Gender studies banned in Hungary

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Alakhami, Oct 22, 2018.

  1. Alakhami

    Alakhami I need me some PIE!

    Thoughts? What do youguys think of the idea of gender in general? Personally, I'm not strictly against "gender fluidity", but I do think there should be some clear and distinct overall categories so that people aren't just making up their own genders and expecting society to play along with them. I say that as a person that identifies himself as an androgyn (self-identification: male, gender expression: male and female). Although that could lead to a certain rigidity in gender roles, I don't think that chaotic fluidity where people identify themselves as animals or 11 year old kids is in any way shape or form a better solution -- thus I think that the gender identity should be strictly gender, not biological or multipersonal (acting like another person(s))
  2. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    ... I'm not sure if this thread is supposed to be about gender studies or about Viktor Orban banning university courses.

    anyways gender is a social construct, most soceities have man and woman to overlap with sex, a couple used to have a third type where a woman could choose to dress and act as a man in order to inherit property ( but not allowed to have kids/marry)
    I don't think we should force roles on people. I identify as a man and am male but if someone else wants to be different why inhibit their freedom to do so? If soceity should maximise happiness of the people living in it then what purpose does enforcing uniformity sere?

    I should add that I also do not think weird chimeara vagino****s and multiple personalities are genders.
  3. Alakhami

    Alakhami I need me some PIE!

    1st paragraph -- I guess I'd like to discuss both. The politics of Hungary are interesting. As far as I know, it has also banned migrants from seeking asylum in their country. Easy to conclude that it's going far right and that looks pretty alarming.

    2nd -- the problem is as usual the classification and documentation. What genders become officially viable? Can people make up their own genders and make the government recognize said genders in their passports and what not? Or do we change the ID documentations from gender to sex to eliminate any possible discrimination from potential misidentification?

    And what about pronouns? That's a whole other complicated issue. Making new ones is really counterintuitive for most people since pronouns are rooted at the very core of language, whilst using 3rd person plural just sounds odd and somewhat dehumanizing, almost implying a personality disorder. (hence, I find it odd that non-binaries would conform to such pronoun.)

    So even if genders are social constructs, which I believe they are, there are some inherent problems that such a position faces when there are non-cisgender people that are the majority of the world, to which the non-binaries anevitably are antagonistic to (quite a paradox, don't you think?), since the ideological structures of the latter are too rigid and inert to deem the former as ontologically valid. (apart from a small open-minded minority.)
    Geressen likes this.
  4. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    PoxBot likes this.
  5. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    If you are born with a dck you are a dude. Be a dude! If you are born with ****** be a lady! If you are born with both then the doctor should let you decide what you want to be when your old enough. People that have both are the ones that get confused when the doctor cuts one off at birth. Some dudes are born with higher levels of estrogen. SO what they are still dudes! Some ladies are born with higher levels of androgen. SO what they are still ladies! Gender fluidity is being pushed by a bunch of weirdos who eat too much soy, their daddies didn't give them enough hugs, and are brainwashed. Stop it Canada.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
    Baskitkase likes this.
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It must be nice to live in such a black and white world. Unfortunately, reality is less well defined than you imagine it to be in your mind.

    "In every way, Johnny is physically and biologically male. But, astonishingly he did not grow a ***** until he hit puberty. He is one of many children who live in Salinas, an isolated village in the southwestern Dominican Republic, who are seemingly born female, only to become men in their teenage years." <- so this person, according to @profhulk, would be a lady, because he was not born with a ****

    "Transgender brains more closely resemble brains of the sex they align with, rather than what they were born with"


    Personally, I think this path of "the world is simple and we shouldn't try to understand it more because it disrupts my worldview" is dangerous and holds back progress and the entire human race.

    I am not saying who is right and who is wrong in every case, but it's pretty clear to me which side of the political spectrum has a dogmatic fixation with "tradition."
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  7. Alakhami

    Alakhami I need me some PIE!

    See, you don't grant the concept ontological validity simply cause it seems "weird". Oh and you know that the idea that soy lowers the level of testosterone is myth, right?
    Geressen likes this.
  8. Alakhami

    Alakhami I need me some PIE!

