THUNDERDOME: On the topic of Pride / Rainbow branded products

[theCapraAegagrus]

Similarly, a sexual orientation is not a dress, and I cannot simply put one on.

I think we're crossing wires here. Sex/gender and orientation are very different. My commentary isn't really relevant to straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or 'questioning' individuals.

[GandalfPC]

Gender orientation, like sexual orientation is not a dress.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Gender is tied to sex, which as a rule, there is only 2. The exception being genetic mutations.

[EvilDuncan]

Gender is "generally" tied to sex, but not always. Just because you are biologically a male/female does not necessarily mean you are the respective gender.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just because you are biologically a male/female does not necessarily mean you are the respective gender.

In what case?

[GandalfPC]

Sexual identity and gender identity is more complex than xy chromosomes. And intersex makes up a larger percentage of the populace than red heads.

“It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations”

[EvilDuncan]

Um...trans people....

[GandalfPC]

The complex process of sexual differentiation is known to be influenced by biological and environmental determinants. The present review has the aim of summarizing the most relevant studies on the biological basis of sexual development, and in particular, it focuses on the impact of sex hormones and genetic background on the development of sexual differentiation and gender identity. The authors conducted a search of published studies on Medline (from January 1948 to December 2019). The evidence suggests that the sexual dimorphic brain could be the anatomical substrate of psychosexual development, on which gonadal hormones may have a shaping role during prenatal and pubertal periods. Additionally, according to several heritability studies, genetic components may have a role, but a promising candidate gene has not been identified. Even though growing evidence underlines the primary role of biological factors on psychosexual development, further studies are necessary to better explain their complex interactions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139786/

[GandalfPC]

You will note that above study is “complex” and not simply x+y=

I will also point out for those that didn’t do the math, that .5% of 350 million is 1.75 million, and 1.7% is about 6 million

[EvilDuncan]

I think that's a bit more complex than we need to dive into here. One could just google the definition for "gender".

[theCapraAegagrus]

Um...trans people....

That's kind-of the problem with changing the definition of "gender", because they're still biologically male or female after transition.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I have already noted the 'rule' and that there are exceptions. So, if you're trying to convince me that not 100% of humans are strictly male and female, I already know this.

[GandalfPC]

Changing the definition of things that were poorly defined by a particular group that defined them is certainly not a problem.

If you wish to talk about “biological gender” vs “gender identity” and where “gender” falls between them you need to update the vernacular.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I will be taking a break for lunch and to complete my acquisition of the new home, so any responses may not be read or replied to until the next time I login.

[GandalfPC]

I have already noted the 'rule' and that there are exceptions. So, if you're trying to convince me that not 100% of humans are strictly male and female, I already know this.

The brain and body are complex, and where the lines fall on where gender lies within them are about as mysterious as where the soul lies - there is no black and white, this chromosome or this appendage makes you this way, beyond a determination of “biological gender” which as stated above, has millions of people (in the US alone) not fitting one or the other. Past biological gender and into gender identity the determination of what people are is quite far beyond the determination of XY.

8 billion people * 1.7% = 175 million or there abouts - there are about 200 million adults in the United States for comparison to how large that number is. These are the biological intersex trait numbers - and if you figure that not all gender identity falls strictly under known biological traits, that number of “outliers” is quite large.

[GandalfPC]

Regarding cultural stigma, while there were many Native American nations with varying cultures, there was a rich culture of acceptance of people who were not traditionally male/female and there can be much learned from them.

