Is Gender Orientation biological?

My hypothesis:

Science recognises only the outer-sex of people. Outer-sex refers to our sexual/ reproductive organs. So a person with a penis/ testicles is a male while that with a vagina/ uterous is a female. This definition is enough if we want to look at biology as only meant for reproduction. Science recognises only two outer-sexes, Male and Female but actually there is also a third one called Hermaphrodite.

There is also an 'inner-sex' which science doesn't really acknowledge, but which all traditional societies are aware of --- some more than others.

Our complete biological SEX identity consists of our outer-sex plus our inner-sex. Our inner sex can be described as our inner-sense of being a male or a female irrespective of our outer-sex. My hypothesis is that this 'inner-sex' is also determined by (hence unknown) biological factors. Inner-sex refers to our natural gender or our 'GENDER ORIENTATION''. There are three kinds of gender orientations: masculine, feminine and hermaphrodite (meterosexual).

An ideal society would accomodate our outer-sex as well as our inner-sex into its Gender (and Sexual) identities. Actually an ideal society would not have any sexual identities.


Is Gender Orientation natural/ biological? What do you think?

P.S.: More about 'Gender Orientation' in males:

a.) Natural gender or the 'sense' or 'feeling' of being male/masculine or female/feminine happens in degrees. On one extreme is an extremely masculine inner-sex, and on the other extreme feminine inner-sex (transexuals). Most people have both the genders in varying degrees.

b.) It is our Gender identity which is our basic natural identity (not sexual oreintation). It is how we see ourselves, and how others see us. It determines how we relate to others and how others relate to us. E.g., a feminine gendered male may see himself as a basically a female, and relate to others as a female, inspite of a 'male' outer-sex. Others too would relate to him/ her as a different 'sex' than 'male' (again inspite of his/her outer-sex). In several respect one's inner-sex is more important to an individual (and to the society) than one's outer-sex. Although, its the unique combination of the two that determines our real SEX IDENTITY.

c.) Our Gender orientation/ identity refers to our predominant Gender. E.g., a male who predominantly feels a male will be a masculine gendered man. It does not mean that the man will not have any feminine energies at all.

d.) Our natural Gender or masculinity and femininity are not just social constructs (even though there is also a parallel 'Social Gender' that interferes with our 'natural gender'). They are real and are a product of biological factors. They represent our source of special energies. Masculine and Feminine Energies. Combined with our outer-sex the energies take different forms and invest the individual with unique powers. E.g. a predominantly feminine male will have the feminine energies of a female while the physical capabilities of a male.

e.) SOCIAL GENDER: Apart from out natural gender, the society has created its own artificial, social gender --- which has a special significance in the case of men. Because 'Manhood' (Social Masculinity) is used as the basic manipulative tool to control the behaviour, attitudes and mores of men. However, this social gender is purely an artificial construct which may have nothing to do with one's natural gender and may in fact run contrary to the essence of natural gender.

Some examples of social gender: Cigerrette smoking is projected by the society as a 'masculine' thing. However, in reality there is nothing masculine about smoking ciggerate. It's only when masculine men smoke ciggeratte that it seems masculine.

Like social masculinity. social femininity is also equally artificial and sometimes 'false' and is used to control or punish men. E.g., Men may be told they are feminine when they cry do other things artificially desinated as 'feminine'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by leopold99
tell it to cornell,yale,harvard
”

let me also add a russian and japanese universities as well
but of course they are all against you aren't they?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Leopold, when you don't have answers or don't know any better, stop trolling, especially because you yourself stated that you want to opt out of the discussion. Find yourself something better to do. I want to do serious discussion.

This forum is heaven for all those who don't stand a chance in Yale or Cornell or what have you (I mean non-mainstream, non-scientists like yours truly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After this post I'm just going to ignore you, or reach for my 'ignore' button.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

go here and discuss it

http://www.sciscoop.com

you need to stop picking your nose your brains are falling out

 

chicken

 

The link seems good. Thank you.

 

Interesting link.

thought it was CSICOP at first.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It must be both. You should have put that in the poll.

 

Yes, I'm so confused.

 

sigh. Buddha, you suck. Yes, your intentions are good and stuff, but how you go about doing them just makes you look like a lunatic. Why don't you research first and then start making threads?


Sex- your so called "outter-sex". western science recognizes the two main ones, male and female, and a few subsections of hermaphrodites. There are true hermaphrodites, and pseudohermaphrodites, and even they have subsections.
gender- your so called "inner-sex". That's just how society raises you... boys as boys, girls as girls, or some boys are raised to be girly (effeminate guys), some girls are rasied to be manly (tomboys).
Then there is also the other biological "inner-sexes".
There's sexual ORIENTATIONS (which have nothing to do with how masculine/femminine YOU are): homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality.
And there's also how you view yourself to be inside, but not quite like tomboy/effeminate... and that's transgender people. THEY were raised as regular male/females, but they want to be the other sex because they have something weird in their brains.

Each of them are separate things, and quite different. You're grouping everything into one.
Transexuals may or may not be homosexual, homosexuals may or may not be effeminate/tomboys, etc.

Having said that, everything except real gender (being effeminate/tomboy) is biological. Your sex is obviously biological, your sexual orientation is biological: http://www.soulforce.org/article/644
and being transexual is biological too (remember the brain thing?)...

 

biological. The energy of the person has a strong influence on the person's sexual feelings or desires. They will feel drawn to people who have the energy they need.

It can be influenced by outside factors. I think a person could be brainwashed into anything. Including sexual choice or identity.

Why is this such a concern of yours? Seems pretty common sense to me.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Been there, done that!

Hermaphrodites are seen as 'abnormalities' not a different outer-sex, basically as either male or female based on the prominent sex (without regard to the gender of the person.).

The west doesn't recognise gender as natural or biological. It is all a product of upbringing. Men are expected to be naturally- compulsorily masculine and women naturally-compulsorily feminine, and anything else is a psychological abnormality due to 'wrong' raising.

By the way, I don't know of any boys that are raised to be girly (girls are raised to be manly in the west!). Even girly boys are forced-raised to be 'boyish'. If any man remembers being raised like a girl, please share your experiences here.

Are we talking about transexuals? Why are we saying its natural in their case --- because they have formed themselves into a socio-political group? Before that they were also viewed as 'nut' cases --- it's actually still considered an abnormality slightly worse than 'homosexuality', only today they get more politically correct about both.

 

What is happening with this wrong and biased structuring of male gender and sexuality is that science is passing off the feminine proclivities of feminine males who like men as arising from their 'sexual orienation'. But then what happens to the masculine men who share the 'homosexual' identity? They are also explained by the same standards, since they also share the same 'sexual orientation'.

 

This (the above) does not affect those who are comfortable with the homosexual identity, but it increases the pressures tremendously on straight men to disown their sexual need for men --- where peers discourage this as 'feminine'.

This also makes a transition from the 'straight' group to the 'gay' group extremely difficult for masculine gendered youth.

 

Natural and biological both refer to the same thing here.

Or do you mean that gender orientation is both natural and psychological?

Gender orientation in my view is primarily biological. Psychology or environment can only control or destroy that orientation but it cannot construct one.

But there is also something like 'Social gender' (e.g. social masculinity), that is different from the natural gender orientation. Only social gender is recognised by the west. Social gender refers to the roles set for each outer-sex by the society, usually with pressures to force people to conform to these roles.

Thus 'lipstick' on its own is not feminine. But the society ascribes to it feminine connotations, and so males who feel feminine will be tempted to use this as an expression/ assertion of their femininity. A masculine man will avoid it for the same reason. But were a masculine man to wear lipstick, it will not make him any less masculine --- as far as his natural intriinsic masculinity is concerned.

 

As you would have noticed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

we are not talking about 'sexual orientation here. We are talking about 'gender orientation'. So it would be appreciated if you could restrict your comments to that. Thank you.

 

Bite me. I tried understanding this stuff you write and you give me an attitude.

I have just moved over to the crowd that wonders what the hell you are going on about.

 

Well, it’s becoming more and more obvious to me that gender is a heterosexual social conspiracy.
Our species was never meant to reproduce at all. We were only meant to bond and fuck in "meaningful lives".

Now I would like to point everyone’s attentions to another not-well-documented conspiracy.

Our species identity, like that of gender identity, is part of some vast homo sapient conspiracy.
We aren’t humans at all.
Not most of us, anyways.

The fact that we’ve been talked into believing we are part of some group, loosely defined by external (superficial) characteristics, is shameful.
We aren’t humans at all. That’s just prejudices homo sapient thinking meant to support such absurdities as Darwinism and Creationism.
We are beings simply bonding with one another and calling this bond Human.

I, for one, recognize after Budha1’s careful, concise, reasonable and insightful on-line tutelage, that I’m really a princess trapped in the dark tower of a heterosexual castle, awaiting my white knight to free me from …..my self and all those that want to force me to have sex with yucky women. – not that there’s anything wrong with that.

 

So Buddha, you think society should be more accomodating for effeminate men and masculine women? Let me see if I undertand this right. You think that both our 'inner' and 'outer' genders are expressions of our genes and thus, we have no choice in how we are, and thus, should be accepted by society.

I suppose I could see that happening considering how tolerant our western society has become towards freaks.

 

the elephant man was a freak but human
supposedly very intelligent
are you refering to gays? why would you call another human being a freak.
mentally ill yes freak no