    Amusing, but I'm quite sure I made a distiction between sexual and non-sexual identity.
  9. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    the NS ( the railway company in the Netherlands) switched from "Ladies and gentlemen" to "Travelers" while back. I like it. when I am taking the train I am traveling, not attending a posh dinner.
    Alakhami likes this.
  10. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    The guy puts the word sexual in there but I’m pretty sure helicopters don’t actually have a sex.

    Point is, where does the fairy tale end and reality start? At what point do you say “yeah, ok, that’s ridiculous”.

    Can I as a male, with male DNA identify as a female? Is that ok? Can I be a 6 year old girl? A dog? A helicopter? A block of cheese?

    What if I want to identify as a 6 year old girl, but doing so tears apart my existing family causing them huge amounts of confusion, pain and abandonment.

    It’s not society’s responsibility to make people happy. Society is there to make sure that lots of people can coexist on a small piece of dirt, build off of a common goal of continued existence and mutual multiplicative increase (ie one person makes chairs/tables, one person grows chickens and the other grows veggies, but they all have dinner at a table.).

    Society also decides what is normal behavior. You don't have to agree to it, and you can speak against it if that is your opinion (if that society gives you that ability) or you can leave the society. Additionally, you can try to influence the society into changing toward your view but you are not guaranteed that outcome. All this is normal.

    Where it gets stupid is when someone demands a change be made and that you're a bad person if you don't agree. The entitlement to demand something you want that others (the vast majority) do not want and the arrogance to attach an ultimatum such as "ability to obtain happiness" (a farce) to the demand is delusional at best.

    So keep up the attempts to influence (your own "pursuit of happiness"), as is normal and healthy in a society, but drop the assumption that your position is a right.

    Well actually, genders are single word definition representative of a sex as determined by a set of DNA. The social construct (that is being pushed) here is that genders are not permanently attached to a person, or their sex. Either that or you're saying that all language is a social construct, which is technically true but then removes the emphasis that you were going for.
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
    profhulk and SPiEkY like this.
  11. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    Then I get to this part and I'm like /siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. You went digging in the thesaurus to try and sound smart. Communication is not about words its about accurately putting your thoughts and ideas into the comprehension of another. I don't respect your position because I read your prose and think "wow, this guy is intelligent", I respect your position because I see your passion and effort at trying to influence and design a society (in this case) that you want.
    profhulk and SPiEkY like this.
  12. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    I consider gender to be like religion. Everyone should have the right to have or not have one. It's fine if they're proud of theirs. Just don't try to force others to accept or adopt it. Society doesn't owe anyone special considerations because of it. If we fix things so all restrooms are private and secure, it shouldn't matter if a male, female, trans, or even pedophile use the restroom with a kid.
    SPiEkY likes this.
  13. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    (I hate WOTs, this is a WOT. TL;DR below)

    I would mostly agree, but two pieces clarification are in order.

    First: Right to Be vs. Right to Be Accepted
    People sometimes just assume that the "right to be" is the same as "right to be accepted". I do not agree with the 2nd one. That simply does not, will not and never has existed. You are NOT entitled to acceptance. Acceptance, if that is important to you, is obtained by adhering to the norms of your given society. If acceptance is important to you, then you need to adhere to the norms of your society or you need to leave that society and find one whose norms match your behaviors.

    Lets take religion, as you've made the correlation that I think is a good one.

    If you are a catholic and walk into Sunday service at the baptist church and demand that people accept that Peter was the first pope, you're probably not going to be received well (be accepted). It is your right to be a catholic, same as its their right to be a protestant, but not your right to be accepted. If acceptance is important to you, then you need to leave the protestant church and go back to the catholic church. Regardless of where you end up going, nothing has changed about your right to be (a believer in Peter as Pope1).

    So back to gender. You can be whatever gender you want - even if there were laws against it, I'm guessing "gender" becomes a state of mind and obviously no one could control that. But for arguments sake, lets say "being" a gender was your choice (which it is). Even though you've chosen your gender, you cannot then demand that the society, whose norm is set gender, to accept you in any real way. A subset of the society that agrees with you and/or is the way that you are will probably be as high as your true acceptance will go.

    Second: Harm to others

    Your right to be ceases at any point wherein you will harm another individual of your society.

