It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Definition of gender

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: menneni

What i believe is that people sometimes have a delussional self image of themselves in a reality they dont understand, and to quote.. Neil deGrass Tyson, "Perimeter of ignorance " My statement about mustalainen is that;" They dont talk "

But continue on your streak and i believe you will get banned, cause well, you have the mindset of a child




posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: menneni

Talk to the hand phrases seems like a mature way to start.. Isnt it better to try to state something other than an opinion?
What you believe, i can do nothing about.. If you believe in ghosts, demons, Aliens, Gods.. Its your experience of belief, not mine..

The person said;" I felt like a woman and became one " I said, " In society, yes.. In the "real" world, no.. Your defined by physical limitations, your fantasy is not..


Again, this continuation of a non-decided context in what terms are being used in what manner is just bringing up the same problem you and your friend had in the beginning.

One side is arguing gender in the most commonly used context in modern time conversation: socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

The other side is arguing gender from a scientific-use context: biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

This key difference was explained in the 8th response to this topic.

I don't believe anyone here is denying what constitutes the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. What I do see is a lack of acknowledgement that gender, in the modern era, refers to social constructs.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I know my argument hurts people, because it means that they have been changed through no fault of their own.
I'm just blaming society, when I refer to trauma I specifically mean any lasting experience which shapes an individuals perspective to such a negative degree that it will forever be a factor in who they are and who they become.

I don't really care that it's a Zeitgeist movie, I've gone looking on ATS for any evidence against Zeitgeist: Moving Forward but it has never been discussed.

The reason why I don't care is because it's not so much the people behind the documentary as the people in it. Health care professionsals who have spent their entire professional careers studying what we are discussing.
What's you're background looking like on that level?

Also - feral children in an orphnage goes against the definition of feral.
I'm specifically referring to children who have had no human intervention in their upbringing. For example, you can have the perfect genetic makeup to be a psychopathic serial killer - referring to brain structure specifically, but without suffering vicious abuse as a child, and possibly surviving you're own murder attempt, you won't.

Trauma ruins people for life and has ever lasting consequences if it's not dealt with correctly, this has been proven time and time again.

Did you even give it a look? Or did you just start playing it to only close it again? You should really give it a try, it's not like the others.
edit on 28-8-2016 by GreenGunther because: Phone typing



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Well yea, it changes biological nature - by the time humans found her she was 8 years old. She'll never be able to speak properly because she never developed the language center in her brain - biological.

She prefers the company of dogs to that of humans - although who doesnt


She will never be human in the true sense of the word, brains can be wired and re-wired.
Humans can be turned into machines, when we're young sponges, we can be manipulated into whatever society dictates.
Humans are extremely fragile when they're young, with the mental potential for anything. This I know.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Those aren't 2 different arguments, they go hand-in-hand.
Social behaviour is still a part of science.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther

... Humans can be turned into machines, when we're young sponges, we can be manipulated into whatever society dictates.


Uh huh, sure. Where are they hiding all those shadowy three-letter programmed bot people? If that was the case, I'd have never grown up trans as my parents did their damndest to encourage me to try to be a boy. Your whole trauma theory as causative factors for homosexuality and transsexuality just doesn't hold water either or have any sort of widespread scientific consensus in the vast majority of cases. Sure, there are incidences of sexual assault, abuse, violence extreme neglect or other traumas that that can lead to these outcomes but more commonly, you'd be looking at dissociative or other behavioral disorders. You can't make someone trans if they are not or not trans if they are. It has been tried and has failed miserably.

I'm not so much up on the science of being gay but the vast majority of current research and medical evidence all points to the causes of being trans as biological and taking place in utero. I can provide multiple links to hundreds of peer reviewed materials supporting this theory although there is no all-inclusive definitive paper available. These things are still being currently researched as technology and analytical methodologies progress.


Taking the entire breadth of the findings uncovered by research, it appears that there is more than sufficient evidence that transgender persons either have a serious hormonal-based birth defect, have been exposed to exogenous chemicals which have impacted their gender development in the womb, have a genetic karyotype which differs from the general population, or via some other process have a brain structure which is different than would be indicated by their chromosomes. While no single study presents proof beyond any shadow of a doubt or with metaphysical certainty, taken together they do present a preponderance of evidence such that one can say with confidence that transgender individuals have a congenital gene-based difference from cissexual individuals.


In one of your posts, you alluded that someone could turn out to be trans as a psychological way of escaping some sort of trauma. I will admit that made me chuckle because there are few traumas that could be worse for a child than being trans i.e. suffering from the medically diagnosable condition of having gender dysphoria. Trans children like I was and those of today are what we say we are. Studies show that transgender children's cross gender identity is consistent and solid across all testable measures and their responses were indistinguishable from cisgender children. Its real. It exists. For me, it was situationally confusing because the whole world was telling me I was supposed to be a boy but I've never had any confusion about my gender or what sex I was supposed to be.

If you want trauma, try raising a natal girl as a boy and see how well that works out. That's what growing up trans is like. It's suicide waiting to happen. Depression and anxiety and shame are crushing. Beyond that, which is monumental by itself, I have had two significantly traumatic and violent events in my life. These did nothing to make me trans, they were because I was but of course, that wasn't the word to describe kids like I was back in the 1960's. The first episode was at age 10 which initiated my long running childhood and adolescent interactions with the psychiatric profession and another when I was 14 that would have left most people with major PTSD. It nearly left me with dead. Had that incident not kicked off my social transition in earnest, I wouldn't have made it much longer anyway. Being someone I was not was just too fkucing hard.

So, I'm giving your whole trauma theory a generous two out of ten.



edit on 8/28/2016 by Freija because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Freija

I still get 2/10? Must have said something right

Your trauma was caused by people trying to change you, perhaps if they let you be who you were at that stage you would have turned out differently.

Environment has a huge impact on babies genetically, pre-natal. Especially the mothers health.
You should really look into all these things. The human mind is a fragile thing.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Freija

I still get 2/10? Must have said something right

Well, I did say I was being generous!



Your trauma was caused by people trying to change you

No it wasn't. It was people trying to punish me for being different. I looked different, I acted different and I was always different because psychologically, emotionally and personality-wise, I just was never a boy. Things were always rough but the incident near the end of the 4th grade (1965) was pretty violent and shocking and is a painful memory I don't much like talking about even today. After it happened, within a week my parents had pulled me out of school and we moved to a completely different part of the country. My folks were completely freaked out.

The other biggie in high school ended up with me in the hospital with several broken ribs, possible concussion, stitches in my face, shoulder and leg and bruises and contusions head to toe after being attacked by a group of homophobic mother f'ers on my way home from school. I was out of class for 3 1/2 weeks and things still hurt when I did go back. I got the feeling they were trying to kill me rather than "change me".


perhaps if they let you be who you were at that stage you would have turned out differently.

Yeah, I'd have fewer scars and bad memories. I spent three of my high school years on lock down more or less in solitary confinement as I could not leave the house unescorted except to go to school. My folks were more than completely freaked out about my safety. On the plus side, because of that I did get a car as soon as I turned 16.


Environment has a huge impact on babies genetically, pre-natal. Especially the mothers health.
You should really look into all these things. The human mind is a fragile thing.

Umm... you don't think I've "looked into all these things"? Seriously, I've studied all aspects of transsexualism for close to 50 years. In the last year alone, I've accumulated around 100 research papers and scientific articles on the subject. Maybe you are the one that should really do some looking?



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Ghost147

I know my argument hurts people, because it means that they have been changed through no fault of their own.


The reaction you recieve from your words about this topic aren't because "people are hurt by your argument", it's a reaction of shock at how inaccurate your position is.


originally posted by: GreenGunther
I'm just blaming society, when I refer to trauma I specifically mean any lasting experience which shapes an individuals perspective to such a negative degree that it will forever be a factor in who they are and who they become.


What exactly is negative about being gay?

You're just projecting homophobia, not reality.


originally posted by: GreenGunther
I don't really care that it's a Zeitgeist movie, I've gone looking on ATS for any evidence against Zeitgeist: Moving Forward but it has never been discussed.


You're in a topic regarding scientific matters, yet you provide no scientific evidence to support your position. It's not a matter that it's a zeitgeist movie, it's a matter of a lack of solid, peer reviewed evidence.

I've noticed you have yet to argue against any of the points I've made, that are in fact backed by scientific papers.


originally posted by: GreenGunther
Also - feral children in an orphnage goes against the definition of feral.


The feral children were claimed to be taken to an orphanage, they didn't grow up there obviously. However, it was a stunt by an orphanage, which is why I stated it was faked, and why it also supports my argument of being able to determine biological issues verses psychological ones.


originally posted by: GreenGunther
I'm specifically referring to children who have had no human intervention in their upbringing.


I'm aware of that.


originally posted by: GreenGunther
For example, you can have the perfect genetic makeup to be a psychopathic serial killer - referring to brain structure specifically, but without suffering vicious abuse as a child, and possibly surviving you're own murder attempt, you won't.


You seem to know very little about psychology of biology. There are a ton of cases whom are psychopathic serial killers that had a perfectly normal upbringing, and tons of people who are good, law abiding citizens who do incredibly charitable things and grew up in the most horrendous scenarios.

I mean, can you honestly say that "every woman who gets raped will commit or want to commit rape later in life"? that's an absurd notion.

~ Jeffrey Dahmer had a very normal, loving upbringing, yet he killed and ate people.
~ Harold Shipman also had a normal upbringing
~ Dennis Rader not only had a loving family growing up, but he also had a normal family while he was commiting murders
~ Israel Keyes is another example
~ Steve Wright, the 'Suffolk Strangler', claimed to have had an abusive childhood, but there isn't much to suggest anything beyond his father being somewhat strict and his parents being divorced
~ Richard Cottingham is another example
~ Karla Homolka had a normal upbringing
~ Dr. H.H. Holmes grew up in a wealthy family, excelled in academics, and nothing suggests his young life was at all troublesome.

Sorry, but your theory is beyond flawed.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Ghost147

Those aren't 2 different arguments, they go hand-in-hand.
Social behaviour is still a part of science.


No, they don't, as I've explained several times now. As everyone else has explained to you continuously. As the quote from the World Health Organization shows.

They are most certainly related, but they are not 100% synonymous.

In common-conversation, Gender refers to societal views, Sex refers to scientific views.

You are viewing this conversation as if everything is exclusively science, which is why you come in with a false preconceived context and are incapable of understanding where others are coming from.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Freija

Just wanted to say hello and I really enjoyed reading your posts. Very well stated and very well written, and highly intelligent. I gave you 3 stars for that one. I hope that we cross paths here again in the future. cheers.
edit on 8 30 2016 by Michielli because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Sometimes I see a fleeting glance of beauty, like one facet of a diamond reflecting sunlight from 10,000 miles away.
Most of the time I feel like John Merrick reciting Psalms in the loneliness of my room.

For those who have ears...

www.youtube.com...

There's gold in them thar hills.

cryp-tick-tock I know,
But now I must go,
To numb the dumb,
To be a bum.

Some of you will ruffle your feathers and say "huh?"
Some of you, perhaps, will say ah! ha!
Some of you won't care.
I care, but that and $10 will get you a cup of shiznitty coffee.
heh.
Spark it up dude, my name ain't skip.
IMHO novelty has reached it's peak, it's zero point fail.
And we all have to get up and do it again tomorrow.

Sorry but I really just felt I had to say that. If it doesn't mean anything to you move on. in-joy the music if you like.
cheers.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join