[Pants-of-dog]

I am decidedly not an intellectual.

Unlike the rest of my family, I have no graduate degrees. Or even an undergrad degree.

I consider myself a craftperson. We tend to focus on what is real and feasible.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong.

[SolarCross]

I am decidedly not an intellectual.

Unlike the rest of my family, I have no graduate degrees. Or even an undergrad degree.

I consider myself a craftperson. We tend to focus on what is real and feasible.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong.

Which of these observable phenomena better indicates a person matches the identity "woman":

Can breast feed children? Can wear a skirt? Can cook dinner?

To help you out I'll point out that a man can only do two out of those three things.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am decidedly not an intellectual.

Obviously.

I consider myself a craftperson. We tend to focus on what is real and feasible.

Except most blue collar workers and craftspeople are conservatives.

I am both an intellectual and a craftsperson, so apparently that doesn't mean a rip about where you end up on the spectrum.

That being said, I think @Albert really meant to refer to your sophistry and debate style, not necessarily your aptitude or level of knowledge.

[Nonsense]

If you guys want to have a real mind messing: read this.

These people think the natural state of humans is homosexuality. That "traditional" marriage to them is false and just role playing. They think straight people are actually the ones that needs liberating. Not just gay people, but actually all of us.

This makes more sense where all this modern state initiative draws its inspiration. It draws it from homosexuality, mass enforced on the whole society. In the way, it is actually meant to make us all gay. Or sorry I mean, to "liberate" us all.

Holy Molly, these people are nuts.

Nonsense

In a 'nutshell', your bang on.

The 'gender-bender' folk, along with 'Liberal' Western political, are abusing the democratic process to subvert & supplant normal human relationships with their perverse lifestyle paradigm shift fostered onto our young generations through brainwashing children within the 'education' system.

They stand the natural status quo on it's head & call the result, 'normal'.

They(politicians) have perverted our N.H.S system, by allowing lifestyle 'gender alignment' operations, which should NOT be done, that is NOT what the N.H.S was created for.
That type of operation is 'elective', it is NOT a necessary operation & as such should be done 'PRIVATELY'.

Again, with 'surrogacy' or donor conceptions, the 'donor' should be made liable for child support, NOT the taxpayers.

If some people want children(from these 'gay' people that I have read of to date, they talk of having a child, as if it was a 'thing' , a possession, something that is owned, as any object is & not in any way connected to how normal couples see it as), then,they should act NORMAL & have sex with the opposite sex-or leave such things to NORMAL people by STAYING OUT OF THAT LOOP.

[Albert]

What this identifies is that the whole homosexual political movement is one of aggression. They are actively in war against what they see is an oppressive socially constructed straight white male dominated society. It is plainly written there in black and white from the horses mouth itself.

This homosexual movements end goal is not one of compromise of live and let live as they put it as upfront. It actually subversion and destruction of what they see as constructed sexual and relationship social norms. This is what we are up against.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which of these observable phenomena better indicates a person matches the identity "woman":

Can breast feed children? Can wear a skirt? Can cook dinner?

To help you out I'll point out that a man can only do two out of those three things.

Please note that all three of these things are traditionally considered female gender roles. So, anyone who does these three things will be perceived as having a female identity.

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_la ... _lactation

[SolarCross]

Please note that all three of these things are traditionally considered female gender roles. So, anyone who does these three things will be perceived as having a female identity.

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_la ... _lactation

No only breast feeding is a female role. Would you dare to call a Scottish Highlander in his kilt (a skirt essentially) a woman? No he is more manly than you will ever be. Would you call some random knife wielding psycho chef a woman because he cooks dinner for people? No, you'd keep really quiet about your retarded ideas about what makes cooking girly in his presence.

[Pants-of-dog]

No only breast feeding is a female role. Would you dare to call a Scottish Highlander in his kilt (a skirt essentially) a woman? No he is more manly than you will ever be.

So we agree that gender roles are cultural. In England, it is feminine, while in Scotland, it is masculine.

Please note that sex is biologcal and objective, so it would not be culturally specific like gender roles are.

Would you call some random knife wielding psycho chef a woman because he cooks dinner for people? No, you'd keep really quite about your retarded ideas about what makes cooking girly.

Again, I have shown how unpaid cooking work is considered female work, while being paid to cook is considered men’s work.

In this case, the value we place on the (same) work is what makes it specific to each gender.

And this is further evidence that gender and sex are not the same thing.

[SolarCross]

So we agree that gender roles are cultural. In England, it is feminine, while in Scotland, it is masculine.

Please note that sex is biologcal and objective, so it would not be culturally specific like gender roles are.

Again, I have shown how unpaid cooking work is considered female work, while being paid to cook is considered men’s work.

In this case, the value we place on the (same) work is what makes it specific to each gender.

And this is further evidence that gender and sex are not the same thing.

The point is you can't safely identify a person as a woman from their clothing or whether they are engaged in food preparation at work or at home. The physiology is the true criteria.

[Pants-of-dog]

The point is you can't safely identify a person as a woman from their clothing or whether they are engaged in food preparation at work or at home. The physiology is the true criteria.

Are you talking about gender identity or sex designation?

[SolarCross]

Are you talking about gender identity or sex designation?

Both they are the same thing. You are not a woman just by wearing a dress or cooking the dinner, you are woman by your physiology alone. Does that really need to be said? Shall I inform you next that gunshot wounds to the back of the head are usually fatal as if you didn't already know that?

[Godstud]

If you look like a woman, and dress like a woman, you will be regarded as a woman in gender, even if you actually aren't(sexually).

Case in point - this is a man, but you'd likely never refer to this person as a "he", if you didn't know it.


The same applies if you look androgynous. You can appear to not fit into either category.

Gender is how you appear to society/culture, and how they view you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Both they are the same thing.

No. I already showed that gender is subjective and culturally specific. Sex is not.

Unless you can reconcile these differences, they must be different things.

You are not a woman just by wearing a dress or cooking the dinner, you are woman by your physiology alone. Does that really need to be said? Shall I inform you next that gunshot wounds to the back of the head are usually fatal as if you didn't already know that?

You are confusing gender identity and gender roles again.

Since I never claimed that filling gender roles changes your gender identity (in fact, I said the opposite), you are refuting a strawman.

[Albert]

Is sexual orientation subjective as well?

[Godstud]

Sexual orientation is most certainly subjective, since you cannot tell who a person is attracted to merely by knowing their sex. Sexual attraction is VERY subjective.

[SolarCross]

No. I already showed that gender is subjective and culturally specific. Sex is not.

Unless you can reconcile these differences, they must be different things.

No you just confuse the disguise for the reality. If Ronnie Barker dons a dress then to you he becomes a woman and you will ask him if he fancies a shag. If Ronnie Barker puts on blackface you will tell him how sorry you are that your ancestors enslaved his ancestors. The sheer fact that a man can put on a dress and potentially make a semi-convincing imitation of a woman shows that the real indicator of gender is not in something as superficial as clothing.

You are confusing gender identity and gender roles again.

Since I never claimed that filling gender roles changes your gender identity (in fact, I said the opposite), you are refuting a strawman.

The physiology is the key not the clothing, get that straight (nevermind the pun), come back to me when you understand that.

[Pants-of-dog]

No you just confuse the disguise for the reality. If Ronnie Barker dons a dress then to you he becomes a woman and you will ask him if he fancies a shag. If Ronnie Barker puts on blackface you will tell him how sorry you are that your ancestors enslaved his ancestors.

No. You are once again confusing gender identity with gender roles, or more specifically, putting forth a strawman wherein I am making that error.

You say:
“If Ronnie Barker dons a dress then to you he becomes a woman and you will ask him if he fancies a shag.”

Now, if Barker dons a dress, he is filling a female gender role. He is not identifying as female. So when you say that to me he becomes a woman, you are wrong.

I have clearly said several times that merely taking on the gender roles associated with the opposite sex does nothing to change your gender identity.

The sheer fact that a man can put on a dress and potentially make a semi-convincing imitation of a woman shows that the real indicator of gender is not in something as superficial as clothing.

Again, you are deliberately ignoring the qualitative differences between sex and gender.

Just like you are ignoring the difference between gender identity and gender roles.

I have made arguments as to why these are significant differences.

Do you have any argument as to why these differences should be ignored?

The physiology is the key not the clothing, get that straight (nevermind the pun), come back to me when you understand that.

Physiology is the key for sex designation, not gender identity or gender roles.

Why is any of this important to you?

[Albert]

Sexual orientation is most certainly subjective, since you cannot tell who a person is attracted to merely by knowing their sex. Sexual attraction is VERY subjective.

Would that not make homosexuality subjective then and sense of identity?

Why is any of this important to you?

Why is it important to you?

No. You are once again confusing gender identity with gender roles, or more specifically, putting forth a strawman wherein I am making that error.

You say:
“If Ronnie Barker dons a dress then to you he becomes a woman and you will ask him if he fancies a shag.”

Now, if Barker dons a dress, he is filling a female gender role. He is not identifying as female. So when you say that to me he becomes a woman, you are wrong.

I have clearly said several times that merely taking on the gender roles associated with the opposite sex does nothing to change your gender identity.

Are you saying there a specific gender roles? So women have specific gender roles in our society so do men?

[Godstud]

Everyone's sexual identity is subjective. Everyone's sense of identity is the same. Everyone's different in who they are attracted to, and who they are. Why does this matter so much to you as to who they identify as?

[Albert]

Everyone's sexual identity is subjective. Everyone's sense of identity is the same. Everyone's different in who they are attracted to, and who they are. Why does this matter so much to you as to who they identify as?

Why does it matter to you? I'm just simply trying to make sense of all this. If sexual orientation is subjective, that means homosexuals choose their sexual orientations; like drag queens willingly choose their identity.