line with
their beliefs. In these nations it is common to find people who have been so brainwashed, that they have little to no true education on
the outside world.
You have no idea how powerful and united is Islam when you have the population contained the majority of their members. Unfortunately the race that has the majority of Muslims, their transgenders are also the most oppressed of all other races as they are additionally subject to the Islamic laws. This year, one of our muslim 'sister' die in mental torment after the judge refused her application for a name and gender change on her identity card, since she wish to pursue her studies after her srs, she is only 25.
Jacelyn, Islam is at odds with most of the world. We can agree that many of their "Sharia Laws" are unjust and unsound.
This however, has nothing to do with how you have to think. It's unfortunate, but many people are forced to maintain their
born appearance, despite their inner self. This can be for any number of reasons, and that doesn't stop them from knowing
in their mind what they are.
I think there are some stories of struggles in the TG world, more difficult than immigration.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 09:58:35 PM
You have no idea how powerful and united is Islam when you have the population contained the majority of their members.
I've done a good amount of observing Islamic cultures. I do unfortunately know the dangerous things the extremist factions
are capable of. What scares me, is that I continue hear about more and more average citizens sharing these hateful beliefs.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 07:18:37 PM
It is what I perceived to be a common knowledge based on my own experience in a country that does not recognize transgender, and homosexuality is a crime that can be liable for imprisonment for decades in prison. This common sense if not accepted, and if being opposed, then as in this case, I'm forced to gave up ascertaining truth based on the basis of a common sense as it is not universal. But this common sense of mine is accepted as such, not solely because it is the common pettern of perception of the people here, but that I myself have examine my own perception, and understand the cause and effect component of its significance.
In other words, to argue to rationale behind what I have accepted as the standard distinction of the male and female binary, we have to focus on the core method of philosophy which is outside of common sense and conventional knowledge, even what you considered as valid objective data in psychology or linguistics journal.
A question: I've noted you have a very high number of smites on your avatar, where are they now, can you explained?
I'm sorry that you live in a place where that's the case, and I recognize how that might lead to different socialized conceptions of maleness, femaleness, queerness, and transness.
That doesn't, however, qualify you any more than someone living in a place where such recognition of gender and sexuality non-conformity is more prevalent. My understanding of issues of gender and sexuality stem from being well-read in the issues, both from sociological, psychological, and biological perspectives.
I don't agree that gender has to be viewed from a philosophical perspective, though I don't reject that it can be used as an interpretation. I'm just honestly lost as to why you think philosophy validates your beliefs, and also manages to overcome the overwhelming evidence to the contrary based on the sheer existence of gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and lesbian-identifying people and non-binary-identifying people.
An answer: some people believed my conviction that sex is not intrinsic to genitals constituted an offense to their beliefs to the contrary. I petitioned for their removal because I felt them to be unwarranted; administrators agreed with me and removed them.
Could it be.....have you ever heard of '->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-s'? Gay men who dress up or even more for the sole purpose to attract 'butch'/'straight' men who are into T's but *not* into (gay)men?
Those gay men/sometimes turned into T's are usually overtly and blatantly sexually behaving.
I personally know one such a (very middle aged) person who's not on HRT but even had breastimplants to be more 'succesful' in attracting and processing 'straight' men in industrial quantities. Not pay but for 'fun'.
Of course she calls herself '->-bleeped-<-' ,the 'straight' men's attention grabbing word ;-)
We're not yet educated on this very specific subject, so here's a good read. Tragic but funny.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-22/news/the-->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-/ (http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-22/news/the--%3E-bleeped-%3C---%3E-bleeped-%3C---%3E-bleeped-%3C-/)
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 09, 2011, 12:52:46 AM
That doesn't, however, qualify you any more than someone living in a place where such recognition of gender and sexuality non-conformity is more prevalent. My understanding of issues of gender and sexuality stem from being well-read in the issues, both from sociological, psychological, and biological perspectives.
I didn't depend on that to qualify myself but to demonstrate to you what is common sense differed in geography, culture and political environment. You mentioned sociological, psychological, and biological perspectives, but only the last have a scientific validity. The other is not exact science due to their method which is lacking of definitive determination of the component of cause and effect.
Quote
I don't agree that gender has to be viewed from a philosophical perspective, though I don't reject that it can be used as an interpretation. I'm just honestly lost as to why you think philosophy validates your beliefs, and also manages to overcome the overwhelming evidence to the contrary based on the sheer existence of gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and lesbian-identifying people and non-binary-identifying people.
Simple answer: philosophy (of buddhism) is the actual science of perception (element of consciousness), it deal with real cause and effect components (mental factors) that can be validly determined with degree of consistent precision. Instead of having to depend on statistical data from various survey which are not cause and effect dependence, but dependence on various individual opinions. Individual who is bias due to their own psychological conditions simply clinged to their own version of the opinion, the multitude of numbers does not mean the data is more accurate, it simply mean in a region, people share a similar view. But the mass is not without flaw, for example it is due to mass influence that human committed historical crimes against humanity.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 09, 2011, 04:20:00 AM
I didn't depend on that to qualify myself but to demonstrate to you what is common sense differed in geography, culture and political environment. You mentioned sociological, psychological, and biological perspectives, but only the last have a scientific validity. The other is not exact science due to their method which is lacking of definitive determination of the component of cause and effect.
Did you not get the memo that sociology and psychology are social sciences? If we consider the two from the perspective of logical positivism and its empirical values, then they both are no longer "lacking", in your terms. Even if we don't, to narrowly define "science" as purely "empiricism" is also constricting and limiting.
Quote
Simple answer: philosophy (of buddhism) is the actual science of perception (element of consciousness), it deal with real cause and effect components (mental factors) that can be validly determined with degree of consistent precision. Instead of having to depend on statistical data from various survey which are not cause and effect dependence, but dependence on various individual opinions. Individual who is bias due to their own psychological conditions simply clinged to their own version of the opinion, the multitude of numbers does not mean the data is more accurate, it simply mean in a region, people share a similar view. But the mass is not without flaw, for example it is due to mass influence that human committed historical crimes against humanity.
And...when we look at studies carried out in several countries, your "region-specific bias" criticism vanishes. When we're talking about a universal human condition (the gender or lack thereof of different people), you actually have to take into account more than your own and your friends' experiences because no matter how many people you know, there is no method by which you can tell if their experiences are in any way representative of how others in the world experience gender. That consistent precision is only true of your own perception of your own beliefs, and as such really can't be extrapolated to everyone in the world. That would be a failure to grasp the theory of mind.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 08, 2011, 06:55:26 AM
Wrong, word is simply word, meaning is meaning, thus word != meaning. Words are pointers (inference) of meaning, in order to point, a combination of words and sentences are needed to reinforce a meaning stated. Meaning is not just a reference to an object, but include the reason.
In that case. Wolf chambray shoreditch stumptown, quinoa tattooed vegan sartorial you probably haven't heard of them. Aesthetic sustainable butcher helvetica synth. Pitchfork jean shorts freegan, williamsburg beard high life photo booth twee lo-fi gentrify you probably haven't heard of them. Yr tumblr VHS, you probably haven't heard of them vice portland banh mi beard leggings keffiyeh thundercats vegan aesthetic. Freegan seitan twee, terry richardson gluten-free fixie lomo bicycle rights mustache cosby sweater. Banksy sustainable mustache tumblr fixie leggings. Fixie tattooed tofu, craft beer VHS aesthetic photo booth yr cliche vegan dreamcatcher gentrify.
Quote from: Dahlia on November 09, 2011, 03:34:27 AM
Could it be.....have you ever heard of '->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-s'? Gay men who dress up or even more for the sole purpose to attract 'butch'/'straight' men who are into T's but *not* into (gay)men?
Those gay men/sometimes turned into T's are usually overtly and blatantly sexually behaving.
I personally know one such a (very middle aged) person who's not on HRT but even had breastimplants to be more 'succesful' in attracting and processing 'straight' men in industrial quantities. Not pay but for 'fun'.
Of course she calls herself '->-bleeped-<-' ,the 'straight' men's attention grabbing word ;-)
We're not yet educated on this very specific subject, so here's a good read. Tragic but funny.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-22/news/the-->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-/ (http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-22/news/the--%3E-bleeped-%3C---%3E-bleeped-%3C---%3E-bleeped-%3C-/)
Ironically, I prefer gay men. I had to actually
adapt myself to straight men over the years. I am doing this for myself, not because I want the "straight" man.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 09, 2011, 12:08:55 PM
Ironically, I prefer gay men. I had to actually adapt myself to straight men over the years. I am doing this for myself, not because I want the "straight" man.
Mahsa, don't ever change. As a favorite website of mine proclaims, you do you (http://www.autostraddle.com/).
i have a feeling Joey is waiting for the 400th post :icon_giggle:
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 09, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
Mahsa, don't ever change. As a favorite website of mine proclaims, you do you (http://www.autostraddle.com/).
Well i mean there's plenty of open minded bisexual "gays" who wouldn't mind having a long term relationship with me. Prefer that overall, to a straight guy who is either too dumb to figure out I am trans or so open minded, he should just come out as bi.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 09, 2011, 01:19:24 PM
Well i mean there's plenty of open minded bisexual "gays" who wouldn't mind having a long term relationship with me. Prefer that overall, to a straight guy who is either too dumb to figure out I am trans or so open minded, he should just come out as bi.
I was praising you, babe. Take the compliment. ;D
My, my..What has my thread come to? Lol.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 09, 2011, 11:30:44 AM
Did you not get the memo that sociology and psychology are social sciences? If we consider the two from the perspective of logical positivism and its empirical values, then they both are no longer "lacking", in your terms. Even if we don't, to narrowly define "science" as purely "empiricism" is also constricting and limiting.
And...when we look at studies carried out in several countries, your "region-specific bias" criticism vanishes. When we're talking about a universal human condition (the gender or lack thereof of different people), you actually have to take into account more than your own and your friends' experiences because no matter how many people you know, there is no method by which you can tell if their experiences are in any way representative of how others in the world experience gender. That consistent precision is only true of your own perception of your own beliefs, and as such really can't be extrapolated to everyone in the world. That would be a failure to grasp the theory of mind.
As mentioned, social science is not hard science, in other words it is science of culture, humanity and politics, it very much dependence on the differences of geography, culture and political environment, these three are not static truth, but are ever evolving and conditional, thus social science merely document the result of observation of occurrences in a region and group, even if they manage to obtain the mean / average data of all regions and groups, it still didn't recognise the cause and effect relationship of various mental factors (field of perception, consciousness, and mind), as the latter is outside the scope of present science. But this field of perception, consciousness, and mind is area of specialization of philosophy and religions. Various philosophical and religions do disagree with one another, thus it is a subject that is much debated in their respective field. Your social science won't even come close to the standard required by some of these critical thinkers. It is something like comparing a kindergarden education with a doctorate thesis in the field of perception and reality. To be honest, your social science barely touches the surface.
Freegan seitan twee, terry richardson gluten-free fixie lomo bicycle rights mustache cosby sweater.
Shimmy, shimmy, ko-ko bop, a-wop-bop-a-loo-bop-a-lop-bop-bop!
Now people are starting to catch on to what I was doing before! I'll reiterate the point by posting again:
I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!
What is my meaning, Jacelyn? ^__^
Kia Ora Jacelyn,
::) I'm afraid you have an up hill battle when having to deal with such 'conditioned' minds...I'm sure you know what I mean, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, just stating the obvious = we are all 'conditioned' to think in a certain way which tends to bind us to a certain thought pattern-we become our thoughts...Once we understand this and decide to do something about it, only then will we become 'free thinkers' in the true sense... Instead of 'becoming' our thoughts[ both negative & positive] we observe them ...
Thought itself is the thinker and I'm sure you understand this Jacelyn...
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Zenda on November 09, 2011, 10:28:45 PM
Kia Ora Jacelyn,
::) I'm afraid you have an up hill battle when having to deal with such 'conditioned' minds...I'm sure you know what I mean, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, just stating the obvious = we are all 'conditioned' to think in a certain way which tends to bind us to a certain thought pattern-we become our thoughts...Once we understand this and decide to do something about it, only then will we become 'free thinkers' in the true sense... Instead of 'becoming' our thoughts[ both negative & positive] we observe them ...
Thought itself is the thinker and I'm sure you understand this Jacelyn...
Metta Zenda :)
For the last time... what does kia ora mean
It means 'hello' etc
Zenda, just because you follow a philosophy which asserts that all views on a subject are equally worthy of consideration doesn't mean that anyone who thinks that is bogus is just closed-minded. A Confucian scholar would say you're simply refusing to rectify the names, and that your way of thinking only generates chaos and strife. They would respond to your assertion that they are conditioned to give definite meanings to everything by saying that you're conditioned to never give definite meanings to anything. In essence, they would assert that you're as conditioned as they and just aren't admitting it, instead choosing to give yourself the title "free-thinker".
Basically, they'd scream "Things are real! They have meanings and form!" and bang a teacup against the table until you admitted that there was a teacup and a table.
Not that I can't sympathize with your way of thinking. I'm particularly amused by Zhuangzi in his responses to common Confucian critiques of Taoism. But in the case of words, there are a limited number of contexts to which they can be properly applied. Jacelyn has it backwards. Possible meanings and thoughts are infinite, the words through which these things can be expressed are finite. Language is a limiting factor, like it or not.
Why do gay men act like gay men?
Science has yet to prove that phenomenon.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 09, 2011, 10:59:04 PM
Why do gay men act like gay men?
Science has yet to prove that phenomenon.
Damn it, Mahsa. Stop dividing by zero!
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 09, 2011, 10:56:28 PM
Zenda, just because you follow a philosophy which asserts that all views on a subject are equally worthy of consideration doesn't mean that anyone who thinks that is bogus is just closed-minded. A Confucian scholar would say you're simply refusing to rectify the names, and that your way of thinking only generates chaos and strife. They would respond to your assertion that they are conditioned to give definite meanings to everything by saying that you're conditioned to never give definite meanings to anything. In essence, they would assert that you're as conditioned as they and just aren't admitting it, instead choosing to give yourself the title "free-thinker".
Basically, they'd scream "Things are real! They have meanings and form!" and bang a teacup against the table until you admitted that there was a teacup and a table.
Not that I can't sympathize with your way of thinking. I'm particularly amused by Zhuangzi in his responses to common Confucian critiques of Taoism. But in the case of words, there are a limited number of contexts to which they can be properly applied. Jacelyn has it backwards. Possible meanings and thoughts are infinite, the words through which these things can be expressed are finite. Language is a limiting factor, like it or not.
Kia Ora Sailor S,
::) Thanks for your interesting response....However before I continue I would like to point out "Closed Minded" was your choice of 'words' ...A 'condition mind' in how I used the term as nothing to do with the narrow closed minded nature of a 'bigot'...I was simply stating the obvious[for those who have an understanding of Buddhism and Dependent Origination/Arising ]...
"All phenomena in the world comes into being because of 'causes' and 'conditions' without them no phenomena would appear in this world and no phenomena could 'exist' in this world...Nothing has an independent existence of it's own !" All phenomena arises from causes and conditions...All phenomena disappears due to causes and conditions... Causes and conditions themselves are phenomena and they arise from other causes and conditions...What is a cause here may be seen as a phenomena there or as a condition else where...
::) Slightly off topic but what the hell...............
When it come to the table and teacup and differences in philosophical 'thought'... Through observation meditation 'I' [in the conventional form] like Jacelyn am fully 'aware' of this 'conditioned' state of mind...
Things are thoughts and thoughts are things, and when it comes to the table and teacup yes they exist as a table and teacup [by name/label only], and 'only' from the observer's side...
Without the observer observing and mentally labeling, would there still be a table and teacup ? Or just material, pieces of wood and bits of clay/china ?[even to imagine this there as to be imagination which arises in the observer etc].... To say yes, then one would have to explain how they can exist as a table and teacup[from their own side] when no one is 'observing' them...
The table and teacup's existence 'depends' on the 'conditioned thoughts' that 'arise' in the observer's 'conditioned' mind...
Free standing- unobserved, the table and teacup don't exist on their own, how can they ?
From what I gather Jacelyn's not only well educated [like yourself and many others who have joined the debate] but it would seem she is also an 'experienced' meditator-hence her approach to this topic...
I on the other hand don't have a way with words, my vocabulary is limited [even for a native English speaker] I have what you would call a 'simple' contented mind,
'I' like to 'think' free from clutter...
::) Back to topic...
Why do some M2Fs men act like gay men? Because of cause and condition
Metta Zenda :)
I think there's an inherent problem with returning to topic because of the cissexist, heterosexist, misogynistic assumptions that the very title perpetuates. Thus, when we're discussing assumptions about male and female sexuality and behavior, we're discussing the very validity of the topic at hand in the first place. When we're discussing gender as it's seen through the eyes of different sciences, we're relating to the previous discussion.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 09, 2011, 10:39:22 PM
For the last time... what does kia ora mean
Kia Ora Mahsa,
"Kia Ora" as Happy girl mentioned is a Maori greeting Hi, Hello, G'day, it can also mean 'thanks'....
Do you know what a Maori is ?
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 09, 2011, 10:59:04 PM
Why do gay men act like gay men?
Science has yet to prove that phenomenon.
Kia Ora Mahsa,
Why do gay men act like gay men? ::) Cause and condition ;)
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Zenda on November 10, 2011, 01:14:41 AM
::) Cause and condition ;)
If you get one or more gay men together, things will happen.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 10, 2011, 01:24:24 AM
If you get one or more gay men together, things will happen.
If you get one or more lesbians together, chances are that each one has slept with the other's ex and both of them are unaware of the fact and making smoldering eyes at each other. Drama ensues.
PROVEN FACT, guys, ladies, and QUEERLY GENDERED GENTLEPEOPLE.
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 10, 2011, 01:57:49 AM
If you get one or more lesbians together, chances are that each one has slept with the other's ex and both of them are unaware of the fact and making smoldering eyes at each other. Drama ensues.
PROVEN FACT, guys, ladies, and QUEERLY GENDERED GENTLEPEOPLE.
Okay...this was the MIKI OCTAGON OF 2007-2009
I met Jessica who had dated Leo in high school, I slept with Leo and met his best friend, Ray...ray and I slept together...and I met Chris. Chris and I hooked up...then I met his friend Chad...Chad had dated Ray and Leo. Then I met Adam and Adam hooked up with Chris and Leo. Chris later got Jessica pregnant. All this time, we were screwing other guys on the side...
Quote from: Zenda on November 09, 2011, 10:28:45 PM
Kia Ora Jacelyn,
::) I'm afraid you have an up hill battle when having to deal with such 'conditioned' minds...I'm sure you know what I mean, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, just stating the obvious = we are all 'conditioned' to think in a certain way which tends to bind us to a certain thought pattern-we become our thoughts...Once we understand this and decide to do something about it, only then will we become 'free thinkers' in the true sense... Instead of 'becoming' our thoughts[ both negative & positive] we observe them ...
Thought itself is the thinker and I'm sure you understand this Jacelyn...
Thanks for your input. I am familar with the role of thought / thinking, here just to elaborate a few pointers. Thinking is the means whereby one can recognized the body (nirvana), the body (dharmakaya) itself does not depend on thinking, nor can one become the body. The body (nature wisdom) is symbolized as the female principle, whereas the means (thinking / intellect) is symbolized as the male principle, thus the two in eternal unity is symbolized by the two forms in sexual union (as depicted in the deities of tantra), this is similar to the Tai-chi symbols of toaism. This is the highest view that reinforced the gender binary, that is, as the body of consciousness and thinking (mind consciousness) itself.
Of course, those who don't follow this line of reasoning has no reason to accept it, they will request for evidence, or saying such view is not established. However, the rationale for evidence is without right cause since it is subjective, that is, only the subjective consciousness can see itself (body of consciousness), and that the rationale for the view to be established is also without right cause since the thinking (intellect) that see the body (nirvana) as it is does not established the body through conceptual construction, in other words the thinking is the means to be in concordance with the body (nirvana), by establishing the body through conceptual construction, then the so called body is no longer in concordance with thusness (the indescribable body in empirical mode).
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 10, 2011, 03:18:46 AM
Okay...this was the MIKI OCTAGON OF 2007-2009
I met Jessica who had dated Leo in high school, I slept with Leo and met his best friend, Ray...ray and I slept together...and I met Chris. Chris and I hooked up...then I met his friend Chad...Chad had dated Ray and Leo. Then I met Adam and Adam hooked up with Chris and Leo. Chris later got Jessica pregnant. All this time, we were screwing other guys on the side...
