The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

6,851 to 6,900 of 18,884 << first < prev | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I was making a joke since my understanding was Belyaev was exiled to siberia fur farms because of his opposition to Lysenko and the work with domesticating foxes was his partially a middle finger to Stalin and Lysenko.

So, indirectly and unintentionally, Lysenko is responsible for those adorable fox kits.

At least for the purposes of humor.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good to have some perspective from you science friends.

Still, I think there's some merit in analyzing the way we talk about choice and essence with regard to gender and sexuality.

So we know that people's sexual attraction is largely innate, but what that means, and how it is framed and defined is socially constructed. For instance, what do homosexuality and heterosexuality mean in societies with more than two genders, or societies that recognize that gender is both a construction and an identity spectrum? I'm femme amab nonbinary, so as a "male" person who is attracted to women, that's heterosexual. As a nonbinary person who is attracted to women, is that heterosexuality? It depends on the social conception of heterosexual as an orientation, i.e., whether heterosexual means "attracted to a different sex than one's own" (per the etymological roots of the word) or "attracted to the 'opposite' sex." What even is the opposite of nonbinary? It doesn't really exist on a spectrum, and yet the conception of what an orientation is, is socially constructed on top of (and often obscuring or simplifying) biology.

I dunno, I'm rambling. I said it was an interesting article, without making any claims to its 100% merit (as I am sorely underqualified to speak to the science that y'all have pointed out, so thanks again for bringing that to the conversation), and I was thinking more about the construction of the idea of "choice" versus innateness.


mechaPoet wrote:
So we know that people's sexual attraction is largely innate, but what that means, and how it is framed and defined is socially constructed.

+1000. Attraction to people of the same gender may be innate, but the separation of this from other attraction, the building of identities based on attraction etc are social constructs.

It was a very interesting article, and that has a lot of merit I would say. I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, but there sure was a lot of good thought in it.

To me it's also interesting because I frequently read a Swedish feminist blog who's recently written a lot about sexuality and sexual identities as political forces and how they're used to form society. Was a lot of interesting stuff there relating to the topic of your link, but can't translate so long texts :/


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I found the "so what if it's not genetic" argument an interesting one.
i can be honest and say, as a CIS male, it's "easier" if it's something you have no choice over.
That's my hang up, though, and I guess ultimately should not matter.
"Love your neighbor" and all.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
+1000. Attraction to people of the same gender may be innate, but the separation of this from other attraction, the building of identities based on attraction etc are social constructs.

I don't know about that. You see a lot of the same gender roles assigned across societies. Acting male and liking women seems to work together as a package deal from a biological perspective.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
+1000. Attraction to people of the same gender may be innate, but the separation of this from other attraction, the building of identities based on attraction etc are social constructs.
I don't know about that. You see a lot of the same gender roles assigned across societies. Acting male and liking women seems to work together as a package deal from a biological perspective.

"Acting male" is 100% social construction. All that's really accurate about this "package deal" is a general observation that human heterosexuality is very common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we are going to start talking about where babies come from, I'm going to need by parents permission to keep reading this thread.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Babies are a social construct.

Liberty's Edge

But a delicious one.


mechaPoet wrote:


"Acting male" is 100% social construction. All that's really accurate about this "package deal" is a general observation that human heterosexuality is very common.

Aggression and risk taking for example have a very firm biological basis. What society tends to do is exacerbate the underlying trend by pushing men into and pushing women out of professions involving violence and risk taking.

Most social constructs make an absurd amount of sense if you assume that their purpose is survival.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sir Awesomesauce McSnazzlepants wrote:
True enough, Gaberlunzie! That's what I say, but some people, even those who are trans, suggest that I am bisexual. It's rather bizarre, but I suppose it has a lot to do with the attitudes around where I live, I suppose. Even those who are MtFs seem to view those attracted to them as bi, whether male or female. It's probably just a 'Sawnthern thang' lol.

