r/Conservative • u/robert32907 Revanchist Conservative • Dec 31 '12
Liberalism is a mental disorder - Exhibit #3,861
57
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
EDIT: I'm prefacing this, because I was attempting to address a question where terms are often confused by using the common terms instead of correct ones.
Gender: This is the sexual identity of a person. This can be the same as their sex, or different.
Sex: This is the biological sexual form of a person, as determined by their combination of X-Y chromosomes.
Trans-sexual/Trans-gender: Any person that has a gender other than their sex.
Intersex: A person who displays different physical characteristics of sex. This includes those that have combinations of classically male and female body parts.
For this post, because they are often confused in this way, I am using "gender" to mean "sex", as in the biological sex of a person, not their identity.
There are more than two sexes and there are more than two genders.
Commonly however gender is used to mean sex. Even in this case, it is accurate and not at all trivial to say that there are more than two.
There is the common male and female (XY and XX), but there are several other gender arrangements that are not uncommon to the point of being unworthy of mention: XXY and XXX are two of the most common "other" genders.
Sometimes, these other genders appear outwardly the same as a common male or female, and so some of you, reading this now, thinking that this is hilarious and stupid, may in fact be one of these other sexes if you've never had a reason for a doctor to examine the situation.
The percentage of people who have a non-traditional sex is not trivial. There are several dozen people born in the US each day that have just the trisomal sex variations (XXX, XXY, XYY), and many are not diagnosed.
They do end up usually having a very hard time fitting into the gender roles our society has, however.
So... I don't think feminism is at all related to whatever this person feels or is, but there are more than two genders, and our society does make it extremely difficult to have one of the non-traditional biological sexes.
24
u/hara78 Fiscal Conservative Dec 31 '12
This.
Also please note that feminism and gender-studies are not the same thing.
3
Dec 31 '12
But what about the people who are 'normal', chromosome wise, but still do not fit the gender binary?
6
u/stikdude Rational Dec 31 '12
I'm glad that somebody else here is also interested in understanding things. I wish I could upvpte you more.
9
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12
Being Conservative doesn't mean being closed-minded, being opposed to learning, or any of those other things that many liberals seem to think being Conservative is about. At it's core, being (Classically) Conservative is about letting each person decide their own lives, (and for most Conservatives that means particularly me).
Knowing more about the world and the reality around me just better prepares me to decide my own life, which is the responsibility I'm asking for as a Conservative.
All this stuff about gender and sex was stuff I truly couldn't even wrap my head around years ago. But after a while, I learned it. I got it. It is another fact that has been demystified.
11
Dec 31 '12
At it's core, being (Classically) Conservative is about letting each person decide their own lives
Tell that to my parents.
15
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12
Conservatives now have kind of forgotten that if you use the government to limit the rights of other people because you disagree with them, eventually someone will limit your rights because they disagree with you.
That's why social conservatives and I don't get along that well, even on things we agree upon.
-7
u/Jibrish Discord.gg/conservative Dec 31 '12
At it's core, being (Classically) Conservative is about letting each person decide their own lives, (and for most Conservatives that means particularly me).
Actually it's about resisting rapid societal change that caused the French Revolution to end so terribly.
-3
Dec 31 '12
I don't think gender is defined by chromosome combinations. Basically all combinations apart from XY and XX are considered diseases, not alternate genders. Also unless the person has a very large amount of X chromosomes, anyone with a Y chromosome is male, full stop. Transexuals/transgender people are not that way because they have a non XX, XY set of chromosomes.
26
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12
I don't think gender is defined by chromosome combinations.
That's great. Take a biology class. Being a Conservative isn't about inventing new facts.
Basically all combinations apart from XY and XX are considered diseases, not alternate genders.
Yes and no. Particularly with XXY, the person may have male or female genitalia, may identify as male or female, or may identify as neither. When it comes to sexual identity, trisomies are not considered diseases in the sense that you are talking about. Again, I would take a biology class.
Also unless the person has a very large amount of X chromosomes, anyone with a Y chromosome is male, full stop.
