Why are People Homophobic?

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, but it wouldn't matter if you feel like a man or a woman, or if you are of the male or female sex. It would simply be a negligible characteristic of you, like hair or eye color.

The entire world is geared towards gender differences. Most people feel this naturally. I believe that it is largely something that you are born with. Because, gosh, I felt like a boy from my earliest memories and I was attracted to girls from a pretty early age too. By tearing this down you create an awful lot of harmful confusion. You don't have the right to meddle in these things.

They are too important to be negligible.

Obviously you remember feeling attached to your gender roles from a young age. Most studies say the internalization of our gender scripts happens around 2 years of age.

Just because you've been raised in an environment where you're taught "Boys are like this because they're boys" and "Girls are like this because they're girls" does not make it the truth.

[Polruan]

Oh yes and, since the thread is ostensibly homophobia, if femininity and masculinity were just social engineering, wouldn't feminine men just "act masculine"? But they don't, which causes them a lot of problems. Clearly it's something inbuilt in them.

Far-left doublethink is amusing. Sexuality is inbuilt, but anything else to do with sexual psychology is brainwashing by the Man!

[New England and The Maritimes]

Oh yes and, since the thread is ostensibly homophobia, if femininity and masculinity were just social engineering, wouldn't feminine men just "act masculine"? But they don't, which causes them a lot of problems. Clearly it's something inbuilt in them.

Far-left doublethink is amusing. Sexuality is inbuilt, but anything else to do with sexual psychology is brainwashing by the Man!

I don't think anything is 100% inbuilt or engineered. It's a mix of the two with a heavy emphasis on environmental factors for some things, and a heavy emphasis on internal factors for others. Just because you can read conservapedia's articles on sexuality does not mean you're an expert, and your equivocation of gender roles with sexuality is pretty telling in that regard.

[Pauper Kings]

Wow.

So any feelings of masculinity I have are false? They are unnatural? I don't believe in the being taught masculinity meme/crap.

Masculinity is merely the product of society. The only "manly" thing about a man is their penis and testicles. The only "womanly" thing about a woman is her vagina, breasts, and ability to give birth. The only "purpose" for a man is to reproduce. the only "purpose" for a woman is to reproduce. anything else can be done and enjoyed y either sex, and therefore, inherently belongs to neither. Anything other than sex and biology is socially engineered. You may not believe it, but it's true.

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

[Pauper Kings]

The entire world is geared towards gender differences. Most people feel this naturally. I believe that it is largely something that you are born with. Because, gosh, I felt like a boy from my earliest memories and I was attracted to girls from a pretty early age too. By tearing this down you create an awful lot of harmful confusion. You don't have the right to meddle in these things.

They are too important to be negligible.

Obviously you remember feeling attached to your gender roles from a young age. Most studies say the internalization of our gender scripts happens around 2 years of age.

Just because you've been raised in an environment where you're taught "Boys are like this because they're boys" and "Girls are like this because they're girls" does not make it the truth.

I wasn't taught that. In fact, I had plenty of reason not to want to be like many of the men and boys I knew, not so great. I was far more attached to my mother and sisters and loved to hang out with them and their friends. No orders to be manly ever popped up.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Masculinity is merely the product of society. The only "manly" thing about a man is their penis and testicles. The only "womanly" thing about a woman is her vagina, breasts, and ability to give birth. The only "purpose" for a man is to reproduce. the only "purpose" for a woman is to reproduce. anything else can be done and enjoyed y either sex, and therefore, inherently belongs to neither. Anything other than sex and biology is socially engineered. You may not believe it, but it's true.

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

R.W. Connell found there were no intrinsic connections between biological sex and gender role. I'll take his word over yours.

[Coccygia]

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

R.W. Connell found there were no intrinsic connections between biological sex and gender role. I'll take his word over yours.

Don't you mean her word? Connell is transgendered!

[Pauper Kings]

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

R.W. Connell found there were no intrinsic connections between biological sex and gender role. I'll take his word over yours.

Because you can link to and repeat ad-nauseum every liberal talking point in the world doesn't make you an expert. In fact, being gay doesn't make you at all an expert on gender or sexuality. But you keep implying such. I'm the one that actually believes people are far more complex than you do. They can't always be manipulated so easily.

[Polruan]

I don't think anything is 100% inbuilt or engineered. It's a mix of the two with a heavy emphasis on environmental factors for some things, and a heavy emphasis on internal factors for others. Just because you can read conservapedia's articles on sexuality does not mean you're an expert, and your equivocation of gender roles with sexuality is pretty telling in that regard.

What bubble do you live in where not subscribing to something I have no reason to believe in and is inconsistent makes me some kind of dumb hick?

R.W. Connell found there were no intrinsic connections between biological sex and gender role. I'll take his word over yours

Yeah cos it's only me saying this, it's not like it's something everyone who raises kids knows

If this Connell is transgendered then that invalidates his point. As I said earlier, if sex and gender psychology aren't connected (boys pretend to be soldiers and girls play with dolls because of the Man lol you could not make this up) then gender identity disorder is an impossibility.

[New England and The Maritimes]

R.W. Connell found there were no intrinsic connections between biological sex and gender role. I'll take his word over yours.

Don't you mean her word? Connell is transgendered!

The reference was from her study in 1987 on the subject, pronouns weren't given. >.>

[Sovereign Oppression]

Masculinity is merely the product of society. The only "manly" thing about a man is their penis and testicles. The only "womanly" thing about a woman is her vagina, breasts, and ability to give birth. The only "purpose" for a man is to reproduce. the only "purpose" for a woman is to reproduce. anything else can be done and enjoyed y either sex, and therefore, inherently belongs to neither. Anything other than sex and biology is socially engineered. You may not believe it, but it's true.

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

We don't know that, because we've ever lived in a society where men were raised like women, and vice versa. From birth, children are bombarded with stereotypes. Boys are given blue decorations, girls, pink.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Oh yes and, since the thread is ostensibly homophobia, if femininity and masculinity were just social engineering, wouldn't feminine men just "act masculine"? But they don't, which causes them a lot of problems. Clearly it's something inbuilt in them.

Far-left doublethink is amusing. Sexuality is inbuilt, but anything else to do with sexual psychology is brainwashing by the Man!

It is inbuilt. However, it's not necessarily attached to genitalia. Everyone's basic behavioral traits are a combination of genetics and environment. The problem is not with propositions like ""Femininity and masculinity exist." The problem is with statements like "All men must be masculine and all women must be feminine." Surely there exist a spectrum of behaviors that we've labeled "feminine" and one which we've labeled "masculine." It is also true that people have inclinations toward various behaviors from some mixture of both camps. What's not true is that all men only have masculine traits and all women only have feminine traits. That's learned, not innate. The labeling of which traits are masculine and which are feminine is also largely a social construct.

The behaviors are real and mostly innate. The labels and expectations are not. See?

[Pauper Kings]

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

We don't know that, because we've ever lived in a society where men were raised like women, and vice versa. From birth, children are bombarded with stereotypes. Boys are given blue decorations, girls, pink.

I'm not even certain that infants can see clearly at birth and some beyond to pick out color schemes and design. Much less attach importance to them.

[Sovereign Oppression]

My point is that everything about us is biological so you cannot separate psychology from biology. Small boys do not overwhelmingly choose to make guns and swords out of everything they can lay their hands on because some intangible, nebulous force told them to do it. Just like I don't fancy men because the liberal media put the idea in my head.

Some things about us are biological. Most things are socially engineered. I've already provided evidence for my side. Can you do the same?

As a really random example that should not be necessary for anyone with the slightest observation skills, I just read an account of Sioux life by an old Sioux man in which he said something about the intimacy of nomad life necessitating that the greatest warrior would show "feminine refinement". If the idea of masculinity and femininty is common to pretty much the whole world, how can it be social engineering? Social engineering plays a part in everything, that doesn't mean everything's caused by it. Do people find disease disgusting because the powers that be told us to?

I'm not sure what you were trying to say in this babble, but are you talking about a nomadic couple, and how they assigned gender roles? That's still social engineering. They're nomadic, probably raised by family with gender stereotypes.

[Sovereign Oppression]

We don't know that, because we've ever lived in a society where men were raised like women, and vice versa. From birth, children are bombarded with stereotypes. Boys are given blue decorations, girls, pink.

I'm not even certain that infants can see clearly at birth and some beyond to pick out color schemes and design. Much less attach importance to them.

