Serious LGBT Discussion -

Trianon

kiwifarms.net
Been thinking about a comment I saw on here once about how gender roles develop in opposition directions to help society easily know who is who, subtly performing the most idealized aspects of what makes a man and a woman. This is useful for sexual coupling -- easily finding the man who best fits the protector ideal, easily finding a woman who fits the nurturing ideal, which allows the formation of a strong family unit that's well-balanced. I kind of think these "protector/nurturer" roles are innate, while a lot of gender "signifiers" such as hair length, clothing choices, etc., are arbitrary and can obviously change depending on what society associates with masculinity and femininity at any given time. But no matter what, there are things we expect out of men (be strong, protect the family/tribe, make bold decisions, be responsible) and women (raise emotionally strong children, transmit society's values and stories, heal, rejuvenate, knit people together) that, ideally, forms a perfect loop where no sex is taking on too much of the burden necessary to have a healthy family/society. Of course, there's a lot of variation within all women, who may resent being seen as the caregivers, but by virtue of not being as physically strong, and by virtue of childbirth naturally increasing caregiving hormones, well. It's true. Men should be allowed to exhibit emotion, women should be allowed to be assertive, but there are still basics we check for when deciding who to raise kids with. It takes both of those roles, but men were created or evolved to be at the front of the line when it comes to taking on the violence of the rest of the world, and so it makes sense that a lot of our gendered ideas about men are about emphasizing their strength in some way.

So, once we get to troonism, it's a deliberate blurring of those gender signifiers. Generally troons and gender-nonconforming types are trying to signal, "Hey, I'm a girl, but I'm a protector type, and I want to be seen that way," or "I'm a man, but I feel very fragile and dainty." A TERF would say these ideals are not innate to either sex and are just the basis of stereotyping, but either way, the troons want to belong to those ideal roles and live in that part of society.

The problem is that they have no idea how to go about fulfilling those roles other than to LOUDLY ANNOUNCE IT. They play with society's ideas about gender by saying, "Well, if you say I'm not a man, then why? How am I any different from a man who is small and non-muscular? Is he less of a man because of that?" But a small man can still show me that he is a protector type; he may not be as physically imposing as others, but he can be honorable and just, which demonstrates his devotion to his family. But if he was just loudly asserting that he is a man and deserves to be the winner of a barbell competition because of it, it would make me laugh. I would think, "Oh, dear, he's really insecure about his role in society." He feels he isn't a man and wants to go around talking himself up instead of demonstrating qualities that would make him attractive to me.

In the same way, if a small man told me he was really a woman and deserved to just take his place with the rest of the women who don't have to worry about being small, I would laugh. "Oh, dear, he's really insecure about his role in society." Instead of realizing that there are many ways to "be a man" or "be a woman" that signals they will be a good partner, they just have to assert it. It doesn't matter what they're asserting specifically; everyone can pick up on the fact that it's desperate and insecure. A trans woman may spend a lot of time trying to perform the ideal of a woman, but a woman who just stepped up to the plate when something needed to be done without making it about herself would be performing the ideal much more than a trans woman can. Strength of character is at the center of both gender ideals, and while there are some differences in our expectations of the basic needs they should fulfill, we want people who understand the society they're in without needing its approval so badly that they are frozen in action.

Troons fail at every test. Changing your body a lot to be happy with it is a red flag. Talking about yourself and how you're perceived by others all the time is a red flag. Shirking your duty to be a protector or a nurturer because you think there's only one way of doing that is a red flag -- like, are you just selfish? a coward? That's how it comes across. Never getting out of your own head is poison to your self-esteem, and troons just have such an inward-focused way of seeing the world that the rest of society is like, "Oh, you're useless? Ok."
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
I guess you're right. I watched this movie called "Straight UP!" about this "gay" guy that starting dating a woman through they didn't have sex. One scene that touched me was when the guy's father hugged him and told him he was proud of him. The guy even mentioned that it probably wouldn't happened if he brought home a guy. I think that parent's love and accept their gay children, but prefer it if they were straight.

