Is Mise,

An excellent link. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to have made much difference.

--

ALTRAV,

I have no idea what it is that you think I’m trying to get away with.

<<Oh Philips, how dismissive thou art now. 'With the same genitals, so what? You don't think your going to get away with that do you?>>

For reasons still unclear to me, Josephus pointed out that two people in a same-sex relationship have the same genitals. He then challenged me to claim that same-sex marriage and the LGBT acronym have nothing to do with biological sex.

Go figure!

My only guess is that, in explaining the difference between sex and gender, Josephus had at some point gotten the impression that I thought that biological sex is never relevant to anything? He gets very confused like that.

Apparently, you understood precisely what Josephus was getting at. Enough to even accuse me trying to get away with something. So, if you could be so kind as to explain to me what Josephus’s point was (although, he appears to have now dropped it suspiciously quickly), and how it was relevant to anything I have said, then I’d be most appreciative.

<<The whole concept of marriage has been done to death not only on this forum but everywhere. If you have two people who love each other like brother and sister or like the series, 'The Odd Couple', then I would say it's OK.>>

So, you’d allow two people of the same sex to marry, so long as the relationship wasn’t sexual? That’s sounds odd.

<<But you wanted the word marriage so bad you did not want all the rest of the baggage and commitment that comes with it. You just wanted the name and then you would do what you wanted with it.>>

This is news to me. Do you have any examples?

<<Oh that's right you queers …>>

I’m not gay. How many times do I have to tell you that?

It’s not just my definition, Josephus. It’s THE definition.

<<How did psychologists arrive at your definition of Gender?>>

They didn't "arrive" at it, though. They simply needed a word to describe the observed phenomenon.

<<By defining things males do and are, and things that females do and are.>>

Partly, it’s also about masculinity and femininity. Neither of which are sex-exclusive, even if each appear more in one sex than the other.

<<Funny their sexual biological identity as man and woman! It is a recent construct adopted by psychologists to develop a spectrum to place people into boxes.>>

It’s not about putting people in boxes. You’re just getting stroppy now.

<<I know, I've done the test and it determined I was 57% female.>>

I’d have to know which test this was exactly to comment any in any detail. But, no, it wouldn’t have been saying anything a about the state of your genitalia or suggesting that you want to become a female. Perhaps you’re a slightly effeminate man? Nothing wrong with that. I am, too, in some ways. In my opinion, it's better than thinking that wrestling and monster trucks are great-value entertainment, or that getting drunk and bashing people is a fun thing to do on a Friday night.

<<However my birth certificate says I am male, and I have all the biological appearance of a man.>>

Yes, they would. So what?

<<This gender theory is just that; theory …>>

Yeah, just like evolution is “just a theory”.

<<[Gender theory] is nonsense invented by someone doing a Masters degree who wanted to make a name for themselves.>>

No, the concept of gender is very useful in assessing and comparing the various roles men and women play, and in different cultures around the world too. You can stamp your feet all you like, but gender as a social construct exists whether you like it or not.

Having been a farmer, and handling heavy earth moving machinery which I have done for a large part of my life does not define my gender. I have woman friends working dump trucks in WA mines, and driving Trains, neither activity has made them masculine or male. They are the gentlest females. One is now bringing up her infant children and writing children's books for pre-schoolers. Performing activities usually ascribed to one gender in the past does not change a persons biological identity. Girls playing football does not change their gender. In fact the Matildas were beaten 7 - 0 by a team of under 15 year boys in Newcastle. Because they play a sport usually played by males does not make them male gender. However Same Sex Marriage actually identifies the sex of the person by their genitalia, otherwise if they were different genitalia there is NO case. It would be between a man and a woman.

Josephus,

Still confused about the difference between sex and gender, I see.

<<Having been a farmer, and handling heavy earth moving machinery which I have done for a large part of my life does not define my gender.>>

Well, it doesn’t define your biological sex, but it is more of a masculine gender role. At least in our culture. Your choice of work throughout your life is perceived by people in our culture to be of the more masculine variety. How you choose to identify yourself, on the other hand, is your business. You can call yourself a woman, for all I care, but your choice of work is one which our society views as being more masculine. This is what gender describes.

<<I have woman friends working dump trucks in WA mines, and driving Trains, neither activity has made them masculine or male.>>

And nor is anyone claiming otherwise. Their professions, on the other hand, are currently perceived to be more masculine than feminine in our society. Women like them, however, may change that over time. Just one of the ways in which gender can be *GHASP* fluid (another way is that graceful, ladylike beauty who surprises you by telling you that she was a real tomboy as a kid).

Just because someone has some traits, or engages in some activities, which society would generally describe as being masculine when they are a woman, or feminine when they are a man, that does not mean we start referring to that person as the opposite sex to what they are. Gender describes culturally-defined roles.

<<They are the gentlest females.>>

I’m sure they are. This contradicts nothing I have said, however.

No Philips, you are the arrogant one to assume to speak for the queers.

I on the other hand have the right to question your reasoning as to why you would promote the word marriage but not in it's totality and all it stands for.

As for people wanting to have surgery to change their appearance. Now this is arrogant. You speak of some people being of the opposite sex from birth.

Now your saying it's OK to have major surgery to become a freak, but not to undergo a non-invasive process which will mentally return you to what you were intended by birth.

Philips again you try, but no. My reference to two same sex people living together was NOT to suggest that queers could marry so long as they don't have sex.

The reference is to describe that people of the same sex share a house, as many did as teenagers, not as lovers but as friends.

Do you get the concept now?

The paths chosen by most of the queers is one of arrogance and selfishness at the expense of the rest of the country.

Before you come back with your usual, 'prove it' mantra, I'll direct you to the SSM campaign and subsequent laws that followed.

At no point have I assumed to speak for gay people, ALTRAV.

<<… you are the arrogant one to assume to speak for [gay people].>>

Could you point to where I have done such a thing?

<<I on the other hand have the right to question your reasoning as to why you would promote the word marriage but not in it's totality and all it stands for.>>

And I fully support that right of yours. Marriage, however, is a social construct which as changed many times over the millennia. So, I would then ask, why its “totality” and “all [which] it stands for” cannot change, if that’s what society wants?

<<As for people wanting to have surgery to change their appearance. Now this is arrogant.>>

How is that arrogant? Somehow I don't think you know what 'arrogant' means.

<<You speak of some people being of the opposite sex from birth.>>

I have mentioned those who think and feel like the opposite sex to which they were physically born, yes.

<<Now your saying it's OK to have major surgery to become a freak, but not to undergo a non-invasive process which will mentally return you to what you were intended by birth.>>

Oh, please, by all means, tell us what this "non-invasive" procedure is? If it's anything like gay conversion therapy, then it's nothing more than pseudoscientific religious bunkum.

<<Philips again you try, but no.>>

Try what, exactly? This comment is too random to make much sense of.

<<My reference to two same sex people living together was NOT to suggest that queers could marry so long as they don't have sex.>>

I certainly hoped not. Which is why I added the question mark. I was inviting clarification, and thank you for your clarification.

<<The paths chosen by most of the [gay people] is one of arrogance and selfishness at the expense of the rest of the country.>>

How so?

<<Before you come back with your usual, 'prove it' mantra, I'll direct you to the SSM campaign and subsequent laws that followed.>>

You’ll need to be a bit more specific, sorry.