You're all Transgender hens until Proven Otherwise!!

Mardy Bum

strobe wrote: »

It's the third point I really only take specific issue with. That the prevalence of heterosexuality and it's 'dominance' in relation to other sexualities is a result of the societal construction of gender roles with the end being the production or maintenance of a society in which one gender dominates another. You've offered no supporting argument for this and it's a pretty massive claim to make that seems at odds with reality and common sense. You can hardly be surprised that people are calling you on it and asking you to attempt to support it. To follow it to it's logical conclusion one would take it that you believe that in a non-coercive society the instance of heterosexuality would fall dramatically... that seems unlikely.

The phallus is a signifier which in Freudian and Lacanian theory defines man and woman. It is a male symbol built on the anatomical model of the penis and operating as a powerful signifier in the lexicon of the unconscious. The function of the phallus is to produce subjects which are sexed.
In the Oedipal phase the male child must reject the mother and femininty so it can attain its own identity. Now the phallus is not the penis only a signifier and as a result of the castration complex it becomes something of a source of anxiety. This manifests as a crisis of masculinity.

Masculinity only exists by keeping the other (femininity at bay but it also only exists in relation to the other (Feminine) as desired object, as that which might confirm the male by acknowledging the owner of the phallus.
Therefore male response to this is to construct an order of difference and exclusion i.e make the woman a goddess but keep or in chains i.e heterosexual misogyny.

Rocket19

bodice ripper wrote: »

Yes, that was exactly the point I was making. I don't think you should raise girls to be passive housewives with no interest in personal growth, but I think actively discouraging behaviour that conforms to gender roles can be every bit as damaging.

That's very true, but I don't think anyone suggested otherwise.
It would be sliiiightly counteractive in the "equality" sense to 'ban' girls from partaking in traditionally 'girly' activities. What (poster) Jill_valentine said totally rings true in that, in some sense, playing with dolls (i.e, girly play), etc, is often seen as somehow inferior to 'boys' play'. There is no good reason why this is so. Toys, after all, are mostly 'roleplay' of adult activities (be that the domestic or working environment). They shouldn't be synonymous of either gender.

We should be encouraging all kids to play with different toys and engage in play free from gender biases. Funnily enough, most modern men have no issues with taking care of their children, helping with chores, etc. However, the idea of a little boy holding a doll or playing with a plastic stove is somehow abhorrent!

xsiborg

jill_valentine wrote: »

xsiborg wrote: »

meh, might as well stay on topic and ask why nobody seems to have considered that the child in the spiderman costume might just be a girl too?

Ah, now there's a thought. Maybe, rather than a boy in a spiderman costume pushing a pram, we're looking at a girl pushing a pram in a spiderman costume.

Is that as grotesque a prospect to drunkmonkey and chums, or is it only the first scenario that spells the demise of civilisation as we know it?

INCEPTION!! :eek:

seamus

smash wrote: »

What matters is that the second you know it's there, you want nothing to do with it.

...because otherwise you'd be having sex with a man, right?

Apologies, I did change my post a little after you both quoted it.

My argument is that the vagina is irrelevant. You don't assume that a woman has a vagina, in fact you don't even give it a second thought. You see an attractive woman and you find her attractive. When you find she has no vagina, you realise that she's not a woman and so you lose the attraction.

This doesn't make the attraction vagina-specific, just gender specific. But if your definition of gender doesn't include genitalia, then there's nothing to "get over" in terms of lacking one.

Which is my point. You are not attracted to vaginas, you are attracted to women. Exactly the same as Links is.

The only difference is that your definition of a woman requires a vagina. Links's definition doesn't.

awec

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The phallus is a signifier which in Freudian and Lacanian theory defines man and woman. It is a male symbol built on the anatomical model of the penis and operating as a powerful signifier in the lexicon of the unconscious. The function of the phallus is to produce subjects which are sexed.
In the Oedipal phase the male child must reject the mother and femininty so it can attain its own identity. Now the phallus is not the penis only a signifier and as a result of the castration complex it becomes something of a source of anxiety. This manifests as a crisis of masculinity.

