LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-17-2019, 04:07 AM   #76
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: /dev/planet2
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 2,327
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626Reputation: 1626

Since around the 15th century or possibly before that, the word gender usually meant "sex".

Then in more recent times, i.e. 20th century onward, once the term "sex" became a slang term for sexual intercourse, the word gender became a substitute politer term.

Geist is correct that "gender == sex".

However Gender has become synonymous in more recent time with the modern phrase "gender identity". But gender identity is precisely that and not "gender".

The matter being debated (endlessly) here seems to be a societal one rather than a biological one. Biological equality cannot be achieved, nor would it make any sense, but total social equality is of importance to certain groups - including, but not limited to, feminists.

The reality is that total gender equality is just another extreme ideology and would mean the abandonment of common sense, decency and restrictions on freedom of speech - and would lead to a world where men don't give up their seats to pregnant women on a train for fear of appearing old fashioned and chauvinistic.

I personally give up my seat, hold doors for and give way for women in general, regardless of age. Do we want to live in a world where those kind of actions are interpreted as some kind of improper behaviour?
 
Old 09-17-2019, 05:06 AM   #77
Samsonite2010
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 187
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 99
On a tenuously related note, I have noticed that there are some really contradictory views being pushed these days - if you read this article about someone who identifies as non-binary, she (I mean they) first knew they were non-binary when they sometimes wanted to do feminine things and sometimes wanted to do masculine things like building chest muscles - erm, so this person is literally labelling activities as being for males and females, essentially being sexist, in order to illustrate non-binary...

So this raises the question: Is there a difference between someone not wanting to conform to gender stereotypes and someone who identifies as non-binary? From what I can tell, the only difference is that non-binary people do not want to be called a male or a female (which used to be a biological/medical label, kind of important when it comes to medical procedures). I wonder if a non-binary person will temporarily allow to be called a male when they have testicular cancer...

I think creating these labels is having the opposite effect to their intention. Instead of redefining girls as people who are can refuse to be pretty bridesmaids and can do weight training, they are choosing to strengthen the stereotypes in order to strengthen the meaning of their new label. IMHO of course.
 
Old 09-17-2019, 05:36 AM   #78
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,378
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884Reputation: 1884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonite2010 View Post
So this raises the question: Is there a difference between someone not wanting to conform to gender stereotypes and someone who identifies as non-binary? From what I can tell, the only difference is that non-binary people do not want to be called a male or a female (which used to be a biological/medical label, kind of important when it comes to medical procedures). I wonder if a non-binary person will temporarily allow to be called a male when they have testicular cancer...

I think creating these labels is having the opposite effect to their intention. Instead of redefining girls as people who are can refuse to be pretty bridesmaids and can do weight training, they are choosing to strengthen the stereotypes in order to strengthen the meaning of their new label. IMHO of course.
I think you have a point. When I was growing up, it was accepted that some young people didn't care to conform to stereotypical behaviour for their gender. I was pretty unfeminine myself! I never wore make up or pretty dresses and was not interested in going to dances or having a boyfriend. But I never doubted that I was a woman or felt any desire not to be one.

I knew girls who took this much further and became what were called in those days tomboys. They liked activities that were usually carried out by boys like fighting, climbing trees and messing about with car engines. One or two of these girls might have been transgender or lesbian but most were perfectly normal girls who just didn't like the social definition of what was "feminine". Nowadays a girl isn't allowed to be a tomboy. They immediately stick a transgender label on her and encourage her to believe that she ought to become a boy.

Last edited by hazel; 09-17-2019 at 05:37 AM.
 
Old 09-17-2019, 05:46 AM   #79
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Since around the 15th century or possibly before that, the word gender usually meant "sex".

Then in more recent times, i.e. 20th century onward, once the term "sex" became a slang term for sexual intercourse, the word gender became a substitute politer term.

Geist is correct that "gender == sex".

However Gender has become synonymous in more recent time with the modern phrase "gender identity". But gender identity is precisely that and not "gender".

The matter being debated (endlessly) here seems to be a societal one rather than a biological one. Biological equality cannot be achieved, nor would it make any sense, but total social equality is of importance to certain groups - including, but not limited to, feminists.

