Jump to content

DeltaV

Member
  • Content Count

    366
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by DeltaV

  1. I can’t wrap my head around this “gender assigned at birth”. Example: Mary Read was born in Kingdom of England in 1685. Her mother had married a sailor and had a son.[1] After her husband disappeared at sea, Mary's mother became pregnant after an extramarital love affair. Read's mother attempted to hide the pregnancy by going to live with friends in the country. Shortly thereafter, her son died, and she gave birth to Mary. In financial distress, her mother decided to disguise Mary as her dead son, in order to receive monetary support from her late husband's mother. The grandmother was apparently fooled, and mother and daughter lived on the inheritance into Mary's teen years. Dressed as a boy, Read found work as a foot-boy, and, then, employment on a ship. Without fixing the whole thing by biological sex, I don’t see how to make sense of the trans label when confronted with stories like this. Certainly, if Mary Read herself only reluctantly took part in this whole deception and it made her uncomfortable that people regarded her as a boy/man (male = the gender she was assigned to at birth), it does not feel right to call her a trans woman.
  2. In the wilderness of nature, having no functional legs puts you at a disadvantage. Autism probably not. I think that‘s an important difference, which the social model of disability as described in the Wikipedia article, does not address.
  3. Well, the female-male duality is a huge progress compared to the following: It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. – Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 92 but it still strikes me as a bit archaic.
  4. Spacenik86's post is kind of confused, but this line is very important: I’m always surprised how many people regard laws as good instruments to change attitudes and for reeducation. Probably they regard themselves as philosopher kings bringing the sheeple to their senses. But isn’t Putin the only true philosopher king? Last year the enlightened president Putin banned Jehovah’s Witnesses and put and end to their superstition and the harm it causes: No one will die anymore because of being brainwashed into rejecting blood transfusions. In backwards countries like the US they let 14-year-old teenagers die because of this insanity. His Yarovaya law is very fair: it bans a religious organization as extremist if it encourages members to refuse life-saving treatment. Jehovah’s Witnesses could have changed their teaching and they would still be allowed. Still, Putin is not a man of petty religious intolerance. In most cases, he does not want to restrict the freedom of believers. For example, you are allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding in Russia. Christians do not have this freedom in the US. Only when it becomes serious, like a matter of life and death, Putin in his unending love for humanity sees himself forced to intervene. Enlightened, tolerant, fair, loving and all-around sane – that’s Putin. The US government does everything the other way around which is exactly the wrong way. ----------
  5. imho there is a difference between making X a political issue itself and caring about the connections of X with politics.
  6. A nice topic for a PhD thesis in sociology! It’s a weird branding from a non-US standpoint. “Liberal anti-liberty” is imho most pronounced in the following areas: a minimalist interpretation of certain important civil liberties, like freedom of speech and freedom of association anti-discrimination laws (at least the extreme variants, like quotas for elite positions) weird/extreme views on public health (e.g. making everything about oppression. If one honestly thinks that the public is 'tricked' into buying unhealthy food, instead of simply liking unhealthy food more, heavy-handed paternalism is easy to justify) environmental protection Now being liberal doesn’t mean being anti-liberty in those areas. But if you are, you’re probably liberal. Conservative anti-liberty impulses go in a very different direction.
  7. Sure, the question would be what is the meaning of the word “woman” in the trans woman Wikipedia article? I guess the progressive view only makes sense from a quasi-Cartesian perspective. The sense of gender would be roughly like one of Descartes’s “innate ideas”; the sex of the body – conceived as a machine anyway – negligible, arbitrary or obscure. The traditional view, according to which biological sex is a real, objective property of each human individual as a whole, and gender refers to the social constructs based on biological sex, is more Aristotelian. Now, I don’t obsess about this issue enough to start a fight about it. So you can dismiss this as concern trolling, if you want. But I wonder if the general population can ever be convinced of the progressive view? If cuisine would be such a big issue as gender, would we want to define “cuisine” in a similar way, one that completely detaches it from what it is assumed to be about: food (cause food is also defined by its raw biological function – providing nourishment for humans)? And launch a skeptical attack on the concept of food? Japanese wax food display – an example of Japanese cuisine?
  8. I guess I would’ve scored more on loyality but some questions were romance-focuses and Americanocentric. Overall I identify most with left-libertarianism, so yeah.
  9. Your scores: Care 89% Loyalty 11% Fairness 47% Authority 3% Purity 33% Liberty 81% Your strongest moral foundation is Care. Your morality is closest to that of a Libertarian.
  10. Though how do you know that? I only “know” that I’m a man in the sense that my biological sex seems to be male. Certainly I don’t feel an internal sense of gender. Well, transgender theory is very complex and subtle, there are no authoritative sources, there are many inconsistencies how in different contexts the terms (male, female, etc.) are used and it is an extremely polarized issue. If we only look at the Wikipedia situation: … something does not add up here. Also, if the natal bureaucracy would have assigned “female” at birth to me, I would not feel like a trans man. I would just feel someone made an extremely obvious mistake here. Like if they spelled my family name in a wrong way.
  11. It refers to romantic attraction, which is difficult to grasp. I believe that there is something like romantic attraction, but if it were definitely proven that it doesn’t exist, I would still feel aromantic. Bu the disconnection happens to occur in a specific sense, namely “the full romantic program is not executed”, not in some other way which doesn’t fit the normative societal expectations. This is what all arospec orientations like grayromantic, akoiromantic, frayromantic, etc. seem to have in common: romance = lacking / absent / less pronounced / incomplete (no other way to put it … that sounds very normative). It’s even called theistic Satanism, to differentiate it from the LaVey version of Satanism, which is atheistic.
  12. Yes, you’re right… it’s about Mars and I liked that one very much. The remake was a victim of the Mars Curse, though.
  13. Oh that one… The Martian was one of the few successful movies about Mars, and probably the only one I liked so far. I never watched John Carter, but I’ll give it a chance.
  14. What is the worst romantic movie you’ve yet encountered? I vote for The Space Between Us. I only watched it because it’s about Mars. Though movies about the Red Planet tend to suck (and include some of the worst office bombs as John Carter on place 7 and Mars Needs Moms on place 18 for loss adjusted to inflation), which is called the Mars Curse. And oh dear, this is no exception. It probably does not get any cheesier, cringier and clunkier than that. And why Britt Robertson, who is in her late twenties, and clearly looks like a grown adult woman, plays a high school girl is a mystery to me. To be fair The Space Between Us was very unintentionally funny and so still kind of entertaining. Highly regarded romantic movies just tend to bore me.
  15. Some acronyms like YMBA (you might be aro…).
  16. That asocality is associated with aromanticism is pretty obvious. A strong reverse association OTOH would only exist if aromantic traits were as rare as asocial traits, which I doubt. Asociality is also a trait that really sticks out, while aromanticism is subtle enough that if you fit into the norm otherwise (allosexual straight, cis, social, no mental health problems, etc.) you probably never come across the term and adopt this still obscure label. So online aro communities at this time don’t really reflect the general aromantic population.
  17. A strange interest in the Mosuo people.
  18. DeltaV

