Why the reasons hating on Gays are dumb and debunked.

[Faust]

2 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

How to be a real man

1. Identify as a man

2. Not be imaginary

Yyyyeah, I think I'm going to say 'have one X and one Y chromosome' myself.

[Vallium]

Just now, Faust said:

Yyyyeah, I think I'm going to say 'have one X and one Y chromosome' myself.

Maybe if you say "What is a male?", as in a true biological male. But that leaves trans people out of the picture, though Even though they dont have the chromosomes/genitals there are other traits of gender such as secondary sex traits that manifest itself

This guy looks pretty dudely

 

Soms people with this chromosome or that genital still have atypical traits for their sex, not to mention physical intersex traits. 

TL;DR If he look like a dude, act like a dude, say he a dude...he probably a dude.

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, Faust said:

Yyyyeah, I think I'm going to say 'have one X and one Y chromosome' myself.

While this works for *most* people, you can get women who have the XY karyotype and are physically female, due to Androgen insensitive syndrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

And you know, I guess trans-men should probably be included as men as well, which is probably why Wolf said 'identify'.

 

[Endless/Nameless]

12 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Somebody who has walked down the right number of roads?

ok, you get a gold star for that one.  ⭐️

[Faust]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

While this works for *most* people, you can get women who have the XY karyotype and are physically female, due to Androgen insensitive syndrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

I had a girlfriend once with either that or a similar condition that caused her to have only a single X chromosome. As they say, all generalisations are dangerous. There will likely be exceptions to any rule you try and make.

In any case, being 'A Man' biologically speaking does not infer 'being superior', to me it's a purely biological moniker. A man who is surgically altered to look like a woman is a surgically altered man, not a woman. That may not be a popular view to some, so let me stress that I do not mean that in any derogatory way.

I guess the point I'm trying to put across here is, labels don't make you happy, or right, or better than anyone else.

(Edit) I was trying to remember where I heard most of that before. Turns out it was Wreck It Ralph.

I totes agree, Zombie dude.

[Jtrekkie]

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

This is wrong. Numerous other near eastern cultures had similar versions of Slavery to the Hebrews and it is possible that this mode of slavery was actually the standard in the near east.

 

I said to compare their law to their neighbors. How can it be wrong? There are similarities throughout the near East because all of them borrowed from the regional law of a defunct empire, similar to how common law works for us. I said to look for where they broke from that, and why. That statement wasn't just about slavery, although the conception of property and debt in ancient Israel wasn't exactly analogous to their immediate neighbors. I would give citations, but I'm out of town and I don't carry books with me.

Also, I haven't said that slavery wasn't wrong, or even that it could be realized with a consistent philosophy. To Faust, the prophets directly condemned Moses for his ethical shortcomings, and his writings are condemned in the Christian NT. The people weren't particularly important, and doubt is welcome.

5 hours ago, Faust said:

Incidentally, the main form of homophobia I've seen in my life is the mistaken belief that being homosexual in some way means you are a weakling and 'not a man'.  Maybe if there were a few more positive, strong and emotionally-balanced gay people in the media this could be alleviated. The common perception unfortunately is created in-the-main by comedy shows that rely upon stereotype for humour.

 

I'm not sure that they created that perception. The idea that gay men were weak and girly has been around long before TV, although comedy may popularize it. If I were to venture a guess, I would say the stereotypes are set by gaggles of tweens in elementary school. Nonconformity as weakness seems to be a common trope for students.

 

 

 

 

[Saxon]

52 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

I said to compare their law to their neighbors. How can it be wrong? There are similarities throughout the near East because all of them borrowed from the regional law of a defunct empire, similar to how common law works for us. I said to look for where they broke from that, and why. That statement wasn't just about slavery, although the conception of property and debt in ancient Israel wasn't exactly analogous to their immediate neighbors. I would give citations, but I'm out of town and I don't carry books with me.

Also, I haven't said that slavery wasn't wrong, or even that it could be realized with a consistent philosophy. To Faust, the prophets directly condemned Moses for his ethical shortcomings, and his writings are condemned in the Christian NT. The people weren't particularly important, and doubt is welcome.

