Sex/Gender

[Ignatius A]

I did not say that. I said that the term was coined by and for native North-Americans. In 1990, in fact. But I would suppose (I do not know for sure) that if you fit the definitions that they hold in their minds when they use the term, that they wouldn't be disturbed if you applied it to yourself.

And no, my definitions are not from my head. You can easily visit Wikipedia (or in one case, Encyclopedia Britannica) yourself to find them.

Well rest assured "two spirit" is listed as a gender. Now unless someone can show me the science of being "two gender" i have to believe this whole thing is based on nothing but feelings.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well rest assured "two spirit" is listed as a gender. Now unless someone can show me the science of being "two gender" i have to believe this whole thing is based on nothing but feelings.

And of course "feelings" have no value, right? Show me the "science of being in love," why don't you, or shall we just toss it off as being "nothing but feelings," and tell people "just get over it."

 

[Ignatius A]

And of course "feelings" have no value, right? Show me the "science of being in love," why don't you, or shall we just toss it off as being "nothing but feelings," and tell people "just get over it."

I didn't say feelings have no value. Please go back and try to read what I wrote without emotion. You becoming hysterical won't help us. People have argued this gender foolishness is based on the science that some people are born intersex therefore gender is "fluid". Great. One of these supposed fluid genders is "two spirit". Show me the science. How you feel isnt science.

This thing about love cracks me up too. I remember the gay "marriage" nonsense. People would tell me gay people can't marry who they "love". Made me laugh every time. I asked them to show me from the law regarding marriage where people had to prove they "love" the person they are marrying. I'm still waiting btw.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This thing about love cracks me up too. I remember the gay "marriage" nonsense. People would tell me gay people can't marry who they "love". Made me laugh every time. I asked them to show me from the law regarding marriage where people had to prove they "love" the person they are marrying. I'm still waiting btw.

I'm trying to parse this logic out... But I just can't. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"I oppose segregation because I believe black children should be allowed to attend schools to be educated."
"Oh really? Well, show me the law that states that people have to "prove" they go to school to be educated. I'm still waiting btw."

I mean... What?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So teen talk isn't authoritative enough for you?

It's probably not the ultimate authority on any of this stuff. The ultimate authority on the phrase under discussion would probably be Native Americans.

I thought gender was how someone "identified"? What other "authority" is needed? If I'm not native American I can't be "two spirit"? So someone else can determine I'm not "two spirit" even though I feel like my gender is "two spirit".

I don't know. Maybe consult a Native American about that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually its does if your read my previous posts and links. Like this one with the tow cows for example....This should never be labeled as homosexual behavior.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0168159185900474#:~:text=Since%20cow%2Dcow%20mounting%20is,this%20behavior%20was%20probably%20coincidental.

View attachment 89614


As you can clearly see in that picture sexual intercourse is 100% impossible.

As I already pointed out to you, you've given us an example of 'pre-ovulatory behaviour in cattle," as per your link.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Male animals that behave like female animals do not become female animals, they're just male animals behaving the way female animals usually behave.

Think about that some more, with "gender" in mind.

No; there are a lot of people who are insisting everybody else pretend they are who they say they are. If I were a 30 year old man, but I identified as a 12 year old child, you can treat me with dignity and respect without pretending I am a 12 year old child.

Who are you to say anyone is 'pretending they are who they say they are?"
We don't check everyone's genitals upon meeting them, before we decide what we're going to call them, right?
Wee just call them what they're asking us to call them.
At least, courteous people do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't agree. Big muscles do not make you a man any more than small muscles make you a woman. Elton John is just as much of a man as Mike Tyson.

I'm not talking about muscles.

I'm talking about the way these men express their gender in ways that are different from each other. Some are considered more "feminine" than others, while others are considered more "masculine" than others. Some wear clothing that is considered more masculine whereas others I mentioned wear what is considered traditionally more feminine type of clothing. And yet all these men are the same gender.

What you seem to be describing are a spectrum when it comes to masculinity.

