# Do you think gender in society should be removed?



## Thaeh (Jun 13, 2011)

No I'm not saying that we all should be genderless, I'm talking about not having gender specific sociel rules and behaviors. Such as the bathroom, clothing, ideals, way one acts, etc. I know this question might sound inappropriate but I'm just looking upon people's opinion on this.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 13, 2011)

No, I think the way we have it right now is fine. What we need to get rid of is sexism in jobs.. like male nurses and whatnot

I think the bathroom n whatnot is fine because if it wasn't, nothing would stop men from creeping into women's bathrooms and vice-versa.
I think people should be able to wear what they want as well.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 13, 2011)

Do you realize that you have just opened the gates of Hell upon FAF?

Also, I think there needs to be some kind of gender distinction.  As politically incorrect as it is, there are 2 dominant genders.  While things can be done for those who don't fall in said genders, I think that the structure around 2 dominant genders is the most stable we have at the moment.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 13, 2011)

This thread is dumb. I would know. I have made dumb threads before.


----------



## Thaeh (Jun 13, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Do you realize that you have just opened the gates of Hell upon FAF?


 
Why do you think I made this thread?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 13, 2011)

I think a man should be able to whip his dick out at the public pool without being attacked and kicked out for being male. its very embarassing and hurts my feelings


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 13, 2011)

I think we should all be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent beings made of pure energy and forget the limitations of current society and look towards the infinite universe.


----------



## Thaeh (Jun 13, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I think we should all be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent beings made of pure energy and forget the limitations of current society and look towards the infinite universe.


 
Imagine exploring the universe for eternity...


----------



## Xenke (Jun 13, 2011)

I fucking hate thread topic trends on FAF.


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 13, 2011)

Thaeh said:


> Imagine exploring the universe for eternity...


 
*brain explodes, bits and pieces flying all over the room splattering on every surface that physics will allow*


----------



## Belluavir (Jun 13, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I think we should all be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent beings made of pure energy and forget the limitations of current society and look towards the infinite universe.



Can you have consciousness without matter? Consciousness without matter and energy = contradiction is a anti-god argument I like sometimes, but I never thought of consciousness with only energy. Oh well, it's probably bullshit too.

No gender shouldn't be removed, because then it wouldn't be hot to wear women's underwear.


----------



## Smelge (Jun 13, 2011)

I think all the males in society should be removed, leaving just me.

Then I should be able to get a date.


----------



## Querk (Jun 13, 2011)

i'm against it if it could potentially confuse the hell out of aliens visiting earth

they could be like "all these men wearing bras what is this enjoy being alone in the universe, humans"


----------



## Belluavir (Jun 13, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No, I think the way we have it right now is fine. What we need to get rid of is sexism in jobs.. like male nurses and whatnot
> 
> I think the bathroom n whatnot is fine because if it wasn't, nothing would stop men from creeping into women's bathrooms and vice-versa.
> I think people should be able to wear what they want as well.



Yeah because guys don't fuck and solicite each other in restrooms, especially not politicians! That's unprecedented.

I used to wonder what the point of having the male and female seperate toilets but then I remembered going to places like Disney World and Universal Studios where there would be lines outside of the female restrooms. Women generally take significantly longer than males and it wouldn't be fair for all the toilets to get clogged up with women taking forever.


----------



## RedSavage (Jun 13, 2011)

There's bad movies, and then there's Uwe Boll movies. 

There's bad threads, and then there's THIS thread.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 13, 2011)

I think gender threads should be removed from FAF.


----------



## Heliophobic (Jun 13, 2011)

Thaeh said:


> No I'm not saying that we all should be genderless, I'm talking about not having gender specific sociel rules and behaviors. Such as the bathroom, clothing, ideals, way one acts, etc. I know this question might sound inappropriate but I'm just looking upon people's opinion on this.


 
Yes. And while we're at it, why not remove racism as well?

:I


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 13, 2011)

I am perfectly happy with being in a different bathroom. Also: some "gender-specific" clothing exists for a reason. 

Women do not need flys. 

Men do not need bras.


----------



## ShadowEon (Jun 13, 2011)

Not really,no.  I would appreciate if out-right sexism decreased though.


----------



## Mentova (Jun 13, 2011)

Gender? No. Gender roles however? Yes.


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (Jun 13, 2011)

As much as I'd LOVE to be part of a completely androgynous human race... it's not fucking possible. I would like to see gender roles shattered though, that's at least feasible...


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 13, 2011)

Eh. Some things work better with one gender than another. Men, for example, cannot breastfeed.


----------



## Heimdal (Jun 13, 2011)

Lets ask a bunch of weird furries what they think about removing a social construct that they've mostly only thought about in a superficial hippy way. This is the best form of research.


----------



## Ilayas (Jun 13, 2011)

Thaeh said:


> No I'm not saying that we all should be genderless, I'm talking about not having gender specific sociel rules and behaviors. Such as the bathroom, clothing, ideals, way one acts, etc. I know this question might sound inappropriate but I'm just looking upon people's opinion on this.



Soooooooo what role would gender play in this society?   

Also it's spelled societal.


----------



## Azure (Jun 13, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Eh. Some things work better with one gender than another. Men, for example, cannot breastfeed.


 But do they support public breastfeeding yet? I vote yes :V


----------



## Namba (Jun 13, 2011)

Get rid of gender in society if you want, but I'm still gonna have a penis.


----------



## Bliss (Jun 14, 2011)

Yup/sorta/kinda! I hope that someday we will be able to have the same rights, responsibilities and possibilities regardless of our sex and gender. That is a continuous fight.



luti-kriss said:


> Get rid of gender in society if you want, but I'm still gonna have a penis.


Those pesky feminists shall make you to hand it over to the government. :V


----------



## Namba (Jun 14, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Those pesky feminists shall make you to hand it over to the government. :V


 
Since when does the government deserve one???


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 14, 2011)

luti-kriss said:


> Since when does the government deserve one???


 
They certainly don't seem to have a problem fucking everything without one. 

*HIYOOOO!!!  *


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jun 14, 2011)

It has worked pretty well os far, why change it?


----------



## Namba (Jun 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> They certainly don't seem to have a problem fucking everything without one.
> 
> *HIYOOOO!!!  *


 
Nice.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 14, 2011)

I can't wait for the TG brigade to get here and rant about how gender norms in society are the worst thing to ever happen to anyone.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 14, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> It has worked pretty well os far, why change it?


 
Inb4slavery.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jun 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Inb4slavery.


So we must free the men


----------



## Bliss (Jun 14, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> It has worked pretty well os far, why change it?


 O'rly?


----------



## Billythe44th (Jun 14, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> I can't wait for the TG brigade to get here and rant about how gender norms in society are the worst thing to ever happen to anyone.


 
They've militarized? I can't imagine the hormone therapy mixing with basic training very well.

But seriously, we should probably stop ingraining gender roles into our children at a young age. Stupid girl's toys and their stupid gender stereotypes.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 14, 2011)

Yes gender should be eliminated.  Sexual dimorphism should be the only thing separating men and women. The only differences between male and female behaviors should be related to biological differences.  If we start assigning arbitrary behavior expectations like "being better at math" or "being more emotional" or "being more aggressive" we'll end up with sexism and sexual conflict.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 14, 2011)

Spatel said:


> ....biological differences....arbitrary behavior..."being more emotional" or "being more aggressive"


 One of these phrases doesn't belong and is completely wrong. 

Hint: it starts with an a.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Jun 14, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Yes gender should be eliminated.  Sexual dimorphism should be the only thing separating men and women. The only differences between male and female behaviors should be related to biological differences.  If we start assigning arbitrary behavior expectations like "being better at math" or "being more emotional" or "being more aggressive" we'll end up with sexism and sexual conflict.


 
Well many of the biological differences _are_ what make some of these 'expectations' like women talking more and men being better at direction. Those aren't just simply societal expectations, there's actual biology behind those and many others.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 14, 2011)

I am fascinated in hearing more about this amazing technology that can wipe the minds of entire continents of a specific thing, please do elaborate more!


----------



## Itakirie (Jun 14, 2011)

Meh. Mostly no, although some things, yes.

But then again, those things are pretty much just stereotypes, so I guess no.


----------



## Valdin (Jun 14, 2011)

Thaeh said:


> No I'm not saying that we all should be genderless, I'm talking about not having gender specific sociel rules and behaviors. Such as the bathroom, clothing, ideals, way one acts, etc. I know this question might sound inappropriate but I'm just looking upon people's opinion on this.


 Meh. I'm bi, so it wouldn't bother me if gender specificity was removed. It would certainly make non-heterosexuality much simpler.

Gender-based criteria and stereotypes for jobs, etc. is something I really think we should get rid of.

It aso gets to me sometimes how we have to line up according to grade and gender at school. Sorting by grade is understandable, 'cause that's practical, but why the hell do they sort us by gender?? And the two genders have different standards of hair length, hair style and dressing code (the girls' pants don't even have pockets - well, the pockets are there, but their stiched shut (wtf o_0)).


----------



## Heliophobic (Jun 14, 2011)

Bloodshot_Eyes said:


> As much as I'd LOVE to be part of a completely androgynous human race... it's not fucking possible.


 
It is possible. We just need a shit load of cyanide chambers.

That's not funny.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Belluavir said:


> Yeah because guys don't fuck and solicite each other in restrooms, especially not politicians! That's unprecedented.



Let me tell you something
Soliciting boys in the family restroom of a public pool doesn't go well. I got kicked out by a hot lifeguard.



Unsilenced said:


> I am perfectly happy with being in a different bathroom. Also: some "gender-specific" clothing exists for a reason.
> 
> Women do not need flys.
> 
> Men do not need bras.


 
One time my bff made me put on a garter belt + stockings and let me just say, I support us being able to wear what the hell we want cause that air felt damn good


----------



## TreacleFox (Jun 14, 2011)

Society just needs to tune it down. :L


----------



## Tabasco (Jun 14, 2011)

Removed? No. Less bullshit shoved down peopleâ€™s throats because of it? Yes.

A choice between the two? Androgyny for all!

I was miserable most of my life until I started ignoring it. It's not for everyone, and a lot of other people who aren't yet ignoring it are probably still miserable, and even those who are can get a lot of shit even for disobeying rules and traditions that no longer (if they ever did) serve any actual purpose.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

if my dad ever told me I couldn't wear something I'd slap him

jk i love my dad but I would still slap him
jk i wouldnt but id still wear what i want


----------



## moriko (Jun 14, 2011)

Bit of A, bit of B. Gender does play a much bigger role than it needs to in our society, but there will always be differences between sexes.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Jun 14, 2011)

@OP

You want to 'remove' gender from society. Ok, but what the hell are you going to replace it with?

If we can get around the notion that "Only men can do that." or "Only women can do that.", I think we'll be fine.

The issue of Trans folk is the whole Pre/post op thing. Pre ops still are the gender they're born with, so it's awkward as hell to use, say the ladies room, if you still have a wang (or vice versa.)

The implication of just 'removing' gender isn't feasible, as there's no easy solution here. It's nice to say "Well, anyone can do everything; be they man or woman", but as Rilvor pointed out; you're not going to get everyone to go along with it.

I really would like a world where people didn't give a shit if you're a straight guy working in a hair salon. Or a woman working a barber's shop.

I really would like a world where I, as a gay man, am accepted and not torn apart by effeminate men for liking other masculine men only.

But gender is going to stay, regardless of what we want. We only have to try and work out the issues as we go.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Gender is an important thing in our society. We identify ourselves using gender, and thus gender becomes an identity, a way of categorizing and defining ourselves. For instance I sould say "I am Jenna" which is true, but I could also say "I am a woman" which is also true. Gender as an identity is deeply rooted in our culture and goes beyond our sexual organs to the ways we interact and perceive the world. Blankly slating out all gender would create chaos and leave holes in our language, our culture, and our identities.

For instance, gender is important in language for clarifying and communicating. many languages have genderized words, "le" and "la", and differences in these words add to the complexity and the beauty of human interaction and communication. For instance we could say "They know it" or "It knows it". But that is vague, who is they, what is it? Is it/they one or more people? But if you were to say, "She knows it" it is far less vague and greatly narrows down the field of who the pronoun refers to. This clarification is important, imagine never being able to clarify things like that, how long it would take you to work out loops of words to circle around the point without being able to say it. 

Now though there are some points where gender nuetrality is important and we need to work on these points as a society, because we are not there yet. Gender should not be important in laws. For instance "Women's Children and Infants" (WIC) doesn't cover single parenting men in financial need. This is wholly unfair and gender biased. Our society needs to adapt laws that are completely gender-free to ensure equality of our citizens. Cases in point are when men are raped, when men are sexually harassed, laws on controlling and narrowing contraception choices for women, etc.

It's also more than the basic laws, this needs to change in the work force. I can't tell you how many amazing welders I know are women who though better and more qualified cannot get a job in a "male" industry. Or politicians, so very few are women, and though our government is to represent their constituency the overwhelming majority is men and this does not represent the half of the nation that is female. But then this bias happens against male teachers and nurses too. How many of you know of male pre-school teachers? I can't think of one. Why? Because a man working with small children, doing "women's work" is a pedophile in our culture. A woman working in heavy industry is a dyke. We degrade the gender of people who perform job occupations outside of our social misconceptions and gender roles.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Jun 14, 2011)

I love when people write essays for threads.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> Gender is an important thing in our society. We identify ourselves using gender, and thus gender becomes an identity, a way of categorizing and defining ourselves. For instance I sould say "I am Jenna" which is true, but I could also say "I am a woman" which is also true. Gender as an identity is deeply rooted in our culture and goes beyond our sexual organs to the ways we interact and perceive the world. Blankly slating out all gender would create chaos and leave holes in our language, our culture, and our identities.
> 
> For instance, gender is important in language for clarifying and communicating. many languages have genderized words, "le" and "la", and differences in these words add to the complexity and the beauty of human interaction and communication. For instance we could say "They know it" or "It knows it". But that is vague, who is they, what is it? Is it/they one or more people? But if you were to say, "She knows it" it is far less vague and greatly narrows down the field of who the pronoun refers to. This clarification is important, imagine never being able to clarify things like that, how long it would take you to work out loops of words to circle around the point without being able to say it.
> 
> ...



Pretty much what I was trying to say. (How are you so good at this? D:


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 14, 2011)

Gender? No.
Gender roles? Yes.


----------



## VoidBat (Jun 14, 2011)

No.
Why? Because people would flip their shit. We know that some things here in life are for certain. Life and death, male and female etc etc. You don't shake the very foundation that you and many others are standing on, that's stupid. In the end it's just another provoking thought, used to stir up dust in hopes that it will actually create some kind of meager debate. Come back when you've learned how to seperate life from death. What, it's impossible? I guess that's also the answer to this thread's question as well.

I suggest more focus should be aimed at gender roles instead, as many posters before me have stated.


----------



## Heimdal (Jun 14, 2011)

Gender causes problems; we should get rid of it. Freedom also causes problems, so we should get rid of it too.

I'm full of solutions!


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> I love when people write essays for threads.


 If that shit qualifies as an essay I will become a college god.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Maybe we should remove genitals from all our children at birth, then treat them with hormone mixes to remove any kind of sexual developement, both physical and mental.

With time, maybe we'll even be able to remove sexes on a genetic level. Equality to the max.

Oh, and maybe we should abolish schools too. We can't let stupid children who can't or don't want to learn to be behind the smarter ones. We should maulnourish the former too, so they won't be any more physically fit than the latter.

But before that, we should kick the shit out of people who preach equality, but (or BECAUSE) they can't acknowledge that in some ways we ARE different. Because in their eyes being "equal" is to be "the same". I refuse to count myself equal to some ignorant dimwit who can't figure that out.

So no, I don't think people will give up refereing to themselves as a "man" or "woman" just because some people have problems with that. Many people have problems with many things, if it's not that, it's something else. And we all have to cope with it somehow.



Thaeh said:


> Why do you think I made this thread?


 
Because you thought FAF, being full of furries, stands with an impenetrable wall behind the TG crowd, motivated by their deep sorrow at the injustice of the world, no matter how imaginary. Now you're playing the "troll" card.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Once I become a doctor, I will cut off the dicks and vaginas of all children, that way they can grow up and all be equal and everybody is happy


----------



## Namba (Jun 14, 2011)

I'm a guy... I'm pretty sure *checks down pants* Yep.



Thatch said:


> Now you're playing the "troll" card.


 
To make a topic deliberately to start a shitstorm is just... douchy.



Clayton said:


> Once I become a doctor, I will cut off the dicks and vaginas of all children, that way they can grow up and all be equal and everybody is happy


Communism at it's damned best.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 14, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Gender? No.
> Gender roles? Yes.


 Gender roles are just fucking stupid.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Gender roles are just fucking stupid.


 It's funny because you're TG and you want to conform to those gender roles while despising them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 14, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> It's funny because you're TG and you want to conform to those gender roles while despising them.


 Yeah I know.
My idea of a perfect world would be one where people aren't so damn nosey about what someone has in their pants cause it's not their penis or vagina.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Jun 14, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> It's funny because you're TG and you want to conform to those gender roles while despising them.


 
holy shit

thank you for reading my mind


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 14, 2011)

Exunod said:


> holy shit
> 
> thank you for reading my mind


You're welcome.

You're now thinking about corgis. 


CannonFodder said:


> Yeah I know.
> My idea of a perfect world  would be one where people aren't so damn nosey about what someone has in  their pants cause it's not their penis or vagina.


 That has nothing to do with gender roles. Literally nothing.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

I think gender is important, there are certain things that a woman goes through in her life that make her who she is, and I assume that there are things like this for men. The problem is that there's too many gender roles that get applied that shouldn't. 

It's in everything. I get made fun of because I don't particularly enjoy cooing or cleaning (but I can grill like a pro). I have guy friend's that don't like the taste of beer, and are mocked for that because they drink "bitch beer". We have a bias in our education system. English and humanities teachers will favor girls, while math teachers favor guys, and they don't realize they're doing it. 
It makes me think of this
If there is a certain kind of activity or aspect that you enjoy then I hope you act on it, but I despise when women or men are defined by arbitrary things like clothing or hobbies because it just forces more of a stereotype. 
This is something that bothers me about trans. I can understand not feeling right and trying to fix that, but I hate seeing someone say "I want to be more like a woman" and go on to wear high heels and have purses. rather than say "I want to be this kind of person"


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 14, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> That has nothing to do with gender roles. Literally nothing.


 Society forces gender roles onto people depending on if they have a penis or vagina -> Society needs to mind it's own business and let people be happy with how they want to live.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> This is something that bothers me about trans. I can understand not feeling right and trying to fix that, but I hate seeing someone say "I want to be more like a woman" and go on to wear high heels and have purses. rather than say "I want to be this kind of person"



Ah, this enlightens me on the "psicology of the transexual" (as one could call it), a topic on which I'm not very keen.
*Leaves once, more. Anything he could have said has been already typed*.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Society forces gender roles onto people depending on if they have a penis or vagina -> Society needs to mind it's own business and let people be happy with how they want to live.


 That's not people being nosey. What you were describing was that if someone was dressed up and looked like a woman then people would be inquisitive about whether they were actually a man or a woman.


----------



## Sar (Jun 14, 2011)

Thaeh said:


> No I'm not saying that we all should be genderless, I'm talking about not having gender specific sociel rules and behaviors. Such as the bathroom, clothing, ideals, way one acts, etc. I know this question might sound inappropriate but I'm just looking upon people's opinion on this.



For once, things are fine as they are.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 14, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> That's not people being nosey. What you were describing was that if someone was dressed up and looked like a woman then people would be inquisitive about whether they were actually a man or a woman.


 There's actually a movie with similar topic to this.
Oh now I remember, "It's Pat"
The neighbour was funny cause Pat's neighbour went mental trying to figure it out and listen to see when Pat was peeing and other weird stuff.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Speaking of this I found a book called "Woman to Woman" when I was in Oklahoma. It was published in the 1950's and man does it ever piss me the fuck off. It's all about "women's roles" in a male christian culture of the 50's and about being docile and obedient homemakers/babyfactories.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mTeoc2ydL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> Speaking of this I found a book called "Woman to Woman" when I was in Oklahoma. It was published in the 1950's and man does it ever piss me the fuck off. It's all about "women's roles" in a male christian culture of the 50's and about being docile and obedient homemakers/babyfactories.
> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mTeoc2ydL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


 It was a much different time back then. Still pretty offensive though. :/


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

I honestly don't see why any sort of non-biological behavior should be associated with any sort of gender so I'm going to say yes to the OP.

Is it realistically going to happen? No.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> Speaking of this I found a book called "Woman to Woman" when I was in Oklahoma. It was published in the 1950's and man does it ever piss me the fuck off. It's all about "women's roles" in a male christian culture of the 50's and about being docile and obedient homemakers/babyfactories.
> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mTeoc2ydL._SL500_AA300_.jpg



And, to add insult to injury, written by another woman, no less. Brainwashing? Conservativism? Limiting one's own group? All three.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> It was a much different time back then. Still pretty offensive though. :/


 It's sort of nice (in a way) to read it just to understand how much times have changed and how much more equality I have as a woman today then I would back then. How many more options I have in life, and choices. And how gender roles are not as strict as they once were (hell, there's a chapter on how wearing pants if you are a woman is obscene and Satanic.)



AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> And, to add insult to injury,  written by another woman, no less. Brainwashing? Conservativism?  Limiting one's own group? All three.


 OR it was written in the 1950s. 
Like I already said.


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> It's sort of nice (in a way) to read it just to understand how much times have changed and how much more equality I have as a woman today then I would back then. How many more options I have in life, and choices. And how gender roles are not as strict as they once were (hell, there's a chapter on how wearing pants if you are a woman is obscene and Satanic.)
> 
> 
> OR it was written in the 1950s.
> Like I already said.


 Yeah. it's good to see that times have changed for the better in some ways. Hopefully future generations won't be so bigoted.

Also wtf at the pants thing. HOW DARE YOU WEAR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A DRESS OR SKIRT YOU VILE WOMAN!


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> OR it was written in the 1950s.
> Like I already said.



Reagardless of the timeline (of which I was aware) sexism annoys me to no end. To force it onto people annoys me even more, again, regardless of the timeline. Sorry for putting it that way, though. In other words, the old days' sexism annoys me.

EDIT: I agree with H&K on the pants thing.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Yeah. it's good to see that times have changed for the better in some ways. Hopefully future generations won't be so bigoted.
> 
> Also wtf at the pants thing. HOW DARE YOU WEAR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A DRESS OR SKIRT YOU VILE WOMAN!


 Yeah I was like "wut?" The book says that it usurps male power by disguising the womanly body in the dress of a man, and that God made men and women different for different roles in life so we need to wear different things. D:<


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> It's sort of nice (in a way) to read it just to understand how much times have changed and how much more equality I have as a woman today then I would back then. How many more options I have in life, and choices. And how gender roles are not as strict as they once were (hell, there's a chapter on how wearing pants if you are a woman is obscene and Satanic.)
> 
> 
> OR it was written in the 1950s.
> Like I already said.


 That's why I like literature. It's nice to see how things have really changed, and it's nice to see some of the ideas that really went against the time and how things turned out after that.


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> Yeah I was like "wut?" The book says that it usurps male power by disguising the womanly body in the dress of a man, and that God made men and women different for different roles in life so we need to wear different things. D:<


 I want to go back in time and punch whoever wrote that in the face.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> Yeah I was like "wut?" The book says that it usurps male power by disguising the womanly body in the dress of a man, and that God made men and women different for different roles in life so we need to wear different things. D:<


 
I'm speechless. If there's another thing that annoys me, it's people going "God this", "God that" to justify limiting others.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I want to go back in time and punch whoever wrote that in the face.


 Besides, we know that kilts are god damn sexy. Something that sexy on a guy is obviously right.


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Besides, we know that kilts are god damn sexy. Something that sexy on a guy is obviously right.


 Exactly! And the right pants on a girl can like damn sexy as well.

Stupid 50's generation.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Besides, we know that kilts are god damn sexy. Something that sexy on a guy is obviously right.


 Oh fuck yes.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

highlander games...mmm. surely a gift of god


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I want to go back in time and punch whoever wrote that in the face.


 
ITT: HK wants to wear a skirt.


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> ITT: HK wants to wear a skirt.


 You're just jealous because I'm pretty.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You're just jealous because I'm pretty, witty, and gaaaaaaay~



FTFY


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> FTFY


 I feel pretty

oh so pretty

I feel pretty, and witty, and gaaaaaaaay.

I'm so pretty that I hardly can believe I'm real.

lalalala la la la laaaaaaaaaaaaa lalaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You're just jealous because I'm pretty.


 
I'm a man, I want to be handsome, not pretty. :V

Do you now understand that difference between "man" and "male"? :V


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> FTFY


 Quoting Westside Story, or other 50's musicals while I am present in thread is a bannable offense! >:V

Talk about going against the gender norm...if they were to set the musical in the present no self respecting gangster would ever dance like that.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> ITT: HK wants to wear a skirt.


 I think it's a kilt.
And Fay and myself have already voiced our opinions on kilts.

ITT: HK needs to get a kilt.


----------



## Mentova (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> I think it's a kilt.
> And Fay and myself have already voiced our opinions on kilts.
> 
> ITT: HK needs to get a kilt.


 I'll wear a kilt at AC for both of you. Awww yeah :V


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Hell no.

Ah don't want ma wimmins wearin britches.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> I think it's a kilt.


 
That's sexist. It's never called a "kilt" if a woman wears it, no matter what shape, state or material it is (like, let's say, the sterotypical tartan, woolen schoolgirl skirts, non-sexy edition. Look awfully like scottish kilts), so why should it be if a man does?

Is wearing a "skirt" instead of a "kilt" automatically less manly, somehow? Do women have the exclusive right to wearing a "skirt" that it has to be renamed if a man tries it?

Honestly, if we're all for "down with gender specific clothing", then let's be fair with it all the way. Semantically too. It only reinforces the conception that men and women don't dress in the same thing afterall (despite the fact that it LOOKS the same). It allows men to wear "kilts", which is fighting the symptom, but reinforces the cause - the underlying gender role division.

Goddamn hypocrisy :V

tl;dr - HK will wear a skirt. He'll have to live with it.


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 14, 2011)

The only gender specific roles that need to remain are things that science has shown that a man or a woman is physically better at, but these should only be guidelines.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> The only gender specific roles that need to remain are things that science has shown that a man or a woman is physically better at, but these should only be guidelines.


 
A man is physically better at not getting pregnant. That hasn't happened even once, as far as I recall :V


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Nonsense, I can give birth just as well as someone with a vagina :V


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Nonsense, I can give birth just as well as someone with a vagina :V


 
Oooh... kidney stones are bad enough, bro.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> A man is physically better at not getting pregnant. That hasn't happened even once, as far as I recall :V


 Um...

Also, :V


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> Um...
> 
> Also, :V



That's not a man, the first one. Men don't have a uterus.


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (Jun 14, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You're just jealous because I'm pretty.


 
I'd look better in a skirt than you. >:V


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That's sexist. It's never called a "kilt" if a woman wears it, no matter what shape, state or material it is (like, let's say, the sterotypical tartan, woolen schoolgirl skirts, non-sexy edition. Look awfully like scottish kilts), so why should it be if a man does?
> 
> Is wearing a "skirt" instead of a "kilt" automatically less manly, somehow? Do women have the exclusive right to wearing a "skirt" that it has to be renamed if a man tries it?
> 
> ...



I thought there were women style kilts. Looked it up, there is.



CannotWait said:


> The only gender specific roles that need to remain are things that science has shown that a man or a woman is physically better at, but these should only be guidelines.


I actually disagree with this. Shocking I know, but a lot of the bullshit gender roles are based on biology. Women on average are better at caring for children, but that gender role makes it seem like a stay at home dad is a weird thing. I mean we have movies like "daddy daycare" that scoff at the idea of men taking care of kids. We laugh at the idea of a male nurse. Men are on average more openly aggressive, so women shouldn't go into the military?
Biological norms exist, but basing roles on them have just lead us to this nonsense.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I thought there were women style kilts. Looked it up, there is.


 
Any skirt made by the hands of an old Scottish maid is called a kilt. The tartan represents their hatred of the English.

Accept no substitute.


----------



## Thaeh (Jun 14, 2011)

I think I explained myself wrong on my first post. I was just thinking about not having gender-specific clothing, just pants and shorts, for example. I wouldn't like men wearing miniskirts, hell no. I also don't agree with the sex being equal, just genders so gender stereotypes and gender roles go away. I'm sure all of us, while socializing with our real life friends, can't talk about something to them because it's 'too girlish' or 'too boyish' and we're afraid they won't find it normal. Yes, if they're really your friend they will understand and all of that, but being socially excluded is not good to me.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> Um...



Wait is it that the transgender fellow that caused a lot of controvercy? Because I was talking about a male specimen of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species. XY chromosome. Meaning no uterus. :V



Browder said:


> Also, :V



BRB, I'll get rid of that one in my X-wing :V



Fay V said:


> I thought there were women style kilts. Looked it up, there is.


 
Links please. So far, every KILT I saw had it's analogical SKIRT. So I want to know what's the actual physical difference between a skirt and a kilt, not the semantical one.

Unless people noticed what I did much earlier and started producing "female kilts" :V
I bet they'd have a large target of all the women who don't like "feminine" accesories, but will flock for something that's pretty much the same but meant for men :V


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That's sexist. It's never called a "kilt" if a woman wears it, no matter what shape, state or material it is (like, let's say, the sterotypical tartan, woolen schoolgirl skirts, non-sexy edition. Look awfully like scottish kilts), so why should it be if a man does?
> 
> Is wearing a "skirt" instead of a "kilt" automatically less manly, somehow? Do women have the exclusive right to wearing a "skirt" that it has to be renamed if a man tries it?
> 
> Honestly, if we're all for "down with gender specific clothing", then let's be fair with it all the way. Semantically too. It only reinforces the conception that men and women don't dress in the same thing afterall (despite the fact that it LOOKS the same). It allows men to wear "kilts", which is fighting the symptom, but reinforces the cause - the underlying gender role division.


It's not sexist. I have a friend, Kri, who owns a Utilikilt (man oh man I want one so bad) and it's definitely a kilt. Women can wear kilts too. And men can wear skirts. Honestly it's not a big deal yo.


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I thought there were women style kilts. Looked it up, there is.
> 
> 
> I actually disagree with this. Shocking I know, but a lot of the bullshit gender roles are based on biology. Women on average are better at caring for children, but that gender role makes it seem like a stay at home dad is a weird thing. I mean we have movies like "daddy daycare" that scoff at the idea of men taking care of kids. We laugh at the idea of a male nurse. Men are on average more openly aggressive, so women shouldn't go into the military?
> Biological norms exist, but basing roles on them have just lead us to this nonsense.



About the military, I have nothing against women in it really, but on the front lines a man might risk the lives of himself and his fellow soldiers to save a woman in need when he would otherwise allow a man to be injured until it was more safe. Otherwise though, I kind of agree with you. The only reason men are worse at caring for children is specifically because society has created that norm for them. Men are conditioned to automatically be worse (on average, I'm not trying to make the generalization) at caring for children.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> About the military, I have nothing against women in it really, but on the front lines a man might risk the lives of himself and his fellow soldiers to save a woman in need when he would otherwise allow a man to be injured until it was more safe. Otherwise though, I kind of agree with you. The only reason men are worse at caring for children is specifically because society has created that norm for them. Men are conditioned to automatically be worse (on average, I'm not trying to make the generalization) at caring for children.


 
What is this nonsense? A soldier is a soldier. I'd imagine when you're getting shot at the first thing you'd do is get the fuck out of there, not think 'oh hey a woman'.


----------



## Deo (Jun 14, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> About the military, I have nothing against women in it really, but on the front lines a man might risk the lives of himself and his fellow soldiers to save a woman in need when he would otherwise allow a man to be injured until it was more safe. Otherwise though, I kind of agree with you. The only reason men are worse at caring for children is specifically because society has created that norm for them. Men are conditioned to automatically be worse (on average, I'm not trying to make the generalization) at caring for children.


 This is bullshit. Women in the military are treated just like men, they get no pampering, no special treatment, and are not protected more at the disadvantage of other troops. Bullshit.

And men are not "generally worse" at caring for children. They are equal. Hell I suck with kids and I've got tits and the whole she-bang.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> It's not sexist. I have a friend, Kri, who owns a Utilikilt (man oh man I want one so bad) and it's definitely a kilt. Women can wear kilts too. And men can wear skirts. Honestly it's not a big deal yo.


 
One of these?

It's a skirt. With pockets. Notice that the original kilts never had pockets, so pockets don't make a kilt.

What makes this skirt a kilt, aside someone putting that word as a part of it's name? Because I don't call cargo pants "Levi's" or "Burton". I call them cargo pants. Unless I want to strees that they are such. That's why scotsmen or irishmen in their traditional attire have kilts. It's almost a brand of it's own, just like the aforementioned. 

But "utilikilt" is a skirt. No exception :V

And it's not a big deal. But I decided to be adamant in my argument :V
Especially since kilt REALLY isn't a specific fashion of a skirt (aside for having pleats and being knee-lenght, which is hardly uncommon), it's only recognised as part of a traditional men's attire. Therefore it's only refered to as a kilt if a man wears it. If it was a, say, schoolgirl who put it on (as part of her uniform, and you weren't informed beforehand, you would say the woman is wearing a "skirt" without batting an eye.

EDIT: no, wait. I was wrong. A traditional kilt has the pleats on the back like these but the front is flat. And the threads are wooven in a special way, yadda yadda. This means that "utilikilt" is CERTIANLY not a kilt in any other way than "it's for men". Which is, again, sexist. We've come around in a circle :V


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 14, 2011)

Deo said:


> This is bullshit. Women in the military are treated just like men, they get no pampering, no special treatment, and are not protected more at the disadvantage of other troops. Bullshit.
> 
> And men are not "generally worse" at caring for children. They are equal. Hell I suck with kids and I've got tits and the whole she-bang.


 
Well then... I was wrong.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Dragging over from the sexuality thread as requested:



Brace said:


> That's sort of the nature of the dating game period.


 
No, that's the nature of the fucked up tranny dating game I guess. Ya'll can fuck with eachothers emotions like a bunch of sociopaths but leave everybody else to their normal, balanced relationships that aren't built up around trickery and scheming.
Thanks


----------



## Enwon (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: Oi, Faggots! Stop That Right Now!*

EDIT: Nope.


----------



## Ricky (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: Oi, Faggots! Stop That Right Now!*



Brace said:


> Not on the first date.  At least, not if it's someone you met outside of a TG friendly context.  That's just the way it is.  Same thing as if you're dating a christian but you're an atheist.  You share the things you think you have in common first to build a buffer, then you share the potentially damaging information.


 
Yes, on the first date.  Or rather, BEFORE the first date even takes place.

That's a pretty fucking big deal, maybe not to you but it is to like...  everyone else in the world.

Have some respect for others.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Elinith said:


> I meant that point can arrive months into a long-term relationship, especially if you and the other aren't living together.



But presumably you visit, and have seen your way around the house, and have asked about their previous life prior to getting involved.



Elinith said:


> And not saying you're gay to a "forced" lover until a month in - is different than telling your SO that you're transgendered is different...   how?



Could you rephrase this to be more clear?   



Elinith said:


> THEN WHY THE FU- Then why do you advocate outing other people?



Personal experience with dying a slow death, wishing someone would stage an intervention.  Willingness to look out for the interests of people I care about, even at personal expense.



Clayton said:


> No, that's the nature of the fucked up tranny dating game I guess. Ya'll can fuck with eachothers emotions like a bunch of sociopaths but leave everybody else to their normal, balanced relationships that aren't built up around trickery and scheming.
> Thanks



Everyone omits information when initially dating.  You just don't consider it deceptive when that information that doesn't concern genitals, apparently.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Not on  the first date.  At least, not if it's someone you met outside of a TG  friendly context.  That's just the way it is.  Same thing as if you're  dating a christian but you're an atheist.  You share the things you  think you have in common first to build a buffer, then you share the  potentially damaging information.



