Transgender

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
16,328
Likes
13,380
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
You think it was a thing in the Neolithic? Dunno if they had time for paraphilias back then.
https://www.academia.edu/10360960/P...rt_Genital_Scarification_Piercing_and_Tattoos

...European Paleolithic art shows decoration explicitly representedin a high proportion of portable art objects with a phallic form that have survived to our day. Decorative rituals of male genital tattooing, piercing and scarification may have been practiced during Paleolithic times.

Drawings, carvings and sculptures from the Upper Paleolithic showing human beings are scarce with fewer than a hundred males depicted, of which approximately a third are represented in erection. Moreover, a few phalli carved on horn, bone or stone with variable morphology have survived to our day and are all represented in erection. This collection also reveals the existence of a culture beyond frontier limits that explicitly worshipped the male genital organ.

Although the evidence available throughout millennia is still sketchy, erection appears clearly represented in Paleolithic art in almost all un-equivocally masculine figures and in many everyday, decorative, portable art objects. These pieces show evidence of a culture that favored preputial retraction... [/quote]
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
6,508
Likes
8,033
AFL Club
Fremantle
https://www.academia.edu/10360960/P...rt_Genital_Scarification_Piercing_and_Tattoos

...European Paleolithic art shows decoration explicitly representedin a high proportion of portable art objects with a phallic form that have survived to our day. Decorative rituals of male genital tattooing, piercing and scarification may have been practiced during Paleolithic times.

Drawings, carvings and sculptures from the Upper Paleolithic showing human beings are scarce with fewer than a hundred males depicted, of which approximately a third are represented in erection. Moreover, a few phalli carved on horn, bone or stone with variable morphology have survived to our day and are all represented in erection. This collection also reveals the existence of a culture beyond frontier limits that explicitly worshipped the male genital organ.

Although the evidence available throughout millennia is still sketchy, erection appears clearly represented in Paleolithic art in almost all un-equivocally masculine figures and in many everyday, decorative, portable art objects. These pieces show evidence of a culture that favored preputial retraction...
[/QUOTE]
Is that a fetish? Looks more like ritualistic scarification, like circumcision.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,501
Likes
27,561
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,082
Isn’t weird how gold was highly valued to both the Inca and the Egyptians, civilisations that we’re 1000s of kilometres apart. How does that happen?
Hahaha!

Now you're attributing 'valueable' as an objective quality to gold, that exists outside of our social agreement that it's valuable!

This is hilarious!
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
6,508
Likes
8,033
AFL Club
Fremantle
Hahaha!

Now you're attributing 'valueable' as an objective quality to gold, that exists outside of our social agreement that it's valuable!

This is hilarious!
If two distinct groups of humans, separated by millennia and oceans, each determine gold to be the highest store of value, what does this tell us about the intrinsic nature of gold?
 

Malifice

Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,501
Likes
27,561
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,086
If two distinct groups of humans, separated by millennia and oceans, each determine gold to be the highest store of value, what does this tell us about the intrinsic nature of gold?
Absolutely nothing!

It just tells us that two groups of humans both agreed that gold was 'valuable'.

The monetary value of an object is a subjective evaluation of the object. It's reached via social consensus, it's self evidently not an objective property of the object!

Good Lord, and to think you claimed to be a Scientist.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
16,328
Likes
13,380
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Is that a fetish? Looks more like ritualistic scarification, like circumcision.
Some of it is ritual decoration. They have also uncovered instances of worship. Back then it would have been almost intrinsically a biological thing; Strength, power, virility. That is what mattered back then, to that society in that point of time. They built a mode of worship, including ritual scarifications and circumcision, around it.

Again, biology was the seed, but human thought made it far bigger than what it was. We gave it value.
 

twotooto

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Posts
1,181
Likes
2,294
AFL Club
West Coast
And the very values we assign males and females with respect to one another is also a social construct. And going further by looping back to the thread premise, the values of those 'in between' or transitioning between the sexes. I think we are all human, ergo we all have the same base value. A transgendered person is not worth less or more than me in the eyes of society and never should be. Ditto females. Ditto everyone else.
Sure, we can assign any values we like with respect to one another. However, biologically, these social constructs/values mean sweet barry o.

In terms of biology. In terms of reproducing so that the continuing existence of the human race is assured, it is a biological imperative that a male and female are required in order to produce a child. 'Social construct' has zero to do with it. It is therefore biological.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Pretty sure I have never said a transgender person, or female, or anyone else isn't human or any 'more' or 'less' than anyone else.

I think wires are being crossed here. Maybe go back and read the post of mine that you quoted again.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
6,508
Likes
8,033
AFL Club
Fremantle
Absolutely nothing!

It just tells us that two groups of humans both agreed that gold was 'valuable'.

The monetary value of an object is a subjective evaluation of the object. It's reached via social consensus, it's self evidently not an objective property of the object!

Good Lord, and to think you claimed to be a Scientist.
Why would they separately reach such a conclusion if there wasn’t an intrinsic quality to gold?

Whether other species understand that quality is immaterial. Other species can’t count or understand the Boltzmann equation.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,501
Likes
27,561
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,091
Sure, we can assign any values we like with respect to one another. However, biologically, these social constructs/values mean sweet barry o.

In terms of biology. In terms of reproducing so that the continuing existence of the human race is assured, it is a biological imperative that a male and female are required in order to produce a child. 'Social construct' has zero to do with it. It is therefore biological.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Pretty sure I have never said a transgender person, or female, or anyone else isn't human or any 'more' or 'less' than anyone else.

I think wires are being crossed here. Maybe go back and read the post of mine that you quoted again.
If there is one thing everyone agrees on its that biological sex is objective, and there are distinct biological differences between genders.

As in XY chromosome vs XX, penis vs uterus, hormonal differences, muscle mass and sexual metamorphism, differences in brain chemistry and hip shape and function (to accomodate child birth) etc.

Gender (as in agreed on social roles for the genders) is a different kettle of fish.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
16,328
Likes
13,380
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Isn’t weird how gold was highly valued to both the Inca and the Egyptians, civilisations that we’re 1000s of kilometres apart. How does that happen?
Why is the spiral shape the most commonly found example of early petroglyph found across world civilizations? Continents apart and with no contact with each other?
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
16,328
Likes
13,380
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Sure, we can assign any values we like with respect to one another. However, biologically, these social constructs/values mean sweet barry o.

In terms of biology. In terms of reproducing so that the continuing existence of the human race is assured, it is a biological imperative that a male and female are required in order to produce a child. 'Social construct' has zero to do with it. It is therefore biological.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Pretty sure I have never said a transgender person, or female, or anyone else isn't human or any 'more' or 'less' than anyone else.

I think wires are being crossed here. Maybe go back and read the post of mine that you quoted again.
Yeah, I was trying to loop the 'bigger picture' back to the thread title. I did not mean to infer you said, thought, or wrote that anyone is inferior.

My mistake, so apologies are in order. Sorry.
 

twotooto

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Posts
1,181
Likes
2,294
AFL Club
West Coast
Yeah, I was trying to loop the 'bigger picture' back to the thread title. I did not mean to infer you said, thought, or wrote that anyone is inferior.

My mistake, so apologies are in order. Sorry.
Totally cool dude and thankyou :thumbsu:

The reason I wrote about biological v social construct is that it was being spoken about over the last 4 or 5 pages and I felt that there was/is some confusion in the ranks so wanted to clear it up lmao.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,501
Likes
27,561
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,096
Why would they separately reach such a conclusion if there wasn’t an intrinsic quality to gold?
Because Gold is rare and shiny and pretty and humans decided to place a value on something rare and shiny and pretty.

Gold itself has no value outside of human agreement it has value. It has no value to cats, or birds or fish or any other species. The only value it has is the value that we (homo sapiens) have agreed to give it. Because we (as a species) value rare shiny things.

'Value' is so self evidently a subjective and socially constructed term, that I seriously question if you ever went to Uni at all, let alone obtained a degree in a Scientific field.

Whether other species understand that quality is immaterial.
No, its not. Not in the context of determining if something is an objective quality of something (it's atomic structure) or a socially agreed on quality of the object (the luck granted by a four leaf clover).
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
6,508
Likes
8,033
AFL Club
Fremantle
Because Gold is rare and shiny and pretty and humans decided to place a value on something rare and shiny and pretty.

Gold itself has no value outside of human agreement it has value. It has no value to cats, or birds or fish or any other species. The only value it has is the value that we (homo sapiens) have agreed to give it. Because we (as a species) value rare shiny things.

'Value' is so self evidently a subjective and socially constructed term, that I seriously question if you ever went to Uni at all, let alone obtained a degree in a Scientific field.



No, its not. Not in the context of determining if something is an objective quality of something (it's atomic structure) or a socially agreed on quality of the object (the luck granted by a four leaf clover).
What does the atomic weight of gold mean to a wolf? There is no objective or value-meaning to gold if you’re a wolf (as far as we know).
 

Malifice

Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,501
Likes
27,561
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,100
What does the atomic weight of gold mean to a wolf? There is no objective or value-meaning to gold if you’re a wolf (as far as we know).
The wolf doesnt understand the atomic weight of gold, but that doesnt stop mass from existing. If human beings vanished suddenly, and a hunk of gold fell on that wolfs head, the wolfs lack of knowledge about the atomic weight of the gold is neither here nor there from the wolf getting hurt. The atomic weight of gold is a constant, that exists independent of human agreement as to it's existence.

It's like a 10 dollar note (even one in a currency system based on gold). The note itself is comprised of polymer, and has an atomic weight. Those things are true regardless of any other fact. An advanced alien species with no knowledge of human culture can pick up a 10 dollar note and discover those things regardless of its understanding of human culture and social construction.

The value we place on that note (linked to the value we place on a finite atomic material, i.e gold) however is socially constructed. You cant study the note and decipher that fact unless you understand the social construction of the note itself (what it represents to those who made it, and the value they attributed to it).

We attribute value to 'Gold' due to its rarity. We did the same thing to Bitcoin for Gods sake.

Are you arguing that Bitcoin is not a social construction?

Pause for a second here and think about this. Go away and do some reading for a bit before you tie yourself into any more knots.
 
Top Bottom