Transgender

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.
 
Last edited:
Socrates2 said:
I'm seriously not triggered, I'm just acting like a normal person would act in a workplace , it's everyone's right to call out this stuff , and other people should do the same.
Click to expand...

I agree mate. The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept.

However, if you're going to (rightly) call someone out as being full of s**t, be prepared to explain (and reason) why they're full of s**t. Simply name calling and screaming at people, is never a great way to convince someone they're wrong. It generally just entrenches their own views.

The difficulty of arguing with idiots, is they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Also; be prepared to accept that RWNJ is gonna RWNJ. There isnt much you can do about it in most cases.

Some people finally take that step back, and see it for what it is (espeically when it's put to them in a reasoned and articulate manner, and not just screamed at them). Im one of them, and there are others.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tayl0r said:
Can you please elaborate on what you meant by this as a significant part of this, in my view, is due to women capitalising on a biological difference?
Click to expand...

They're not capitalising on a biological difference. They're capitalising on gender roles and perceptions of women.

I have nothing wrong with it. Plenty of women have made a lot of money doing it. Im just saying it's reflective of (and contributes to) the entrenched patriatrchy.

Watch this video for an example of what I'm talking about:



It's a good watch, and only 3 minutes of your life, so I do encourage you to have a look.

Most of the differences between men and women isnt due to biology. It's due to the entrenched social dominance of men, and women being constantly told (not just directly, but also contantly by inference such as by looking at your average Magazine rack, or Toy store shelves, or turning on the TV or opening up social media) that 'men are dominant and better than them, and are warriors and take care of buisiness' while women are '****, gossip, fashion and homemaking, and the fairer sex'.

Next time you're in a toy store, or looking at a magazine rack, look (objectively) at the message its sending to boys and girls about the roles they play in society. Think about how thats influenced you growing up.

Im not saying there is anything wrong with a woman believing those things if she chooses to. Some women genuinely like men having the power and control. Good for them. I'm just saying the social dominance of men (the patriarchy) is not a function of biology; its a function of socially constructed gender roles (roles that have been created by men as the dominant gender, and that leave men with the power and dominance).
 
its free real estate said:
Stated by a man who has never had kids.
Click to expand...

I was one once you know.

I didnt play with dolls and dresses. I played with 'action figures' and toy guns. I wore blue, not pink, and my room was decorated for me accordingly.

Just so I'm clear here man, are you arguing gender roles dont exist, or that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is not socially constructed?

That the blue v pink/ doll v action figure divide is due to biology? That the denial of the vote to women, was sound based on biology?
 
Malifice said:
I was one once you know.

I didnt play with dolls and dresses. I played with 'action figures' and toy guns. I wore blue, not pink, and my room was decorated for me accordingly.

Just so I'm clear here man, are you arguing gender roles dont exist, or that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is not socially constructed?

That the blue v pink/ doll v action figure divide is due to biology? That the denial of the vote to women, was sound based on biology?
Click to expand...
The last question was a hilarious non sequitur.

What is it about the colour pink that makes people feminine? If I give my sons a pink doll will they turn gay or go trans?
 
its free real estate said:
What is it about the colour pink that makes people feminine?
Click to expand...

Because pink is socially agreed on to be a girls color.

Just like boys dolls are socially agreed on to be defined as 'action figures'.

Dresses are socially agreed on to be 'for girls'. As is long hair. And heels.

I'm not saying boys cant wear dresses and heels, grow their hair long, or wear pink. Im just saying they're reflective of socially constructed gender roles that have no bearing on biology.
 
Malifice said:
I find even science gets discredited here pretty quickly when the consensus doesnt match your own world view.

Climate change, racism, evolution, the works.

I also tend to find it's almost always the right wingers that seem to have an issue with science.

If someone is going to hold their ground despite overwhelming scientific consenus being against them, or embark on pseudo science or historical revisionism/ absurdism (the Holocaust didnt happen, the Nazis are 'left wing', biological race exists etc) or accept some absurd consipracy (the Jews are behind it, its all a false flag, Qanon, White replacement etc) it's invariably those on the far right.
Click to expand...

Take climate change & science - 'the science is in' argument has not worked on a sizable number of people, yet is adopted with religious fervour by others.
Is it the way the message is sold, a failure to prosecute the argument, even trying to' take the high moral ground' or it is a left v right argument by the elitist political class?

On a sporting note & gender, how would we feel if Sally Pearson was beaten for an Olympic gold by someone who had previously competed as a man.
 
Malifice said:
Because pink is socially agreed on to be a girls color.

Just like boys dolls are socially agreed on to be defined as 'action figures'.

Dresses are socially agreed on to be 'for girls'. As is long hair. And heels.

I'm not saying boys cant wear dresses and heels, grow their hair long, or wear pink. Im just saying they're reflective of socially constructed gender roles that have no bearing on biology.
Click to expand...
But what does “pink is a girls colour” mean? Does it affect the development of a person in early childhood? How?
 
its free real estate said:
But what does “pink is a girls colour” mean? Does it affect the development of a person in early childhood? How?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying pink being a 'girls color', dresses being 'for girls' (and everything else in that category) is a reflection of the social construction of gender in society, which reflects a patriarchy that places men in a position of dominance and power.

For the record, this socially entrenched patriarchy doesnt always benefit men. Higher rates of suicide among men is one of the negative consequences of it for men. As is the propensity of men to grab a gun and murder a s**t-ton of people when they're angry.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malifice said:
No, I'm saying pink being a 'girls color', dresses being 'for girls' (and everything else in that category) is a reflection of the social construction of gender in society, which reflects a patriarchy that places men in a position of dominance and power.

For the record, this socially entrenched patriarchy doesnt always benefit men. Higher rates of suicide among men is one of the negative consequences of it for men. As is the propensity of men to grab a gun and murder a s**t-ton of people when they're angry.
Click to expand...
How do pink dresses establish patriarchy?

I’d have thought the patriarchy, if it existed, manifested from the biological differences between men and women, eg the difference between men and women in terms of strength, height, and ability to carry a child.

But apparently it’s pink dresses. Hmm.
 
I have 2 adult children, 1 boy and 1 girl and 3 grandchildren 8, 11 and 13 years of age 2 boys and 1 girl. There is of course the fundamental biological differences but there are from my experience inherent differences between the sexes. No doubt there are outliers and environment plays a substantial role but generally girls tend to be more social, caring and empathetic, boys more aggressive and physical.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/articles/201711/the-truth-about-sex-differences

Divergent Thinking
Some traits are more prevalent in women, some in men; listed by magnitude of sex difference.

WOMEN
SMALL:

  • Conformity
  • General verbal ability
  • Indirect aggression (gossip)
  • Interpersonal trust
  • Sensitivity to negative emotions
  • Spatial location ability
MEDIUM:

  • Tendency to smile
MEDIUM/LARGE:

  • Preference for status in mate
  • Tender-mindedness
LARGE:

  • Body fat
  • Cooking, among foragers
  • Early onset of puberty
  • Empathy
  • Interest in people over things
  • Preference for female-typical toys
  • Preference for taller mate
  • Primary caretaker of children, among foragers
  • Sexual disgust
  • Vulnerability to depression
MEN
SMALL/MEDIUM:

  • Impulsivity
  • Sexual jealousy
MEDIUM:

  • 3-D geometry ability
  • High blood pressure
  • Risk-taking
  • Sex drive
  • Task-oriented leadership
MEDIUM/LARGE:

  • Mental rotation ability
  • Physical aggression
  • Preference for physically attractive mate
LARGE:

  • Deep voice pitch
  • Early mortality
  • Grip strength
  • Height
  • Likelihood of homicide
  • Preference for rough-and-tumble play
  • Throwing ability
  • Upper-body strength
  • Vulnerability to psychopathy
 
its free real estate said:
]How do pink dresses establish patriarchy?
Click to expand...

Pink dresses reinforce gender roles in a society that (you agree) is socially patriarchal (favors men).

And I'm not just talking about dresses. Its toys. It magazines. Its movies. Its social media. Its shoes. Its what we wear. It's how we talk. It's how we legislate. It's everywhere.

My point is 'gender' is socially constructed (and socially reinforced). If you dont believe me, dress your boy in a dress, paint his room pink and buy him a Barbie doll.
 
Malifice said:
Pink dresses reinforce gender roles in a society that (you agree) is socially patriarchal (favors men).

And I'm not just talking about dresses. Its toys. It magazines. Its movies. Its social media. Its shoes. Its what we wear. It's how we talk. It's how we legislate. It's everywhere.

My point is 'gender' is socially constructed (and socially reinforced). If you dont believe me, dress your boy in a dress, paint his room pink and buy him a Barbie doll.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense.
 
Tayl0r said:
It's also important to mention that human beings are exceptionally good at taking the reality of their circumstance and backdating their conscious choices to reflect it as a means of rationalisation to themselves.

It's a control thing in a world with very little of it.
Click to expand...

Humanity, by way of its intellect, has mastered almost all of its surroundings and can now focus on its interior. Not living easy with the hand you were dealt at birth? Discard a few, draw a few from the deck and rearrange your hand.
 
its free real estate said:
No, it doesn't.

None of the studies on toy preference, for instance, replicate.
Click to expand...

Some food for thought.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01696.x

Abstract

To assess the flexibility of reasoning about gender, children ages 4, 6, and 8 years (N = 72) were interviewed about gender norms when different domains were highlighted. The majority of participants at all ages judged a reversal of gender norms in a different cultural context to be acceptable. They also judged gender norms as a matter of personal choice and they negatively evaluated a rule enforcing gender norms in schools. Older children were more likely to show flexibility than younger children. Justifications obtained from 6‐ and 8‐year‐olds showed that they considered adherence to gender norms a matter of personal choice and they viewed the rule enforcing gender norms as unfair...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sherb
Launceston Newspaper Gets Caught Publishing Letter About Non-Existent Transgender Incident
Replies
7
Views
797
schneebly111
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top