Gender Bending and psychosis...

[zSilver_Fox]

Omfg... Innoc agreed with me...

/life

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

Omfg... Innoc agreed with me...

/life

As if it were the first time....

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the design of the male?

Originally Posted by Etzell

So the homosexual community isn't propagating the species... so what? We can agree on that. If that's all people were born to do, yeah, there'd be a problem. The issue is that there's more to being a human than propagating the species, there's also the issue of improving the species, which the gay community can still take part in.

I'm not arguing against that, let's stick to the inherent design of the human machine. That is what we're arguing about, not nurture, not what a gay person can become to help society in the future, etc etc etc. We're talking about how that individual is manufactured and the end product immediately after birth. Is my above statement true or false Etzell?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Circuitous

Scuzzy did you seriously start this thread thinking it wouldn't degrade to this?

I expected that there would be those that would immediately jump into "you're discussing this so you must be a hate monger" people, which is sad. Topics can be talked about and debated without hate, I think that has somewhat to do with maturity, but unsure. What I did not expect is that zSilver_Fox would have one of the best and most mature responses, some people should take notes.

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

I think he expected it... but everyone enjoys a good debate. Even if it lasts five posts.

Anyway, regarding your question about the dog thing: For one thing, the anatomy and taxonomy between the two is entirely different. There's too much of a difference. What was suggested regarding making her look like a dog would not make her look like a true canine, but an anthropomorphic one (which isn't one). But that's getting down into the details.

zSilver_Fox, and Puppychow,

Let's change this a bit then, since everyone seems to be going down this route of taxonomy. What if she believed that she shouldn't be any sex what so ever, that her breasts should be removed, her utereus should be completely removed and sewed shut, only leaving a whole for urination. If she felt today that is how she should have been from birth. Is she normal in believing that and having that surgery done, or is there something psychologically (or physically causing the psychological belief) off-base with this human? I'm not arguing her "right" under government to do this, because she is more then welcome to do so, but her medical status.

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

In the end, homosexuality is against nature under the ideology that nature intended opposite genders to sexually interact to reproduce. That's very basic and doesn't delve into the psychology of the situation. If we wish to delve into the psychological part of it all, there are many different views. For example, homosexuality or homosexual tendencies can be considered normal given hormonal reasons.

There may also be other psychological reasons, such as abuse in the past which has changed a person's mindset regarding sexual relationships, or lack of figures.

There are many reasons why a person has homosexual tendencies or behaviours. There's no blanket diagnosis.

I agree with all of this, very well said Fox.

[ekiM]

Does "Homosexuality is against nature" mean anything?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Does "Homosexuality is against nature" mean anything?

The idea behind this thread was to examine what medical science considers a "cure". Curing someone of feeling like they are in the wrong body by cutting their body up to resemble something else seems a bit barbaric to me. The question is, are they really solving the problem or are they enabling the psychosis to be bearable?

Now, someone else expanded this discussion into homosexuality, but I believe the same type of examination can take place. I also don't believe we're arguing that "Homosexuality is against nature", but more that "Homosexuality doesn't fit with the intended operation of the human machine". A subtle difference, but you guys are all about making mountains out of molehills if the wording isn't "just right."

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

If homosexuality doesn't fit with the intended operation of the human machine then why are there homosexuals?

Intended by whom?

[BinaryLife]

There's actually something that we didn't look at. To answer ekiM's question, I believe that would be as intended by nature.

However, that sentence personifies nature. Nature is not a thing which can have intent. Humans, have intent, and it appears that all of us have passed that intent onto nature. One could say that homosexuals are as intended by nature since they are naturally born that way. I would agree with that person. Nature does not think, nor does it speak or act in a manor which we as humans can truly understand.

In this case, we are putting words in its mouth and it isn't around to defend itself. No one can say that they know what nature intends, or knows what nature does. Nature is simply the way things are.

I haven't touched too much on the people who are born def scenarios. To better understand how they think and feel imagine yourself in their shoes. There has never been a time in your life where you have heard anything. But you are living perfectly normal lives. You don't miss hearing, because it's something you never had. What do you call the sun? What do you call your mother?

Beyond that, in a different scenario. Imagine you bump into people that have 4 arms. They were all born that way. They then proceed to tell you that if you have 2 arms you are not the way nature intended and you should get an operation because you are inferior. You explain you can accomplish everyday tasks just fine. They are amazing that "even a person with only 2 arms can do things normally." That's out these people who were born def feel. They've never been unable to process. They've lived their lives perfectly fine until someone with sight came along and told them they were defective. Since they can't go return them, we'll have to give them operations to make them normal...normal by our definition, not theirs.

Nature is what is it is. Let it be. Homosexuals are the way they are. There need not be a reason. That's how they were born which means they are exactly as they are supposed to be. The only people that make it hard for them or are the people who say they aren't normal.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

If homosexuality doesn't fit with the intended operation of the human machine then why are there homosexuals?

Intended by whom?

ekiM,

I get the feeling you are trying to mince words here and I'm not sure why. Let's step back for a moment and start again. Do you understand my question here: If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the design of the male?

Is that question true or false, or are you having a problem with any premise you read into the question?

Thanks,
Scuzzy

[ekiM]

The premise that the human body was "designed" at all.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

However, that sentence personifies nature. Nature is not a thing which can have intent.

I agree. The human genome accounts for many variables and combinations that allow a massive amount of differing people. And not all of those combinnations are considered to be "medical" conditions, ie Eye Color, Skin Color, etc. That being said:

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

In this case, we are putting words in its mouth and it isn't around to defend itself. No one can say that they know what nature intends, or knows what nature does. Nature is simply the way things are.

Perhaps, but the function of a human can be extrapolated by it's design. Nature does make mistakes. We label many of these mistakes diseases, or sicknesses. We correct natures mistakes through science (medications, surgery, therapy, prostetics). The deaf hear through cochlear implants, the paralyzed use wheelchairs, and so forth.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Beyond that, in a different scenario. Imagine you bump into people that have 4 arms. They were all born that way. They then proceed to tell you that if you have 2 arms you are not the way nature intended and you should get an operation because you are inferior. You explain you can accomplish everyday tasks just fine. They are amazing that "even a person with only 2 arms can do things normally." That's out these people who were born def feel. They've never been unable to process. They've lived their lives perfectly fine until someone with sight came along and told them they were defective. Since they can't go return them, we'll have to give them operations to make them normal...normal by our definition, not theirs.

Nature is what is it is. Let it be. Homosexuals are the way they are. There need not be a reason. That's how they were born which means they are exactly as they are supposed to be. The only people that make it hard for them or are the people who say they aren't normal.

I'm not advocating the mass change of homosexuals, but let's go back to the original situation. This girl doesn't feel normal, she feels that her body is incorrect. She doesn't want to "leave it be" as you suggest. She's asking for a solution, to be "fixed" by medicine. The solution of medicine today is to cut her up and make her resemble something else. Yes, she can make the choice, that's not the issue to debate here. The questions are these:

1) Are we solving her problem or making the problem more bearable?
2) Is her problem that her body is wrong or that she thinks her body is wrong?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

The premise that the human body was "designed" at all.

Ok, as I said, mincing words a bit, but let me try again and change the meaning of the sentence.

If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the function of the male?

Scuzzy

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Ok, as I said, mincing words a bit, but let me try again and change the meaning of the sentence.

If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the function of the male?

Scuzzy

I think you're tilting at windmills Scuzzy. Using the word "created" isn't going to move the discussion forward as he has no interest in that. Remaining stalled over irrelevant arguments pertaining to semantics is, as always, the objective. You do get a pat on the back from me for trying anyway.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Ok, as I said, mincing words a bit, but let me try again and change the meaning of the sentence.

If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the function of the male?

Scuzzy

That hasn't changed the meaning whatsoever. Saying "created to" and "meant to" and "the function of" still implies a designer. Your argument relies on the premise that human beings were designed with purpose. I disagree with that premise.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Remaining stalled over irrelevant arguments pertaining to semantics is, as always, the objective. You do get a pat on the back from me for trying anyway.

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is just being fiddly over semantics Grow up, kiddo.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

That hasn't changed the meaning whatsoever. Saying "created to" and "meant to" and "the function of" still implies a designer. Your argument relies on the premise that human beings were designed with purpose. I disagree with that premise.

I find it fascinating that you can't take this question out of a "implied' designer context. It feels like your trying extremely hard to avoid the question at hand by pushing another topic (design). I'm going to take you at face value though and believe that you honestly do not comprehend the intent behind my question and attempt again to word the question so that you can understand the actual question that I'm asking. Please read the following question without any belief that there is a designer at work:

Revision 3
If a male body with male genitalia which produces sperm that has the function to propagate the genetic makeup of that man by fertilizing a human female's egg, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the function of the male?

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I find it fascinating that you can't take this question out of a "implied' designer context. It feels like your trying extremely hard to avoid the question at hand by pushing another topic (design). I'm going to take you at face value though and believe that you honestly do not comprehend the intent behind my question and attempt again to word the question so that you can understand the actual question that I'm asking. Please read the following question without any belief that there is a designer at work:

Revision 3
If a male body with male genitalia which produces sperm that has the function to propagate the genetic makeup of that man by fertilizing a human female's egg, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the function of the male?

If there is no designer at work then it is nonsensical to speak of the function a person, as a person is an autonomous entity. Like I said, your argument posits a designer.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

If there is no designer at work then it is nonsensical to speak of the function a person, as a person is an autonomous entity. Like I said, your argument posits a designer.

Alright then... to make sure as well, I've taken the "human" equation out of question, let's assume we're talking about "dogs" for a moment:

Revision 4 for eKiM
If a male body with male genitalia which produces sperm that has the function to propagate the genetic makeup of that male by fertilizing a female's egg, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the reproduction of the male?

Scuzzy

[puppychow]

how many more pages you guys gonna go tit for tat?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by puppychow

how many more pages you guys gonna go tit for tat?

Long as it takes him to understand the question I suppose...

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Alright then... to make sure as well, I've taken the "human" equation out of question, let's assume we're talking about "dogs" for a moment:

Revision 4 for eKiM
If a male body with male genitalia which produces sperm that has the function to propagate the genetic makeup of that male by fertilizing a female's egg, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the reproduction of the male?

Is not being sexually attracted to the opposite gender an impediment to reproduction? Yes.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Long as it takes him to understand the question I suppose...

This is a rather different question from what you originally asked.