Is Gender Orientation biological?

Sexual orientation is a social construct, unlike gender orientation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well! I was going to say the same thing earlier. Pro-heterosexual christian groups (and other "natural" law proponents) use that as the foundation of MOST of their propaganda.
They were made to go together. Plus and minus attract, minus and minus and plus and plus repel!

It was that very mindset that prompted me to make a statement declaring the male-female sexuality isn't the highest form.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All very 'spiritual'. We are talking about our physical/ emotional lives here. We're talking biology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, it isn't and in nature, it is not even possible. (not for the majority, not for masculine men).

 

That's SICK as far as I'm concerned.
That actually sounds kind of like some form of mind control.

What was wrong with his parents? What did these people act like?

 

Interesting link Buddha! I haven't seen any references to sexuality yet, though. I wonder if they are there?

 

It's rather unusual don't you think? Why do you think the couple wanted to raise their son like a girl. Considering that would make the boy so handicapped given the treatment of feminine boys in our societies?

I have a diehard feminist friend. She aint married, but when her friend had a son, she insisted on buying him a doll, because she hates 'masculine' men. She thinks 'masculinity' is a social construct, because she has had 'western' training, and she is very influenced by feminism.

There is another thing I wanted to talk about.

It seems in a heterosexual society, the gender roles of men become stricter than in a non-heterosexual, traditional societ. I can't say why, maybe because when the men and women are forced together in a mixed group, in order to keep social masculinity alive (after all that's the handle on men that the society has!) the society seeks to make the rules stricter so that the men have a sense of being different when actually they become unisexed.

In my traditional society, noone cares if boy wears pink or blue. Or whether he plays with dolls or not. These things are not issues at all. People who have had English education, especially westernised middle class people (like us) do have ingrained these notions from the west, but otherwise they don't mean much to us.

Even in other areas, the social masculinity does not exclude so many things that the west excludes for men.

On the other hand there are several things in the west that are considered masculine that are considered downright 'unmanly' and 'wimpy' in the traditional societies. One of them is hanging around with women. Then Barbers in my country are all masculine males, and most of the tailors too. In the west these professions are reserved for feminine gendered 'gays'. That sounds strange to us.

Did the boy grow up to be 'feminine' or 'masculine' gendered. In a way he would be 'disabled' as he will find it difficult to relate with the boys when he grows up, because he will not have learned the things they have learned.

This may make him think of himself as different. But then again, he may be able to make up once he grows slightly bigger and gets out. Did it happen?

 

.....and, plug and socket!

 

You can compare it with today's parents who panick at the sight of their baby son even approaching a doll!

I mean, they want their sons to grow up liking girls, but they don't want them to like dolls that are made like girls. Strange and contradictory are the ways of the modern world!

 

No there aren't any! But at least it dispells the notion or the theory that opposites attract. This is the base on which the heterosexual ideology is built upon.

 

Interesting about the barbers and tailors! I just love barbers with big moustaches!

Though seriously, I want to know WHAT WAS WRONG WITH HIS PARENTS??? What was their reasoning? Trying to make him soft and non-violent?

 

Yes. You are right about that one!

And my statement about male-female coupling received a rather angry response from someone as well, including name-calling!

 

So, if you're ugly, you're attracted by ugly people? I wouldn't call men and women opposites, since they're alike. Same but different. Of course complete opposites don't attract, like a male and an insect or a female and a clock, but i'm talking about "complementary halves". If people and things didn't like similarities, "negative" and "positive" would dissapear and love would cease to exist.

There's very little difference between two complementary halves. If the difference is too great, there is no attraction, if the difference is too small, there is no attraction either. Obviously, no two people are exactly the same, still we're all similar. Everything is gradient. Because everyone is unique, no one is unique.

I've never heard that, but it sounds like you've misunderstood the story. Hermaphrodism is impossible in the body, it is only possible in the mind. Plato in his Symposium remarks that humans, originally ovoid androgynes, were separated by Zeus into male and female halves "like a hair dividing an egg," each half thereafter seeking the other in order to complete itself.

This doesn't mean that those who are PHYSICALLY MALE are necessarily attracted by those who are PHYSICALLY FEMALE. A man and a man can also be complementary halves, it all depends on the mind.

What is wrong at the physical level?

Because the mind is both/neither male nor female a man can be shaped by circumstances and environment to think he's a female. All suffering comes from thinking that we are a body instead of the mind.

Talk what you like, this isn't just about "biology". If you categorize like that, you limit yourself from understanding the whole. If you hold a side, you can't understand, but I guess people do that, so that "attraction" would continue to exist between negative and positive.

 

From the article about opposites.

 

I treat them with justice, equality, education, right to religion and freedom from american occupations.

 

And who'll free the world from Muslim fundamentalists. Justice and equality are not only for the Muslims. And should Muslim fundamentalists do injustice to others while demanding the justice for themselves?

And the terrorists are really cowards.

Anyone can be 'right' when he holds a gun. If you're on the side of the truth, you should be able to justify your truth through a discussion. But Muslim fundamentalists can't do that. Because they are on the side of lies. And that is why they get irritated and frustrated and take to extremism.

 

On what moral basis do those who are killing our children, and are not hesitant to use their own children as human bombs, and who hang their children --- talk about protecting our childen?

 

On what moral basis do people who destroy other cultures, and have a history of destroying other cultures, and who are not shy of destroying the cultures of their own ancestors (Bamiyan caves are just a small example!) --- rumble about protecting their own culture? And what culture --- the culture of killing innocent children? And protection from what --- discussions? How can discussions harm, except bring out the truth? Terrorists are only right because they have guns, they can't face the truth!

 

I think if there is anyone who can save the rest of the world from Muslim terrorism are the Americans. If only they can get their priorities right!

By the way, the real Muslims have themselves come forward and rejected terrorism recently --- at the OIC conference.

 

I'll take another example. If you're good looking, chances are that you'd not settle for an ugly person -- as a friend or, and especially as a partner. If you're intelligent, you'd find it difficult to compromise on intelligence for beauty/ brawns. If you're brave, you'd not like a coward as a lover. If you're a balanced person, you'd like someone with balance of various qualities.

Chances are that if you're ugly, you won't be intent on finding a 'beautiful' person for a relationship. You won't really care for looks. And you won't be quite happy in that relationship, if you do.

The study proves beyond doubt that people look for people who are very much like them. Although some differences are useful -- they should not be primary.

I've given several other proofs in the thread "heterosexuality is queer" (now merged in "heteroseuxality is unnatural") that show that a masculine man can never really be emotionally close to a female. And that only feminine gendered males (including meterosexuals) really want that kind of closeness.

The "complementary halves" is a bulshit created by religion as part of its psychological propaganda thing to enforce marriage on people.

I think you're rather a confused person, and try to cover up your confusion with pseudo spiritualism. How would 'negative' and 'positive' disappear if people didn't like similarities? And you're actually saying that people like similarities, then you go on to say that they like opposite sexes, and opposite sexes are not really opposites but the same inside, but then you still claim that the part in a man that desires a woman is masculine rather than feminine. You're are really messed up. I think you should start to live on this earth a bit, rather than only in the skies.

And no, if negative and positive don't gel, love will not cease to exist. The Greeks believed love between two men to be the purest form of love. It was not for nothing.