The reality is that total gender equality is just another extreme ideology and would mean the abandonment of common sense, decency and restrictions on freedom of speech - and would lead to a world where men don't give up their seats to pregnant women on a train for fear of appearing old fashioned and chauvinistic.

I personally give up my seat, hold doors for and give way for women in general, regardless of age. Do we want to live in a world where those kind of actions are interpreted as some kind of improper behaviour?
Quoted for posterity.

But i was telling the same thing using my own words. I was telling that nowaday definition of gender is different than it was before so when it comes to nowaday society Gender equality is not Sex equality. But if Geist thinks it is then your example should be enough. Social equality is not Biological equality.

Do we want to live in such world? It depends how it would be executed..healthy diversity is no crime and doesn't hurt anyone but those who practice it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
I think you have a point. When I was growing up, it was accepted that some young people didn't care to conform to stereotypical behaviour for their gender. I was pretty unfeminine myself! I never wore make up or pretty dresses and was not interested in going to dances or having a boyfriend. But I never doubted that I was a woman or felt any desire not to be one.{...}
Can i ask you a question? Since you are more experienced(it should be compliment now). How come older people not want younger people to have it easier and succeed without going same struggle process as they did? They instantly start to object saying stuff like "only lazy people are richer than others" or "only easy behaviour people like sexy stuff" etc. I understand both city life with parties and country life with farmbarns. But not all people are born same. Some, like myself, are born different. Yet society expects us to fit in. I understand old ways but i also understand new ways. What to do? If i try to combine it only works for myself not others. As a boy i not overly care that other boys are at that situation in better position at life as long as they respect others. Yet when it comes to girls i noticed their jealousy is not temporary..it almost turns into revenge.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-17-2019 at 06:27 AM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-17-2019, 07:58 AM   #80
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
How many times will we have to type that gender and sex is not the same?

Actually your curtain posts are saying that "through flowers".

And they still are held in "high esteem"(whatever that means).

That is oldschool thinking..which is still valid but outdated..newschool improves upon oldschool and allows update improvements. Both boys and girls can decide if they want drive truck or shoot weapon for example.
I am not saying 'through the flower' (I know what that means, so no worries) saying any of that.

I am intrinisically connecting biological maleness to the male gender and the biological femaleness to the female gender.
Anything that deviates from that is an ailment that should be treated, not nurtured, it just happens to be that these treatments do not exist to date, which is unfortunate.

And if people say that it's okay to be basically infertile and consider that "healthy and normal" then I'm not sure if they will ever be a treatment for it that allows all people to achieve basic human biological functions that give them the ability to, you know, continue their bloodline without any further invasive treatmens, if they wanted to.
They can always opt to not have any children, but they should at least have the ability for them, and this includes sterility of all kind, the basics should be covered.

If the world is still awful when it comes to even wanting them is a different story.
(Btw, high esteem of women who decided to become mothers instead of lawyers and whatnot is because they were doing not only a dangerous thing (there is death after/because of childbirth after all), but also the most feminine thing they could do, there is not any thing that could be more feminine than bringing a new baby into the world.
Turn your example around, with women being the standard, and not the men.

A woman can drive a truck, and shoot a gun, and be really good at shot put, and formulate scientific processes, just like men can.
A woman can become pregnant and deliver a new life into this universe that is so devoid of it, a man cannot do that, he plays a role in it, but aside from that, not much more after that.

This is the foreverial crux, that, if we all wanted to be honest, would require you to repeat "sex != gender" forever because lies usually need constant repetition, lest they fade off for the truth to come out again.
Might not look like it with me prattling on about this in this thread, but imagine every single instance of "genders and sexes are not the same and are separate" would stop, world wide, forever from now on, nobody can say it anymore.
Would the "gender != sex" 'truth' continue forever? I doubt it.

And as an extension, since we already have this magnificent technology that has been around with us since time immemorial, why bend over backwards to hammer square pegs into round holes by cutting up and frankensteining unfortunate people who have illnesses pertaining to these things despite having otherwise perfectly functioning biological bodies.
Again, what if gender dysphoria is caused by some small a-hole POS protein that isn't folded right and irritates the system like some sort of autoimmune disease and could perhaps be edited somehow, healing the afflicted and giving them a chance of making the most with the equipment they were given, perhaps even create a family and have children, etc.