You make very good points. :)
When I came out to my parents, my mother expressed almost that sentiment; she still loves me but would have liked grandchildren.. from me. That sentiment is human biology attempting to still preserve itself.

I get a lot of flack for supporting heterosexuality because its how we got here in the first place. It is the norm that was established by the Kinsey report. Ironically - (or coincidentally?) The Gays™ used to embrace it. Now they spurn it. Kinsey's report basically states that less than 1 out of 10 humans will be The Gays™. Even evolutionary biology confirms this hypothesis. I'm content with being less than 10% of the population
 

mario if smoke weed

I'm super duper, with a big tuper.
kiwifarms.net
Homosexuality and bisexuality aren't inherently bad; they don't prevent making babies like transgenderism does. A gay guy can still breed with a woman if it meant preventing the extinction of humanity or preserving a group of people. They're simply just differences in sexual preference, and that's how it should've been left at from the start.

We don't need these faggoty pride parades where faggots put on oversexualized puppet shows and swing their dildos and jockstraps around. We don't need these faggoty drag queens and RuPaul's Drag Fags to make caricatures of women and exacerbate these idiotic stereotypes of gay people that spread like cancer. And we don't need these retarded alphabet soup groups to make safe spaces and politicize romantic and sexual attraction. All of that made the monster we know as the gay community, full of effeminate low-testosterone walking stereotypes that make homosexuality look like a giant spectacle. Straight people might be a bit annoying by pushing gender norms onto kids at a young age with baby outfits saying "chick magnet", but that's minor.

The fact that transgenderism is being attached to the whole gay movement just because of oppression and togetherness and all this kumbaya shit is disgusting. I agree with RavenCrow's post; homosexuals and bisexuals might not be "normal", but they can be upstanding members of society just like straight people. 99.9% of troons are fucked in the head, hence why they feel the need to mutilate their chemical structure and genitalia. The troon acceptance bandwagon has damaged the legitimacy of gay rights, moreso than the exacerbation of faggotry.

We need to get rid of the oversexualization that happens with gay and bisexual people. Stop the pride parades, stop the drag queen storytime, stop the dumb stereotypes in pop culture. Treat gay and bi people like straight people and give them no special treatment - no special privileges, no overt discrimination preventing them from living safely. It wouldn't solve all the problems under the rainbow, but it'd be a step in the right direction I think.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
I get a lot of flack for supporting heterosexuality because its how we got here in the first place. It is the norm that was established by the Kinsey report. Ironically - (or coincidentally?) The Gays™ used to embrace it. Now they spurn it. Kinsey's report basically states that less than 1 out of 10 humans will be The Gays™. Even evolutionary biology confirms this hypothesis. I'm content with being less than 10% of the population
This is why I hate the term heteronormativity. Its become just another term to try to slap heterosexual people down with. End of the day, heterosexuality IS the norm, has always been the norm, and will always be the norm, period. Does this make homosexuals weird or unusual? Yes. Does it make them freaks? No. They are still within the range of human sexuality, they are just an OUTLIER, not the norm. And there is nothing wrong with being an outlier. Albert Einstein is an outlier in terms of human intelligence. Usain Bolt and other sprinters like him are outliers in terms of human physical performance. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are outliers in terms of human sexuality, with humanity normally being heterosexual. Society catering to the human norm that 90% of humanity falls into is not bad in the slightest. I think actively persecuting gay people is wrong, but Western society has moved past that for the most part. The Muslims are the main ones throwing gays off the rooftops. Instead of trying to attack heterosexuality, gays should probably just embrace their outlier status and accept it.

