LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Paid To Troll]

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.

Specifically, the Tenth Amendment.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

You can start by looking inside your pants.

[Geilinor]

The constitution does not mention marriage. That means legislation regarding it is up to the states.

Debatable, in light of Supreme Court decisions on interracial marriage and district court rulings on same-sex marriage.

[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.

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.

The Constitution states specifically that all men (also meaning women) are created EQUAL. Therefore, that RIGHT is already enshrined at a federal level THEREFORE the need for special laws for ANY group (and I mean ANY) is un-needed. Just enforce what is already there.

[Paid To Troll]

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.

The Constitution states specifically that all men (also meaning women) are created EQUAL. Therefore, that RIGHT is already enshrined at a federal level THEREFORE the need for special laws for ANY group (and I mean ANY) is un-needed. Just enforce what is already there.

That's the Declaration of Independence.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

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.

Some people fit neither as male nor female.

Hell, my primary self-reflecting concept of gender, neutrois, is already fully different from how agender people see themselves.

As stuff works inside my head, neutrois, agender, epicene (applying the concept of androgyne to an in-between of agender and pangender), pangender, aliagender and androgyne (as an opposite of aliagender) should be the central genders of an accurate minimalist scale where there is centrality IMHO - but I'm not the non-binary person with the cutest gender, so the whole stuff might be even more complex (of course it is, given how it is a psychic construct).

Male and female are just peripheries that are overrated because of their generalized status. Just because binary people don't feel the other kinds to understand how they work, doesn't mean they don't exist. They're actually pretty much as strong and as valid sentiments.

You can start by looking inside your pants.

That's not gender, and whether it means "sex" is also debatable.

[Des-Bal]

Debatable, in light of Supreme Court decisions on interracial marriage and district court rulings on same-sex marriage.

Not really. Marriage is a state issue independently of the restrictions placed on that by the supreme court. I'm not talking about the constitutionality of marriage bands simply pointing out that legislating marriage is entirely within the state's power.

[Des-Bal]

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.

The Constitution states specifically that all men (also meaning women) are created EQUAL. Therefore, that RIGHT is already enshrined at a federal level THEREFORE the need for special laws for ANY group (and I mean ANY) is un-needed. Just enforce what is already there.[/quote]

So basically nothing you just said is true.

[The New World Oceania]

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.

They don't, but that's beside the point.

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.

I used logical and ethic rhetoric on the basis of dialectics. On the contrary, the sentence I'm quoting — and the entire paragraph containing it — decline to "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.

You are the one claiming something exists. The differentiation arises in that you are not "substantiating it" with anything. I, in turn, emphasize hundreds of people believing in different gods and ask how all of them can exist simultaneously without the true god making himself known. You frantically defend yourself by saying I'm confusing God and doctrine. The gods of argumentation sigh collectively as I collapse under the weight of your unfounded accusations.
While these sentences relate they do not substantiate your initial claim. sentences or you would have substantiated any claim your making about other sentences.

We are not debating whether or not gender exists.

Yeah, we are.

We are discussing whether it's basis is cultural or biological.

The two aren't mutually exclusive discussions, at least not for those of us able to speak on two
intrinsically identical considerations simultaneously.

l am not saying my views

Which you have made an effort to keep incredibly vague for the length of your filler sentences.

are true because they cannot be proven wrong

It's not that you are saying that but that's the de facto argument and you're certainly not
saying anything else.

I'm saying until you have even the tiniest scrap of evidence

Read my posts and deconstruct them and tell me where you don't see evidence because hell if it's
a longshot but the statistics and the analysis of four separate cultures and the reflection on
several theorists' stipulations occur to me as evidence.

I see no reason to listen to what your saying.

Do you read what you write or do you just throw the keyboard and hope it defends you because that strategy really isn't working.

This is not me refusing to debate

It is, and it's also you refusing to listen to what I'm saying. I can quote you on that:

I see no reason to listen to what your saying.

it's me observing serious issue with the quality and relevance of your word hugs to this point.

This sentence is grammatically incorrect in trying to be cute. I don't think it matters since based on the reputation of every other sentence contained in the paragraph, it is likely to be factually incorrect also, but I'd be thrilled to some day know what you're trying to get at anyway.

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.

Sex is biologically sourced. Gender identity is psychological (I'm not educated enough to say how it develops). Gender itself is a social concept.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

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.

Graying hair at age 5 is also extremely rare and not part of the way melanocytes are supposed to work, does it mean I'm essentially a physical malformation?

[Othelos]

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

:blink:

You can start by looking inside your pants.

that's sex, not gender.

[Paid To Troll]

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.

Graying hair at age 5 is also extremely rare and not part of the way melanocytes are supposed to work, does it mean I'm essentially a physical malformation?

Yes. It does. I have eyes that are not the same color as each other. I'm also physically malformed.

I fail to see how my statement is in anyway controversial. You seem to simply be looking to be offended, and that's really silly.

[The New World Oceania]

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

Social construct =/= nonexistent delusion.

Granted. Depends on the philosophy, but you are right if we're going by the typical sense of thing.

[Othelos]

Graying hair at age 5 is also extremely rare and not part of the way melanocytes are supposed to work, does it mean I'm essentially a physical malformation? :roll:

Yes. It does. I have eyes that are not the same color as each other. I'm also physically malformed.

I fail to see how my statement is in anyway controversial. You seem to simply be looking to be offended, and that's really silly.

I don't think deviations from the norm are necessarily 'malformations'. They are mutations.

