Germaine Greer on Transexuality

h4rm0ny said:
No, I wont. Because it's not true. However, if you think that it is not often possible to make a good guess that someone is gay or lesbian based on physical features, then you're at odds with most people who can do so. You can't look at anyone and say they're gay or not, but you can often look at someone and guess that there's a much higher chance than normal. Homosexuality is not a "learned behaviour" as some idiot in this thread claimed. It has a physical basis. To support that I observed that there is often a correlation between physical features and homosexuality. I didn't realize that was controversial.
Click to expand...

Relax, it was tongue in cheek. However I know 4 gay people. They all look quite different... 1 of which I never would have guessed was gay... I suppose your statement can hold water, all of them are well groomed (more so than the average man) however this isn't really physical is it? More behavioural? The do all sound similar though.

This is GD, someone will find it controversial :D

So are you saying quite simply one is either born gay or not? No one could consciously make that decision?
 
h4rm0ny said:
I don't know anything about him but I know that Alan Turing helped bring about what we call computers and I don't think using a computer or talking about them transfers gayness to people. Gender is not "hokum". Gender is social construct. If you don't believe that human culture has any concept of gender roles then you're an idiot. And if you accept that it does then you accept there is such a thing as gender whether the word bothers you or not.
Click to expand...

That is because Turning's sexuality has no relevance to his work with computers. Money's sexual predilections are highly relevant to his work on sexuality. He had a motive for deconstructing traditional social attitudes and mores.

And I believe social roles are defined and informed by a persons sex, certainly. Those are partly a construct, agreed.

Also for fun.
Click to expand...

That is not its purpose, that is just incidental. An incidental we all enjoy, certainly. But incidental all the same.

Drawing parallels between the two is a lot less pleasant than you try to pass it off as. Were that your point you could have picked anything, but you chose to link it to sexual abuse of children. That in itself betrays a hostile agenda on your part.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have picked "anything" because Money was not an "anything", he was a paedophile. The point I was making is that the person who created these crack pot ideas about gender was a warped individual and they should be regarded with suspicion.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
That is because Turning's sexuality has no relevance to his work with computers. Money's sexual predilections are highly relevant to his work on sexuality. He had a motive for deconstructing traditional social attitudes and mores.

And I believe social roles are defined and informed by a persons sex, certainly. Those are partly a construct, agreed.



That is not its purpose, that is just incidental. An incidental we all enjoy, certainly. But incidental all the same.



I couldn't have picked "anything" because Money was not an "anything", he was a paedophile. The point I was making is that the person who created these crack pot ideas about gender was a warped individual and they should be regarded with suspicion.
Click to expand...

verbal diarrhea!
 
Thompson_NCL said:
That is not its purpose, that is just incidental. An incidental we all enjoy, certainly. But incidental all the same.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can really describe something which has become the primary focus of sex for most of us in the modern world and which plays such a large role in our socialisation as incidental. It is most definitely a factor worth considering.
 
PermaBanned said:
I don't think you can really describe something which has become the primary focus of sex for most of us in the modern world and which plays such a large role in our socialisation as incidental. It is most definitely a factor worth considering.
Click to expand...

I am not dismissing the importance of sex for pleasure, its social impact etc. I am speaking purely in terms of function. If you read my original comment and the context, you will understand my point.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
I am not dismissing the importance of sex for pleasure, its social impact etc. I am speaking purely in terms of function. If you read my original comment and the context, you will understand my point.
Click to expand...

The original biological function of sex is procreation but that is fairly irrelevant in any discussion on human sexuality. Apart from a few religious fundamentalists we have long moved away from sex as procreation.
 
h4rm0ny said:
I mostly agree with you but the confusion is arising because you are using the word gender in place of the word sex. Sex is, e.g. male / female. Gender is a social construct, e.g. "Masculine" and "Feminine". We have two different terms because in discussions like this it becomes necessary to distinguish between physical characteristics and how society defines people.

Hence my comments earlier on about wanting to change sex being a psychological problem rather than a physical one if what is really being sought is a change of gender. However, that said it's pretty obvious what you were trying to say and Permabanned surely knows what you actually meant.
Click to expand...

Ah! point taken, I did do that didn't I. Regardless you got the point I was making.
 
Why has no one made the obvious link between trans people and terrorism yet?

This thread is another one that highlights the poor excuses for human beings who inhabit this forum. Not to mention the disgustingly creepy obsession with other people's genitals.
 
RDM said:
The original biological function of sex is procreation but that is fairly irrelevant in any discussion on human sexuality. Apart from a few religious fundamentalists we have long moved away from sex as procreation.
Click to expand...

Not sure the overall change has been a good one however...


edit: to clarify, in the interests of society as a whole, not individuals..
 
spoffle said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Hitman_Leon said:
Seconded!
Click to expand...

240
 
lafemmefatale said:
This thread is another one that highlights the poor excuses for human beings who inhabit this forum. Not to mention the disgustingly creepy obsession with other people's genitals.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, we should have no interest in other people full stop. Homeless and starving? I don't care. Being murdered or raped? Its not my business. My interest in other people ends at the tip of my nose, because I don't want to be branded creepy or obsessive by someone incapable of actually arguing a point.

Look. If a man wishes to pretend he's a woman on his own time, that is his business. I don't see anyone objecting to that.

But when it comes to how society treats them, that is all of our business and we have a right to discuss it. There is nothing creepy or obsessive about people debating the issue.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Seconded!

Also is that a generalisation aimed at all contributors or a select few who shall remain anonymous?
Click to expand...

Check out her posting history, and tell me how many aren't just attacks on other posters. I've not actually seen her contribute to any discussion. Pops in to have a dig at anyone she doesn't like (normally with a "witty" one-liner), offers nothing in terms of a competing argument, and leaves. Job done!

She's a troll, and is best ignored.

lafemmefatale said:
Says the Nazi sympathiser.
Click to expand...

QED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom