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'.

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?

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?
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 :)

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

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.

Is Gender Orientation natural/ biological?

:confused:

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?)...

[B][U]
Is Gender Orientation natural/ biological?

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.

sigh. Buddha, you suck.
:D
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?
Been there, done that!

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.
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.).

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).
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.
Then there is also the other biological "inner-sexes".
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.
There's sexual ORIENTATIONS (which have nothing to do with how masculine/femminine YOU are): homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality.
I guess for other 'sexual denominations' gender is unimportant, but for 'heterosexuals' it is very important whether you are masculine or feminine.
Why else are heterosexual transvestites and transexuals excluded from the 'straight' identity?

Why double standards?

Because it suits the heterosexual ideology, and 'homosexuals' who fit in are easy game for it.

[QUOTE=TheAlphaWolf]And there's also how you view yourself to be inside, but not quite like tomboy/effeminate
How do you mean?
... 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.
Oh, all 'sexual orientations' are 'normal' but all 'gender orientations' are not normal. Surely reflects the obsession of the western society with 'sex'.

Why don't you just accept that transgendered people are just different, not wierd or abnormal. Inner-sex happens in people in various degrees. The lesser feminine ones are orgainsed socially in the west as transgendered, the extreme ones as 'transexuals'.

Each of them are separate things, and quite different. You're grouping everything into one.
I'm not grouping anybody into one group. I'm questioning the double standards adopted by the western society in grouping 'heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals'. A grouping which is so obviously biased, yet no one questions it.

Transexuals may or may not be homosexual, homosexuals may or may not be effeminate/tomboys, etc.
Heterosexuals may be transexuals......why are they separated from the straight group then? Why are they disowned by the 'heterosexuals'? So they can showcase heterosexuality as 'masculine'/ 'manly'? And the same standards are not applied to the 'homosexual' group. Why? So they can paint male-male bonds as 'feminine', with the active support of science?

How the society is grouped speaks volumes about the intentions of the society.

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?)...
Why do you feel that being effeminate is not biological, but being transexual is?

It makes more sense to see things in a continuum with effeminacy being the same biological thing in a lesser degree, and transexuality being the extreme degree.

On the other hand is of course 'masculinity'.

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.

:confused:

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

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.
As you would have noticed :rolleyes: 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

Fascinating discussion. I’m enthralled.

Interesting questions arising because of it:

If sexual orientation is part of a vast heterosexual conspiracy then what enabled procreation before there was a social/cultural construct to conspire on its behalf?

…or:
If gender is entirely a social construct then why did nature differentiate, so obviously, between sexual types? Is this differentiation only practical? Is it cosmetic? Is it accidental and arbitrary? Is it only external? Is it unavoidable and unsurpassable?

...or
If nature is frugal and efficient, then what necessitated two sexual types that went against “real” homosexual attractions and why only two?

…or:
Why sex, at all? Why bonding? Why intimacy? Why gender? Why life?

....or
Do physical characteristics expose more than superficial differences and is beauty only skin-deep?

…or:
What is a “meaninful existence”, other than the desperate absurdity of a lost mind trying to justify his anger against the world and it's labelling of his divergence as “queer” by assuming a transcending purpose or wanting to find the courage to express his homosexual leanings openly in a world that would judge him through it and make him feel inferior and wierd?

…or:
Who is the leader of this heterosexual conspiracy? Who thought it up? Who directs it and perpetuates its falsehoods? Who started it?
:confused: Me?! :eek:

…or
If there is a heterosexual conspiracy then one can assume that there might be a conspiracy on behalf of tall people? Who decided being tall was superior to being short?
Who decided that being thin was more attractive than being fat?
Who decided that being intelligent was preferable to being stupid?
Who decided that we are omnivorous and not our “more natural condition” of herbivorous? Why do I salivate at the smell of roast lamb? Maybe for the same reason I get an erection at the sight of a nice round feminine behind: I’ve been socially conditioned to think I want these things when in fact they go against my “nature”.


…or
How easy it is, in a world that has lost all authority figures and sense of certainty and direction, to construct whatever feel-good theorem suits our personal interests, with flimsy arguments and hilariously moronic musings, and how easy it is in a world where nature has become the authority we most despise and fight against to find clever ways of usurping her ‘design’ and explain her rules in ways that contradict her but benefit us?

…or:
If Buddha1 were a pretty flower, what color would he/she be?
I'm thinking pink with yellow dots or streaks. His stem a dark green.

…or:
Why am I even posting here at all, other than the fact that I’m a loser with nothing better to do and/or an agent of the heterosexual conspiracy network trying to alter men from fudgpacking daisies to vagina loving whores?

In a world where reason has been given reasons to not believe in anything, the first thing that happens is that bright minds find themselves stuck in extreme skepticism and nihilistic despair. It is evident that rational thought, unburdened by physical determinations, is unhealthy and self-exterminating.

When nature’s forces have been controlled and her power over us loosened we find ourselves hovering in the air with nothing to stand on and nowhere to turn but inward.

More dim minds flee from their own enlightenment and use the opportunity to construct new edifices and reinterpret nature and her purposes so as to explain their individual mutations in flattering, self-serving ways.

In a world where we are free from nature’s cruelty and protected from her authority, we become masters of our delusions and come to believe that it is our quality and special nature that has defeated her whims.

Our release from natural law is slow and cumbersome, but it isn’t only physical. Our mind tries to reinvent its purpose by reinventing its past. It turns the very laws that made it possible and that could probably result in its demise and shame, into laws that ensure its continuance and become a source of pride.

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.).
Well, they ARE abnormalities. I'm not saying that's bad or anything, I'm just using the very definition of abnormal- something that isn't normal. The normal is male and female, they're not, so they're abnormal. And hermaphrodite is a SEX, not a gender. If we classified people by both their gender AND sex, there would be like dozens of them.
The west doesn't recognise gender as natural or biological.
Gender itself isn't natural or biological, it's influenced by your environment. Ok, maybe no boy was raised to be girly, but maybe they had all sisters, or they hanged around girls, etc.
Are we talking about transexuals? Why are we saying its natural in their case [...]it's actually still considered an abnormality slightly worse than 'homosexuality', only today they get more politically correct about both.
Yes, I am talking about transexuals. It is natural, as they had a normal environment growing up, but because one area of their brain is different, they feel the need to be the other sex. It IS an abnormality. Again, I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it is abnormal.
How do you mean?
You didn't quote me very well... but ok, whatever. What I mean is that each of those things are separate.
A straight male may be masculine/feminine, a straight female may be masculine/feminine, a gay/bi male may be masculine/feminine, a transexual may be straight/gay, etc. Not just because you're straight and you're male you'll be masculine, etc.
Why don't you just accept that transgendered people are just different, not wierd or abnormal.
When I say abnormal or weird, I mean out of the ordinary. When I say those two things I don't mean anything bad. I even say that i'm weird and abnormal. Why? because i'm out of the ordinary, but I like being weird.
Heterosexuals may be transexuals......why are they separated from the straight group then? Why are they disowned by the 'heterosexuals'?
Well, yeah... but which sex are you talking about? their biological sex or the one they turned into? That's why I didn't say anything about their sexual orientation, it's just too confusing.
Why do you feel that being effeminate is not biological, but being transexual is?
(I'll just talk about one sex, but the same applies to the other)
Because being effeminate is being a man acting like the stereotypical woman acts, and of course how women act is based on society's standards. The effeminate man is effeminate because they were in an environment which promoted being effeminate, so they act like that. They don't want to be women, they just act like them because that's how they grew up.
Transexuals on the other hand, were brought up as boys but because of their brains they want to be girls. They have a biological need to be the opposite sex. Get what I mean now?
mentally ill yes freak no
Mentally ill? no. I know bisexuals who are smarter than you (*cough* and at least when it comes to book smarts, smarter than me :-/ )

tolerant our western society has become towards freaks.
I guess the word freak explains everything. I don't need to comment on that.

I'll just say that before you reach at conclusions I think you should understand what I'm saying. If it is true there are implications for each one of us. Whatever our gender orienation is.

Interesting questions arising because of it:
Do you really think all that is 'intellectual'? There is sarcasm yes, but devoid of any intelligence -- so not worth commenting upon.