We live in a world where the basics have become so messed up though that I realize that not even wanting to have the basics right and just roll the eyes back and go along with the MALSTRÍM of entropy because struggling against it seems so hard though ,but it really is just mental, I consider the vast, vast vast majority of problems we have mental, not even mentally ill, but conditioning and deception that we self perpetuate, I'm a victim of that too.

Ever seen one of those ubiquitous "how to adult lol" webcomics and cartoons, etc? They are so prevalent these days, because we're so domesticated and mushed in the brain, myself included, I am quite the underachiever in some things, like my artistic hobbies, and all I would have to do to is "just sit down and draw", nothing prevents me from it other than me not sitting down (in fact writing this down makes me want to draw now, and I shall)

But the problems go, of course, very deep, we are all suffering from basic deceptions, starting from our monopoly money that is actually a worse than zero sum debt game that will always give banks who deal in it the ability to reposses real things made from real resources and real labor for "hey you couldn't pay back the thing we typed up for you in our system and its interest lolololo now gimme that house" to how we live physically. I would consider the world off much dumber, relatively speaking, or at least helpless than ever before.

I get proverbial night sweats sometimes when I think about technologies and amenities failing us, something stupid happens in the rube goldberg machine that keeps the nonsense going and the only solace I have is that even though a lot of people don't even know how a radio works, would at least quickly 'remember' basics again, because this other form of 'lying' would stop.

It just happens that the lie of 'high society' and 'huge amount of people living together in ways that require a gargantuan system of bubblegum and ductape' will generate quite the big of chaos. Won't kill us off, but then again, so does society.

A common fate these day is to just live long but not exactly great. Life expectancy has shot up, but quality? Not so much.
I am pretty serious about the 'quip' "don't end up having children and then end up in a nursing home where one gets tortured by the nurse because you have noone else to turn to"
The nurse is probably all worn out and killed inside from the world, exorcised of the same basic appreciation of life that makes people just want to escape forever, and might just end up sticking needles into your decrepid, half or fully senile body, that is old because life expectancy is high, but you're a drooling wreck, willie all worn out from the catheter, and the only cloudy memories of happiness you could accrue in an empty life is being exorcised by the dehydration and the slaps across the face because of your vegetative state and that nurse ain't paid enough but HAS to do it, or the monopoly drain that everyone is subject to, will leave her (or him) homeless, and you just WONT STOP MOANING AND GROANING, slap slap, stabbbbb!

But I don't wanna sound too sensationalist with that, it's actually quite depressing to me that people end up like that, I want to save people like that.
I don't want to fight 'trans people' or be a bigot or whatever, I want to help them make their own old age nurses that hopefully won't abuse them.

But I know, that isn't guaranteed with ones own children either, but how could it be? Many parents can't even sing the same songs as their children, that used to be not the case in more primitive times. You'd have songs for harvest, songs for work here, songs for work there, folk songs, you know, songs for the folk, all of it.
Now we only have a few remnant for holidays, but otherwise every damn decade new genres new flavors and styles that put wedges between the generations, etc.

And what's the payoff of that? Yeah, I'm German I love me my electronic music that drove my parents and grandparents to scoff at me, but now that I'm older, I actually listen to folk stuff because it's ...sincere. I miss sincerity, man...I miss it so much, that's why I want to be sincere and be as little convoluted as possible.

Traditions aren't always bad, and the past isn't created equal, granted, it wasn't all sunshine, and we can certainly work on old stuff to improve it, but I think the world at large should be more patient and more prudent when it comes to looking at the past. I think we're a bit too hasty discounting it because it becomes mor and more difficult with every lie that is being taken as the standard, and that causes it to propagate, even though lies should not.
When they are not propagated then nature takes it course and returns people to truths, well, naturally.

So, yeah. I don't consider the current standard of the world anything good, and while I am tempted to say "I would rather see some downsizing of humanity if that means returning to saner defaults", I still can't throw babies out with the bathwater, we still need them more than anything, without them, any actual progress we make means nothing.

Edit:
One thing about "uncharacteristic behavior of boys and girls".
I consider it the same thing as many young'uns these days go "I'm autistic for using arch linux, or gentoo or vim or latex or other 'autismal' tools." Or "Man I just don't want to sleep around all wanton like" or "Man I just want some peace" or "I don't wanna look like a frilly mannequin" or "I don't want to be a macho I just want to read books!"

