By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are genital preferences transphobic?

The thing with the internet being such a free medium these clowns need to feel special. By clowns I mean people who seem to think their opinion matters to the world.

At the end of the day if we stop giving them a voice they stop talking shit.

How hard is it to just say who gives a fuck what someone likes? If they not breaking the laws we shouldn't care less that someone may prefer. So don't worry about some radical views out there.

Clearly some people have too much time on their hand that they need to create sub populations of sub populations and then throw them all in a bowl like keys at a swingers party and randomly pull them out and match them and say this is it or you are wrong.



 

 

Around the Network

Gotta give this youtuber props for not disabling ratings or comments.



Attraction is not a voluntary act, it is instinctual. And instinct don't care about what people identify as. Can't deny that the expectation that certain body-parts are a part of that attraction. I don't know how else to say it



vivster said:
I wanted to make a thread about this for a long time. My current hypothesis is that transgender has absolutely nothing to do with genetics or psychology and is rather a very much social phenomenon. The concept of gender is extremely artificial and it's created by society. Treating genders differently might help lower species to survive but it's irrelevant for humans.

The actual problem is that genders are defined at all when they shouldn't be. If there were no gender definitions or norms there would not exist a single transgender person. behaving "feminine" or "masculine" should not be a thing. It only exists because we defined it. So instead of a person saying I like to wear dresses and makeup, that person is saying "like to be more feminine" because that's what we defined it as. Now if there weren't such gender definitions nobody would give a crap. If you have a dick but would like to look like a woman and have sex with men, then you're just that. A person with specific preferences. You're not female, you just have a specific taste.

But since gender roles have such a gigantic influence in our society transgender is a thing. Everyone who defines a woman with very specific behavior is part of the problem. Same with gender specific rights. I don't give stamp collectors special rights, so I certainly don't care what kind of genitals you'd like to have.

In an ideal world you are born as a person and then live like a person and we all use the same fucking bathroom. Gender is nothing more than a fancy categorization that is basically based on nothing but tradition.

I think gender norms are a natural effect of having a complex culture. People could whish them away, but that doesn't mean it's possible. Only, the solution of creating thousands of categories instead of two doesn't solve any problem whatsoever.



For me almost all the discussion in this field is ridiculous, and I'll leave it at that.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
WolfpackN64 said:
vivster said:
I wanted to make a thread about this for a long time. My current hypothesis is that transgender has absolutely nothing to do with genetics or psychology and is rather a very much social phenomenon. The concept of gender is extremely artificial and it's created by society. Treating genders differently might help lower species to survive but it's irrelevant for humans.

The actual problem is that genders are defined at all when they shouldn't be. If there were no gender definitions or norms there would not exist a single transgender person. behaving "feminine" or "masculine" should not be a thing. It only exists because we defined it. So instead of a person saying I like to wear dresses and makeup, that person is saying "like to be more feminine" because that's what we defined it as. Now if there weren't such gender definitions nobody would give a crap. If you have a dick but would like to look like a woman and have sex with men, then you're just that. A person with specific preferences. You're not female, you just have a specific taste.

But since gender roles have such a gigantic influence in our society transgender is a thing. Everyone who defines a woman with very specific behavior is part of the problem. Same with gender specific rights. I don't give stamp collectors special rights, so I certainly don't care what kind of genitals you'd like to have.

In an ideal world you are born as a person and then live like a person and we all use the same fucking bathroom. Gender is nothing more than a fancy categorization that is basically based on nothing but tradition.

I think gender norms are a natural effect of having a complex culture. People could whish them away, but that doesn't mean it's possible. Only, the solution of creating thousands of categories instead of two doesn't solve any problem whatsoever.

Once humans start categorizing things, subcategories are inevitable. So the issue starts with having a categorization at all. Having 2 or 2000 doesn't make a difference since they're all useless and destructive.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I think gender norms are a natural effect of having a complex culture. People could whish them away, but that doesn't mean it's possible. Only, the solution of creating thousands of categories instead of two doesn't solve any problem whatsoever.

Once humans start categorizing things, subcategories are inevitable. So the issue starts with having a categorization at all. Having 2 or 2000 doesn't make a difference since they're all useless and destructive.

Not necessarily. It's not because something is a cultural construct that it is bad. Any gender theory that takes note of the fact that we have only two sexes is probably closer to how we as humans operate naturally that one that divorces the concepts of sex and gender. That's why I'm an advocate of two fluid gender categories based on sex instead of two thousand ridgid gender identities with very little sociological foundation.



I don't think so, but if not being attracted to anything with a dick means being transphobic I will wear the label with no shame.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

vivster said:
I wanted to make a thread about this for a long time. My current hypothesis is that transgender has absolutely nothing to do with genetics or psychology and is rather a very much social phenomenon. The concept of gender is extremely artificial and it's created by society. Treating genders differently might help lower species to survive but it's irrelevant for humans.

Cheap anthropocentrism!

We share this planet with countless species, some of which have larger brains, some run faster or are much stronger, or even able to fly on their own. Some, like ants, have been around some 500 times longer than us and make for a larger biomass, even with all our overpopulation issues.

Humans, on the other hand, are more damaging to the planet than cosmic catastrophes such as meteors kilometers wide or possible gamma ray bursts. We have scientists who woke up one day and thought "what a beautiful day to create nuclear devices who can kill thousands at once" and online forums where nerds discuss whether a man with a penis could be perhaps called a woman.

Perhaps too much logic and intelligence is actually a damaging and pathetic thing, and the concept of "higher species", or at least its cultural constructs, have indeed failed.

/rant

Oh, and OT - it's common for the human to experience with artificialities before settling back for the natural. We see it on the most varied areas of society (the concepts of personal grooming, a healthy diet, what makes for a nice city space). As such I'm not concerned about the follies of those who want to claim certaing things are "social progress" when they are not. Progress itself, by the way, is an artificial concept created by Christian thinkers (the notion of consummation of history instead of cyclic time) long before it was mistakenly co-opted by economics and social politics.

Last edited by haxxiy - on 23 August 2018

 

 

 

 

 

At least four years ago, a friend of mine who was a lesbian posted something like:
"You think the trans woman fooled you because you thought she was a woman? You fooled her when you pretended to be a decent person"

I jokingly replied "Just because I like for my women to not have a penis, I'm not a good person?"

The entire LGBTQ community attacked me. All of them. Every single one. Thye said I was shallow for letting something like skin come between me and true love. That I didn't know what sex and gender were. That I might not be a man. It went on forever. I eventually just gave up. Now, I'm gay.

Just kidding. I'm not gay. I just deleted my comment. I just don't like the mindset that it's cool to have preference in hair color, race, body type, etc. Everybody has their "type". But the idea that I wouldn't be attracted to a certain type of person made me the bad guy.