All the issues you've raised have been covered in the thread "Heterosexuality is unnatural" -- you're not unaware of it. We saw your stupid comments there from time to time. It is obvious that you weren't there to learn or share anything --- just to give vent to your feminine (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=928950#post928950) satire. So don't ask those questions again, and not here.

And yes about your comments on me, let me remind our readers of this:
As for the rest, I never denied my pseudo-male persona.
I’m a little girly with hairy arms.

Does my pretty dress frighten you?.

As for my being homosexual, well, even according to your own definitions (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=928946#post928946) I'm not one, as we have discussed before. So parroting this line again again exposes your 'cunning' and desparate ways. By the way "Cunning is queer!". Straight men are straight forward.

Well, it’s becoming more and more obvious to me that gender is a heterosexual social conspiracy.....
You can crap on about that in the threads discussing 'sexual orientation', don't disrupt the discussions here, unless you have something to say (however worthless) about 'gender orientation'.

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
Why would you call another human being 'mentally ill'?

I suppose I could see that happening considering how tolerant our western society has become towards freaks.
The only real freaks and mentally ill people are males who claim to be 'heterosexual' and 'masculine' at the same time. :D

Why would you call another human being 'mentally ill'?
apparently you never worked in a mental institution where the residents smeared shit on the walls.

apparently you never worked in a mental institution where the residents smeared shit on the walls.


Oh, of course. Shit smearers. The faggots. I understand, now. God! What an idiot I've been.

Oh, hey, Buddha, what the hell are you talking about?

Well, they ARE abnormalities. I'm not saying that's bad or anything, I'm just using the very definition of abnormal- something that isn't normal. The normal is male and female, they're not, so they're abnormal. And hermaphrodite is a SEX, not a gender.
If you predetermine 'normal' as male or female then apparently 'hermaphrodite' becomes abnormal. Just like if you predetermine only 'heterosexual' as normal then male-male bonds automatically become 'abnormal'. But what is our basis for predetermine them as such. Just because they are rare or uncommon does not make them 'abnormal'. The term 'abnormal' has negative connotations, as in they should not have been there.

There is no justification for calling hermaphrodites 'abnormal' other than that the society recognises only male and female. It's all cultural. Ancient societies not only recognised hermaphrodism but even venerated it.

'Hermaphrodites' become 'abnormal', as do 'homosexuals' if one believes in the Darwin's opinions that passed off as legitimate science that "life is only about procreation", because hermaphrodite sometimes cannot procreate (or am I wrong --- may be they can!).

However, I have already challenged Darwin, and so far no one has been able to refute my assertions ro the evidences that I have given.

Everything in nature has a purpose. and that means EVERYTHING. If science cannot figure that out, it is the fallibility of science, not of nature. But who said that science is perfect.

The truth is that not even a leaf turns without a purpose. That's the realm of philosophy, but I believe in a broader worldview than science can provide.

If we classified people by both their gender AND sex, there would be like dozens of them.
There are at least six of them --- and several ancient societies accepted them all. Most traditional societies accept at least two genders of men --- masculine and feminine. But none, and I emphasise NONE had any concept of 'sexual orientation' whatsover. The western society generally does not accept 'gender' but has created a new concept of 'sexual orientation' which is not validated by nature. It's all cultural.

Gender itself isn't natural or biological, it's influenced by your environment. Ok, maybe no boy was raised to be girly, but maybe they had all sisters, or they hanged around girls, etc.
There is a big MAYBE. Do all men who have only sisters grow up to be feminine? My female colleague has one brother and one sister. Her brother is more macho than average.

Heterosexuals hang around girls. In fact most men in heterosexual societies hang around girls --- only 'real' heteroseuxals do it merrity, the others are pressurised. And that does make the 'real' heterosexuals more feminine. But the relationship is actually the other way round. It is not that they hang around with girls that they become feminine, but that they are feminine that they hang around with girls. Although in some cases the femininity of these heterosexuals may be camouflaged by 'fake' social masculinity/ social power.

Yes, I am talking about transexuals. It is natural, as they had a normal environment growing up, but because one area of their brain is different, they feel the need to be the other sex. It IS an abnormality. Again, I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it is abnormal.
Well, at one time the society said the same about 'homosexuals'. It's all cultural. There is no evidence to suggest they are abnormal, except that the culture keeps them out. In most ancient societies and in all tribal societies whom we call transexuals enjoy a very special status. Feminiity (just like masculinity) in males occur in various degrees. What the west calls transgenerism is just one stage. Transexualism is when this femininity is overwhelming. In any case all of us even if we are masculine gendered, have some femininity in us. (Just like all feminine males and women have some masculinity in them!). IT IS ALL BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED.

You didn't quote me very well... but ok, whatever. What I mean is that each of those things are separate.
A straight male may be masculine/feminine, a straight female may be masculine/feminine, a gay/bi male may be masculine/feminine, a transexual may be straight/gay, etc. Not just because you're straight and you're male you'll be masculine, etc.
Once you accept that 'sexual orientation' is a valid divide and more basic than 'gender orientation' then of course what you are saying is absolutely true. But, this very 'sexual orientation' divide is invalid.

I could also put it this way: The world is divided into masculine gendered (straight) and feminine gendered (gay) males. Masculine gendered males may be sexually attracted to either men, women, feminine gendered males or more than one of them, while Feminine gendered males may also be attracted to men, women, feminine gendered males or more than one of them.

Not just because you're masculine you'll be attracted to women, etc.

Do you see my point?
When I say abnormal or weird, I mean out of the ordinary. When I say those two things I don't mean anything bad. I even say that i'm weird and abnormal. Why? because i'm out of the ordinary, but I like being weird.
Abnormal and weird are negative terms meant to denigrate a particular human trait or 'group' of people. Did you notice the kind of extreme reaction calling heterosexuality 'queer' generated in some people.
Well, yeah... but which sex are you talking about? their biological sex or the one they turned into? That's why I didn't say anything about their sexual orientation, it's just too confusing.
(I'll just talk about one sex, but the same applies to the other)
If transexuality is confusing let's just talk about 'transgendered' heterosexuals. Why are they denied a space within the heterosexual identity. If you read the history of heterosexual transgendered men in the modern west, they have been shunned by the heterosexuals (because of their open femininity), as well as by the 'homosexuals' (because of their heterosexuality), with the ultimate effect that they had to establish a separate identity.

See, this whole 'sexual identity' business is because of exclusion rather than because of natural affiliations. There is hardly any natural affiliation between a transgendered male who likes men and a masculine gendered male who likes men. They both look at themselves differently, at this life differntly and have completely different lifestyles. On the other hand a feminine gendered male who likes men will find easy affiliation with a feminne gendered male who likes women. They both will enjoy the same things, they look at life in much the same way. The same goes for masculine gendered males whether they like men or women (whether they are capable of liking women beyond a point is another debate!).

Because being effeminate is being a man acting like the stereotypical woman acts, and of course how women act is based on society's standards. The effeminate man is effeminate because they were in an environment which promoted being effeminate, so they act like that. They don't want to be women, they just act like them because that's how they grew up.
a. There are various degrees of femnininty in men. Feminiity in masculine men is hardly visible. Amongst predominantly feminine men, some men enjoy being like women sometimes, but they don't think of themselves as women. Others may want to be like a woman all of the time but still may not think of themselves as a woman. Still others may think of themselves as a woman inside a man's body. (People feel trapped basically because of social reasons). But its all natural.

b. Yes there is something called 'social' femininity and it is very strong, especially in the west. But just because there is something like 'social' femininity does not mean that there is nothing like 'natural' femininity in males (or females). In most cases naturally feminine males (depending upon the degree of their biological femininity) express themselves through 'social' femininity. Otherwise why would someone want to do things that have such 'negative' value for men --- socially!

Transexuals on the other hand, were brought up as boys but because of their brains they want to be girls. They have a biological need to be the opposite sex. Get what I mean now?
Yet you don't accept 'gender orientation' as biological. I understand that it has a biological basis, but what you don't understand is that even 'feminine' behaviour (what is negatively referred to as 'effeminate' behaviour has a biological basis). And so does 'masculine' behaviour. Also it is not all in the 'brains'. Brains may hold just part of the clue.
Mentally ill? no. I know bisexuals who are smarter than you (*cough* and at least when it comes to book smarts, smarter than me :-/ )
See, all these terms are just because of one's biases --- and depends on who is in power. Heterosexuals have power over 'homosexuals', so they call them 'weird'. 'Homosexuals' have power over transexuals, so they call them 'freaks'. It's all because of power inequations created by social systems we live in.

Otherwise every individual who makes it to this world naturally (i.e. without medical intervention) is a normal child and has a purpose in nature's scheme of things. Societies through their foolishness and an over/ negative use of their brains have made some of these absolutely natural and normal things redundant and denigrated. While the same society, through its science, makes it possible for many 'abnormal' individuals to live --- when nature did not mean them to.

So how we look at gender and sexuality is culturally determined. Science can offer a glimpse of reality only when it can prove its ability to look beyond the powerful cultural influences.

If nature is frugal and efficient,
Nature is frugal, and not exuberant.

By that I mean that everything has a purpose (and much to the disappointment of 'heterosexuals' quantity is just a small part of it). Every single thing in nature has a purpose in its scheme of things. If one of its constituents begin to go against it nature will take care of it in due course of time. And this is the case with human brain. Humans think they can conquer nature with their brains, they are wrong. In fact they will themselves --- through their brains ensure their own downfall, ensuring that nature goes on unperturbed.

For some time, foolish humans may start believing that they, through their brains are infallible --- the partial worldview of 'Science' makes them believe that..... but it's only those who have stuck to the broader world-view that has elements of science, spirituality, philosophy, instincts, etc. who have a better perspective on reality and who realise what's going wrong.

I’m really a princess trapped in the dark tower of a heterosexual castle, awaiting my white knight to free me .I'm coming my darling. Yes, yes, YES.

Do you really think all that is 'intellectual'? There is sarcasm yes, but devoid of any intelligence -- so not worth commenting upon.

Just put him in your ignore list. Have you looked at his profile?
'Hermaphrodites' become 'abnormal', as do 'homosexuals' if one believes in the Darwin's opinions that passed off as legitimate science that "life is only about procreation", because hermaphrodite sometimes cannot procreate (or am I wrong --- may be they can!).
I accept evolution, but that has nothing to do with why I call them abnormal. I call them abnormal because anything that's not normal (normal being "average" or "mainstream") And as for them procreating, I'm not sure... but I do know that the most of them can't. There may be some true hermaphrodites (who are very rare) that can procreate though.

However, I have already challenged Darwin, and so far no one has been able to refute my assertions ro the evidences that I have given.
This is the first thread of yours I've actually payed attention, but from what I've seen it's not that people haven't refuted your so called "evidences" based on nothing, but that you just don't accept what they say.

Everything in nature has a purpose. and that means EVERYTHING. If science cannot figure that out, it is the fallibility of science, not of nature. But who said that science is perfect.
No, it doesn't. Tell me, why do we have erector pili (the muscles that raise our hairs up and give us goosebums), why do dandelions have flowers if they're sterile? Ever heard of useless vestigial structures? Don't you accept evolution?


blah, I read some of the rest of your post and I see arguing with you is pointless. You don't understand what I'm saying, you twist my words, etc... and I don't understand what you're saying. Not to mention the posts are huge (both sides)... Pointless.

You apparently think your opinions and stuff are based on science, but you're obviously deluding yourself.

Just put him in your ignore list. Have you looked at his profile?
I also think its bad for the discussion as a whole, including for readers who may want to go through the discussion hoping to find something useful. Useless posts will dissuade them, as they do to me.

I accept evolution, but that has nothing to do with why I call them abnormal. I call them abnormal because anything that's not normal (normal being "average" or "mainstream") And as for them procreating, I'm not sure... but I do know that the most of them can't. There may be some true hermaphrodites (who are very rare) that can procreate though.
I have no probs with 'evolution' itself. But to say that evolution is geared exclusively or even mainly towards procreation --- which is projected as the sole aim of life, is stretching it toooooooooo far.

I think we should be careful when we use words like abnormal. For science they may just be 'dry', objective, technical words --- but for the outside world they have a terribly negative connotation. And science cannot (should not) function in isolation from the rest of the world.

This is the first thread of yours I've actually paid attention, but from what I've seen it's not that people haven't refuted your so called "evidences" based on nothing, but that you just don't accept what they say.
Can you get one such instance where the evidences provided by me have been proven 'wrong' or my analysis based on them proven false. There will hardly be a couple of cases (frankly I don't remember even one!) where the opposition even considered the cases. They usually ended the discussion abruptly as soon as I presented the evidences. It's been the same story repeated time after time after time.

People will accuse, abuse you, not listen to what you're saying and go on with their own version of things. And this can go on for pages and pages and days. And then you finally give them evidences. And there is a big silence which continues for a couple of days, till the page turns and they can avoid looking at the evidences.

I can't accept what people say, if I know by experience that there is no way they can be telling the truth. So unless they back up what they're saying with evidences, how am I supposed to accept their refutal. Just to say someone is 'wrong' or 'lying' doesn't make it so.

I know what I'm saying. I've come here after 10 long years of hard work. I know how things are at the ground level. I have seen the problem with what the with its science propagates and how it leaves large gaps that I could not initially explain. I have spent these years trying to figure out these gaps --- and it is a result of that, that I'm sharing on this forum here.
No, it doesn't. Tell me, why do we have erector pili (the muscles that raise our hairs up and give us goosebums), why do dandelions have flowers if they're sterile? Ever heard of useless vestigial structures? Don't you accept evolution?
Just because science cannot figure out something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's a highly arrogant attitude of science --- and for something which is not perfect itself, to make such bold assertions is really foolish. How is science different from religion which took it upon itself to speak on behalf of nature or to interpret it in its own way, away from reality?

Perhaps, you should question Darwin's theory of sexual selection, instead of asserting that nature doesn't know what it's doing. There are innumerable evidences that go against Darwin's sexual selection theory or his assertions that life is exclusively/ primarily about 'continuance' or 'survival'.

Science is really stuck up, man!

I believe in evolution. But that doesn't mean that I have to believe in everything else that Darwin theorised.
blah, I read some of the rest of your post and I see arguing with you is pointless. You don't understand what I'm saying, you twist my words, etc... and I don't understand what you're saying. Not to mention the posts are huge (both sides)... Pointless.
From what I understand, you feel deeply for 'sexual identities'. Obviously you fit in smugly in the prescribed slots. You don't want to understand. Otherwise, it is something which even a layman can understand.

E.g., what is so complex in a question that points to a double standards in the case of deciding the 'heterosexual' and the 'homosexual' identities, where in the former feminine gender is kept out but in the latter it is not differentiated.

Even a child will understand that. I think you have a great mental block. You have a vested interest in not accepting the lacunae --- to be blunt.

You apparently think your opinions and stuff are based on science, but you're obviously deluding yourself.[/QUOTE]
My opinions and stuff are based on my direct work with men on gender and sexuality issues for 10 years. And a lot of analysis and reading that I've done on a wide range of subjects (from history to religion to science).

They may not have the stamp of the scientific institution, if you want a handle to avoid recognising them as 'scientific'.

Almost all of the evidences that I have used are based on scientific discoveries conducted by 'established science' or they are the empirical evidences based upon my work and those of others.

But above all, what I am saying is something that also touches the heart. For I am speaking what everyone of us can feel --- at least the layman can, and that for me is important, not what some uptight scientist thinks about my analysis.

By the way Alpha, if you believe that 'sexual selection' is for real, do you agree that 'homosexuality is a failure biologically' (as has been 'beautifully' put forward by Spuriousmonkey). For homosexuality is totally redundant as far as reproduction or the contiuance and may be survival of our species is concerned.

I have no probs with 'evolution' itself. But to say that evolution is geared exclusively or even mainly towards procreation --- which is projected as the sole aim of life, is stretching it toooooooooo far.
evolution DEPENDS on procreation, so it IS geared SOLELY towards procreation. Otherwise there would BE no evolution.
as for the "aim" (or purpose) of life, scientifically it is procreation. Prove otherwise.
I think we should be careful when we use words like abnormal. For science they may just be 'dry', objective, technical words --- but for the outside world they have a terribly negative connotation. And science cannot (should not) function in isolation from the rest of the world.

I see your point, but if you're going to have a scientific discussion, then use scientific terms and meanings. Do NOT blend scientific and munane terms, or you get things like "evolution is just a theory".
Can you get one such instance where the evidences provided by me have been proven 'wrong' or my analysis based on them proven false.
That's what I've been doing in all my posts. Example- sex, sexual orientation, gender, and what I guess you call "gender orientation" are separate things.
Just because science cannot figure out something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's a highly arrogant attitude of science --- and for something which is not perfect itself, to make such bold assertions is really foolish. How is science different from religion which took it upon itself to speak on behalf of nature or to interpret it in its own way, away from reality?
See, when you start saying idiotic things like that is when people start to ignore you. It just shows you know nothing about science or religion. Religion and science are two completely different things.
But apparently you already think science is a religion, and that is why nothing you say is scientific. *mocking voice* "everything in nature has a purpose", blah blah blah. Do you have any evidence? no. You are IGNORING evidence, and making up a conclusion without any regard whatsoever to reality.
Only people who have no clue what science is say things that.
Perhaps, you should question Darwin's theory of sexual selection, instead of asserting that nature doesn't know what it's doing. There are innumerable evidences that go against Darwin's sexual selection theory or his assertions that life is exclusively/ primarily about 'continuance' or 'survival'.

You probably don't even know what sexual selection is.
What evidences? (please, don't list all your "evidences" at once, I despise long posts)
From what I understand, you feel deeply for 'sexual identities'. Obviously you fit in smugly in the prescribed slots. You don't want to understand. Otherwise, it is something which even a layman can understand.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement...
I do want to understand, and I do understand... at least better than you. And I'm tolerant and everything you preach, but not because of how you preach it.
LOL, is that why nobody can understand a thing you're saying? Maybe we're too smart to understand. roflmao... I always say stupidity is beyond my comprehension.
By the way Alpha, if you believe that 'sexual selection' is for real, do you agree that 'homosexuality is a failure biologically' (as has been 'beautifully' put forward by Spuriousmonkey). For homosexuality is totally redundant as far as reproduction or the contiuance and may be survival of our species is concerned.
Yes it is real.
No, Homosexuality itself is not a failure biologically speaking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Birds Look at the swans.
And also look at bonobos. They have a very peaceful society, where there aren't very many fights, etc... and a big part of that is that bonobos are a fully bisexual species. They have sex all the time, and since they have sex with both males and females, they get along with both sexes.
And look at the lizards too.
And if you're asking about humans specifically, There are many reasons why Homosexuality might not have been weeded out. There are millions of variables that can affect evolution.
First, it may not be genetic. It IS biological, but that doesn't mean it's in the genes. It could be the prenatal environment of the fetus or something...
second, the desire to have children is still there. Evolution doesn't care whether you prefer the opposite sex or not, whether you think you're male or female, etc... it just cares whether you have children.
third, society is very against homosexuality, as you well know. The vast majority of homosexuals get married and have children, and nobody would know they're homosexual. That alone is enough to ensure homosexuality remains in the gene pool (if it is genetic).

evolution DEPENDS on procreation, so it IS geared SOLELY towards procreation. Otherwise there would BE no evolution.
as for the "aim" (or purpose) of life, scientifically it is procreation. Prove otherwise.
A child is dependant on his parents. That does not mean that it is geared solely towards his parents. Or that the sole purpose of his life is his parents. Procreation is an important tool, even an important part of life, but life has much more to look forward to than just procreate.

To be short, that evolution needs procreation, does not prove that it is geared totally towards procreation.

I see your point, but if you're going to have a scientific discussion, then use scientific terms and meanings. Do NOT blend scientific and munane terms, or you get things like "evolution is just a theory".
I think science should change it's terms. Afterall it is an institution meant to serve humanity -- and like I said, it cannot function apart from the rest of the humankind.

That's what I've been doing in all my posts. Example- sex, sexual orientation, gender, and what I guess you call "gender orientation" are separate things.
Oh! parroting the 'accepted' views on something is not 'refuting' a challenge to that point of view.

I tell the fundamentalist Christian believer that the real god (if there is one) will not penalise love between men, and the Christian believer refutes my position, citing what? --- passages from Bible.

See, when you start saying idiotic things like that is when people start to ignore you. It just shows you know nothing about science or religion. Religion and science are two completely different things.
To challenge the powerful is idiotic? If what I am saying is wrong, the first thing that the other person would will be to show me how my assertions are wrong. If I use logic, they will dismantle me logically, point by point. If I don't give any logics just my opinions, then they might choose to involve me into a never ending sharing of 'opiniions' or they might want to silence me once and for all by showing me how my statements are wrong.

And don't be under any delusion. People here are not wary of arguing with the silliest of comments/ opinions and they would go on and on and on. THEY NEVER LET EVEN THE SILLIEST OF POSTS GO UNANSWERED. In fact that is something that surprises me. For if I think the post has no 'intelligence' in it, I just choose not to respond (except to counter a personal attack!).

And it is not surprising that the same people stop abruptly as soon as the evidences are provided. They just drop off. I mean it can really become odd sometimes. Like in the thread titled "95% of men have a sexual need for other men". People went on and on for 5 or 6 pages. And then I gave my first evidence. And it was so strong that there was complete silence for a couple of days. I actually missed an opposition.

It was then that the 'vested interest group' raised a 'revolt' and asked my threads to be merged into one to avoid having to face titles like the above. And then I disowned the thread, because I saw those issues as different from each other and discussing them separately was crucial to my strategy.

But apparently you already think science is a religion, and that is why nothing you say is scientific. *mocking voice* "everything in nature has a purpose", blah blah blah. Do you have any evidence? no. You are IGNORING evidence, and making up a conclusion without any regard whatsoever to reality.
Only people who have no clue what science is say things that.
If I think that science has become like 'religion' it does not mean that nothing I say is 'scientific'. Two insider scientists have supported my views on the thread "Science is not a perfect institution", and they have some very solid points. You want science to be treated like a holy cow that the common man cannot touch! How are you then different from the stakeholders of religion.

You cannot ask for evidence for a philosophical statement. But definitely the view that what science cannot see does not exist can be challenged. Doctors for a long time believed Gardia to be a harmless organism. They would just refuse to treat it, ascribing people's pathologies to a 'psychological' condition. But today they accept it exists.

Science is not nature itself, but a human attempt to understand nature and its laws. Science can falter. And science cannot know everything. Nature is too vast and complex. The above example is just a little evidence to support this assertion.

You probably don't even know what sexual selection is. What evidences? (please, don't list all your "evidences" at once, I despise long posts)
From what I understand of sexual selection, it seeks to explain female and especially male biological evolution exclusively on an assumed universal/ motive to mate with females with the ultimate aim of procreation.

Bagemihl, Johann Rough Garden, Paul Vasey (I don't have the name right!) are three people who have totally disproved the above by showing widespread male-male sex behaviour that has nothing to do with procreation. They have also challenged Darwin's notions of sexual selection. So you see, I'm not the only one. Even scientists are doing it.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement...
I do want to understand, and I do understand... at least better than you. And I'm tolerant and everything you preach, but not because of how you preach it.
My first statement is something that I suspected all along, but am confirmed now. You belong to the 'vested interest group' as either a heterosexual or a homosexual, and will defend the 'sexual orientation' divide till your last breath -- whether it is supported by nature or not. Because you have created a cosy place for yourself in it.

LOL, is that why nobody can understand a thing you're saying? Maybe we're too smart to understand. roflmao... I always say stupidity is beyond my comprehension.
They understand alright. Most men don't have a voice on this. I only get to debate with real heterosexual and real homosexual males --- and they comprise the vested interest group. That does not want truth to come out at any cost.

