Bring back masculinity

Here's the thing folks. You think some people felt different for a few months and then identified with it. I think there are many studies out there showing that false. For the most part they felt different from an early age. Their surrounding society just never let them pursue their feelings. Many knew exactly what they felt but couldn't come out and identify as such. I had a step brother who was gay. He knew it, the family knew it, and some of his close friends new it. We all accepted it except his father who would riddecule him, beat him, and constantly told him he should be dead. The 60s, early 70s. He actually tried to take his own life a few times and if not saved by others he would have succeded. Adding to his trama was a group of boys who picked on him and would sometimes beat him up. Late 70s he disappeared. No one knew where he was. He was found 300 and some miles from home in a wooded area hanging from a tree with a rope hanging from it. They estimated his death was about a week prior. The note pinned to his shirt read, because I was just too different".

Time has changed for them. With more information out there at their disposal they could finally have some understanding of what they were feeling. Of course, many still deny them. Especially you on the far right who make them seem criminal. They are human beings. No one ever said that all human genes line up the same way for everyone. Evidently, they do not.

I believe that no matter who or what they identify with, they are all humans. They all have emotions and the ability to reason. I respect all of them in regards to their choice. Are there some I don't care for personally, of course but it has nothing to do with who they identify as.
 
I believe that no matter who or what they identify with, they are all humans. They all have emotions and the ability to reason. I respect all of them in regards to their choice. Are there some I don't care for personally, of course but it has nothing to do with who they identify as.
Im sorry about your step brother and no one should be treated like that, but there can still be limits without crossing the line of human decency or infringing on others rights.

A biological man has the right to dress as a woman etc. without harrasment but at the point where they are still a fully functional biological male they should not be allowed to infringe on womens rights, whether it be in sports or in safe areas. I do not believe that a trans-woman should ever be harassed or vilified for who they are, but they should not be given additional rights or additonal benefits and that is what we see now. Infringement of womens rights is not inclusion.

I see a very small percentage of the population are also arguing this point purely by trying to shout down the other side without any debate, calling them names and accusing them of being anti-gay. There needs moderation and boundaries on both sides. This issue has been very bad for the LGBTQ community and note that many within that community are also against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob
Funny how no one here has attempted to define masculinity. Just what is it? Is it a straight male? If you think about it, all those religious text forbid homosexuality or in the course of Islam, the acts that could be contributed to gay males. To forbid something would mean it existed in order for it to be forbidden. All our long lost ancestors lived with it. Especially if you are in any way Greek. Israel, the birthplace of Christianity had gay people openly running around until the "Bible" came along and said it was a no no.

Do the following people fit the descriptions?
William Shakespeare
Marlin Brando
Alec Guinness
James Dean
Alexander the Great
King James 1
Sir Francis Bacon
Richard the Lionheart
Leonardo da Vinci
James Buchanan
Walt Whitman
William Butler Yeats
Laurence Oliver
Rock Hudson
Georger Bernard Shaw
Cary Grant
Lou Reed
J. Edgar Hoover
Cesar Romaro
Raymond Burr
Michelangelo
Oscar Wilde
Etc, etc, etc It's a quite extensive list.
All Gay but social rules for the most part kept their sexuality hidden. Would they be the same man today or even better because a burden was lifted from them?

Masculinity has no mold that all masculine acceptable people come from. Turn the tables and one can wonder what happened to the likes of Anne Oakley or maybe Eleanor Roosevelt. Quite the ladies but how about those masculine tendacies?

Nope, no molds and masculinity just like feminity can not be described in a single paragraph. Maybe, not at all.
 
No art without gays but gays can be quite masculine as well. The confusion starts when humans with 9-inch penises start calling themselves "women".
 
No art without gays but gays can be quite masculine as well. The confusion starts when humans with 9-inch penises start calling themselves "women".
There's plenty of excellent art without gays but of course there's plenty from them as well.
 
Nope, no molds and masculinity just like feminity can not be described in a single paragraph. Maybe, not at all.
Just because something exists on a spectrum does not mean it does not exist at all, or that it can not be known or described.

For instance color. "Blue" is a real thing, with real value to have a general common understanding of, even if there is some differing opinions on where exactly blue becomes green or purple.
 
Funny how no one here has attempted to define masculinity. Just what is it?

Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men and boys. Masculinity can be understood as socially constructed, and there is also evidence that some behaviors considered masculine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors.

From the wikipedia page on masculinity. Many other definitions and descriptions around.

You're welcome.
 
Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men and boys. Masculinity can be understood as socially constructed, and there is also evidence that some behaviors considered masculine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors.

From the wikipedia page on masculinity. Many other definitions and descriptions around.

You're welcome.
OK, so being gay, since it has been shown to be biological can in fact be masculine. Cultural habits change so perhaps a gucci contribution as in the orginal question is now part of someone's culture.
 
OK, so being gay, since it has been shown to be biological can in fact be masculine. Cultural habits change so perhaps a gucci contribution as in the orginal question is now part of someone's culture.
The ancient Greeks had no problem with homosexuals or what we would class as pedophilia now. It was almost expected for a man to have a young boy for a lover. But they were expected to have a wife also to make babies.
 
The ancient Greeks had no problem with homosexuals or what we would class as pedophilia now. It was almost expected for a man to have a young boy for a lover. But they were expected to have a wife also to make babies.
Romans did a pretty good job of that too but looked to the slaves for easy prey. Egyptians liked to keep it amongst siblings. Throught history one can find sexual relationships that many like to claim are not normal. Religion really has little to go on historically to condem such relationships. One only needs to read the histories of early religious leaders to figure that out. The history of the early Popes is mind boggling.
 
"They" as gender-neutral 3rd person singular is absolutely proper, correct, and in common everyday usage, and has been for longer than any of us have been alive.
Apparently so, but I am not alone in finding it nonsensical and awkward. "It" goes against my grain, linguistically speaking, to call a singular person "they" or "them". That has nothing to do with having respect for any person's self-identity, but is simply about the terms "they" or "them", by pure logic if you follow the language, referring to plural entities. Reasonable minds can disagree on such things, nobody on either side of the issue has a corner on "their" being "correct". I would agree that a new term equating to "dia" or even "ini" would be a reasonable solution if "he" or "she" are no longer sufficient.
 
To paraphrase the late, beloved American comedian Bill Hicks: "What makes a man a man?" >>> A pair of testicles.
 
Imagine how an Indonesian would react if you started saying mereka instead of dia
FTR, Indonesian in the Eastern Islands, for the most, use "kita" when you say "saya" in Jakarta and most other places in Indonesia. To express "I" we were saying in a far past "kitorang" as the Malay do in Bahasa Melayu, and which is itself a fusion of kita (we/us) and orang (people). Over the time "kitorang" became only "torang" with most native people ignoring the origin of the pronoun and never saying "kita" to refer to them + anyone else, only to refer to themselves. I have heard elders in Maluku still using kitorang (while I can't remember any less than 50 y.o saying anything else than torang) but it has totally disappeared in the northern part of Sulawesi in any age group.

In a country with so many suku, languages and slang, only the elitists would think that their language is spoken and understood the very same way all over the archipelago and doesn't/shouldn't evolve. :);)
 
When someone is mentally ill, we don't attack them, but we don't say they are normal. God or nature has a built-in purpose and proper function of all things. To deny this is not logical.
 
When someone is mentally ill, we don't attack them, but we don't say they are normal. God or nature has a built-in purpose and proper function of all things. To deny this is not logical.
So, who is mentally ill, what exactly is "normal" (seems like dangerous ideas you are playing with here ...! ) , who gets to decide which is which, and what does your statement have to do with some peoples' ideas about what represents masculinity or appropriate fashion for men ... ? Since you're apparently into being "logical", go ahead and walk me through all this, please.
 
So, who is mentally ill, what exactly is "normal" (seems like dangerous ideas you are playing with here ...! ) , who gets to decide which is which, and what does your statement have to do with some peoples' ideas about what represents masculinity or appropriate fashion for men ... ? Since you're apparently into being "logical", go ahead and walk me through all this, please.
It seems logical that a man's tool goes into a womans enclave to produce a new creation. Anything else is not for a logical purpose. This is a great example of normal.
 
It seems logical that a man's tool goes into a womans enclave to produce a new creation. Anything else is not for a logical purpose. This is a great example of normal.
Biology throws up a lot of kinks in that you would call normal.
When this anti-trans stuff comes up it's important to remember that 1% of people born have some sort of ambiguous genitalia. Between 0.1% and 0.2% of them have such ambiguous genitalia that doctors/ parents sometimes take a guess (I'm sure this is getting easier with genetic testing).
When you start to look at genes it's not always clearer. Some women have a Y chromosome. Some men have an extra X. Some people have a mix going on inside their own bodies.

Normal in nature is a wide range of normalities.

Those of us with normal genitalia and a body that matches our own self-perception of our sex are lucky (and in the overwhelming majority thankfully). It feels really wrong for us to "other" those who are not so lucky.
 
Biology throws up a lot of kinks in that you would call normal.
When this anti-trans stuff comes up it's important to remember that 1% of people born have some sort of ambiguous genitalia. Between 0.1% and 0.2% of them have such ambiguous genitalia that doctors/ parents sometimes take a guess (I'm sure this is getting easier with genetic testing).
When you start to look at genes it's not always clearer. Some women have a Y chromosome. Some men have an extra X. Some people have a mix going on inside their own bodies.

Normal in nature is a wide range of normalities.

Those of us with normal genitalia and a body that matches our own self-perception of our sex are lucky (and in the overwhelming majority thankfully). It feels really wrong for us to "other" those who are not so lucky.
Normal means there is a natural logical purpose.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

Newest Members

Forum Statistics

Threads
5,965
Messages
97,415
Members
3,038
Latest member
nightclubs
Back
Top Bottom