LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Devils advocate Liberonscien]

Intersex appears to be both or in between. Like how a lightswitch can be balanced between off and on.

It is essentially a physical malformation, in that the intended biological outcome of a copy of the parents did not occur.

Exactly.

[The New World Oceania]

There aren't two and there aren't three because there isn't one to begin with. Gender is purely a social concept with no bearing on reality.

I think that view makes better sense as a political maneuver than as a faithful interpretation of the evidence.

The burden of said evidence is on you. Prove gender exists naturally.

[Des-Bal]

However 0.5 is neither 0 nor 1. Additionally, sex and gender are separate — they decline to affect each other.

And when a lightswitch is somewhere between the on and off positions the light is still either on or off. There's no reason for degrees to factor in.

[The New World Oceania]

However 0.5 is neither 0 nor 1. Additionally, sex and gender are separate — they decline to affect each other.

And when a lightswitch is somewhere between the on and off positions the light is still either on or off. There's no reason for degrees to factor in.

When can we throw the congratulatory party for your cognizance that a human is not a light switch?

[Des-Bal]

The burden of said evidence is on you. Prove gender exists naturally.

1. No it's not.

2. How about the fact that animal behavior is effected by sex and animals lack the culture necessary for cultural constructs?

[Des-Bal]

When can we throw the congratulatory party for your cognizance that a human is not a light switch?

Sometime after you've completed your seminar on the purpose of analogies.

[The New World Oceania]

The burden of said evidence is on you. Prove gender exists naturally.

1. No it's not.

2. How about the fact that animal behavior is effected by sex and animals lack the culture necessary for cultural constructs?

The burden of evidence is inherently on the one trying to prove the existence of something. Furthermore, sex and gender are separate. Animals lack gender roles. Animals lacks transsexuals. Perhaps most importantly, animals lack, as you have noted, culture or society. Within animals, there is both the absence of society and the absence of gender.

[The New World Oceania]

When can we throw the congratulatory party for your cognizance that a human is not a light switch?

Sometime after you've completed your seminar on the purpose of analogies.

Asserting an analogy without evidence is a clever way of saying nothing. It doesn't make it true because you can pretend it fits an analogy.

[Des-Bal]

The burden of evidence is inherently on the one trying to prove the existence of something. Furthermore, sex and gender are separate. Animals lack gender roles. Animals lacks transsexuals. Perhaps most importantly, animals lack, as you have noted, culture or society. Within animals, there is both the absence of society and the absence of gender.

That would be the fellow claiming resolutely that gender is strictly social.

And yet we observe behavioral differences. Which kind of pisses on the idea that gender is the product of culture.

[Des-Bal]

Asserting an analogy without evidence is a clever way of saying nothing. It doesn't make it true because you can pretend it fits an analogy.

Complaining is a less than clever way of saying nothing. Would you care to explain why exactly different points on a continuum cannot be understood as belonging to the end point they most closely resemble?

[The New World Oceania]

The burden of evidence is inherently on the one trying to prove the existence of something. Furthermore, sex and gender are separate. Animals lack gender roles. Animals lacks transsexuals. Perhaps most importantly, animals lack, as you have noted, culture or society. Within animals, there is both the absence of society and the absence of gender.

That would be the fellow claiming resolutely that gender is strictly social.

And yet we observe behavioral differences. Which kind of pisses on the idea that gender is the product of culture.

Cross-cultural gender studies it is, then.
Perhaps consider the Gerai people of Indonesia, who make no distinction between what we consider men and women, even conceptualizing the sexual organs as the same; the Vanatinai of the South Pacific, whose culture has a total absence of gender roles, masculinity, or femininity; countless Native American societies which observe more than two genders, sometimes not only two-spirit identities but ones with no definite match to any contemporary Western genders; and Anne Fausto‐Sterling notes, "Even if we’ve overestimated by a factor of two, that still means a lot of intersexual children are born each year. At the rate of 1.7 percent, for example, a city of 300,000 people would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development," indicating that sex, even, is not absolutely categorized as "male" and "female" in humans, and that it is not sex which we have applied to define gender, but gender which we have applied to define sex.
As Lois Tyson accounts, "In other cultures, gender systems are neither binary, like the gender system in force in the United States today, nor what might be called unitary—that is, without significant gender differentiation—like the two gender systems described above. In contrast, some cultures see gender as a system of multiple possibilities. As one example among many, consider the hundred or more North American Indian societies that had multiple gender systems, that is, systems consisting of more than two genders, especially prior to the takeover of the Americas by European colonizers. Native North American societies tended to define gender in ways specific to their own cultures, differing in what aspects of social life were considered primary in their conceptions of gender.

