The Gender Non-binary debate.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Murph7355 said:

Do you think the acceptance of the breakdown of the traditional family unit has been a good or a bad thing?

That's not what I was implying at all.

Many children come from stable, loving, supportive family units where the parents are not married (or were not married at the time of conception), or one or both parents are not the birth parent of the child.

In the past this would have been a shameful stigma, and now it is not.

[hyphen]

Another lefty idiot in an authoritative position...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4987780/He...

"Today a bemused parent at the school... said: 'I'm afraid the headmaster has been fixated with this issue and with this letter he has lost what little credibility he had left.

'He should be focusing on the running of the school itself and not on pandering to issues such as gender fluidity. He's just got his priorities completely askew. Many parents are wondering whether he should reconsider his role within the school."

[Zoon]

The problem is when the lines become so blurred that nobody knows what a girl or a boy is the human race could die out because nobody knows who or what they can mate with. I know how how ridiculous that sounds but in biology males and females look different for a reason.

[hyphen]

Zoon said:

The problem is when the lines become so blurred that nobody knows what a girl or a boy is the human race could die out because nobody knows who or what they can mate with. I know how how ridiculous that sounds but in biology males and females look different for a reason.

Use of surrogates has become standard now with A-list celebs, so matter if time before it becomes widespread in normal folk so your (yes it is crazy!) blurring lines theory won't result in human race dying out

And there seems to many people on the internet who are convinced Amal Clooney was previously a Male, so male and females looking different is also a bit blurry nowadays!!

Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 17th October 11:04

[Halb]

WinstonWolf said:

Do we really want to be raising a bunch of sissys?

What's a sissy?

[ClockworkCupcake]

Zoon said:

The problem is when the lines become so blurred that nobody knows what a girl or a boy is the human race could die out because nobody knows who or what they can mate with. I know how how ridiculous that sounds but in biology males and females look different for a reason.

Really? You honestly think that gender identity is going to wipe out the human race and that the only way we can ensure procreation is for people to clearly identify which set of working genitalia they have?

[Zoon]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Really? You honestly think that gender identity is going to wipe out the human race and that the only way we can ensure procreation is for people to clearly identify which set of working genitalia they have?

No, if you read my post I said how ridiculous it sounds. But then again the dinosaurs probably thought they were going to be OK too.
My point is the more this becomes the norm and people say "whats wrong with all blokes dressing like Eddie Izzard" the more accepted it becomes and gender turns into a non-thing. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying beards and moustaches are better suited to men. Or that boys shouldn't wear dresses.

[Hayek]

Zoon said:

The problem is when the lines become so blurred that nobody knows what a girl or a boy is the human race could die out because nobody knows who or what they can mate with. I know how how ridiculous that sounds but in biology males and females look different for a reason.

This isn't going to happen. However civilisation can (and does) collapse, leaving the door open to be replaced by a different/stronger belief system.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Zoon said:

My point is the more this becomes the norm and people say "whats wrong with all blokes dressing like Eddie Izzard" the more accepted it becomes and gender turns into a non-thing. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying beards and moustaches are better suited to men. Or that boys shouldn't wear dresses.

Whereas I don't think there is anything wrong with gender being a non-thing. Just like I don't see anything wrong with skin colour being a non-thing.

Gay and lesbian people already have the issue of having to work out if the person they fancy has a compatible sexuality or not, as indeed do heterosexual people to a lesser extent for that matter - the women catching your eye might be a lesbian. It's just part of the rich tapestry of life.

What is your rationale for saying a boy who wants to wear a dress shouldn't be allowed to? Is it because you might see what you think is a woman, then find out its actually a boy, and be repulsed because you accidentally caught gayness?

Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 17th October 12:41

[WinstonWolf]

Halb said:

WinstonWolf said:

Do we really want to be raising a bunch of sissys?

What's a sissy?

I'm not allowed to say now, that would be 'hate crime'.

[ClockworkCupcake]

WinstonWolf said:

I'm not allowed to say now, that would be 'hate crime'.

Yet you still used the word, despite that.

"Sissy" is one of those words that says so much about the attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices of the person using it.