The Ojibwe share a fascinating system of beliefs. One such belief is that the two genders are not male and female, but animate and inanimate. This allowed the Ojibwe to develop a complex society in which "traditional" gender roles were not important. Members of the tribe contributed to their communities and families in whichever way they felt was best. They were the career moms and stay-at-home dads centuries before these terms became popular. In fact, many Ojibwe warriors were transgendered. Known as egwakweg, these transsexuals were honored and revered because they were "two-spirited", or niizh manidoowag. It boggles the mind to think that these so-called "primitive" people were so many centuries ahead of their time, because even in the 21st century most "civilized" societies have yet to come to terms with transgender issues.
While some people may smirk at the thought of transgendered warriors, history shows that the Ojibwe were skilled tacticians when it came to art of war. In 1745, armed with British guns, the Ojibwe defeated the Sioux and drove them out of their southern territories to the Dakotas. They defeated the Lakota and Meskwaki (Fox), driving the Fox out of northern Wisconsin. Allied with the French during the Seven Years' War, the Ojibwe fought against the powerful Iroquois Confederacy and the British. They lost, of course, but the Ojibwe didn't give a hoot about adversity or the odds stacked against them. They fought against the United States during the War of 1812, siding with the British. Although historians conclude that the War of 1812 ended in a draw, it could have been a decisive American victory if not for the Ojibwe, who were determined to prevent American settlers from stealing their territorial lands.


https://www.ihs.gov/sites/lgbt/themes/r ... istory.pdf


Such cultural acceptance was of course attacked by white settlers, missionaries and indoctrination schools. At that time XY chromosomes were not even discovered, but I’m sure they had plenty of reasons they thumped to uphold their cultural ideals and enforce them on others.

[CourtCurator]

This conversation has moved into a place where it really struck a nerve for me at this point. I’m just going to share a bit about my own experience, and ask that those of you who judge others who experience the world differently from you to realize that you can never understand the full picture of another persons internal and even external world experience.

I have three kids. My eldest was always a happy jovial child with a zest for life and an insatiable curiosity. One day, when they were in 3rd grade they began crying uncontrollably and inconsolably for hours on end for no apparent reason. My wife and I consoled them and tried as hard as we could to get it out of them what was wrong, but they just said they didn’t know. They fell into a deep depression without explanation and became suicidal. A SUICIADAL THIRD GRADER! Imagine this for your own family. It was absolutely horrible. We frantically searched for a good child therapist and got them on medication. For two years we did everything we could to support them, lift them up, and love them. Nothing we did seemed to make any difference and we still had no idea why they were depressed. One day, when they were 11, they came into our room and told me they had something important to tell me. They seemed very scared and worried about how I might react to what they were about to tell me. They let me know that they are non-binary. Honestly, I didn’t even really know what that meant at that point, but I assured them that I loved them for exactly who they are and that nothing would change that. Immediately after they came out to us and discovered that it changed nothing in the way they were loved by those closest to them, they became that same happy child they were before this whole horrific ordeal began. They got off their medication, graduated from therapy, and found their jovial zest for life again. Since that moment, I have witnessed the horrifically cruel manner in which perfect strangers treat them for no other reason than for the fact they are different. Regularly. They have been threatened at gunpoint, and their school was recently threatened by an extremist group for posting on Facebook about LGBTQIA+ issues. So, while they are doing much better with a support network that loves them for who they are, their life will never be a walk in the park.

If you want to judge someone without knowing them or their experience, think carefully about the fact that your frame of mind toward them may be the real catalyst for pain, not what you to perceive to be a problem with the way they think. I used to have a similar viewpoint regarding trans people. If I am being honest, I thought they where kinda crazy. But after what I have experienced, it doesn’t really matter if there is “something wrong” with anyone. We all have “something wrong” with us, and we all just want to be loved for who we are. So treat people with kindness, and remember that you don’t know everything, especially when it comes to the world experiences of other people.

[theCapraAegagrus]

The brain and body are complex, and where the lines fall on where gender lies within them are about as mysterious as where the soul lies - there is no black and white, this chromosome or this appendage makes you this way, beyond a determination of “biological gender” which as stated above, has millions of people (in the US alone) not fitting one or the other. Past biological gender and into gender identity the determination of what people are is quite far beyond the determination of XY.

8 billion people * 1.7% = 175 million or there abouts - there are about 200 million adults in the United States for comparison to how large that number is. These are the biological intersex trait numbers - and if you figure that not all gender identity falls strictly under known biological traits, that number of “outliers” is quite large.

People are born with all sorts of mental and physical mutations across the globe. Let's not cross into the realm of "souls", to which there is nothing tangible to suggest they're real. That's only going to strengthen my argument.

[GandalfPC]

I find it hard to believe that anything will strengthen your argument. I use the term soul to simply imply the lack of specific knowledge that we have regarding things, not to imply that I personally believe in souls.

[theCapraAegagrus]

My argument doesn't need to be strengthened, TBH. The only way humankind continues to exist is by reproduction. This is only possible by men and women having sex (no longer true because of our technology, but you should understand the point). Perverting what "male" and "female" means doesn't serve our species. We can accept mutations without rebuking our fundamental understandings of biology. It seems that many have forgotten nature's survival of the fittest.

We're all different. I wouldn't reject anyone just for being so, but I do reject false concepts. If you're going to sit here and tell me that I must accept everyone's perceptions, I am going to reject that idea. Often times perception is not reality.

That's about all I will offer at this point.

[CourtCurator]

Reality is dictated solely through perception. Honoring each other’s perceptions is key to getting along. Rejection of another’s entire sense of self is hurtful no matter how you slice it. It is possible to accept the perceptions of others as a legitimate experience without rejecting our own perceptions that do not align with that of others. In fact without doing so, society will fail to function.

[Sir Toddalot]

So I have a question I would be interested to know what people here think the answer to is. At what point does a difference of beliefs become intolerance? I’ll just admit that I’m a fairly religious person, and as you can imagine that means means the LGBTQ discussion is a very complicated one for me. I don’t want anyone to think I’ve been indoctrinated, or blindly accept what my parents or religious organization have taught me, I’ve done a lot of research into both my religious texts and modern commentaries to try and decide what I should think about this subject. To be honest I don’t really have a good answer, and it’s subject to change depending on new information. I’m certainly not going to stand here and say I have the answer, and if you disagree you’re wrong. I’m willing to admit I could be wrong. I don’t really want to get to specific, but I do have a lot of moral issues with the LGBTQ issue. I’m not going to treat someone differently just because of their orientation or preferred gender, we’re all just people and we all deserve the same rights. No one deserves to be discriminated against because of their views. So if I believe someone is wrong in doing something because of my personal beliefs, but don’t treat them differently for it, and still believe they have just as much value and worth as anyone else, does that mean I’m intolerant, or just have a different set of beliefs?

[GandalfPC]

The idea that people must be heterosexual and reproduce in service to continuing the species, and that any deviation from that is “counter-productive” is silly. There are plenty of people reproducing, and in some cases doing so by artificial insemination - and there are plenty of people who are not reproducing by choice even though they are in heterosexual relationships.

If one was to follow your idea to its conclusion it would state that the reason for humanity to exist is to keep existing, regardless of the personal satisfaction that existence contains - that birth control needs to be abolished, that anyone who can be pregnant should be pregnant, or any other number of silly concepts.

We have had people on this planet for a long, long time - and there have been people of various sexual orientations for a long, long time - and yet the population has grown from tens of thousands, to millions, to billions, to 6 billion in 2000, to the current 8 billion. The implied threat that people living their lives in a way that does not directly serve your implied purpose of reproduction simply does not exist.

Even if it had existed, which as the above states, it has not - the idea that we live to reproduce regardless of our desires is a bleak picture of life, and in every way runs contrary to the way humans live.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Reality is dictated solely through perception. Honoring each others perceptions is key to getting along. Rejection of another’s entire sense of self is hurtful no matter how you slice it. It is possible to accept the perceptions of others as a legitimate experience without rejecting our own perceptions that do not align that of others. In fact without doing so, society will fail to function.

That's verifiably false, though. I am a textbook male. Nothing I think, say, or do changes that natural truth. Society will fail to function if we do not accept objective truths.

We must separate universal, personal, and political truths. The first is true no matter who rejects it, the second is true to those who choose to accept it, and the third is only true when you repeat it to yourself.

[theCapraAegagrus]

The idea that people must be heterosexual and reproduce in service to continuing the species, and that any deviation from that is “counter-productive” is silly. There are plenty of people reproducing, and in some cases doing so by artificial insemination - and there are plenty of people who are not reproducing by choice even though they are in heterosexual relationships.