"In short, the whole idea that there are only two genders is based on the idea that there are only two sexes. However, researchers from a variety of fields have revealed that such is not the case: biological sex does not fit neatly into two separate, opposite categories. It would be more accurate to say that, following the European model, American society has imposed the two‐sex system despite the fact that this system does not fit a significant portion of the population. In other words, biological sex categories have not imposed the two‐gender system on Americans; rather, Americans have imposed the two‐gender system on biological sex categories."

Asserting an analogy without evidence is a clever way of saying nothing. It doesn't make it true because you can pretend it fits an analogy.

Complaining is a less than clever way of saying nothing. Would you care to explain why exactly different points on a continuum cannot be understood as belonging to the end point they most closely resemble?

I take it no one ever explained to you burden of proof.

[Des-Bal]

Cross-cultural gender studies it is, then.
Perhaps consider the Gerai people of Indonesia, who make no distinction between what we consider men and women, even conceptualizing the sexual organs as the same; the Vanatinai of the South Pacific, whose culture has a total absence of gender roles, masculinity, or femininity; countless Native American societies which observe more than two genders, sometimes not only two-spirit identities but ones with no definite match to any contemporary Western genders; and Anne Fausto‐Sterling notes, "Even if we’ve overestimated by a factor of two, that still means a lot of intersexual children are born each year. At the rate of 1.7 percent, for example, a city of 300,000 people would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development," indicating that sex, even, is not absolutely categorized as "male" and "female" in humans, and that it is not sex which we have applied to define gender, but gender which we have applied to define sex.
As Lois Tyson accounts, "In other cultures, gender systems are neither binary, like the gender system in force in the United States today, nor what might be called unitary—that is, without significant gender differentiation—like the two gender systems described above. In contrast, some cultures see gender as a system of multiple possibilities. As one example among many, consider the hundred or more North American Indian societies that had multiple gender systems, that is, systems consisting of more than two genders, especially prior to the takeover of the Americas by European colonizers. Native North American societies tended to define gender in ways specific to their own cultures, differing in what aspects of social life were considered primary in their conceptions of gender.

"In short, the whole idea that there are only two genders is based on the idea that there are only two sexes. However, researchers from a variety of fields have revealed that such is not the case: biological sex does not fit neatly into two separate, opposite categories. It would be more accurate to say that, following the European model, American society has imposed the two‐sex system despite the fact that this system does not fit a significant portion of the population. In other words, biological sex categories have not imposed the two‐gender system on Americans; rather, Americans have imposed the two‐gender system on biological sex categories."

I take it no one ever explained to you burden of proof.

And now your supposing gender roles and gender are the exact same thing. I see no reason why that would be the case.

We must have received different definitions because someone apparently told you it's something to say when you're incapable of defending yourself.

[The New World Oceania]

Cross-cultural gender studies it is, then.
Perhaps consider the Gerai people of Indonesia, who make no distinction between what we consider men and women, even conceptualizing the sexual organs as the same; the Vanatinai of the South Pacific, whose culture has a total absence of gender roles, masculinity, or femininity; countless Native American societies which observe more than two genders, sometimes not only two-spirit identities but ones with no definite match to any contemporary Western genders; and Anne Fausto‐Sterling notes, "Even if we’ve overestimated by a factor of two, that still means a lot of intersexual children are born each year. At the rate of 1.7 percent, for example, a city of 300,000 people would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development," indicating that sex, even, is not absolutely categorized as "male" and "female" in humans, and that it is not sex which we have applied to define gender, but gender which we have applied to define sex.
As Lois Tyson accounts, "In other cultures, gender systems are neither binary, like the gender system in force in the United States today, nor what might be called unitary—that is, without significant gender differentiation—like the two gender systems described above. In contrast, some cultures see gender as a system of multiple possibilities. As one example among many, consider the hundred or more North American Indian societies that had multiple gender systems, that is, systems consisting of more than two genders, especially prior to the takeover of the Americas by European colonizers. Native North American societies tended to define gender in ways specific to their own cultures, differing in what aspects of social life were considered primary in their conceptions of gender.

"In short, the whole idea that there are only two genders is based on the idea that there are only two sexes. However, researchers from a variety of fields have revealed that such is not the case: biological sex does not fit neatly into two separate, opposite categories. It would be more accurate to say that, following the European model, American society has imposed the two‐sex system despite the fact that this system does not fit a significant portion of the population. In other words, biological sex categories have not imposed the two‐gender system on Americans; rather, Americans have imposed the two‐gender system on biological sex categories."

And now your supposing gender roles and gender are the exact same thing. I see no reason why that would be the case.

Sorry, let me make it more clear what I'm saying.

Perhaps consider the Gerai people of Indonesia, who make no distinction between what we consider men and women, even conceptualizing the sexual organs as the same; the Vanatinai of the South Pacific, whose culture has a total absence of gender roles, masculinity, or femininity; countless Native American societies which observe more than two genders, sometimes not only two-spirit identities but ones with no definite match to any contemporary Western genders; and Anne Fausto‐Sterling notes, "Even if we’ve overestimated by a factor of two, that still means a lot of intersexual children are born each year. At the rate of 1.7 percent, for example, a city of 300,000 people would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development," indicating that sex, even, is not absolutely categorized as "male" and "female" in humans, and that it is not sex which we have applied to define gender, but gender which we have applied to define sex.
As Lois Tyson accounts, "In other cultures, gender systems are neither binary, like the gender system in force in the United States today, nor what might be called unitary—that is, without significant gender differentiation—like the two gender systems described above. In contrast, some cultures see gender as a system of multiple possibilities. As one example among many, consider the hundred or more North American Indian societies that had multiple gender systems, that is, systems consisting of more than two genders, especially prior to the takeover of the Americas by European colonizers. Native North American societies tended to define gender in ways specific to their own cultures, differing in what aspects of social life were considered primary in their conceptions of gender.

"In short, the whole idea that there are only two genders is based on the idea that there are only two sexes. However, researchers from a variety of fields have revealed that such is not the case: biological sex does not fit neatly into two separate, opposite categories. It would be more accurate to say that, following the European model, American society has imposed the two‐sex system despite the fact that this system does not fit a significant portion of the population. In other words, biological sex categories have not imposed the two‐gender system on Americans; rather, Americans have imposed the two‐gender system on biological sex categories."

Do you finally feel qualified to offer your first argument?

[Des-Bal]

Sorry, let me make it more clear what I'm saying.

Perhaps consider the Gerai people of Indonesia, who make no distinction between what we consider men and women, even conceptualizing the sexual organs as the same; the Vanatinai of the South Pacific, whose culture has a total absence of gender roles, masculinity, or femininity; countless Native American societies which observe more than two genders, sometimes not only two-spirit identities but ones with no definite match to any contemporary Western genders; and Anne Fausto‐Sterling notes, "Even if we’ve overestimated by a factor of two, that still means a lot of intersexual children are born each year. At the rate of 1.7 percent, for example, a city of 300,000 people would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development," indicating that sex, even, is not absolutely categorized as "male" and "female" in humans, and that it is not sex which we have applied to define gender, but gender which we have applied to define sex.
As Lois Tyson accounts, "In other cultures, gender systems are neither binary, like the gender system in force in the United States today, nor what might be called unitary—that is, without significant gender differentiation—like the two gender systems described above. In contrast, some cultures see gender as a system of multiple possibilities. As one example among many, consider the hundred or more North American Indian societies that had multiple gender systems, that is, systems consisting of more than two genders, especially prior to the takeover of the Americas by European colonizers. Native North American societies tended to define gender in ways specific to their own cultures, differing in what aspects of social life were considered primary in their conceptions of gender.

"In short, the whole idea that there are only two genders is based on the idea that there are only two sexes. However, researchers from a variety of fields have revealed that such is not the case: biological sex does not fit neatly into two separate, opposite categories. It would be more accurate to say that, following the European model, American society has imposed the two‐sex system despite the fact that this system does not fit a significant portion of the population. In other words, biological sex categories have not imposed the two‐gender system on Americans; rather, Americans have imposed the two‐gender system on biological sex categories."

Do you finally feel qualified to offer your first argument?

Let me repeat: And now your supposing gender roles and gender are the exact same thing. I see no reason why that would be the case.

[The New World Oceania]

Sorry, let me make it more clear what I'm saying.

Perhaps consider the Gerai people of Indonesia, who make no distinction between what we consider men and women, even conceptualizing the sexual organs as the same; the Vanatinai of the South Pacific, whose culture has a total absence of gender roles, masculinity, or femininity; countless Native American societies which observe more than two genders, sometimes not only two-spirit identities but ones with no definite match to any contemporary Western genders; and Anne Fausto‐Sterling notes, "Even if we’ve overestimated by a factor of two, that still means a lot of intersexual children are born each year. At the rate of 1.7 percent, for example, a city of 300,000 people would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development," indicating that sex, even, is not absolutely categorized as "male" and "female" in humans, and that it is not sex which we have applied to define gender, but gender which we have applied to define sex.
As Lois Tyson accounts, "In other cultures, gender systems are neither binary, like the gender system in force in the United States today, nor what might be called unitary—that is, without significant gender differentiation—like the two gender systems described above. In contrast, some cultures see gender as a system of multiple possibilities. As one example among many, consider the hundred or more North American Indian societies that had multiple gender systems, that is, systems consisting of more than two genders, especially prior to the takeover of the Americas by European colonizers. Native North American societies tended to define gender in ways specific to their own cultures, differing in what aspects of social life were considered primary in their conceptions of gender.

"In short, the whole idea that there are only two genders is based on the idea that there are only two sexes. However, researchers from a variety of fields have revealed that such is not the case: biological sex does not fit neatly into two separate, opposite categories. It would be more accurate to say that, following the European model, American society has imposed the two‐sex system despite the fact that this system does not fit a significant portion of the population. In other words, biological sex categories have not imposed the two‐gender system on Americans; rather, Americans have imposed the two‐gender system on biological sex categories."

Do you finally feel qualified to offer your first argument?

Let me repeat: And now your supposing gender roles and gender are the exact same thing. I see no reason why that would be the case.

You leave me flaccid as the day is long.

Offer evidence. I gave you four paragraphs and you can't pick out a sentence to offer any argument. You are claiming something exists. You cannot legitimately expect any remotely competent or relatively sane person to believe you if you refuse to offer any semi-convincing argument. I can say God exists and the sun revolves around the earth and America faked the moon landing. I cannot say these are true because they can't be proven wrong. You're making yourself appear incredibly incompetent by refusing to debate. Perhaps you should stay that way, for your own good, however. Tens of thousands of critical theorists, gender scholars, psychologists, philosophers, and feminists have proven and agreed and asserted that gender is a non-existing social construct.

Offer. Evidence.

[The High Lords]

However 0.5 is neither 0 nor 1. Additionally, sex and gender are separate — they decline to affect each other.

And when a lightswitch is somewhere between the on and off positions the light is still either on or off. There's no reason for degrees to factor in.

Counter-analogy.

Light-dimmer.

Done.

[Des-Bal]

You leave me flaccid as the day is long.

Offer evidence. I gave you four paragraphs and you can't pick out a sentence to offer any argument. You are claiming something exists. You cannot legitimately expect any remotely competent or relatively sane person to believe you if you refuse to offer any semi-convincing argument. I can say God exists and the sun revolves around the earth and America faked the moon landing. I cannot say these are true because they can't be proven wrong. You're making yourself appear incredibly incompetent by refusing to debate. Perhaps you should stay that way, for your own good, however. Tens of thousands of critical theorists, gender scholars, psychologists, philosophers, and feminists have proven and agreed and asserted that gender is a non-existing social construct.

Offer. Evidence.

You gave me a sentences. Sentences are fantastic, they're like hugs made of words that communicate information. The problem is the information communicated by your "sentences" or word hugs doesn't really substantiate your initial point in the fashion you believe it does. You are in effect saying "god exists" and substantiating it with a description of different religious practices. While these sentences relate they do not substantiate your initial claim. We are not debating whether or not gender exists. We are discussing whether it's basis is cultural or biological. I am not saying my views are true because they cannot be proven wrong I'm saying until you have even the tiniest scrap of evidence I see no reason to listen to what your saying. This is not me refusing to debate it's me observing serious issue with the quality and relevance of your word hugs to this point.

[Othelos]

What's a special snowflake?

A member of that newly-adult, me'er-than-me generation which expects attention and praise just for being themselves -- doing anything to deserve it is completely optional.

Oh, he's too much of special snowflake to get a day job -- his mom's paying the rent while he hangs out waiting for the perfect high-paying project to come along. I guess the market for C-minus filmmaking majors is a little soft right now or something.

^Urban Dictionary

That's a spoiled young person, not a special snowflake.

[Othelos]

All I've seen is male and female.... Two or three kinds of male or female but still just male or female.

There aren't two and there aren't three because there isn't one to begin with. Gender is purely a social concept with no bearing on reality.

No it isn't, it's also partly biologically-sourced. I don't mean the silly "women belong in the kitchen!" kind of things, those are obviously social concepts.

[Des-Bal]

No it isn't, it's also partly biologically-sourced. I don't mean the silly "women belong in the kitchen!" kind of things, those are obviously social concepts.

I think gender is best understood as the brain's understanding of itself to be male or female, sexual dimorphism of the mind. I think that's clouded by gender roles. If we took people's bloodtype and associated certain traits with different blood types and raised people to live up to those roles we would see a society where blood type appeared to directly influence the type of person you are. However, pointing out that the impact of blood type on someone's role in society is strictly social does not mean that blood type is imaginary.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Intersex appears to be both or in between. Like how a lightswitch can be balanced between off and on.

It is essentially a physical malformation, in that the intended biological outcome of a copy of the parents did not occur.

I might have XY chromosomes and be sterile, I might have XX chromosomes or be a XX/XXY chimera in spite of my testes and be fertile, so not really.

[Paid To Troll]

It is essentially a physical malformation, in that the intended biological outcome of a copy of the parents did not occur.

I might have XY chromosomes and be sterile, I might have XX chromosomes or be a XX/XXY chimera in spite of my testes and be fertile, so not really.

If something only occurs to less than 2% of the outcomes, it is very scientifically valid to say that when it occurs, it is not the intended natural outcome.

That's not a moral judgement, it is simply scientific observation.

[The Empire of Ebola]

Who cares.

And I mean that in a good way. I mean, who cares who gets their freak on with who? So what!??! Why does it have to be a big deal to anyone? If you wanna sex up or marry someone who may or may not be of your gender, WHO CARES?

I have never understood WHY two guys or girls getting it on in California would ruin the life of someone in Arkansas. SO WHAT!!!!!

I have never had the chance or the desire to have a gay experience, but I don't see why its such a big deal. Just do who ever you want and leave it at that! So two people who love each other happen to have the same set of sex organs....SO F'N WHAT.....Good Lord people worry about your own lives.

And SO WHAT if some people find the gay lifestyle immoral or sinful or disgusting? WHO CARES!! Its YOUR life, not theirs. I find broccoli and veal disgusting and immoral, doesn't mean I want to ridicule people who love it, I just ignore them. And some people HATE meat, I LOVE meat, but it doesn't mean I want to force my meat loving ways on people who hate it.

And gays do NOT need special laws, we already HAVE a Constitution that GUARANTEES equality!!! You just have to ENFORCE IT!!!! Instead of trying to create a special set of laws for yourselves, devote your efforts to making sure people follow the equality rules THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING. Equality means EVERYONE is on the same level, not above or below each other.

And stop trying to legislate marriage, the Constitution says NOTHING about it so stop trying to deny gays the right THEY ALREADY HAVE!!!

Honestly, its all very frustrating. Just marry or get freaky with who ever you damn well want and stop worrying about what the other person believes or finds offensive. We are only living for a brief time on a spec of dust floating in an endless void, there are more important things to to do than worry about stuff that is of no importance to the universe.

[Geilinor]

All I've seen is male and female.... Two or three kinds of male or female but still just male or female.

Gender is purely a social concept with no bearing on reality.

Social construct =/= nonexistent delusion.

[Des-Bal]

Who cares.

And I mean that in a good way. I mean, who cares who gets their freak on with who? So what!??! Why does it have to be a big deal to anyone? If you wanna sex up or marry someone who may or may not be of your gender, WHO CARES?

I have never understood WHY two guys or girls getting it on in California would ruin the life of someone in Arkansas. SO WHAT!!!!!

I have never had the chance or the desire to have a gay experience, but I don't see why its such a big deal. Just do who ever you want and leave it at that! So two people who love each other happen to have the same set of sex organs....SO F'N WHAT.....Good Lord people worry about your own lives.

And SO WHAT if some people find the gay lifestyle immoral or sinful or disgusting? WHO CARES!! Its YOUR life, not theirs. I find broccoli and veal disgusting and immoral, doesn't mean I want to ridicule people who love it, I just ignore them. And some people HATE meat, I LOVE meat, but it doesn't mean I want to force my meat loving ways on people who hate it.

And gays do NOT need special laws, we already HAVE a Constitution that GUARANTEES equality!!! You just have to ENFORCE IT!!!! Instead of trying to create a special set of laws for yourselves, devote your efforts to making sure people follow the equality rules THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING. Equality means EVERYONE is on the same level, not above or below each other.

And stop trying to legislate marriage, the Constitution says NOTHING about it so stop trying to deny gays the right THEY ALREADY HAVE!!!

Honestly, its all very frustrating. Just marry or get freaky with who ever you damn well want and stop worrying about what the other person believes or finds offensive. We are only living for a brief time on a spec of dust floating in an endless void, there are more important things to to do than worry about stuff that is of no importance to the universe.

The constitution does not mention marriage. That means legislation regarding it is up to the states. We do in fact need special laws as the constitution is not intended to act as a substitute for a legal system.