You missed the point. They're raised in those surroundings.

[Galla-]

People have tendencies and traits that are more common in one gender or/than the other. I have yet to see any societal 'engineering' being done that isn't a reaction to the interests and preferences of that member of said gender. Most engineering isn't the cause but the effect. It's not engineering but a reaction to what already exists in that boy or girl.

Flexible, yes. Completely fluid, no.

We don't know that, because we've ever lived in a society where men were raised like women, and vice versa. From birth, children are bombarded with stereotypes. Boys are given blue decorations, girls, pink.

60 years ago it was the opposite. Pink is a very masculine color. It denotes virility, being red, and strength. Blue is feminine, because it is associated with the Virgin Mary.

[Sovereign Oppression]

We don't know that, because we've ever lived in a society where men were raised like women, and vice versa. From birth, children are bombarded with stereotypes. Boys are given blue decorations, girls, pink.

60 years ago it was the opposite. Pink is a very masculine color. It denotes virility, being red, and strength. Blue is feminine, because it is associated with the Virgin Mary.

Congrats. This only serves to emphasize my point. It's society.

[Pauper Kings]

I'm not even certain that infants can see clearly at birth and some beyond to pick out color schemes and design. Much less attach importance to them.

You missed the point. They're raised in those surroundings.

I used to wear a pink shirt that I picked out for myself at 13 or 14. It didn't mean anything one way or the other to me. It was just a shirt I liked. I was pretty headstrong and chose what I chose. I was still a very masculine boy. Colors and trappings don't do much unless the kid is relentlessly, abusively conditioned. It's difficult to kill the essential person inside. It will pop back up in some way.

[Sovereign Oppression]

You missed the point. They're raised in those surroundings.

I used to wear a pink shirt that I picked out for myself at 13 or 14. It didn't mean anything one way or the other to me. It was just a shirt I liked. I was pretty headstrong and chose what I chose. I was still a very masculine boy. Colors and trappings don't do much unless the kid is relentlessly, abusively conditioned. It's difficult to kill the essential person inside. It will pop back up in some way.

Congrats. You broke free from societal influence, and learned to not care, and just do as you please.

This still only supports what I'm saying.

[Gauthier]

I used to wear a pink shirt that I picked out for myself at 13 or 14. It didn't mean anything one way or the other to me. It was just a shirt I liked. I was pretty headstrong and chose what I chose. I was still a very masculine boy. Colors and trappings don't do much unless the kid is relentlessly, abusively conditioned. It's difficult to kill the essential person inside. It will pop back up in some way.

Congrats. You broke free from societal influence, and learned to not care, and just do as you please.

This still only supports what I'm saying.

All he has to do is vote Republican in 2012 and if one gets into the White House, they'll be sure to establish a Gaystapo in short order.

[Pauper Kings]

I used to wear a pink shirt that I picked out for myself at 13 or 14. It didn't mean anything one way or the other to me. It was just a shirt I liked. I was pretty headstrong and chose what I chose. I was still a very masculine boy. Colors and trappings don't do much unless the kid is relentlessly, abusively conditioned. It's difficult to kill the essential person inside. It will pop back up in some way.

Congrats. You broke free from societal influence, and learned to not care, and just do as you please.

This still only supports what I'm saying.

In no sense does that support your assertions.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Congrats. You broke free from societal influence, and learned to not care, and just do as you please.

This still only supports what I'm saying.

All he has to do is vote Republican in 2012 and if one gets into the White House, they'll be sure to establish a Gaystapo in short order.

Are you referring to me?

[Pauper Kings]

Congrats. You broke free from societal influence, and learned to not care, and just do as you please.

This still only supports what I'm saying.

All he has to do is vote Republican in 2012 and if one gets into the White House, they'll be sure to establish a Gaystapo in short order.

Ha! They don' t have the guts to make any real changes of any sort. Cute though.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Congrats. You broke free from societal influence, and learned to not care, and just do as you please.

This still only supports what I'm saying.

In no sense does that support your assertions.

You chose pink, when the "femin" color is pink. This shows that femininity is merely a product of society, as with masculinity. You broke away from these behavior patterns.

[Gauthier]

All he has to do is vote Republican in 2012 and if one gets into the White House, they'll be sure to establish a Gaystapo in short order.

Are you referring to me?

Of course not.