How do you know they are all guys since on the internet nobody knows your a dog?
Meow!
How do you know they are all guys since on the internet nobody knows your a dog?
Your understanding is outdated.Hehe!
I had heard about hermaphrodites, but i never heard about gender neutral mammals. barbie and kent dolls not included... They are missing some really important parts and without it, they are just man, and woman like but neither...
Now?that's gender neutrality.
Your understanding is outdated.
'Sexual dysphoria', as referenced by the poster you replied to, is not a term I've heard of. 'Gender dysphoria', on the other hand, is the medical term describing a mismatch or conflict between the gender that's assigned to someone at birth based on their apparent physical sexual characteristics (as in, "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!"), and the gender they feel they should have been assigned based on their own 'brain sex' - their psychological sense of their own sexual makeup. Gender dysphoria is also sometimes referred to as 'gender incongruence'.
Hermaphroditism - more properly referred to as 'intersex' in reference to humans - is not the same thing as gender dysphoria, though there can be overlap for fairly obvious reasons. A person who is born with some trace of both male and female sexual organs is referred to as intersex (hermaphroditism being an old term drawn from the names of the Greek gods Hermes and Aphrodite), and it's been common practice for a long time for medical staff to take it on themselves to 'correct' the 'error' before the child is old enough to make the decision for themselves, because until recently society has only had a binary understanding of gender. If the child's 'brain sex' doesn't align with the decision, and corresponding 'correction', made by medical staff then the child may well grow up experiencing gender dysphoria.
Intersex people are not necessarily missing any parts, but in fact have more than is conventionally expected.
As for gender-neutral mammals - by which I'm assuming you mean non-human mammals - since gender is a human social structure it's meaningless to try to apply our understanding of it to them. In the sense that our gender models simply don't apply to them, it could be said that all animals are gender-neutral.
Additionally, since humans are humans and non-humans are not the same, it's meaningless to judge almost any human behavioural trait by reference to other species. Many anti-LGBT campaigners claim that since animals do not exhibit homosexual or bisexual behaviours then it's not natural for humans to do so. (This ignores the fact that animals certainly do exhibit such behaviours, as well as asexual behaviour.)
Hm, I'm sorry. I mostly wanted to defend you on the 'simple'/'complex' front, while acknowledging that something in what you said did come off like it could be a... ack, now I see why people end up saying 'problematic' a lot.Actually it tends to be another woman, and in the story I'm writing, the main character wears the pants so to speak. I forgot to include that detail. And the rough backstory is also because my life hasn't exactly been all sunshine and rainbows, so it's easier for me to think of a character's life being rough is all. Plus I have seen a therapist, though for social anxiety (from bullying), and she saw nothing wrong with that idea.
Edit: to expand a bit on the messed up character thing, I'm sure you've heard of a concept called "write what you know". Well, I know what it's like to have your life suck, so it comes easily to me to write that (also, as my therapist pointed out, it's also kind of therapeutic writing about people with lives that sucked, and having them, find happiness down the road).
My apologies if I gave that impression. In that case my wording was careless.Oooohhhhhh kaaaaayyyy....
Edit; So... You saying i'm a man because i think i'm a man, and not because my manly parts?
Bottlenose dolphins. Definitely not gender neutral.
Good, informative post nonetheless.
My apologies if I gave that impression. In that case my wording was careless.
No, I would say you're a man if that's what you are. For transgender people - those with gender dysphoria - it's not about what they 'think' or 'believe'. It's about what they are, just as it is for you. But in their case, what they are isn't what society has deemed them to be, generally based on the presence of certain physical sexual features.
You think women are sexual objects, gotcha!
which they absolutely are, just like men. we are sexual animals, didn't you hear?
Nature, unfortunately, is the problem. Since nature creates a psychological self-image not consistent with the physical characteristics.You can't think you are a woman if nature not agree with you
You're right, it doesn't. And that's why transgender people have to go through so much in order to make the changes that nature, in all its imperfection, isn't going to make for them.Edit; overall? It does not matter what you think what you or the world are, what's given is given. The world does not turns into a disk just because you are a flattard, and neither your gender going to change because you think you something else...
At least I assume they are guys, with cmdr names like John, James etc.
I don't think it's sick at all. Because he also says: "For example, I think my wife is hot but I also have a great deal of respect for her other qualities, including personality traits and raw inteligence"
What Ozram is describing here is sexual attraction, and not in fact objectification despite what he goes on to say. <snip>
<-- feministOnly we unlike feminists does not making a problem out of it, because unlike them we think and know sexuality, is natural.
but my choice of avatar in my own game and my reasons are my business, you are blowing this out of proportion and this kind of political correctness zeal doesn't help the cause a bit.
we are sexual animals, didn't you hear?
This thread is definitely off-topic enough that a moderator would be well within their right to close it, but:Lord are you lot still on this
This thread is definitely off-topic enough that a moderator would be well within their right to close it, but:
1. Gender theory is a pretty important/interesting topic (important full stop, interesting for a lot of people);
2. This is actually a surprisingly civil discussion of it, for the Internet. It's way better than talking about docking computers. : )
<-- feminist
<-- not making a problem out of it
The definition of 'objectify' has got a bit unclear. znôrt's last post is totally feminist friendly. The feminist problem with objectification is when it has Nerwan's quoted "more broadly" meaning: "treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity."
But "treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure"? Good god that's normal. Many a het female feminist has looked at a guy's hand and seen an instrument of sexual pleasure.
well can't you all call each other gay without it being connected to the game