F~** what other people think. Do you consider yourself bi? Heteroflexible? Just plain straight, albeit with a slightly-larger definition of what is female than some straight men? Do you like Gladiator movies? Ever hang around in locker rooms?


mechaPoet wrote:

So we know that people's sexual attraction is largely innate, but what that means, and how it is framed and defined is socially constructed. For instance, what do homosexuality and heterosexuality mean in societies with more than two genders, or societies that recognize that gender is both a construction and an identity spectrum? I'm femme amab nonbinary, so as a "male" person who is attracted to women, that's heterosexual. As a nonbinary person who is attracted to women, is that heterosexuality? It depends on the social conception of heterosexual as an orientation, i.e., whether heterosexual means "attracted to a different sex than one's own" (per the etymological roots of the word) or "attracted to the 'opposite' sex." What even is the opposite of nonbinary? It doesn't really exist on a spectrum, and yet the conception of what an orientation is, is socially constructed on top of (and often obscuring or simplifying) biology.

I dunno, I'm rambling. I said it was an interesting article, without making any claims to its 100% merit (as I am sorely underqualified to speak to the science that y'all have pointed out, so thanks again for bringing that to the conversation), and I was thinking more about the construction of the idea of "choice" versus innateness.

This is one of the more interesting social paradoxes of our modern society. On the one hand, it's pretty clear that gender and sexual orientation are innate and determined by birth or very early in childhood. On the other, it's also pretty clear that what gender and sexual orientation mean in any one person's case is almost entirely a social construction. If that was what the article meant to explore, the writer picked a good subject and didn't do it justice, unfortunately.

So, yes. Having a particular pattern of brain development that in our culture predisposes one to be what we call homosexual is innate. What we call and associate with being homosexual is not in the least bit innate.

Being nonbinary is most likely related to whatever structures in our brains that in most people drive the identification with male or female gender. It may be that you have the 'male' structure but not the 'identify as' structure. (This is my personal favored hypothesis, but it is by no means well-supported.) It may be that your structure is intermediate between male and female. It may be something else entirely. In any case, the underlying biological basis by no means invalidates your identification as nonbinary.

As an aside, I discovered an interesting term not long ago. Some people who have partners who identify as nonbinary, rather than calling them their girlfriends or boyfriends, call them their 'enbyfriends' (with the 'by' pronounced like 'bye' I think). Have you heard of this?


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Sir Awesomesauce McSnazzlepants wrote:
True enough, Gaberlunzie! That's what I say, but some people, even those who are trans, suggest that I am bisexual. It's rather bizarre, but I suppose it has a lot to do with the attitudes around where I live, I suppose. Even those who are MtFs seem to view those attracted to them as bi, whether male or female. It's probably just a 'Sawnthern thang' lol.
F$#! what other people think. Do you consider yourself bi? Heteroflexible? Just plain straight, albeit with a slightly-larger definition of what is female than some straight men? Do you like Gladiator movies? Ever hang around in locker rooms?

no, but I have seen my mom after she gets out of the shower....


I've got a fairly strong suspicion that it's all more complicated than we think. Like most things about people. There certainly appear to be at least some homosexuals who are very strongly oriented that way do to genetic and/or early (pre-natal) development.

But there's also a broad range of bisexual behavior and that seems much more socially driven. Also in cases where one gender is isolated from the other for extended periods, people who wouldn't identify even as bisexual, before or after, will turn to each other. Not just prisons, where rape is a huge problem, but boarding schools and the old navies and pretty much anywhere. Or historical societies with different attitudes towards sex, hetero or homosexual.


thejeff,

That one has a pretty easy explanation. We didn't evolve to face the situation where you could be involuntarily restrained from meeting the urges of your sex drive for a long period of time, so there's nothing but a downside to a mechanism to shutting off the urges.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

I think it's pronounced N-B-friend. Just the pronunciation of the abbreviation of nonbinary (nb). Usually I think we just use the term "partner," but we've definitely had that moment where she's trying to find the right word and said, ". . . wait, what exactly do I call you?" :P

Shadow Lodge

The Doomkitten wrote:

Ben Carson says that being gay is a choice.