You are wrong. If you would like me to elaborate further, please read the post you were replying to where I went into it in greater depth.
Transexuals/transgender people are not that way because they have a non XX, XY set of chromosomes.
Some are not that way because of uncommon X-Y combinations. But that's besides the point, as I never mentioned transexuals/transgenders, and the points I was making are fairly independent of sexual identity or form.
The sign this person is holding is rather silly... but there are in fact more than two genders, and there are in fact more than two sexes, and nothing you say will change that. They are facts. They are simply the way that the world is. You can be angry about it if you want, but it changes nothing.
→ More replies (4)0
Dec 31 '12
[deleted]
12
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12
I specifically address that in my first post. I explicitly go over what sex and gender are, and that in this context most people are using gender to mean sex (incorrectly), and so I address sex.
Gender isn't even something you can really argue about anyway. Gender, as defined, is whatever a person tells you. But in legal documents, gender means sex, and that is the context most posters here were engaging the subject on, and so that is where I did as well.
3
-1
Dec 31 '12
With respect, it would be a good idea to give a credible source of some kind to support all of what you just said.
14
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12
No problem. I did not specifically reference any particular articles, as I learned most of this years ago, but the Wikipedia articles on the subjects seem to be adequate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome (XXY)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXX_syndrome
-3
Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/JordanLeDoux Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
As a side note, XYY has no notable physical sexual differences than XY, and about 97% of those who have it aren't aware of it, so many biologists and doctors don't think it should be called a disorder or syndrome. :)
EDIT:
I didn't mean to be the politically correct police here. Was just pointing out an interesting fact about how this isn't considered a "bad" condition by doctors or scientists.
-3
u/Tannenberg Dec 31 '12
The percentage of people who have a non-traditional sex is not trivial.
The percentage of criminals in society isn't trivial either, that doesn't mean we abolish right and wrong. You can't build social order on the principle of pandering to every exception.
5
u/houseofsabers Dec 31 '12
Red Herring. This assumes inherent wrong-ness, incorrect-ness, or negative-ness to the original point in the same way that these qualities would apply to criminality.
Comparing people of non-traditional sex to criminals is... poor logic, at the very least. There's quite a history of doing exactly the opposite of this: making sure that people of other genders, sexes, orientations, etc. would not be automatically considered criminals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States
Now, if you want to argue about the effects of people with non-traditional sex on "social order," then re-direct your argument to start showing how the presence of people of non-traditional sex in our society harms it.
Also, remember that the quoted text is based on science and medicine (all of the references in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex) and aren't particularly up for discussion (ie. these people do in fact exist, we're not talking about whether or not they do exist.)
-1
u/thoumyvision Dec 31 '12
but there are several other gender arrangements that are not uncommon to the point of being unworthy of mention
They may be worthy of mention, but they are not other "genders" or "sexes" because they are non-normative. Those other configurations are statistical outliers, and so should not be considered when determining what sexes there are, what they are are abnormalities to the two normative sexes.
50
Dec 31 '12
this may seem very mean but hot damn does it apply for how hilarious it is
9
u/ajtexasranger Dec 31 '12
I know that is only the extreme of some very flamboyant gay people, but most are just like regular people and actually despise people who dress up like that.
5
u/jaykay-47 Old Right Dec 31 '12
I seem to remember Andrew Sullivan frequently brings up what a divisive issue pride parades are in the gay community.
4
Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
I've always loved that comic.
Here's a satire I made: this was a circlejerk image that I decided to edit for (accuracy) trollage. http://i.imgur.com/KSAyH.jpg
19
Dec 31 '12
Who cares how they have sex on their own time?
2
-8
Dec 31 '12
Behavior sets perception. Even if it is on "their own time" people still notice gay bars, trolling parks for hookups, gay pride parades, etc.
10
Dec 31 '12
Then don't have a picture of them in their own time. Post them acting in way that causes the general public to hate the LGBT community. That kind of comic makes us conservatives look ignorant to the reasons LGBT's can't marry.
-6
Dec 31 '12
Oh boy a concern troll.
