Cisgender

isn't the light skin thing to do with social class? i.e. if you work out in the fields you'll be tanned.

It use to be but generally in the east it is a sign of glamour. It use to be that richer families were associated with light skin because the poorer were outside working all the time but now it is more like a TV/Hollywood ideal. Western style, image and even facial features is considered very fashionable in these places. I guess its a case of the grass is always greener.

I have always had a lot of attention from people in the UK due to my caramel skin and unique facial features from my odd race combination but i personally am not a huge fan as i can end up with a beard tan-line after a sunny afternoon (not just a red 'tan' that goes after a week) and can go as black as they come if i spend a month away in the Philippines. It isn't the colour itself that bothers me but rather the tan-lines and peal areas.
 
Last edited:
It also usefully describes the overwhelming majority in terms of sex identity. Transsexuals are abnormal, I don't see why anyone would dispute that fact.

They're "normal" insofar as they exist in "normal" life. If aliens announced themselves tomorrow, they'd be "abnormal" until their existence was commonly known, and then they'd become "normal".
 
I'm curious about how messed up your circle of friends would have to be for you to have all formally declare what you actually are/think you are/want to be in the first place! Unless you're trying to set up the mother of all orgies and calculating compatibility tables*, then does it really matter?

A 2-dimensional compatibility table would only work for where people paired off in twos. It would break-down for scenarios where any given coupling could be an arbitrary n participants.

Having said, that, I feel a sudden need to emphasize that I'm a logician, not an orgiast.
 
I would say it is, regardless of it's acceptability. It's not something I have a problem with, or condemn but then nor do I automatically place a negative slant on the term mental illness.

It does however fall into a very different realm, liking the same sex isn't the same thing as believing you are a different sex, it's much 'milder' imo.

I suspect I have a significantly more objective view of these things than the modern world would deem acceptable in most cases.

The key distinguisher with mental illness is whether it causes suffering or disability to the person who has it. Now with most gay people, suffering or hindrance is not inherent but inflicted by society around them. So therefore according to most definitions it would not be a mental illness. Just a condition. If you want to argue it does meet those criteria because, e.g., it reduces likelihood of procreation, then you could argue on those grounds. But it's a weak argument because such is easily circumvented just by closing ones eyes and thinking of, well, probably not England.

But anyway, that covers it as far as "mental illness", imo. Gender identity orders have a greater basis for being classed as such because they reflect (I think) a form of body dysmophia. Like anorexia for instance, the person's perception of their body is at odds with the reality.

But even there it is open to debate. How much of the suffering of such a person is due to inherent consequences of the condition, and how much from social and gender norms they feel subjected to.

I would say that it IS a mental illness in this case, but it's not something I would argue it can be classed as such without doubt. If in a hundred years times its seen as normal (though not commonplace), "sufferers" might feel fine with it. Though I suspect not.

In either case, whether it is or it isn't, it's not something that is made better by exclusion or argument. Lacking the ability to re-write the brain's wiring (and I think that would be the less preferable option anyway, for most), sex-change operations are probably the only medical solution.

That said, I'm of the opinion that only a portion of such people are neurologically that way. I think there are quite a few who class themselves that way for psychological reasons and these people probably need help.

All the above just my opinion.
 
Although being transgender isn't illegal, and nor should it be, I find "cis" not too dissimilar to pedophiles inventing a term for people who enjoyed having sex with consenting adults.


Repeat After Me:


"Gay" and "Pedophile" Are Not Remotely Related.

---


There's a label for what you are suggesting - it's called "Teleiophilia" and is 5 years younger (2000) than the word cisgender (1995).
 
A 2-dimensional compatibility table would only work for where people paired off in twos. It would break-down for scenarios where any given coupling could be an arbitrary n participants.

Having said, that, I feel a sudden need to emphasize that I'm a logician, not an orgiast.

You've put way too much thought into this. But I'm certain the venture sharks in Silicon Valley would invest in OrgySoft, if the pitch is right; give them a call. :p

You could map it onto a 1-dimensional data structure too, should you really have wanted to; but who would? It would be a pain to read, a pain to maintain and the dawn of computing is no longer with us!:D

I believe it's one of the Sports Day events at Eton.

They call it the Wall Game. :p

Repeat After Me:


"Gay" and "Pedophile" Are Not Remotely Related.

---

Sigh, this old gem, surviving from prudish Victorian times no less!
 
Last edited:
Repeat After Me:


"Gay" and "Pedophile" Are Not Remotely Related.

---


There's a label for what you are suggesting - it's called "Teleiophilia" and is 5 years younger (2000) than the word cisgender (1995).

He didn't mention gay people at all?

Or have you made the rather rude assertion that trans people are gay?
 
Technically yes, but other than being attracted to people of your own sex, there's no other symptoms.

I don't think it really counts as an illness. Difference? Yes, illness, probably not. There is still some question over how much of our sexual orientation is social anyway.
 
You can't argue that it's not an evolutionary dead end however ;)

Yep, we can do that too, actually. More than one species has non-reproductive members occurring frequently because it helps the group as a whole. In fact, when it comes to social creatures such as apes, dogs, whatever, family ties leading to support of those related to but not descended from, is the norm. For all we know, in evolutionary terms having a small percentage of males who fulfil male duties but don't fight with other males over mates is an advantage. I'm not saying it is, but it's a viable hypothesis and in the absence of evidence either way, as likely as not. If it's an evolutionary dead end, why hasn't it died out?
 
Back
Top Bottom