coprolite Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 11 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: No, not upset, just a bit fed up of faith being the only legitimate punchbag on this forum. For example, of the above list, the only one you have poked fun at is anyone having a faith by saying it's "sky fairy tosh". Only trying to redress the balance slightly, in a ham-fisted way admittedly. Religion, Tories and Falkirk, I think you’ll find. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwideJr Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 12 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Firstly, yes, I suppose I am. It's their opinion that they are a different sex from the one they were born as. An opinion not backed by science I'm afraid. I'm open to changing my opinion if science proves me wrong on that but that's where I stand at the moment. Not sure what "chippy vs chipper" is though. Second, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics but you are using the word "trans" when it shouldn't be necessary if you truly believe they have switched their biological sex. Not a point I want to labour over though. It was just a thought looking back on the language used in this debate. You keep on repeating this. Feel free to back it up at any point with evidence. Judging by how confident you are in your findings I'm sure you've carried out an extensive review of the latest scientific research around sex and gender, gender dysphoria and transgender people. A short sentence or two demonstrating that you understand the difference between sex and gender identity would be a good start. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 Just now, DA Baracus said: Are you comparing the utter bullshit that is religion to someone being gay? Are you saying both are beliefs? Relgious folk are supposed to be strong in their faith I thought, so why worry what those who don't buy the absolutely shite it is think? Who's worried? I was replying to someone who listed these things together. I made no comment on being gay. Take it up with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 22 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: No, not upset, just a bit fed up of faith being the only legitimate punchbag on this forum. For example, of the above list, the only one you have poked fun at is anyone having a faith by saying it's "sky fairy tosh". Only trying to redress the balance slightly, in a ham-fisted way admittedly. Have to agree, we barely know anything for sure about Jesus so claiming he shagged Paul or Mary Magdalene is on par with Britain First types calling Mohammed a paedo, interpreting sparse to the point of non-existence facts to make a political point. I don't think it's claimed that Paul met Jesus until a good 5 years after he was dead and magically appeared to him, anyway. Mind you, it hasn't been explained what happened between Jesus's mum and the Angel Gabriel either, so I suppose anything's possible. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 1 hour ago, DA Baracus said: Jesus wasn't real. And TBF, if it's all true, I hardly think his contemporaries would have minded 'Stevie, have you seen Jesus? Ma maw's just died' 'Jesus? Aye, he's in the back of the bookstore with Zacchaeus. He said if anybody's needing the dead raised or a load of fish whipped up just to shout from outside the curtain tho, no worries' 'The bookstore...curtain...oh THAT bookstore. Eh, aye, awrite then Stevie. Sorry maw, looks like you're pumped' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 26 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: Who's worried? I was replying to someone who listed these things together. I made no comment on being gay. Take it up with them. My point was more about the majority of hate for people in those categories is from people within faith groups or under the guise of a faith. I get your point about faith being a beating stick, but conversely I believe that religion is one of the biggest causes of inequality/unnecessary suffering and death in history, that doesnt mean there aren’t good people who have a faith, but many bad things are done in the name of faith, most of those things are done with a twisted understanding or the teachings of that faith. My point was that most of the hate directed (but not all) to gay, trans people etc comes from either people who preach that its an affront to god or people who’s bigotry towards it comes from religious opposition. In the same essence that our common laws etc are said to have their basis in religion I also believe that many of our societal norms are also widely shaped by the hold that religion has had on our lives and the lives of people for thousands of years before us. I do not believe that there is an omnipotent being called god who sent his son down to earth (above billions of other planets) to forgive our sins. I do however believe that there was probably a really influential guy called Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago and went about telling people not to be dicks and to have a bit of respect for others. This blue sky thinking could have only been explained by these people in dark ages as ‘godly’ and thus it sprung up a religious movement. I also believe that there was a fair chance this guy jesus could also have been gay, based on the fact it is described that he was very close/intimate with john and that he was unmarried etc which was incredibly incredibly odd for a 1st century jew in thay era, the fact John was also unmarried (as far as im led to believe?) is also a clue. But even if he was gay, straight, whatever he seemed like he was a decent spud and maybe if people were a bit more like him and not the people in churches or elsewhere who profess to speak for him now, then we’d all be better off, son of god or not. I dont see what’s offensive about that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 13 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Have to agree, we barely know anything for sure about Jesus so claiming he shagged Paul or Mary Magdalene is on par with Britain First types calling Mohammed a paedo, interpreting sparse to the point of non-existence facts to make a political point. I don't think it's claimed that Paul met Jesus until a good 5 years after he was dead and magically appeared to him, anyway. Mind you, it hasn't been explained what happened between Jesus's mum and the Angel Gabriel either, so I suppose anything's possible. I put Paul down in my original post but I meant John, ive linked some articles which demonstrate this theory, there are quite a few online. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 Jesus didn't exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: I put Paul down in my original post but I meant John, ive linked some articles which demonstrate this theory, there are quite a few online. No George, no Ringo ???????? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 22 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Jesus didn't exist. If you're trying this hard to be edgy then stop being wrong Historical Jesus - Wikipedia 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 Your own Historical Jesus. Also, George and Ringo were irrelevant. How's that for edgy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/oct/18/jerry-sadowitz-edinburgh-ban-cancel-culture-diktat-nudity-sexism-furore-interview "When it comes to cancel culture and comedy, we know the routine. A standup boasts on Netflix about “saying the unsayable”. Some people protest. Clickbait articles ensue – and the delighted comic cashes in with a new TV special or lucrative tour. You could, just about, squeeze into this template the row over the cancellation of veteran comic Jerry Sadowitz at this summer’s Edinburgh fringe. Sadowitz has, after all, booked a gig at prestigious London venue the Hammersmith Apollo off the back of it. But he’s not exactly delighted. “Do you think it makes me feel good that I’m doing a gig at Hammersmith because of adverse publicity? Really? Do you not think I’d prefer to have been given the opportunity because I’m a good comedian?” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said: If you're trying this hard to be edgy then stop being wrong Historical Jesus - Wikipedia Not trying to be edgy. Also who am I to disagree with Jesus' brother James, that regularly mentioned other son of god. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velo army Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 @oaksoft you're confusing sex and gender. Sex is the biological component. Gender is to do with roles and the characteristics assigned to those roles. Gender is a set of expectations about tasks, attitudes and behaviours that are culturally assigned based on sex. It is not biologically determined. It is something given to you by your culture, so it follows that we all have the right to reject that which our culture bestows upon us, in order to exercise fully our right to self expression. Check out Margaret Mead and Phyllis Kaberry. Two anthropologists who are hugely influential in the field of gender. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, velo army said: @oaksoft you're confusing sex and gender. Sex is the biological component. Gender is to do with roles and the characteristics assigned to those roles. Gender is a set of expectations about tasks, attitudes and behaviours that are culturally assigned based on sex. It is not biologically determined. It is something given to you by your culture, so it follows that we all have the right to reject that which our culture bestows upon us, in order to exercise fully our right to self expression. Check out Margaret Mead and Phyllis Kaberry. Two anthropologists who are hugely influential in the field of gender. He knows. He was at the wide-eyed "why won't someone tell me what a woman is?" bollocks a while back. This is just the usual desperate attention-seeking. Him winding people up with Objectivist, I-got-mine, f**k-the-paupers satire was amusing, but this is in pretty poor taste IMO. It's in character, but there are limits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, velo army said: Check out Margaret Mead I did a wee bit of Social Anthropology at University and the consensus was the the teenage girls in the South Pacific had lied their heads off. "Are you a virgin? No, certainly not, I've had loads of boyfriends and we've done everything!". This is an aside, greenie for the clarity of your explanation that even porridge brained anti woke angry retirees might take in. Who am I kidding! Edited October 18, 2022 by welshbairn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 40 minutes ago, BFTD said: This is just the usual desperate attention-seeking. And he keeps getting it. From the same osters. Every. Single. Time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 1 hour ago, velo army said: @oaksoft you're confusing sex and gender. Sex is the biological component. Gender is to do with roles and the characteristics assigned to those roles. Gender is a set of expectations about tasks, attitudes and behaviours that are culturally assigned based on sex. It is not biologically determined. While it's absolutely the case that gender - like all other forms of identity - is heavily determined by society and prevailing culture, that doesn't explain why so many key elements of gender identity and norms align between different cultures all over the world. If it was an entirely cultural construct, then we would see both now and in the historical past an infinite variety of ways in which gender norms are expressed. The fact that anthropologists rather than historians and sociologists are unpacking this idea tells us that there is no such extreme variation in how gender has been treated to date. There are countless minor differences of course, but fundamental gender distinctions have been consistently and easily read across all sorts of cultural boundaries for thousands of years. This suggests that biological sex (or possibly an entirely different factor) plays some role in explaining why concepts of gender have been relatively aligned across heterogeneous human cultures for a very long time. Put simply, the fundamental distinctions of gender have probably been established or reinforced by the physical distinctions between sex - a setup that worked pretty well for the vast majority of people most of the time. It does not work well for a minority population and that is an issue that a modern society should absolutely address fairly. But to claim that gender concepts are purely "culturally assigned" - with no other basis for their existence - is a post-modern narrative that is worth taking with a shovel of salt. Quote It is something given to you by your culture, so it follows that we all have the right to reject that which our culture bestows upon us, in order to exercise fully our right to self expression. If gender (or any other element of your identity) is not bestowed by nefarious 'culture' alone then there's a gap in your logic. There's also no consensus agreement on there being an unlimited right to self-expression - even in modern Western societies. Many of the identities bestowed on you by a human society of any complexity cannot be rejected and replaced with another of your own choosing. If self-expression is not an absolute and unlimited right, then a society has the right to regulate such expression if it chooses to do so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 Alright @oaksoft. You have said many times about there being "no evidence" in the field of sex and gender in relation to transgender people. Fill yer boots: What has sex got to do with it? The role of hormones in the transgender brain Doing Gender, Determining Gender: Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations Transgender Transitions: Sex/Gender Binaries in the Digital Age Perceptions of Sex, Gender, and Puberty Suppression: A Qualitative Analysis of Transgender Youth Varieties of Transgender/Transsexual Lives and Their Relationship with Transphobia This is the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands more going back to at least the 90s. But let me finish with one for the denigrators. Attempted Suicide Among Transgender Persons: The Influence of Gender-Based Discrimination and Victimization 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 6 minutes ago, oaksoft said: I said there was no evidence that you can physically change your sex and that your chromosomes determine your sex. Before I read them, and I'm willing to do so, are any of those links going to dispute that? I'm asking because none of those titles look like they are addressing that point and you've confused me by including one paper on transphobia and another on suicides. If you're trying to conflate asking questions about whether people can physically change their sex with transphobia then it's best to leave the discussion there I think. If this was not your intention then I'd be interested in knowing why you've included either of those papers - none of them are pertinent to the point I'm making. The very first paper listed starts with Quote The term gender identity refers to a person’s innermost sense of their own gender, while sex is the sex assigned at birth by a physician, typically based on chromosomal, hormonal, physical, or anatomical characteristics [1] (Table 1). For clarity in this review, sex will be used interchangeably with natal sex, biological sex, and sex assigned at birth. Hoping that this helps clarify the distinction between sex and gender. The papers on suicide are to bring to the attention of trans-deniers here that their words have impacts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.