    Tea thread

    Today I tried a tea from Nepal and one from the Nilgiri region. The Nepal tasted exactly like a Darjeeling, and the Nilgiri exactly like a high grown Ceylon. Probably I overestimated my skills as a tea connoisseur.
  19. If it only was as easy like with other things we find childish and boring… sigh. Romantic love is a serious matter in many other ways… that’s how people find their life partners. And it’s not boring but sad if you find yourself strangely unimportant compared to your friend’s crush they know for three weeks. Really … it sometimes feels like I live in a parallel universe where nothing makes any sense. If a couple discusses things like a joint mortgage I cannot imagine how it probably has all started with the typical cheesy stuff …… maybe even baby talk. cringe.
  20. DeltaV

    Tea thread

    “Aren’t you drinking?” “I never drink… coffee.” Raspberry tea is not camellia sinensis. Bad! Oolong is good, though I like it more on the black side. I like the true milky oolong.
  21. Sex without commitment is a behavior, while “aromantic sexual” describes a certain enduring pattern of sexual and romantic attraction (← ok for aros this is defined by the absence of romantic attraction). That’s the difference. For me my aromantic allosexuality does lead to sex without commitment though I certainly don’t have some wild sex life. I don’t like it that way … and so it’s tempting to say “Why do you do it then?”. I don’t want a romantic relationship, in fact I couldn’t get one (non-disastrous) if I tried. Also sex strangely complicates human relationships, so it’s only realistic with people who are not emotionally close to me. Since I like sex and I would get same disapproval by society even if I made a vow of celibacy, I don’t see any reason to change. The romance + sex package may perhaps “ennoble sex”, but it comes at a cost: “Is not having enough sex a good reason to break up?” is considered a normal question (and “Is cheating a good reason to break up?” is a rhetorical question*). I can’t compute how people don’t see that sex with commitment also means in reverse that you commit a very important relationship to sex. That’s imho the darkest side of allo-allo romance – I’m committed to my friends and I don’t care one bit for their sexual orientation, their libido or whom they sleep with. * probably most aros can understand that cheating means breaking a promise (though AFAIK [I have very few first-hand experience of romantic relationship] this promise is rarely explicitly given) and therefore is bad. But that doesn’t explain the gravity allo-allos attach to cheating.
  22. If I could magically choose… I would prefer to stay aromantic. I’m now at an age when people get serious and think of marriage, while I have no real relationship experience. Either people were my “friends” (ok, to be less cynical there are two who don’t deserve the scare quotes). Or it was very shallow (just sex, without any illusions). How should I catch up now? I also sometimes experience loneliness badly. But at least I don’t feel any bitterness or resentment that I missed a major life goal. Romantic relationships feel very alien to me. I simply do not want any. I’m 150% sure. It’s not that I just convinced myself because I didn’t get one. I just miss deep, meaningful non-romantic connections.
  23. The stated job of nearly all English dictionaries is to describe the meaning as used normally by English speakers. They probably did that correctly here. In my observation someone not deeply involved in LGBTQIA+ issues would scratch their heads if they encountered “aroace lesbian”. To let Xs decide what X means sounds very nice and fair but runs into the obvious circularity problem. E. g. what if (!) cis women define “woman” in a way that trans women aren’t women? That “homosexual” is derogatory (usually regarded more so as a noun) is a different issue. Now, if we take the above definitions, there can obviously be aroace lesbians. I don’t know how a definition can ever be wrong. There can be other problems with a definition like that it is very far removed from standard usage, misleading/manipulative, offensive, harmful, unwieldy, etc. Since Merriam-Webster is a descriptive (not prescriptive) dictionary, they would simply state a wrong fact if they gave a definition that didn’t match what English speakers usually mean by a certain word. Don’t blame the messenger!
  24. The problem is the punishment of stoning for the woman if she in fact turned out not to be a virgin (or rather “no proof” for her virginity can be found). 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. Stoning for “being promiscuous [?! just once is enough!] while still in her father’s house” is pretty heavy stuff. Yeah, that’s true. I quoted it because if of the extremely odd rules for making the accusation. The punishment is described directly before. Surah 24:2 – The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. I grant that here the Quran is a progress compared to the Old Testament. At least no one dies and they treat men and women the same way in this regard. Still 100 lashes just for that… oh well. The point here is Paul’s statement: 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Basically, you’d better live celibate, but not everyone can – like I do.
×
×
  • Create New...