It's as pejorative as the equivalent words for sexuality and skin colour, and implies that the callee is the lesser for being called it.

[WinstonWolf]

And yet I'd bloody crucify you in an arm wresting contest

[ClockworkCupcake]

WinstonWolf said:

And yet I'd bloody crucify you in an arm wresting contest

And I'm sure I'd beat you in a "walking in heels and looking awesome in a dress" contest, but I'm not really sure what either would prove.

[hyphen]

Zoon said:

No, if you read my post I said how ridiculous it sounds. But then again the dinosaurs probably thought they were going to be OK too.

Sorry but WTF

[Zoon]

ClockworkCupcake said:

What is your rationale for saying a boy who wants to wear a dress shouldn't be allowed to? Is it because you might see what you think is a woman, then find out its actually a boy, and be repulsed because you accidentally caught gayness?

Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 17th October 12:41

Not at all.
I think young people nowadays have enough confusion in their lives without having the whole idea of saying "hey you might actually not be a boy or a girl, go try on a dress and a pair of stockings instead of that football kit you were going to wear".

[WinstonWolf]

ClockworkCupcake said:

WinstonWolf said:

And yet I'd bloody crucify you in an arm wresting contest

And I'm sure I'd beat you in a "walking in heels and looking awesome in a dress" contest, but I'm not really sure what either would prove.

I'm the new Conchita Wurst I'll have you know...

I'd never pick a fight with you personally because I think you're alright. Weird, but alright.

I'm as entitled to my prehistoric opinions as you are to yours

Footballers, bloody sissys the lot of 'em, give me rugby every time...

[ClockworkCupcake]

Zoon said:

Not at all.
I think young people nowadays have enough confusion in their lives without having the whole idea of saying "hey you might actually not be a boy or a girl, go try on a dress and a pair of stockings instead of that football kit you were going to wear".

It's more a case of "don't wear *those* clothes - only *girls* wear those clothes". Which raises all sorts of questions and issues, such as why are girls' clothes inferior to ones for boys? Why would dressing "like a girl" make a boy lesser for it and thus should be avoided? Why is it acceptable for a girl to wear a pair of trousers but not for a boy to wear a skirt (kilts notwithstanding)? Why do trousers specifically "for girls" have much smaller pockets than ones specifically "for boys"?

Personally I think that, if anything, "wear what you want" is *less* confusing.

[Europa1]

Zoon said:

ClockworkCupcake said:

What is your rationale for saying a boy who wants to wear a dress shouldn't be allowed to? Is it because you might see what you think is a woman, then find out its actually a boy, and be repulsed because you accidentally caught gayness?

Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 17th October 12:41

Not at all.
I think young people nowadays have enough confusion in their lives without having the whole idea of saying "hey you might actually not be a boy or a girl, go try on a dress and a pair of stockings instead of that football kit you were going to wear".

Zoon, you seem to somehow extrapolated Clockwork Cupcake talking about what someone wants to wear into people telling a boy to try a dress.

[WinstonWolf]

Nanook said:

WinstonWolf said:

I'm the new Conchita Wurst I'll have you know...

I'd never pick a fight with you personally because I think you're alright. Weird, but alright.

I'm as entitled to my prehistoric opinions as you are to yours

Footballers, bloody sissys the lot of 'em, give me rugby every time...

You're in no position to be calling anyone else weird.

Every post you write, I read and think "This fruit is a lunatic" and every time you post, you manage to outdo your previous one. Only someone with chronic insecurity would post on this thread that they could beat you at arm wrestling

Sorry, I've never noticed you before.

[Halb]

WinstonWolf said:

I'm not allowed to say now, that would be 'hate crime'.

I wasn't wholly sure what a sissy was, had to go look.
THere's two elements to it; effeminate and cowardly. Effeminate is subjective. But I would think the person who chooses their own way and doesn't mind standing out from the crowd, can in no way be labelled cowardly, whereas those who fear to stray from the crowd (even for something they wanna try, experiment with or really enjoy) is a tad cowardly, or sissy-like.
Eddie Izzard for example, is no sissy.