(January 26, 2019 at 1:18 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(January 25, 2019 at 2:59 pm)tackattack Wrote: There has been a lot of discussion on it lately, and there's a lot of informed and actual people that struggle with gender. Perhaps I need an education in gender identity, But I only see gender as binary. I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Let me start with a statement, which I'm sure people will jump all over.

I define gender normalcy as that which functions according to its design. Our design is in our DNA as male or female.  Gender identity uses the same words and is thus binary. Is this a true statement? Elucidate me.

PS- I don't think I did the serious tag right, I need an education on that too please

Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

There is no design. Correct. However, there is a blueprint in our DNA, and we function according to that. Our blueprints are all different. Therefore, gender "normalcy" is defined by the individual's blueprint. What would be absurd is behaving in a way other than what comes naturally to you, as defined by your DNA, life experience, womb development (lots of stuff going on then), etc. It would be me feeling like a guy, but acting like a girl because some random dude thinks I should.

(January 26, 2019 at 10:03 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 26, 2019 at 1:18 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

There is no design. Correct. However, there is a blueprint in our DNA, and we function according to that. Our blueprints are all different. Therefore, gender "normalcy" is defined by the individual's blueprint. What would be absurd is behaving in a way other than what comes naturally to you, as defined by your DNA, life experience, womb development (lots of stuff going on then), etc. It would be me feeling like a guy, but acting like a girl because some random dude thinks I should.

Function according to DNA is a dangerous statement as far as origin of behavior is concerned.   Also it is probably also a gross over simplification of what is encompassed in the really very multi-faceted meaning of gender “normalcy” to assert it is defined by an individual’s genes.

The essence is this: some people fall outside the norms, but they do not want to live life feeling that the are negatively "abnormal."

I'm fine with gender identities being a rainbow-- identities are ideas, and you can have any idea you want. But the fact is that sexual species are male and female, and sometimes things just take a left turn somewhere. There's nothing wrong with being different in any regard, but to force the entire species to play pretend is goofy.

---

(January 27, 2019 at 1:55 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Function according to DNA is a dangerous statement as far as origin of behavior is concerned.   Also it is probably also a gross over simplification of what is encompassed in the really very multi-faceted meaning of gender “normalcy” to assert it is defined by an individual’s genes.

With all due respect, if you look at the species as a whole, there are very clearly roughly 50% people with "innies" and 50% people with "outies." Those are female and male people. They are, by a staggering statistic, the norm. Cuz-- ya know-- that's what normal means.

Some people are a bit of both, or for whatever reason don't fit into that norm. They are abnormally developed.

Now, there's nothing wrong with falling outside the norm, and I don't think anybody should be maligned or made to feel less than. Some people have an extra nipple, like my uncle, an extra toe, like my adopted cousin, or are inexplicably and annoyingly handsome (like me). It's all good.

But this PC bullshit wordplay is pretty clearly bullshit, in my opinion, and does more harm than good. If everyone has to play pretend, then eventually they will stop feeling like playing pretend. If you accept all people for what they are without the euphemisms and the semantic spinning, then there's no NEED for all of this.

---

(January 26, 2019 at 1:18 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

A sixth toe on one foot "functions however it functions," and some people do in fact have a sixth toe on one foot. That doesn't make having six toes a normal feature of the human species.

(January 27, 2019 at 4:39 am)bennyboy Wrote: The essence is this: some people fall outside the norms, but they do not want to live life feeling that the are negatively "abnormal."

I'm fine with gender identities being a rainbow-- identities are ideas, and you can have any idea you want.  But the fact is that sexual species are male and female, and sometimes things just take a left turn somewhere.  There's nothing wrong with being different in any regard, but to force the entire species to play pretend is goofy.

---

(January 27, 2019 at 1:55 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Function according to DNA is a dangerous statement as far as origin of behavior is concerned.   Also it is probably also a gross over simplification of what is encompassed in the really very multi-faceted meaning of gender “normalcy” to assert it is defined by an individual’s genes.

With all due respect, if you look at the species as a whole, there are very clearly roughly 50% people with "innies" and 50% people with "outies."  Those are female and male people.  They are, by a staggering statistic, the norm.  Cuz-- ya know-- that's what normal means.

Some people are a bit of both, or for whatever reason don't fit into that norm.  They are abnormally developed.

Now, there's nothing wrong with falling outside the norm, and I don't think anybody should be maligned or made to feel less than.  Some people have an extra nipple, like my uncle, an extra toe, like my adopted cousin, or are inexplicably and annoyingly handsome (like me).  It's all good.

But this PC bullshit wordplay is pretty clearly bullshit, in my opinion, and does more harm than good.  If everyone has to play pretend, then eventually they will stop feeling like playing pretend.  If you accept all people for what they are without the euphemisms and the semantic spinning, then there's no NEED for all of this.

---

(January 26, 2019 at 1:18 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

A sixth toe on one foot "functions however it functions," and some people do in fact have a sixth toe on one foot.  That doesn't make having six toes a normal feature of the human species.

Your point is? Since when is “normal” not just a statistical description but the mark of virtue or enforceable standard on those who depart from the mean or the mode?

Never said it was a "virtue or enforceable standard." I said it's a reality of our species that we are divided into male and female.

(January 27, 2019 at 4:39 am)bennyboy Wrote: The essence is this: some people fall outside the norms, but they do not want to live life feeling that the are negatively "abnormal."