 

I'm not sure that they created that perception. The idea that gay men were weak and girly has been around long before TV, although comedy may popularize it. If I were to venture a guess, I would say the stereotypes are set by gaggles of tweens in elementary school. Nonconformity as weakness seems to be a common trope for students.

 

 

 

 

You said that the Hebrews had a new idea that wasn't found in other Near Eastern societies they were coeval with, but modes of slavery described in other Near Eastern societies weren't much different- it's not as though the Hebrews were affording rights to their slaves that marked them out as clearly more humanitarian than many other comparable cultures. Indeed some slaving cultures were arguably less awful- for example beating Athenian slaves was generally not practiced.

In short, are you sure that Hebrew concepts of slavery were more distinct from the milieu of Near-Eastern societies than any of the other Near-Eastern societies' attitudes already were from one another?

I get the impression that some religious groups want to portray their favourite cultures sympathetically, or study them in more detail and then conclude that more nuance and speciality existed in them than cultures they know less about. It's sort of like when English speakers think that their language is special for having lots of peculiarities and loan words, as if most other languages don't have these too.

[AshleyAshes]

Yeah... We need to ban Nova from starting new threads.

[Silo]

@AshleyAshes

No.

Nova is someone I respect, given that he doesn't seem to have beef with any of the members that are currently here.

Nova doesn't have much control of the environment he's in.

 

 

[Vallium]

21 minutes ago, Silo said:

@AshleyAshes

No.

Nova is someone I respect, given that he doesn't seem to have beef with any of the members that are currently here.

Nova doesn't have much control of the environment he's in.

 

 

I think for the most part that's satire?

As poorly worded as his argument was for an otherwise good cause he meant well, it was also a funny read as usual. Besides that his thread started a whole athetits argubate.

If she meant he should be banned from threadmaking I highly doubt it was a serious suggestion

Doesnt mean I agree with her, I couldnt live in a world without a Nova™ thread :v

[Jtrekkie]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

You said that the Hebrews had a new idea that wasn't found in other Near Eastern societies they were coeval with, but modes of slavery...

 

I get the impression that some groups treat some cultures unsympathetically, even the secular parts, in order to throw dirt on modern religions or the concept of religion in general. That's a normal thing people do, however the preceding should not be treated as a religious discussion, especially considering that it has been affirmed that slavery in practice is more or less the same across cultures. It's generic historical stuff.

I might be helpful to point out that the concept of rights per se is a Western idea (and just a little post hoc.) In the context of ancient Mesopotamian cultures, they are better understood as duties consisting of property rights and generalized civil contracts. If you happened to be a citizen of the late Assyrian or Egyptian Empires, your legal protections were derived from the fact that you belonged to a monarch, tribe, patriarch, or family head. Beyond that, protections existed in the form of contracts. In Hebrew law, a citizen or non-citizen resident could not be owned -at all-, so a different justification was needed. You can find the same problem and a similar solution later in Greece. (Families were still organized under a head, so there's an exception.) So W.N. was correct in his initial assessment. 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Wait, Nova's a boy?

[Saxon]

10 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

I get the impression that some groups treat some cultures unsympathetically, even the secular parts, in order to throw dirt on modern religions or the concept of religion in general. That's a normal thing people do, however the preceding should not be treated as a religious discussion, especially considering that it has been affirmed that slavery in practice is more or less the same across cultures. It's generic historical stuff.

I might be helpful to point out that the concept of rights per se is a Western idea (and just a little post hoc.) In the context of ancient Mesopotamian cultures, they are better understood as duties consisting of property rights and generalized civil contracts. If you happened to be a citizen of the late Assyrian or Egyptian Empires, your legal protections were derived from the fact that you belonged to a monarch, tribe, patriarch, or family head. Beyond that, protections existed in the form of contracts. In Hebrew law, a citizen or non-citizen resident could not be owned -at all-, so a different justification was needed. You can find the same problem and a similar solution later in Greece. (Families were still organized under a head, so there's an exception.) So W.N. was correct in his initial assessment. 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Wait, Nova's a boy?

So I began speaking about slavery in the Bible because Wolfnight said he thought it wasn't 'real slavery' essentially, and evidence demonstrates that claim is wrong.
I am not surprised that people hold this view, because there are lots of Christian and Jewish websites that spread santised representations of slavery in their holy texts, because as Faust mentioned, if they admitted that their God had condoned slavery in any form, they would have to admit that their God doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

I've only responded to your subsequent claim, that slavery did exist in ancient Israel and Judah, but that it was 'not as bad' or fundamentally distinct from neighbouring cultures, because evidence also exists to demonstrate that the claim is wrong. I'm not sure why you claimed that, because you give the impression you know a lot about near-eastern culture. I certainly don't- I just knew enough to spot the mistakes that were made in this thread.

[Zeke]

On 3/7/2017 at 8:16 AM, Socketosis said:

What is a man?

A miserable pile of little secrets.

[Faust]

On 07/03/2017 at 6:04 PM, Jtrekkie said:

I'm not sure that they created that perception. The idea that gay men were weak and girly has been around long before TV, although comedy may popularize it. If I were to venture a guess, I would say the stereotypes are set by gaggles of tweens in elementary school. Nonconformity as weakness seems to be a common trope for students.

Yes, maybe 'Condition' or 'Exacerbate' would be better words.

[Kinuki]

On 5.3.2017 at 11:40 PM, AshleyAshes said:

Nova makes everything sound awful.  Nova could make a post about how starvation is bad which would make you want to throw away all the food in your house and never eat again.

Come on, everybody needs to find their voice. It takes years of experience and practice to hone your rhetorics.

Trying to git gud at discourse should be encouraged.

[MalletFace]

On 3/7/2017 at 10:41 AM, Faust said:

In any case, being 'A Man' biologically speaking does not infer 'being superior', to me it's a purely biological moniker. A man who is surgically altered to look like a woman is a surgically altered man, not a woman. That may not be a popular view to some, so let me stress that I do not mean that in any derogatory way.

While it can seem to be helpful to turn towards a perceived difference in a "biological reality" and a "social reality," this happens to be one source for homophobia that actually impacts several people I know and many persons I do not know. It appears to give us a way to reliably classify people for medical purposes, but it isn't actually possible to separate our practice of biology from our culture. This just gives another social reality that can be used to invalidate identity towards the end of homophobia and transphobia.

I've had to see more than one person in my life break because of hate defended with this idea.

There isn't even a large respected organization in the United States that clearly defines the difference between a "biological reality" and a "social reality" that is based on any research for all cases. They include things in their style guides just to try to standardize things across locations and clearly define things they see as abnormalities, but they are moving away from this because actual research is confirming that biological and social realities cannot be separated in the ways we would like. As this is, it may be both popularly and formally incorrect to hold that view in the near future.

I'm glad and hopeful for that change.

[Faust]

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

While it can seem to be helpful to turn towards a perceived difference in a "biological reality" and a "social reality," this happens to be one source for homophobia that actually impacts several people I know and many persons I do not know. It appears to give us a way to reliably classify people for medical purposes, but it isn't actually possible to separate our practice of biology from our culture.

This is a fault of culture, not biology. I'd disagree that the two cannot be separated, though I agree that in some people without the necessary understanding or who allow themselves to be controlled too much by prejudices and emotions such things can occur. No point blaming science when people are the root cause.

Some people will always find a way to be mean to other people. In many cases the 'reasoning' is irrelevant.

 

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, MalletFace said:

While it can seem to be helpful to turn towards a perceived difference in a "biological reality" and a "social reality," this happens to be one source for homophobia that actually impacts several people I know and many persons I do not know. It appears to give us a way to reliably classify people for medical purposes, but it isn't actually possible to separate our practice of biology from our culture. This just gives another social reality that can be used to invalidate identity towards the end of homophobia and transphobia.

I've had to see more than one person in my life break because of hate defended with this idea.

There isn't even a large respected organization in the United States that clearly defines the difference between a "biological reality" and a "social reality" that is based on any research for all cases. They include things in their style guides just to try to standardize things across locations and clearly define things they see as abnormalities, but they are moving away from this because actual research is confirming that biological and social realities cannot be separated in the ways we would like. As this is, it may be both popularly and formally incorrect to hold that view in the near future.

I'm glad and hopeful for that change.

Could you cite the research please? I find the claim's wording confusing, because 'ways we would like' is a subjective impetus that is itself based on our social conception of the world around us- it will differ significantly depending on which culture you live in.

That said, I can definitely see why calling a transexual man a 'surgically altered woman, rather than a biological man' connotes inferiority by implying the transexual's sex is inauthentic, even though I would agree with Faust that there's no good reason it should, because neither definition entails an intrinsic sense of superiority or inferiority.

I guess this is because usually the only people who would bother pointing out the difference in a social context are nasty people who are looking for a reason to label people they don't like as inauthentic- so they will seize upon scientific language which they can contort to support their hatred. :\

In a way I wonder whether there is even a way to stop that, because however careful a scientist is to avoid implicit value judgements, I've spoken to enough people who will deliberately quote scientific literature out of context, even going as far as reversing the meaning entirely.
I'm also worried that, if scientists concede that certain scientific vocabulary is widely perceived as connoting an implicit value judgement, like the word 'disorder' to describe autism for example, that removing contentious terms from this categorisation will both muddle science- because the removal of contentious terms *is definitely a value judgement* and because it will give nasty people more reason to believe that the implicit value judgement in words like 'disorder' is a credible judgement, and that scientists are only refraining from it to avoid embarrassment.

I'm not sure what the answer to that is, would like to hear your and faust's perspectives.

[Faust]

47 minutes ago, Saxon said:

That said, I can definitely see why calling a transexual man a 'surgically altered woman, rather than a biological man' connotes inferiority by implying the transexual's sex is inauthentic, even though I would agree with Faust that there's no good reason it should, because neither definition entails an intrinsic sense of superiority or inferiority.

Indeed, on a similar but almost inverted note, men are considered by some scientists to be genetically deficient women - that's why we have nipples - and white people as genetically deficient black people, and yet the general thrust of sexism and racism is more inflected with white male superiority. Of course one has to be careful with such terms as 'deficient'. ( @Saxon afraid I don't have the research for this - my source was an episode of QI which is pretty reliable )

[Snagged]

3 hours ago, Faust said:

and yet the general thrust of sexism and racism is more inflected with white male superiority

It is difficult to weed out old historical values that have rooted deep in our society and still passed on by generations 

Good news is that with each generation, these values will fade over time. We might even see movements like black or Asian superiority pick go in motion somewhere in the future as countries with predominantly these types of populations will become power players on a global scale, much like the western countries did during the era of industrialization. We still have even laws established coming from that age, such as in US the right to carry guns, which would be very debatable whether that is needed in today's society (don't let this derail, I was showing just an example) 

All in all, if phenomenon of globalization keeps on going, I do hope all of our cultures will change accordingly to be very tolerant of every other culture, race and gender (yes, even the ones outside of the male and female) 

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, Faust said:

Indeed, on a similar but almost inverted note, men are considered by some scientists to be genetically deficient women - that's why we have nipples - and white people as genetically deficient black people, and yet the general thrust of sexism and racism is more inflected with white male superiority. Of course one has to be careful with such terms as 'deficient'. ( @Saxon afraid I don't have the research for this - my source was an episode of QI which is pretty reliable )

So I know you said that these were QI claims, but I feel compelled to take them apart anyway, so bear with me.
I don't think the idea that men retain nipples because they are a genetically deficient version of woman makes any sense, because the male and female sexes existed long before nipples evolved.
A coherent hypothesis is that nipples evolved in the common ancestor of Metatherian and Eutherian mammals and are present in both sexes because of strong evolutionary selection in favour of the presence of nipples in females and minimal evolutionary selection against their presence in males.

I also don't think any race can be described as 'genetically deficient black people'. Africans are the most genetically diverse population, and All human races share a common African ancestor, and were likely initially less diverse than that ancestor because of the founder effect, because any sub-sample of a diverse population will be likely to be slightly less diverse than the whole population.
The genetic diversity of different human populations probably only reflects the amount of time that has passed since their dispersal from Africa, and since Africans stayed in Africa, they've had the greatest amount of time to accumulate new genetic variants.

 

[Faust]

43 minutes ago, Saxon said:

So I know you said that these were QI claims, but I feel compelled to take them apart anyway, so bear with me.
I don't think the idea that men retain nipples because they are a genetically deficient version of woman makes any sense, because the male and female sexes existed long before nipples evolved.

