Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Arx]

Obviously I am not Dwarfy, but IIRC he's fairly traditional and would like a biological legacy, something that is, not always, but frequently, incompatible with LGBT children, one way or another.

[ggamer]

biological imperatives to spread a genetic lineage + longstanding traditions ostracizing "other" groups that recently (as in past 60 years recently) have focused in on homosexuals & the greater lgbt community. when conditioned from birth to identify with the tribe, finding out your own offspring does not conform in a way that your subconscious feels falls in line with the "other" triggers a visceral reaction. The link between religion and this reaction is just an attempt by some folks to find a justification for it.

Do what you want, dwarfy, but remember in our society lineage in spirit is the exact same as lineage in fact. A child being adopted - and therefore not related by blood - would not make them any less of a grandchild.

[Trekkin]

Obviously I am not Dwarfy, but IIRC he's fairly traditional and would like a biological legacy, something that is, not always, but frequently, incompatible with LGBT children, one way or another.

I've certainly heard that reasoning before, but I can't say I've ever understood it. Genes don't control nearly as much as people like to think, so even if someone's arrogant enough to think they embody all the best heritable traits of humanity, their kids are still going to regress toward the mean as often as not, even if they were clonally propagated. We've got all kinds of stupid biological imperatives left over from our evolutionary history; why preserve this one?

[Teneb]

Do what you want, dwarfy, but remember in our society lineage in spirit is the exact same as lineage in fact. A child being adopted - and therefore not related by blood - would not make them any less of a grandchild.

Historically, in many societies (mainly non-Abrahamic ones), adopted children were often seen as better than biological ones. The reasoning being that a biological child was simply born into your family, while an adopted one had to have some worth in order to join it.

What I mean is: I think it's a silly stance, but I doubt I'm changing anyone's mind.

[TD1]

Obviously I am not Dwarfy, but IIRC he's fairly traditional and would like a biological legacy, something that is, not always, but frequently, incompatible with LGBT children, one way or another.

Nicely remembered! I often think this generation does not suit me. In fact, I think my family jumped a generation anyway. My paternal granny was, after all, born in 1904.

Biological legacy is very important to me. As ggamer points out, however, I know that one can be just as emotionally attached to an adopted child - indeed, I'd say that, personally, I would absolutely love any child. I'm a bit of a compassionate sucker - but in the grander scheme a biological line matters to me. I'd suggest part of that is the fact that my family has held the same land (with some bits added) for over four hundred years. The same name, the same line, my family. The oak tree in front of the house was planted by a direct ancestor.

Actually, that reminds me of something I wrote a few years ago. No need to read it, don't worry

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Well known in day, a glowing thing
That housed a million childish thoughts.
The tree house I would build
To straddle limbs as wide as I was tall;
Thwarted at the onset by my father's voice
Calling from out the darkness of the past -
That tree was planted by a pair of hands
You never knew, yet which beget you.
Never in life will I allow a harm be brought on it.

And so it grew in peace, and never felt the thorns
Of childish fancy. Nor would I wish it to,
For many years it has stood sentinel
And seen the shifting seasons shift the house
Through shape and size, followed by people
So achingly similar to those it first knew,
And who first planted it, an English Oak,
With heartfelt pleas to God that as it grew
So too would all their line into prosperity.
Many before me climbed its boughs
Or sheltered there.

And yet tonight, such a familiar thing
Was seen but through one single shade of hue
To change it from its known-of course.
It seemed to bow before the element,
To show how permanence is transience
And hope is dust, but that it stands
Yet and will do so until the time
When sorrow twists the faces of the endless
Altered generations, who loved it well.
It stood framed by man's brick and mortar,
It stood highlighted by the blazing of the stars,
The deepness of the darkness. It was a tree
And yet it was more. Ineffable, indescribable, but true.
It was mysterious and familiar both in one,
Yet it was neither. May the grave claim me
Before it falls into misuse, for
Never in life will I allow a harm be brought on it.

We've got all kinds of stupid biological imperatives left over from our evolutionary history; why preserve this one?

Do as thou wilt, but hurt no one.

Why?  Why should the desire for more of what they have, the desire to have what they were not born with, or even-- the lack of desire at all (as in my case) be anything to be disturbed over?

People get bent out of shape over the strangest things, I swear.

So yes, biology is a very large part of it. Another part is my personal philosophy. Religion, for me, is a lie. I would never attempt to change the opinions of others in this regard - religion does not necessarily hurt people, and if someone wants to be religious then by all means. Any argument I engage in concerning religion is purely motivated by academic interest.

I do not agree with the central premise of much LGBT culture - namely, that one can change sex. If you define gender as an internalised view of oneself, then sure you can change gender. But sex is a physical attribute. "I identify as a woman, ergo I am a woman" makes as much sense to me as "I identify as a dog, ergo I am a dog."

If a child of mine were to be deeply religious, it would disturb me. I don't agree with many faiths' central tenets demanding obedience or expulsion. It is built on a lie. Likewise, if my child were to be transgender then they would be, to me, living a lie. It would make me uncomfortable.

So - the L, G and possibly B of LGBT have their own problems. Likewise with the T.

I understand that this is akin to going onto a Christian forum and posting "God doesn't exist!" but I'll trust to Bay12's maturity and ability to tolerate multiple points of view.

Do what you want, dwarfy, but remember in our society lineage in spirit is the exact same as lineage in fact. A child being adopted - and therefore not related by blood - would not make them any less of a grandchild.

Historically, in many societies (mainly non-Abrahamic ones), adopted children were often seen as better than biological ones. The reasoning being that a biological child was simply born into your family, while an adopted one had to have some worth in order to join it.

What I mean is: I think it's a silly stance, but I doubt I'm changing anyone's mind.