But still, I do sometimes get pleasant surprises when an opponent actually acknowledges that what I'm saying has truth in it. In such matters, it is really an achievment. I cannot expect anything more in such a hostile environment. I know both homosexuals and heterosexuals will stop at nothing to prevent me from talking about the truth.
Yes it is real.
No, Homosexuality itself is not a failure biologically speaking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Birds Look at the swans. And also look at bonobos. They have a very peaceful society, where there aren't very many fights, etc... and a big part of that is that bonobos are a fully bisexual species. They have sex all the time, and since they have sex with both males and females, they get along with both sexes.
And look at the lizards too.[/QUOTE]
But what about natural selection then? These theories fly right in the face of sexual selection and reproduction being the exclusive purpose of life.

And if you're asking about humans specifically, There are many reasons why Homosexuality might not have been weeded out. There are millions of variables that can affect evolution.
First, it may not be genetic. It IS biological, but that doesn't mean it's in the genes. It could be the prenatal environment of the fetus or something...
second, the desire to have children is still there. Evolution doesn't care whether you prefer the opposite sex or not, whether you think you're male or female, etc... it just cares whether you have children.
And you call the above crap science? Just because you use scientific terms? It doesn't make any sense. like the earlier evidences you gave in support of your claim that transgenderism is not biological. You kept on saying MAYBE this or MAYBE that. That's not a very scientific outlook.
third, society is very against homosexuality, as you well know. The vast majority of homosexuals get married and have children, and nobody would know they're homosexual. That alone is enough to ensure homosexuality remains in the gene pool (if it is genetic).
What has society got to do with natural evoluciton?

A child is dependant on his parents. That does not mean that it is geared solely towards his parents. Or that the sole purpose of his life is his parents. Procreation is an important tool, even an important part of life, but life has much more to look forward to than just procreate.
You have it backwards. The parents' sole purpose is their child, and therefore the parents depend on their child to survive.
From what I understand of sexual selection, it seeks to explain female and especially male biological evolution exclusively on an assumed universal/ motive to mate with females with the ultimate aim of procreation.
here's what wikipedia says "competition for mates between individuals of the same sex (typically males) drives the evolution of certain traits. Within a species, one sex (typically females) acts as a limiting resource for the other (typically males)."
Sexual selection explains things like the peacock's tail, the antlers of that one elk species from the ice age, etc. They are selected not because they are good for camouflage, or for hunting, or any of that, but because females like it. And that has survived because the females that choose the males with the biggest tails/antlers, survive, as the males have good genes, and that is why they're still alive.
Bagemihl, Johann Rough Garden, Paul Vasey (I don't have the name right!) are three people who have totally disproved the above by showing widespread male-male sex behaviour that has nothing to do with procreation. They have also challenged Darwin's notions of sexual selection. So you see, I'm not the only one. Even scientists are doing it.
sexual selection has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. So there are homosexuals in nature. So what? That doesn't disprove sexual selection in the least bit.
You belong to the 'vested interest group' as either a heterosexual or a homosexual, and will defend the 'sexual orientation' divide till your last breath -- whether it is supported by nature or not. Because you have created a cosy place for yourself in it.
How am I defending any sex, sexual orientation, etc?
But what about natural selection then? These theories fly right in the face of sexual selection and reproduction being the exclusive purpose of life.

No... natural selection favors homosexuality in those instances because for example the swans, more babies grow up. Remember the parents raped the female to get the babies, so their genes ARE passed on. In bonobos, the bisexual ones get along with everyone else better because they have sex with them, and get more food, etc. so they survive better and have more children. The lizards, their egg production increases, so their genes are passed on. Reproduction, reproduction, reproduction.
And you call the above crap science? Just because you use scientific terms? It doesn't make any sense. like the earlier evidences you gave in support of your claim that transgenderism is not biological.
It's not science per se, but they are scientific arguments... We still don't know for certain whether it's genetic, the prenatal environment, or what, therefore I cannot say with certainty. I'm just showing you how science can explain it. You said it couldn't.
And when the hell did I say transgenderism is not biological? Transexualism IS biological. Or do you mean effeminate men/tomboys?
You kept on saying MAYBE this or MAYBE that. That's not a very scientific outlook.
because I understand that there are many possible causes for every effect. Yes, it MAY BE that the boy was raised as a girl. Yes, it MAY BE that he had no brothers and hanged out with his sisters all the time. It MAY BE a lot of things, but they all have the same effect and they all are environmental, not biological.
I say maybe this, maybe that, because we are not looking at a specific case. I cannot generalize and say EVERY SINGLE effeminate man out there is effeminate because of THIS specific reason. That would be stupid, and wrong.
What has society got to do with natural evoluciton?
Society has a LOT to do with natural evolution. It's just another variable to take into account. Don't be so narrowminded as to completely disregard society in this matter. The ONLY thing that could affect whether homosexuality survives is their ability to reproduce. Nature doesn't specifically target homosexuals. Predators, diseases, etc. don't kill more homosexuals than they do heterosexuals (aids doesn't count. It just happened to have started out in homosexuals).
So the only thing affecting whether homosexuality survives is whether they marry and have children or not, and most homosexuals DO marry and have children. Why? because one, they want to, and two, SOCIETY puts pressure on them to.

Sexuality isn't something... absolute. And it's partly biological, partly in the mind.

as for the "aim" (or purpose) of life, scientifically it is procreation.

What is the purpose of procreation (or survival)?

What is the purpose of procreation (or survival)?
scientifically speaking, no comment.
If you want my philosophical view on the meaning of life/existance, then it is "there is none". Sure, let's say there IS higher being(s), and our purpose is to serve him/her/it/them. Well, what's THEIR purpose? If you keep going, you ultimately run out of purposes, or you start a circular argument. So ultimately, life is pointless. For example... a soldier's purpose would be to serve their general or whoever, but if the general has no purpose, then the soldier's purpose is pointless too. get what I mean?

This conversation is too far over my horned head. :mad:

I must admit that both Buddha1 and Alpha Wolf are far too clever for my feeble mind.
I can only hope to draw their attentions with my childish taunts and feminine mockery.

Maybe the Wizard of Oz can give me a pair of goat testicles and I can pretend to be a man.

I've made some additions in the first introductory post, including the following:

P.S.: More about 'Gender Orientation' (I'm restricting my examples to men):

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'.

Are you living in a time warp? The attitudes and pressures you are describing are straight out of the fifties or earlier. What country do you live in? Somewhere in the east, you say. Remarkable.

Are you living in a time warp? The attitudes and pressures you are describing are straight out of the fifties or earlier. What country do you live in? Somewhere in the east, you say. Remarkable.
Can you tell me specifically what pressures you're talking about? And how do you back your statement?

Some examples of social gender: Cigerrette smoking is projected by the society as a 'masculine' thing.

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'.These are two examples from your previous post, but they made me realise many of your posts were filled with the same description of outmoded attitudes, that are going the way of the Dodo and the dinosaur.

.....or are you just trolling like you've been doing lately.

I don't troll. I've just given you an answer. You are describing pressures and views that are in a declining minority in the west. So where are these views still in vogue? That is what is puzzling me.

I don't troll. I've just given you an answer. You are describing pressures and views that are in a declining minority in the west. So where are these views still in vogue? That is what is puzzling me.
Denial, denial.....that's the problem with some adult men.

It would be easier to answer your post if you tell me exactly what pressures are you talking about here.

I am just assuming that you're talking about the pressures to 'prove one is a man', and the pressures to be acknowledged as a 'masculine' man by conforming to the gender and sexual roles artificially set up by the society (social masculinity as against Natural masculinity).

We have already talked about the pressures to exaggerate one's sexual need for women, and suppress one's sexual need for men with evidences including posts from this forum --- and we won't talk about them here.

Social masculinity and its non-heterosexual pressures in itself is a big topic that requires another thread to discuss, so I'll only do it shortly here.

Are you denying that there is a big 'masculine' value attached to 'smoking' --- albeit an artificial value? (inspite of the fact that there is a big and active anti-smoking lobby in the west). Boys are forced into smoking because this becomes one of the ways in which they can prove or assert their 'manhood'. It's an intense competition to prove who is 'more' of a man, and men compete to outdo the other in the straight world. One's status and respect in the peer group depends upon where one stands in this 'race for manhood'. To be a back runner means that you'll have no respect and people will treat you like shit.

You apparently have not heard someone say "don't cry like a woman"? Haven't you seen how being called a 'wimp' or a 'faggot' shakes men on this board? These words have the power to push men to the bottom of this 'race for manhood', and (young) men would often risk their lives to avoid them. The only way to avoid them is when you are seen as powerful, and the only way to get this social power (however vain and artificial) is to fit into the 'social masculinity' roles --- most importantly the sexual ones. Once you get this power and are finally secure about your 'manhood' (by marrying and procreating), you start believing it's real and that you deserve it. You start putting down others --- blinded by this power. And when someone challenges the source, you want to protect it with whatever way you can.

That you're denying the pressure is itself an attempt to protect the infrastructure that supports those pressures and in my view is a very anti-man and thus an 'unmanly' act.

In the modern (esp. heterosexual) world natural/ real masculinity has no value. It is the social masculinity that counts.

I don't troll. I've just given you an answer. You are describing pressures and views that are in a declining minority in the west. So where are these views still in vogue? That is what is puzzling me.
PRESSURES OF SOCIAL MASCULINITY:

Here are external links for ya:

- Crime aqainst nature: Psychologist's play focuses on growing up male in America (http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/general/news/general_2001117134329.shtml)

- Social pressures on men are ingrained, says study (http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/sfnews/1996/Oct3/davison.html)

Boys and men (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:UKHvdUuy5BkJ:www.fpa.org.uk/news/policy/PDFs/Boysandmenpolicystatement.pdf+pressures+of+masculi nity&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

- UNFPA status of world population 2005 (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch6/chap6_page3.htm)

- An interesting personal account of a woman living in the west (http://www.queerbychoice.com/pekky.html)

Smoking is not viewed as a positive masculine attribute in the West anymore. If you had been writing in the 1950s your statements on smoking would have been valid. They are not today. There are further examples scattered throughout your posts, here and on other threads. You are either living in a time warp, or are immersed in a culture that has little connectivity with the West of today. Are they showing the Maltese Falcon at the Odeon this weekend?

Smoking is not viewed as a positive masculine attribute in the West anymore. If you had been writing in the 1950s your statements on smoking would have been valid. They are not today. There are further examples scattered throughout your posts, here and on other threads. You are either living in a time warp, or are immersed in a culture that has little connectivity with the West of today. Are they showing the Maltese Falcon at the Odeon this weekend?
What about the external links given above?

I agree, that in the west the non-sexual masculinity roles that were prevalent in the traditional societies is being fast done away with. But that is a result of heterosexualisation of the society --- which is forcing men towards femininity --- rather forcing meterosexuality on men (a result of the power passing on to heterosexuals and homosexuals, rather than masculine men). With heterosexualisation men's spaces are being shared by women and they don't care much about the non-sexual pressures of social masculinity. And since they decide who qualifies to be a 'man', men can relax on that count.

BUT, they do care about men being heterosexual, as it is the source of their outer power. And so the pressures of sexuality increases on men a thousand folds. And the fact that the 'giver' of social masculinity (women) is with them all the time, (no non-heterosexual spaces left in the mainstream), men have little breathing spaces left. So they must totally given in.

So in a way, what you are saying is partly right, the pressures of non- sexual roles have greatly decreased, but those about sexuality have tremendously increased. It is the sexual pressures which are the essence (and the cause) of social masculinity.

PRESSURES OF SOCIAL MASCULINITY:

Here are external links for ya:

- Crime aqainst nature: Psychologist's play focuses on growing up male in America (http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/general/news/general_2001117134329.shtml)

- Social pressures on men are ingrained, says study (http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/sfnews/1996/Oct3/davison.html)

Boys and men (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:UKHvdUuy5BkJ:www.fpa.org.uk/news/policy/PDFs/Boysandmenpolicystatement.pdf+pressures+of+masculi nity&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

- UNFPA status of world population 2005 (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch6/chap6_page3.htm)

- An interesting personal account of a woman living in the west (http://www.queerbychoice.com/pekky.html)
Note that these are all examples from the west. And they all treat masculinity as if it were only a social construct. For them masculinity = the social roles/ pressures of masculinity. They ignore or deny the biological aspect of masculinity which is totally different from (although affected by) the social concepts of masculinity.

“The male stereotype makes masculinity not just a fact of biology but something that must be proved and re-proved, a continual quest for an ever-receding Holy Grail”

--- Marc Feigen Fasteau quotes

SUMMARY OF THE THREAD SO FAR

Argument in favour of Gender orientation being natural:

1. Gender orientation manifests early on in life. Whether one feels a male or a female, and to what degree is apparent in the early years of life, through the adolescence. We all have the same pressures of social masclinity. But the inherently feminine will be feminine in the face of social biases. Only something that is natural can survive such strong social hostilities.
(Counter arguments: none)

2. Gender orientation has been held 'natural' and has been accomodated in their social gender structures by all the ancient and traditional societies, except the modern west.
(Counter arguments: none)

Argument against Gender orientation being natural:

1. Gender is a result of social conditioning. We act masculine or feminine because of how we are raised.

Counter argument:
1. We all grow up under the same masculinity pressures. There is no evidence to suggest that those who show feminine behaviour have a different environment or parental attitude towards them. On the contrary, when a parent notices that the boy is showing an unusual interest in feminine 'toys' etc, they increase the social-masculinity pressure on the boy tremendously.

2. Because of social masculinity pressures, a lot of the masculine behaviour is a pretense and negative. But it does not mean that there is no natural masculinity or femininity.

So far, the view that Gender Orientation is biological is winning.

There is no reason at all the disbelieve the experiences of countless men (and women) both masculine and feminine, and to argue that their gender sense or feeling or identity does not have a natural/ biological background.

Femininity in males is not a 'disease' or a 'deviation' or an 'abnormality. Nor is it a 'lack of masculinity' or a 'lack of strengths'. It is natural and biological, and has its own important biological function. It is an important 'power' or 'energy' in its own right, though different from the masculine energy.

Sexual orientation cannot be biological because it can be changed with simple will power.

We all have the same pressures of social masclinity.

I have never had any pressure in my life. Just because my body is male doesn't mean that I am male. I am neither male nor female.

There is no biological femininity or masculinity, such things are created because we identify ourselves with our body. It is all in the mind.

Femininity in males is not a 'disease' or a 'deviation' or an 'abnormality.

Of course it isn't.

Sexual orientation cannot be biological because it can be changed with simple will power.
You mean destroyed with simple power. This power consists of religious bigotry and hatred.

There is no biological femininity or masculinity, such things are created because we identify ourselves with our body. It is all in the mind.
- On what basis do you say that?[/QUOTE]

I have never had any pressure in my life.
Where on earth do you live?

Just because my body is male doesn't mean that I am male. I am neither male nor female.
I wonder if being genderless, or rather being of neutral gender is also a gender orientation. Just like being 'asexual' is?

Giambatista, can you relate to this?

You mean destroyed with simple power. This power consists of religious bigotry and hatred.

No. I mean that if you're a heterosexual male for example, you can start liking guys with will power, or if you're homosexual you can like girls if you just try. Just think about them sexually. So sexuality isn't biological, it's determined by the mind, but not consciously (although it CAN be chosen consciously)

More people are heterosexual because people identify themselves with their body so they feel like they lack what they think is their "other side", or complementary half.

Where on earth do you live?

I don't live on earth, I live in 'heaven' (mind), in myself.

I wonder if being genderless, or rather being of neutral gender is also a gender orientation.

Of course it isn't, genders are just illusions. No one really has a gender, everyone is the "self". People only think they have a gender because they identify themselves with their body!

People also develop a "personality" because of this. In reality, we're all impersonal. Personalities aren't "real". The self has no personality because it has them all.

I mean that if you're a heterosexual male for example, you can start liking guys with will power, or if you're homosexual you can like girls if you just try. Just think about them sexually. So sexuality isn't biological, it's determined by the mind, but not consciously (although it CAN be chosen consciously)
I know that. I have always maintained that people have the power to be attracted by both men and women. But I think both have different purposes in our lives. And many people are exclusively attracted to one of the sexes and/ or genders.

The society often distances humans from their capacity to love one of the genders --- mostly same-sex but not always. I know some men who always thought they were attracted only to men, but in workshops came into touch with their sexual feelings for women. They had been psychologically obsessed with their sexual feelings for men only because of their 'homosexual' identity and because it is something that the society suppresses --- thus fixating the mind of men on it.

More people are heterosexual because people identify themselves with their body so they feel like they lack what they think is their "other side", or complementary half.
I don't agree. This applies to feminine gendered males only. For masculine gendered men it's the other way round (i.e. their same-sex attractions are part of their masculinity, while their opposite-sex attractions put them in touch with their femininity (heterosexuality is queer!)).

Although it becomes complex when 'social masculinity' comes in and then everything changes.

In short, Men who are really in touch with their other (femininine half) tend to be naturally 'heterosexual'. And they have little use for the power that heterosexuality brings. They're there only for the real thing.


I don't live on earth, I live in 'heaven' (mind), in myself.
Did you always live there, even as a teenager? Or only when you became mature enough?

Of course it isn't, genders are just illusions. No one really has a gender, everyone is the "self". People only think they have a gender because they identify themselves with their body!
You are not completely right there. Take the case of transexuals (which I think are not the only cases, just extreme ones). They have male body but still they identify with the female ones. Ditto with homosexuals (the real, fem ones), and real 'heterosexuals' although to a lesser degree.

But sometimes, it does seem that we would often exist as genderless, if it weren't for the society. For when I'm sitting all by myself, eating or sleeping, I'm not really a man or woman. I feel no gender. It is only when I'm relating with the others that gender becomes important. But that in itself is not complete evidence that gender does not exist.

There is no such things as outer and inner.

[homophobic comments deleted]

Personal threat deleted by moderator. Further threats will result in your banning.

I wonder if being genderless, or rather being of neutral gender is also a gender orientation. Just like being 'asexual' is?

Giambatista, can you relate to this?

Not too easy to answer, I'm afraid. I thought you knew EVERYTHING relating to gender orientation! ;)

Biologically I may be male, but I have personality characteristics of both. Or maybe more accurately, a blend. Sometimes one side or the other stands out more than others, but I do tend to see myself as more neutral than anything.

I've actually asked other people what they think about my personality as far as gender-specific traits are concerned.

The actual response was something like "You don't act like you're gay (femme)"!

I also know I don't act overtly like a man. I really just do what feels natural to me.

There is no such things as outer and inner.

baseless comments deleted.
There is another cancer in this world and its Islamic militancy. What are you going to do about it?

Are you sure he's really an Islamic militant? Maybe he's just confused.

Though I really want to know, what changes if a person accepts their genetic disability? What changes do they make in their daily routines? Do they simply acknowledge it and get on with their lives?

Is poor spelling and grammar a genetic disability?

Are you sure he's really an Islamic militant? Maybe he's just confused.
No I've gone through his history. I took him for a Buddhist monk, for he talked about Nirvana and all. I should have known because he was praising Iran and its atrocities.

Are you sure he's really an Islamic militant? Maybe he's just confused.

I must admit I don't understand or know a whole lot about Buddhism, but his idea of Nirvana must be pretty unorthodox!

Not too easy to answer, I'm afraid. I thought you knew EVERYTHING relating to gender orientation! ;)

Biologically I may be male, but I have personality characteristics of both. Or maybe more accurately, a blend. Sometimes one side or the other stands out more than others, but I do tend to see myself as more neutral than anything.

I've actually asked other people what they think about my personality as far as gender-specific traits are concerned.

The actual response was something like "You don't act like you're gay (femme)"!

I also know I don't act overtly like a man. I really just do what feels natural to me.
Perhaps that's the best state to be in. But if gender orienatition is real (which it seems to be) then it would help for you to know what your natural gender status is.

For one thing, it will tell you a lot about yourself, that the society has hidden from you. It will help you to end your isolation by deciding on the group/ gender/ sex that you really relate with.

Perhaps that's the best state to be in. But if gender orienatition is real (which it seems to be) then it would help for you to know what your natural gender status is.

For one thing, it will tell you a lot about yourself, that the society has hidden from you. It will help you to end your isolation by deciding on the group/ gender/ sex that you really relate with.

If you asked me to make a choice on whether I fit in with men or women better, I don't think I could make the right choice. If I choose either, it would be wrong. I enjoy the company of women, and the company of men. For different reasons. I feel I fit in with both of them, and neither of them!

Is there no such thing as a completely neutral gender? Certainly I am male biologically, but as transexuals genuinely demonstrate, what is on the outside is not always as important as what is on the inside.

How many transexuals are male? Approximately. They start out male but desire to be female? I have heard that men are more likely to want to change their sex.

How is this connected with the ratio of men to women who are attracted to their own gender? Is it connected?

And many people are exclusively attracted to one of the sexes and/ or genders.

No, the mind has no gender or sexual orientation. Everyone can be manipulated to like either gender. The only real "gender" is the outer physical appearance, and from that, the mind creates an inner gender and sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation can be changed by thinking sexually about the sex you're not attracted to.

I don't agree. This applies to feminine gendered males only. For masculine gendered men it's the other way round (i.e. their same-sex attractions are part of their masculinity, while their opposite-sex attractions put them in touch with their femininity (heterosexuality is queer!)).

We like what we want to become. Sexual desire stems from a feeling of deficiency, from the search for a complementary half which we lack, without which we feel alone and forsaken. If, however, we have found everything in ourselves, if we are a whole, what more do we require? What can we lack?

Does a man lack a man? No. If a man IS a man, he doesn't lack them, so he couldn't like them. But if he's only a man, he's still just half of the truth.

But just because the body is male doesn't mean that YOU are. And just because you THINK you are a man, doesn't mean that you ARE. We don't think about what we are, we ARE what we are. What we think about, we are not. Thinking is a process to become what we think, to unite.

Take 2 magnets and try to unite the "positive" pole with the other "positive" pole. They don't want to, because they ARE positive. They want to remain what they are, they don't want to be destroyed. Now put the "negative" and "positive" together and they will like each other, because they "feel" they lack the other side, although in reality, they have both sides in them, just like we humans do!

Did you always live there, even as a teenager? Or only when you became mature enough?

I have never been a teenager and I have never become mature. I don't have an age, because I have always existed. Only a body needs to have an age, but I'm not a body, I'm the user of bodies.

You are not completely right there. Take the case of transexuals (which I think are not the only cases, just extreme ones). They have male body but still they identify with the female ones. Ditto with homosexuals (the real, fem ones), and real 'heterosexuals' although to a lesser degree.

You never understood what I was talking about when I said that the mind is neither male nor female. That's the reason why men can like men and men can feel like they are women etc.

I'm currently in a male body, but why would "I" be a male, just because my body is? Don't be ridiculous! Only if I identify myself with my body, I would reflect the external form in my inner mental form.

But sometimes, it does seem that we would often exist as genderless, if it weren't for the society. For when I'm sitting all by myself, eating or sleeping, I'm not really a man or woman. I feel no gender. It is only when I'm relating with the others that gender becomes important. But that in itself is not complete evidence that gender does not exist.

Inner gender is a consequence of physical appearances. If inner gender was real, you could never feel genderless. Look at small children, they have no gender or sexual orientation, they're all alike. Children are true. You are not a body, you are the mind which is both male and female which means that it is neither male or female. Men should become more like women (soft, emotional) and women should become more like men (hard, tough).

You know the characteristics of male and female bodies. If people think they are their body, they reflect it in their mind and personalities. We know that the female body is "soft" and softness becomes "emotional" when converted into a mental form. The same way as love would become red if converted to a color, or if converted into an element, it would become fire.

We like what we want to become. Sexual desire stems from a feeling of deficiency, from the search for a complementary half which we lack, without which we feel alone and forsaken. If, however, we have found everything in ourselves, if we are a whole, what more do we require? What can we lack?

Does a man lack a man? No. If a man IS a man, he doesn't lack them, so he couldn't like them. But if he's only a man, he's still just half of the truth.
There is no basis to assume that love happens because we lack something. I think you can only love when you are sure about yourself.