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F26%2FAliceschart.png&hash=57074237aa656acfe0349d28d1e5b40ba47338ff)
The L Word. Just...The L Word.
Quote from: Jacelyn on November 10, 2011, 04:02:53 AM
The body (nature wisdom) is symbolized as the female principle, whereas the means (thinking / intellect) is symbolized as the male principle
To argue gender binary based on wisdom vs. intellect, in most modern countries, would be very sexist and thrown out straightaway.
Arguing that our reality is not how we perceive it will not persuade us to believe in completely antiquated thinking like this.
Spiritualism and religion have also, for a long time known to be, completely unscientific, and do not present evidence to their causes.
Many of those old ideas on consciousness are completely baseless and were mere casual observation. Modern medical sciences can
describe in detail how the brain works and why we react the way we do in most situations. While an eastern scholar may have been
a genius in his time, science has refuted nearly all old world understandings of the body.
Wonderdyke that is a most chaotic network diagram @_@
Quote from: Morrigan on November 10, 2011, 06:48:36 AM
To argue gender binary based on wisdom vs. intellect, in most modern countries, would be very sexist and thrown out straightaway.
Arguing that our reality is not how we perceive it will not persuade us to believe in completely antiquated thinking like this.
Spiritualism and religion have also, for a long time known to be, completely unscientific, and do not present evidence to their causes.
At that level, gender take different forms, just like at atomic level, gender takes the form of proton and electron. Gender is about polerity opposites, at human level, it is related to the biological body and psychological perceptions. These different level of gender is valid as their polerity can be demonstrated.
Note what I describe about the the level of gender at the level of consciousness: "Thinking is the means whereby one can recognized the body (nirvana), the body (dharmakaya) itself does not depend on thinking, nor can one become the body. "
This is reflected in parallel to the gender at human level, for example this means is parallel to the man's ability to recognize the beauty and sexual attraction of the woman. The properties of the body (nirvana) is cessation of activity, this is reflected in parallel to the passiveness of the women. Another properties of the body (nirvana) is nature / original wisdom, wisdom is attractive / beautiful to the means (intellect) that recognize it, and this is parallel to the attractiveness / beauty of the human female.
As for the body (dharmakaya) itself does not depend on thinking, in term of the human female, the fact of her femaleness does not depend on the man's thinking, but that her femaleness is automatically reflected in her form (body).
As for "nor can one become the body", this is parallel to the fact that man who find a woman attractive, cannot become her, he is eternally separated from her, and it is for this reason the attraction of the opposite persists (as a reality). This is refering to the mental factors due to subject and object gender perception, and does not literally implied there is no possibility for MTF who wish to become female, since in such cases, the MTF would be considered female, but the man who perceive her feminine attractiveness cannot become her if the attraction is to be persist.
The original verse has doctrinal significance when it is concerning the buddhist tradition of the consciousness-only, which show the mechanism of body and means (a binary polerity which incidentally is parallel to the human binary gender, and both being mutually supportive).
Quote
Many of those old ideas on consciousness are completely baseless and were mere casual observation.
Being old doesn't mean they are baseless, something that is universal, it has to be able to survive the passing of times, the buddhist tradition has being around for 2500 years, the buddhist tantra is much older. Truth is unlike a fashion trend where new is better, rather it is the reversed, new theory does not prove itself able to withstand the test of time through various discussion and debates. Truth is always victim of politics, as politics is never about truth but what suit their ambition. Throughout history, buddhism has being subject to persecution and suppression, for example it has being completely wiped out from India along with all sanskrit texts, due to domination of hinduism.
Quote
Modern medical sciences can describe in detail how the brain works and why we react the way we do in most situations.
This is neurology which is branch of medical science, it is of cause and effect, hence fully recognized by buddhism. However, gender science is only about social science, it has no valid cause and effect component that can be acceptable to buddhism. Buddhism is not interested in external facts, as these are recognized as mere deceptive appearances, like dew, a dream, a mirage, an illusion, and lightning flashes. All phenomena is emptied of substantial existence, the fact of phenomena being emptied allow dependent origination, otherwise there is only permanence, nothing can change, no improvement possible and this make liberation impossible.
Quote
While an eastern scholar may have been a genius in his time, science has refuted nearly all old world understandings of the body.
You misunderstood, this 'body' I refer to the body of consciousness, not the physical body which is covered by modern science.
Science didn't refute buddhism as it didn't cover the field of consciousness and reality, what it didn't cover it has no authority over. Science belong to buddhism in the cause and effect section of the buddhist's five sciences which cover virtually all field of technology and medicine (In ancient times, these are the only source of technology, but today we have what is termed modern science and medicine and we happily accept it).
Quote from: Wonderdyke on November 10, 2011, 04:10:51 AM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F26%2FAliceschart.png&hash=57074237aa656acfe0349d28d1e5b40ba47338ff)
The L Word. Just...The L Word.
Technically it was the "G" word. But I looked like a lez back then.
Quote from: Zenda on November 10, 2011, 12:48:29 AM
Kia Ora Sailor S,
::) Thanks for your interesting response....However before I continue I would like to point out "Closed Minded" was your choice of 'words' ...A 'condition mind' in how I used the term as nothing to do with the narrow closed minded nature of a 'bigot'...I was simply stating the obvious[for those who have an understanding of Buddhism and Dependent Origination/Arising ]...
