Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

My own little theory on gender dysphoria

Started by Anthrogal, July 23, 2010, 08:48:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Silver

Quote from: Izumi on July 29, 2010, 03:32:10 PM
using punitz square dominant tall jeans would create taller off spring

using punnett squares dominant tall genes would create taller offspring

Sorry, can't help it. Too many mistakes in one area for me to resist the urge to correct. Carry on with the discussion.
  •  

Anthrogal

I absolutely agree with you, Alyssa. That is why not every culture is patriarchal. Again, what is selected for can only be seen in general, not as an absolute rule. I have tried to account for complexity in my theory.
  •  

jainie marlena

I see what you are saying about culture the hunting and gathering idea. I think that what I see to day is the stereotype male and female roles. Men are expected to do certain things and woman are not and visevera. somewhere I started paterning my life after men even though I was mentaly a women. there is one facter that humans have that animals don't when we began to realize that something is not excepted a human will go out of there way to cover it up. knowing things are good, but knowing things are bad. we are able to comunicate now with other transsexuals and that has changed my life to the good. I would either have lived out my life hating myself and everyone esle or took an early dirt nap. Being transsexual around here were I live I am beganing to think that it could be more easyer because no one is looking for anyone to be transsexual. A girl walked into the Dollar store the other day and not even one person noticed except me. I was looking because I am aware of transfolk.

Post Merge: July 30, 2010, 12:32:00 AM

I have been thinking about going into anthropology in college. Just coming here I am starting to better understand myself and others like me. How is evolution going to effect us just coming here. I'm thinking that the trans community is going to grow just simply because we seek each other out and comfort each other through the hard times. we did not have that 10 years ago. why would anyone hurt themselves if the help is there? so knowledge plays a big roll in change. People will know that they are trans at an earlyer stage of their life. wel any way.

JessicaR

Apparently, there are some frogs that, based on the ratio of females to males in their population, will change their sex to better suit the propagation of their species.

Who's to say that humans are so different. I think it can be argued that the planet's human population is out of control.. I've often wondered if phenomena like homosexuality and transsexuality are attempts by the species as a whole to adjust its own population..
I have nothing to back this up.... Just a thought.  :)


  •  

Anthrogal

Jessica- That's actually a theory that used to be popular in biology. However, Richard Dawkins, whatever you may think of him, posed a good rebuttal. This rebuttal was called "the selfish gene." Take lemmings. It used to be believed that whenever they jumped off a cliff, it was when their populations were too big. However, if that were true, the lemmings that chose not to jump would have been selected for, and they would not jump after a few generations. Therefore, he reasoned, it is more likely lemmings jump because they don't know what they're doing.

With humans, those who would die for the sake of another would eventually not be selected for. Also, I am always wary of arguments that say there are too many humans. If wealth were more equitably distributed, there would be no cause for starvation.
  •  

Silver

Quote from: Anthrogal on July 30, 2010, 03:41:00 AM
Also, I am always wary of arguments that say there are too many humans. If wealth were more equitably distributed, there would be no cause for starvation.

You have to admit, our actions are messing with the atmosphere and such and it would not be a problem if there were fewer of us. And the competitive ones are selected for, communism doesn't work. We're not termites.
  •  

Anthrogal

No, communism doesn't work, but democratic socialism does. It's been in use in Europe ever since the end of WWII. Darwin never meant for his theories to be taken in the realm of economics. Social darwinism is a crock. I think we're at a stage in our evolution where we can bring our behavior into question and find a better way to coexist. You can't tell me that the top 1% in America owning the vast majority of the nation's wealth is just.

Edit: Also, it is mostly the actions of that 1% that cause environmental problems through the factories they own. For the rest of us, individual contributions to greenhouse gasses make up, I believe, less than a percent of the total.
  •  

Izumi

Quote from: Anthrogal on July 30, 2010, 10:16:17 AM
No, communism doesn't work, but democratic socialism does. It's been in use in Europe ever since the end of WWII. Darwin never meant for his theories to be taken in the realm of economics. Social darwinism is a crock. I think we're at a stage in our evolution where we can bring our behavior into question and find a better way to coexist. You can't tell me that the top 1% in America owning the vast majority of the nation's wealth is just.

Edit: Also, it is mostly the actions of that 1% that cause environmental problems through the factories they own. For the rest of us, individual contributions to greenhouse gasses make up, I believe, less than a percent of the total.

Go tell that about 1% factories to china, they wont give a damn.  The pollute more then any other country.   The USA is clean compared to them. 

Also about the 1% of wealth.  Spreading wealth is a terrible idea, because it gives benefits to people who dont earn them which leads to complacency.  Let me give you this example:  I pay you 1000 a week to sit on your ass and do nothing.  A job opportunity opens up, you would earn 1200 a week but have to work 40 hours a week.  I dont know about you, but i would continue to sit on my ass and do nothing until the amount I earn would be greater to the point where getting off my ass would be feasible. Sadly this is the utopia you would have.  You also punish success, for example, if I make more money and continue to grow my business, then suddenly i realize that even though there is a demand for my product, if i grow anymore i will be taxed too much to make a profit on the expansion, so I dont hire more workers, i dont expand my production, for what reason? bureaucratic stupidity?  So the more i make the more they take for me, whats the motivation for success at all?  Might as well not do anything and get money for it.

See even though the 1% own everything who is to say they didn't earn it, Bill gates, even though i think he signed a contract with the devil started in a garage with no money, now hes rich!  The beautiful thing is that anyone can do it, if they are motivated to do so, but sadly most people are just complacent where they are.  You can also become rich simply by being good with your money, it doesnt take much to live, if you manage it right you can make a lot of money even if you work at mcdonalds.

Post Merge: August 02, 2010, 12:16:33 PM

Quote from: Anthrogal on July 30, 2010, 10:16:17 AM
No, communism doesn't work, but democratic socialism does. It's been in use in Europe ever since the end of WWII. Darwin never meant for his theories to be taken in the realm of economics. Social darwinism is a crock. I think we're at a stage in our evolution where we can bring our behavior into question and find a better way to coexist. You can't tell me that the top 1% in America owning the vast majority of the nation's wealth is just.

Edit: Also, it is mostly the actions of that 1% that cause environmental problems through the factories they own. For the rest of us, individual contributions to greenhouse gasses make up, I believe, less than a percent of the total.

I forgot, democratic socialism is just socialism.  It doesnt work btw, although some people think it does, it just takes longer to fail.  Greece for example.  The problem with government giving anything it out is that it has to take it from somewhere, unfortunately sometimes they promise more then they can dish out and dont understand the consequences or simply pass them on to a different administration.  See any government would work if all the people in government were pure souls that put morals in front of agendas, however, this is not the case, government is corrupt, they take bribes, lobby groups influence decisions, etc... they make promises to constituents they cant fiscally deliver, however they still enact them, not really understand the longer term damage that would cause.  So any government will eventually fall, if the people just dont give a damn.  How many times will you reelect someone after they lied to you over and over... to us in the US, politician =  crook, but for some reason they think its ok for them to run socialized medicine... wtf kind of reasoning is that? Let the mafia do it, they will do it more efficiently.
  •  

Anthrogal

Actually, the rich that "deserve" their wealth are an extreme minority in that 1%. Most of it is old money through inheritance. Like any basic sociology class will tell you, that 1% are largely living off what their predecessors made. Also, China isn't really a good example as it is pretty much communist in name only. Furthermore, sure there are problems in Greece, but what about France, Germany, Denmark, etc? They are included in the happiest countries in the world. As far as "complacency" you're going to have to actually find an example of it on a mass scale instead of just a hypothetical situation. You're argument smacks of those Republicans saying we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because that would make them "complacent" when only 1% of the unemployed, if that, actually didn't look for a job.
  •  

tekla

Miss Elk:
Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?

Presenter:
Er... exactly.
(he gestures but she does not say anything)
What is it?

Miss Elk:
Where? (looks round)

Presenter:
No, no. Your new theory.

Miss Elk:
Oh, what is my theory?

Presenter:
Yes.

Miss Elk:
Oh what is my theory that it is.
Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory.

Presenter:
I am asking.

Miss Elk:
Good for you. My word yes.
Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine

Presenter:
(beginning to show signs of exasperation)
Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?

Miss Elk:
Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it.
(clears throat at some length)
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
(clears throat at great length)
This is how it goes.
The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready?

Presenter:
Yes!
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Pica Pica

It starts off thinner at one end
Gets thicker.
Then goes thinner again.

- Does this mean that brontosauri are palindromic animals?
'For the circle may be squared with rising and swelling.' Kit Smart
  •  

Izumi

Quote from: Anthrogal on August 02, 2010, 04:42:32 PM
Actually, the rich that "deserve" their wealth are an extreme minority in that 1%. Most of it is old money through inheritance. Like any basic sociology class will tell you, that 1% are largely living off what their predecessors made. Also, China isn't really a good example as it is pretty much communist in name only. Furthermore, sure there are problems in Greece, but what about France, Germany, Denmark, etc? They are included in the happiest countries in the world. As far as "complacency" you're going to have to actually find an example of it on a mass scale instead of just a hypothetical situation. You're argument smacks of those Republicans saying we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because that would make them "complacent" when only 1% of the unemployed, if that, actually didn't look for a job.

To respond to your argument, if your talking about the US economy this whole mess was caused by government regulation in the banking industry.  They forced banks to loan money to unqualified people, they subsidized those bad loans, and when the economy crashed (housing bubble), they came in and helped us recover, how? by taxing people who make money and giving it to those that dont, all the while they are presenting themselves as the saviors!  Hail the government come to save us, but they are the ones that started this mess in the first place.  I also dont care which administration started it either democrat republican doesnt matter its corrupt either way.  Its like you and your friends sitting at a restaurant eating, you work your IT job and get lots of money, and he works at Dennys and makes a little money, you both order the same hamburger but the management comes up to you and says oh, your friend doesn't make as much as you, so you have to pay 1/2 of his burger.  Then they take your money go over to your friend and say HERE look what we have for you, we are going to pay for 1/2 your burger cuz your special ^_^b.  Wow gee thanks management of the restaurant your so swell.... oh we forgot to mention, their is a small administrative fee for giving you this money, so we will take a bit of it ok ^_^b.

Thats the reality we live in now, does that seem fair to you? DOES IT REALLY SEEM FAIR THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKES YOUR MONEY GIVES IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, ALL THE WHILE THEY GET THE PRAISE AND SMILES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT GET IT, NOT YOU.   Also, what happens when they become successful and their money gets taken away.... you might see things differently. 

See i was born in the USSR, thats right, the USSR where the government had to decide how much pantyhose was allowed per household.  Distribution of wealth is not a good idea in any country simply because you are taking away from people who are successful (punishing success) and giving to those that aren't.  I am sure in your studies of typical animal behavior you know that if you get the shock plate enough times you stop trying to get the pellet.  Well it works for humans too.  Everytime you do good you get slapped with more and more taxes you decide, forget this, and leave the country WITH your money and business and go elsewhere were you dont get punished for success.  Why do you think all these companies are outsourcing or leaving all together, why do you think we cannot compete in the first place?  Taxes, government regulations, and all out corruption.  You follow your system and we wont have any jobs anyway for people to be employed in, then the government will simply make jobs for you to do, but you wont have a choice on whether you want to do them or not, you want money, you will do them.

By the way i am not a republican so dont even think of calling me one, i am also not a democrat.  I am open minded and try to see both sides and take a look at the solutions through historical data and come to my own conclusions, however i lean a little liberal on social issues and i am dead conservative on fiscal. 

The reason no one can find a job is because the government solution to the recession is to tax the business (and people) that create jobs... then provide temporary government employment which is subsidized by those tax dollars, oh did i forget we simply print more money to make the value of our currency more and more worthless....  Eventually the companies will continue to do worse until finally there is no money for the temporary employees... then the government will be in a whole world of hurt and so will we.  You think you have seen recession you havent seen anything yet, this is just the tip of the iceberg.  If you have ever worked in a government subsidized position then you know that the government by nature is dreadfully inefficient with tax funds, wasteful spending is built into the system because you are punished for efficiency and innovation, let me give you this example:  Once a branch for my school is nearing the end of the year (i teach by the way in college), we find ways to spend all the money in our budget because if we dont, it will be taken away next year so spending when we dont need to is the name of the game, all government is based on this, ALL OF IT.  How can you hope to offer efficient services when wastefulness is a built in reward for the system? 

As for the European countries sure, they are happy, the government is subsidizing their lives, but guess what.... they are running out of money, and just like greece they will fall, but their wont be anyone who can save them if they eventually all fall.  Your Utopian socialist state can only exist if the benefits offered to citizens do not exceed the actual amounts brought in my taxes, and taxes are a double edged sword.  If you tax to much your economy suffers, tax too little you have to cut programs.  Only in a state of balance can your vision of socialism work, but no one has gotten it right simply because of the failings of the human condition.... we want power, and absolute power corrupts does it not... greed, selfishness, that is the downfall of any civilization, free or socialist, its just that in a free society we have more outside controls to prevent it from getting out of hand as rapidly.  Take a look at this before you look at those happy European nations:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5515912,00.html

yeah, most are nearing bankruptcy, like Greece.  The US isnt immune either, but who will bail us out?

So to sum up, socialism doesn't work (historically this is accurate), more freedom means more prosperity (yes you have the freedom to fail or succeed its your call), the government's roll is protection only within and without (not to provide you with health care), i think i got all of it... so now i expect everybody to pile up put me down, yes I am a corporate fat cat and evil, well sorry that wont work, i dont have a lot of money, i live with roommates, i am in debt, but working my way out of it, and i drive an accent not a bmw, and in 5 years i will have enough investments to retire, because i give up luxuries today to have an easier life later.  My parents came here with nothing, now they have 2 homes and no debt, my dad worked his ass off for it, and so we could have a better life.  If transition has told me anything, its that nothing is given to you, you got to get off your ass and do it yourself. 


