Is Gender Orientation biological?

I don't think I need to add anything to this at this time.

I couldn't make sense of that statement of his either. I found it just a bit confusing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Proof that it is the feminine side of men that drive them to long for relationships with women --- unless the motive is social masculinity.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the above, apart from what false religions have told us.

Your spiritual rantings..... and even though they are true, are unrelated to what we are discussing.

a. Mythology is not exactly biology. So it doesn't matter whether they are talking about body or mind.

b. I have quoted a research paper I once read on the internet, it must still be there somewhere. We can all interpret things differently as per our beliefs. But clearly facts and evidences bear me out. Greeks themselves praised sexual bonds between men as masculine love. All masculine traditions require men to keep away from women --- even for brief sexual encounters, leave alone relationships. If women were so good for a man's masculinity, there was no reason to do that.

The complementary halves theory has been proved as bullshit. There may be exceptions though --- natural heterosexuals being one exception. Heterosexuals tend to look for opposites.

Nobody forces males to think they are females --- unless they decide to be open about their sexual need for men.

Everyone forces males to think they are masculine. Therefore, your argument does not hold water.

I don't know what you're saying. You support me and then refute yourself. You exist and don't exist. It's biological and not biological......We are not getting anywhere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At the risk of going off-topic, I wish to bring this quote in from another thread.
I do not understand what he means by "coitus without anything in return".
I could be mistaken, but he seems to be supporting the complementarian ideology about sex, that is two men cannot procreate therefore their coitus is false and self-centered. This is implied by saying "without anything in return."

He is defining what he meant by the word 'homosexuality' and said he specifically meant

If he is implying what I think he is, this line of thinking is the epitomy of the complementary-gender falsehood. It is one of the major building blocks in the conservative/religious argument against same-sex anything.

There is no chance for conception, therefore there is no true purpose in it.
Hogwash it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Giam, we can discuss homosexuality in that thread!

 

And the part about prostitution?

He was addressing you Buddha1. Did you actually understand what he was getting at? Or are you just as clueless as I am?

 

I don't mind going there to discuss it, but you see, you were talking about complementary halves and heterosexuality, and having just re-read that, and being confused, I thought I would throw it in there because it obviously has everything to do with the discussion.

Maybe we should have a new topic about complementarianism?

 

You shouldn't take such statements as that of art of war seriously.

He was angry at me, because he wanted to have a 'put down', 'homosexuality has been proven different' discussion and I had put a spanner into his works. He called me a 'prostitute' saying I have sex with men because of money, even though I don't like it.

I don't think he has raised anything in particular that needs to be taken seriously, but if you think there is, you can elaborate.

 

Alright!

On a slightly different end of the masculinity spectrum, what about male emotions? And expressing them?

Why are men expected to be tough and show little emotion? Why is "wrong" for them to cry in front of other people?

Why do men have to keep themselves distant from emotional expression for fear of being thought of as weak?

Well, I've noticed that ONE emotion men are more than able and maybe even encouraged to display is anger and indignation. Those seem to be quite acceptable.

Years ago, I had a female friend who was more or less lamenting about
"Why is it that guys can't show any emotion except either laughter or anger?"
She was actually just a little angry about it.

Maybe the answer really is simply that they don't want to be viewed as weak?

Why is it a weakness?

 

So it was more of an insult towards YOU?

That's funny, though, because it was exactly the same line you would expect from the conservative religious folks regarding male-female bonds. It was almost too perfect!

 

And if it is a weakness, is this something that is BIOLOGICAL? Or is this something that stems from the notion that "Boys don't cry."?

Is it part of their very nature, or is it simply drilled into them from early childhood that girls can be acceptable when they do it, but boys have a different role to play.

 

Good questions, and I have some answers but not all the answers. I hope others can provide some.

One reason for the suppression of emotions that signal physical pain is to make men more steeled up towards physical pain. I think ancient, pre-marriage societies did that.

I do not know if they also demanded suppression of emotions that signal emotional pain.

In the post-marriage institution phase, when men had to be pressurised into marriage, the society added several more emotions to the list of those that had already been controlled by the previous societies. But the motives were totally different.

 

And this all actually reminds me of Dr. Nicolosi of NARTH and similar conservative Christian oriented mental health "professionals" and their views of what makes little boys grow up into homos!
They have these very complex theories of what the FATHER needs to do, how much emotion he needs to show towards his son, how tough or strong he needs to be, basically he has special rules he needs to follow when interacting with his offspring of the same gender.

He needs to somehow provide a strong masculine role model, but at the same time not be too overbearing.

Dominant mother syndrome is blamed for homosexuality many times by these people!

 

Truth has no path. Why don't you accept that some people can like different things because each person is different.

That's what I keep saying.

Everyone would like everyone, no one would pick sides, there would be chaos.

All kind of sexual love between two people is sad and pointless.

Remember that each mind decides which difference is too great and which is too small.

If you had understood my "spiritual rantings", you would have understood why people like what they like.

Bullshit is what you don't understand, what you don't accept. The things you don't love are only the things you haven't found in yourself yet.

You won't not getting anywhere if you wear that mask and hold that side. You turn everything towards you.

 

Two can oppose and cause chaos.
How is there division in ONE?
How is there chaos when all is unified?

 

No not america, but by being a role model country. a country who dont put their soilders on others lands.

No, they are [deleted]; Any sane intelligent person will never defend america, if he want peace in america.

is this off topic, I dont think so, every thing in this world is connected; heres how.

The gays are [deleted]. America is a genetic anomaly of the world, Got the perfect point !

I am Anomalous for the world, because there is an anomaly in human DNA, of which I am spared.

 

Everything in this world is connected because: gays are bastrads! I'm trying to understand the perfect point.

Yes, I suppose this thread is attracted to others of it's own kind.

I know, honey!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What exactly is this genetic anomaly that you are spared from that the rest of us must suffer with?

 

dont worry about it, the anomaly will never let U understand itself.

It will be like teaching highschool Algebra to a cat or mouse.

 

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.

2. Perhaps we are born with neutral gender and society trains us to be one gender or the other

Counter argument: It is possible that some individuals are neutral gendered, just like some individuals are asexual. Many neutral gendered people are people who have been deprived of their natural mascuinity or femininity or they have been forced to suppress it, just like many people become asexual when they suppress their same-sex feelings but do not want to explore opposite sex-bonds.

It is also likely that most of us don't feel our gender by ourselves. Gender seems to become important or comes into play only when we are interacting with the others. But even then, it cannot be denied that there is something in us which makes us feel we are males or females (masculine or feminine) inspite of what the society tells us or inspite of how it grooms us.

 

So far the view that "Gender orientation is biological" is winning.

 

Shut up.