If one was to follow your idea to its conclusion it would state that the reason for humanity to exist is to keep existing, regardless of the personal satisfaction that existence contains - that birth control needs to be abolished, that anyone who can be pregnant should be pregnant, or any other number of silly concepts.

We have had people on this planet for a long, long time - and there have been people of various sexual orientations for a long, long time - and yet the population has grown from tens of thousands, to millions, to billions, to 6 billion in 2000, to the current 8 billion. The implied threat that people living their lives in a way that does not directly serve your implied purpose of reproduction simply does not exist.

Even if it had existed, which as the above states, it has not - the idea that we live to reproduce regardless of our desires is a bleak picture of life, and in every way runs contrary to the way humans live.

This entire post is a straw-man, Gandalf.

[GandalfPC]

In my opinion how you treat others is where intolerance matters - though it can be said that having internal beliefs can effect the way you treat people that you may not be conscious of, simply being aware of that fact and doing your best to treat people fairly is pretty darn good.

I may be uncomfortable when some movie I am watching decides to insert a sex scene (or perhaps just a kissing scene) between two men - having that discomfort stems from my upbringing and cultural influences - does that make me a bad person or intolerant? Perhaps intolerant at some level, certainly not a bad person I would argue - but if I simply live with the fact that I was discomforted, rather than tell people about how it is awful, write the broadcaster to complain, try to rid the world of it or export my internal feelings upon the rest of the world to change it to fix my personal issue with it, then I am left to simply deal with my own personal internal intolerance - to either try to grow past it, or to watch something else - one of which might be a higher calling than the other quite arguably.

[GandalfPC]

I would say that the entire post was in no way straw-man, it was a valid response to your thinking that people all had to be heterosexual due to some reproductive imperative. Or that all heterosexual people must procreate.

[GandalfPC]

That's verifiably false, though. I am a textbook male. Nothing I think, say, or do changes that natural truth. Society will fail to function if we do not accept objective truths.

The fact that you are textbook genetic male gender by a chromosome and physical appendage definition is first of all not even a verified fact - it might be verifiable, but as 1.2% of inter gender people don’t have physical traits displaying that, unless you have been tested you don’t even know how textbook you are.

Further, no one is disputing that there is such a thing as XY chromosomes or that penises don’t exist. They are simply saying that those simple facts on their own do not determine gender identity - even if they do fit the “textbook” definition of gender.

[theCapraAegagrus]

So I have a question I would be interested to know what people here think the answer to is. At what point does a difference of beliefs become intolerance? I’ll just admit that I’m a fairly religious person, and as you can imagine that means means the LGBTQ discussion is a very complicated one for me. I don’t want anyone to think I’ve been indoctrinated, or blindly accept what my parents or religious organization have taught me, I’ve done a lot of research into both my religious texts and modern commentaries to try and decide what I should think about this subject. To be honest I don’t really have a good answer, and it’s subject to change depending on new information. I’m certainly not going to stand here and say I have the answer, and if you disagree you’re wrong. I’m willing to admit I could be wrong. I don’t really want to get to specific, but I do have a lot of moral issues with the LGBTQ issue. I’m not going to treat someone differently just because of their orientation or preferred gender, we’re all just people and we all deserve the same rights. No one deserves to be discriminated against because of their views. So if I believe someone is wrong in doing something because of my personal beliefs, but don’t treat them differently for it, and still believe they have just as much value and worth as anyone else, does that mean I’m intolerant, or just have a different set of beliefs?

I subscribe to the NAP. Non-aggression principle. If your beliefs are not infringing on someone else's natural rights, then I wouldn't challenge your beliefs. It's a charged discussion because each side thinks they're "right". As I mentioned above, there are 3 kinds of truths. If you ascribe your personal truth to be a universal truth, you will find conflict.

Hel, I have mentioned multiple times that I accept people for who they are so long as they don't rebuke universal truths, but even then they still think I'm "wrong". It's almost not worth discussing at all, sadly. I feel that it needs to be discussed, because of our mental health crisis.

[CourtCurator]

Objective truth is unknowable. We can only agree upon the things we collectively perceive.