Funnily enough, the gays that scream "I'm born this way" are inadvertently embracing and drawing a big red arrow towards this outlier status. The main through point of LGBT lobby has been that "gays and lesbians (and bisexuals when they bother to remember them) are just like everybody else". The "born this way" crowd unintentionally shoot this idea full of holes, because they are basically saying "No, we aren't like everybody else. We are fundamentally different from everybody else, all the way from birth. There is something about us, on a physical or genetic level that makes us act differently from "normal" people, and people should acknowledge and embrace our specialness, rather than trying to make us assimilate." Now, this idea seems to have fallen by the wayside, probably a mixture of people realizing the potentially warped messaging, the fact that sexuality has been increasingly shown to not be as immutable as people thought it was, and the fact that there is no scientific evidence right now that gay people are "born that way" and we still don't precisely know where homosexuality comes from.

But it would be hilarious if we did in fact find a "gay gene" because it would probably mean the death of homosexuality in humans. Ever heard of sex selective abortions? Say hello to sexuality selective abortions. Once gene therapy and designer babies becomes a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first things to happen would be parents specifically change a baby's coded sexuality to make it heterosexual if it wasn't already. I wouldn't be surprised if authoritarian nations like China and Russia even make it a requirement to do so, or nations facing population decline like Japan. The last thing homosexuals would want would be for "born this way" to be true.
 
Last edited:

Puerto Pollo

kiwifarms.net
The day gene therapy becomes a thing, you just know American white women will only have female, gay and troon kids, and any father figure opposing this will get divorce raped because white supremacy toxic masculinity
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
The day gene therapy becomes a thing, you just know American white women will only have female, gay and troon kids, and any father figure opposing this will get divorce raped because white supremacy toxic masculinity
Most of the women who would even consider doing are the type of narcissistic, hedonistic leftists who wouldn't even get married or have kids anyway, because they only live for themselves. Only a minority of those would ever even have children or see any value in having kids, which is basically what we are seeing now. For all the horrors of Desmond is Amazing, his situation still represents an extremely small minority of family situations (thankfully).
 

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
The day gene therapy becomes a thing, you just know American white women will only have female, gay and troon kids, and any father figure opposing this will get divorce raped because white supremacy toxic masculinity

I think the majority of American white women will probably have mostly females. I don't know about gay and trans kids though. Most women treat gays and trans like pets or supporting characters in their own dramas.

When I came out to my parents, my mother expressed almost that sentiment; she still loves me but would have liked grandchildren.. from me. That sentiment is human biology attempting to still preserve itself.

I get a lot of flack for supporting heterosexuality because its how we got here in the first place. It is the norm that was established by the Kinsey report. Ironically - (or coincidentally?) The Gays™ used to embrace it. Now they spurn it. Kinsey's report basically states that less than 1 out of 10 humans will be The Gays™. Even evolutionary biology confirms this hypothesis. I'm content with being less than 10% of the population

The Kinsey report is widely misquoted. It's that one in ten people have or will engage in homosexual behavior, not that 1 in 10 people are gay.

Homosexuality and bisexuality aren't inherently bad; they don't prevent making babies like transgenderism does. A gay guy can still breed with a woman if it meant preventing the extinction of humanity or preserving a group of people. They're simply just differences in sexual preference, and that's how it should've been left at from the start.

We don't need these faggoty pride parades where faggots put on oversexualized puppet shows and swing their dildos and jockstraps around. We don't need these faggoty drag queens and RuPaul's Drag Fags to make caricatures of women and exacerbate these idiotic stereotypes of gay people that spread like cancer. And we don't need these retarded alphabet soup groups to make safe spaces and politicize romantic and sexual attraction. All of that made the monster we know as the gay community, full of effeminate low-testosterone walking stereotypes that make homosexuality look like a giant spectacle. Straight people might be a bit annoying by pushing gender norms onto kids at a young age with baby outfits saying "chick magnet", but that's minor.

The fact that transgenderism is being attached to the whole gay movement just because of oppression and togetherness and all this kumbaya shit is disgusting. I agree with RavenCrow's post; homosexuals and bisexuals might not be "normal", but they can be upstanding members of society just like straight people. 99.9% of troons are fucked in the head, hence why they feel the need to mutilate their chemical structure and genitalia. The troon acceptance bandwagon has damaged the legitimacy of gay rights, moreso than the exacerbation of faggotry.

We need to get rid of the oversexualization that happens with gay and bisexual people. Stop the pride parades, stop the drag queen storytime, stop the dumb stereotypes in pop culture. Treat gay and bi people like straight people and give them no special treatment - no special privileges, no overt discrimination preventing them from living safely. It wouldn't solve all the problems under the rainbow, but it'd be a step in the right direction I think.

Homosexuality in the west is complicated due to the taboos that Christianity put on it and the regulations that where handed down to Grecco-Roman influences. It wasn't as simple as giving someone a handshake. Actions have social consequences. I mean an elite bottoming in Ancient Rome could see a lost of social standing.

Part of me think that the gay culture is just a response growing as a pre-homosexual child, which it pretty traumatic. Have you guys read any gay coming of age novels like "The World of Normal Boys", "Swimming in the Dark", and other such novels? It always deals with either being gender non-conforming and the effects of growing up such a way. That's enough to make anyone go mad with the desire to see the world burned. I'm not excusing the lewd behavior of gay pride parades, but I did understand where it's energy is coming from. Personally, I was tired of straight by the time I was in high school. I didn't want to deal straight bullshit.
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
The Kinsey report is widely misquoted. It's that one in ten people have or will engage in homosexual behavior, not that 1 in 10 people are gay.
You are correct, I am guilty of misquoting the Kinsey report. Still, that means The Gays™ is not even 5% of the human race.
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
The day gene therapy becomes a thing, you just know American white women will only have female, gay and troon kids, and any father figure opposing this will get divorce raped because white supremacy toxic masculinity
The "Gay Gene" has yet to be discovered. Scientists studying DNA ...last I read up on it anyway, strongly suspect there is no "gay gene" We still don't know what makes a handful of humans want to bump uglies with the same gender.
 

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
Been thinking about a comment I saw on here once about how gender roles develop in opposition directions to help society easily know who is who, subtly performing the most idealized aspects of what makes a man and a woman. This is useful for sexual coupling -- easily finding the man who best fits the protector ideal, easily finding a woman who fits the nurturing ideal, which allows the formation of a strong family unit that's well-balanced. I kind of think these "protector/nurturer" roles are innate, while a lot of gender "signifiers" such as hair length, clothing choices, etc., are arbitrary and can obviously change depending on what society associates with masculinity and femininity at any given time. But no matter what, there are things we expect out of men (be strong, protect the family/tribe, make bold decisions, be responsible) and women (raise emotionally strong children, transmit society's values and stories, heal, rejuvenate, knit people together) that, ideally, forms a perfect loop where no sex is taking on too much of the burden necessary to have a healthy family/society. Of course, there's a lot of variation within all women, who may resent being seen as the caregivers, but by virtue of not being as physically strong, and by virtue of childbirth naturally increasing caregiving hormones, well. It's true. Men should be allowed to exhibit emotion, women should be allowed to be assertive, but there are still basics we check for when deciding who to raise kids with. It takes both of those roles, but men were created or evolved to be at the front of the line when it comes to taking on the violence of the rest of the world, and so it makes sense that a lot of our gendered ideas about men are about emphasizing their strength in some way.

So, once we get to troonism, it's a deliberate blurring of those gender signifiers. Generally troons and gender-nonconforming types are trying to signal, "Hey, I'm a girl, but I'm a protector type, and I want to be seen that way," or "I'm a man, but I feel very fragile and dainty." A TERF would say these ideals are not innate to either sex and are just the basis of stereotyping, but either way, the troons want to belong to those ideal roles and live in that part of society.

The problem is that they have no idea how to go about fulfilling those roles other than to LOUDLY ANNOUNCE IT. They play with society's ideas about gender by saying, "Well, if you say I'm not a man, then why? How am I any different from a man who is small and non-muscular? Is he less of a man because of that?" But a small man can still show me that he is a protector type; he may not be as physically imposing as others, but he can be honorable and just, which demonstrates his devotion to his family. But if he was just loudly asserting that he is a man and deserves to be the winner of a barbell competition because of it, it would make me laugh. I would think, "Oh, dear, he's really insecure about his role in society." He feels he isn't a man and wants to go around talking himself up instead of demonstrating qualities that would make him attractive to me.

In the same way, if a small man told me he was really a woman and deserved to just take his place with the rest of the women who don't have to worry about being small, I would laugh. "Oh, dear, he's really insecure about his role in society." Instead of realizing that there are many ways to "be a man" or "be a woman" that signals they will be a good partner, they just have to assert it. It doesn't matter what they're asserting specifically; everyone can pick up on the fact that it's desperate and insecure. A trans woman may spend a lot of time trying to perform the ideal of a woman, but a woman who just stepped up to the plate when something needed to be done without making it about herself would be performing the ideal much more than a trans woman can. Strength of character is at the center of both gender ideals, and while there are some differences in our expectations of the basic needs they should fulfill, we want people who understand the society they're in without needing its approval so badly that they are frozen in action.

Troons fail at every test. Changing your body a lot to be happy with it is a red flag. Talking about yourself and how you're perceived by others all the time is a red flag. Shirking your duty to be a protector or a nurturer because you think there's only one way of doing that is a red flag -- like, are you just selfish? a coward? That's how it comes across. Never getting out of your own head is poison to your self-esteem, and troons just have such an inward-focused way of seeing the world that the rest of society is like, "Oh, you're useless? Ok."

Not trying to troll or be a SJW. But what cultures that have a third gender? What does that us tells?
 

Trianon

kiwifarms.net
Not trying to troll or be a SJW. But what cultures that have a third gender? What does that us tells?
Not an expert on any of the cultures in question, but it is interesting that a lot of societies that have third genders see them as supernatural. They're above or outside sexual procreation. Eunuchs and virgins are sometimes treated as a third gender, because they have a life path that precludes sex for whatever reason, so their gender deliberately does not signal a sexual partner. So most third-gender cultures basically accommodate modes of life that are not interested in sexual procreation, which is sort of a release valve for people who don't meet the society's main ideals. You could definitely argue that not having concepts like that makes trans ideology in the West more rigid and attention-grabbing, because it creates conflict where trans people demand to be let into categories that don't quite fit.
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
Not an expert on any of the cultures in question, but it is interesting that a lot of societies that have third genders see them as supernatural. They're above or outside sexual procreation. Eunuchs and virgins are sometimes treated as a third gender, because they have a life path that precludes sex for whatever reason, so their gender deliberately does not signal a sexual partner. So most third-gender cultures basically accommodate modes of life that are not interested in sexual procreation, which is sort of a release valve for people who don't meet the society's main ideals. You could definitely argue that not having concepts like that makes trans ideology in the West more rigid and attention-grabbing, because it creates conflict where trans people demand to be let into categories that don't quite fit.
sounds not exactly like a 3rd gender. but a gender role
 

Real Gay Autist

kiwifarms.net
Not trying to troll or be a SJW. But what cultures that have a third gender? What does that us tells?
There are quite a few examples across time and space. The Wikipedia article is pretty wide-ranging. I think what this tells us is that there is a considerable social and cultural diversity in how people have thought and do think about the role of sex and gender. These tend to shift over time based on various factors, and especially based on religious or political campaigns. For example, take Polynesia: fakaleitī in Tonga (cf. faʻafafine in Samoa, māhū in Hawaiʻi) look on the surface like what we in the west would class as cross-dressing femboy bottoms; however, in Tonga, they were seen as a third option: man, woman, fakaleitī. When Christianity arrived in Tonga, missionaries sought to erase what Tongans felt was 'natural' and replace it with a male-female gender distinction (if you're interested in this very messy case, there's a pretty interesting documentary on YT). Keep in mind that a lot of these indigenous gender systems are now influenced by, and/or co-opted by, the LGBTQ movement. Often you have to go back to old-school anthropological literature or an emic perspective to get a good handle on what's 'really' going on (because 'Queer Theory' lit will oversimplify things to 'gays and trans always existed happily before colonialism uwu')

What we're seeing in the West is kind of similar: there is a social movement (with many characteristics of a religion/cult) which is promoting a new ways of thinking. I say ways because the Queer/Trans movements promote apparently paradoxical ideas about gender: in this view, gender is at once non-essential, mutable (anyone can be non-binary; we are all exhorted to transcend our cis-normativity) and essential, unchangeable (people are 'born' with an inherent, internal gender identity; transwomen are women and not an in-between category). So, clearly, the cultural clash is unfolding on many levels at once: there is conflict within the Queer/Trans movements and, obviously, in reaction to them. Cultures change, of course, so all of this is in the spirit of observation and milking lolcows on 'both sides' of the culture clash. But we also have to make our individual, and thus societal, choices about where we go from here.

sounds not exactly like a 3rd gender. but a gender role
A lot of anthropologists would say that important distinction is already made by differentiating 'sex' and 'gender'. Within that frame of reference, sex refers to various physiological factors (gonads, chromosomes, hormone balance, internal reproductive anatomy, genitalia), gender refers to roles performed in society and individuals' identification with those roles. As I wrote above, we can already see how gender roles are really complicated across different cultures and societies throughout history: men and women have different expectations placed on them depending on where and when they are born and we know that societies have typically disparaging categories for people who fall outside of the norm (tomboy, femme, sissy, limp-wristed, etc.). What I find interesting is to also consider that sex is not as cut-and-dry as it might appear.

Western medicine usually identifies two sexes, male and female with intersex as a category for cases where sex is ambiguous. Traditionally the practice has been to try to surgically correct an infant's genitalia to make them resemble male or female genitalia as far as possible. However, there's been a lot of controversy about this over the past decades since it leaves fucked up results. Consider: the doctor tries to give you a penis because as a baby you seem more like a boy (no ovaries, etc). But when you get old enough you start undergoing female puberty. You look like a girl and you have bobs but, instead of vagine, you have a horrible scarred surgically crafted little weenie.

So the obvious thing here to say is: don't cut up kids' genitals! But that typically creates dissonance amongst people on both extremes of the trans debate. Hardcore trans activists would agree with diversifying our view of sex and gender, but also otherwise push for genital surgery on minors. Hardcore gender 'realists' would agree with not mutilating kids' genitalia, but would otherwise be loathe to acknowledge anything other than male and female.

One of the reasons this is so fascinating is because it's cultural change happening before our eyes. Like all good history, what is unfolding right now is incredibly complicated and cannot be easily reduced.
 

DiscoRodeo

kiwifarms.net
Homosexuality in the west is complicated due to the taboos that Christianity put on it and the regulations that where handed down to Grecco-Roman influences.
I do kind of wonder, considering the Romans had centuries of boy diddling, pedophilia, orgies, troonism in the aristocracy, etc-

Is it any wonder that Christianity just went hard against anything even remotely gay?

I mean, there has to be a big reason why people embraced the early anti gay rhetoric, and on some sense, Im sure the elites fucking children or cutting off their lovers genitals probably had a fair amount to do with that when earlier Roman periods were more leniant on the bisexuality or even homosexuality

I get that desert religion saw homosexuality as bad, but you don't just jump the gun and embrace all tenants of a religion, especially the more radical ones, on a dime
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
There are quite a few examples across time and space. The Wikipedia article is pretty wide-ranging. I think what this tells us is that there is a considerable social and cultural diversity in how people have thought and do think about the role of sex and gender. These tend to shift over time based on various factors, and especially based on religious or political campaigns. For example, take Polynesia: fakaleitī in Tonga (cf. faʻafafine in Samoa, māhū in Hawaiʻi) look on the surface like what we in the west would class as cross-dressing femboy bottoms; however, in Tonga, they were seen as a third option: man, woman, fakaleitī. When Christianity arrived in Tonga, missionaries sought to erase what Tongans felt was 'natural' and replace it with a male-female gender distinction (if you're interested in this very messy case, there's a pretty interesting documentary on YT). Keep in mind that a lot of these indigenous gender systems are now influenced by, and/or co-opted by, the LGBTQ movement. Often you have to go back to old-school anthropological literature or an emic perspective to get a good handle on what's 'really' going on (because 'Queer Theory' lit will oversimplify things to 'gays and trans always existed happily before colonialism uwu')

What we're seeing in the West is kind of similar: there is a social movement (with many characteristics of a religion/cult) which is promoting a new ways of thinking. I say ways because the Queer/Trans movements promote apparently paradoxical ideas about gender: in this view, gender is at once non-essential, mutable (anyone can be non-binary; we are all exhorted to transcend our cis-normativity) and essential, unchangeable (people are 'born' with an inherent, internal gender identity; transwomen are women and not an in-between category). So, clearly, the cultural clash is unfolding on many levels at once: there is conflict within the Queer/Trans movements and, obviously, in reaction to them. Cultures change, of course, so all of this is in the spirit of observation and milking lolcows on 'both sides' of the culture clash. But we also have to make our individual, and thus societal, choices about where we go from here.


A lot of anthropologists would say that important distinction is already made by differentiating 'sex' and 'gender'. Within that frame of reference, sex refers to various physiological factors (gonads, chromosomes, hormone balance, internal reproductive anatomy, genitalia), gender refers to roles performed in society and individuals' identification with those roles. As I wrote above, we can already see how gender roles are really complicated across different cultures and societies throughout history: men and women have different expectations placed on them depending on where and when they are born and we know that societies have typically disparaging categories for people who fall outside of the norm (tomboy, femme, sissy, limp-wristed, etc.). What I find interesting is to also consider that sex is not as cut-and-dry as it might appear.

Western medicine usually identifies two sexes, male and female with intersex as a category for cases where sex is ambiguous. Traditionally the practice has been to try to surgically correct an infant's genitalia to make them resemble male or female genitalia as far as possible. However, there's been a lot of controversy about this over the past decades since it leaves fucked up results. Consider: the doctor tries to give you a penis because as a baby you seem more like a boy (no ovaries, etc). But when you get old enough you start undergoing female puberty. You look like a girl and you have bobs but, instead of vagine, you have a horrible scarred surgically crafted little weenie.

So the obvious thing here to say is: don't cut up kids' genitals! But that typically creates dissonance amongst people on both extremes of the trans debate. Hardcore trans activists would agree with diversifying our view of sex and gender, but also otherwise push for genital surgery on minors. Hardcore gender 'realists' would agree with not mutilating kids' genitalia, but would otherwise be loathe to acknowledge anything other than male and female.

One of the reasons this is so fascinating is because it's cultural change happening before our eyes. Like all good history, what is unfolding right now is incredibly complicated and cannot be easily reduced.
History is just repeating itself right - especially with this "non-binary" trend. the signal of the end of every singlle civilization throughout all history has had a gender bending trend start up. That's all they are, fads.
Gender is not complicated, Humans have only two.

The anthropologists I read up on use the words :gender roles. Not just gender.
 

mr spongecake

kiwifarms.net
Hardcore gender 'realists' would agree with not mutilating kids' genitalia, but would otherwise be loathe to acknowledge anything other than male and female.
I know of no "gender realist" who doesn't acknowledge the existence of intersex people. It's just that they are largely irrelevant to the discussion of sex or gender because of how uncommon they are.

I've done a fair amount of research into intersex and it's not something to be "celebrated" - it is a sexual disorder with real consequences and hardships. There's no mystical third pair of special genitals.
 

Puerto Pollo

kiwifarms.net
Yes, the alphabet soup/troons/feminists are going to have a very rude awakening when Christianity/le evil straight white supremacist/islam gets the numbers needed to become a dominant political force in the west. Will it be Weimar republic or Roman third century crisis style?

Ah, to be a fly on that wall.
 

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
Yes, the alphabet soup/troons/feminists are going to have a very rude awakening when Christianity/le evil straight white supremacist/islam gets the numbers needed to become a dominant political force in the west. Will it be Weimar republic or Roman third century crisis style?

Ah, to be a fly on that wall.

First off, go to any African or Middle Eastern country that proclaims to be a Christian or an Islamic nation and you get nothing but scammers and hypocrites. The only true believers are those who are poor/illerate and have nothing to lose. The more wealth or social status you have, the more you're untouchable to a degree. There a reason for the term, "dubai porta potties". Also I know gay men who lived in the Middle East and other Islamic and they seen to be just doing fine. Even my African female friend confirmed that most of the stuff is class based.


Sources
 
Last edited:

Noir drag freak

kiwifarms.net
History is just repeating itself right - especially with this "non-binary" trend. the signal of the end of every singlle civilization throughout all history has had a gender bending trend start up. That's all they are, fads.
Gender is not complicated, Humans have only two.

The anthropologists I read up on use the words :gender roles. Not just gender.

But this time, I don't think that there are any Barbarians. The elites of the Barbarians realized that they have more in common with each other than with the masses.
 

DiscoRodeo

kiwifarms.net
History is just repeating itself right - especially with this "non-binary" trend. the signal of the end of every singlle civilization throughout all history has had a gender bending trend start up. That's all they are, fads.
Gender is not complicated, Humans have only two.

The anthropologists I read up on use the words :gender roles. Not just gender.
I do believe that gender isn't necessarily a static concept, but hear me out before judging too harshly.

From how I was taught, gender is supposed behavioral traits that tend to be associated with either sex. They may not be 100% ingrained within the sex, there can be differences, etc.

Saying that, some to most behavioral traits may actually be more biological (ie, increased aggression in men if youre going to go with gender crit theory that women have). Not all behavioral traits necessarily are biological in origin, some may simply be socially imposed (women naturally being inclined to do laundry is a big stupid one that somehow got gaslit into society), etc.

Now, where things get skewey is, if you are a less aggressive male in certain things, does that mean youre a new gender? What about a more aggressive female?

Of course the answer is not really, as these are general behavioral traits associated with each sex and obviously, but not obviously enough to TRAs, variance does not necessarily constitute brand new gender insofar as these are just general traits that we recognize as being common to either sex.

Big problem today though is, people take reinterpretation of gender/behavioral norms as "I must be a new gender because Im a girl who enjoys things associated with the male gender, or Im a boy who enjoys things associated with the female gender"

Which is silly, because what that really should be is just a reinterpretation of traditional gender roles, revaluation, and maybe not all of these things are necessarily masculine or feminine unto themselves,

Let alone, you don't need a new gender to explore that or can still embrace masc or feminine things without the label of "gender queer".

Where I get theoretical is, the problem with historic non-binary trends is, and this is just a theory, once behavioral roles within society start to be eroded to a degree that usually translates to "male aggression bad, men should be more passive, more feminine, cut off their penises, etc", you usually have both a very lax society before this, and it just accelerates that downward trend towards society getting even more divorced from the actual, often brutal, reality of the world. Its the equivalent of everyone drinking soy and the barbarians arriving at the gate, only its embracing a greater divorce from the biological drives for differences in gender/behavior, biological drives that do have a proper place within society.

I can certainly see cultures that throw out biological drives and the gender roles that come with them in their entirety as being at the height of decadency, and opening themselves up for abuse. I do believe that history can repeat itself cyclically, and it does seem like we are creating bad times from weaker people over here.
 
Top