posted
Karl, thanks for answering the question. I had wondered.
What you say about gay marriage making it easier for closet homosexuals to feel free to be themselves and respect who they are in society probably has some validity. The issue, however, is not only their lack of acceptance in society, but their lack of acceptance of themselves, which society can only take a certain amount of responsibility for.
In a different thread, I mentioned that my first marriage was "open", which I asserted was not something I felt I could share with coworkers and family. I had two problems: 1. That my marriage was sufficiently different from the norm that it was open to ridicule and scorn from society (my coworkers and family), and 2. That I was not secure enough in my decision that having an open marriage was the right choice for me to withstand the societal pressures that came to bear. And there were pressures. I mistakenly told my boss, who from then on never treated me the same.
All this is to say that no matter how much we change the law, homosexuality is still rare and unusual enough that to some degree, it will never (at least not in my lifetime, I don't think) be accepted as 'just another way of living'. If anything, I perceive that continued pushing at the hurried pace we're currently going will polarize and divide more than gain true acceptance.
I hope you have found a better partner in Chris. And that if you get to the point of wanting legal status for your relationship, you get it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG, one of the great things about science -- as opposed to religion -- is that scientists can hear that elements of Darwin's theory have been replaced by other products of more recent research, nod thoughtfully, and say, "Yay. I'm glad science is working."
--------
pooka, I don't understand why you would think that your role as a woman is defined by the marital status of other women -- or men -- around you. Why is your self-image reliant on the sexual proclivities of other people?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'd just like to chime in that evolutionary theorists haven't thought darwin was 100% right since well within his lifetime.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I really, really don't understand what you're saying. Do you or don't you think that science gives us good reason to believe that the creation story is not literally true? And if it does, couldn't science also give us good reason to reject some Biblical moral pronouncements?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The creation story can be true without denying science, and evolution can be true turning the Bible into a lie.
Most CERTAINLY there can be developmental and genetic accidents in the human formation process without invalidating the Bible.
It's not as simple-minded as you think it is. I'm serious - it's possible to both believe in the Bible and evolution. There's lots and lots of material on this if you want to know how.
quote:couldn't science also give us good reason to reject some Biblical moral pronouncements?
Biology is excellent at providing answers to the "how" questions, but the answers to human moral questions are not and cannot be answered with a microscope.
posted
All of the reasons that I can think of one gender being advantageous over another, are negative societal constructs that I, as a woman in a "man's profession" struggle against daily.
I understand that testosterone does cause different physical characteristics. In a job where actually physical requirements need to be met (the military is often used as an example) I believe those requirements should be applied universally to males and females equally. The number of females who met them would be lower due to the testosterone factor. However, I know without a doubt that I could have met all of those physical requirements at age 18, partially because I am a female with an extremely high testosterone count.
Most combat positions today do not require the physical standards in the past because they are technology based, which makes gender once again irrelevant.
Personally I am extremely androgynous to begin with including in the way I dress 95% of the time. I refuse to be classified either as a "frilly female" or "butch" however. I am in a heterosexual relationship because it happened to come along first and it worked, not because I was opposed to a homosexual relationship. I choose to express the heterosexual side of my nature, because I do believe in monogamy and have therefore not explored the other side as deeply. Though my subconscious definitely does, I have had many lesbian dreams that I remember upon waking.
The size of any person's sexual anatomy does not put limitations on the amount of sexual pleasure one can give or recieve. In some ways the "gender assignment" of an infant with ambiguous genetalia sounds to me a lot like female circumsison which is also undertaken with out the person who is the most directly affecteds consent.
Is it possible that a child with gender ambiguity could be teased on the playground? Yes, but would the teasing actually be more severe than other kinds of mean childhood teasing? Probably not. What you are giving the child is the precious gift of choice over a major decision of self-identity.
posted
Banna, maybe Mack or someone with some training in psychological development can tell us what effect not having a specific gender would have on a kid.
quote:Yes, but would the teasing actually be more severe than other kinds of mean childhood teasing? Probably not.
Are you serious? They'd crucify the kid. Being teased for being a bookworm would be NOTHING compared to the teasing that would come for not being able to be sorted the most basic of human divisions. I know there's dangers in picking the wrong gender, but picking none at all and hoping the kid survives childhood sounds cruel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the teasing for being the "dumb kid" in the class as opposed to the bookworm. Or the teasing of being the worst at physical activities, because your legs aren't quite the same lengths or you have little sense of balance because your inner ear is messed up?
Childhood teasing is all cruel. I don't think it would be any more or less cruel than what children endure right now at all. Once again it is an unhealty construct of perceptions of gender (mostly learned from influential adults) that doesn't allow people to be accepted for who they actually are.
quote:Myself: Then let him determine what gender he wants to be from one moment to the next, to suit the legal requirements of the situation. People of mixed-ethnicity do it all the time.
Consider the Apostle Paul: was he a Roman citizen, or was he a Jew? Did he ever use his status in either group to gain legal advantage?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I doubt you'll find much data on the subject. Up until recently, gender re-assignment was the default action immediately after birth. The biggest worry was cancer, although this worry is being viwed with increasing skepticism (though still without enough data for a doctor to reccommend not doing gender re-assignment).
posted
Banna, I completely reject the idea that gender identity is only a big part of our lives because our society makes it so.
It's a big deal everywhere, in every human society.
Bok: I know. I also hate doing the google thing - Kayla's better at it, and I never follow anyone else's links, so there's a sense of futility on top of it. On the other hand, I'm firmly convinced that there is not a credible scientist out there that thinks developing a gender identity is not a big part of human development.
posted
see, ths is the thing about difference. People need to learn how to deal with people who are different so that childhood teasing can stop!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat: I agree, but the question is, can we have more than 2 genders, with the caveat that beyond the main two, the others are vanishingly small in numbers?
If so, should we try to re-wire (or re-sculpt) those people prior to their ability to decide for themselves?
quote:It's not as simple-minded as you think it is. I'm serious - it's possible to both believe in the Bible and evolution. There's lots and lots of material on this if you want to know how.
My impression is definitely not that it's simpleminded, although I do wonder if it might involve some doublethink.
And as a physics afficionado, evolution is not my only reason for questioning the Genesis story. I don't see how a seven-day creation could ever be compatible with the Big Bang model, or with the fact that the Earth has existed for less than half of the universe's lifetime.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I don't said that gender identity was entirely bad. I do think that some of the societal gender identity that takes place is extremely unehealthy. [Some parents do still tell their little girls that they *should* be bad at math and to let a man worry about it for them!] I don't see where it would be terribly advantageous in any specific situation to have one gender identity over another.
I also think that the whole point of leaving a child as an ambigous gender is so that THEY can decide which they choose to relate with, because which ever gender they do choose comes with a host of societal strings attached. At least they get to choose the strings. I can't.
posted
The human mind deals in almost every non-physical phenomenon in terms of metaphor. Since the act of Creation necessarily involved manipulations from outside space-time, where we have zero reference point, descriptions of those manipulations had to put in terms of metaphor. The 7-day story is incredibly compatible with the Big Bang theory.
I mean, we know the days don't have to be perceptually the same length to observers in different inertial frames.
quote:can we have more than 2 genders, with the caveat that beyond the main two, the others are vanishingly small in numbers?
I think... I think this is destining people to a lifetime of never belonging anywhere. It isn't even creating a third gender, because the developmental misformations would all be different in nature.
Banna, I didn't mean it's better to be one over the other. I'm saying it's better to A definite gender that to not.
posted
Kat I *know* where I fall on the gender spectrum, and other than mostly biologically (I have a female reproductive system that may or may not be functional (non-functional is a distinct possiblity due to hormonal issues)) it is mostly in the male category not the female category.
What do you propose I do about it [since I don't belong anywhere]?
AJ
FYI, I self identify about 85% with my father and only 15% with my mother, in what was to external judgements, a stable 2-parent household.
posted
Because I'm *not* forced into a box that doesn't fit. With gender assignment, you are forcing a person into a box that just might not be their size or shape!
posted
Hatrack has required no adjustmentat all? I love this place and I think/hope I belong, but I've made adjustments all over the place to be part of this society.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, none. If I had to adjust to be something other than myself to be here, I probably wouldn't be here. [that sentence probably doesn't make entire sense]
My posting style has probably matured with time, but that is about it. I do occasionally change my mind on issues as the result of logical arguments, but that doesn't change my identity.
posted
I think you've made far more adjustments than you think. "Maturing" is what that adjusting process is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me what is disturbing about what you wrote kat is that you are thinking and hoping you belong to hatrack after being around far longer than me.
I know I belong here because I choose to be here. Belonging to hatrack is a free choice provided you don't violate the TOS. Yes, I was new for a while, but the whole issue of belonging/not belonging with regards to hatrack had never before crossed my mind.
posted
Kat, I don't think that I've made as many *adjustments* as you think I have. On a personal level I would be interested to know what they are. We could take it to another thread if you like, but I'm kind of enjoying the diversion in this one.
posted
*shrug* That's a personal thing, I think. Various life events have left me a little more disbelieving in the veracity of any group. It isn't personality; this is an aquired tendency.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you really mean "veracity"? I've never looked at Hatrack specifically or most groups in general as "true" or "not true", but more along the lines of "what truth is here among the clutter?"
posted
I mean I don't quite believe that communities as "sums greater than the whole of their parts" really exist, but there's a chance.
It's what a sweetheart of mine once called the "we". Something greater and separate from the individuals that compose it. I know it's what communities (families) should be, but I think...the substance of it develops considerably less often than the form. Hatrack definitely has the form, and despite the huge numbers of threads and hurt feelings that are here, I think there's a very good chance the substance exists. I plan on acting as if it does.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ela, that's just how it appears in my neck of the woods. Really conservative elders, somewhat more liberal middle agers, and completely clueless youth who parrot their parents' views.
Oh, so you were referring to society as a whole, Jenny? If that is the case, I would probably have to agree with you.
I thought your remarks referred to Hatrackers, and that is what I was responding to.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if we are. I didn't mean to turn this into a dialogue between katharina and I but I was interested in knowing her ideas.
Kat, please tell me this, do you think variety in communities enhances it or works to its detriment or both? Because to me hermaphrodites and homosexuals are something that are naturally occuring within society throughout history. So, why not look at it as enhancing the variety and adding value so that a society doesn't stagnate and become boringly uniform?
posted
When it comes to those who aren't obviously one gender or another, I have to admit I don't care about their effect on society. I think it would be terribly damaging to the kid to ... always, always have to fight for acceptance of the most basic, human kind.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:do you think variety in communities enhances it or works to its detriment or both?
Both.
The minority faction usually suffers while the community as a whole benefits.
Black slaves came here against their will, and suffered a lot while the rest of us were coming up to speed. We've learned a lot as a society as a result of having blacks among us. We've learned lessons that many other societies may never learn.
Now we are glad to have the descendants of so many groups in our midst as equals. Not everyone is equal yet, but I think we're further along than most.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, my point is that NO ONE should *have* to pretend to be something they aren't. If they are being forced to do so then there is something wrong with the society not the individual.
I'll restrict this to issues that aren't criminal. (I.e. rapists, murderers, child molesters and Enron corporate execs should admit that there are certian things that do harm others.)
posted
btw was discussing changing over time with Steve. He pinpointed what I wanted to say earlier but didn't quite have the words.
I did say my posting style may have "matured". The difference between "maturation" and "adjustment" in our opinion, is that "maturation" is completely unconsicous while "adjusting" is extremely conscious.
Any changes that may or may not have happened at my posting style at hatrack have been unconscious.
posted
I was thinking about something pooka said a page earlier, and still can't get my head around it: that the acceptance of homosexual marriage, by blurring sex roles, would make her less of a woman.
I have trouble understanding this.
See, I'm a fairly manly man, albeit of the geek rather than the jock variety. I fix things around the house, am vaguely uncomfortable around babies, huge shows of emotion, and the color pink; I instinctively turn towards any passing woman in a bikini, can't wash a floor properly to save my life, and am a very classic "businessman" personality in my professional dealings. (That said, I like to think that I'm fairly open-minded and feminist in my outlook, do my share of chores around the house, and have not pigeonholed my wife as she has tried to shape her own life.)
So when I think of two guys living together, working out which one of them does the diapers while the other one does the dishes, or which one mows the lawn while the other one makes the lemonade and weeds the herb garden, I don't suddenly experience a crisis of faith. I don't wonder "wait, THIS guy LIKES crying at movies; does that mean I'm NOT a guy? Or is HE not a guy?"
By the same token, I cannot imagine any of pooka's womanly attributes -- physical or mental -- blowing away in the winds of change just because Jenny Hypothetical comes home from a long day teaching her preschool class to the waiting arms of Jill Hypothetical, high-powered lawyer to the stars.
I legitimately don't understand. What about someone else can POSSIBLY change your own definition of who you are?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris-- I was appalled at FL's decision to remove children from existing foster homes. The decision seems to me to be void of sense, wisdom or compassion.
Again-- I bite the bullet on this moral stance. I'm eating a lot of lead in this discussion.
HOWEVER: how can you claim that the thousands of children who remain unadopted/unfostered are hurt by not allowing homosexual adoptions when we have no idea how many homosexuals are willing to adopt?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, at least 8% of homosexual couples have children, and that's even with the several states that have laws making adoption harder on homosexual adoptions/adoptions by unmarried couples (which all homosexual couples are by definition), and one that outright bans it (as well as several that outright ban unmarried couple adoptions, effectively banning gay adoptions). Adoption numbers themselves are hard to track down, however, even now there are well over six hundred thousand gay couples in the US, and a survey found that forty nine percent want to have children at some point.
Even if just one percent more of gay couples adopt (I would bet an underestimate), that's another six thousand plus children adopted. As there are around eighty thousand children going unadopted that need to be adopted yearly, that would be approaching ten percent fewer children without homes.
posted
Incidentally, on the kids getting teased in school for being possibly hermaphroditic. At what age to children actually start undressing in locker rooms anyway? 7th grade? before that point they are going to be using bathroom stalls for peeing so it isn't like they are going to be exposing themselves frequently to others. And by 7th grade you should know how to wrap a towel effectively around yourself so that you don't expose anything you don't want to while dressing or undressing anyway.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Being teased for being a bookworm would be NOTHING compared to the teasing that would come for not being able to be sorted the most basic of human divisions. I know there's dangers in picking the wrong gender, but picking none at all and hoping the kid survives childhood sounds cruel.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
On a personal level I would be interested to know what they are. We could take it to another thread if you like, but I'm kind of enjoying the diversion in this one.