That's normal! Just as it is normal for men to cry. In fact, I think it's more unnatural for men to not cry when the occasion calls for it, and by occastion I mean the urge.
I think this is actually a very recent thing, this "men/boys don't cry". Its just as silly as "men/boys don't talk about their feelings", when, in fact, that is a very healthy thing to do.
If it worked for shell shocked soldiers who had to see their friends get turned into hamburger, it will work for anyone.

If you don't feel like a stereotype of gender, then you're still probably normal, because even those stereotypes have become tainted.
But that doesn't mean one should commit wanton acts of gross mutilation on oneself...

It's like transhumanism.
"Oh look how this guy transhumanized his ear with a cochlear implant!"
"Oh look how this guy transhumanized his mobility with these awesome spring legs!"
"Oh look how this guy transhumanized his arm with a bionic replacement!"
"Oh look how this guy transhumanized his circulation with an artificial heart!"
"Oh look how this guy transhumanized his communication with voicebox implant!"

"See! That means I should become a cut up frankensteinian construct of sterility and mutilation"
Etc, there's a difference in the motivation and application. It should be more like "Look how this woman was able to be healthy in the body she already had now that she has the glandular modulation module"
Etc

Last edited by Geist; 09-17-2019 at 08:10 AM.
 
Old 09-17-2019, 10:17 AM   #81
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,435

Rep: Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446
Regarding Gender and Sex - Some of the confusion we can all experience is due to the transition from a more faith-based understanding of Nature and a more scientific one. The idea of bi-polarity is writ in stone for most Christian believers with the whole concept of Adam and Eve, which the more scientific generally view as symbolic of the evolution of life from single cell reproduction to sexual reproduction, and in reproduction that is still absolutely true.

What has been refined refers to two areas - actual physical differences and perceived mental differences. Modern scanning machines can detect that there is such as thing loosely definable as a "female brain" but this has come about so far down the line of human progress to be powerfully affected by Super Ego - the general consensus of what is so. This gets expressed by the influence on children that "big boys don't cry" and "nice girls don't play with trucks, boys don't play with dolls (unless they are called "action figures") so it becomes difficult to separate what is naturally so and what is altered by our social pressures.

Despite that most scientific people associated in the field see three areas that can be defined as "gender-specific"

1) Brain Gender - regardless of why, Men and Women think somewhat differently so it is meaningful to characterize brains as Male or Female BUT by percentages since it is not perfectly bi-polar. It is a sliding scale since we all have brain aspects of both genders to varying degrees.

2) Body Gender - This includes the most obvious, genitalia, but also includes the far more important chromosome makeup. Both of those, however, are also not perfectly bi-poplar given that a percentage of children are born who have unusual chromosome makeup and genitalia that even doctors must flip a coin to decide which is which.

3) Sexual Preference
- This too is not at all a function of only Nature but includes social morays and pressures as well as individually wide-ranged proclivities. This should be obvious when looking through history, Masters and Johnson, or any serious sexual study and that some are strictly heterosexual, others are strictly homosexual, others are bi-sexual, and some are approaching omni-sexual. One could say it gives expanded meaning to "Any port in a storm"

Bottom Line - It has become important if not completely necessary to sepcify which of these three areas one is referring to when addressing the larger subject of "Gender"... if one actually wishes to be properly understood, that is. Otherwise we get lost in talking about differing areas and details.

On the much larger issue of Equality this is commonly very misunderstood and misquoted. It is obvious that nobody is equal depending on criteria. The concept originated as "Equal Under The Law" not physically or mentally, which cannot be generalized.

Last edited by enorbet; 09-17-2019 at 10:36 AM.
 