    Religion: The protestant guy, the catholic guy, the gay church guy, the trans universe guy, the satanist, the wicken etc, they all have the "right" to practice their religion. The <insert religion> that condones sacrificing humans or handling of non-defanged venomous snakes, yeah, no sir. I don't think gay church guy, trans universe guy and the satanist etc etc are right, but I'm not going to inhibit their practices. I don't even get to the point of debating sacrifice guy or snake guy because of the harm it will cause, I will not allow it.

    How does that translate to gender: I could care less if a guy next door is putting his pinus in another guy who is dressed like a girl. Really don't care. Obviously I would be 100% offended if that was put on display in front of my children, same as I would be if a male and female put sexual activity on display.

    I am, however, responsible for raising my children, and obviously protecting them from certain things and protecting them from certain things while they are at certain life stages. You can say "gender is not about sexuality" all you want but that's just not the case, not in the mind of a child. As soon as you start a discussion on the distinction between male and female (and anything else) they automatically start thinking about the differences between male and female that they know. And what they know has to do with sexual organs and leads straight into sexuality. I do not want them to be confused in this area, nor do I want them to think that using self mutilation and lab science to appear as another gender to be normal. To me, this constitutes harm. Why? Because that's what I believe.

    I personally think that a man is a man and a female is a female. I think that males should be with females and females should be with males. That is how I'm going to raise my kids. I also teach them to be critical of everything, especially that with which you agree. So it's possible they are building a belief set that is different in some or all ways to my own. They will have the freedom to act on that once they are adults and no longer under my care. They have the freedom to be educated on these subjects at a certain age, even under my care, and to discuss them with me and seek out my opinions and beliefs, if they so choose.

    Those are my beliefs. Those are my "rights to be". I'm not making gay church guy accept me and say that I'm right or he's a bad guy, and I will not hear the reverse either.

    So, in short, be who you want to be, regardless of if its a fairy tale or reality, christian or universe, science or natural, as long as no one is harmed; just don't assume that acceptance is a right.
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
    profhulk and SPiEkY like this.
  14. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    I think we completely agree on the right to be and right to be accepted piece. Where we may differ is the what signifies harm to others. At some point does not being accepted become harm? I would argue that refusal of service to someone based on who they have the right to be constitutes harm.
  15. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    Well I see a few different things going on here in this scenario:

    The Right to Be.
    We completely agree on this so I'll skip it.

    Harm Caused
    Well it could then be turned around to say that forcing someone to render a service to someone whose behavior is contrary to their belief causes that person harm and we now have a never-ending harm-circle OH NOOOO.

    Two major aspects here: A business transaction and Control
    I think, in most cases, the root motivation for someone to refuse service in this type of (hotbutton/emotional) scenario is an effort to regain control, or be heard. It's the same reason that a gender chooser will make up a fake story of harassment. Exercising control over a situation to refuse service or playing victim in a fiction you created are both in the same category. If you really sat down and removed all emotion I don't think anyone would refuse service because the primary goal of a for-profit entity is to do business, whatever that looks like for their organization (create revenue, profit etc). If you really sat down with a gender chooser, having to go to a different wedding cake place or just have the cake built and putting the two doods on the top by yourself really isn't that big of a deal either. But with the way social media is, everyone wants to be the next viral story. Makes me want to puke, tbh, but thats the way it is.

    Secondly, the business transaction. I don't want to get into the legality of the whole "protected class" thing because it simply doesn't matter. Those kinds of laws and protections will always follow the ruling tendencies of the SCOTUS because that's where they end up. But a business is there to do business and if its not doing that, if its ostracizing a portion of its available market, it will be somewhat less of a business for it. So there's a cost. It's also possible that by providing that service, that the business might ostracize some of the other portions of the market. Not likely to be a big deal either way. Just go next door and get your service there, or if lawful, take action against the organization for damage against a protected class.

    Also on this topic is how someone, existing outside of a social norm, but who wants acceptance, and refuses to relocate to a society where their behaviors could be described as not making the most logical decisions. If you're just out there making emotional decisions for the sake of your cause, expect to receive exactly the same back. Seems pretty simple to me. If catholic guy just stays in baptist church getting hurt and offended that people will not accept that Peter is pope1, what would be your response to catholic guy?

