Print

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

[Harry Baldman]

I personally feel that any sexuality except bisexuality is a bit artificial. You don't have to be exclusively heterosexual to be reproducing. Like, I enjoy males but I don't see whybI would wilt and die if I expressed affections to a female.

I'm just saying this because I just feel heterosexual people tend to be very paranoid about appearing gay.

The reason heterosexual people tend to be very paranoid about appearing gay is that there used to be a much stronger stigma against being gay than there is now (and even now you'd likely be laughed out for suggesting that we've solved the issue of homophobia). Appearing gay when you're not (or worse, when you actually are a little bit or maybe even a lot) is associated with the possibility of being rejected from your group, and that is the deepest fear of a lot of people. Remove this stigma or qualify it with something (such as a hearty game of gay chicken) and the fear is very much alleviated.

Being really into one sex but not the other is still very much a thing, though, even if you can break out the argument that very few people are into exclusively just one sex (even if a whole lot of people are only into one sex overwhelmingly enough that the other one doesn't really do it for them mostly). Part of it is a matter of identification, of course. There's certain gay circles that decry bisexuality as not really a thing, and here it might be that the fear is reversed into appearing straight, because this would exclude them from the group designated 'gay', and the ability to exclude other people from their group is as much appreciated on this end as it is on the other. Of course, if you're a bisexual, the sensible response is to reject such attitudes - I mean, like, whatever, their group was totally gay anyway.

[Neonivek]

I do wonder if "violent heterosexuality" is natural or not though.

[hops]

I think that's an extension of testosterone poisoning.

[Jimmy]

All I can say as a white, male, heterosexual, educated, middle class english speaker is hooray for winning the genetic lottery!

Given that I currently assist in helping a transgender person undergo gender reassignment therapy, I definitely value my own lot in life.

[Reelya]

I can't really get things from Neonivek's point of view. If someone who has a complete sex change (by modern standards) from male to female isn't a woman, what are they then? They certainly don't fit very well with a checklist of things that society uses to delineate the "man" concept.

CAH sufferers have XY chromosomes but appear female their whole lives. They grow in the womb as females. The only thing they lack is working ovaries (or working testes for males), so they can't give birth. Other than that, they're physically and brain-wiring of the gender they appear as. Salamanders change gender without changing chromosomes. We do the same thing via technology. Does that fact that we evolved enough to create the sex-change technology through science make it less "real" than when salamanders do it? So "chromosomes" is a poor argument for sex.

We could argue that to be truly one gender you need to be able to reproduce. But where does that leave infertile people? Are they non-sexed? Seems a bit ridiculous, and we don't make that sort of claim, scientifically of any other species.

So the "chromosomes" argument doesn't work, and neither does the "reproduction" argument.

[Neonivek]

It isn't either of those Reelya.

Though to admit Gene-Therapy would be a great boon to the procedure if we could ever perfect it... and I am of the opinion, albeit a unpopular one, that if we ever get the technology to allow men to become pregnant that men (even Cis men) would volunteer for it.

[Reelya]

Well what is the basis of your claim then if it's not chromosomes or reproductive?

Does it really boil down to you just can't view them as a woman?

[hops]

All I can say as a white, male, heterosexual, educated, middle class english speaker is hooray for winning the genetic lottery!

Given that I currently assist in helping a transgender person undergo gender reassignment therapy, I definitely value my own lot in life.

As an upper class, honk.

[Neonivek]

Well what is the basis of your claim then if it's not chromosomes or reproductive?

Does it really boil down to you just can't view them as a woman?

It isn't that either.

It isn't reproductive, genetic, or based on appearances.

The person was a woman before they even got the surgery (well, unless they weren't until they did but that is just technicalities at this point).

[hops]

Would you classify sex as the christian name equivalent of gender? So it's the gender you're born with, and even when your gender change, your sex is still what you were born with.

[Harry Baldman]

I think elaborating on what exactly you mean would be more productive than playing 20 questions, Neon.

[Neonivek]

Would you classify sex as the christian name equivalent of gender? So it's the gender you're born with, and even when your gender change, your sex is still what you were born with.

I do believe sexes can be changed... But I believe more must be done then cosmetics and hormone balancing. (which in some situations... Ok yeah they did change their sex)

Organ transplants, gene therapy, stem cells, "advanced flesh molding", something. Whether or not they are capable of reproduction and whether or not they are lost afterward. That is my requirement where I'd give it to sex change.

If they are already doing those... Then yeah I am completely mistaken and yeah you totally can have sex change operations now without the exception I vaguely allude to.

I know it isn't something we are far away from. We can already do most of it, I just wonder if it is widely available as it is as some of those procedures can cost upwards of $100,000 dollars.

I think elaborating on what exactly you mean would be more productive than playing 20 questions, Neon.

I don't want to be trampled and killed. I am hesitating.

[Phmcw]

I find this part of the discussion pointless since it depend on how you define "sex" and it itself should depend on your conceptual need for the situation.

You can define "sex" as the chromosomal arrangement, as the current look of the body (body type and sexual organs),...

For identification purpose, the second one makes sense, for instance. If you're doing something that has to do with genetics the first one would makes sense.

[Reelya]

Man Neo, it's a lot like you're trolling for attention:

"I don't believe sex changes change your sex" with no explanation. What else could that be interpreted as other than "I am a bigot!".

Then after everyone justly piles on to criticize you, and ask for clarification, you say "they were a woman all along! j/k!" except you don't "j/k" you act like a martyr.

Seriously, if you say something that's quite clearly in line with what bigots say then refuse to elaborate on it, and just do a 180 later and say you meant something completely different, and do a little sob story about how people misinterpreted you, nobody has the responsibility to take you seriously after that.

[TempAcc]

:U nah, its just they tend to be more vocal here, but many are active in the community in general, specially in the forum games section.