• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

could transgenderism largley be a result of sociol conditioning?

Well, there's male on female, male on male, female on female... so I really think the "great range" of human sexuality is rather limited. Since few have sex in public we're rarely certain what anyone's particular flavor is. What we do see is sexual adornment, attire, mannerisms, and all of that is mere expression, in essence, "play acting." We all cast impressions concerning our identity as a matter of personal politics, so it becomes a free speech issue really, and JQ Public is no longer permitted to censure. It all started in the 70s I think when the first butch dykes began to appear in high schools; by the 80s she had morphed into an inner city dyke that few recognized. And I think there was a lot of confusion surrounding this new creature, especially since she quite often had sex with males as well. The school I attended consisted of some 500 plus students in grades k - 12 and I never met a single homosexual, male or female, just that one butch dyke who caught the clap, go figure, which she gave to a handful of guys before her hysterectomy. Our class got along exceedingly well, no one was excluded, and there were no tensions or divides. I think what we have today is greater recognition but we also have greater social strife. And economically speaking that social strife, the subsequent loss of homogeneity, the inherent harmony, is detrimental to communities. Everybody knows this, and so we find things are much the same as they ever were.

Diversity is good. You have no right to force conformity on others.

This is why I say that "Republicans are zombies, Democrats are vampires" article is so scarily close to the truth. Conservatives, most Republicans want everyone to be a specific way, to conform completely.
 
Diversity is good. You have no right to force conformity on others.

This is why I say that "Republicans are zombies, Democrats are vampires" article is so scarily close to the truth. Conservatives, most Republicans want everyone to be a specific way, to conform completely.

I think you're being rather foolish, attaching political purpose to human social behavior. Politically speaking how one chooses to register is generally a matter of simple economic expedience.
 
Well, there's male on female, male on male, female on female... so I really think the "great range" of human sexuality is rather limited.
.

Not at all. Within those there are all the people that might have a little interest in the same gender "just for fun", some that are 50-50% bi, some exclusively focused on one genderr or the other and everything in between. Some may not 'care' which gender they have sex with and just do it casually or opportunistically and some may have no flexibility at all. It's a very wide range, just about as wide a variety as there are individuals.
 
Our class got along exceedingly well, no one was excluded, and there were no tensions or divides. I think what we have today is greater recognition but we also have greater social strife. And economically speaking that social strife, the subsequent loss of homogeneity, the inherent harmony, is detrimental to communities. Everybody knows this, and so we find things are much the same as they ever were.

Strife is caused by non-acceptance, judgement, intolerance, 'lack of understanding', etc. It works the opposite of what you describe. We just havent reached that yet. The same could have been/can be said of integration and acceptance of blacks into our society.

Doing the right thing and respecting people is what's important, no matter how rocky the road is to get there.

"These people" arent going anywhere. They are part of our society and disenfranchising them and excluding them, is disrespectful and harms society as well as the individuals.

*IMO The only harm done to society is caused by that judgement and intolerance and lack of acceptance.*

We also went thru this when we accepted into society bastards and the children of divorce. Single mothers and divorced people were harshly judged by society in the past. These people...mostly as kids in school...were also excluded and judged and not accepted. And society has pretty much gotten over it....and not collapsed.
 
Strife is caused by non-acceptance, judgement, intolerance, 'lack of understanding', etc. It works the opposite of what you describe. We just havent reached that yet. The same could have been/can be said of integration and acceptance of blacks into our society.

Doing the right thing and respecting people is what's important, no matter how rocky the road is to get there.

"These people" arent going anywhere. They are part of our society and disenfranchising them and excluding them, is disrespectful and harms society as well as the individuals.

*IMO The only harm done to society is caused by that judgement and intolerance and lack of acceptance.*

We also went thru this when we accepted into society bastards and the children of divorce. Single mothers and divorced people were harshly judged by society in the past. These people...mostly as kids in school...were also excluded and judged and not accepted. And society has pretty much gotten over it....and not collapsed.

We have greater strife now than ever before; that's where your argument completely falls apart.
 
Diversity is good. You have no right to force conformity on others.

This is why I say that "Republicans are zombies, Democrats are vampires" article is so scarily close to the truth. Conservatives, most Republicans want everyone to be a specific way, to conform completely.

Who are you to determine what conservatives want? Many gays are "conservative." In fact, most of them are conservative. People didn't have these problems getting along years ago; this is all a fictional political creation.
 
We have greater strife now than ever before; that's where your argument completely falls apart.

No, I dont think so. We have more services and support for people than ever before. Seems mostly people with alot of sexual hangups or repression seem to have problems.

What strife specifically? You cant stop things like divorce and casual sex with laws or disapproval or repression. To fix any negative effects of those things (and not all the effects are negative by any means) you need to fix socio-economic conditions overall.
 
Not at all. Within those there are all the people that might have a little interest in the same gender "just for fun", some that are 50-50% bi, some exclusively focused on one genderr or the other and everything in between. Some may not 'care' which gender they have sex with and just do it casually or opportunistically and some may have no flexibility at all. It's a very wide range, just about as wide a variety as there are individuals.

Well sure I realize that but still, there's only so much we can do with these combinations right? There's nothing really new under the sun.
 
Well sure I realize that but still, there's only so much we can do with these combinations right? There's nothing really new under the sun.

Agreed. But I dont understand why we have to 'do' anything with the 'combinations.' Except accept and respect people for who they are. And of course, I am discussing things that do not do any harm to others. Pedophiles for example, would not fall into this category.