Almost. What I'm describing is a spectrum when it comes to the way people express their gender.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well rest assured "two spirit" is listed as a gender. Now unless someone can show me the science of being "two gender" i have to believe this whole thing is based on nothing but feelings.

I gave you the definition from your very own link.
I suggest you read it. Then you won't have to play dumb anymore.

 

[Ignatius A]

I'm trying to parse this logic out... But I just can't. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"I oppose segregation because I believe black children should be allowed to attend schools to be educated."
"Oh really? Well, show me the law that states that people have to "prove" they go to school to be educated. I'm still waiting btw."

I mean... What?

Your problem is you're making assumptions, like segregation was for the purpose of educating black children and marriage is only form people who love one another. Black children were being educated in segregated schools werent they? So your analogy is nonsensical

 

[Valjean]

I find this statement confusing. Is behavior psychological? Why is cannibalism behavioral and not psychological if they are different?

Yes, psychology influences behavior. Cannibalism in humans, like any behavior, is influenced by psychology, but it is largely cultural.

If you're referring to cannibalism in other species, that would not necessarily be comparable to human cannibalism.
Homosexuality is largely neurological. Unlike specific behavioral traits, it's hard-wired.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn't say feelings have no value. Please go back and try to read what I wrote without emotion. You becoming hysterical won't help us. People have argued this gender foolishness is based on the science that some people are born intersex therefore gender is "fluid". Great. One of these supposed fluid genders is "two spirit". Show me the science. How you feel isnt science.

I explained to you earlier that gender is not a "science" construct -- it is a social one. There is no "science" in social constructs. There's no science in marriage, or fornication, or race, or religion, or class/caste, or slave/free, or ruler/ruled or a thousand other social arrangements humans define and adopt for themselves.

That there are two, and only two sexes, I agree, since there are only two types of gametes: the very small (male, sperm) and the very large (female, ova). (Spores are minute, typically one-celled, reproductive units capable of giving rise to a new individual without sexual fusion, characteristic of lower plants, fungi, and protozoans. But I do not think that defines another "sex.")

But consider the earthworm -- it produces both male and female gametes, and when two earthworms get together, they can each impregnate the other. So ignoring their sexual apparatus, what "gender" would you assign to each of those lucky partners?

For a reference, the National Geographic Society defines gender as: an amalgamation of several elements: chromosomes (those X's and Y's), anatomy (internal sex organs and external genitals), hormones (relative levels of testosterone and estrogen), psychology (self-defined gender identity), and culture (socially defined gender behaviors). But think about it: some of that can be reduced to science (XX, XY, XXY, X0, etc.), and hormone levels can rise or lower for many reasons, including human intervention, while psychology is less scientifically precise, and culture not at all.

What I am trying to tell you, that you are refusing to understand, is that there can be no "science" of a human construct like gender.

So whether you didn't say "feelings have no value," you did reduce them to irrelevancy by saying "this whole thing is based on nothing but feelings.

This thing about love cracks me up too. I remember the gay "marriage" nonsense. People would tell me gay people can't marry who they "love". Made me laugh every time. I asked them to show me from the law regarding marriage where people had to prove they "love" the person they are marrying. I'm still waiting btw.

That is completely unresponsive to my point, and the idea of having to "prove" love to marry is a veritable strawman in this context. There was a time when people couldn't marry who they love if they were of different "races" (a non-science term), as in Loving v Virginia -- and that is within my lifetime. And there was a time when I could not -- in fact and by law -- marry the person I loved because we were the same sex (not gender). In Canada, that ended in 2005, showing, yet once again, that marriage is a social construct as well, as amenable to change as any other.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your problem is you're making assumptions, like segregation was for the purpose of educating black children and marriage is only form people who love one another. Black children were being educated in segregated schools werent they? So your analogy is nonsensical

Can you please, then, explain to me your logic? Because your argument seems absurd. Are you suggesting denying gay people the right to marry is justified because... they can't PROVE they love each other?