"All phenomena in the world comes into being because of 'causes' and 'conditions' without them no phenomena would appear in this world and no phenomena could 'exist' in this world...Nothing has an independent existence of it's own !" All phenomena arises from causes and conditions...All phenomena disappears due to causes and conditions... Causes and conditions themselves are phenomena and they arise from other causes and conditions...What is a cause here may be seen as a phenomena there or as a condition else where...
::) Slightly off topic but what the hell...............
When it come to the table and teacup and differences in philosophical 'thought'... Through observation meditation 'I' [in the conventional form] like Jacelyn am fully 'aware' of this 'conditioned' state of mind...
Things are thoughts and thoughts are things, and when it comes to the table and teacup yes they exist as a table and teacup [by name/label only], and 'only' from the observer's side...
Without the observer observing and mentally labeling, would there still be a table and teacup ? Or just material, pieces of wood and bits of clay/china ?[even to imagine this there as to be imagination which arises in the observer etc].... To say yes, then one would have to explain how they can exist as a table and teacup[from their own side] when no one is 'observing' them...
The table and teacup's existence 'depends' on the 'conditioned thoughts' that 'arise' in the observer's 'conditioned' mind...
Free standing- unobserved, the table and teacup don't exist on their own, how can they ?
From what I gather Jacelyn's not only well educated [like yourself and many others who have joined the debate] but it would seem she is also an 'experienced' meditator-hence her approach to this topic...
I on the other hand don't have a way with words, my vocabulary is limited [even for a native English speaker] I have what you would call a 'simple' contented mind,
'I' like to 'think' free from clutter...
So basically, there's no such thing as reality. Everything we know, everything we encounter, is just a series of observations we've made, and observations vary from person to person and are therefore subjective. That is extraordinarily abstract thinking. I can't even wrap my
mind around everything and nothing existing at the same time. The philosophy you've proposed is like Schrodinger's Cat, only it's impossible to open the damned box and see if the cat is dead. The part where it starts to get really messed up is when you start trying to apply this vein of thought to people. Essentially, if everything is subjective observation then there is no such thing as you or me. Even observing
myself wouldn't demonstrate my existence, nor would my observing you demonstrate yours.
But even if I go with this vein of thought, how does it back Jacelyn's demonstrably false claims, such as the argument that women fake their orgasms until they're thirty? Is it just some reduction of the experience of orgasm to a subjective observation? That is, a woman says "I just had an orgasm" and I say "No, you didn't", and we're both right because what constitutes an orgasm depends on the observer? That is, orgasms don't actually exist to begin with, so claims for or against their existence are simultaneously valid?
This vein of thought is physically painful. I'm trying, Zenda, I really am. It just doesn't make sense to me. Observations cannot be made unless there is something to be observed. How we interpret the thing may vary, but there has to be a thing to observe and interpret. I can't just think things into existence, can I? I can interpret that which I see, but my thoughts do not create that which I see. They only create my understanding of what I see.
I pretty much only keep reading this thread to see Mahsa's posts ;D
Quote from: Sam- on November 10, 2011, 07:28:08 PM
I pretty much only keep reading this thread to see Mahsa's posts ;D
Elle entertains you.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 10, 2011, 02:45:45 PM
So basically, there's no such thing as reality. The reality that you perceive is an illusion, a very convincing illusion at that,[it has many people like your'self' fooled] but an illusion non the less, conjured up by ones attachment to the five aggregates of * 'Form"=Material things body etc *'Sensation'=Feelings-not just emotional feelings but also physical sensations/whatever we feel *"Perception"=Experiences like thoughts, sights, sounds-with feeling and perception likes and dislikes arise *"Mental Formation"=Will-intention to do things and * "Consciousness"=Buddhist normally say our six sense consciousness eyes-ears-nose-tongue-body-mind from which arises a false sense of a permanent abiding 'Self' "I" "Me" [ego]...If I was to ask you where is your "I" could you pinpoint its exact location ? Is it ones body ? Is it ones thought ? Is it ones 'brain' ? When a person says "I'm thinking" they insist their "I" is the one doing the 'thinking' if this was truly the case then one could without effort think positive happy thoughts and discard all negative ones that create a feeling of unease.... Why would one 'chose' negative unwholesome thoughts if this permanent "I" existed/was in control ?...The common reality that you see is a corruption of past experiences along with 'thoughts' of the future that feeds the ego...clouding what actually 'is' Everything we know, everything we encounter, is just a series of observations we've made, and observations vary from person to person and are therefore subjective. That is extraordinarily abstract thinking. All that one is, is the result of ones thoughts ! I can't even wrap my mind around everything and nothing existing at the same time. Form is emptiness-emptiness is form...Without emptiness there is no form without form there is no emptiness... The Buddhist concept of emptiness is not negating at all, it's the basis of the arising of all phenomena –without the emptiness of the 'teacup' where would the tea go ? without space one would not be able to built things-without emptiness in the universe humans would not be able to survive... BTW Have you found the "I" yet ? The philosophy you've proposed is like Schrodinger's Cat, only it's impossible to open the damned box and see if the cat is dead. Perhaps for the untrained mind yes... The part where it starts to get really messed up is when you start trying to apply this vein of thought to people. There are quite a number of Westerners who follow the Buddha's teaching... Worldwide there are around 300million followers/practitioners... As one delves deeper into what the Buddha taught[the Dharma] 'looking beyond the finger that points' they will find what they are looking for-[I'm still looking but in the right direction]... Essentially, if everything is subjective observation then there is no such thing as you or me. In a sense yes and no, there's no abiding 'self' the five aggregates are [like all things] in a constant state of flux so in a sense 'we' has something solid don't exist...When you say 'you or me' are you talking about the body ? The thoughts? Even observing myself wouldn't demonstrate my existence, nor would my observing you demonstrate yours. There is no observer only observing and this experience of observation is beyond words/language-That 'I' do know from 'experience'...