I'm actually not a big fan of either theory. In this specific case I think there is more evidence for the presence of 'dugs', that is to say minimal functional breasts, in the male of the species in very early hominids. Certainly it is known that in some mammals the male of the species can exhibit lactation; this is a known zoological fact.

However what I don't know, and the reason I'd like to see the research that made the claim myself too, is what they mean by 'deficient'. I don't think they mean that at one point there were females with breasts, then men evolved from them - as you say, that doesn't make sense. I think it means that there is a genetic difference between men and women now which causes breasts not to develop (usually...) in males, though the gene codes that determine the ownership of nipples  is in a shared gene for some reason. I mean let's face it, the booby is really not much more than an overgrown sweat gland (case in point, the duck-billed platypus, which has no nipples but sweats milk to nourish its young.)

Sexual dimorphism is interesting.

[Saxon]

25 minutes ago, Faust said:

I'm actually not a big fan of either theory. In this specific case I think there is more evidence for the presence of 'dugs', that is to say minimal functional breasts, in the male of the species in very early hominids. Certainly it is known that in some mammals the male of the species can exhibit lactation; this is a known zoological fact.

However what I don't know, and the reason I'd like to see the research that made the claim myself too, is what they mean by 'deficient'. I don't think they mean that at one point there were females with breasts, then men evolved from them - as you say, that doesn't make sense. I think it means that there is a genetic difference between men and women now which causes breasts not to develop (usually...) in males, though the gene codes that determine the ownership of nipples  is in a shared gene for some reason. I mean let's face it, the booby is really not much more than an overgrown sweat gland (case in point, the duck-billed platypus, which has no nipples but sweats milk to nourish its young.)

Sexual dimorphism is interesting.

Nipples are present in marsupial/methatherian animals, so the question about how nipples evolved should be specific to the extinct animals that are more closely related to the common ancestor of marsupial and placental mammals (therians) than to monotrematic mammals like the platypus or echidna that you mentioned. 
Only female monotremes exhibit routine lactation, so the nipple probably evolved as an elabouration of the mammary gland and milk delivery structure that existed in female therian ancestors.
This would require the nipple's evolution to be driven by positive selection in female therian ancestors. The manifestation of a useless nipple in male therian ancestors wouldn't have presented any large impediment to survival, so there was no reason to get rid of them and this is why male mammals with therian ancestry retain nipples to this day.
Adaptive male lactation, where males nurse the offspring, is only present in a couple of male species and I'm willing to bet that this is a subsequent specialisation, rather than retention of a primitive condition.

My guess is that no researcher claims that male animals are a genetically deficient derivative of females animals; the elabouration of structures homologous to both sexes by sex-specific hormones neither requires or implies that, especially since these sex-specific elabourations are specific to just one highly derived group of the many animals that have sexual reproduction.

[Faust]

Mm, my money is still on a potential semantic difference in the use of the word 'deficient'. Wish I knew where the quote came from originally.

[AshleyAshes]

Look at yourselves!  You are arguing about nipples!

[Saxon]

10 minutes ago, Faust said:

Mm, my money is still on a potential semantic difference in the use of the word 'deficient'. Wish I knew where the quote came from originally.

I've tried searching for this term, but everything I found described genetic disorders.

I found this though, which was interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha-reductase_deficiency

Human males who have ambiguous under developed genitals that appear female at birth. The external male genitals subsequently develop as an elabouration of these tissues during puberty, but the development is often incomplete and they are often infertile even if their sperm are viable.

So this is an example of the male penis developing from a smaller seed of homologous tissue, like the female breasts grow from a smaller seed of homologous mammary and nipple tissue that is shared between the sexes.

 

Look at yourselves!  You are arguing about nipples!

 

We are having a gentlemanly discussion about a wondrous mystery. :V

[Faust]

34 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Look at yourselves!  You are arguing about nipples!

Reasoned argument is good, it brings people's views closer together. Arguing only proves problematic when people refuse to observe and discuss the views of others. That's happily a problem I don't think I've ever seen here

[Endless/Nameless]

how'd you make a thread about gay so fucking gay

[Vallium]

2 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

how'd you make a thread about gay so fucking gay

Well nipples are pretty gay