Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 23 November 2021, 02:44

Every third gender in every culture in history was just a eunuch?

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... itive=true

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... itive=true

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... itive=true

It would appear that all of us here have been bamboozled by the cabal of 20th century cultural bolshevists postmodernists.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6967
+1s received: 2715
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 23 November 2021, 03:44

Would you mind repeating what you just said but with a Jordan Peterson voice? A Kermit the Frog voice would suffice.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9819
+1s received: 2714
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 23 November 2021, 04:00

At this point I think I would just gurgle. Poor JP.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6967
+1s received: 2715
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby PopTart » 23 November 2021, 05:55

Derek wrote:
Brenden wrote:Humans are sexually dimorphic. That is the scientific understanding. Gender is a concept in linguistics where human sex is mapped to words, with the inclusion of a "neither" option called neuter. It is only in the last half century or so that this concept from language has been taken and used by post-modernist philosophers and social "scientists" as a way to describe tertiary sexual characteristics and behaviours and their interaction with society.

A variety of cultures throughout history have had a concept of a third, fourth, or non-gender. It's a relatively new concept in our culture, but then so is the idea of sexual orientation.
Once again, gender and sex are seperate things.

It is the distinction between those men who enjoy dressing in women's clothes and those men who feel they were born in the wrong biological body.

It is the distinction between those women who exhibit masculine tendencies and are attracted to other women and those women who fervently believe they were born the wrong sex and wish to become men.

These are not new to our culture. They have been ever present but not especially publicised.

I love that any talk of post modernist thought and it's influence on current political and social movements is dismissed or ascribed to Jordan Peterson :confused:

I understand he has spoken about post modernism, but he is hardly the only person to have done so.

Just because he is the only person, people round here might have heard speak on that subject in a negative fashion, doesn't mean he is the only person to have done so. Indeed, the implication is that, anyone who shares those views held by JP on the subject, are misled and misguided wackos, speaks more to your ignorance than it does those who happen to share views, coming from many legitimate sources.

It smacks of trying to dismiss an idea, by implication that a proponent of said ideas, is asinine.

I mean, if that was the case, everything Derek said would be summarily disregarded.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3546
+1s received: 2755
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Brenden » 23 November 2021, 09:53

Derek wrote:Every third gender in every culture in history was just a eunuch?

You make it sound like it was a whole bunch of cultures.

It wasn’t. It was a few oddities, and the one with the most convincing historicity, the Indian subcontinent one, was mostly eunuchs as referenced in the Kama Sutra.

Derek wrote:https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... itive=true

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... itive=true

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... itive=true

It would appear that all of us here have been bamboozled by the cabal of 20th century cultural bolshevists postmodernists.

Notice that none of those ngram frequencies has the same sharp spike following ~1970 as “gender”. Also note that just because it wasn’t necessarily called “homosexuality”, it was still for instance existent as evidenced by its explicit illegality.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 8996
+1s received: 3421
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 29 November 2021, 07:22

Brenden wrote:You make it sound like it was a whole bunch of cultures.

There are enough examples that it warrants analysis from an anthropological point of view, especially if you count the people who in our own culture today identify as some kind of third gender. You make it sound like the cabal made up the concept of gender completely out of hand - as if it were even necessary for third genders to exist for the idea to be relevant.

It was a few oddities, and the one with the most convincing historicity, the Indian subcontinent one, was mostly eunuchs as referenced in the Kama Sutra.

You mean the Hijra? They're still around today, and most aren't eunuchs.

lso note that just because it wasn’t necessarily called “homosexuality”, it was still for instance existent as evidenced by its explicit illegality.

My entire point. The collection of behaviors, attitudes, and and beliefs we call sexuality have always existed, even though our understanding of them and the vocabulary used to frame their discussion were and are evolving. Homosexuality wasn't always understood as an identity, or as an intrinsic part of a person's being. In fact, that development is extremely recent and without much precedent.

PopTart wrote:I love that any talk of post modernist thought and it's influence on current political and social movements is dismissed or ascribed to Jordan Peterson :confused:

I understand he has spoken about post modernism, but he is hardly the only person to have done so.

Just because he is the only person, people round here might have heard speak on that subject in a negative fashion, doesn't mean he is the only person to have done so. Indeed, the implication is that, anyone who shares those views held by JP on the subject, are misled and misguided wackos, speaks more to your ignorance than it does those who happen to share views, coming from many legitimate sources.

What are you talking about? I didn't bring up Jordan Peterson, pooler did.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6967
+1s received: 2715
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 29 November 2021, 14:59

Derek wrote:What are you talking about? I didn't bring up Jordan Peterson, pooler did.

It was in your tone, Derek. :oface:
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9819
+1s received: 2714
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Brenden » 30 November 2021, 16:00

Derek wrote:
Brenden wrote:You make it sound like it was a whole bunch of cultures.

There are enough examples that it warrants analysis from an anthropological point of view, especially if you count the people who in our own culture today identify as some kind of third gender. You make it sound like the cabal made up the concept of gender completely out of hand - as if it were even necessary for third genders to exist for the idea to be relevant.

Can you please list these examples and substantiate the claim that there are enough of them (either as a proportion of different cultures or as a proportion of the human population) to warrant citation of such as justification of today's transgender ideology?

Derek wrote:
It was a few oddities, and the one with the most convincing historicity, the Indian subcontinent one, was mostly eunuchs as referenced in the Kama Sutra.

You mean the Hijra? They're still around today, and most aren't eunuchs.

In the Wikipedia section on their history, the source for them being described as eunuchs is an 1883 translation of the Kama Sutra while the source for them being described as "trans people" is from 1975. The term hijra only started appearing significantly from the 1950s onwards.

The Oxford English Dictionary says:
In South Asia, esp. India. Originally: a eunuch, esp. one who dresses as a woman (now chiefly historical). Now usually: a person whose birth sex is male but who identifies as female, or as neither male nor female.
Hijras constitute a distinct cultural group, and are traditionally considered neither male nor female.
1838 R. M. Martin Hist. E. India II. i. iii. 113 Eleven companies of Hijras or eunuchs, may be placed in the same class, as they are mendicants.
1896 W. Crooke Tribes & Castes North-west. Provinces & Oudh II. 495 Formerly when a deformed boy was born in a family the Hijras of the neighbourhood used to beset the parents and endeavour to obtain possession of him.
1960 Amer. Anthropologist 62 506 Once they have joined the hijarā..they do not retain caste distinctions.
1985 S. Nanda in E. Blackwood Anthropol. & Homosexual Behavior (1986) 35 Hijras traditionally earn their living by collecting alms and receiving payment for performances at weddings, births and festivals.
1997 Sunday Tel. 18 May (Rx Mag.) 37/2 Some hijras are castratees, some partway down the surgical road to femalehood, others are simply men dressed in women's clothes.
[emphases mine]

So, historically, it seems the hijras were either eunuchs (in ancient times) or intersex people (people with ambiguous genitalia) who were taken by the local community of such people to separate them from society.

So, not really homologous to today's trend of people who have gender identity disorder or who choose to reject the gender binary (which arises from natural human sexual dimorphism).

Derek wrote:
lso note that just because it wasn’t necessarily called “homosexuality”, it was still for instance existent as evidenced by its explicit illegality.

My entire point. The collection of behaviors, attitudes, and and beliefs we call sexuality have always existed, even though our understanding of them and the vocabulary used to frame their discussion were and are evolving. Homosexuality wasn't always understood as an identity, or as an intrinsic part of a person's being. In fact, that development is extremely recent and without much precedent.

There are many more examples of same-sex sexual behaviours in human cultures through history (and among mammals) than there are of sexual/"gender" role swapping.

But there is a major difference between sam-sex sexual attraction and opposite-sex or neither-sex self-image. The former, whether a choice or innate, doesn't entail a denial of the material reality of one's body.

Now, it would be one thing if people just adopted whichever behaviours and styles of either gender/sex they choose to. But that's not simply what people do. They demand that others acknowledge them as something they are not — e.g., "trans women are women" — and they often demand and undergo significant and serious medical and surgical interventions to physically change their bodies' sex characteristics.

If gender is a construct and has little to do with sex, why are gender ideologues so hell-bent on altering physical sex characteristics and demanding that society change sex-based laws, norms, and behaviours to affirm their chosen "genders"?

Why do trans women demand that lesbians (same-sex attracted females) have sex with them lest they be socially punished as "transphobes"?
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 8996
+1s received: 3421
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 30 November 2021, 20:22

Brenden wrote:Can you please list these examples and substantiate the claim that there are enough of them (either as a proportion of different cultures or as a proportion of the human population) to warrant citation of such as justification of today's transgender ideology?


I have no idea what you think "transgender ideology" is or what could possibly justify it to you. To me the notion of "justifying" trans identities is a non-sequitur—I only brought up other cultures to counter the idea that the whole concept of gender was made up in the last hundred years by postmodernists, when in fact it's a standard component of anthropological research (even when the suggestion of third genders is absent). To make the comparison to sexuality again, I would believe homosexual identity was valid even if there were no examples in history or the animal kingdom.

Brenden wrote:So, historically, it seems the hijras were either eunuchs (in ancient times) or intersex people (people with ambiguous genitalia) who were taken by the local community of such people to separate them from society.


There's virtually no historical throughline that tells us exactly what the hijra were in ancient times, or rather what their predecessors were, given that these things are subject to change over time and outside documentation is sparse and subject to bias. What's more clear is how they present today, which is not as eunuchs or as anything that aligns closely with our conception of gender or sexual orientation.

Brenden wrote:So, not really homologous to today's trend of people who have gender identity disorder or who choose to reject the gender binary (which arises from natural human sexual dimorphism).


That’s true. My interest in the hijra is not that they match up with non-binary people in our own culture, just that they are a group with a recognized social role that cannot be categorized by sex and gender without some measure of plasticity.

Regarding "natural human sexual dimorphism", I'm not sure if sticking my penis in another man’s butt fits the paradigm, but either way I’m not inclined to place evolutionary function on a pedestal.

Brenden wrote:If gender is a construct and has little to do with sex, why are gender ideologues so hell-bent on altering physical sex characteristics and demanding that society change sex-based
laws, norms, and behaviours to affirm their chosen "genders"?


I suppose the answer depends on which "gender ideologues" you’re referring to. This question taps into an old debate in the community about whether body dysmorphia is a necessary component of being "trans"; many believe very strongly in the gender binary (here’s their subreddit). Other trans people change their gender expression without changing their bodies. I of course am not trans, but if you want to know what I think, it's that gender has a lot to do with sex, but it still makes sense to treat gender as an independent concept capable of characterizing individuals who fall outside the usual norms.

Brenden wrote:Why do trans women demand that lesbians (same-sex attracted females) have sex with them lest they be socially punished as "transphobes"?


Jesus, this article. Let’s break it down.

1. The premise is stupidly bigoted. Imagine if the title was "Straight women are being pressured into sex by some lesbians" or "White women are being pressured into sex by some black men". Those statements are true on their face—"some" can refer to any number of people—but that wouldn’t justify the narrative it’s trying to create. It goes without saying that abusive behavior isn't acceptable no matter who it comes from, and the point of saying it here isn't to condemn abusive behavior, it's to paint an entire group of people with the biggest possible brush. If the media environment in the UK wasn't so openly transphobic, this would be seen as obviously discriminatory.

2. The article cites no evidence except a single "poll"—a questionnaire written by a transphobic group, distributed on its social media, answered by 80 people. Imagine if the article had been about black men and the only evidence it cited was a poll written and distributed by a white nationalist facebook group. And what does the questionnaire consider to be "coercion"?

Much of the pressure happens online. Lesbians are routinely harassed for stating that their sexuality excludes males regardless of their "gender identity". Most respondents reported being subjected to such rhetoric directly or indirectly, and have experience it as a form of "psychological coercion" with the general feeling that it is "online everywhere" and "relentless."

[…]
Several respondents discussed their experiences of deception while approached by "transwomen" they assumed to be women. They reported feeling "betrayed" and "violated".


All that's necessary for these respondents to feel violated and harassed is to interact with a trans woman who passes, or to see trans acceptance happening on the internet. This is the evidence the article uses to imply that cis women are being raped left and right by trans women—the hysterical bigotry of a handful of very online lesbians. How does the BBC even publish this?