Masculinity only exists by keeping the other (femininity at bay but it also only exists in relation to the other (Feminine) as desired object, as that which might confirm the male by acknowledging the owner of the phallus.
Therefore male response to this is to construct an order of difference and exclusion i.e make the woman a goddess but keep or in chains i.e heterosexual misogyny.

My goodness... :rolleyes:

awec

seamus wrote: »

...because otherwise you'd be having sex with a man, right?

Apologies, I did change my post a little after you both quoted it.

My argument is that the vagina is irrelevant. You don't assume that a woman has a vagina, in fact you don't even give it a second thought. You see an attractive woman and you find her attractive. When you find she has no vagina, you realise that she's not a woman and so you lose the attraction.

This doesn't make the attraction vagina-specific, just gender specific. But if your definition of gender doesn't include genitalia, then there's nothing to "get over" in terms of lacking one.

Which is my point. You are not attracted to vaginas, you are attracted to women. Exactly the same as Links is.

The only difference is that your definition of a woman requires a vagina. Links's definition doesn't.

Of course you assume she has a vagina. Every woman I meet there is an assumption she has a vagina. I imagine I am not the only one.

drunkmonkey

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why do you think she's acting like a man? Because she has a girlfriend?
Do you not think you're being a bit insulting?

Ok right now I don't mean to upset links it's not my intention she's been a good sport in answering questions for some of us that are very confused. It's not often we get to engage with different view points without it ending in carnage. We should Tip or hats to Links.


To answer your question this is why I think links is a man. He's attracted to women, He was born a man. Therefore the only logical conclusion you can draw is that she is man.
He does everything nature intended and is not really crossing any lines. I can't for the life of me fathom why he is a she. It's a complete contradiction.

Links234

Ok, can I ask you please do not refer to me as "he" or "a man" any more?

thanks.

Babybuff

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He does everything nature intended and is not really crossing any lines. I can't for the life of me fathom why he is a she. It's a complete contradiction.

It's. who. she. is.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

Which is my point. You are not attracted to vaginas, you are attracted to women.

Were attracted to women because the have vaginas. I can't believe you think the Vagina is irrelevant when it comes to women.
I can only make an assumption that your not attracted to women when you think like that because I don't think it's how most guys who like girls think.

Meesared

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ok right now I don't mean to upset links it's not my intention she's been a good sport in answering questions for some of us that are very confused. It's not often we get to engage with different view points without it ending in carnage. We should Tip or hats to Links.


To answer your question this is why I think links is a man. He's attracted to women, He was born a man. Therefore the only logical conclusion you can draw is that she is man.
He does everything nature intended and is not really crossing any lines. I can't for the life of me fathom why he is a she. It's a complete contradiction.

I dont even know what to say here!

Babybuff

Meesared wrote: »

I dont even know what to say here!

Is there like an troll version of the oscars? He should at least be rewarded for his determination.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why do you think she's acting like a man? Because she has a girlfriend?
Do you not think you're being a bit insulting?

Ok right now I don't mean to upset links it's not my intention she's been a good sport in answering questions for some of us that are very confused. It's not often we get to engage with different view points without it ending in carnage. We should Tip or hats to Links.


To answer your question this is why I think links is a man. He's attracted to women, He was born a man. Therefore the only logical conclusion you can draw is that she is man.
He does everything nature intended and is not really crossing any lines. I can't for the life of me fathom why he is a she. It's a complete contradiction.

You know when men joke and say they're lesbians trapped in a mans body? Well this is true in links' case.

Donnielighto

seamus wrote: »

...because otherwise you'd be having sex with a man, right?

Apologies, I did change my post a little after you both quoted it.

My argument is that the vagina is irrelevant. You don't assume that a woman has a vagina, in fact you don't even give it a second thought. You see an attractive woman and you find her attractive. When you find she has no vagina, you realise that she's not a woman and so you lose the attraction.

This doesn't make the attraction vagina-specific, just gender specific. But if your definition of gender doesn't include genitalia, then there's nothing to "get over" in terms of lacking one.

Which is my point. You are not attracted to vaginas, you are attracted to women. Exactly the same as Links is.

The only difference is that your definition of a woman requires a vagina. Links's definition doesn't.

Slight issue with this is that it is parts of what you are attracted to. Whale of a woman with a nice face. If i see a photo of the face I will find it attractive but if i see the full photo i wont find her attractive. Just as i can find a body attractive and a personality can ruin that.

Not to disagree fully with you a hot girl is hot to me regardless.

wonderfulname

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Were attracted to women because the have vaginas. I can't believe you think the Vagina is irrelevant when it comes to women.
I can only make an assumption that your not attracted to women when you think like that because I don't think it's how most guys who like girls think.

Why would you think of attraction purely in a reproductive sense? I'm attracted to women and attracted to everything about them, how they look, move, smell, feel, taste although more importantly how they think. I find it hard to believe that when your straight it's just some form of magnetic genital attraction, that would be incredibly boring. Is the vagina really the first thing to spring to mind when you see a woman that sparks your interest?

G.K.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I can't believe you think the Vagina is irrelevant when it comes to women.

Seamus's own opinions/preferences never came into it. i advise you read the post next time.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your a man that decided to become a woman

A trans woman 'decides to become a woman' just as much as people decide to have heart bypasses or liver transplants. Sure, you can say, no, I won't bother, but if you don't it'll probably kill you. Hardly a decision.

smash

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why would you think of attraction purely in a reproductive sense? I'm attracted to women and attracted to everything about them, how they look, move, smell, feel, taste although more importantly how they think. I find it hard to believe that when your straight it's just some form of magnetic genital attraction, that would be incredibly boring. Is the vagina really the first thing to spring to mind when you see a woman that sparks your interest?

It's not just genital attraction, it's physical and sexual attraction. I am physically attracted to women. Not to the gender based on their mind, to their physical side based on their looks, this includes genetalia! This is what makes a woman attractive to me. Anyone can be attractive, but any form of sexual attraction is gone if they have a penis.

drunkmonkey

wonderfulname wrote: »

Is the vagina really the first thing to spring to mind when you see a woman that sparks your interest?

Pussy, I call it pussy.

Doctors call it Vagina.

And to answer your question no it's procreation that enteres the head first.

efb

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Pussy, I call it pussy.

Doctors call it Vagina.

And to answer your question no it's procreation that enteres the head first.

Are you Chris Rock?
(I totally read that in a Chris Rock accent)

jill_valentine

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Pussy, I call it pussy.

Doctors call it Vagina.

And to answer your question no it's procreation that enteres the head first.

Ahahahahahaha. Procreation? So you just walk around looking for wombs all day, pretty much? Nothing to do with sex, or even a relationship, it's just breeding is all you think about, you're telling me?

And I'd say most people call it a vagina, or some Irish slang, "pussy" is for Americans and/or greasy creepers using chatlines IMHO.

drunkmonkey

efb wrote: »

Are you Chris Rock?
(I totally read that in a Chris Rock accent)

I'm OldSkool (nsfw)

drunkmonkey

jill_valentine wrote: »

And I'd say most people call it a vagina

No most guys call it anything but Vagina. Well the straight ones anyway.

Wombs
Vagina

That's way to clinical. Makes you about as hard as a rabbits ear.

efb

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm OldSkool (nsfw)

Thought u were going to say Richard Prior.

smash

jill_valentine wrote: »

And I'd say most people call it a vagina, or some Irish slang, "pussy" is for Americans and/or greasy creepers using chatlines IMHO.

I believe the politically correct phrase is axe wound!

xsiborg

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The phallus is a signifier which in Freudian and Lacanian theory defines man and woman. It is a male symbol built on the anatomical model of the penis and operating as a powerful signifier in the lexicon of the unconscious. The function of the phallus is to produce subjects which are sexed.
In the Oedipal phase the male child must reject the mother and femininty so it can attain its own identity. Now the phallus is not the penis only a signifier and as a result of the castration complex it becomes something of a source of anxiety. This manifests as a crisis of masculinity.

