Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
I think you misunderstood me, Geist. IMHO there can be no argument to deny or disprove that in the vast majority of mammals the most basic form of Gender, chromosomes and genitalia, cannot be disputed or altered, even by surgery at the very least at present levels of expertise. However there are a small percentage of people born whose chromosomes and/or genitals do not conform to any norm, and even some with percentages of both. Hormonally we all have percentages of both. That doesn't change the validity of referring to anyone with a penis as male or a vagina as female, whether sterile or fertile.
However there are other biological differences that do not conform to what Societies define as Male or Female. That is a construct and not Nature. I am male and probably boringly heterosexual but I am also gentle and creative, love to cook and care for children and animals, but have no problem with fighting when I need to or hunting when I want to or need to. I am also as you probably have noticed quite fond of words and that and many of these traits are described as feminine by society. I suffer none of those illusions. You can put whatever labels you want on it but I am a Man and I don't care one whit who imagines some of my traits are feminine or in any way diminish my manhood. In fact in some ways I'm proud of those traits since they are part of what make me a 3 dimensional person instead of a cardboard cutout. I have no need to apologize or be forgiven for being somewhat uniquely myself.
So ultimately chromosomes and genitalia are in fact the only Nature-given differentiation between Male and Female. All the rest is just social constructs and attempts to pigeonhole everything in overly simplified terms that has little bearing on reality. Often this is done in an attempt to exert control and make everyone fit someone's idea of a stereotype. This applies possibly the most to the last category, Sexual Preference, which really confuses me. I do not even begin to understand why anyone would ever care who or what someone else considers a viable sex partner. I don't see how that affects them at all excepting mere sensibilities.
That said, I do get it that some of those concerns came about in earlier, harder times when population growth was urgently needed. Not only is that no longer so but there seems to possibly be some generic forces at play when population reaches certain critical points. I've read that populations of laboratory mice were setup in various environments under which population growth was inevitable and at some point an Alpha Male arose and cordoned off the youngest, most fertile females and protected his harem with to the death. Meanwhile same sex relationships flourished everywhere else since they were crowded where the Alpha's territory was far less crowded due to his vigilance and aggression. Similarly some animal species are able to switch sex when there aren't enough to keep the population growing. There is no such thing as a Crime Against Nature. If it can happen, it's natural.
It is quite possible that humans are the only animals who knowingly engage in sex that has zero chance of reproduction but we will possibly never know since same sex relationships happen in most mammals and several other species. Given that, it is not an aberration but quite normal, at the very least for some. The idea that it is an aberration or an ailment is entirely a construct with zero basis in Nature, someone's mere sensibilities notwithstanding. Diversity is valuable.
|
Diversity is not always valuable, and yes, it's perfectly natural to be gay and so forth, but since this comes with a de facto inability to procreate (especially through the low tech ages) then I wonder how valuable it is when the ones can't even procreate even if they tried.
And yes, I'm aware that some homosexual people have children or live in heterosexual relationships, but that is unnatural to them. Basic human biologic interaction is unnatural to them and they die out unless they defy that within themselves.
Also, yes, there've been some influential gay people, not denying that either, and they were treated badly, which I don't think they deserved (since they're already pretty much sentenced to bloodline death), but I will not consider that not an abberation.
If you do not possess something a healthy, average human being has, then you are not fully healthy, you can perfectly get by "all things considered", but if you're a guy and scratch your head at a womb and lick your lips and rub your hands together at a butt, then you're not gonna make it, evolutionary wise, even if you're a prime specimen otherwise.
In fact, that makes it one of the more crippling defects I can think of when it comes to life.
There's many celibate people, both voluntary and involuntary, but these people have the option to continue life if they one day get over it and get together with those they're attracted to.
And sure, there's some social aspect to it (especially gender roles, but those are recent and mean very little, really), but would you consider homosexuality a social construct, too? Or would they always shrug and walk off when seeing the other sex? Etc?
I've been in arguments before, where homosexuals and co get full legitimization while heterosexuality and all that chromosome shindig is said to be secondary, but being gay, or gender confused?
That's full legit normal no holds barred natural, etc.
That's just another argument for my view, though, in my opinion anyway, even if its just "we need a proper standard", since it shows the gravity of it all, it's there, and if it's mental or social only, seizes great control over them.
As I said, I'm fully for destigmatizing homosexuality, gender confusion, I just think they should never be seen as anything positive as a condition, since it's an INCREDIBLY potent blocker for procreation, and 'variety' is built into the system to chance an improvement on the norm, not a regression or cutoff.
There is no advantage in being homosexual, since baby making doesn't take that much time and women and men generally do less of that anyway when they get old so I'm dubious about the "can provide care for children" since very young children should be with their parents anyway and after some time it doesn't really matter who loosely watches them.
That's why elementary school has a couple of teachers loitering around while the children go nuts playing their games.
And when it comes to "overpopulation control", well, I probably touched on this before (lol gotta admit my long posts are a bit of a slog, but too short and it just looks like I'm spewing rethoric (I got that at the start with meninism and so forth) ) but if nature had the insight to make someone de facto, or full on sterile to combat population control, then I wonder why nature doesn't choose straight up miscarriages, because then there isn't another mouth to feed.
Granted, maybe a baby that actually comes out deters parents from another, but the average is about two anyway and I don't know how common it is for both, or even more to have that.
So, yeah, my stance: Don't pick on gay or trans people, but also don't see them as a positive norm, either. Welfare for the ill has been a thing since, apparently, our most primitive times. I don't want them euthanized, or anything, I want the opposite, I want them to be boringly heterosexual. I know, (nigh) inescapable death of your own line must be incredibly exciting, but, why not just ride a few rollercoasters instead?
It's perfectly possible to be heterosexual and happy, and having the option to make more humans, and without those anything good we do means nothing beyond the current, which would be the last generation.
P.S.:
One more thing about gender stereotypes and how little they should matter (since I consider them a recent addition).
You could, and should, do anything you want, no matter how different it is to, yes, socially established 'stereotypes' as long as you know what you are, and what you can and should do (and, in a perfect world, anyone should have offspring if they are, from themselves, able and fit for it, that's a whole nother can of worms, but I did say 'perfect world')
You can be a totally effeminate man, who's a ballarina and picks flowers and rolls down flowery hills andprances, giggling and twirling, it's probably a lot of fun.
And yes, some burly fighter macho man would scoff at you, but that's just different priorities, you'd probably have an advantage in dexterity, etc, and dancing is pretty sensual.
But you'd still be a man, and a tomboy girl is still a woman with all the fixings that annoy them, like certain aunts and things annoyingly filling their shirts, no matter the social norms.
And these things, if they are otherwise normal members of the human species, will ALWAYS have strengths and weaknesses pertaining to their gender, built in.
So if you are a meek, nerdy, twig, you still have some manly aspects in you, even if you end up with more liabilities of them than their strengths (of whichs physical mass and strength is one of).
For example, you'd still most likely die sooner than a woman, you'd still have narrower veins than a woman, etc, and when something naturally 'polarizing' happens, you will be subject to those differences, no matter your own personal context and how neatly you fall into stereotypical behavior.
A frail old man is still an old man, and a frail old woman is still an old woman, they're different even if they're reduced to a completely weakened state.
The guy is still more likely to croak before her, it's just how it is, maybe if we bred that out somehow, then that would change, but for that you'll have to actually breed, and that's not easy for the aberrations, hence natural selection.
They need mitigators, and mitigator always means 'not available to their own body', even though normal, healthy humans have that.