3. My favorite part of the article is this bit:

Update 4 November 2021: We have updated this article, published last week, to remove a contribution from one individual in light of comments she has published on blog posts in recent days, which we have been able to verify.

We acknowledge that an admission of inappropriate behaviour by the same contributor should have been included in the original article.


That individual was Lily Cade, who had to be removed from the article after she published an anti-trans manifesto that included statements like "If you left it up to me, I'd execute every last one of them personally," "Lynch Kaitlyn! Lynch the 'Sisters' Wachowski! Lynch Laurel Hubbard! Lynch Fallon Fox!" and "If the Arabs did three per cent of what the trans women have done to your people, you would bomb them into the stone age." That alone might not have been enough for the BBC, but it was also pointed out that she has been accused multiple times—and admitted to—sexually assaulting lesbians. This in an article about how lesbians are under "attack" from trans women. The fucking shamelessness.

4. In a piece about transwomen and lesbians, there is not a single contribution from either a lesbian who dates transwomen or a transwoman who dates lesbians. The author includes this disclaimer:

[…]I contacted several other high profile trans women who have either written or spoken about sex and relationships. None of them wanted to speak to me but my editors and I felt it was important to reflect some of their views in this piece


This is a flat-out, unambiguous lie. It was confirmed that the author spoke to Chelsea Poe, a high-profile transwoman who talks about sex and relationships, but her contribution was cut after being deemed not relevant. Her contribution included the information that would later lead to them cutting out Lily Cade’s contribution, but it apparently took being called out on a massive scale for them to act with the smallest shred of integrity.

What a fucking travesty. The UK media, continuing to lower the bar for us all. I know this is a long-shot, but if any of you here are as appalled by the BBC's "journalism" as I am, you can submit a complaint here.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6967
+1s received: 2715
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby stevie1400 » 1 December 2021, 02:55

Why do trans women demand that lesbians (same-sex attracted females) have sex with them lest they be socially punished as "transphobes"?


Just how widespread is this problem?

It must be "a" problem if the BBC wrote an article about it, and in the current climate, I commend them for publishing it, but I can't help but think it portrays transgender people in a bad light.
User avatar
stevie1400
 
Posts: 30
+1s received: 13
Joined: 26 August 2021, 04:49

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 1 December 2021, 10:33

This is the future Derek and Joe Biden want:



…except with more racially diverse children.


This is why I thank GOD every day for my husband Justin and the mercy he shows me, our two beautiful MALE and FEMALE children, Trig and Jenna, who are healthy thanks to having detoxed them from the poisons that are vaccines and GMOs, and for maskless, police-loving patriots who sacrifice their jobs in order to secure our freedoms.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9819
+1s received: 2714
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby Derek » 1 December 2021, 23:10

No, I do want a genderless utopia, but I think the races probably should remain separate.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6967
+1s received: 2715
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby pozzie » 2 December 2021, 02:26

Derek wrote:No, I do want a genderless utopia, but I think the races probably should remain separate.


think that horse has long escaped the barn's captivity ...
— formerly pozboro
User avatar
pozzie
 
Posts: 457
+1s received: 106
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43
Location: Oregon USA

Re: Weird "genders" and "sexualities"

Unread postby lufia » 3 December 2021, 14:10

I do think that some people over complicate things, but I don't fit neatly into any one category myself. I present as a man, but I stopped wearing men's clothing a few years ago. I started shaving my legs when I was 13, and I only wear pants in public. I'm pretty much always in a dress or skirt at home, and I haven't left the house without a bra on in years. I'm too big to be passable as a female, so I'm kinda in between. There is no clear label for me. I assume there are many people like me that don't fit into any one category, when it comes to gender. I think everyone wants to have an identity, and to belong to something. Everyone wants to have some community to belong to. I have become accustomed to not belonging anywhere, though it isn't always easy. I don't understand all of these genders that exist now, but I understand why people do it. No one wants to be alone.
lufia
 
Posts: 85
+1s received: 37
Joined: 17 March 2020, 22:27

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 16 guests