Masculinity only exists by keeping the other (femininity at bay but it also only exists in relation to the other (Feminine) as desired object, as that which might confirm the male by acknowledging the owner of the phallus.
Therefore male response to this is to construct an order of difference and exclusion i.e make the woman a goddess but keep or in chains i.e heterosexual misogyny.

put down the first year psychology book and stop trying to talk over people's heads, all your effort to sound like an intellectual has just done is shown you have no idea what you are talking about.

you can spout all the psychology buzzwords you want, but all that shows is that you can read. your post however, shows you have no understanding of what you read. how about coming up with an original thought or opinion of your own next time?

jill_valentine

smash wrote: »

I believe the politically correct phrase is axe wound!

Still more romantic than "pussy".

There's a vast and delightful arsenal of Irish slang for vaginas, it's like that old chestnut about eskimo words for snow, and I'd sooner hear any of them than "pussy".

Also, drunkmonkey, if you don't know the difference between a womb and a vagina, I'm going to have to venture that you may not have the nuanced handle on this whole area of expertise that we'd all been led to believe.

Donnielighto

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Pussy, I call it pussy.

Doctors call it Vagina.

And to answer your question no it's procreation that enteres the head first.

I take it you dont wear condoms so?

Mardy Bum

xsiborg wrote: »

put down the first year psychology book and stop trying to talk over people's heads, all your effort to sound like an intellectual has just done is shown you have no idea what you are talking about.

you can spout all the psychology buzzwords you want, but all that shows is that you can read. your post however, shows you have no understanding of what you read. how about coming up with an original thought or opinion of your own next time?

Is that your way of saying you don't understand it? Its psychoanalysis btw. I like to base my opinion in fact not utter rubbish.Someone asked me a question I tried to explain it in lay mans terms however you cannot explain psychoanalysis in lay mans terms so I had to use the terminology. I was getting my point across. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it rubbish.

The very manner in which you didnt actually make any reference to a specific point in the post but choose to dismiss it all shows you have no idea what it meant.

xsiborg

Babybuff wrote: »

I think there have been at least six if not seven people who have spoken from their own experience as transgender or gender queer here, both male and female. That's more trans then I have ever even met in real life. That's more information than most of us will get direct from the horses mouth practically anywhere online in this country at least. This really should be acknowledged.

just to pick you up quickly on this Babybuff, but if we are to use boards as representative of society, then six or seven in a user community of how many (not including guest users!), is about right. it may well be more than you have met in real life, but it's not more than i have met or talked to, that have informed me that they identify as transgendered or transexual.


im not sure what you mean by "online in this country", as that would suggest you are implying that most people on boards have no knowledge of websites other that those with *.ie domain names, but i would imagine you wouldn't think that was the case. i for one don't think the internet starts and stops at boards.ie.

as for it being acknowledged that some of boards.ie's members choose to make a point that they are transgendered, i think every poster in this thread has acknowledged it, unless you mean they deserve some special treatment for posting on boards.ie like any other poster that contributes their opinions and experiences to a thread, in which case i would wonder what you think would make them so special and unique from any other poster?

Babybuff wrote: »

I've shared my own personal story. I don't do that very often. It's so difficult if you can't see it for yourself to try and express it in a way that makes sense to you. But it really is so much simpler than anyone is giving credit for.

Biological sex and gender are two different things, and that's all it comes down to. I know someone earlier was able to get a grip on this by differentiating between gender and gender roles, and if that helps then ok.
Your sex, your biological sex is determined by what is between your legs.
Your gender (identity) is not what you are but who you are.

we are talking for the most part in this thread about stereotyping and gender roles, that is what's relevant to the OP, anything else was just off-topic thread spoiling, but it seems the mods were happy enough to entertain it taking that direction.

as for "Your gender (identity) is not what you are but who you are.", i would argue that your gender IS what you are, and that your IDENTITY is who you are. you can faff about with semantics all you like and even throw in definitions from the oxford dictionary all you like, but the fact is that communication in any form requires a common set of constructs. for most people in society who speak a common language, there is a common understanding, so when someone comes along with a different definition of a word that person had always understood meant one thing, this is where communication breaks down and wires get crossed.

i understand your frustration, but claiming to be open-minded and yet intolerant of others opinion or belittling their understanding of a subject goes against everything you proclaim yourself to be. my own personal opinion of the phrase "open-minded" is that it is used by pseudo-intellectuals to dismiss the views and opinions of others they see as beneath them. i wouldnt call that enlightened either tbh.