I'm fine with gender identities being a rainbow-- identities are ideas, and you can have any idea you want.  But the fact is that sexual species are male and female, and sometimes things just take a left turn somewhere.  There's nothing wrong with being different in any regard, but to force the entire species to play pretend is goofy.

---

(January 27, 2019 at 1:55 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Function according to DNA is a dangerous statement as far as origin of behavior is concerned.   Also it is probably also a gross over simplification of what is encompassed in the really very multi-faceted meaning of gender “normalcy” to assert it is defined by an individual’s genes.

With all due respect, if you look at the species as a whole, there are very clearly roughly 50% people with "innies" and 50% people with "outies."  Those are female and male people.  They are, by a staggering statistic, the norm.  Cuz-- ya know-- that's what normal means.

Some people are a bit of both, or for whatever reason don't fit into that norm.  They are abnormally developed.

Now, there's nothing wrong with falling outside the norm, and I don't think anybody should be maligned or made to feel less than.  Some people have an extra nipple, like my uncle, an extra toe, like my adopted cousin, or are inexplicably and annoyingly handsome (like me).  It's all good.

But this PC bullshit wordplay is pretty clearly bullshit, in my opinion, and does more harm than good.  If everyone has to play pretend, then eventually they will stop feeling like playing pretend.  If you accept all people for what they are without the euphemisms and the semantic spinning, then there's no NEED for all of this.

---

(January 26, 2019 at 1:18 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

A sixth toe on one foot "functions however it functions," and some people do in fact have a sixth toe on one foot.  That doesn't make having six toes a normal feature of the human species.

great, I shall promptly tell my transgender eldest to cop on, go back to being a dumb chick and get his tits out for the lads.

Fess up. You are not "fine" with any of it. Why else would I have to volunteer my spare time on a support line? Were you correct, there would be no need for any such thing, we could all say to the victims that they are imagining all of it and that would be the end of it. But no, you want to corral people into whatever gender YOU decide.

I think discussions about gender are mostly futile. Gender is one of those things that can be really hard to define and is influenced by society quite a bit. I don't really understand the concept of identifying as cisgender or non-binary. I don't identify as either of those things. I have a penis and am therefore a male and I think most people would describe me as a masculine guy, but I don't wake up thinking, "I'm a cisgender, masculine male."

It's just something that never really crosses my mind. I don't "feel" like a man or a woman. I am just me and I don't really think about what my feeling is toward that because there's just no feeling there. I just feel like me.

So... convince you gender is binary? Nah, I'm good. I don't really care what you or anyone else thinks about gender, to be honest. A lot of people on the right go way too far about the subject and a lot of people go way too far on this subject the other way. It's all a bit whacky if you ask me. Let's all just treat one another with respect and show people the basic considerations that we hope to be shown when out in the world. Someone being gay or straight or binary or non-binary or a double espresso frappuccino with skim milk enthusiast or a trans-gender ballet dancer has zero to do with my life or the people I care about in my life. If someone in my life came out to me as gay or trans or whatever I wouldn't really give a flying fuck honestly. I would say, "Okay, I love you anyway. Now where are we going to get food cause I'm hungry." I'm usually hungry.

(January 27, 2019 at 6:02 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: great, I shall promptly tell my transgender eldest to cop on, go back to being a dumb chick and get his tits out for the lads.

Fess up. You are not "fine" with any of it. Why else would I have to volunteer my spare time on a support line? Were you correct, there would be no need for any such thing, we could all say to the victims that they are imagining all of it and that would be the end of it. But no, you want to corral people into whatever gender YOU decide.

I literally never said any of the things that you just said.

Gender identity, as in the personality one feels, or chooses to express, is variable, and should be, and should be embraced. However, demanding that others treat as a physical fact that which is an expression of feeling is an abuse of language.

To try and say things like "there's no scientific basis for binary gender" is horse shit. The species is defined partly by its reproductive system, including the obvious fact that the species is normally divided into male and female. Let's count together, shall we? Male = 1; Female = 2. That's binary.

We are also a species with 10 fingers and 10 toes. That some people don't have 10 of them, or in extreme cases don't have fingers at all, doesn't mean that we have a "finger rainbow" as a species.

(January 27, 2019 at 1:55 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(January 26, 2019 at 10:03 pm)Shell B Wrote: There is no design. Correct. However, there is a blueprint in our DNA, and we function according to that. Our blueprints are all different. Therefore, gender "normalcy" is defined by the individual's blueprint. What would be absurd is behaving in a way other than what comes naturally to you, as defined by your DNA, life experience, womb development (lots of stuff going on then), etc. It would be me feeling like a guy, but acting like a girl because some random dude thinks I should.

Function according to DNA is a dangerous statement as far as origin of behavior is concerned.   Also it is probably also a gross over simplification of what is encompassed in the really very multi-faceted meaning of gender “normalcy” to assert it is defined by an individual’s genes.

I mean, I did say it’s part of the package, not the entire origin, so I don’t understand your argument.

(January 27, 2019 at 5:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: Never said it was a "virtue or enforceable standard."  I said it's a reality of our species that we are divided into male and female.

No. It is a reality that vast majority of our members have either xx or Xy sex chromosomes.

Male or females have multiple meanings almost all of which were developed before anyone has ever heard of xx of xy chromosomes.