In my opinion, he said lots of offensive things, lots of slightly unoffensive things, and a lot of uninformed things. But then again, I'm new to this community, so... yeah.

Anyways, nice to see you all again! :)

I always say, "Why does it matter if it's choice or not. Still my body and my life." Ol Ben Carson has no real faith in his god. If he did, he would trust his god to manage these matters and let the people of the world decide if they want to follow his god's law and not try to impose his god's law onto people's lives.

Edit: Oh, and welcome back, Kitten.


Actually, Bahama-who, that's a good question. I consider trams individuals to be their professed gender, so I would say 'straight with a larger definition', but again it's hard to classify, given all the different opinions that I have heard on the subject and that each person draws different lines separating these things. I know it goes back to people's viewpoints, but I am dialectic in my thinking and find it difficult to classify this one thing because some details overlap, which makes me search for a consensus on what is what.


It's ironic. I had no idea who this Ben Carson was until he was mentioned in this thread. By his one statement and it being pushed out on the internet, it may be possible that he has gotten more exposure and publicity than he could have ever dreamed of on his own.

And the ironic part is it was done by those who are stating oppositions to his views...when in a way, through publicizing his views, they are the very ones pushing them!

I find that very ironic. I had never heard of him prior to this that I know of (or if I had, I didn't care enough to remember him).

Perhaps, sometimes it's better to be silent on something like that than give them the publicity they desire?

Just a thought.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:


"Acting male" is 100% social construction. All that's really accurate about this "package deal" is a general observation that human heterosexuality is very common.
Aggression and risk taking for example have a very firm biological basis.

I wouldn't say "very firm", especially not to the degree we see in our culture today. There is evidence of risk taking and aggression having some link to testosterone, but it's not a simple causal effect. In addition, testosterone levels are not completely biologically determined; they are also affected by environmental factors which can also be exaggerated by social conditioning.

But that is just one very, very specific way we could see a difference, and "acting male" is a lot, lot more than aggression and risk-taking.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't know about that. You see a lot of the same gender roles assigned across societies. Acting male and liking women seems to work together as a package deal from a biological perspective.

You're going to have to put forth some pretty heavy evidence for that. From what I've seen, there's been plenty of simply bad science in regards to this topic.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed some derailing political posts.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Video for y'all this time:

How Do We and The Sims Perform Gender?

EDIT: Right, remember that this is a youtube video about gender, so a heaping portion of the comments are the worst kind of vitriol. But there are also some interesting ones because this channel is pretty good. It's like bobbing for apples, except instead of water it's acid.

Double edit: And for you pedantic chemistry types, assume the acid is of a dangerously acidic pH, okay! No, I don't know how the apples are protected against it. A wizard did it.


I gotta say, while I dont think the content in PBS idea channel is bad or anything, I have a hard time for that annoying sports commentator slash vacuum cleaner salesman style they keep up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:


"Acting male" is 100% social construction. All that's really accurate about this "package deal" is a general observation that human heterosexuality is very common.
Aggression and risk taking for example have a very firm biological basis.

I wouldn't say "very firm", especially not to the degree we see in our culture today. There is evidence of risk taking and aggression having some link to testosterone, but it's not a simple causal effect. In addition, testosterone levels are not completely biologically determined; they are also affected by environmental factors which can also be exaggerated by social conditioning.

But that is just one very, very specific way we could see a difference, and "acting male" is a lot, lot more than aggression and risk-taking.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't know about that. You see a lot of the same gender roles assigned across societies. Acting male and liking women seems to work together as a package deal from a biological perspective.

You're going to have to put forth some pretty heavy evidence for that. From what I've seen, there's been plenty of simply bad science in regards to this topic.

Notice how you slap down "you're 100% wrong" to statements by others, completely unsupported by anything, and yet demand evidence when they question your statements? It is usually not considered good debating. I would very much like to see what if anything you support "acting male is 100% social construction" by. It would, as you say, have to be pretty heavy evidence too.


I may have chosen my words badly - with "acting male is 100% a social construct" I meant that as "male" is a by humans created designation, acting in ways that are construed as "male" is a social construct. It was bad and imprecise language on my part, aand i'm sorry about that, but what my statement was meant to imply is just a function of the words and not really something that is to be regarded as an empirical statement - all of the assumptions for the conclusion are well-accepted (such as the word "male" not occurring without humans creating it), and if there is one in particular that you feel is not an obvious assumption please tell me and I'll support my stance.

I understood BNWs claims as factual claims about the real world that are very badly supported by our scientific knowledge, hence i asked for sources, especially as the claims are similar to various pseudosciebtific factoids spread by for example Phil Mason, and that have been debunked time and again and are not supported by the sciebtists in the actual fields (such as biology).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Welp, no equal marriage in NE for a while. 8th circuit court granted a stay to Judge Battalian's decision till either they hear the arguments, or SCOTUS decides.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Sissyl wrote:
Notice how you slap down "you're 100% wrong" to statements by others, completely unsupported by anything, and yet demand evidence when they question your statements? It is usually not considered good debating.

I am 100% less interested in "good debating" and 100% more interested in slapping down hetero- and cis-normative gender essentialism.

And sometimes it's tiring to explain over and over again what that means. Watch that video I just linked. Read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble. Trust me as someone who is amab and no longer identifies as male.

My gender is not up for debate. Saying that "acting male" is biological is overly simplistic and often a hurtful and erasing violence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, that settles that, doesn't it? Thing is, we are making headway finding how gender works, and surprise, it is not all culture as you claim. But, no matter this, you claim that saying this is "overly simplistic and often a hurtful and erasing violence". Whew. The reason seems to be that you consider such arguments to be debating your gender. Why would you draw that conclusion? Biology is far, far more complex than what chromosomes you have. And, I am sorry, but your connection between the concepts of biology and your gender doesn't in any way invalidate the findings of science.

You have every right to choose, present as, or be, any gender you choose. Nobody has any right discriminating you because of such a choice. Making that choice will not, however, make human biology work any different, or allow you to ban research you don't like.


mechaPoet wrote:
ion your statements? It is usually not considered good debating.
I am 100% less interested in "good debating" and 100% more interested in slapping down hetero- and cis-normative gender essentialism.

But you don't do that through sheer declaration.

Quote:
And sometimes it's tiring to explain over and over again what that means. Watch that video I just linked.

The videos lack of evidence for its claims made it less than useful. Asking a question about something doesn't suddenly make it invalid. That something is a spectrum or a scatter graph rather than two circles doesn't negate some pretty clear groupings and correlations.

Quote:
Read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble. Trust me as someone who is amab and no longer identifies as male.

15 bucks is a little pricey atm. When I have a better transport situation i might try the library.

It looks like the book is having a philosophical issue with how one applies a broad adjective with no clear definition and some blurry lines to 3.5 billion people. I don't think that blurred lines negates a group. Wolves, coyotes, and dogs all exist even though you have things like wolf coyote hybrids, eastern coyotes, wolf dog hybrids. Liminal individuals break a platonic ideal, not a rough blurry description that knows its a rough blurry description.

Quote:
Saying that "acting male" is biological is overly simplistic

Its simplistic yes. Its talking about 3.5 billion humans and I don't have so much as crayons to draw a graph with.

Quote:
and often a hurtful and erasing violence.

I don't see how the idea does that on its own. If you combine it with the idea that those who do not conform will be punished then yes, but on its own? What does it do? Its an is statement, not an ought one.

I see the opposite. I have never seen someone that thought gender or orientation have a biological basis think that trying to force individuals to conform to something anyway was a good idea. If you think that your child acts a certain way because of how he was raised you can try to force the issue and raise them differently. If you believe its an inherent part of their being you accept that and go from there.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Biology is a part of culture. It's a scientific field of study, and the assumptions, definitions, and conclusions drawn from biology as a field are culturally influenced and influential.

I am not "banning" scientific research. Christ. What I was specifically addressing earlier was BNW essentially saying "Biology says that 'acting male' is biologically coupled with heterosexual attraction to women." Which, duh, of course it is, because the gender binary in humans is often justified with "biology," and vice versa. The biological definition of sex or gender are still cultural definitions, and for a very long time those definitions have been used to justify violence, both physical and social, against those who exist too far removed from the accepted gender hegemony.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Biology is a part of culture. It's a scientific field of study, and the assumptions, definitions, and conclusions drawn from biology as a field are culturally influenced and influential.

Science is not purely a social construct. Thats why science works better than religion and sociology. It has a very large objective component that is not dependent on culture.

Quote:
The biological definition of sex or gender are still cultural definitions

The words are. But the ideas are descriptive, not proscriptive. Rosa by any other name and all that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Culture is a reflection of biology. Still, while most people muddle along in roughly the center of the bell curve, there are always those who do not, and what is important is that they are respected despite the possible inconvenience of not everyone following life model #1A.

Whether you like it or not, you are a biological being, subject to the variation and constance of being so.

As you say, acting male is most likely coupled to heterosexual attraction to women, but not because of any justification by any socially defined words, but simply because those who did both got more children than those that didn't. There are biological patterns for both, and these patterns correlate well, but certainly and obviously not completely.

The thing about biology (and other natural science) is that it tells us how, and sometimes we can figure out a why... but neither gives any concept any sort of justification or moral certitude. The lion eats the gazelle, and we can measure and research that fact, but we can't ever go from there to "the lion SHOULD eat the gazelle". Nor will biology ever tell us "women SHOULD stay at home to raise kids".

Those kinds of conclusions are drawn in various forms of putrid political "science", and should reflect only on them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The catch is... What is "acting male"?

Surely you mean dressing yourself in brightly colored coat, silk shirt with laced jabot, with white stockings and high heeled shoes, while wearing lots of gold jewelry adorned with diamonds. All heavily perfumed. And carrying perfumed handkerchief made of lace or silk. Like a properly virile man and not one of those gutless puritans without a shred of masculinity in them, acting and dressing like mere, mon dieu, commoners?

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Whether you like it or not, you are a biological being, subject to the variation and constance of being so.

First of all, this is false, as I have transcended my mortal flesh prison and my consciousness resides in a perfect and indestructable battle mecha. Why do you think I'm mechaPoet???

Second, there are totally people who have used biology to justify racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Some of it is bad science, and some of it is oppressive and violent conclusions and interpretations drawn from good science. Science has, is, and always will be political (even the parts of it that are "objective" and apolitical, because those are still political positions).

Oppressive biology is still biology, and I understand this desire to No-True-Scotsman it. This same desire often plagues feminism: some claim that racist and transphobic people aren't "real" feminists. But it's important to acknowledge that there are feminists who are racists, and even TERFs are still feminists (but oppressive ones). Science is inseparable from culture, and true "objectivity" is an unreachable and nonexistent state.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Politicized branches of science do all in their power to taint the natural sciences with their slime, that much is true. With rising influence of politicians over all science, more and more of it is ruined. That said, "science" is far from inseparable from culture. Objectivity is not at all unreachable, so long as you don't let the political buzzwords of today rule over science. It seems to me that today, the most energetic and sustained attack on objective science comes from the so-called liberal side of the spectrum.


MechaPoet wrote:
Oppressive biology is still biology

Can you give an example? Biology deals with is. Ought is (unfortunately) for the politicians and philosophers.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
MechaPoet wrote:
Oppressive biology is still biology
Can you give an example? Biology deals with is. Ought is (unfortunately) for the politicians and philosophers.

Google "racist biology" and have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am being oppressed by the biology!

It forces me to eat, drink, sleep, and do more unsavory things!

6,851 to 6,900 of 18,884 << first < prev | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.