[Paid To Troll]

Yes. It does. I have eyes that are not the same color as each other. I'm also physically malformed.

I fail to see how my statement is in anyway controversial. You seem to simply be looking to be offended, and that's really silly.

I don't think deviations from the norm are necessarily 'malformations'. They are mutations.

Actually, I avoided the word mutation to not imply intent to offend. Malformation works well in this case because there is a formation that is considered within norms, and then there are malformations. (My eyes, his hair, my sisters polydactyl cat.)

[Othelos]

I don't think deviations from the norm are necessarily 'malformations'. They are mutations.

Actually, I avoided the word mutation to not imply intent to offend. Malformation works well in this case because there is a formation that is considered within norms, and then there are malformations. (My eyes, his hair, my sisters polydactyl cat.)

"Mutation" isn't offensive, but when you say that someone is 'malformed', that implies something developed 'wrong'. And that's completely subjective, which is why you are coming off as offensive.

[Paid To Troll]

Actually, I avoided the word mutation to not imply intent to offend. Malformation works well in this case because there is a formation that is considered within norms, and then there are malformations. (My eyes, his hair, my sisters polydactyl cat.)

"Mutation" isn't offensive, but when you say that someone is 'malformed', that implies something developed 'wrong'. And that's completely subjective, which is why you are coming off as offensive.

Again, if something only occurs in less than 2% of a population, that's incorrectly formed.

mal·formed
malˈfôrmd
adjective
(of a person or part of the body) abnormally formed; misshapen.
"her ribs are malformed"
synonyms: deformed, misshapen, misproportioned, ill-proportioned, disfigured, distorted, crooked, contorted, twisted, warped; More
antonyms: perfect, normal, healthy
not conforming to a standard type.
"malformed web pages"

I even said, specifically, this was not a moral judgement. A limb does not choose to grow differently, but differently it will grow.

[Geilinor]

"Mutation" isn't offensive, but when you say that someone is 'malformed', that implies something developed 'wrong'. And that's completely subjective, which is why you are coming off as offensive.

Again, if something only occurs in less than 2% of a population, that's incorrectly formed.

Red hair is incorrectly formed?

[Des-Bal]

You are not claiming gender doesn't exist, that would be a very silly thing to do as it is patently not true. Social constructs are things. You cannot claim both that gender is a social construct and that it does not exist.

Everything you've presented as proof has been not proof. It speaks to the societal perception of gender and gender roles which is really only evidence if you've already proven your point. I hope you understand why this is not really the best kind of evidence.

[Othelos]

"Mutation" isn't offensive, but when you say that someone is 'malformed', that implies something developed 'wrong'. And that's completely subjective, which is why you are coming off as offensive.

Again, if something only occurs in less than 2% of a population, that's incorrectly formed.

mal·formed
malˈfôrmd
adjective
(of a person or part of the body) abnormally formed; misshapen.
"her ribs are malformed"
synonyms: deformed, misshapen, misproportioned, ill-proportioned, disfigured, distorted, crooked, contorted, twisted, warped; More
antonyms: perfect, normal, healthy
not conforming to a standard type.
"malformed web pages"

I even said, specifically, this was not a moral judgement. A limb does not choose to grow differently, but differently it will grow.

Saying a limb is malformed is a little different from saying that someone is malformed.

You have to make the distinction, or you are going to come off as offensive (and it's also inaccurate).

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Yes. It does.

Not really. In my case, it means I experienced heavy sudden hormonal changes. Graying hair in a spot - as is my case - in this case means I got healthy levels of oxidation, or something like that.

It is a phenotypical change from how human bodies generally work, but it is not pathological in itself. Much on the contrary, for my specific corporeality, it is indeed a sign of relative strength. Every body is unique to make such sweeping generalizations.

Yes. It does. I have eyes that are not the same color as each other. I'm also physically malformed.

I fail to see how my statement is in anyway controversial. You seem to simply be looking to be offended, and that's really silly.

I don't think deviations from the norm are necessarily 'malformations'. They are mutations.

Not to mention that it is more of a pre-programmed quasi-coincidence that people don't come as intersex. It takes a biologically specialized development for a healthy body to develop that is also according to expectations of a dyadic (non-intersex) body, given the heavy genetic load of humans, with a myriad of possibilities according to each environmental stimulus. If people come as intersex, it just means that due to the extreme proximity of "male and female", the pregnant body couldn't react in a way specialized enough for an idealized outcome. Idealized, because nobody is fully unambiguous, some are just much more ambiguous than others. They might still be just as fertile as other people, and healthy, too. "Male and female" are not inferior or superior to each other for their in-between forms be unacceptable abnormalities.

[Paid To Troll]

Again, if something only occurs in less than 2% of a population, that's incorrectly formed.

Red hair is incorrectly formed?

When taken from the perspective of humanity as a whole? Yes. (We also have no souls.)

When taken from the perspective of humanity from NW Europe? No.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Red hair is incorrectly formed?

When taken from the perspective of humanity as a whole? Yes. (We also have no souls.)

I call bullshit.

[Paid To Troll]

When taken from the perspective of humanity as a whole? Yes. (We also have no souls.)

I call bullshit.

You're free to do so. If red hair was intended to be common, nature would have made it more common. Dominant and recessive are things that happen.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I call bullshit.

You're free to do so. If red hair was intended to be common, nature would have made it more common. Dominant and recessive are things that happen.

It is selected sexually, and it is also selected for functionality in areas where people receive less sunlight and have a poorer diet.