In this case natural is most likely concluded through sexual reproduction facts, whats typical of the majority, and that straight people naturally find sexual appeal in the opposite sex and not their own.
Yeah, alright, for now we can use that as a definition, as long as we understand that that doesn't mean
biologically natural.
However, as I said way back in the beginning, this same sex attraction as well as sex confusion (for my lack of a better word) does occur and must take place during prenatal development in many cases.
I dunno about that. It certainly doesn't usually manifest until puberty. I think that the difference (whatever form it may take, I do believe that there is an inherent difference, though I don't think it's solely responsible for LGBT preferences) is present at birth, though.
Just curious as to how it is you know this ? I would reverse the "most but not all" part.
That particular piece of info comes from Gunner scott, who is part of a transsexual rights group. I assume it's true, since there's no reason for it not to be.
Overbearing parents - not carved in stone either, many if not most highly successful people have their parents to thank. Granted Im not totally for it but parents that have "pushed" and supported their children have had better results than those of the opposite.
Better results as in a higher salary for their children, sure. But that's not equatable to happiness. If a parent's goal (and it should be) is happiness for their children, pressuring them to succeed isn't the best way. It makes them less happy as kids and if they don't succeed, will make them feel shitty. It also may reduce the satisfaction of succeeding, since all they've done is what's expected.
"Pushing" ones children is a natural part of parenting and the learning process. In this case we are talking about it does have to be hard but there is still good reason and the parents can not be totally faulted
I wouldn't fault the parents so much as say that they made a mistake. No parents are ever perfect, and everything they do is for the sake of their children, so I can't blame them if they make a mistake. The only parents I would find fault with would be ones that refuse to accept their children; either if their child is lgbt and comes out to them and they refuse to accept it, or if their child perhaps doesn't want to be a fucking doctor.
I dont think what BMWG said is totally true, but the homosexual community has become more careful due to the obvious and many straight people are still too complacent about it.
I think what he said is true, since he would know about it. But yeah, I think perhaps the queer community is more responsible about this stuff.
As I recall the "reproduction" was about gays not reproducing? This is somewhat insignifacant due to many having tried to live the straight life(due to social pressure or desire to be "straight"), getting married and having familys, so there has been plenty of reproduction. Similiar maybe as the Bonobos, my understanding was they displayed bisexual and orgy activities.
Many
used to. At this point I think it's safe to say that gay men do not reproduce. Some lesbians have kids through in vitro, though.
I totally dont get the "gender roll, pressure thing" I never felt "pressure", its just something thats established itself over the years. Im not trying to be demeaning by this but I really do think thats just youthful rebellion at work. The girls ran around with us when we were kids, in shorts and sneaks just like us, they still lost interest faster. They climbed the trees, rode the bikes, just not as high or as fast or as far, no one was telling them "girls shouldnt go so high, too fast or too far". I'm not saying thats carved in stone either, the high school I went to just had a female wrestler go all the way to the States in the sectionals which is NO easy feat, props to her! {Thats coed BTW.} Dresses were also becoming rare on girls back when I was in school. That may have turned back some now, especially in the burbs ? Seems like you are saying without pressure girls would not desire to be "pretty" and boys would not desire to be "tuff" looking or "handsome" or display masculine traits ? I dont think that is true. I think it all came about the other way around.
I definitely think that natural leanings play a significant part. But the pressure can be very subtle. For example, disney movies - pretty much always traditional male-female relationships with the man working/being king/whatever and the woman cooking. Stuff like that. Subtle, but it reinforces gender roles and stuff. And while clothing is moving in a somewhat more unisex direction, just go outside around this time of year; half the girls at my school are dressed like cheap whores (ECFTW).
My parents actually used to buy me both, and allowed me to choose. I now feel that my gender is a very strong part of my identity, even though the skirts were pretty comfortable.
What?
I'm dubious. Are you sure you weren't just wearing your sister's clothes?
So...
What I have learned about all the trans gendered discussion is:
I'm not really allowed to ask too many questions to the LGBT community, as they may be offended.
Where'd you get that impression?
If you read the OP, the whole point of the Day of Dialog is to talk about this stuff.
When I DO ask any questions to the LGBT community, they are supposed to say, "It's just how it is." and I'm supposed to walk away with the knowledge that I have been INFORMED.
Again, hardly. However, if you want to know the scientific basis of homosexuality, the jury's still out.
I'm supposed to pretty much either;
A. Ignore any LGBT people, or....
B. Smile and confirm my acknowledgment of all LGBT people, regardless of what I think about it.
Preferably B. Why not? They're human beings.
I can raise no questions, impart no feeling, or even look at a member of the lbgt community for any reason other than to impart a positive reaction for them and their sexuality.
As far as their sexuality goes, yes, it's not really nice to look down on them for being gay. But you shouldn't think of them as just a gay guy - they're still complete human beings. You're allowed to not like an LGBT person, just not to not like him because he thinks he's a woman.
This sounds a little too much like the recent Republican debacle for me to deal with it. I WANT understanding, but I will not let myself get drawn into a discussion where the is no room for a dissenting opinion.
Feel free to express dissent here, as long as you do so respectfully.
And, apparently, in the trangendered group, there is no room for either questions, or any opinion but their own. There is no room for discussion, because we are all apparently idiots who don't want to UNDERSTAND them, and then do what they want, there is only room for unconditional acceptance.
Unconditional acceptance...think about what that implies. It implies accepting someone as a human being regardless of their sexual preference. That seems reasonable to me.
I'm definitely familiar with parental pressure, as my brother and I probably experienced more pressure from our father to conform to a male role than any other kids who we knew. He used to sit us down and lecture us on the responsibilities of being men even before we were old enough to know what the biological differences between men and women were. I even remember one instance when he was having one of these discussions with me and asked me a trick question. "Are you going to learn to be a man the easy way or the hard way?" to which I replied "the easy way." Apparently disturbed by my weakness or lack of interest he shouted "Wrong! There is no easy way to be a man!" Unfortunately, I was too young to relate to whatever point he was trying to make, so it just discouraged me further from ever wanting to be a "man," in the sense that he understood it. He also believed very strongly that men absolutely could not have long hair, so every couple months we had to have our hair cut whether we liked it or not, which of course we never did, but it wasn't our choice. Once, we even requested that the hair cutting lady leave a "tail" in the back, because pig tails were a popular hair style among the other kids in school. When we got home, we were so proud to show our dad, but he was furious and told us that if we didn't let him cut the tails off that he wasn't going to let us keep our hamsters, so we ended up letting him cut our pig tales off, although we were both crying the whole time. In fact, he continued to enforce his short hair rule until I was in 9th grade, when my mom finally snapped and told him that we were old enough to make our own decisions and that our hair wasn't his choice.
Now my brother and I are both in our 20s and we both have long hair, despite the counter-conditioning of our father and the fact that none of our other male friends do. But to be honest, I don't feel like I'm any less of a man for it, and I doubt my brother feels any differently than I do.
Heh. For some reason, I consider long hair more manly than short hair. Probably from watching Conan The Destroyer to much. No one is more manly than Conan.
But seriously, I think rebellion is definitely a factor in some of this.
