There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this rule. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

 

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not).

 

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

Tyrranosaurs have a brief and violent mating ritual, where the larger, more powerful female will sometimes attack the male afterwards, and will not hesitate to kill him if he remains on her territory. She then raises the eggs she produces, guarding them vigilantly, and feeds her young until they reach the point, which is fairly soon, that she can leave them to their own defenses. After this, she may become one of the biggest threats to her own young.

 

If we're talking biological gender roles, reptiles kinda throw a chink into your armor there. Females tend to be larger and more aggressive, and not even all mammals conform to your view; lionesses are the "breadwinners" of their prides.

 

Don't try to take the middleman position, because that IS the "no-action" side; to say each has their merits is aiding in the institutional oppression of the groups that ARE affected, and panders to people who AREN'T.

To recount what I said, I said that "there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender". To some degree, there is a similarity between gender roles in 'species groups' like mammals or reptiles. They may differ, even drastically, from group-to-group, but within the species or group itself there are indeed distinct traits.

I don't have 'no position' - my position is that I support civil unions and I support the right of people to live their life whatever way they want, without government intrusion. I also support the right of states to determine what benefits they will provide as part of their own tax codes as well as for legal purposes. If that comes off as being 'in the middle', it pretty much is. Obviously this whole conversation isn't going anywhere, though, so I'm not going to continue here.

im male to female transgender, what biological gender roles define me?

im male to female transgender, what biological gender roles define me?

ditto

 

im male to female transgender, what biological gender roles define me?

ditto

#same

im male to female transgender, what biological gender roles define me?

Well, I've said that "There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role."

So really, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not too knowledgeable on transgenderism in general. I do know there are biological examples of transgenderism, however, like the clownfish (I've heard this is somewhat common in fish in general) so it isn't unprecedented among other species.

 

So really, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not too knowledgeable on transgenderism in general.

So I'm wrong for admitting I don't know everything?

Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

Well, you're wrong for demonstrating you don't know everything prior to admitting it.

NEVERMIND I'M NOT GETTING INVOLVED god I'm an addict....

There is a difference between trans* individuals and sequential hermaphrodites, dude. One is a transformation by an animal to fulfill a reproductive need, and the other is being trans*.

 

im male to female transgender, what biological gender roles define me?

 

Well, I've said that "There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role."

 

So really, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not too knowledgeable on transgenderism in general. I do know there are biological examples of transgenderism, however, like the clownfish (I've heard this is somewhat common in fish in general) so it isn't unprecedented among other species.

human transgenderism has nothing to do with clownfish

you're right in saying you're not a scientist because any scientist would probably be able to tell you that humans don't have biologically assigned gender roles

the tendency you note is societal, not biological, and is part of the institutionalized sexism in our society.

I'm surprised you can still talk with how far youve shoved your foot in your mouth.

Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

So what you mean is that animals are sometimes typical of established gender roles but not always and that we should carry over these gender roles - or not, if they don't apply - to humanity, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there's no way that they could handle one of them going out to work and one staying home to look after their kid because they're both men and are programmed to only survive the gender roles that may - or may not - be established already.

That WOULD explain why transgender people spontaneously combust once they've changed their gender. Their brains can't handle going against the programming they do - or don't - have. BUT HEY I'm no scientist, so I'm entitled to spout complete nonsense and still expect to be taken seriously.

 

Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

So what you mean is that animals are sometimes typical of established gender roles but not always and that we should carry over these gender roles - or not, if they don't apply - to humanity, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there's no way that they could handle one of them going out to work and one staying home to look after their kid because they're both men and are programmed to only survive the gender roles that may - or may not - be established already.

 

That WOULD explain why transgender people spontaneously combust once they've changed their gender. Their brains can't handle going against the programming they do - or don't - have.

No. There are observed gender roles in particular species of animals. Humans are a species of animal. Therefore, there just might be gender roles in humans.

One could go further and say that particular groups of species often have similar biological and behavioral traits (both evolutionists and creationists agree with this, for different reasons). Therefore, members of that group of species might have similar traits. Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, just like there are exceptions to nature like the Platypus or the Echidna, but exceptions are not the rule. You can take that whatever way you want.

