Forums → WEPR → Sexual Identity
| 23 | 18747 |
Ok, here is my thesis:
1) Sex is predefined before birth
2) Sex is defined by one's role is in the process of reproduction
3) One's gender must be inline with one's sex, one cannot contradict the other without disrupting the natural order
- 23 Replies
1. The difference is that one is capable of performing one's duties.So?
Anything contradictory to Natural order is contradictory to God's Plan (Natural order), and as such is immoral.That's just the same appeal to nature you used at the start.
Dysphoria prevents one from carrying out reproduction even if he/she wanted to.No, it doesn't. Look it up.
If that is your sole reason, then you've got it backwards I'm afraid. Do you really mean to say that it is more moral to willingly refuse to use something that God has given you for a specific purpose, and less moral to be born incapable, through no fault of yourself, to use it " properly"?
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that chastity is not a violation of natural order.
But such things are part of the "natural order" of things, if such a thing would really exist. They happen naturally, not by the decision or through the fault of the person concerned. If that is immoral, then the natural order (God's Plan) is immoral.
What things?
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that chastity is not a violation of natural order.
That implies the same thing that I was arguing for previously, that we as rational humans don't have to submit to organic functions unless they're necessary for survival. That goes against this "natural order" of yours, since if it was God's plan, we would have to submit to those functions. Not doing so would be disobeying God and thus immoral. Wouldn't it?
What things?
People with a gender or sexual attraction that does not 'match' their physical sex, for example. Although as Fish pointed out, this does not prevent them from procreating, physically speaking. Still, they are born like that and we even see this in animals as previously pointed out, which implies, in your terms, that it is part of God's plan because it's natural.
OK so @Ntech @Boofuss and me had a rather long discussion about this topic in chat yesterday, and it appeared painfully clear that we need to define some terminology in order to advance.
Sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality...)
Sexual orientation is about what type of person you're attracted to, physically or romantically. Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals to the same sex, bisexuals to both sexes, and asexuals to none.
Now, crucially, sexual orientation says nothing about your own sex or gender identity. A homosexual man is still a man, a homosexual woman is still a woman.
Transgenderism
I'll try to cover the basics here, but it's a large term that covers a lot. I'm taking most of it from this article (livescience.com: What Does 'Transgender' Mean?), and I recommend reading it because it's well-written, very recent, and covers a lot more.
Transgenderism is when your gender identity doesn't match your assigned sex.
- Gender identity: This is whether you internally(*) identify as a male or female.
- Assigned sex: The sex one is assigned to at birth or before birth based on physical genitalia and/or chromosomes.
So contrary to sexual orientation, transgenderism is about your own identity. People whose gender identity and assigned sex match (a man in a male body or a woman in a female body) are sometimes also called "cisgender" (the prefixes 'cis' and 'trans' are Latin for 'this side of' and 'the other side of', respectively).
(*) Internally: this was debated yesterday too. It was the point where @Moegreche more or less said 'Good luck with Theory of Mind stuff'. This is a topic of its own and I don't want to spend too much time talking about it here. I just want to say that when we say things like 'internally' or 'mentally', we make reference to one's consciousness. I believe consciousness is a natural biological/neurological phenomenon, you believe it's a spiritual entity/soul. Let's agree to disagree on this.
Bonus:
Intersex
I mentioned intersex in previous posts. It's when one's physical sex (genitalia or chromosomes) is ambiguous at birth, so neither clearly male or female. It's a continuous gradient, not a binary state, and may cover a whole range of reasons. Why mention it here (again)? Because a doctor may decide to assign someone to one sex - and surgically operate on the genitals accordingly - only to have the child later express that it doesn't match how they feel. This is close to transgenderism, but different because it has a different cause.
I read the discussion I think it's a pretty good summary of the operating terms.
Let's see if all parties agree with the reasoning here. Or at least all of it except the internal/Theory of Mind because that's a bit more complex and besides the point really.
