Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Buddha1, Dec 26, 2005.
shutup for what ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If gender orientation isn’t biological who taught the praying mantis to screw?
…..who indoctrinated Leopards or Lions or sheep or Camels or ……whatever into heterosexual procreation?
….who conspired to train animals to fuck the opposite sex?
….who conspired to make females able to gestate the combination of sperm and ovum genes in their uteri?
….who made me disgust at the thought of a man sticking his dick into another man’s asshole or a woman rubbing vagina’s?
Is nature a “conspiracy”? :bugeye:
Is Buddha1 the only healthy mind here? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm... You people are still arguing this one? Look, the point has been made: do what you must, just don't expect everyone to dance the same step. I think that as a whole, nobody cares that you are queer. Create your own culture and be happy. We don't mind.
Did you mean two women rubbing each other's vaginas? Or a "woman rubbing vagina's ..."? The apostrophe and the 's' shows ownership. Is this woman touching something that rightfully belongs to Vagina?
I rarely hear a man protesting that two women are playing with each other. Heterosexual pornography is filled to the brim with fake for-pay lesbianism.
Or does it offend you that same-gender sexual relations are incapable of producing offspring?
Or screw it's mate over by eating it afterwards? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We really don't need to pay attention to fools like Satyr and Bowser, who don't know the difference between Gender orientation and Sexual orientation --- unless it is to show them their place.
Their position has amply been proven to be wrong, and none of them could defend themselves, but they still must come and assert their hollow power --- when we are not even discussing the issue.
For all fools like Satyr and Bowser, we are DISCUSSING GENDER ORIENTATION HERE, NOT SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Either there was sarcasm involved, or an attempt to start an argument for whatever reason.
I don't know who's arguing. I'm trying to have a fruitful discussion. TRYING.
The answer to all the above questions is available in the thread where it has been proven without the slightest doubt that HETEROSEXUALITY IS UNNATURAL --- WHETHER IN ANIMALS OR IN HUMANS. It has also been proven that you don't need heterosexuality for procreation. Heterosexuality is non-existent in most of nature except the queer birds.
Some male babies when they are in their mother's wombs experience less testosterone, and sometimes their mothers are prone to excess estrogen --- which can result in a condition such as described by yourself. It is still natural.
No but society is. We have amply proved that. The heterosexual society (since heterosexuality is itself unnatural) doesn't really care for nature. Like religion, the heterosexual society has taken upon itself to 'define' nature by distorting and misrepresenting it.
There is certainly no competition from you.
By the way why indulge in such stupid 'unmanly' scarcasms, when if you really have evidence for whatever you're asserting you can very well furnish them -- and you won't have to bear me anymore.
If anyone's queer, its you (See the thread Heterosexuality is queer, now merged with Heterosexuality is unnatural)
My opinion is that no, it's not, not in the sense you mean:
It's only natural is the sense of the associations one makes of him or herself with other males and females. It's just a natural part of what you're going to think about yourself. Those who primarily feel themselves to be the other other sex is still attributable to the same thing. It's natural to make those associations.
This is all very subjective. I think there's a huge problem here with seeing "gender orientations" where there is only the forces of imperfect societies at work. Anything that one may look to as evidence of "gender orientation" (as in biological) is going to be something one sees within the context of social relationships which themselves are subject to misguided ideas, customs and such of what it means to be male / female.
How could you even say a person is "female" on the "inside" (whatever that means) unless you can also verify that this person's idea of what a female is is also objective? If a male "feels" like a woman "inside", even primarily, well, what does he mean by "woman"? Does he even necessarily understand women, and what "natural" femininity genuinely is? Or does he just "feel like" what most people regard as feminine? I mean, take me for example: I like both sexes, don't see no reason to rate one higher than another, kinda like the same principle of a parent with two kids. How can you say you love one more? I can't. BUT, sometimes when I see an attractive male I feel kinda girly about it, but if I stop and take a look at why, I can see where it's coming from. Easily enough it's just that I'm thinking something, or noticing something, regarding a male in a manner only women are "supposed" to. I feel that social pressure and it makes me feel girly about it and I have to sort it out.
Now a less astute student of life might take that a bit literally for themselves, and conclude, well, I must be a girl inside. That's kinda what I think your "gender orientation" idea actually comes from. That same social pressure that causes that internal reaction to where your eye goes, what you look at and allow yourself to notice about it, also is very accomodating to calling you a girl, and making out that you are just being like a girl. So, again, the less astute and resistant among us go along with it and don, psychologically and externally, the girlieness which the world says cahracterizes their inner life. The problem is they are interpreting their activities of conciousness by a false standard, and it's the social force of that false standard influencing them to do so.
So "gender orientation" is caused by the same confusion of societies over the sexes and what each is supposed to be.
emotions and opinions are of no use here in Sciforums.
Well, that's your ignorant opinion. I gave reasons to back mine up. Why don't you do the same?
Sounds like you're just trying to censor mine. There is nothing on this forum that's not someone's opinion. Some people can show the reasons for the one's they have and other's can't, like you and the one you just gave.
Obviously you're just trying to start a fight because you don't like what I said.
the evidence is mounting
Lets open the can of worms and spray them with insecticides
Welcome to SciForums.
On reading your first line in your previous to previous post I didnt read the rest of your stupidity.
BTW, thats not how science works, I have lot of my personal opinions but this not one of them.
If you say so. Looks like you're just taking your personal hang-ups out on me, but if you want to quibble over my use of the word "opinion" instead of "personal observation" or something of the sort - fine. Your quibble however ignores the fact of the personal observations I relayed to explain what I called my "opinion", which was actually the important part of all I said, yet you tried to dismiss all of it over the slight misuse of one word.
OK, I am sorry.
Separate names with a comma.