 

 

Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

So what you mean is that animals are sometimes typical of established gender roles but not always and that we should carry over these gender roles - or not, if they don't apply - to humanity, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there's no way that they could handle one of them going out to work and one staying home to look after their kid because they're both men and are programmed to only survive the gender roles that may - or may not - be established already.

 

That WOULD explain why transgender people spontaneously combust once they've changed their gender. Their brains can't handle going against the programming they do - or don't - have.

 

No. There are observed gender roles in particular species of animals. Humans are a species of animal. Therefore, there just might be gender roles in humans.

 

One could go further and say that particular groups of species often have similar biological and behavioral traits (both evolutionists and creationists agree with this, for different reasons). Therefore, members of that group of species might have similar traits. Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, just like there are exceptions to nature like the Platypus or the Echidna, but exceptions are not the rule.

Doesn't there BEING exceptions suggest that there IS no rule? So, for you to base your argument on a rule is stupid because, as you've just said, there isn't a rule.

Wait, when did this go from being about marriage equality to comparing transgendered people to fish?

and this is your argument against same sex marriage??? some animals act differently than others so i should restrict peoples rights??

I think you're confusing gender and sex, as well as societal and natural constructs, dude.

just a heads up everybody let's try to make sure we all stay chill plz

like idc if this discussion continues, in fact I find it very interesting but I'd rather it not get to the point that the staff gotta come in and hand people their butts for the millionth time

so at least try to pretend to be nice here, there are other places we can be relentlessly sassy

and this is your argument against same sex marriage??? some animals act differently than others so i should restrict peoples rights??

 

 

I thought this was a discussion on gender roles (or lack thereof), not same-sex marriage. I've never once made an argument here for or against same-sex marriage.

Regardless I echo Ryuujin here. Can we calm down here a bit?

i have no idea how you got to gender roles in a blog post about marriage equality dude

i have no idea how you got to gender roles in a blog post about marriage equality dude

The post that sparked this whole thing was Fisher94's, which was about gender roles.

so pretty much all those posts and stuff was useless cause it had nothing to do with what the blog post is about

i gotcha

ya had me confused for a moment there

so yeah back on topic

woo yah marriage equality two consenting adults spending their lives together woooo ======

\m/

yeah sorry i got so distracted changing my banner and avatar the original idea got away from me

one step toward equality being worked on woooo

I know I'm not the normal blog guy, but Mak's having phone troubles, so to quote my gigantic friend:

"Conversation stops now. Since it has been established we aren't capable of having a rational discussion on this matter,failure to heed this warning gets proto drops."

BZPower explicitly condones equality on BZPower for all, regardless of sexual identity, and we condone and bless the expression thereof. We do not tolerate intolerance or bigotry. There is no rational argument for actions against people who do not fit into society's heteronormative framework. It will stop.

It shouldn't have started.

If you are against LBGQT rights, you are against the tide of history, you are probably homophobic, most likely sexist, and you may not even realize that. Regardless, you are wrong. This is the stance of the BZPower administration as it pertains to BZPower.

Also, comments saying "this is sexist" are not name-calling. They are accurate labels. You don't like being called sexist or homophobic of bigoted? Then stop being sexist, homophobic, or bigoted. It's that simple. Until that point, if those labels are accurate, then they are being used appropriately, and to decry their use is an attempt to soften the inappropriateness of the views they label.

Because they are inappropriate. And they are not okay. They are immoral, cruel, and vile.

And they are not tolerated on BZPower.

You don't approve of LBGQT persons?

Too bad.

Entry locked. Further discussion will warrant proto drops.

On an additional note, the Human Rights Campaign is a political activist group. Marriage equality is currently a Supreme Court case which is a political issue. As political discussion is not allowed on this site, discussion of the group and the case, as well as the use of the HRC logo is prohibited.

I appreciate that members want to support a cause and show their support, but BZPower is not the place. I think this entry showed that pretty clearly.