And about seeking the opposite of what one has, again human beings are not magnets. And the same principles definitely don't apply here.

It has been amply proved through a scientific study that when people want to bond with another --- whether as a friend or as a mate, they go for likes. In other words, opposites don't attract --- that's a lie being circulated by the society for a long time. The study says LIKES ATTRACT. There is a huge body of research suggesting this according to the news report ABC News: Do opposites attract? Not according to Gene Researchers (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=1023122&page=1)

It is also in tandem with ancient wisdom. As per the Greek mythology, When Zeus got angry he divided gods into two. The male god became two males, the female became two females and the hermaphrodite became a man and a woman. Then he relented and sent them to earth as humans, where each half would seek his other half. Thus the humanised forms of male gods started seeking another male (their other half), women started seeking another woman for love, and the humanised form of the hermaphrodite god started seeking male-female sex.

But just because the body is male doesn't mean that YOU are. And just because you THINK you are a man, doesn't mean that you ARE. We don't think about what we are, we ARE what we are. What we think about, we are not. Thinking is a process to become what we think, to unite.
??? :confused: :rolleyes: How about when I feel I'm a man?

Take 2 magnets and try to unite the "positive" pole with the other "positive" pole. They don't want to, because they ARE positive. They want to remain what they are, they don't want to be destroyed. Now put the "negative" and "positive" together and they will like each other, because they "feel" they lack the other side, although in reality, they have both sides in them, just like we humans do!
Apparently, when humans love they don't behave like magnets. And I can get you seveeeeral proofs on this. But I guess, the study is enough.

Even girly boys are forced-raised to be 'boyish'. If any man remembers being raised like a girl, please share your experiences here.

I wasn't raised like a girl, but I actually knew a boy when I was young who was being raised "girly". I think about it sometimes, of how bizarr it was. I didn't notice it so much then.

There was this boy, only child, who lived behind me as a kid who's every toy was made for girls. I swear. His parents would only buy him toys meant for girls. My other freinds and I didn't think it so odd he had these toys, only that it was all he was allowed to have. That was bizar. Then he was also not allowed to leave his property, or go out in his front yard even. His parents restricted him to inside the house and their fenced in back yard. He was sort of treated like a family dog in this regard. We felt sorry for him.

We liked him and hung out with him, but were reluctant to visit alot because we always had trouble leaving. He was so desparate all the time, we used to have to trick him and tell him we were going to get candy or something and we'd be back. Other times we'd just suddenly make a break for it and jump the fence (when we were playing in his back yard) and he'd chase us like a dog and grab our legs and stuff to keep us there.

But yeah, we'd go over and play with his Barbies and stuff. He had a remote control Barbie Dream car, which was cool. Any remote control car was cool. No one cared it was pink. All his toys were pink.

I'm not trying to disprove your point, Buddha. I think it enforces it. The parents had to cloister their son in order to deliberately try and raise him "girly". He could barley even have friends.

It has been amply proved through a scientific study that when people want to bond with another --- whether as a friend or as a mate, they go for likes. In other words, opposites don't attract --- that's a lie being circulated by the society for a long time. The study says LIKES ATTRACT. There is a huge body of research suggesting this according to the news report ABC News: Do opposites attract? Not according to Gene Researchers
Apparently, ancients knew this all along. It was the post Christian era when the major civilisations of the world (probably influenced by each other), sought to change this 'natural phenomenon' with exceptions to the rule by forcing them upon people.

So basically what you're saying about opposites attract, is a lie propagated by the society.

You never understood what I was talking about when I said that the mind is neither male nor female. That's the reason why men can like men and men can feel like they are women etc.

I'm currently in a male body, but why would "I" be a male, just because my body is? Don't be ridiculous! Only if I identify myself with my body, I would reflect the external form in my inner mental form.
Most of what you are saying is getting over my head, because its purely at a spiritual level. But still I can see that it is wrong, because it is wrong at the physical level.

How do you explain that some males see themselves as males and others do not?

Look at small children, they have no gender or sexual orientation, they're all alike.
Sexual orientation is a social construct, unlike gender orientation.

And about seeking the opposite of what one has, again human beings are not magnets. And the same principles definitely don't apply here.


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.

Inner gender is a consequence of physical appearances. If inner gender was real, you could never feel genderless. Look at small children, they have no gender or sexual orientation, they're all alike. Children are true. You are not a body, you are the mind which is both male and female which means that it is neither male or female. Men should become more like women (soft, emotional) and women should become more like men (hard, tough).

You know the characteristics of male and female bodies. If people think they are their body, they reflect it in their mind and personalities. We know that the female body is "soft" and softness becomes "emotional" when converted into a mental form. The same way as love would become red if converted to a color, or if converted into an element, it would become fire.
All very 'spiritual'. We are talking about our physical/ emotional lives here. We're talking biology.

It was that very mindset that prompted me to make a statement declaring the male-female sexuality isn't the highest form.
Well, it isn't and in nature, it is not even possible. (not for the majority, not for masculine men).

I wasn't raised like a girl, but I actually knew a boy when I was young who was being raised "girly". I think about it sometimes, of how bizarr it was. I didn't notice it so much then.

There was this boy, only child, who lived behind me as a kid who's every toy was made for girls. I swear. His parents would only buy him toys meant for girls. My other freinds and I didn't think it so odd he had these toys, only that it was all he was allowed to have. That was bizar. Then he was also not allowed to leave his property, or go out in his front yard even. His parents restricted him to inside the house and their fenced in back yard. He was sort of treated like a family dog in this regard. We felt sorry for him.

We liked him and hung out with him, but were reluctant to visit alot because we always had trouble leaving. He was so desparate all the time, we used to have to trick him and tell him we were going to get candy or something and we'd be back. Other times we'd just suddenly make a break for it and jump the fence (when we were playing in his back yard) and he'd chase us like a dog and grab our legs and stuff to keep us there.

But yeah, we'd go over and play with his Barbies and stuff. He had a remote control Barbie Dream car, which was cool. Any remote control car was cool. No one cared it was pink. All his toys were pink.

I'm not trying to disprove your point, Buddha. I think it enforces it. The parents had to cloister their son in order to deliberately try and raise him "girly". He could barley even have friends.

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?

I wasn't raised like a girl, but I actually knew a boy when I was young who was being raised "girly". I think about it sometimes, of how bizarr it was. I didn't notice it so much then.

There was this boy, only child, who lived behind me as a kid who's every toy was made for girls. I swear. His parents would only buy him toys meant for girls. My other freinds and I didn't think it so odd he had these toys, only that it was all he was allowed to have. That was bizar. Then he was also not allowed to leave his property, or go out in his front yard even. His parents restricted him to inside the house and their fenced in back yard. He was sort of treated like a family dog in this regard. We felt sorry for him.

We liked him and hung out with him, but were reluctant to visit alot because we always had trouble leaving. He was so desparate all the time, we used to have to trick him and tell him we were going to get candy or something and we'd be back. Other times we'd just suddenly make a break for it and jump the fence (when we were playing in his back yard) and he'd chase us like a dog and grab our legs and stuff to keep us there.

But yeah, we'd go over and play with his Barbies and stuff. He had a remote control Barbie Dream car, which was cool. Any remote control car was cool. No one cared it was pink. All his toys were pink.
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.

I'm not trying to disprove your point, Buddha. I think it enforces it. The parents had to cloister their son in order to deliberately try and raise him "girly". He could barley even have friends.
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?

They were made to go together. Plus and minus attract, minus and minus and plus and plus repel!
.....and, plug and socket!

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?
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!

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

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.

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!

It has been amply proved through a scientific study that when people want to bond with another --- whether as a friend or as a mate, they go for likes. In other words, opposites don't attract --- that's a lie being circulated by the society for a long time.

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.

As per the Greek mythology, When Zeus got angry he divided gods into two. The male god became two males, the female became two females and the hermaphrodite became a man and a woman. Then he relented and sent them to earth as humans, where each half would seek his other half. Thus the humanised forms of male gods started seeking another male (their other half), women started seeking another woman for love, and the humanised form of the hermaphrodite god started seeking male-female sex.

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