Babybuff wrote: »

I understand that people think it's natural for men to want to build things or break things and for women to want to be in the kitchen making sandwiches but they really are socially constructed gender roles. People just do not want to accept that but then society doesn't want people confusing the system that they feel already works for them.

eesh, how do i come at this one... ok, your post gives the impression that you seem to view yourself as outside of society somehow. the simple fact of the matter is that you are a part of what makes up a society whether you like it or not, no matter how you view certain elements of that society or might want to distance yourself from them.

of course these are socially constructed roles because if evolution has taught us anything, it's that the majority dictates how society works, and by further extrapolation; how the system within that society works for the majority.

in any society though there are dissenters, that disagree with the way that system within that society works. they are in the minority. this means that they will always be overshadowed by the majority. the dissenters within that system may disagree with this and say that the system is broken, but until they become the majority, the majority isn't going to change the system to suit the minority.

Babybuff wrote: »

Truth is that all of us have elements of both male and female, masculine and feminine. They are just words we use to define particular qualities.

as i've already pointed out, they might be just words, but it's their common understanding by the majority that gives them meaning and context, and for the majority, the understanding is that there are distinct differences between male and female, masculine and femenine.

Babybuff wrote: »

some of us are just more aware of ourselves than others.

and some of us are more aware of others than ourselves.

strobe

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The phallus is a signifier which in Freudian and Lacanian theory defines man and woman. It is a male symbol built on the anatomical model of the penis and operating as a powerful signifier in the lexicon of the unconscious. The function of the phallus is to produce subjects which are sexed.
In the Oedipal phase the male child must reject the mother and femininty so it can attain its own identity. Now the phallus is not the penis only a signifier and as a result of the castration complex it becomes something of a source of anxiety. This manifests as a crisis of masculinity.

Masculinity only exists by keeping the other (femininity at bay but it also only exists in relation to the other (Feminine) as desired object, as that which might confirm the male by acknowledging the owner of the phallus.
Therefore male response to this is to construct an order of difference and exclusion i.e make the woman a goddess but keep or in chains i.e heterosexual misogyny.

I've heard these hypothesis before but don't see how you are planning to relate them back to the point I raised with you that you posted them in response to.

(What appears to be) Your contention that heterosexuality is wide spread because of issues other than an innate evolutionary predisposition towards it.

Just so we understand each other, are you or are you not putting forward a belief that heterosexuality is a learned behaviour no more likely to result than, say, homosexuality, depending on social conditioning? Because that's how your earlier posts read. I'm genuinely curious man.

Mardy Bum

strobe wrote: »

I've heard these theories before but don't see how you are planning to relate them back to the point I raised with you that you posted them in response to.

Your contention that heterosexuality is wide spread because of issues other than an innate evolutionary predisposition towards it.

Just so we understand each other, are you or are you not putting forward a belief that heterosexuality is a learned behaviour no more likely to result than, say, homosexuality, depending on social conditioning? Because that's how your earlier posts read. I'm genuinely curious man.

As I said its a mixture of both a psychological process in the mind and a societal process which influences the mind. Patriarchy influences our perception of masculinity. Men are suppose to be rational and independent as a result of Oedipus complex. If we show a weakness by becoming effeminate it is targeted both in society and in our own minds as a result of the castration complex.

I dont believe it can be explained completely by a putative male biological drive, there is something else whether it is the psychological process in the mind informed by patriarchal structures or even more extreme societal pressures. The History of Sexuality by Foucault is a great book to start if you are interested in the area.

Spunge

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Were attracted to women because the have vaginas. I can't believe you think the Vagina is irrelevant when it comes to women.
I can only make an assumption that your not attracted to women when you think like that because I don't think it's how most guys who like girls think.

So you are attracted to anything with a vagina ?
I doubt that.

Zillah

Psychoanalysis is a load of pseudo-scientific nonsense and it is astounding to me that people can spew entire paragraphs of this utter twaddle like the above with a straight face.

Millicent

Zillah wrote: »

Psychoanalysis is a load of pseudo-scientific nonsense and it is astounding to me that people can spew entire paragraphs of this utter twaddle like the above with a straight face.

And what are you basing that assertion on?

xsiborg

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Is that your way of saying you don't understand it? Its psychoanalysis btw. I like to base my opinion in fact not utter rubbish.Someone asked me a question I tried to explain it in lay mans terms however you cannot explain psychoanalysis in lay mans terms so I had to use the terminology. I was getting my point across. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it rubbish.

The very manner in which you didnt actually make any reference to a specific point in the post but choose to dismiss it all shows you have no idea what it meant.

you made no attempt whatsoever to explain anything in layman's terms. this shows that you had no comprehension or understanding of what you read.

i work in the world of computers, i talk to people every day who have only very vague knowledge of same. in order to help them understand what i do, i use analogies they would understand.

i could talk rings around them and talk over their heads, but then they could do the same to me about sports- i have no clue about football for instance. but when it comes to psychology, i too can say i've read a few mind-benders in my day.

your post showed you had no understanding of the oedipus complex put forward by freud, i doubt you even know (without skipping off to wikipedia!) who oedipus was.

as to any point you were trying to make, you're quite correct, i did miss it, and having read your post again there now, im still missing it. in fact i fail to see you trying to make any point whatsoever, not to mention your rather suspect grasp of the english language.

but then again that's probably because i understand the meaning of the concepts behind the buzzwords you tried to pass off as fact (many of which have since been debunked btw!).

i chose to quote your post as a fine example of the kind of pseudo-intellectualism that i referred to in my own posts, and now i have done so, i would like to get back to reading how you justify your borrowed opinions on heterosexuality to strobe, who has posed the question twice to you now and you still have not given any definitive answer.

Mardy Bum

Zillah wrote: »

Psychoanalysis is a load of pseudo-scientific nonsense and it is astounding to me that people can spew entire paragraphs of this utter twaddle like the above with a straight face.

Do you hold the same views on economics?The fundamentals of psychoanalysis are all originate from clinical trials.

Micky Dolenz

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist.

Indeed.

Banned

Mardy Bum

xsiborg wrote: »

i chose to quote your post as a fine example of the kind of pseudo-intellectualism that i referred to in my own posts, and now i have done so, i would like to get back to reading how you justify your borrowed opinions on heterosexuality to strobe, who has posed the question twice to you now and you still have not given any definitive answer.

You seem to take offense that I base my thoughts on clinical practice. If I asked you something about computers would you come up with your opinion on the issue or would you go about finding a solution through the way you were educated?

Nodin

smash wrote: »

I believe the politically correct phrase is axe wound!

'Axe wound in a gorillas back', to be precise, but perhaps these days when theres less 'au natural' its been contracted

wonderfulname

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You seem to take offense that I base my thoughts on clinical practice. If I asked you something about computers would you come up with your opinion on the issue or would you go about finding a solution through the way you were educated?

xsiborg seems to be of my own opinion, that how great your knowledge of a subject is can be assessed by how simply you can explain it to a layperson. If you can't translate the language of your area of expertise to basic english whilst maintaining the underlying meaning then you're no expert.

jill_valentine

Nodin wrote: »

'Axe wound in a gorillas back', to be precise, but perhaps these days when theres less 'au natural' its been contracted

Loss of habitat, innit.

Nodin

jill_valentine wrote: »

Loss of habitat, innit.

Suffice to say that other methods of transporting yorkshire terriers seem to have been found.

xsiborg

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You seem to take offense that I base my thoughts on clinical practice. If I asked you something about computers would you come up with your opinion on the issue or would you go about finding a solution through the way you were educated?

Mardy i take no offence at you basing your opinions on a LACK of clinical practice, but dont take my word for it, have a read here for yourself-

http://ed5015.tripod.com/SkepticsPsychoanalysis90.htm

it's not a tome, and should take no longer than five minutes of your time to read.

if you asked me anything about computers, yes i would come up with my own opinion, based on MY OWN experience. im not one for regurgitating the opinions of others because that is THEIR opinion, based on THEIR experience.

the easiest example i can give you is the windows/linux debate and which is better. if you were to ask ME which is better, i would tell you that it depends on what you want to do, both OS's have their advantages and disadvantages, but then you have the die-hards on either side of the fence that insist THEY know it all.

as for the way i was educated, well i can tell you that i have a degree in software engineering based on technology that was twenty years out of date when i was learning it, but in the same way as freuds theories (because that is all they are- theories!) are the foundation of psychoanalysis, what i learned in college was the foundation of the knowledge i used to earn my degree. that information though now too is about 20 years out of date, and what i do now for a living was for the most part entirely self taught through means of trial and error, and my own experience of what i learned myself.

smash

jill_valentine wrote: »

Loss of habitat, innit.

And rightly so!

Meesared

Ahh crap i disappear for a while and I miss what he was banned for

Mardy Bum

xsiborg wrote: »

Mardy i take no offence at you basing your opinions on a LACK of clinical practice, but dont take my word for it, have a read here for yourself-

http://ed5015.tripod.com/SkepticsPsychoanalysis90.htm

it's not a tome, and should take no longer than five minutes of your time to read.

if you asked me anything about computers, yes i would come up with my own opinion, based on MY OWN experience. im not one for regurgitating the opinions of others because that is THEIR opinion, based on THEIR experience.

The articles main concern is the limited use of psychoanalysis to treat neurosis. Obviously psychoanalysis will take a prolonged period due to the nature it and other forms may be better for some people. Plus its doesn't question Lacan who is now more accepted than Freud. Psychoanalysis is widely used in the social sciences.
What this thread was about at some stage was gender roles. All I said was gender roles are handed down by society. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

The King of Moo

Jesus.

I often wonder why so many people have closed their accounts lately or why people get themselves banned for reacting angrily to other users.
This thread demonstrates exactly why.

Swedish schools use a gender-neutral term to talk to children, and people are up in arms about boys being forced into playing with "girls' toys," despite this having nothing to do with the case, and not being something that really ever happens at all.

People passing off simple prejudice as well-thought out opinions, and dismissing any evidence which shows them that their opinions are based on lies and misconceptions, because it's their opinion and they're entitled to it and you're just trying to shut them up with your liberal fascist agenda-based facts!

People using stupid, deliberately offensive loaded terms like "mutilation" to describe operations and courses of hormone treatment.
If you were getting your appendix removed tomorrow, would you say "I'm going to be mutilated tomorrow?"
No you wouldn't, because that would be ****ing stupid.
Then deliberately winding up and insulting transgender people who are arguing with you and countering your stupid "arguments" with little things like facts, experience and intelligence.

It really is impossible to discuss any issues with relation to gender and sexuality here because some people get freaked out that some other people like to do other things than what they like to do, and have different identities from their own ones.
And they have to tell us very loudly and stupidly how other people's lives which don't affect them at all are just plain wrong, and they don't need facts to back that up, because they're just right, and it's their opinion anyway.
Well it might be your opinion but that doesn't mean that it's not a ****ing stupid opinion.

Reading through this thread has been incredibly depressing. Initially, I'd earmarked certain posts to reply to and point out mistakes and fallacies if no-one else had done so, but very soon there were just too many.
I try to be positive about humanity. I try to think about all the magnificent and beautiful things we've achieved and created, and how much capacity for greatness we have.
But then I read threads like this and think that most people are simply and irredeemably stupid and intolerant of people different from them, even if they don't affect them in the slightest.

You can quote this post to disagree if you want but don't hold your breath for a reply: I don't know if I'm going to bother looking at this thread again.

And well done to all the intelligent, reasonable posters, especially the ones who have to put up with insults and gross misconceptions about themselves.

I think I might change my signature: I'm not sure it applies to most people.

jill_valentine

smash wrote: »

And rightly so!

Shines a new light on Jane Goodall, eh?

MadameGascar

They should go ahead with it. I'd love to see what happens.

xsiborg

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What this thread was about at some stage was gender roles. All I said was gender roles are handed down by society. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

no, that is certainly not what you said. you implied all sorts really, but the general gist of your posts was that gender roles were an inherited learned behaviour ascribed to a child by their parents.

that is not the same as saying that a child learns their behaviours from, or is influenced by society as a whole.

my own opinion is that i happen to think that a child's primary influence in their formative years is indeed their parents, BUT- in their adolescent and adult years, a persons view of gender roles is influenced by society.