    Comes down to interpretation of harm. Who caused the first harm, who knew harm was possible when they took a course of action and therefore have accountability, who has the right to harm another, what causes the most harm, whose harm is more important, where is harm allowable and where is it not etc etc. Like I mentioned, this is a SCOTUS thing... because that's the only way it can be. You need a final binding enforceable judgment and they are the only ones who can provide it, even if temporarily (overturned later by other cases/judges).

    For me and mine, I think it's as simple as the golden rule. That's how we treat people. I do not have to agree with a lifestyle to love and respect someone as a human. The other side of that coin reads: if they do not respect me in the same way, I'll either remove them from my situation, or myself from theirs (and/or take appropriate legal action).
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  16. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    I agree for the majority of the people out there, they wouldn't refuse service outright they would try to make reasonable accommodations, and the majority of customers would be willing to compromise. There are the outliers that have to make a name for themselves or use it as a statement that cause most of the trouble.

    Relocation may not always be an option. Unlike the church example, there can be a significant financial implication with relocation. Also while it is logical to relocate based on societal acceptance, it may be illogical for someone with a closer knit family. Logically it makes sense for me to move to a city with a much lower cost of living. My wife wouldn't have to work. We wouldn't need daycare. We could spend a lot more time with our kids. I can work remotely. If she chose to continue working, we could invest heavily. That would mean that our parents would be in another state, we wouldn't see our siblings every couple months, and our kids wouldn't have a close relationship with their grandparents, great grandparents, cousins, etc.

    If the catholic guy is running around shouting how Paul is the first pope, he should be ignored. If the catholic guy is calmly asking others to accept that he thinks Paul is the first pope, but not trying to make others believe that as well, I would hope everyone can treat each other respectfully.
  17. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    Stop considering gender as anything but genetic and a reality. If you start to ride on the gender fluid train this will be the future for your children. No male and female clothes just a bunch of cucked humans led down to the fruitcake bowl by Canada and the rest of these people who refuse to stand up to this weirdo agenda. Not for me no thanks.
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It's no weirder than believing in a magical zombie man in the sky, honestly. At least gender dynamics are based on emerging science (which I have linked to you) instead of superstition. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is basically just denying reality.

    Besides, society/culture changes. I mean, hell, high heels were invented for MEN so they could look bigger.

    That's where it should start and end. You shouldn't discriminate against or belittle those who believe differently than you do just because it is "weird."
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    darklord48 and Geressen like this.
  19. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    One interesting historic fact is that whenever new science/theories emerge about things, there is always a lot of resistance, even from scientists.

    For example, such as with Plate Tectonics, which was initially ridiculed as a "fairy tale," "delirious ravings" and called "psuedo-science."

    A University of Chicago Geologist said about the theory: "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories."

    So despite the fact that it was true, and the reasoning actually quite sound, people of the day simply dismissed it as silly primarily because it didn't conform to their existing worldviews.


    Closer to today, there are still many who consider brain disorders to be made up (my wife's own father only recently came around on this, telling my wife for years she just needed to "think positive"), such as bi-polar disorder, etc.

    The fact is that it is certainly traumatic when things begins to challenge your worldview... however, there is a point when being conservative is not just being cautious, but denying reality.

    Ultimately, the question you have to ask yourself is... which is more likely? That the things we believe are the truth now and forever, or that our preconceptions will continue to be challenged as learn more about ourselves and the universe we reside in?
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    darklord48 and Geressen like this.
  20. Schmacko

    Schmacko I need me some PIE!

    There's a lot of fallacy in thinking for profit businesses won't ostracize potential clients and that markets are always self correcting. It wasn't that long ago that many businesses did exactly that with "whites only" policies. If enough businesses enact discriminatory policies against a minority group that group loses the ability to simply "go next door and get your service there," and they in effect start to become second class citizens. I don't think we're there currently (at least not large scale) with discrimination based on LGBT issues, but I think a lot of people worry about things moving more in that direction. Which is where a lot of the drive from the left is coming from on this issue.

    The expectation that people can and will just relocate is another fallacy. This does happen to an extent with people moving toward cities and areas with communities that closer reflect their beliefs. However, like Darklord said relocating can be cost prohibitive for a lot of people. Also a lot of people tend to like their hometowns or where they live and probably don't want to feel forced out of them just because they believe in something different.
    Geressen likes this.

Share This Page