Personally I'd rather a TG was up front about it with me. Ya know, I wouldn't want to find out when in the sack, I'd feel lied too and I hate being lied too.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Not on the first date.  At least, not if it's someone you met outside of a TG friendly context.  That's just the way it is.  Same thing as if you're dating a christian but you're an atheist.  You share the things you think you have in common first to build a buffer, then you share the potentially damaging information.


Except that the damaging information may be the most important, and sharing early might save a lot of trouble later on.  Religious views are something to be mentioned on the first or second date.  At least, if a person feels strongly about them.

Though I can see the reasoning for delaying a few dates for the transgender issue.  It might be important to learn the other person's political views, at least enough to know that they aren't going to try and kill you or seriously injure you.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Oh come on you guys we were having a lovely discussion about kilts and then you all came along and ruined it.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Everyone omits information when initially dating.  You just don't consider it deceptive when that information that doesn't concern genitals, apparently.


Omitting sex is a pretty fucking big deal, and no, I think other things are equally important but you just don't hide true gender away from someone. It's disgusting, it's lying, it's scheming.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> But presumably you visit, and have seen your way around the house, and have asked about their previous life prior to getting involved.



Complete assumption.



Brace said:


> Could you rephrase this to be more clear?



 Why is it not okay for a girl in a relationship, a month in, to tell her boyfriend that she is gay --- but is it okay for a transgendered girl in a relationship, a month in, to tell her/his boyfriend that he/she is transgendered?



Brace said:


> Personal experience with dying a slow death, wishing someone would stage an intervention.  Willingness to look out for the interests of people I care about, even at personal expense.



 Not everybody needs a hero.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Oh come on you guys we were having a lovely discussion about kilts and then you all came along and ruined it.


 
Browder told us to come here.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Ricky said:


> Yes, on the first date.  Or rather, BEFORE the first date even takes place.
> 
> That's a pretty fucking big deal, maybe not to you but it is to like...  everyone else in the world.
> 
> Have some respect for others.



I refuse to have respect for others at the expense of respect for myself, and consciously accepting that position of a third class citizen by putting the concerns of people who are disgusted by me before my own is not my style.  You'll get your information when I'm god damn ready to give it, and not a minute sooner.



Clayton said:


> Omitting sex is a pretty fucking big deal, and no, I think other things are equally important but you just don't hide true gender away from someone. It's disgusting, it's lying, it's scheming.


 
Only if it's important to the other person, which it might not be.  I would think that if it was really that important, they would ask, or make a point of bringing the issue up.  It would be deceptive if the TG person had heard their SO talking about how much they hated tranny's before, otherwise it may or may not be.  And again, it's not like that information will never be shared, it's just that it will be shared at what the TG person feels is the opportune time.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Oh come on you guys we were having a lovely discussion about kilts and then you all came along and ruined it.


Kilts suck.  We're talking about transgenders and dating now.




Brace said:


> I refuse to have respect for others at the expense of respect for myself, and consciously accepting that position of a third class citizen by putting the concerns of people who are disgusted by me before my own is not my style.  You'll get your information when I'm god damn ready to give it, and not a minute sooner.


And I'm sure that will turn out great.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I refuse to have respect for others at the expense of respect for myself, and consciously accepting that position of a third class citizen by putting the concerns of people who are disgusted by me before my own is not my style.  You'll get your information when I'm god damn ready to give it, and not a minute sooner.



Fair point. As the old saying goes, respect is earned, not given.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I refuse to have respect for others at the expense of respect for myself, and consciously accepting that position of a third class citizen by putting the concerns of people who are disgusted by me before my own is not my style.  You'll get your information when I'm god damn ready to give it, and not a minute sooner.


 
Forget telling other people, because if I do then I'll won't be respected...

And my SO will still apparently still respect me when they find out...


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Browder told us to come here.



Then I would have words with him >:c



Enwon said:


> Kilts suck.  We're talking about transgenders and dating now.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure that will turn out great.


 
How about a compromise? We can talk about dating a guy who only wears kilts.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> About the military, I have nothing against women in it really, but on the front lines a man might risk the lives of himself and his fellow soldiers to save a woman in need when he would otherwise allow a man to be injured until it was more safe. Otherwise though, I kind of agree with you. The only reason men are worse at caring for children is specifically because society has created that norm for them. Men are conditioned to automatically be worse (on average, I'm not trying to make the generalization) at caring for children.


 Deo already addressed this, but this is one of those things that I see as "justifying something that you don't know any better about" It's happened all through history. People justify that women shouldn't be educated because their fragile minds can't handle it. Then they justify that they can learn the humanities, but not hard sciences. Women shouldn't work, then becomes women should only have jobs like secretary and flight attendant, then when they're needed to work during the war suddenly those stupid justifications go missing. They said women were too fragile to be near wars, then it was okay so long as they were just nurses. Now it's alright so long as they aren't on the front line and people offer dumbass reasons like "it will distract the men. 

Women on the front lines aren't parading around naked and giggling. They go through the same basic training, the same conditioning that all soldiers go through. In the military you are trained to stop thinking as an individual, to stop thinking of your fellow soldiers as an individual. People are assets, you protect your squad, flight, whatever. There is no soldier on this earth that will be in a gun fight and think "oh no, the one with tits got shot!" They don't have the time to think at all, they will revert to instinct and training, and training says that all soldiers are only soldiers. 

The only time women on the front lines would be a problem is during the non-combat off times, and that would be a problem in every single part of the military.

grgr rage rage. It is nice to see those petty justifications gone over time, it gives me hope.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 14, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Kilts suck.  We're talking about transgenders and dating now.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure that will turn out great.


  0/10, you, if not all of you, should be ashamed.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Browder told us to come here.


 
Browder should just infract you all for having this stupid discussion for the n'th time again.

Arguing with Brace about TG issues should be a bannable offence. For both sides.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Elinith said:


> Complete assumption.



So is the idea that everyone who doesn't know someone is TG would have a problem with it if they found out later.



Elinith said:


> Why is it not okay for a girl in a relationship, a month in, to tell her boyfriend that she is gay --- but is it okay for a transgendered girl in a relationship, a month in, to tell her/his boyfriend that he/she is transgendered?



Because the transgender person is still presumably attracted to the boyfriend and interested in a relationship.  It's not a case of saying "surprise, I'm uninterested and this will never work!"



Elinith said:


> Not everybody needs a hero.



Some do though.  I'm willing to gamble.  It's kind of a big deal and I fucking hate erring on the side of caution.  It's only convention.  I'm sick of people who need help being fucked over because it's more conservative and easy not to try and help them, and because you can rationalize it by saying that there are also people for whom intervention would be detrimental.  That can be assessed on a case by case basis, and it's better to try and live with the consequences than to write off an entire group of people.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I refuse to have respect for others at the expense of respect for myself, and consciously accepting that position of a third class citizen by putting the concerns of people who are disgusted by me before my own is not my style.  You'll get your information when I'm god damn ready to give it, and not a minute sooner.


I honestly do see your point, but the world does not work like that. There's not much else I can say.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Only if it's important to the other person, which it might not be.  I would think that if it was really that important, they would ask


Who in the fuck goes around asking every single person they date "hey do you happen to have a secret vagina I don't know about?" whenever they date someone? The world does not pave a nice smooth path for trannies, shit is hard like everything else, and if that person happens to think the TG tricked em, you got a tranny with a black eye.



Brace said:


> It would be deceptive if the TG person had heard their SO talking about how much they hated tranny's before, otherwise it may or may not be.  And again, it's not like that information will never be shared, it's just that it will be shared at what the TG person feels is the opportune time.


 What if it was a no-sex-until-marriage thing?  What if they find out after *years* of dating _[and pretty good at hiding]_ to find out their husband/wife isn't the gender they thought it was? Do you expect them to say "hurp lol oh well i luv u no matter wut" when their *entire relationship they've ever known was a lie*?
That's disgusting.


----------



## CannotWait (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Deo already addressed this, but this is one of those things that I see as "justifying something that you don't know any better about" It's happened all through history. People justify that women shouldn't be educated because their fragile minds can't handle it. Then they justify that they can learn the humanities, but not hard sciences. Women shouldn't work, then becomes women should only have jobs like secretary and flight attendant, then when they're needed to work during the war suddenly those stupid justifications go missing. They said women were too fragile to be near wars, then it was okay so long as they were just nurses. Now it's alright so long as they aren't on the front line and people offer dumbass reasons like "it will distract the men.
> 
> Women on the front lines aren't parading around naked and giggling. They go through the same basic training, the same conditioning that all soldiers go through. In the military you are trained to stop thinking as an individual, to stop thinking of your fellow soldiers as an individual. People are assets, you protect your squad, flight, whatever. There is no soldier on this earth that will be in a gun fight and think "oh no, the one with tits got shot!" They don't have the time to think at all, they will revert to instinct and training, and training says that all soldiers are only soldiers.
> 
> The only time women on the front lines would be a problem is during the non-combat off times, and that would be a problem in every single part of the military.


 
When I think about it my opinion changes. I was just saying what I had been taught by my dad. I've got to stop just believing things people tell me, especially when it's wrong.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Then I would have words with him >:c



ORLY? >:V



Rilvor said:


> 0/10, you, if not all of you, should be ashamed.


 Yeah...yeah. But better here than the thread it originated in.


Thatch said:


> Browder should just infract you all for having this stupid discussion for the n'th time again.
> 
> Arguing with Brace about TG issues should be a bannable offence. For both sides.


 While this has indeed been suggested, it will never be implemented.

If this thread gets too fucktarded though, I will lock it and infract those responsoble. You have been warned.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

http://www.dallasvoice.com/trans-person-murdered-houston-1079771.html

How interesting.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> While this has indeed been suggested, it will never be implemented.



Eh, if it could have been, it would be so for a long time now. I didn't really believe it anymore.



Browder said:


> If this thread gets too fucktarded though, I will lock it


 
Couldn't you just lock and infract them in the other thread? D:


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> http://www.dallasvoice.com/trans-person-murdered-houston-1079771.html
> 
> How interesting.


 That's horrible. D:

What's your point though?



Thatch said:


> Couldn't you just lock and infract them in the other thread? D:


Part of my job is to make sure that people don't get punished in the first place, so no.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> So is the idea that everyone who doesn't know someone is TG would have a problem with it if they found out later.



You got me there. But I will go down as saying that the odds of the former are lower than the odds of the latter.



Brace said:


> Because the transgender person is still presumably attracted to the boyfriend and interested in a relationship.  It's not a case of saying "surprise, I'm uninterested and this will never work!"



But the other person, in both situations, is left with someone who they _thought_ they knew.



Brace said:


> it's better to try and live with the consequences than to write off an entire group of people.



And this is where I will agree to disagree.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> ORLY? >:V


 
YA RLY >:V

How dare you moderate this forum in a proper manner, the end result of which is the utter ruination of a discussion about kilts >:c


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> When I think about it my opinion changes. I was just saying what I had been taught by my dad. I've got to stop just believing things people tell me, especially when it's wrong.


 Sometimes people just want to justify what they have already chosen or because they don't want to question the status quo. 

For instance when people try to justify keeping gays out of the military. They distract other soldiers or are distracted (see above), or there is a culture of homophobia so any open gays will be hassled. That ones is my favorite one to hate, because it shows how unwilling they are to go against status quo. Yes in change there will be problems, there will be victims, but if you just accept it, nothing will change. Rather than coming down hard on anyone that dares hurt a fellow soldier...the same way they crack down on hazing.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> That's horrible. D:
> 
> What's your point though?


 
Probably pissing Brace off.

Clay, I know how infuriating Brace is, but that's a dick move.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Eh, if it could have been, it would be so for a long time now. I didn't really believe it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't you just lock and infract them in the other thread? D:


dont b a playa hater


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> YA RLY >:V
> 
> How dare you moderate this forum in a proper manner, the end result of which is the utter ruination of a discussion about kilts >:c


 The OP is broad enough for you to talk about kilts, AND transgender dating. Everybody wins!


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> That's horrible. D:
> 
> What's your point though?


Was mainly posted ot show that TG people do get killed and some are killed because they are outed [people are afraid of those who are different]
Or who knows, maybe they were killed because someone was expecting a vagina but got a face full of sausage instead 



Elinith said:


> Probably pissing Brace off.
> 
> Clay, I know how infuriating Brace is, but that's a dick move.


 i dont care about brace that much
I care more about my brother than brace


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Who in the fuck goes around asking every single person they date "hey do you happen to have a secret vagina I don't know about?" whenever they date someone?