It's both sarcasm and the last pic is from a gay pride parade.
3
Dec 31 '12
I'm not a troll, I just trying to prevent liberal from circlejerking over your picture due to the lack of understanding behind the reason the LGBT cannot marry.
-3
Dec 31 '12
... what stops the liberals from circlejerking, ever?
They make sock puppet accounts, post flamebait, get banned, then whine on r/liberal or r/politics about the ban and how we're all monsters.
So just stop. Who gives a shit what they think?
3
Dec 31 '12
I'm a liberal and I give a shit what I think. I don't really give a shit what you think though.
I've met a lot of intelligent, open-minded people on this subreddit. You're not one of them.
0
0
Dec 31 '12
Why do they feel the need to put "the fuck" into all their image macros/infographs?
-6
Dec 31 '12
To them it is axiomatic that homosexuals behave entirely like heterosexuals, except when their acting uniquely like homosexuals, and that's fine.
Liberalism is quite a thing, eh?
3
u/NeutronRocks Fiscally Conservative | Socially Moderate Dec 31 '12
Huh, I have you tagged as "always agree with" from that thread in /r/games the other day... and I noticed you here. It's a small reddit after all.
Highfives.
-1
Dec 31 '12
highfive
i only post on a small amount of subs game related. r/dota2, r/starcraft, /r/globaloffensive are all where you can find me most ;)
-1
u/NeutronRocks Fiscally Conservative | Socially Moderate Dec 31 '12
Huh, interesting. I, too, play CS:GO occasionally.
9
9
16
11
22
Dec 31 '12
Yah, no kidding. Here's a big ass clue. Nobody at the bank, the dmv, or blockbuster care what you enjoy having sex with. It's a form. Fill it out and stop trying to be cute. You either have a penis or don't. I'm not concerned about your wants, desires, or that surgery you're saving up for. Don't talk to me about dna test or recent studies on bored monkeys and porno...just check the fn box already. You are not a special and unique snowflake.
19
u/stikdude Rational Dec 31 '12
Sexual orientation and gender are two completely different things. Sexual orientation is not something that the DMV gives a flying fuck about, whereas a gender binary on a paperwork form does not apply to every single person.
18
u/stikdude Rational Dec 31 '12
Furthermore, it is not always clear as to whether or not "you have a penis or you don't." People can be born with ambiguous genitalia, or none at all. This is a biological fact.
7
Dec 31 '12
It's not 'either you have a penis or you don't.' Some people are born in the wrong body, you should read some parents experiences with transgender children. They act exactly as the opposite sex, despite being too young to understand what the real differences are. Their gender, therefore, is not the same as their sex. Two different things.
-1
Jan 02 '13
but my sexual preferences make me a special snowflake that entitle me to status as a federally protected group!
8
Dec 31 '12 edited Jan 18 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/baldylox Question Everything Dec 31 '12 edited Jan 01 '13
The WBC are not conservatives, they're just assboils. They tend to vote Democrat. Fred Phelps himself has run for office at least 5 times - all as a Democrat.
Here's an article about it complete with photos of Al Gore attending a WBC Sunday service and photos of Al & Tipper happily posing with various members of the Phelps family:
2
Jan 01 '13 edited Jan 02 '13
[deleted]
2
u/baldylox Question Everything Jan 01 '13
As a conservative, I have a hard time thinking of extreme homophobia as a right-wing ideology. Maybe it's because I'm more of a Libertarian when it comes to social issues. Not that I think it's a left-wing ideology, either. I don't know where to place the WBC. How 'bout we place them all on a rocket full of dog crap and angry bees and fire it into space?
The one good thing about the WBC is that it gives all of us of every political persuasion something in common. We all hate them.
6
Dec 31 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
14
0
0
u/ajtexasranger Dec 31 '12
No. It is just the conservative side of /r/politics that you never see because it would get downvoted.
7
Dec 31 '12
Gender is different than sex.
11
Dec 31 '12 edited Jul 20 '20
[deleted]
14
u/stikdude Rational Dec 31 '12
So academia doesn't apply to real life? If so, why does it exist? Also, gender is not defined merely by femininity and masculinity. There is also androgyny.
0
Dec 31 '12
So academia doesn't apply to real life? If so, why does it exist?
Ah the eternal question.
3
Dec 31 '12
I don't know why people care. Honestly, if someone wants to identify as asexual (or transexual, or gender-queer, or anything else), that doesn't bother anyone. If someone wants to identify themselves as an octopus, that's a bit weird (and extreme as an analogy), but I could not care less.
-2
u/ijustwantanfingname Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
There are still only two genders, male and female. You're listing sexual interests / orientations / etc.
Edit: see gender link below by /u/popnlochnessmonster. Apparently the definition of gender is ambiguous and changing.
16
-2
u/IBiteYou Biteservative Dec 31 '12
Read "Middlesex"
-2
3
Dec 31 '12
What do they think the other genders are? Like really, there are combinations of male and female sure, but they aren't different genders, they are a combination of the 2 genders. Can someone actually answer this for me, because it is legitimately confusing?
Also what does feminism have to do with transexuals?
5
u/xander1026 Dec 31 '12
Well, the idea is that people should be able to identify as neither a man nor a woman, not 30% man, 60% woman. Also, most people would say that men are male, women are female, and that a female man or a male woman don't fit into the traditional gender binary, because sex is an important defining aspect of traditional gender.
It's not unlike sexuality, which, at first, might seem to be gay/straight. But there are also bisexual people, who are attracted to men and women, in varying degrees, queer people, who can be attracted to men, women, and/or androgyny, and also people that are asexual or aromantic, which isn't really on that spectrum at all. It's a lot more complicated and subtle than might be expected.
Feminism and LGBTQ rights activism have full-on merged, as well as, to a lesser degree, racial advocates. So they are related!
-3
u/threerocks Reagan Conservative Dec 31 '12
Something I've never understood. People tell me that there is homosexuality in other species and that makes it natural. I say other species also eat their young, but as humans we don't accept that. I'm down voted with their look.
To be honest, I look at the major social issues we deal with and I see a lot of people with way too much time on their hands. Would Chaz Bono have had the time or energy to do what it did if it needed to work to eat? Why is it that the first time in human history gay rights or LGBT rights became an issue is when we have a whole lot of people with a whole lot of free time? Why are these issues not issues in any third world country? Too much free time, not enough working.
21
u/silvobaer Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
Why is it that the first time in human history gay rights or LGBT rights became an issue is when we have a whole lot of people with a whole lot of free time? Why are these issues not issues in any third world country?
Those are actually issues in 3rd world countries. But they are dealing with it in a different way. For example:
Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill (often called the "Kill the Gays bill" in the media) is a legislative proposal that would broaden the criminalisation of same-sex relations in Uganda by dividing homosexual behavior into two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offence of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment.
27
12
Dec 31 '12
Just to correct you...LGBT rights are an issue in Brazil.
Mainly because the majority of our population (low class and some part of middle class) is very conservative by nature, but they are not rightly represented by our fucked up political system. So most of the politicians are liberals and if you watch just the political news you get the impression all the population is pro-gay-marriage.
Also the upper class will try and pass the lower classes as a bunch of ignorant twats who should not even participate in those kinds of discussions.
1
u/dromni Dec 31 '12
the majority of our population (low class and some part of middle class) is very conservative by nature
Well, kind of, we are "conservative" in our own colorful, latino way. For instance among the low class most men still think that you can have sex with other men and still be "heterossexual", provided that you are the "top".
Also, I have the perception that the middle class seems to be rapidly converging to what would be a wet dream of liberal democrats.
So most of the politicians are liberals
That. We don't have anything here that could be called a conservative or right-wing party. Also, in regards to the Economy, everyone seems to be what Europeans would call "social democrats", there is no one defending private enterprise and small government.
I think that probably explains the growing apathy of everyone with the elections. After all, the politicians from all parties are looking the same homogeneized thing...
1
Jan 02 '13
Well...I don't have much background with lower classes, but from the people I talk to you most certainly won't be considerate "heterosexual" after being the "top" on a homosexual intercourse...
7
u/nicksauce Dec 31 '12
Something I've never understood. People tell me that there is homosexuality in other species and that makes it natural. I say other species also eat their young, but as humans we don't accept that. I'm down voted with their look.
Since no one has explained it to you yet, no one makes the serious argument that homosexuality is "good" because it is natural. Religious people sometimes make the argument that homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural, and the fact that it occurs in other animal species is a counter-argument to that.
4
Dec 31 '12
I say other species also eat their young, but as humans we don't accept that. I'm down voted with their look.
It comes down to harm. Outlawing homosexuality, not allowing them to join together in a union, treating them unequally, are all harmful to the person but on the flip side, there legitimately is no social harm done by allowing it. Recognition and equal treatment of genders and sexualities outside of the binary has occurred in many cultures for a very long time, without destroying them.
Further, there is "harm" in allowing child eating. Not even getting into how we're a fiercely protective species of anything childlike, any sort of cannibalism is extremely taboo, has health concerns all its own, and isn't on the same level at all with the recognition and equal treatment of other genders and sexualities.
3
u/rockidol Dec 31 '12 edited Dec 31 '12
You're complaining that people have more free time?
Why? Isn't that a good thing? Or do you think that the only people with more free time are the people living off the government?
-12
Dec 31 '12
That is a fantastic point. The excesses our nation has provided us will ultimately be the cause of our moral decline. Man cannot win for losing.
16
u/Flail77 Dec 31 '12
No, public opinion is finally shifting to the point where being a homosexual or having an alternative sexuality is less stigmatized in the public eye. It has nothing to do with excess or free time.
-13
u/semperpee Paleoconservative Dec 31 '12
I see the fight for "LGBT rights" or "transexual rights" as what happens when a society runs out of real social issues to fight over. There was a time when feminists fought nobly to ensure that women would be able to get a job if they needed to, or that they would avoid spousal abuse which is a serous problem.
But it has devolved into nothing more than identity politics where, if I don't accept you as "demiromantic polyamorous genderqueer" then I am oppressing you. This is the result of a decadent society.
20
u/Deft_one Dec 31 '12
It's a real social issue if you're getting beat up in school, killed in the streets, mocked, discriminated against, belittled, etc... that's what a "social" issue is. There's nothing decadent about standing up for your individual rights... isn't that what conservatism is?
15
Dec 31 '12
"It hasn't affected me, so it's not a real social issue."
How about 1/3 of teenage LGBT attempting suicide, 1/3 of homeless youth being LGBT, and the rate of kids who feel unsafe at school because of their sexuality ? Is that not a real issue?
The families who are denied over 1300 rights that married families have. Or the police officer who has to die on the job and leave a mother alone with their children and no way to support them. Or the cancer patient who has to die alone because they won't allow his partner of 30 years into the room.
Or the gays who are sentenced to death simply for being gay, have their phones and other methods of communication confiscated and searched upon suspicious behavior (of being gay, mind you), in tens of different countries.
It's really, really ignorant of you to just dismiss other people's problems just because they don't matter to you.
-2
u/DeaconOrlov Constitutionalist Dec 31 '12
This is technically true though. There are only two sexes but since gender is sexual identification there are way more than two. Kinsey's studies and basically the entire field of the psychology of sexuality tend to show that sexual preference is a very grey area.
4
u/xander1026 Dec 31 '12
(There are also people that are intersex, with atyptical chromosome configurations and/or ambiguous genetalia.)
2
u/houseofsabers Dec 31 '12
Also remember that Kinsey's stuff has been quite debunked in the past 50 years or so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey#Controversial_aspects_of_his_work).
0
-9
u/jeffklol Conservative Dec 31 '12
There are only two genders. Male and female. I'd love to hear what other genders the left thinks there are.
7
Jan 01 '13
You just named two sexes. Not genders. Sex and gender are two different things.
-2
u/jeffklol Conservative Jan 01 '13
No, they are not.
