SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
My daughter just went to a Drag(on) party (sp???):
literally a pre-wedding party for two guys (and there was a stage drag theater contest).
My questions (being an old guy trying to fit into a new world)
1. Is it husband and wife or husband and husband (wife and wife for lesbians)?
2. Why do people do drag? and why don't they dress that way all the time if they like doing it so much?
3. I knew a 'flaming homo' in Toronto (did not know him well enough to ask questions like this): why do some guys act straight and some so feminine to outright flaming in yo' face?
Will probably remember some other questions later... does anyone have a primer?
Honestly asking.... this is all new to the guy who grew up (small town) saying "Ha...you're a homo!" without really knowing what that meant (when told about a 'circle jerk' i wondered why a bunch of guys would want to do that while thinking about women, lol).
Let the flaming begin!
**A side thought:
In the future there WILL be sex bots:
.....there will also be 'child sex bots' (and will/can child sex bots be made illegal?)... thinking about this is kind of disturbing, but i know it IS coming, sooner or later.
Will something like that take care of a pedo's needs or lead to something worse?
If you had a fully functioning sex-bot that looks/feels real with wonderful AI, would you consider never having a relationship (such as marriage) again or just stick with sex-bot?
If my wife died and i had a bot/AI that was acceptable, i might just stick with it, methinks.
Damn, my mind is going tonight!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Monday August 27 2018, @04:59PM (6 children)
I'm pretty live and let live about all of this stuff, its not for me but whatever just don't shove it in my face. But what the hell is going on with this new thing buy the far far lefists to argue that biological sex is a social construct?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @05:16PM
When the science goes against ideology, ideologues attempt to dismiss the science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @06:39PM (2 children)
To be fair, reality doesn't give a shit about how we define it and biology is messy.
How do you define the biological sex of humans with three sex chromosomes, XXY, instead of the more typical XX or XY?
Is a female still a female if it is infertile?
Is a male still a male if it will never have sex?
That being said, there certainly is a bimodal distribution in masculine and feminine traits that strongly correlates with sex chromosomes in humans. People use these outward phenotypes to judge biological sex, but the phenotypes don't match perfectly.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday August 27 2018, @08:25PM (1 child)
The argument is not that we can't use male and female, the argument is that XX and XY are actually the same thing and any perceived differences between the two are socially constructed. Even if we don't call them XX and XY, there are differences between the two strands in the DNA chain. Are the various roles in society that people with XX and XY sets socially constructed? Yeah to some extent, but XX and XY are different.
I don't understand
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @09:23PM
You don't understand because that position is irrational.
Now, I bet that such a view is shared by so few that it is not worthy of wasting time thinking about. It's a bit like when people waste time making a big deal out of %extremist position% held by %extremist% (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church's views on anything). It might be interesting that people believe the world is flat, 9/11 was an inside job, aliens producing crop circles; however, it is best to just ignore them as if they were trolls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:36AM (1 child)
I'm certain that nobody is arguing that reproductive system differences are a social construct. Otherwise feminists would have no basis for proclaiming that the menstrual cycle and pregnancy makes cisfemales "superior beings" (their words, not mine).
So what could the theory that gender is a social construct mean? Men and women prefer different clothing, for example.
So there is the feminist theory that robs women of their agency and free will. This gets quickly into a complicated area having to do with self-actualization. (I think self-actualization is the right term for it....) The feminists cannot understand why a woman would voluntarily go along with skirts and long hair, which are not as convenient as pants and short hair, because they believe that gender is a social construct. They tell us that if not for a massive conspiracy theory (I'm simplifying) of almost 3.6 billion men using violent imposition (like a monopoly of some kind), women would all wear pants and have short hair etc.
Yet everybody, not just religious whackos, enjoys expressing their identified gender. It's like a way for them to actualize themselves, or something. What we're missing here is some way of explaining the difference in preference for expression of one gender while shying away from expressing the other gender. Some kind of inborn orientation.
The brain is not hard-wired for skirts or pants. That just seems too specific to be plausible, and then there are all the examples of times and places where these things get reversed, and we see men wearing things that look an awful lot like skirts, and women are wearing things an awful lot like pants.
Yet the brain does seem to be hard-wired to identify with one gender or the other. For 99.99% of people, this seems to, conveniently enough, match the reproductive system. And that's good! Huzzah for the cisgender experience! Be proud of being cisgender! Don't listen to a single fucking SJW on this subject, and don't spend a single fucking second feeling bad because you're in the 99.99% majority of people who were born the way that gendered animals are meant to be.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea if 99.99% is the right number. It could be 90% for all I know. This is why we need to do some basic science here instead of just going "social construct!" and letting our brains leak out of our ears.)
Yet biology is messy, and this is how we can know that gender is not a social construct.
So if your genitals completely disappeared tomorrow morning, you'd still know that you're a man (or woman). You'd still identify with that gender. You'd still feel like you were meant to be that gender in some way you can't put your finger on. And you'd still go about wearing pants (or skirts, or whatever), because that's what men (or women) do, and that's what you are.
What is a social construct are the skirts and pants. Gender expression and norms are a function of culture (and change depending on which times or places you travel to). The identification (most) every person experiences with one gender or another transcends culture and is absolutely not imaginary or a social construct.
The brain, which must be the seat of this instinctual identification, is a biological component. Brain sex is physical and real.
In spite of all of that, there is also this to consider: The Null HypotheCis [freethoughtblogs.com]. As concerns an individual, especially given that we just aren't fucking interested in pursuing brain imaging studies to create a reliable diagnostic (and perhaps, even if we had a reliable diagnostic, nothing is 100%, false positives, false negatives, rounding errors, etc etc), we're ultimately stuck just taking an individual's word for it which gender they feel an identification with.
(I tried to compress--Sai King recommends second draft = first draft - 10%, but it still remains a book. So I have no space left to argue that this "far far left" is actually far right-wing because of their usage of identity politics and disparagement of the cisgender experience, and I must end the comment here!)
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday August 30 2018, @10:19AM
Pretty good!
Thanks.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---