Nobody, but if you give a shit it's your responsibility to look out for yourself.



Clayton said:


> What if it was a no-sex-until-marriage thing?  What if they find out after *years* of dating _[and pretty good at hiding]_ to find out their husband/wife isn't the gender they thought they were? Do you expect them to say "hurp lol oh well i luv u no matter wut" when their *entire relationship they've ever known was a lie*?
> That's disgusting.


 
It's not that the entire relationship was a lie, it's just that the matter of genitals never came up.  If genitals are the entirety of a relationship to you then frankly that strikes me as the truly disgusting thing here, but neverming; effectively speaking what you're talking about is impossible, or at least close enough to impossible not to be worth troubling over.  Like a straight flush in poker.  It's just not something that really enters into any standard calculation.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> The OP is broad enough for you to talk about kilts, AND transgender dating. Everybody wins!


 
Don't think anyone has ever used the words 'kilt' and 'transgender dating' in the same sentence before.

I don't know why I keep coming back to this terrible place ._.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Was mainly posted ot show that TG people do get killed and some are killed because they are outed [people are afraid of those who are different]
> Or who knows, maybe they were killed because someone was expecting a vagina but got a face full of sausage instead


 I fail to see how what you just said warrants a smiley. No matter how this discussion goes suggesting that it was the transgendered woman's fault she was murdered is not cool.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Nobody, but if you give a shit it's your responsibility to look out for yourself.


 
Do you ask every single person you date if they're a transgender? Cause that's a good way to insult people. You probably don't date much in that case.

I will never date a transgender person. pre-op or post-op



Browder said:


> I fail to see how what you just said warrants a smiley. No matter how this discussion goes suggesting that it was the transgendered woman's fault she was murdered is not cool.


 
Browder, not once did I even *think* that it was her fault. I was linking it to show that TG people do get killed and outing them gets them killed

Damn, look at all themods in here! It's as if someone covered me in mod-treats and threw me into the exhibit with em


----------



## Enwon (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Was mainly posted ot show that TG people do get killed and some are killed because they are outed [people are afraid of those who are different]
> Or who knows, maybe they were killed because someone was expecting a vagina but got a face full of sausage instead


Didn't you say in one post that if someone you were dating turned out to be a transgender, you'd kill them?

If so, then I guess everyone knows what you really think about that news article you linked.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> It's not that the entire relationship was a lie, it's just that the matter of genitals never came up. * If genitals are the entirety of a relationship to you then frankly that strikes me as the truly disgusting thing here*, but neverming; effectively speaking what you're talking about is impossible, or at least close enough to impossible not to be worth troubling over.  Like a straight flush in poker.  It's just not something that really enters into any standard calculation.


 
It's a pretty damn big thing. You can't argue that. You can sit here and argue that sex isn't the only component of a relationship, but it is the ultimate form of intimacy. And if you've been lied to, and you find that out during that moment...

Intimacy between one another is the key in a relationship, IMHO. =/

///

EDIT: I love how ten people and three mods are hovering over this thread.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Was mainly posted ot show that TG people do get killed and some are killed because they are outed [people are afraid of those who are different]
> Or who knows, maybe they were killed because someone was expecting a vagina but got a face full of sausage instead
> 
> i dont care about brace that much
> I care more about my brother than brace


 
It's sad that people have died over it. 

I admit that, if I were in a relationship and got close enough to the person to be intimate I would be pissed to get a "surprise I'm a transexual" sort of thing. It find it insulting that said person would not choose to share that information with me before said time. I don't expect them to just go around saying "haha by the way I am post op" but at the same time if you want that level of trust in an intimate relationship, things need to be shared.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Didn't you say in one post that if someone you were dating turned out to be a transgender, you'd kill them?
> 
> If so, then I guess everyone knows what you really think about that news article you linked.


 
Nooo no way ahaha, I woudn't kill them
If I were about to fuck someone ive been dating and found out they had a vagina that they didn't tell me about [and i thought they were a dude] I would straight up punch them in the face right then and there


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Do you ask every single person you date if they're a transgender? Cause that's a good way to insult people. You probably don't date much in that case


 
I don't ask because it doesn't matter to me, but because I'm openly TG people mostly tell me.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I don't ask because it doesn't matter to me, but because I'm openly TG people mostly tell me.


 Guess what though
I'm *not* TG and it *does* matter to me and I *won't* date a TG person. To tell me to accept that is stupid as all hell.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I don't ask because it doesn't matter to me, but because I'm openly TG people mostly tell me.


 Would you agree that being TG is a large part of someone's life?

Wouldn't you want your partner to share the big things in their life with you? Earn trust between one another before an intimate relationship.

Wouldn't you be angry to find your partner had been withholding something big from you when you are supposedly meant to trust one another?

So therefor it's understandable that someone would be upset if the transgender thing were a surprise. 
I don't mean that it's cool to murder or beat a tg individual or that extreme measures should ever be taken against a TG individual for that, but it's not that shocking that people have been angry, especially when it is something that can come up during a moment that is meant to be intimate.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Guess what though
> I'm *not* TG and it *does* matter to me and I *won't* date a TG person. To tell me to accept that is stupid as all hell.


 
You might date a TG person though.  If anything, you've just made it harder for them to tell you.  You might have already dated a TG person.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Would you agree that being TG is a large part of someone's life?
> 
> Wouldn't you want your partner to share the big things in their life with you? Earn trust between one another before an intimate relationship.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point. She's saying that the TG thing shouldn't be a big deal and her principles demand that she not treat it as such.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> You might date a TG person though.  If anything, you've just made it harder for them to tell you.  You might have already dated a TG person.


 
What are you trying to argue? Because it seems like you have nothing to object anymore.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> Yeah...yeah. But better here than the thread it originated in.


 
I strongly disagree, you have ruined the wonderful discussion on kilts I was enjoying!

That being said, I am looking forward to my own!


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Would you agree that being TG is a large part of someone's life?
> 
> Wouldn't you want your partner to share the big things in their life with you? Earn trust between one another before an intimate relationship.
> 
> ...



There's no guarantee they wouldn't be upset upon learning the information at any point in time.  I just don't see what's wrong with waiting until a few dates have gone by before sharing that information.  It's a sensitive issue, it takes trust to share it with someone (especially if you're passing and the person you're dating could ruin your life by outing you), and it can prevent people from even giving you a chance if you share it right off the bat.  You're suggesting outing oneself to everyone, first thing on the agenda, and if you need to tell people you're TG because you don't look it then that could have absolutely devastating consequences.



Fay V said:


> I don't mean that it's cool to murder or beat a tg individual or that extreme measures should ever be taken against a TG individual for that, but it's not that shocking that people have been angry, especially when it is something that can come up during a moment that is meant to be intimate.


 
That would be a matter of waiting too long, but I'm pretty sure most TG people don't do that, based on my own experiences and on discussions and forums.



Elinith said:


> What are you trying to argue? Because it seems like you have nothing to object anymore.


 
I'm not trying to argue against people having preferences in attraction, and never was.  I was mostly trying to say it's not the TG person's responsibility to look out for the interests of cisfolk.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> You're missing the point. She's saying that the TG thing shouldn't be a big deal and her principles demand that she not treat it as such.


 
That point completely ignores the fact that it IS a big deal, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. Thus, it can be pushed aside.



Brace said:


> There's no guarantee they wouldn't be upset upon learning the information at any point in time.  I just don't see what's wrong with waiting until a few dates have gone by before sharing that information.


 
Sooooo, you're saying it's better to upset someone AFTER the begun to trust you, thus feel betrayed, instead of earlier, when all you risk is just discouraging them?

No wonder you suck so much at social contact. Your priorities are completely fucked. But I'm pretty sure we established that a LONG time ago. Multiple times. This whole discussion is pointless repetition of something that already has been said and you refuse to acknowledge.



Brace said:


> I'm not trying to argue against people having preferences in attraction, and never was.  I was mostly trying to say it's not the TG person's responsibility to look out for the interests of cisfolk.


 
YOU are the one hiding something. So yes, it is you FULL AND UNQUESTIONABLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION TO AVOID UNPLEASANTRIES. Because if you present yourself as a woman, everyone else by default assumes you are a biological woman, a female specimen of the Homo Sapiens species, XX chromosomes. Because that's the SOCIAL NORM. You can't ignore the social norm and expect everything will go smoothly.

Transgenderism by far isn't an issue that gathered the same social awareness as homosexulity, and yet people still don't find it a norm to ask "are you gay" when asking someone out, no one says they should. It's something the interested should announce, and everyone seem to find it completely ok. But ho, you expect everyone to pay interest if you're transgender or even transsexual. Something 99% would NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT. You're completely socially inept, and that's why you should even try to discuss these things.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> I strongly disagree, you have ruined the wonderful discussion on kilts I was enjoying!
> 
> That being said, I am looking forward to my own!


 
There's no need to let the conversation die because of the typical drama re-runs now, is there? Carry on, kilted son of Scotland.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That point completely ignores the fact that it IS a big deal, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. Thus, it can be pushed aside.


 I agree with this too. Now convince her of it, because I'm sure as hell not going to try.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That point completely ignores the fact that it IS a big deal, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. Thus, it can be pushed aside.


 
If it's a big deal for YOU, then it's YOUR responsibility to treat it as one and take proactive action.  It's not my job to look out for you, and to lower myself by doing so by accepting your designation of me as inferior.



Thatch said:


> Sooooo, you're saying it's better to upset someone AFTER the begun to trust you, thus feel betrayed, instead of earlier, when all you risk is just discouraging them?



A lot more is being risked.  I don't see it as a betrayal of trust if things haven't gotten serious yet.  I'm pretty sure you're just lazy with privilege.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> There's no guarantee they wouldn't be upset upon learning the information at any point in time.  I just don't see what's wrong with waiting until a few dates have gone by before sharing that information.  It's a sensitive issue, it takes trust to share it with someone (especially if you're passing and the person you're dating could ruin your life by outing you), and it can prevent people from even giving you a change if you share it right off the bat.  You're suggesting outing oneself to everyone, first thing on the agenda, and if you need to tell people you're TG that could have absolutely devastating consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I don't think that a TG person should ever say that right off the bat. I understand that it is sensetive and may cause harm, but it should never go as far as having sex with the person and they find out later, that is too long. 
I agree with waiting a few dates, it's the same as any sensitive subject, but it can't go too long. If it does get to the point that they are going to have sex and the partner sees that they are not all they appear to be, or they've had sex and it comes out then of course the partner will feel betrayed and will reject their TG partner. the TG part may not even be the issue, but rather the betrayl of trust.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> If it's a big deal for YOU, then it's YOUR responsibility to treat it as one and take proactive action.  It's not my job to look out for you, and to lower myself by doing so by accepting your designation of me as inferior.


 
And this is why people don't respect you. =/


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Elinith said:


> And this is why people don't respect you. =/


 
Because I respect myself even when it isn't socially appropriate.  Right.  This is well established.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> If it's a big deal for YOU, then it's YOUR responsibility to treat it as one and take proactive action.  It's not my job to look out for you, and to lower myself by doing so by accepting your designation of me as inferior.
> 
> A lot more is being risked.  I don't see it as a betrayal of trust if things haven't gotten serious yet.  I'm pretty sure you're just lazy with privilege.


 
Read the edit tp my previous post. I've gone in depth in it as what I think of this being "my" responsibility.

tl;dr - No, you're out of your fucking hormone-scorched mind.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> If it's a big deal for YOU, then it's YOUR responsibility to treat it as one and take proactive action.  It's not my job to look out for you, and to lower myself by doing so by accepting your designation of me as inferior.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot more is being risked.  I don't see it as a betrayal of trust if things haven't gotten serious yet.  I'm pretty sure you're just lazy with privilege.



I see this as incredibly selfish. It is something that effects your partner and you. If you want to be in a relationship then it's a dick move to keep something from your partner when it is important to them, even if it's not important to you simply because there's the risk. If you can't take the risk, don't get into a relationship. 
If you're on a first or second date then who gives a shit, but as soon as you get to know each other, you tell one another things. 
I'm an atheist. If I started dating a christian I might not tell them on the first or second date, but It's not okay to just withhold that information because I don't believe it matters. I run the risk of being rejected, hell he could be a dick and really ruin my life if he wanted, but it's still selfish and cruel to with hold information that is important to your partner for your own benefit. That isn't a healthy relationship.
Why the hell wouldn't you be treated as inferior after that, it's a self serving move. Sure you may be rejected if the partner can't handle it, but that is true for everything, and if you actually put yourself forward you can show that it's not a problem, rather than keeping it to yourself and hiding it from the person because they didn't have the gall to ask straight up if you were born with that particular set of genitals.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> YOU are the one hiding something. So yes, it is you FULL AND UNQUESTIONABLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION TO AVOID UNPLEASANTRIES. Because if you present yourself as a woman, everyone else by default assumes you are a biological woman, a female specimen of the Homo Sapiens species, XX chromosomes. Because that's the SOCIAL NORM. You can't ignore the social norm and expect everything will go smoothly.



Presenting the information could cause unpleasantness.  I have the right to feel you out first.  And no, the assumptions you make aren't my fucking problem.  I'm not leading you on.  I've never said anything one way or the other on the subject.  I'm not swallowing your bullshit.  All I'm doing is living my life, and I will continue doing that, and you will not guilt trip me for it.



Thatch said:


> Transgenderism by far isn't an issue that gathered the same social awareness as homosexulity, and yet people still don't find it a norm to ask "are you gay" when asking someone out, no one says they should. It's something of the interested should announce, and everyone seem to find it completely. But ho, you expect everyone to pay interest if you're transgender or even transsexual. Something 99% would NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT. You're completely socially inept, and that's why you should even try to discuss these things.


 
It's sort of fucking implicit in dating that the person you are dating is interested in you, which makes the question "are you gay" irrelevant.  Try again.



Fay V said:


> I see this as incredibly selfish. It is something that effects your partner and you. If you want to be in a relationship then it's a dick move to keep something from your partner when it is important to them, even if it's not important to you simply because there's the risk. If you can't take the risk, don't get into a relationship.



I'll mitigate the risk.  I have the right to a certain, sane degree of selfishness insofar as it corresponds to self-preservation.  Yes it's a dick move and less than ideal, but that doesn't change the fact it's inherently not my problem unless I choose to care.  I wouldn't ever refrain from disclosing altogether.  I'm just saying I see no inherent obligation to do so.  "It could hurt their feelings" doesn't matter.  I don't give a shit.  If they care, it's their problem, and it can only be mine to the extent I let it be.



Fay V said:


> If you're on a first or second date then who gives a shit, but as soon as you get to know each other, you tell one another things.



Right.  This is pragmatic and decent.  It isn't obligatory.



Fay V said:


> I'm an atheist. If I started dating a christian I might not tell them on the first or second date, but It's not okay to just withhold that information because I don't believe it matters. I run the risk of being rejected, hell he could be a dick and really ruin my life if he wanted, but it's still selfish and cruel to with hold information that is important to your partner for your own benefit. That isn't a healthy relationship.


 
True, but that's ultimately an appeal to selfishness.  I don't want to be in an unhealthy relationship.  However, if someone could be hurt by the revelation that I'm TG, I'm honestly more than happy to let them be, so that's hardly a disincentive.  It's not an obligation.  I am not obligated to prostrate myself for the sake of bigots.  If you care, ask.  If I care, I'll tell you.  That's it.  Period.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 14, 2011)

I think the risks are actually lower if a person comes out as a transgender on an earlier date.  Coming out 1 week in would be awkward, and might result in a breakup before anything has really developed, but that's about it, if the other person is sane.  A year in, however, would be absolute hell for both parties.


----------



## Browder (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Because I respect myself even when it isn't socially appropriate.  Right.  This is well established.


 
For what's it worth I respect you for sticking to your ideology and honestly  think it's a noble sentiment. I even see why you think you shouldn't have to compromise.

The thing is, I don't care that much. Honestly I don't. I want my partner to be open with me more than I care about transgender rights. I didn't realize that until you posted this little quandary here but for once I am defecting away from my rampant liberalism to myself and any hypothetical relationship I might have and furthermore _I don't think that's unreasonable_. Yes I am contributing to a problem but if it's my love life then I don't care about taking the high-road.

So thank you for helping me realize that I should put myself before my ideologies sometimes. That's what I've learned from this anyway.


----------



## Elinith (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Because I respect myself even when it isn't socially appropriate.  Right.  This is well established.


 
quote

You don't respect yourself.



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Jesus. I would say I'm sorry, but it seems more fitting to blast  OneRepublic's "Apologize" so loud that the whole of society can hear it.
> 
> You _really_ should see a  therapist (when you have enough money) Seriously. Yell at me or  discredit therapy if you want, but that is a laundry list of severe  trauma. And your yelling at *** pretty much shows that you _really_ need to work out some of your issues.
> 
> ...



And I don't have pity anymore.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 14, 2011)

What the fuck is this? I don't even...


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Elinith said:


> You don't respect yourself.



I'm trying to learn.



Elinith said:


> And I don't have pity anymore.



I'm trying not to need it.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> *Presenting the information could cause unpleasantness.*  I have the right to feel you out first.  *And no, the assumptions you make aren't my fucking problem.*  I'm not leading you on.  I've never said anything one way or the other on the subject.  I'm not swallowing your bullshit.  All I'm doing is living my life, and I will continue doing that, and you will not guilt trip me for it.



If they aren't your problem, how can they cause unpleasantries? Are they a problem or not?

If you like it or not, people WILL have assumptions. If you care about someone, you have to care about their assumptions as well. This play a role in for any part of your being, not only transexualism, but also if you're a vegetarian or like smoking. Only lying about your physical sex is kinda a BIG DEAL, unlike being a vegetarian.

And yes, by saying you are a "she", you are leading everyone into thinking you are a woman. By attempting to be feminine and assuming the gender pronound "she", you're lying to people that you body is that of a woman. Because you wish it was, but that's not my problem, it's yours. Saying something that is not true is lying. And lying to people about stuff like that is wrong. A relationship is implied to sexual, otherwise it's called a "friend".

And you'll continue to live your life as you please? Oh, go ahead, be my guest. You're the one that's constantly being offended and will be met by a cordon of insults, dissapointments and perhaps violence. And you'll deserve it all, because of your rampant egoism, that doesn't let you admit that you're not bigger than social norms and that the general populace will NOT suit your needs. But I won't be affected by it any more that what you rant about here. And then I'll be able to point this out again and again, to your usual rage and my usual entertainment.



Brace said:


> It's sort of fucking implicit in dating that the person you are dating is interested in you, which makes the question "are you gay" irrelevant.  Try again.


 
Because you know if someone is interested in you before you ask them out, at all times. Try again.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> There's no need to let the conversation die because of the typical drama re-runs now, is there? Carry on, kilted son of Scotland.


 
What tartan do you prefer?

I'm looking to get a Utilikilt myself, as it will go far better with things I already own.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> There's no need to let the conversation die because of the typical drama re-runs now, is there? Carry on, kilted son of Scotland.


 
But Deo hasn't replied :c


BTW, I'm going to be avant-guarde. I'm going to bring back the loincloth :V


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> If they aren't your problem, how can they cause unpleasantries? Are they a problem or not?



Let me rephrase that.  I am not responsible for the assumptions you make.  You are the one who made them.



Thatch said:


> If you like it or not, people WILL have assumptions. If you care about someone, you have to care about their assumptions as well. This play a role in for any part of your being, not only transexualism, but also if you're a vegetarian or like smoking. Only lying about your physical sex is kinda a BIG DEAL, unlike being a vegetarian.



IT'S NOT FUCKING LYING, IT'S WAITING.  Even if I never told that information it's still not my fault you made the assumption



Thatch said:


> And yes, by saying you are a "she", you are leading everyone into thinking you are a woman. By attempting to be feminine and assuming the gender pronound "she", you're lying to people that you body is that of a woman. Because you wish it was, but that's not my problem, it's yours. Saying something that is not true is lying. And lying to people about stuff like that is wrong. A relationship is implied to sexual, otherwise it's called a "friend".



Bullshit.



Thatch said:


> And you'll continue to live your life as you please? Oh, go ahead, be my guest. You're the one that's constantly being offended and will be met by a cordon of insults, dissapointments and perhaps violence. And you'll deserve it all, because of your rampant egoism, that doesn't let you admit that you're not bigger than social norms and that the general populace will NOT suit your needs. But I won't be affected by it any more that what you rant about here. And then I'll be able to point this out again and again, to your usual rage and my usual entertainment.



Whoever fucks with me will die.  Society WILL stay out of my way, or I will make it.  Do you really think I'm transitioning for YOUR SAKE?  Changing my body for YOUR SAKE?  Yet you call ME the arrogant one?  No, I'm living my life.  What you see is not my fucking responsibility.  This is something I need.  If you think I'm lying to you or leading you on by LIVING MY LIFE then you are suffering under the delusion that this is about you.  It's not.  If you interact with me it will be on my terms.  Deal with it.



Thatch said:


> Because you know if someone is interested in you before you ask them out, at all times. Try again.


 
You generally know if they say yes.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> What tartan do you prefer?
> 
> I'm looking to get a Utilikilt myself, as it will go far better with things I already own.


 
I'm fan of traditional patterns on green myself. The only time I've had an excuse to wear one was at a wedding in Scotland a few years back though.



Thatch said:


> But Deo hasn't replied :c
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm going to be avant-guarde. I'm going to bring back the loincloth :V


 
Don't worry, there'll be plenty more retarded threads for her to reply to :3


----------



## Enwon (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Let me rephrase that.  I am not responsible for the assumptions you make.  You are the one who made them.
> 
> IT'S NOT FUCKING LYING, IT'S WAITING.  Even if I never told that information it's still not my fault you made the assumption
> 
> ...


Brace, you should probably take 30 minutes off of the internet, some time to cool down.  Go for a walk, get some water.  I honestly think if you stay online, it won't go anywhere but south.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 14, 2011)

You know Brace, with this selfish attitude you're having, I'd be surprised if you had any friends let alone a relationship. It's always "ME ME ME ME" with you. How about caring about someone else for once?


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> You know Brace, with this selfish attitude you're having, I'd be surprised if you had any friends let alone a relationship. It's always "ME ME ME ME" with you. How about caring about someone else for once?



I care about people who matter.  I have several dozen close friends, and countless more casual ones.

I'm not a liar.  I've never been a liar.  Ever.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I care about people who matter.  I have several dozen close friends, and countless more casual ones.
> 
> *I'm not a liar.  I've never been a liar.  Ever.*


 I'm just pointing out the bullshit right there. Everyone is a liar.

Also, if you refuse to tell your S/O that you're trans then...yeah, you're lying to them.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I'm not a liar.  I've never been a liar.  Ever.



^A lie.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

This is dumb, let's talk about gender and get off the TG issues. 

So back on kilts, why was it that pants became a guy thing and women were associated with skirts. I wanna know what about skirts made someone thing "well obviously a penis does not belong with this.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> This is dumb, let's talk about gender and get off the TG issues.
> 
> So back on kilts, why was it that pants became a guy thing and women were associated with skirts. I wanna know what about skirts made someone thing "well obviously a penis does not belong with this.


 Religion. (read as Judaism/Christianity/Islam)
Also, something about pants being more protective of the penis than skirts are.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Religion. (read as Judaism/Christianity/Islam)
> Also, something about pants being more protective of the penis than skirts are.


 I don't think religion was the origin, just the thing that pushed it. I can see the protectiveness I guess.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> This is dumb, let's talk about gender and get off the TG issues.
> 
> So back on kilts, why was it that pants became a guy thing and women were associated with skirts. I wanna know what about skirts made someone thing "well obviously a penis does not belong with this.



I'm going to guess because of hairy man legs and sudden updrafts.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> This is dumb, let's talk about gender and get off the TG issues.
> 
> So back on kilts, why was it that pants became a guy thing and women were associated with skirts. I wanna know what about skirts made someone thing "well obviously a penis does not belong with this.


 
*shrug* 

One guess is that skirts/dresses aren't the best things to do manly things like chopping wood and killing people in... though kilts seem to be well enough suited.



~secret~ said:


> I'm going to guess because of hairy man legs and sudden updrafts.



Also this.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> Let me rephrase that. I am not responsible for the assumptions you make. You are the one who made them.
> IT'S NOT FUCKING LYING, IT'S WAITING. Even if I never told that information it's still not my fault you made the assumption



No, it's not your fault somebody makes this assumption. It's because of the social norm, which tells us that someone presenting themselves as a woman is indeed a biological female, that gives us this assumption.
You fault is that you IGNORE IT. And you try to push the responcibility for your willingful ignorance onto others. And that shit does not fly.



Brace said:


> Bullshit.



"NO U"

Anything else to add?



Brace said:


> Whoever fucks with me will die.  Society WILL stay out of my way, or I will make it.



Nope, you won't. You don't have that power. Not here, not in the real world. You're ridiculous to even believe you do. And that people will cater to your feewwwings, even though you now and again stress how you don't give a shit about theirs. You could already make yourself and everyone the favour and just go be a hermit.



Brace said:


> Do you really think I'm transitioning for YOUR SAKE?  Changing my body for YOUR SAKE?  Yet you call ME the arrogant one?



No, I really think you do it for YOUR OWN sake. And that's the problem. Because you expect us to play along. Not want, EXPECT. And you don't have the right to expect us to do anything, we owe you nothing. You never did, and stress that you have no desire to, anything for OUR sake. So yes, you're the arrogant one. I'm calling you exactly that.



Brace said:


> No, I'm living my life.  What you see is not my fucking responsibility.  This is something I need.  If you think I'm lying to you or leading you on by LIVING MY LIFE then you are suffering under the delusion that this is about you.  It's not.  If you interact with me it will be on my terms.  Deal with it.


 
What I see is not your responsibility? So what, are you 4, where your parents still dress you? No, at this point how you present yourself to the world is your and ONLY your responsibility. And you're the one who will get all the grief for it.

You can tell ME that you're a woman all you want. I couldn't give less of a fuck what you have between your legs, I have no desire to look there. 
But nothing will be "on your terms". It will be on SOCIETY'S terms. You CAN'T say "you should have expected/asked" if a person will get angry. Because you're trying to play it "on your terms" and that's the price you pay. The price of your conscious decision to disregard everyone and everything out of your own egoism.
And why do I have to deal with it? Once I send this post and close this thread, this problem dissapears. It ceases to play any kind of role in my life. I don't have to "make anyone die" or "play it my terms" or "stay out of the way". It completely doesn't include me. Even if I met you in person, you could only attack me out of helpless fury, and it still would dissapear from my life once you were out of eyesight. While you would be left with the anger, with the hurt feelings and with countless other people that "will die" so you can have your way. Which you won't, because you're going against the current more or less alone. Because I doubt even the general TG crowd would like to be assiociated with someone as as loud and hateful.
But then again, you think that you're the one in the right and that the whole world not only is supposed to but WILL fit to your needs. So you thinking *I* have to deal with it is hardly suprising.



Fay V said:


> This is dumb, let's talk about gender and get off the TG issues.



Don't worry, I am done now :V



Fay V said:


> So back on kilts, why was it that pants became a guy thing and women were associated with skirts. I wanna know what about skirts made someone thing "well obviously a penis does not belong with this.


 
So women wouldn't have to waste time on putting their pants on and off between giving birth and working on the field.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> *shrug*
> 
> One guess is that skirts/dresses aren't the best things to do manly things like *chopping wood* and killing people in... though kilts seem to be well enough suited.


I imagine that would be quite unpleasant for the man :V


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> *shrug*
> 
> One guess is that skirts/dresses aren't the best things to do manly things like chopping wood and killing people in... though kilts seem to be well enough suited.
> 
> ...


 
Well they managed in loincloths and such for a long time. I don't mean long ass skirts, but the short wrappings are close enough and men certainly could do their manly work in them


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> *shrug*
> 
> One guess is that skirts/dresses aren't the best things to do manly things like chopping wood and killing people in... though kilts seem to be well enough suited.


 
For early humans, most of the 'manly' stuff like hunting and warfare would be difficult while wearing a skirt. Only options would have been pants or going naked. For colder places like western Europe the dudes would wear pants, and in the warmer east people like the Romans could wear skirts.

Then there's the Celts who just said 'fuck it', stipped naked, and painted themselves blue.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> For early humans, most of the 'manly' stuff like hunting and warfare would be difficult while wearing a skirt. Only options would have been pants or going naked. For colder places like western Europe the dudes would wear pants, and in the warmer east people like the Romans could wear skirts.
> 
> Then there's the Celts who just said 'fuck it', stipped naked, and painted themselves blue.


 The celts were the most manly


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> For early humans, most of the 'manly' stuff like hunting and warfare would be difficult while wearing a skirt. Only options would have been pants or going naked. For colder places like western Europe the dudes would wear pants, and in the warmer east people like the Romans could wear skirts.


 
I'm pretty sure you mean "north" and "south". Eeastern europe has a harsher climate than the western, otherwise there would be no "russian winter" jokes :V

And rome is KINDA in italy.


Fay V said:


> The celts were the most manly


 
Without doubt. Only a real man would present his willy as a target willingly.


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> No, it's not your fault somebody makes this assumption. It's because of the social norm, which tells us that someone presenting themselves as a woman is indeed a biological female, that gives us this assumption.
> You fault is that you IGNORE IT. And you try to push the responcibility for your willingful ignorance onto others. And that shit does not fly.



Not even for the sake of not being in pain?  For that I have to make sure there's no ambiguity, so you can spit on me, run me over, kick me out into the street to die, and even shoot me in the back if you feel like it?  Fuck you.  You can use your little norms as a crutch for interpreting the world but I will not live by them to my detriment.



Thatch said:


> "NO U"
> 
> Anything else to add?



FUCK YOU



Thatch said:


> Nope, you won't. You don't have that power. Not here, not in the real world. You're ridiculous to even believe you do. And that people will cater to your feewwwings, even though you now and again stress how you don't give a shit about theirs. You could already make yourself and everyone the favour and just go be a hermit.



I don't need it, and I don't need anyone to cater to me.  And I care about the feelings of others to the extent those feelings don't pertain to me, don't involve calling me a liar and an inferior person.  I will act like I have that kind of power, and if it gets me killed, I'm willing to bet it won't be for nothing.  I no longer give a shit about consequences when it comes to this.



Thatch said:


> No, I really think you do it for YOUR OWN sake. And that's the problem. Because you expect us to play along. Not want, EXPECT. And you don't have the right to expect us to do anything, we owe you nothing. You never did, and stress that you have no desire to, anything for OUR sake. So yes, you're the arrogant one. I'm calling you exactly that.



I expect you to leave me alone.  If I wanted you to play along, I would leave you to play; I wouldn't be treating every slight and insult as an excuse to attack back for the 10,000,000 that preceded them.  I don't want to play.  I want you to treat me right or fuck off, otherwise I want you dead.  You get the three options, because I believe in giving people a choice.  I wll do things for your sake, but I will not be tortured for your sake.



Thatch said:


> What I see is not your responsibility? So what, are you 4, where your parents still dress you? No, at this point how you present yourself to the world is your and ONLY your responsibility. And you're the one who will get all the grief for it.



It's not a matter of what I present.  It's a matter of how you interpret.  Using YOUR BRAIN (or lack thereof).



Thatch said:


> And why do I have to deal with it? Once I send this post and close this thread, this problem dissapears. It ceases to play any kind of role in my life. I don't have to "make anyone die" or "play it my terms" or "stay out of the way". It completely doesn't include me. Even if I met you in person, you could only attack me out of helpless fury, and it still would dissapear from my life once you were out of eyesight. While you would be left with the anger, with the hurt feelings and with countless other people that "will die" so you can have your way. Which you won't, because you're going against the current more or less alone. Because I doubt even the general TG crowd would like to be assiociated with someone as as loud and hateful.
> But then again, you think that you're the one in the right and that the whole world not only is supposed to but WILL fit to your needs. So you thinking *I* have to deal with it is hardly suprising.



You're obligated to, and I'll treat you accordingly.  I don't give a fuck whether it works or not.  That's not the point.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace, you are aware the subject was dropped, right? :V


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The celts were the most manly



also the most blue



Thatch said:


> I'm pretty sure you mean "north" and "south". Eeastern europe has a harsher climate than the western, otherwise there would be no "russian winter" jokes :V
> 
> And rome is KINDA in italy.



Yeah you're right, but when I said the east I was referring to the Mediterranean. Anywhere north of that is manly enough to wear pants or paint themselves blue.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> also the most blue
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right, but when I said the east I was referring to the Mediterranean. Anywhere north of that is manly enough to wear pants or paint themselves blue.



evolution of the blue man group?


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Brace, you are aware the subject was dropped, right? :V


 
I don't accept it when other people have the last word.  Not even when a thread gets locked before I can respond.  If anything that sets me off to the point of near blackout.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> evolution of the blue man group?



Fay, that's genius. We shall of course co-author a paper on the subject.



Brace said:


> I don't accept it when other people have the last word.  Not even when a thread gets locked before I can respond.  If anything that sets me off to the point of near blackout.


 
Haha, you're kind of a massive dick, aren't you?


----------



## Brace (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Haha, you're kind of a massive dick, aren't you?


 
HAH


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Brace said:


> I don't accept it when other people have the last word.  Not even when a thread gets locked before I can respond.  If anything that sets me off to the point of near blackout.


 You need to take a break before you give yourself a stroke. It's the god damn internet, we are literally talking about naked blue people. Respect yourself enough to know when it's not worth you're time before you are forced to walk away without the last laugh.




~secret~ said:


> Fay, that's genius. We shall of course co-author a paper on the subject.


so yeah. now all I can think of is highlander smurfs.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 14, 2011)

Alright this is going to going too far. Brace, drop the issue before I drop you a nice vacation. The rest of you stop name calling unless you want to join in on it. I'm not dealing with it, get on topic and I don't want to see a single post more on the topic of trans-gender and whether or not you should tell people if you are or are not. It doesn't go anywhere and neither side is going to bend or listen.

EDIT: Actually I have a better idea.


----------



## Bliss (Jun 14, 2011)

How surprised I am to to see the ugly side of FAF. 



Deo said:


> For instance, gender is important in language for clarifying and communicating. many languages have genderized words, "le" and "la", and differences in these words add to the complexity and the beauty of human interaction and communication.


Is my language less pretty if we have no gender-specific pronouns, nor any articles in the first place, nor colloquially make no difference between animate and inanimate objects (he/she/it)? :V


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> You need to take a break before you give yourself a stroke. It's the god damn internet, we are literally talking about naked blue people. Respect yourself enough to know when it's not worth you're time before you are forced to walk away without the last laugh.



This is going in my sig.



Fay V said:


> so yeah. now all I can think of is highlander smurfs.


 
Then my work here is done.

ONWARDS


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> so yeah. now all I can think of is highlander smurfs.


 
The Avatar things?

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOM!


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatch said:


> The Avatar things?
> 
> FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOM!


 
Maybe? I couldn't stomach avatar. I was more thinking like papa smurf with white facepaint.


----------



## Thatch (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Maybe? I couldn't stomach avatar. I was more thinking like papa smurf with white facepaint.


 
Oh man, I can imagine Papa Smurf in battle paint now. It's way better than the faggy avatar things.

Altough they had loincloths. Smurfs had pants (and smurfette a dress) :V


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Maybe? I couldn't stomach avatar. I was more thinking like papa smurf with white facepaint.


 
i was picturing stunned Romans being mowed down in droves, unable to defend themselves from the waves of blue naked people screaming at them with sharp things

also what are we even talking about anymore



Thatch said:


> Altough they had loincloths. Smurfs had pants (and smurfette a dress) :V



oh hey that's on topic somewhat


----------



## Grey Wolverine (Jun 14, 2011)

I say we examine this scientifically. If a test like this was done in a controlled environment with clean-cut, un-bias results. It would be interesting to see the results of such a test.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 14, 2011)

Grey Wolverine said:


> I say we examine this scientifically. If a test like this was done in a controlled environment with clean-cut, un-bias results. It would be interesting to see the results of such a test.


 uh..what are we testing?


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 14, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> oh hey that's on topic somewhat


 
Closest it's been in a long time. :v


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 15, 2011)

Remember folks, if someone has the audacity to consider kilts for the ladies, take them to see the Caber Toss.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 15, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Well many of the biological differences _are_ what make some of these 'expectations' like women talking more and men being better at direction. Those aren't just simply societal expectations, there's actual biology behind those and many others.


 
There's no evidence that men being 'better at spatial reasoning' is anything other than social conditioning.  And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are discouraged from pursing hard science and engineering careers their entire lives and end up in ancillary positions. Surprise surprise, when tested they end up having worse math and better language skills--things that indicate how they were trained.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

Spatel said:


> There's no evidence that men being 'better at spatial reasoning' is anything other than social conditioning.  And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are discouraged from pursing hard science and engineering careers their entire lives and end up in ancillary positions. Surprise surprise, when tested they end up having worse math and better language skills--things that indicate how they were trained.


 [citation needed]
Heterosexual men have better spacial reasoning than women and gay men. 
Spacial awareness study and the brain and men and women and shit, dawg

See, at one point in time, this was not just some sort of sexist bullshitery. Humans are a _very_ young species in the evolutionary line of life. Women were gatherers. Men were hunters. The sex of a human, to some extent, has _some sort_ of evolutionary crap in there that separates the two sexes. You'll notice though - gay men, I assume more feminine gay men, obviously think more like women and drive more like them. 

It's not all societal. You have to take into account that we are barely an old enough species to even be a drop of sand in the giant desert of history. Even evolutionary advantages that are no longer necessary are still here, because physical evolution can't keep up with just how fucking complex the human brain is.

I do not think "society" has any bearing on things that are a result of pure evolutionary advantage. Does that mean we should make a bias on it? Uh, no. But it's still there, lurking in our monkey minds.

Also it's my personal opinion that sex shouldn't be as important as it is in society, but of course people looove them some traditional men vs. women jokes.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Jun 15, 2011)

Why does the juicy stuff always happen when I'm asleep?

(I'm talking about warpainted smurfs in kilts, of courseâ€¦)


----------



## Leafblower29 (Jun 15, 2011)

Hell no! I want to be recognized in society as a male and not misrepresented as a female.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 15, 2011)

Skift said:


> [citation needed]
> Heterosexual men have better spacial reasoning than women and gay men.
> Spacial awareness study and the brain and men and women and shit, dawg
> 
> ...


 
Neither of those sources are very reputable. Actually they're really terrible. 

I'm not quite convinced that women are worse drivers for genetic reasons. It's not like men got to log an extra 200,000 years on the toyota corolla back when we were living in caves. The science behind psychology and neurology is too primitive to make sweeping conclusions about the origins of human behavior, so the people that do inevitably end up having political agendas or being cranks of some other kind. 

How about doing some research and coming back later. 

There are sex-linked differences. There are autosomal genes on the x and y chromosomes that control brain development, and we know certain areas of the female/male brain develop in slightly different ways. It's very difficult to reach conclusions from that so far, beyond the fact that differences should exist.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

How about reading the link that's mentioned in the first link that says women are better drivers because they are cautious. 

Really now

really


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

This thread is still going on?!?!

Okay, it's not bad, but it gets sort of annoying.

Also, guys, who cares what gender drives better? More to point, why perpetuate or create new stereotypes about the sexes? I thought this discussion was about debunking them.

EDIT: Unless I'm misreading something. But my question still holds: who cares what gender can do "what"? That isn't really specific to biological reasons. E.G. Women can give birth, normal men cannot; no study will convince that one gender is generally better at one task than the other.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

I didn't even say that one gender drove better. That's what irritates me. I'm talking spacial reasoning, Spatel I guess saw my first link, saw cars in it, and glazed over the rest.

Edit: Guys are terrible at reading comprehension :v


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

Skift said:


> I didn't even say that one gender drove better. That's what irritates me. I'm talking spacial reasoning, Spatel I guess saw my first link, saw cars in it, and glazed over the rest.
> 
> Edit: Guys are terrible at reading comprehension :v


 
Well, this much is interesting and worthy of discussion, taking metabolism diferences into consideration. 
Still, at least link to all the articles you want a person to read, just in case.

I rest my case.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm not entirely convinced of the genetic predisposition either to be honest. By 4 we are already pushing cultural bias onto kids. Girls get dolls and boys get blocks and stuff. If we had a group of kids that had been raised the same despite gender I would be willing to give it a shot. 
The evolution stuff is mostly just finding ways to explain why something appears the way it does. 

Even if I were convinced of it, I'd still say ignore it. The reason it presents so heavily is based on cultural bias. In education there are studies that do show teachers subconsciously will favor male students in math, and female in English so it's not just that things might be slightly harder for susie in math class, but the system actively works against you. It's a cumulative effect that gets to the point of "lol women can't math."


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm not entirely convinced of the genetic predisposition either to be honest. By 4 we are already pushing cultural bias onto kids. Girls get dolls and boys get blocks and stuff. If we had a group of kids that had been raised the same despite gender I would be willing to give it a shot.


 
Coincidentally, I was thinking about the hypothetical case a person was "raised" as one of the other gender. How would this "change" his/her perception of the world? The answer is there's none to change, since he has none from birth, society gives him the tools to have it.

When one stops taking gender into account, all what is left is personality traits and habits.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

We're still talking spacial reasoning, correct?


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

Not directly ^_^

But thanks for making it go this way.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

In response to your thing I didn't see on the other page; I linked two studies, both published by a news site. Apparently it wasn't reputable (didn't really get an explanation as to why) and then segued into cars or something.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 15, 2011)

Brace said:


> Whoever fucks with me will die.


 


Brace said:


> FUCK YOU
> 
> I want you dead.


Holy shit death threats again. I'm guessing that's why he got banned? (Also, this has been way more than the third time, did that three temp bans=permaban thing get replaced?)

On topic of skirts vs pants: pants offer more protection to the legs. I'm guessing the split originated back in the days where women were relegated to more housework and thus could have the more comfortable skirts and stuff while men were in charge of more rigorous work that required more protection and then it just became a traditional thing. Only a guess, though.

On topic of men vs women and biological differences: _some_ roles, in my opinion, are based on biology, such as the child care aspect or simple psychological differences. I don't believe that either gender is necessarily better at math or English or anything than the other. I also don't believe having a biological predisposition to something means that the person without it shouldn't be allowed to do that action either. I'm just saying there are biological reasons that they were formed and that it's not just sexism.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jun 15, 2011)

God bless Storm.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't know about this whole kilt thing. IMO, kilts are not women clothing because they are directed at men. They aren't skirts, they're traditional Scottish clothing for men :S


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jun 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I don't know about this whole kilt thing. IMO, kilts are not women clothing because they are directed at men. They aren't skirts, they're traditional Scottish clothing for men :S


 
Kilts are sewn and threaded very specifically. Women can wear kilts and they would be called so due to the construction of it, but tartan skirts are just skirts without the specific construction that kilts have. My bf's uncle's best man was a woman in a kilt. You can also get plaids which are an added length of material which are worn over the shoulder.

Kilts are also ungodly sexy on most blokes.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 15, 2011)

For me, the whole idea that "men and women are exactly the same except for women being able to give birth" just doesn't hold up really. I mean, there are obviously some differences in the way they act, and the whole "well that's just the way society tell them to act" argument only goes so far. 

When did it start? 

Were there a bunch of cavepeople sitting around one day and one of the cavepeople with dicks decided to round up all the other cavepeople with dicks and be, like, "Ok guys, I have got the *GREATEST* idea right now. I call it "gender" and it's going to change fucking *EVERYTHING*?"


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 15, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> For me, the whole idea that "men and women are exactly the same except for women being able to give birth" just doesn't hold up really. I mean, there are obviously some differences in the way they act, and the whole "well that's just the way society tell them to act" argument only goes so far.


This. I do not support the idea of men being allowed to walk around in public in bikini bottoms. One false move and that man is givin some kid a nasty surprise


----------



## moriko (Jun 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> This. I do not support the idea of men being allowed to walk around in public in bikini bottoms. One false move and that man is givin some kid a nasty surprise


 
They do make bikini style swim wear for men, made to fit men. Not sure I've heard of one giving a guy "the slip". I've known plenty of regular swim shorts to be worn loosely enough to slide right off though... Unless you mean bikini bottoms somewhere other than the beach?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 15, 2011)

Skift said:


> [citation needed]
> Heterosexual men have better spacial reasoning than women and gay men.
> Spacial awareness study and the brain and men and women and shit, dawg


 
Men are better at spacial reasoning in a room, women are better at cramming useless shit like dried plants into it


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Men are better at spacial reasoning in a room, women are better at cramming useless shit like dried plants into it



Please, tell me you're kidding.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 15, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Please, tell me you're kidding.


 Hahaha it was mostly me joking but at the same time, poking fun at the stupid potpurri plants women seem to obsess over.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Hahaha it was mostly me joking but at the same time, poking fun at the stupid potpurri plants women seem to obsess over.



Curiously enough, no woman in my family is fond of gardening or making houses look good besides being clean.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 15, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Curiously enough, no woman in my family is fond of gardening or making houses look good besides being clean.


 Every mom I know has potpurri somewhere in her house.
My mom used to bags of that crap. ALL IT IS IS DRIED BARK. WTFF


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Every mom I know has potpurri somewhere in her house.
> My mom used to bags of that crap. ALL IT IS IS DRIED BARK. WTFF


 
He he, I see what you mean. Here, it's mainly old women who like to collect that stuff, I always feel a little dizzy around it.


----------



## Blutide (Jun 15, 2011)

CannotWait said:


> I think we should all be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent beings made of pure energy and forget the limitations of current society and look towards the infinite universe.


 
Dr. Manhattan incoming.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jun 15, 2011)

I look forward to a future... Without people.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 15, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> I look forward to a future... Without people.


A world without children... future generations will thank us.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Hahaha it was mostly me joking but at the same time, poking fun at the stupid potpurri plants women seem to obsess over.


 
Oh god my mom obsesses over a garden and confirms every negative woman stereotype as well

_coincidence??_

But yeah, guys naturally have better spacial reasoning so they can spot bambi mammoths and kill them for fun food.


----------



## Azure (Jun 15, 2011)

What about men who obsess over gardening? What kind of stereotypes do they confirm?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 15, 2011)

Azure said:


> What about men who obsess over gardening? What kind of stereotypes do they confirm?


 Ever seen how phallic a cucumber is?


----------



## Azure (Jun 15, 2011)

That, and tomato's look like big balls.


----------



## Gavrill (Jun 15, 2011)

aww yuuhh


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jun 16, 2011)

Well, that IS a compicated question- even if we did try to remove gender in society, the small matter of what's packed between our thighs (and what the hormones of testosterone and estrogen do) would render our efforts null and void. There are major physical, mental, emotional, and psychological differences between men and women- all it takes is watching the toy commercials between breaks of a children's cartoon to figure that out. Where men are weak, women are strong and vice versa and it all fits together seamlessly like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Most modern societies believe that men and women should be equal yet I don't quite buy into the belief that the sexes are interchangable. One woman asked me about what would happen if human sexuality was trichotomous (split in 3) rather than dichotomous and I just kind of shrugged and said "Why waste time on things that could never possibly happen?"


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jun 16, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> Well, that IS a compicated question- even if we did try to remove gender in society, the small matter of what's packed between our thighs (and what the hormones of testosterone and estrogen do) would render our efforts null and void. There are major physical, mental, emotional, and psychological differences between men and women- all it takes is watching the toy commercials between breaks of a children's cartoon to figure that out. Where men are weak, women are strong and vice versa and it all fits together seamlessly like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Most modern societies believe that men and women should be equal yet I don't quite buy into the belief that the sexes are interchangable. One woman asked me about what would happen if human sexuality was trichotomous (split in 3) rather than dichotomous and I just kind of shrugged and said "Why waste time on things that could never possibly happen?"



This comment will spark a shit-storm, despite being relatively accurate. At least, the former parts, rather than the latter parts.

Just letting you know.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 16, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:
			
		

> There are major physical, mental, emotional, and psychological  differences between men and women- all it takes is watching the toy  commercials between breaks of a children's cartoon to figure that out.


Okay you got me... you're clearly trolling. I almost fell for it. Hilarious, sir.


----------