The Chinese (Japanese, maybe?) did that, didn't they? Anyway, my reasons for wanting a biological lineage are outlined above. It's not a case of valuing the child. I'd happily adopt, so long as my family line continues with its inheritance as well.

[Trekkin]

I do not agree with the central premise of much LGBT culture - namely, that one can change sex. If you define gender as an internalised view of oneself, then sure you can change gender. But sex is a physical attribute. "I identify as a woman, ergo I am a woman" makes as much sense to me as "I identify as a dog, ergo I am a dog."

What's it a physical attribute of, though? If it's the ability to bear children, then sex is conditioned on fertility, and I think we'd agree that, say, a postmenopausal woman is still a woman. If it's chromosomes, we're going to run into problems with Klinefelter and Turner syndromes among all the other ways to adjust the pathway from genes through development to secondary and even primary sexual characteristics, and for the same reason we probably don't want to pick any specific type of anatomy to condition sex on. There's just no clear way to say what does and does not define sex, so ultimately we're making an arbitrary decision either way.

If someone says they're a woman because that's what their brain tells them, how is neurochemistry less physical than endocrine chemistry?

[McTraveller]

I will lead with I do think there there is value in making distinctions between physical sex/gender and social gender.  They are different concepts.

However - when it comes to defining physical sex, we should use this test:  If an anthropologist dug up your bones, how would they classify your skeleton?

Using corner cases like infertility I think is disingenuous; it's just throwing up smokescreens.  I mean, prepubescent humans aren't sexless, and they aren't fertile.

[TD1]

Sex:

either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"
synonyms: gender

XXX
I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.

[smjjames]

I will lead with I do think there there is value in making distinctions between physical sex/gender and social gender.  They are different concepts.

However - when it comes to defining physical sex, we should use this test:  If an anthropologist dug up your bones, how would they classify your skeleton?

Using corner cases like infertility I think is disingenuous; it's just throwing up smokescreens.  I mean, prepubescent humans aren't sexless, and they aren't fertile.

If you're looking for a 'perfect' test, even that isn't perfect. Telling the sex of a pre-adolescent is much harder because the dimorphism hasn't shown up yet or is subtle.

If someone has some genetic disorder, that might cloud it. I don't know if and I don't think there ever has been a study of the sex of skeletons of people who were gender ambigous or homosexual.

Plus, I feel like that method is going to run into an ethics wall because it starts encroaching onto eugenics once you start using that to justify things like religion and politics.

[Trekkin]

I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.

Not to be a pedant, but if all else were well, wouldn't a trans woman have ovaries and a uterus and so forth and therefore be able to fulfill a female reproductive role?

[smjjames]

I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.

Not to be a pedant, but if all else were well, wouldn't a trans woman have ovaries and a uterus and so forth and therefore be able to fulfill a female reproductive role?

You mean male to female or female to male? For male to female, that'd be no. Tthough there was a successful uterus transplant some while ago, I doubt it's a common thing at this point and theres the usual problems/risks associated with a transplant. For female to male, I have no idea, removing the uterus and ovaries might be part of the procedure.

What about those who are infertile for various reasons, how would that be handled? No matter what method is chosen, theres always going to be some outliers because nature doesn't operate on an absolute binary.

[TD1]

I suppose I'd define it as the reproductive role one would perform, if all else were well. Though I suppose some thought concerning outliers should be made.

Not to be a pedant, but if all else were well, wouldn't a trans woman have ovaries and a uterus and so forth and therefore be able to fulfill a female reproductive role?

All else is well with a "transwoman." They have all the features required to place them as male or female under the aforementioned definition.

A few examples following your example - "all else being well, a lion would be a tiger." "All else being well, the man who thinks himself to be Einstein would be Einstein."

[Trekkin]

And what of a woman who has had all of those parts removed for medical purposes rather than gender matters?

We brought that up earlier. Those are "outliers" not to be considered, apparently.

You mean male to female or female to male?

As a point of clarification, a trans woman is a woman who was assigned a different gender at birth -- and it is two words.

[ggamer]

It's not something I really understand. Although, I think it's important to note that me not understanding trans folks doesn't affect my view on them. I support those of my friends in the midst of transitioning, even though I don't know why they're doing it. It must take a lot of guts, honestly. The assertion of the ego over the id is a herculean effort, one that takes many years. There's a consistent stereotype of transsexuals as clearly-male/clearly-female-but-cross-dressing, and I think that's pretty disingenuous. I've been led to believe that HRT done early enough results in someone being close enough to their target gender that the difference is academic.

Basically, I don't get it and I don't think I need to, for me to respect and support someone going thru that process. I get where you're coming from though, dwarfy. it's a pretty complicated issue. I figure as long as your views don't affect anyone trans then it's all copacetic.

[TD1]

And what of a woman who has had all of those parts removed for medical purposes rather than gender matters?

I actually don't understand your question. Would you mind clarifying? A woman with all her parts removed (heavens forbid) does not become sexless, or somehow change sex. The reproductive role one would follow naturally and which forms the basis for ascribing sex has been interrupted, that is all. A transitioning transexual has often similarly interrupted their path in an attempt to make the outer body conform to the inner gender. Another example is elderly women. Because they are incapable of bearing children (indeed, because a great physical change has overtaken them, including the absence of ova) they do not become sexless.

But I don't know if that answers your question - sorry. I'm probably just being dense

We brought that up earlier. Those are "outliers" not to be considered, apparently.

I explicitly said that outliers should be considered, but... sure?

I figure as long as your views don't affect anyone trans then it's all copacetic.

Oh, certainly. It can discomfort me as much as it is capable of, but people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. I suppose the question is at what age people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.