But even if I go with this vein of thought, how does it back Jacelyn's demonstrably false claims, such as the argument that women fake their orgasms until they're thirty? Is it just some reduction of the experience of orgasm to a subjective observation? That is, a woman says "I just had an orgasm" and I say "No, you didn't", and we're both right because what constitutes an orgasm depends on the observer? That is, orgasms don't actually exist to begin with, so claims for or against their existence are simultaneously valid? That's for Jacelyn to answer-she's better with words than "I"...
This vein of thought is physically painful. For the conditioned mind yes I agree it can be quite painful I'm trying, Zenda, I really am. It just doesn't make sense to me. Because you are trying to force your thoughts along a path that's quite alien to them-might I suggest practicing insight 'meditation' Observations cannot be made unless there is something to be observed. Who or what is it that does the observing ? How we interpret the thing may vary, but there has to be a thing to observe and interpret. I can't just think things into existence, can I? You do all the time even when dreaming-'think' about it... ;) I can interpret that which I see, but my thoughts do not create that which I see. . Without 'thought' what is there to see ?='Emptiness' They only create my understanding of what I see. Just out of interest Sailor, what are optical 'illusions' how do they work/trick the mind ?
[/size]
Kia Ora Sailor,
Thanks for the most interesting challenge, however I should point out, I'm no expert on Buddhism just a devout [but humble] follower/practitioner of the Buddha's Dharma, so my understand of things may differ from Jacelyn's
Metta Zenda :)
* I've just added a bit more info on the five aggregates[Skandhas]
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 10, 2011, 02:45:45 PM
So basically, there's no such thing as reality. Everything we know, everything we encounter, is just a series of observations we've made, and observations vary from person to person and are therefore subjective. That is extraordinarily abstract thinking.
This vein of thought is physically painful. I'm trying, Zenda, I really am. It just doesn't make sense to me. Observations cannot be made unless there is something to be observed. How we interpret the thing may vary, but there has to be a thing to observe and interpret. I can't just think things into existence, can I? I can interpret that which I see, but my thoughts do not create that which I see. They only create my understanding of what I see.
Kia Ora Sailor,
::) You might want to check out this video ...
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,105115.msg790737.html#msg790737 (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,105115.msg790737.html#msg790737)
Metta Zenda :)
Read some Nietzsche, it might just help.
Everything IS perception, the mix of the object, subject, situation that's beheld and of course be real – but the INTERPRETATION goes hand-in-glove at the same time. Can't separate the one from the other.
Like how would you know it's red and not green?
The light frequency is the 'object' present – red or green is the INTERPRETATION that goes hand-in-glove.
It is a known fact too by now, that it is the scientist that ever so subtle (sometime not so subtle) influences the outcome of any scientific explanation/result.
No need to understand, or even know, Buddhism to perceive that.
Axelle
Quote from: Zenda on November 11, 2011, 12:09:15 AM
[/size]
Kia Ora Sailor,
Thanks for the most interesting challenge, however I should point out, I'm no expert on Buddhism just a devout [but humble] follower/practitioner of the Buddha's Dharma, so my understand of things may differ from Jacelyn's
Metta Zenda :)
I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm trying to
understand you. ^__^
This line of thought is incredibly difficult for me to understand. You're a follower, so I'm picking your brain about it. That's all that's happening here. Thanks for an effort at an explanation, and thanks to Axelle for the reference as well.
Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 11, 2011, 03:29:44 AM
I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm trying to understand you. ^__^
This line of thought is incredibly difficult for me to understand. You're a follower, so I'm picking your brain about it. That's all that's happening here. *Thanks for an effort at an explanation*, and thanks to Axelle for the reference as well.
Kia Ora Sailor,
::) What I meant by 'challenge' was, it's a challenge for me to put my experiences into words, and not that you are challenging me in an aggressive way , sorry for the misunderstanding...
*You're welcome*
BTW in regards to 'Nietzsche' you might want to check this out, he disagrees with Buddhism on some things but for the most part he comes quite close to the Buddhist line on thought... http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=l2LgBtCzRKwC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Thought+itself+is+the+thinker+Buddhism&source=bl&ots=fxi0SOXW2j&sig=LEL9OMwFdl_3d_e7fFaCmn-_5XA&hl=en&ei=wm0pTK2OFcGOkQX9z_CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Thought%20itself%20is%20the%20thinker%20Buddhism&f=false (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=l2LgBtCzRKwC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Thought+itself+is+the+thinker+Buddhism&source=bl&ots=fxi0SOXW2j&sig=LEL9OMwFdl_3d_e7fFaCmn-_5XA&hl=en&ei=wm0pTK2OFcGOkQX9z_CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Thought%20itself%20is%20the%20thinker%20Buddhism&f=false)
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Zenda on November 11, 2011, 02:18:37 PM
::) If the cap fits..... ;) :D
It wasn't specifically directed at you Mahsa.... ::) But come to think of it............................ ;) ;)
Yeah, I don't speak emoticon. Just letting you know that now.
Being into fashion and makeup has nothing to do with being a gay man. I just had a head start than most people here. Again, this is the alternative to being nerdy...
I live for style, I love to wear cute clothes, am "cultured" etc...
But acting like a gay man? Hardly. Get out more and actually meet some gay man. Jenjen2011 and I know how they actually act.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 11, 2011, 02:44:41 PM
Jenjen2011 and I know how they actually act.
Kia Ora Mahsa,
::) How do gay men act ? Now this should be interesting..................
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Zenda on November 11, 2011, 02:49:11 PM
Kia Ora Mahsa,
::) How do gay men act ? Now this should be interesting..................
Metta Zenda :)
Like any other men. Gay men come in all shapes and sizes. My ex's act like hetero jocks. Some of them act flamboyant and femmie, others are just your gay brother.
However, the gay stereotype is present and thinks all gay men act like Will & Grace characters. Many men fall into this stereotype, which is passed on to many of the transgirls.
But gay men are as varied as the spring flower.
Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 11, 2011, 02:51:43 PM
Like any other men. Gay men come in all shapes and sizes. My ex's act like hetero jocks. Some of them act flamboyant and femmie, others are just your gay brother.
However, the gay stereotype is present and thinks all gay men act like Will & Grace characters. Many men fall into this stereotype, which is passed on to many of the transgirls.
But gay men are as varied as the spring flower.
Kia Ora Mahsa,
::) So back to the original question... A M2F who winds down the car window and yells at guys is in a sense no different to an 'heterosexual' male out 'cruising' who winds down the wind of the car and yells/wolf whistles at girls...Where does the acting 'gay' come into it ?
::) I know many gay people and have never come across a 'gay' person who would do this kind of thing, but have seem many hetero males acting this way ....Perhaps gay Americans act differently to the somewhat more
conservative cultured gays in NZ...Who really knows ?
Metta Zenda :)
some MTF's may have a sense of pride in their femininity, so they act like gay men, but that's usually just a phase and at some point they learn to just tone it down and become more natural. people do things in their life that may seem stupid or ridiculous, but it's part of growing. i think i answered once before, but that's what the thread is about, so someone had to be the one to seal the deal, even though i'll probably get ignored.
Quote from: FullMoon19 on November 11, 2011, 10:56:54 PM
some MTF's may have a sense of pride in their femininity, so they act like gay men, but that's usually just a phase and at some point they learn to just tone it down and become more natural. people do things in their life that may seem stupid or ridiculous, but it's part of growing. i think i answered once before, but that's what the thread is about, so someone had to be the one to seal the deal, even though i'll probably get ignored.
I know mine calmed down drastically in the past year. Even when we met gay men in the Castro... I was like, "Nope, don't care"
Granted (and happily too I might add) there are people who go out and buy the stereotype hook, line and sinker. And of course, there are a few people who hit a perfect 100 on the stereotype charts every-time because the stereotype was modeled after them. But for each little gay boy in the Castro who's looking like a lumberjack who's never been out in the woods while listening to dance music, there is a 250 pound bear on a Harley pounding beers, belching loudly and cranking AC/DC. And there are ones who don't fit (nor do they want to) any of that. Gay men have won Olympic medals, Superbowl rings and all that too. Others are doing the yuppie/puppie/preppy corporate-whore 9to5 in their own attempt to become the 1%. While I know a few people who fit the type, most I know do not.
Quote from: tekla on November 12, 2011, 12:34:51 AM
Granted (and happily too I might add) there are people who go out and buy the stereotype hook, line and sinker. And of course, there are a few people who hit a perfect 100 on the stereotype charts every-time because the stereotype was modeled after them. But for each little gay boy in the Castro who's looking like a lumberjack who's never been out in the woods while listening to dance music, there is a 250 pound bear on a Harley pounding beers, belching loudly and cranking AC/DC. And there are ones who don't fit (nor do they want to) any of that. Gay men have won Olympic medals, Superbowl rings and all that too. Others are doing the yuppie/puppie/preppy corporate-whore 9to5 in their own attempt to become the 1%. While I know a few people who fit the type, most I know do not.
I was a kink twink.
I liked putting on my nicest little sun dress (pink or yellow) and heading down to the old beer busts at The Eagle. It was fun to be the token girl, and besides I could kick all their asses at pool.
Quote from: tekla on November 12, 2011, 12:54:20 AM
I liked putting on my nicest little sun dress (pink or yellow) and heading down to the old beer busts at The Eagle. It was fun to be the token girl, and besides I could kick all their asses at pool.
You can see me at Badlands, Lookout, Edge, Toad Hall, the Mixx in the Castro...
Truck and Wild West Saloon in the Folsom
I'm still not allowed in the Folsom Gulch, Eros, Blow Buddies, etc
you just described how a fair few of my genetically female friends act ............ lol