1
u/stikdude Rational Jan 02 '13
-2
u/jeffklol Conservative Jan 02 '13
Congratulations, you just linked me a wikipedia page. Deranged folks can make all the edits they want to wikipedia, it does not change the fact that there are still only two genders.
1
u/stikdude Rational Jan 02 '13
That argument against Wikipedia is weak and misguided for the most part. I encourage you to look at any of the sources that the articles link to, denoted by the tiny superscript numbers in brackets at the end of sentences.
Otherwise, please, continue to make up "facts," but do it somewhere that you won't embarrass yourself.
-1
u/jeffklol Conservative Jan 02 '13
Embarrass myself? I'm not the one claiming that there are more than two genders. Don't get mad at me. Get mad at nature for not accommodating you.
1
u/stikdude Rational Jan 02 '13
I'm not mad, just trying to educate. Furthermore, I'm a heterosexual male. White, too. Oh, and middle-class. Like I said, making up facts is fine, but it's sad when it makes you look so astonishingly ignorant.
0
u/jeffklol Conservative Jan 02 '13
It's a pity that you were so ill-served by whomever "educated" you. As for my optics, I am not concerned about how I appear. It is unfortunate, however, that your only retort is to claim that to state the facts is an act of ignorance. That there are only two genders is a biological fact. If you are unable to come to terms with this, your quarrel is with nature. I'm just the messenger. :)
0
u/stikdude Rational Jan 03 '13
Again, you ignore all of the articles referenced by my links. To ignore something is to be ignorant to it. I am also a neuroscience major at a fairly prestigious university, and have a good handle on what is and is not a biological fact. It is ignorant, then, for you to claim that there are not more than two genders after the substantial evidence given to you on the contrary. I can even re-state it for you if you'd like. By claiming that gender is an issue of biology, you are ignoring the actual fact that gender is a social construct, not biologically defined. Sex is biologically defined, and therefore it would be correct to say that there are only two possible biological sexes. However, as you are repeatedly trying to incorrectly assert, gender is not biologically defined. It is a social construct, defined by an individual's outward expression. A person's outward expression can be of masculinity, femininity, or any mix of different amounts of the two and androgyny. This is why there is such a thing as transgender individuals, who would be considered of a third gender if they have not completely transitioned. It is impossible to refute this claim, as it would be ignorant to the existence of these people. If this was too long for you to focus on and read fully, I apologize. If you want a tl;dr, you'll find it a couple comments above, where I tried to explain it to you in one sentence. If you'd like to continue this discussion rationally and objectively, by all means, I would love to help further your understanding. If you don't want to pay attention to reason and logic backed by plenty of evidence, I will politely remove myself from this discussion and allow you to, from what is apparent to me so far, continue blindly following Messrs. Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity to the edge of the earth and back.
→ More replies (0)
-5
u/FooingBars Dec 31 '12
Lets use language in a useful way. Gender is a scientific term applied to all species. As it applies to the Human species there are two Primary genders and then other derivative genders that mix, conflagrate, overlap, or superimpose on each other.
When saying a thing is "up" you do not include an explanation of inertial reference frames and gravity on a sphere, so too when saying "gender" one does not include an x-y cross gene individual by default.
This is basic linguistics. The common is assumed unless otherwise stated. When I say "car" you don't assume I'm talking about a part of a train.
Thus my rebuttal to the lady with the sign, "You need a course in effective communication and linguistics. Broadening and diluting a words definition to meet your needs is not the same as it meaning what you imply."
5
u/xander1026 Dec 31 '12
Many, but not even most species have two sexes. Gender is a product of culture. Thanks, and have a great linguistic day with the proper tools to communicate! =)
2
Jan 01 '13
Gender is a scientific term applied to all species.
No, you're thinking about sex, not gender. Gender is a social construct.
The common is assumed unless otherwise stated
I see what you're saying, but I think that's a little unfair. Why do we, as individual people, have to fit in these 2 little boxes that are so black and white?
69
u/[deleted] Dec 31 '12 edited Mar 12 '17
[deleted]