 

[Valjean]

Right but people focus on some behaviors of other species when it serves their narrative but disregard the same logic when they don't like it. Any appeal to the behavior of other species as being applicable not humans is more than illogical it's pure nonsense

Anatomic, physiologic and neurologic features have a lot in common among related species. Digestion, circulation, immune systems, social interactions, endocrine systems, &c have a lot of overlap, enough to make animals useful in the lab for pharmaceutical, biological and behavioral research.

Nobody uses mating behaviors in spiders as guides to human propriety. They are functionally very different.

 

[Ignatius A]

I explained to you earlier that gender is not a "science" construct -- it is a social one. There is no "science" in social constructs. There's no science in marriage, or fornication, or race, or religion, or class/caste, or slave/free, or ruler/ruled or a thousand other social arrangements humans define and adopt for themselves.

That there are two, and only two sexes, I agree, since there are only two types of gametes: the very small (male, sperm) and the very large (female, ova). (Spores are minute, typically one-celled, reproductive units capable of giving rise to a new individual without sexual fusion, characteristic of lower plants, fungi, and protozoans. But I do not think that defines another "sex.")

But consider the earthworm -- it produces both male and female gametes, and when two earthworms get together, they can each impregnate the other. So ignoring their sexual apparatus, what "gender" would you assign to each of those lucky partners?

For a reference, the National Geographic Society defines gender as: an amalgamation of several elements: chromosomes (those X's and Y's), anatomy (internal sex organs and external genitals), hormones (relative levels of testosterone and estrogen), psychology (self-defined gender identity), and culture (socially defined gender behaviors). But think about it: some of that can be reduced to science (XX, XY, XXY, X0, etc.), and hormone levels can rise or lower for many reasons, including human intervention, while psychology is less scientifically precise, and culture not at all.

What I am trying to tell you, that you are refusing to understand, is that there can be no "science" of a human construct like gender.

So whether you didn't say "feelings have no value," you did reduce them to irrelevancy by saying "this whole thing is based on nothing but feelings.

That is completely unresponsive to my point, and the idea of having to "prove" love to marry is a veritable strawman in this context. There was a time when people couldn't marry who they love if they were of different "races" (a non-science term), as in Loving v Virginia -- and that is within my lifetime. And there was a time when I could not -- in fact and by law -- marry the person I loved because we were the same sex (not gender). In Canada, that ended in 2005, showing, yet once again, that marriage is a social construct as well, as amenable to change as any other.

No it's not a strawman. You're assumption is that love isna requirement for marriage. It isn't

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No it's not a strawman. You're assumption is that love isna requirement for marriage. It isn't

Oh, rubbish -- I made no such suggestion, and I'm very well aware that through most of human history, love was pretty low on the criteria: title, property, wealth, clan and parental approval coming much higher. Do not presume that you know anything at all about my assumptions -- unless I explicitly tell you what they are.

But I do suggest that in a world that values freedom, as I'm told the U.S. does above all things, love can certainly be a prime motivator for marriage.

 

[We Never Know]

Is it? I don't see it..

What don't you see?

sex·u·al intercourse
noun
sexual contact between individuals involving penetration

 

[We Never Know]

As I already pointed out to you, you've given us an example of 'pre-ovulatory behaviour in cattle," as per your link.

I refer you to this post. Those cows were posted as an example of a homosexual behavior.

Google not your thing?


"One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs is the domesticated sheep (About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."

In October 2023, biologists reported studies of animals (over 1,500 different species) that found same-sex behavior (not necessarily related to human orientation) may help improve social stability by reducing conflict within the groups studied."

View attachment 89588View attachment 89590

 

[SkepticThinker]

I refer you to this post. Those cows were posted as an example of a homosexual behavior.

Those aren't cows.

 

[Ignatius A]

Oh, rubbish -- I made no such suggestion, and I'm very well aware that through most of human history, love was pretty low on the criteria: title, property, wealth, clan and parental approval coming much higher. Do not presume that you know anything at all about my assumptions -- unless I explicitly tell you what they are.

But I do suggest that in a world that values freedom, as I'm told the U.S. does above all things, love can certainly be a prime motivator for marriage.

AGAIN not rubbish, love is not a requirement for marriage. Period.