Old 09-17-2019, 10:23 AM   #82
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
{...}A woman can drive a truck, and shoot a gun, and be really good at shot put, and formulate scientific processes, just like men can.
A woman can become pregnant and deliver a new life into this universe that is so devoid of it, a man cannot do that, he plays a role in it, but aside from that, not much more after that.{...}
This quote is from MGTOW|WGTOW nonsense lolsense? Why are you focusing only on childbirth? That is one end of extreme. Without society, who was built by men muscle with assistance from women beauty, who protects from outside jungle where muscle is also required to survive, that fact that woman can give life would be irrelevant. There would be no kids..no women..no men.. Yin-Yang ! But it is true. Women and Men are not truly equal..but that comes down to nature not society. In society they should be more or less equal as long as they can execute free will choices without force or trickery etc.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-17-2019 at 10:23 AM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-19-2019, 11:47 AM   #83
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
This quote is from MGTOW|WGTOW nonsense lolsense? Why are you focusing only on childbirth? That is one end of extreme. Without society, who was built by men muscle with assistance from women beauty, who protects from outside jungle where muscle is also required to survive, that fact that woman can give life would be irrelevant. There would be no kids..no women..no men.. Yin-Yang ! But it is true. Women and Men are not truly equal..but that comes down to nature not society. In society they should be more or less equal as long as they can execute free will choices without force or trickery etc.
I am focusing on childbirth because it's the chief difference between men and women, and you talk about extremes, yet you are proposing an extinction event where life is impossible.
Men have a worth and great ability, physically, outside of childbirth often (generally, even) exceeding women, but women are still biologically worth more.

Yes, if there were no men, if there was no protection, if there was a meteor about to strike the earth dead, then, yes, it's irrelevant for women to be able to BRING LIFE INTO A UNIVERSE SO HOSTILE TO IT THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL DILEMMAS ABOUT WHERE THE ALIENS ARE IF THE UNIVERSE IS AS HUGE AS IT IS.

Life is also quite possible without the protection of males, there's quite a few species out there were the males die in one way or another or just become vestigal skintags on some female (like the anglerfish lol).
We just happen to have a more complex environment where men can make a difference. For a salmon male, who will just burn out himself after mating, and dies, or a salmon female who will live on to continue to species, the bear makes no difference, both die equally. Not for us and many other animals, but even in our system, the females are still biologically more precious and them giving birth intrinsically IS the thing that sets them apart from men in the MOST TELLING and DEFINITE way.
Without childbirth you get an, on average, smaller, less dangerous man.
Imagine in a completely stable and safe and protected tribe, the women suddenly stopped, all of them, birthing children. That's a lot more dangerous than if all men started cloudwatching all day and avoiding any sort of dangerous activity.
You'd still have women, a woman can still throw a spear or shoot and arrow or seduce a marauding warlord and slip poison in their water or kill them in their sleep, etc.
But if those women decided "these wombs are barren forever now, beat it, busters" then the tribe would flat out die out, even if the tribe were superhuman mutants with superpowers and invincibility otherwise, as long as they could die from old age, etc, then that tribe would be dashed out.

A reason why I fear school itself more than any shooting that might happen in one, if one school started grooming children into things that culminated into some bloodline ending mindset, wholesale, where most if not all girls and boys end up growing up loathing the idea of babies on top of the already GARBAGE environment for them, then that has the potential to kill a whole lot more people than another shooting.

How's that for an extreme opinion? If you teach people to 'consciously and willingly' sterilize themselves, end their bloodlines, then you do just that, every potential life from those people that might have otherwise sprang forth is irrevocably gone.
And that's such a BASIC biological thing, yet, we already see the inklings of it. You might think I already see doomsdays in my eyes with so much I've already said, but, no it's still good enough that the 'normies' can carry this disease, but it might get worse as time passes.

@enorbet
I'm not a christian, but anyway, I think most people confused today are arguing from an already damaged standpoint of artificial differences, like "boys wear blue" "boys are not supposed to cry", etc.
Since these things are incredibly recent (I doubt some peasants so poor that they had to eat bread made from moldy rye and going into throes of agonizing sores and necrotic flesh who had to keep doig it like rabbits to keep the farmstead running even had the means to dye anything blue ... )
But I see them all the time.
Brain gender...brain gender, a tomboy is a still female, even if she's the tommest tomboy to ever tom around boys. It's normal. Just like being a meek boy built close to the water with empathy out the wazoo who cries when people step on ants.
Crossdressers are still their own gender, 'trans' people, just as much, and I doubt any of them actually have insight about how the other sex feels, that's my personal opinion though, that one I couldn't cite any studies even if I tried, but I do think that we should tread lightly and not do a riverdance about that topic where everything just flies out of the window.

I forgot the name of the book about if we really are concious since most things, even if we think about them, don't actually seem to be 'actuated' consciously, no matter how loud our voice in our head is (and apparently some people don't have a 'thinking voice', so that makes that even more difficult).
Back in the days, before even the first forays into psychology, it seems (again, I forgot the book, it had citations...) that antique people thought their own thoughts were the gods, warning them about things, or giving them guidance. They didn't see it as concious thought because their everyday tasks could be done by just, well, doing them.

So, if you ask me, I think we should stay as close to the basics that work as possible, because, again, what I keep talking about *works*, it has worked throughout time, that's why we are all here to defend or fight it. Because our collective mothers and fathers did this simple trick and now give us a chance to debate how little or much sense that makes,etc.

And I still stand by my opinion that this technology, this bio technology is robust enough to keep it working and instead grab the ones who are equipped for it but don't think they are what they are, to reign them back into it, just because they "think" they're different, which I have a hard time believing, and since a lot of them end up as "cishet stereotypes" anyway, then I think that they think the same way anyone who doesn't know thinks.

Common "what if" thing I've seen on forums and whatnot through the ages.
"If you woke up as a woman, what would you do?"
The top answer, so far, has always been things pertaining to the flesh and actions done to aforementioned flesh.
So, yeah I'm not surprised if "I'm really a woman, I know it!" Ends up looking like a gaudy mannequin that was sentenced to makeup via HomerSimpsonMakeupShotgunExecution™, etc.
And women going completely shorn and necktied and bound up, to the point where I have more ample bosoms than they have. Guess I'm a girl now.

But at the same time, they have to deal with people who flat out say they are the opposite sex while sporting a stereotypical textbook body of their actual gender, and those are legitimized, too.
So, why do the "surgery and binders" people try so hard to achieve a "male" or "female" body when looking like a baywatch model, is perfectly male or female?
This woman that looks like a male olympic GOD swimmer is a woman, she is completely and utterly womanly in this chiseled male flesh shell. So why did the other guy need implants and 10 tonnes of makeup as well as a willisectomy to be a woman?

It's nonsense, especially if this feeling of confusion comes from "Well, I always liked painting my nails as a boy", bruh, breh, brotato, painted nails are just pretty and that tech wasn't even around for most of human history, your sex was, though.
Were you only able to get confused because we have makeup easily available now? Because we have easily available bodices that make adams apples bob up like fish in a pond around feeding time?
Is it because we have industrially available flesh shaping tape that can give your jawline a doll like, feminine look? Is that were your confusiong comes from?

I, personally, think, yes, without these things, people would not be confused, these external things.
If I were unhappy because of the world and my only solace would be asphyxiating the poultry, not even because I'm currently named Randy, but just because it's some sort of "good feeling", and there's a catalogue in front of me filled with toys and tools that can even transform a schlub with a dad bod into something presentable and sexy, who knows?
Maybe I'd order that feather boa, too. Do it in style, oh yes, that's much better. Hey, if its more fun like this, then maybe I'm actually a woman...?
No. And I'm not saying that's what happens every time, but:

With the knowledge, or at least, the good guess (in my opinion) that many of the differences people use to dance around the fire of simple biological processes that have been proven to work as good as possible (not perfect, we do have malfunctions that birth all sorts of aberrations, some subtle, some incredibly messed up to the point of super short lifespans), are fake, like "Oh, I was a tomboy and wore pants." (Cause I grew up with 7 brothers, but that detail might be omitted in the incredibly brave story of Bruce, now 'male' etc)

That we should perhaps look at the environment at large and really look if it's not something else that confuses people.
For example, suicides not related to the gender thing, or depression.

"Oh boy I'm so depressed, glub glub mhh...pills, gotta fix my chemistry" which is all fair and good, but maybe, just maybe, the world is being a legitimate AHOLE in some way, and depression is completely fair to experience, especially with the added stress of "gotta put up a good face, can't cry, can't cry" for men or "if I cry I'll just be another whiny beeznatch" for women ...who have to deal with these FAKE additional stressors because these fakes have been established as 'real' for so long now.

Etc, you get the point, I'm sure.

Also, I, of course, agree with legal equality, but ...that, again, can be its own term, which can be as wordy as it wants.
"In our system of law, the law of America (and that's fine ,such a thing would be fine. Just like it's fine to say "our system of philosophy is founded on Greek teachings!") we not favor either of the sexes over the other when it comes to decisions pertaining to it." etc, that's totally cool like that.

It's not "gender equality", because that's too vague and false, it is, instead, what it is, what I just wrote. Now you get all the "gender equality" where it matters, without having to deal with people like me, who fire up the grill with BASICS, which must now be fought, lest the house of fake cards comes down.

And that's kind of vexing, if you think about it, because it exploits a basic human behavior in a malicious way.
We don't want to LOSE anything, we hate LOSING progress we have accrued. So this tactic, of building up something, that makes sense on a sleepy, superficial level, slowly, over time feels more and more solid (despite not growing in solidity, but only on the catalogue of apologetism for it), and then people don't want to lose that.

It's some sort of wicked gaslighting that, til now, has caused so many deaths and suffering and degeneration that I can't even grasp it. The evil of this (and agaim, that's just my opinion, and i'm not a christian, etc lol) is staggering to me.


And numbness to evil CAN happen, easily.

Here, since I'm already lol, popular with my contentious thoughts.
Male circumcision...

If you think about it without being on whatever process people are on who don't have a problem with it... it is done via this procedure:
First, you have to have an insane mother, who, instead of protecting her newborn, betrays it, and hands it over to a doctor, who also betrays the newborn (because, do not harm, etc) all under the unwatchful eye, of a weak father, who lets it happen, too...

Then, this newborn, this little tiny helpless infant that just wants to suckle on moms milk and be warm in her arms, gets a metal instrument put to his 'designed' by nature, tightly wrapped up at that age, genital, has that skin yanked up with this instrument, and then a piece of flesh, well, skin (but you slice off a patch of skin and tell me if you like the prospect) gets sliced off, irrevocably removing tissue and nerve endings, and giving it a lifelong scar that has a higher chance of complication than phimosis does with the pliable skin...

And nobody bats an eye.
A process, that turns three pillars of welfare into the OPPOSITE form that I can only ...think be worse if they straight up killed the child instead of just mutilating it...
For nothing, nothing substantial..but it's okay because they "grow up just fine" right? (And so would a child if you clipped off a toe or two, etc, or blind it, or chop off an ear, they'd deal with it...)

This creates a situation, where the family dog, Rover, has more legal protection against wanton mutilation, than the newborn son, because you're not allowed to dock the tail or crop the ears of a dog, at least not just like that.

This is incredibly evil, it's bafflingly evil, that the weakest of us have a fate like this, depending on the region or belief, and it's considered no big deal, despite the huge betrayal this entails...

And, if this gender bender stint continues, where people are allowed to mutilate themselves even further, including sterilization, the removal of the procreation bits...
Then the counter argument of "well, we spay and neuter or dogs, so nyeh!" falls away, too!

Ri.Di.Cu.Lous.

So, yeah, ...I think we're a little bit crazy, to say the least...and we should turn it down a bit, instead of going too nuts with things we don't even think about too much anymore.
Prudence, man, not prudeness, prudence...

But, once more, this is all retro stuff I'm talking about it, things that we just forgot about because of constantly repeating lies.
Circumcisions would go down and probably never be instated again if people stopped for a while until it's forgotten, only because they're being propagated, needlessly, do they continue. They are aberrations, etc.

So, yeah,if you want to fight the evil of the world, then really sit down and pick the actual fights that make sense, if you can, as much as you can. I don't know if I'm right about anything up there, it's just what I arrived at after thinking things through and looking at humanity and society, etc.

In my opinion I have managed to dodge some ghost enemies, red herrings and I am pretty convinced that the things I push for are actual issues, and from my experience, I have seen very little recourse in opposition because it's hard to counter, and if it's hard to counter because it's built into 'our natural state', then I think that's a good path.

That's my views, they are no christian or whatever (although I am quite the retro pagan, emphasis on retro, but that's another can of worms full of misconceptions that are now seen as truth, have some people react to it with jeers about headhunting and child sacrifice...which has never happend, well the headhunting did, but that was collecting the skulls and legbones of their own people, not the enemy...)
I just think the world as it is right now is a bit nuts and going back to a more sensible standpoint would not hurt, especially if all the fake hurdles in the way (like blue and pink and whatnot) were just disregarded.

And I want people to live well..and continue this miraculous species that we are...

Oh yeah!
P.S.:
I would like to point out the biggest strength, imho, of my way.

My way of changing things is based on NOT DOING some things. Not propagating falsehoods so the buildin truths can resurface again.
How could that not be the best deal ever? Do something positive, by NOT DOING something else.
I propose fixes that rely on NOT doing some things anymore. How is that not the sweetest gig ever?

Last edited by Geist; 09-19-2019 at 12:12 PM.
 
Old 09-19-2019, 11:49 AM   #84
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17
Posts: 5,840
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921Reputation: 2921
As said in a commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkLvM9eziu8

" Change your apt. Change the world "

To lighten up this thread.
 
Old 09-19-2019, 03:32 PM   #85
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,435

Rep: Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446
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.

Last edited by enorbet; 09-19-2019 at 03:35 PM.
 
Old 09-19-2019, 05:47 PM   #86
Samsonite2010
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 187
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 99
@enorbet - if you think you like words, I think @Geist's last post would take a rain forest to print out!
 
Old 09-19-2019, 08:22 PM   #87
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,435

Rep: Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446Reputation: 2446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonite2010 View Post
@enorbet - if you think you like words, I think @Geist's last post would take a rain forest to print out!
Heheh! Maybe so but I didn't specify that I love the quantity of words. Essence is an Art form, although with quite a few of my posts most might consider me disingenuous or worse, a hack. Isn't it interesting how "hack" has such different connotations in different fields?
 
Old 09-20-2019, 04:09 AM   #88
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
{...}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.{...}
I know the feeling. I am what you would call a 'Thinman' so i get laughed as not being "manly enough" boy cause less muscle to self defend(i agree though, gym and sport and martial arts are needed but i didn't know about it untill started to workjob, i was raised to try diplomacy pacifism approach which was also not schooled). Also i especially like 'Thinwomen'(model type girls) so that is another thing that is considered "unmanly" because of stereotypes about "real men(with muscle) like real women(with curves)".
Quote:
Beauty is in the eye of beholder.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-20-2019 at 04:10 AM. Reason: quote
 
Old 09-20-2019, 04:15 AM   #89
Samsonite2010
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 187
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Heheh! Maybe so but I didn't specify that I love the quantity of words. Essence is an Art form, although with quite a few of my posts most might consider me disingenuous or worse, a hack. Isn't it interesting how "hack" has such different connotations in different fields?
The word "hack" seems to cause some confusion in etymology, it was once simple: the oldest definition would be "to cut roughly with chopping motion" and "a hack" as a writer would come from the word "hackney" (a work horse, later a taxicab). There seem to be differing opinions on where computer "hacker" comes from - some say it comes from the original in terms of "hacking around" which seems plausible, but some say it relates to "working on something" which would originate from the hackney origin... but bizarrely, the original definition also came to mean "working away at something", relating to hacking plants away in a jungle. Bizarre because it means that the two completely different origins of a word, ended up meaning the same thing pretty much.
 
Old 09-20-2019, 05:40 AM   #90
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 152
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 108Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
Because I'm not talking nonsense, I'm talking sense.
On a planet of this size and climate, with 7 billion people, I question how the ability to reproduce outweighs all other "features."

I'm not concluding (or at this time, disputing) anything about what you said except that it's a dramatic oversimplification, which is undoubtedly true-- but only in a certain context. As a blanket statement intended to stand on its own? You've got to be kidding me.
 
  


Reply

Tags
life


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Libreboot C201 from Minifree is really really really ridiculously open source jeremy Linux - News 0 12-09-2016 10:51 AM
Does it really make a difference to use make -jK instead only "make" while compiling? angel'le Linux - General 1 04-26-2014 01:14 AM
World of warcraft for Linux.(This is a forum for people who want world of warcraft..) darkstarbyte Linux - Games 17 09-05-2011 02:30 AM
How can I get people to use Linux? I'm bad at converting people over. Mr. Hill Linux - Newbie 31 10-19-2008 09:16 AM
Really, really Weird trouble with make (make error 2) flyeater SUSE / openSUSE 5 06-20-2005 12:05 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration