Homosexuality (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2024, 05:29:33 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Homosexuality (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you believe that homosexuality is genetic, or a lifestyle choice?
#1
Democrat: genetic
 
#2
Democrat: lifestyle choice
 
#3
Republican: genetic
 
#4
Republican: lifestyle choice
 
#5
independent/third party: genetic
 
#6
independent/third party: lifestyle choice
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 123

Author Topic: Homosexuality  (Read 24484 times)
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,502


« on: December 20, 2012, 11:00:28 AM »
« edited: December 20, 2012, 11:10:52 AM by Nathan »

I've been following this thread with interest for a while now but I just want to talk about this for a second. I'm not entirely sure what belgiansocialist in fact means by this, but:

This is the core of what being human is about. We speak, and we speak about ourselves. And after we've spoken, we take what's been said deadly seriously. You care about your gender. You care absurdly much about your gender. You care about your gender identity to the point where you're willing to go the extra mile to claim it. Looking at you Nathan.

You laugh at Lacan, but at the end of the day a pun can really make you sick to the core of your being. Here are four words which can make you ill: 'I am a man'.

My problem with this is a considerable amount of confusion about it. I can't claim something if I'm not sure what it is, particularly if it's a category (or any of a number of categories) that doesn't 'naturally' exist (the quotes are obviously hugely important here, since it's a bit of a crock concept and has a damaging influence on my psychology). I realize that because of this it's probably pretty easy to argue that I'm in bad faith and that's a lot of why I've been talking about this less, in general, in my life, lately, because I want to be able to discuss this cogently and I have a lot of other things to 'discuss cogently' too right now. Which is admittedly itself a bit of an excuse to not answer hard questions relating to identity--something I actually do feel opposed to the idea that I or anybody has to do.

And if I went over the aspects of the situation that do make me feel sick I'd be here for a while, and outstrip the bounds of what I want to share with the Atlas Forum.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,502


« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2012, 06:15:59 PM »

3. But now you say something that I find both interesting and wrong. You say (correct me if I'm wrong, etc.) that 'manhood' is a crock concept. I answer: how can it be? What would a 'pure' version of the idea of manhood look like? It would look like nothing, for there's no reality to 'manhood' other than the one contained in the concept as it is used, and yet this is not a trivial reality.

When you say 'I am a man' you know what you say. You may mean something different from what I mean when I use these words, but you still have a very definite meaning in mind. It may just be so that that meaning diverges from what you feel you are. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not going to presume I understand you. But 'manhood' as a concept concerns the both of us, I'd say.

Oh, no, sorry. The crock concept was the idea of a distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' genders. We seem to be entirely or almost entirely in agreement; I just wasn't sure about what you originally meant by naming me.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 14 queries.