If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

I feel like this thread should be relocated to The Philosopher, might help to revive that dead corner of UMF.
Just a thought.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Mort Divine]

I feel like this thread should be relocated to The Philosopher, might help to revive that dead corner of UMF.
Just a thought.

Nah, all that would do is kill this thread.

 

[CiG]

Nah, all that would do is kill this thread.

So either way we win?

 

[Dak]

Of course there are innate propensities. The point is that they are not automatically associated with the values of survival or reproduction; nor are they absolutely stable. Propensities can change, and there are no original propensities.

Furthermore, transsexuals going through hormone therapy has nothing to do with changing their sexual preferences; those are already in play prior to the therapy. You seem to be suggesting that transsexuals (before "becoming" transsexuals) are attracted to people of the opposite sex, but would rather be attracted to members of the same sex. This isn't the case, of course, because it is the sexual attraction that inspires the therapy in the first place.

What is an "original propensity"? Or, since you say they don't exist, what would they be?

I can't remember when/where I read this, but a current theory is that there are separate blasts if you will of hormones in utero which effect the brain and the sex organs. If those blasts are not aligned you may get a trans person. My point is that there are hormonal underpinnings for this stuff, both mentally and phenotypically.

I don't know who Inanna is, unless you mean the mythological figure. That still clarifies nothing for me.

Foucault doesn't ignore the rest of history. The only reason he can make the claim he does is by taking the rest of history into account. That seems like a pretty easy point to understand...

Yes, the deity. As far back as we have some sort of civilizational record, civilized humans have had fertility deities, which were usually the central deities. Furthermore, religion was always more important, more central, in the life of humans as one goes back in history, not less. When fertility is in the center of life, I think that provides a significant counterpoint to Foucault's myopia on Victorianism/Freudianism. The psychiatrists merely became new priests with a different holy book. No significant change in social relation occurred as far as sex and authority is concerned.

What crisis? What problem? I don't see a problem except for you making one. This entire passage is almost incomprehensible to me, and this portion - "Sure, sex isn't necessary for the subject to live. But the subject is a fiction. What is it that does continue?" - makes no sense at all.

I thought both were clear given the context. A crises of identities. What continues is the genetic code.

It is obviously not in the interest of the subject to reproduce, but then neither is morality. But this is that vulgar individualism we were decrying before.

Achieving some legitimate degree of cultural/social acceptance concerning one's gender isn't ultimately worth what such gendered individuals stand to gain by not flaunting their identities and/or demanding acceptance.

What exactly do they stand to gain? Or rather, according to what better value (other than social acceptance) are they choosing to remain silent?

I could just let the article from the gay man speak for itself.

 

[CiG]

He's a conservative that just happens to be gay, not the other way around.
His views are hardly shocking considering this.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Dak:

Fertility isn't the same as sexuality, and cultural fascination with fertility does not translate into sexuality as a central component for an individual's identity.

As far as the crisis of gender identity goes, it isn't a crisis for those who feel a certain way - it was made into a crisis by people who told them they weren't supposed to feel that way.

I don't have time to respond to the rest now.

 

[Krow]

I feel like this thread should be relocated to The Philosopher, might help to revive that dead corner of UMF.
Just a thought.

Ein and Dak periodically do this and all you can do is just scrolllllllll.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

whaaammy

 

[Mort Divine]

Almost no one other than the FBI thinks men can't be raped.

 

[CiG]

The FBI thinks that?

 

[Mort Divine]

Not specifically, but they do define rape with penetration being a requirement.

 

[CiG]

People are aware of the FBI's archaic definition of rape and still cite rape statistics in discussions about gender inequality?
That seems...

 

[rms]

Not specifically, but they do define rape with penetration being a requirement.

Isn't that what separates sexual assault and rape?

 

[Mort Divine]

Isn't that what separates sexual assault and rape?

I believe so.

 

[CiG]

They need to add penetration by coercion to the definition.

 

[Mort Divine]

The old definition was “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males.
The new Summary definition of Rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

.

 

[CiG]

Yeah that's shitty, fuck the FBI.

 

[rms]

I don't follow, are you two upset at the old definition or the new one? If the old, why are we talking about it?

 

[no country for old wainds]

I feel like this thread should be relocated to The Philosopher, might help to revive that dead corner of UMF.
Just a thought.

i'm pretty sure i started up that forum although my memory is fucking terrible so i'm not 100%. what i am sure about is it died around the time speed started posting annoying shit every 5 minutes.