Post Merge: August 02, 2010, 06:45:26 PM

Quote from: Anthrogal on August 02, 2010, 04:42:32 PM
Actually, the rich that "deserve" their wealth are an extreme minority in that 1%. Most of it is old money through inheritance. Like any basic sociology class will tell you, that 1% are largely living off what their predecessors made. Also, China isn't really a good example as it is pretty much communist in name only. Furthermore, sure there are problems in Greece, but what about France, Germany, Denmark, etc? They are included in the happiest countries in the world. As far as "complacency" you're going to have to actually find an example of it on a mass scale instead of just a hypothetical situation. You're argument smacks of those Republicans saying we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because that would make them "complacent" when only 1% of the unemployed, if that, actually didn't look for a job.

Also i forgot to mention, what i do with my money when i die should be my business so those people who inherited wealth, deserve it too, why should you get something someone's dad worked hard for, someone down the line had to do something for that wealth after all and my kids deserve it more then you do, or anyone else.  That being said, i wouldnt give it to a kid thats a scumbag though.... I would give it to charity first, and some millionaires actually have.
  •  



tekla

Actually, if you follow the numbers, it was caused by the DEregulation of the banking industry, particularly the revocation of huge sections of the Glass-Steagall Act, but hey, don't the facts get in the way of your argument.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Izumi

Quote from: tekla on August 02, 2010, 07:09:41 PM
Actually, if you follow the numbers, it was caused by the DEregulation of the banking industry, particularly the revocation of huge sections of the Glass-Steagall Act, but hey, don't the facts get in the way of your argument.

Sorry argument isnt invalidated by it, my original argument is that government causes more problems then they fix, and as you can see they dont know what they are doing, the Glass-Steagall act is just one.  However take a look at the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers.

Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

And this little problem was caused by REGULATION not DE-Regulation.  So the government De-Regulates, it causes problems, they regulate it causes problems, do you see a pattern here.... Government causes problems not solutions, and that is a historically accurate statement, if you dont believe me why do we have such an enormous deficit and doing nothing to repay it.  Any company can see financial stability through the balancing of their books, the government's books havent balanced for decades.

I mean even if you step back and think of it logically why would a bank make loans to people they know cannot pay? Its like committing financial suicide.  A bank makes money on the interest payed on loans, they dont make money on owning houses, and typically lose money when a house is repossessed, especial in a buyers market like now.  No bank would do this for any reason, unless forced too from outside, or unless the people working there are so incredibly stupid they dont know what they are doing. 
  •  

insideontheoutside

Hey this was a fascinating topic ... until the derailment when it started getting all political and I was going, "la la la la" in my head and scrolling and hoping to read more about the original topic ;) No worries though, I've hijacked some threads in my time.

Anyway ... interesting. And I was just thinking this week about how much the society we live in is actually responsible for most of our "issues". If someone feels more comfortable in one gender role but most of society still does not see them like that it causes a problem. There are a small percentage of people in any given society that are open-minded and not swayed by the herd mentality. The problem is that the herd mentality has been going on for thousands of years. Back in the time of the earliest homo sapiens (and what pre-dated even them) roles were defined out of necessity, as has already been mentioned. It was probably not a prejudice that drove those decisions. Over time and the evolution of culture in a society that has changed.

What if the only time "gender" actually mattered was to procreate? How different would our society be? That's a whole other tangent, but seriously, the way most of us grow up is in a binary-gender world. Everything is set up to be either male or female. Small steps have been made in our culture. Just because a women puts on a man's shirt, she's no longer a cross-dresser (although I think a man who prefers womens underwear is still called one - so even those small steps have their own problems). I hope I live to see days where guys can openly wear make up if they choose to, there's no longer an issue about gay marriage, if people want to change their gender for whatever reason they can do so and it is accepted, and lots of other things. I'm not sure I will because it seems to me there's such a small percentage of people who aren't really as accepting as they say they are and changing society's views as a whole is not going to be easy to do. Like I said these gender roles have been in place for a very long time.
"Let's conspire to ignite all the souls that would die just to feel alive."
  •  

lilacwoman

Quote from: insideontheoutside on August 10, 2010, 08:39:12 PM
Hey this was a fascinating topic ... until the derailment

we are all descended from Adam and Eve which is why any man on the planet can mate - or at least provide the sperm - to father offspiing with any woman - the derailment was caused by a serpent on the track.

It took a few generations before TSism raised its ugly head but no doubt Adam had his offspring come to him and recount tales of how the great-great-grandkid had been caught crossdressing
  •