Non-binary genders

[New Naephak]

And your point is???
I feel this argument is more about how squicky it is to you, instead of anything meaningful.

So you admit it sexualizes animals then (that are really sentient I promise!!!)

Sure.
What's wrong with sexualising animals?

[Susurruses]

You do realise that comparisons to literal paedophilia and bestiality were the same arguments proposed against homosexuality, right?
(And I'm not talking historically, I'm talking quotes from Judge Scalia)

And?

Seriously, and? I fail to see the relevance here, when it's literally comparable to bestiality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is not, there's no real connection. Gay porn doesn't promote anything other than gayness, doesn't sexualize anything any more than porn already does.

Furry porn sexualizes animals. Child porn sexualizes children.

Drawn or real, doesn't really matter, though in the latter case a crime has been committed.

Let's ignore legality for a second and discuss the basis for such laws.
"Has someone been harmed by this, or could they be?"
If it's a drawing, no.
When it's consensual, no.
Involving adults entitled to make their own damn choices, also no.

It is not even remotely comparable to bestiality (it depicts humanoids, not beasts, and even when it does depict animals, it does not actually encourage or condone actual bestiality ), and regardless of all of that, it's still a fictional portrayal that is fantasy and not victimising anyone.

On a more important note, this has fuck all to do with the topic, so let's not derail any further, yes?

[Meryuma]

And your point is???
I feel this argument is more about how squicky it is to you, instead of anything meaningful.

So you admit it sexualizes animals then (that are really sentient I promise!!!)

Furries generally don't look like regular animals though. It's more like sexualizing werewolves than sexualizing wolves.

.

[Narlia]

Non-binary genders exist and that is all. They may not be recognized as much as male and female, but they undeniably exist. It may just take a while to become commonly accepted.

[Euroslavia]

Beastiality is NOT the topic here. Get back on topic please.

[Warda]

Beastiality is NOT the topic here. Get back on topic please.

whos the person in your flag?

[Grenartia]

Hi, I'm an androgyne, and I FUCKING EXIST!

No you don't. You're just a figment of my imagination. Now get back to your corner of my brain. It's getting dusty over there, and I need you to start cleaning up for once.

That's not dust...

Non-binary genders exist and that is all. They may not be recognized as much as male and female, but they undeniably exist. It may just take a while to become commonly accepted.

As somebody who is non-binary, I fucking hope its sooner rather than later.

[Zweite Alaje]

I have no clue what I believe concerning gender anymore, I'm completely lost on the topic.

[Breadknife]

bigender folks

I can't be the only person who instinctively reads that as "big-ender", instead of "bi-gender", the several times it's been mentioned here.

[Grenartia]

bigender folks

I can't be the only person who instinctively reads that as "big-ender", instead of "bi-gender", the several times it's been mentioned here.

Dammit. Now I keep thinking about how Ender's Game would've been different if there was a larger-than-normal Andrew Wiggin.

[Breadknife]

[Anthropomorphic furries are] still nonhuman animals, and those animals can't consent.

Scrooge McDuck is an anthropomorphic animal (albeit a "feathery", I suppose) and he's somehow managed to make enough money via his own businesses to be literally swimming in it! (And lost it all, several times, but that's economic speculation for you.) He's obviously older than the (duck, at least) age of majority and of (vaguely) sound mind, so I could definitely imagine him being able to consent to sex. (Although, suddenly, I wish I can't... *shudder* ...where's that brain bleach?)

Anyway, just like George Jetson and Fred Flintstone have obviously been sexually active in a marriage (ermm... their own respective marriages, that is... slash fiction aside), you can't have anything against... oooh, say Gadget from the Rescue Rangers... having a liaison. (With Gadget from Inspector Gadget? Darnit! More bleach please!) Though you'd probably be on safer ground arguing against Alvin the chipmunk behaving in a sexual way, as he seems to be school-age. You start getting into the same argument as with Lolicon stuff, there.


Not that this is technically "furries", in my mind. (Actual furries probably know more about how to class the above.) To me a furry is a person in a furry costume (except those that are people who are pretending to be furries inside a 'skin' costume, apparently). Only slightly adrift from "Cat" in Red Dwarf (Felis Sapiens), they (or their characters) are "what if this person was a fox-person/dog-person/etc?" Whilst the human (for all legal purposes) inside the suit is themselves capable of consent and actually giving of it, they're free to engage in a liaison with any like-consenting individual who themselves may (or may not) be attired with their own (not necessarily same-species) fur-style exterior adornments.

But I suspect that most people are still talking about art depicting anthropomorphic furries. Which are artistic depictions of less-than-bestial animals engaging in (usually) mutually consenting sex in a fictional context in which one assumes they have the right to do this. Just like Judge Dredd is often depicted as extending summary justice to people, in a way that is clearly against the laws of Real Life^TM, but in his world is entirely legimate for him to do so. "Edgier" works (depictions of non-consentual or unable-to-be-consentual sex) can be likened to the depictions of the criminals' actions that prompted Dredd's response, or possibly Batman's vigilante attitude (technically against the law, but nobody who doesn't ask for it gets hurt by what he does).

Being fictional, I'd also posit that whilesoever it remains so that there's no crime commited, anyway. Playing Doom or Halo or Grand Theft Auto is not illegal, but going out there and acting like Doomguy, the Master-Chief of any one of various of the GTA characters is liable to be 'problematic' if going the full-hog with the whole weapons and vehicle-mayhem thing. The same with whatever medium of furry art. You might personally be reviled by it (or, somewhere along the line, at depictions of force, violence or loli-like participants) but arguably it's better to be obsessed by such extremes than, for example, various CG images that are dangerously close to being photorealistic depictions of real people, that can find itself inspiring the pursuit of RL experiences of that sort.

(And I've pulled back from being more explicit in what I've said, several times. Like many of us, I assume, I've seen stuff out there that I consider 'harmless' (and which "isn't my bag") but definitely wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea and I definitely wouldn't have shown my mother. However artistically/technically interesting it is. Anyway, the point is that YMMV on the merit of the depictions, but you can't equate furry culture with whatever the equivalent may be for actual bestiality.)

[Caninope]

xxx

Triple X Syndrome occurs in about 1/1000 females, and has no real and easily visible symptoms.

or xxy

Klineefelter Syndrome produces men; these men often have reduced fertility and lower testes activity, but they are still biologically male.

or xyy...there are people documented with these chromosomes...

XYY Syndrome may give early development and slightly more pronounced development, but otherwise, symptoms seem to be fairly mild and fairly unnoticeable although some correlations have been observed.

[Delfortunia]

[shock]Yes I do think binary genderism is outdated[/shock]

Not only that, all humans are equal under the eyes of [insert deity of your faith here] or they are just equal because we are humans and gender is pretty meh etc etc.

/cue boos and hisses for being a conservative Christian

[Carnivorous Flying Lunchboxes]

Since gender is a social construct, it's definitely not binary.

^ if it is a human construct though, it carries no weight really people should be who the are without having to categorize themselves for no reason.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I tolerate to be assumed as cisgender, but I'm more of a mixture of cisgender, agender and bigender.

I'm mostly myself rather than *group whatever*, then male and very, very comfortable with my manlihood, but I can't deny I have girly elements inside me I like and am proud of.

EDIT: I also allow people to assume because I'm not quite sure if what I am saying makes sense or is right, or if I'm just stating a normal part of male cisgenderness that just isn't acknowledged in our culture. '-'

[Grenartia]

Since gender is a social construct, it's definitely not binary.

^ if it is a human construct though, it carries no weight really people should be who the are without having to categorize themselves for no reason.

Wrong. Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it any less important. After all, that line of reasoning would dictate throwing out language, wearing clothes (at least in situations that don't require protection from one's surroundings), laws, etc. [/lessons learned from high school sociology]

[Lithosano]

xxx

Triple X Syndrome occurs in about 1/1000 females, and has no real and easily visible symptoms.

or xxy

Klineefelter Syndrome produces men; these men often have reduced fertility and lower testes activity, but they are still biologically male.

or xyy...there are people documented with these chromosomes...

XYY Syndrome may give early development and slightly more pronounced development, but otherwise, symptoms seem to be fairly mild and fairly unnoticeable although some correlations have been observed.

XX males and XY females. What say you?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Since gender is a social construct, it's definitely not binary.

^ if it is a human construct though, it carries no weight really people should be who the are without having to categorize themselves for no reason.

Hardly no reason.

[Phocidaea]

^ if it is a human construct though, it carries no weight really people should be who the are without having to categorize themselves for no reason.

Wrong. Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it any less important. After all, that line of reasoning would dictate throwing out language, wearing clothes (at least in situations that don't require protection from one's surroundings), laws, etc. [/lessons learned from high school sociology]

Don't give the Tumblrites any ideas.

[Caninope]

Triple X Syndrome occurs in about 1/1000 females, and has no real and easily visible symptoms.


Klineefelter Syndrome produces men; these men often have reduced fertility and lower testes activity, but they are still biologically male.


XYY Syndrome may give early development and slightly more pronounced development, but otherwise, symptoms seem to be fairly mild and fairly unnoticeable although some correlations have been observed.

XX males and XY females. What say you?

In the biological sense, anyone who lacks a Y chromosome will develop into a female and anyone who has a Y chromosome will develop into a male.

That's sex though, and not gender. I don't know how I feel about gender, considering I've had several good friends of mine say that they no longer accept the gender binary because of their own gender associations (one came out as genderqueer and one came out as agender).

EDIT: I was wrong, I understand.

[The Parkus Empire]

Since gender is a social construct, it's definitely not binary.

^ if it is a human construct though, it carries no weight really people should be who the are without having to categorize themselves for no reason.

Social constructs carry a lot of weight. They are being who they are. There are people who do not categorize themselves.

[Breadknife]

XX males and XY females. What say you?

In the biological sense, anyone who lacks a Y chromosome will develop into a female and anyone who has a Y chromosome will develop into a male.

Swyer Syndrome? Or de la Chapelle Syndrome?

(And that's just when things obviously go wrong.)

[Caninope]

In the biological sense, anyone who lacks a Y chromosome will develop into a female and anyone who has a Y chromosome will develop into a male.

Swyer Syndrome? Or de la Chapelle Syndrome?

(And that's just when things obviously go wrong.)

Oh, I apologize, I was wrong it seems. I hadn't read about those (although I had read about Triple X, Klinefelter, and XXY syndrome before). That's incredibly interesting.

I would say that their sex is determined by what's in their pants.

[Breadknife]

I would say that their sex is determined by what's in their pants.

Which can, apparently, be confusing.

Also reminds me of my first contribution to this particular thread:
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=447548

[Neutraligon]

XX males and XY females. What say you?

In the biological sense, anyone who lacks a Y chromosome will develop into a female and anyone who has a Y chromosome will develop into a male.

That's sex though, and not gender. I don't know how I feel about gender, considering I've had several good friends of mine say that they no longer accept the gender binary because of their own gender associations (one came out as genderqueer and one came out as agender).

To the first part, not true. There are those who have the XY chromosomes who develop into females
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis