Serious Oh Hey It's Another G E N D E R Thread

this isn't a wynncraft thread my friendo

 

I believe that this is something that you need to do a broader reading about, concerning religion.
As to the rest of what you said, I agree with it, for the most part. The question becomes, where did the bigotry come from, in the first place? I'm not placing blame where it does not belong. I am a religious person, myself. However, as I've said previously, I was taught that transsexuals were bad, and that transsexualism was a choice. As I grew up, I began to question that stance, very seriously. Something about it was just not right. How can anyone be bad for how they were born? If it was a choice, then straight people should be able to choose to become transsexual. Everyone that I approached with that situation said that there was NO way that they could change, both straight people and transsexuals. I asked various ordained men and women, professional psychologists and psychiatrists, PhDs, students - everyone said the same thing, that they could not change. I also heard from plenty of people that were bigots. More than you would expect in academia. Every one of them quoted some passage in some religious text for why they held their beliefs, even in the face of biological evidence that they were wrong. So, if you can find a bigot, that does not, eventually, rely on some religious belief, let me know. Religion, per se, is not the problem. It's how the religion is interpreted that is the problem.

 

I'm confused. Do you think that we're talking about the use of gender in wynn?

Read up a few posts, I think you just got confused

 

You're thinking about biological sex

 

I'm not certain what he's thinking, but useless content gets deleted.

 

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...no-11-custody-lgbt-rights-human-a7607446.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29832690
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dict-d-prefer-shoot-replied-threw-anyway.html
http://www.unhcr.org/afr/news/stori...sgender-refugees-seek-safety-middle-east.html

​

Religion is purely at fault. Doesn't matter how many times you slice it, having a frame of mind barred by religion is a carcan for your tolerance of other people. Religion works well as a "social glue" in most societies, but the price you pay is othering everybody who doesn't live by your standards, no matter how high or low the bar is.

You can get away with so much up until you read how incredibly bigoted the source of their beliefs is. Do good religious people exist ? Obviously.

However, you just have to live in a country that is ruled by religion to realise how literal interpretations of religious texts destroy lives and human beings.

 

To be fair, the bible was written by humans, who have prejudices and grudges. I don't know much about the Quran, but I'm assuming it's a similar situation. Humans (under the assumption that the Bible/Quran is true) may have written in parts of the bible to justify their disgusting prejudices.

 

There's a whole book in the Bible that was written in a later period to justify the temple

 

I know what you mean, but whether or not the author of the holy books is God, Allah, or Shmulbürck, it won't make Islam, Christinanity and Judaism stop existing.
The point wasn't if God was the cause of the bigotry, but if Religion was the cause of it.

Nobody at this point can know whether or not God, Jesus, or just the apostles where bigoted against a group, but it still remains written down there, on books that people look up to in life to determine what they should think or do.

And in the case of a governement applying this to a state religion, shit like crusades, the inquisition, and shariah law happen.

That's why I can prone certain advantages to be religious on an individual basis, and I'll never tell people "Stop believing that", but I also can't ignore the fact that these books and religions are soaked (and still soaking) in the bloods of innocents.

 

well I can't argue with that.

 

Alright let me drop here what i said in the last thread.

The most logical and sensible way of describing gender, at least in my eyes, is that there are two BASE GENDERS, and everything else just branches off the main two. Someone who is a male but romantically is attracted to both sexes, is still a male, but they are interested in something straight males are not. This does not make them a 3rd gender. Sure someone can mentally identify as a different gender than they're born with, but that doesn't make them be a 3rd gender.


Example time. Blue = Male, Red = Female

So lets say someone was born Red. They mentally identify as Blue. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM GREEN. Either they're blue, red, or somewhere imbetween (on a purple spectrum of sorts). There isnt a way using blue and red to make green, so why do we treat people like they are?


That was a really peculiar analogy and for people who cannot use basic fucking logic i'll spell it out more literally
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER PERSON DOESNT MAKE THEM A NEW FUCKING THING

That's like saying that because horses are stereotypically brown, that a gray horse is a fucking mouse.

its not logical
it has no basis or sense behind it
its just fuckin weird, irrational, and pointless


I agree, a transgender male is different than a straight male. But i'm different from a normal person because i have Aspergers, does that mean i'm aspergers-gender? No. Its a mental difference. Much like the concept of gender. But it doesn't define me as something COMPLETELY different.

If gender differentiates via people's minds, then clearly everyone with a mental disorder or disability CLEARLY must mean that OH WOW LOOK 25845803485038093589035903869036903467903703476 NEW GENDERS YAAAAAAAY

no. it does not.

This online SJW gender war is fucking absurd.
use common sense, people

-Alex

 

tl;dr it's a spectrum?

 

Do you even know how to read

 

yeah, and what I read was an overcomplicated version of "other genders don't exist outside of man and woman, but rather between them

 

By that i mean thats completely wrong. My theory is that there are two base genders. Every other so-called "genders" are just based on those two...

________________________________

Over-complicated?


I literally simplified it as much as i go.
Brain difference =/= new gendurzzz111!1!1!one

________________________________

Re read my post since you missed the point hardcore

 

well, a spectrum is two extremes (in this case, male and female i guess) and the inbetweeners, based on a mix of the extremes.

 

Why do you people think this is an argument that you can win? Like seriously, something thats so based on opinions and just persuasion is just not gonna get anyone anywhere, like jesus.

 

Thing is its not really BETWEEN. It's more leant towards one or the other, or neither. Its less a spectrum and more 2 seperate trees, each limb is one of the modern day "genders" but the trunk is still just one or the other.

 

this is indisputable, but also less likely than a spectrum, as a spectrum has also been claimed.
I'm not one to randomly make assumptions, so I'll just give people the benefit of the doubt when they say that they're genderfluid or something.

 

Take a look at this, from, Harvard .



It's far from complete, but it does show a couple of things. First, biological gender and gender identity are not the same thing. They can be mapped as the two axis of a graph, as is seen in the left graphic. Second, there are more than 2 large clusters of gender identity vs sexual preference. I can make out at least 13 large clusters of gender identity vs sexual preference, and those are just the large clusters.


Biologically, as it's been said multiple times, I think, if someone has a Y chromosome (and at least one X chromosome), they are biologically male. But that tells us nothing of their sexual orientation, of their gender identity. It's not a tree, it's not polar, it's spread out, all over the place. That makes it a spectrum. Ignore the number of people who identify as any gender, that's not relevant here. All that's relevant, is that when sexual preference is mapped against gender identity, in order to map sexual orientation, it becomes more of spectrum, than a polar graph. Am I helping, or am I making it less clear?