@jeffrobin_015
Catfishing usually refers to someone pretending to be someone else online. Sometimes it's a male pretending to be a female (or vice versa), but many times it's someone pretending to be rich, attractive, semi-famous, etc. in order to scam people. A common tactic is for someone to pretend to be a young, attractive person (male or female) in order to get into an online relationship with someone else. They'll then try to scam them by asking for money or trick them into revealing their credit information. So, catfishing isn't really about gender switching--it's just about trying to trick someone.
The conversation in this thread is whether about someone's sexual identity is identical with their gender identity. A proper understanding of these concepts suggests they are distinct. Though the conversation is nearly 2 years old, so you might not find people having too much to say at this point.
@Moegreche I could be wrong, but I assume jeffrobin meant to post this in the Identity Theft thread they created recently, probably got confused by the 'Identity' in both thread's names. Though the other thread's OP is more of a statement than an actual topic of discussion, so there probably won't be many people having something to say about it either, other than tacitly agree. *shrugs*
hey there, havnt been on in ages (in the forums at least) and i had some assignments to do but im lazy so i figured ill randomly get on the forums and see whats up. gonna throw in my own words here:
1) Sex is predefined before birth
not sure what you mean by predefined, but anyway, when doctors assign a sex to a baby, they do so by a long table of criteria they have to meet. if all the female side of the table is checked, the baby is female, same for male. if there is even just one single criteria the baby doesnt meet or meets one that is in the other side of the table, the baby is considered intersexual. the list is incredibly specific and for example talks about the length of the penis of the baby (im not sure if i rememer correctly as if i havnt studied this in a while, but i think that under 3mm it is considered a female). funnily, if you were born with everything male but you were a mm short, you are considered intersexual, even if you grew up to have an average sized penis and seem to be similar to all the other guys.
assigning sex isnt as simple as many people want it to be, and just because it seems simple to you, doesnt mean it is. just because you are a person who is extremely comfortable with the typical identity that is accepted widely by society, doesnt mean that identity is the correct objective identity that other people with a penis should have.
this response is also relevant to your number 2.
3) One's gender must be inline with one's sex, one cannot contradict the other without disrupting the natural order
that is just plain wrong. gender is extremely fluid and changes from person to person, from culture to culture, and from time to time. in fact, the definition of the word itself describes just how subjective and cultural it is.
plus, nobody can say what the natural order is. it is some idealistic term that is used by people who want to build their ideas and opinions as based on science and biology but have no idea how science and biology work.
oversimplifying nature to just reproduction is incredibly arrogant and would probably never be done by any scientist that respects their field. first of all, gender identity doesnt even have to interfere with reproduction. if a guy identifies himself as a lesbian and doesnt feel a need to change their body, they can reproduce with even the woman they love. if its sexuality that you are trying to criticize here, it has been seen countless of times in countless of species. it is very obvious that homosexuality is definitely natural.
if it isnt natural what is it? unnatural? humans created it? humans are participating in it despite not actually wanting it? or is it supernatural and some sort of super power?
the whole "natural" argument is incredibly irrelevant to the topic in itself.
god is also a very weak argument here. not everybody believes in god, you cant prove god (despite of what you think), and even some people who believe in god (like me) would easily disagree with you on your views.
your gender identity (especially if its the typical identity that was established by your culture) is heavily influence by other people and your society, and if you want to call something unnatural, you might as well call all gender identities unnatural (including yours) as they would have been incredibly different in different contexts. what we see as feminine and masculine is heavily influenced by education, language, culture, tastes etc. etc. and the people who identify their gender as "opposite" to their sex, usually have the other typical gender identity which is accepted by their culture. in the end, those people are influenced by their culture just as much as you, they just happened to have a different taste or a different body.
sorry if this thread already reached a conclusion and i just posted an irrelevant wall of texts. good day.
You must be logged in to post a reply!