But race, gender, orientation, religion if not forced on others, things like that.

As RN said, diversity makes us stronger. It was the basis for the American "Melting Pot" and the industrial boom concurrent with that. It is the foundation for the natural world: the more genetic diversity in a population, the more resillient and adaptable that population to disease or environmental disasters, etc.

And then of course the Vulcans recognized this value also, in their IDIC: "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations."

(LOL, I couldnt resist. I love that.)
 
No, I dont think so. We have more services and support for people than ever before. Seems mostly people with alot of sexual hangups or repression seem to have problems.

What strife specifically? You cant stop things like divorce and casual sex with laws or disapproval or repression. To fix any negative effects of those things (and not all the effects are negative by any means) you need to fix socio-economic conditions overall.

Well if you and I have a discussion and we find we are juxtaposed on an issue, that might be an example of strife. The point is we've created an issue that had caused derision, division, schism, where none needs exist. To say that we were less human or that we not truly representative of the population at large is fallacy. People were what they were and we got along; why are we at each others throats now?
 
Last edited:
Well if you and I have a discussion and we find we are juxtaposed on an issue, that might be an example of strife. The point is we've created an issue that had caused derision, division, schism, where none needs exist. To say that we were less human or that we not truly representative of the population at large is fallacy. People were what they were and everybody got along.

When has the bold EVER been the case in America? Just because people didnt have a voice...so different than today with our media and the Internet...didnt mean that they had plenty of 'strife.' That's what being a minority (in anything) in America often meant. Except that the majority was able to either ignore them and that pain or just enforce their will on them.

It certainly didnt make that repression right. Today we are hopefully more aware.

The civil rights movement and the suffergette movement are indeed examples of strife. And yet....would blacks and women still be waiting to be recognized as equal in our society if they hadnt spoken out for their rights? How long should it take to do the 'right' thing?
 
When has the bold EVER been the case in America? Just because people didnt have a voice...so different than today with our media and the Internet...didnt mean that they had plenty of 'strife.' That's what being a minority (in anything) in America often meant. Except that the majority was able to either ignore them and that pain or just enforce their will on them.

It certainly didnt make that repression right. Today we are hopefully more aware.

The civil rights movement and the suffergette movement are indeed examples of strife. And yet....would blacks and women still be waiting to be recognized as equal in our society if they hadnt spoken out for their rights? How long should it take to do the 'right' thing?

Media today is certainly not representative of America's voice and either is the Internet. I know a lot of young people; in fact, I also know a lot of old people, and none of them are debating issues anywhere online. Their interaction revolves around social events; they wouldn't be caught dead wasting their time like this. It's just totally uncool. So who do sites like these attract? Have you ever taken the time to analyze that?

And you're wrong on all of the above.

Today we are more aware... that's probably the most ignorant statement of all. If intelligence can be measured as heightened awareness, today's cross-sectional is decidedly less intelligent.
 
Last edited:
Media today is certainly not representative of America's voice and either is the Internet. I know a lot of young people; in fact, I also know a lot of old people, and none of them are debating issues anywhere online. Their interaction revolves around social events; they wouldn't be caught dead wasting their time like this. It's just totally uncool. So who do sites like these attract? Have you ever taken the time to analyze that?

And you're wrong on all of the above.

Today we are more aware... that's probably the most ignorant statement of all. If intelligence can be measured as heightened awareness, today's cross-sectional is decidedly less intelligent.

Outside of your own personal experience, every single thing you just wrote is wrong. And history proves mine is right.
 
Outside of your own personal experience, every single thing you just wrote is wrong. And history proves mine is right.

Progress, I like it.

That's the point, people live in a real world, they don't live in the land of make-believe.
 
Progress, I like it.

That's the point, people live in a real world, they don't live in the land of make-believe.

Ignoring the impact of the media (news, TV, movies) and social media is ridiculous in this discussion or any discussion on society today.
 
What the hell? A man can do all those things if he wanted. Including marrying a rich guy. Not sure why you'd think differently. (Of course the sexism in this post is absolutely retarded, but that goes for whichever sex you wish to think of.)

That is just Femi-Nazi talk...
 
Media today is certainly not representative of America's voice and either is the Internet. I know a lot of young people; in fact, I also know a lot of old people, and none of them are debating issues anywhere online. Their interaction revolves around social events; they wouldn't be caught dead wasting their time like this. It's just totally uncool. So who do sites like these attract? Have you ever taken the time to analyze that?

And you're wrong on all of the above.

Today we are more aware... that's probably the most ignorant statement of all. If intelligence can be measured as heightened awareness, today's cross-sectional is decidedly less intelligent.

Ignorance is bliss, but also keeps people from knowing that they aren't being treated fairly because certain people gained enough power, other people lost their ignorance and took advantage of that.
 
Who are you to determine what conservatives want? Many gays are "conservative." In fact, most of them are conservative. People didn't have these problems getting along years ago; this is all a fictional political creation.

Sure they did, when they actually communicated with each other they did. Communication is much more advanced now, but that only means more people are able to share why they are being wronged, which is a good thing. They can also share ways to make it better.
 
Well if you and I have a discussion and we find we are juxtaposed on an issue, that might be an example of strife. The point is we've created an issue that had caused derision, division, schism, where none needs exist. To say that we were less human or that we not truly representative of the population at large is fallacy. People were what they were and we got along; why are we at each others throats now?

What exactly is wrong with disagreement? It generally involves some communication, which might lead to understanding. Sure strife can cause problems, but it can also lead to solutions.
 
Back
Top Bottom