Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
Melody Niwa


Do you have any proof? Sources? Anything?


Of course but not the time to share them.
Humour us with the logic, at least.


I'll briefly explain, if that will suffice.

Genderqueer, as a term, describes a sort of ambivalence to gender. At at's core lies mild to moderate GID, coupled with a misguided education upon the subject. A genderqueer identification informs a third party more about a person's cultural background than their psycho-sexual profile.
GID exists as a catch-all term, much like PDDNOS, to create a category that is less specific within such an umbrella is like to apply the abstractions of impressionism to surrealist scenes; a nonsense mess, something lacking in credibility.
From what I know, genderqueer has to do with failing to fit within the traditional norm, and yes, generalizes it. But, what needs mentioning is that cultural background influences "psycho-sexual profile" or what have you, since gender is, of course, a construct of culture.


It is not so much a failure to comply as a rejection. More often than not in the form of an ambivalence.
Gender is a socio-biological construct; it is that same society which performs a given macro-culture within which micro-cultures amenable to the expression may occur.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
faerystrangeme
Until the day a fetus can be removed from a woman and grown in an incubator, men should have no say in what a woman does with her body.
I dealt with this same scenario in another thread recently...No, the woman should not be forced to permanently mix her genes with someone - possibly her rapist. She should not ever be forced to be the biological parent of a child she does not want to bring into existence.
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
Melody Niwa


Do you have any proof? Sources? Anything?


Of course but not the time to share them.
Humour us with the logic, at least.


I'll briefly explain, if that will suffice.

Genderqueer, as a term, describes a sort of ambivalence to gender. At at's core lies mild to moderate GID, coupled with a misguided education upon the subject. A genderqueer identification informs a third party more about a person's cultural background than their psycho-sexual profile.
GID exists as a catch-all term, much like PDDNOS, to create a category that is less specific within such an umbrella is like to apply the abstractions of impressionism to surrealist scenes; a nonsense mess, something lacking in credibility.
From what I know, genderqueer has to do with failing to fit within the traditional norm, and yes, generalizes it. But, what needs mentioning is that cultural background influences "psycho-sexual profile" or what have you, since gender is, of course, a construct of culture.


It is not so much a failure to comply as a rejection. More often than not in the form of an ambivalence.
Gender is a socio-biological construct; it is that same society which performs a given macro-culture within which micro-cultures amenable to the expression may occur.
Rejection connotes deliberation and choice. That is hardly the case.

Anything viewed as "deviant" from the norm are merely different shadows of the mainstream culture (if one culture is taken in a vacuum; cultural diffusion muddies my metaphor).
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
Humour us with the logic, at least.


I'll briefly explain, if that will suffice.

Genderqueer, as a term, describes a sort of ambivalence to gender. At at's core lies mild to moderate GID, coupled with a misguided education upon the subject. A genderqueer identification informs a third party more about a person's cultural background than their psycho-sexual profile.
GID exists as a catch-all term, much like PDDNOS, to create a category that is less specific within such an umbrella is like to apply the abstractions of impressionism to surrealist scenes; a nonsense mess, something lacking in credibility.
From what I know, genderqueer has to do with failing to fit within the traditional norm, and yes, generalizes it. But, what needs mentioning is that cultural background influences "psycho-sexual profile" or what have you, since gender is, of course, a construct of culture.


It is not so much a failure to comply as a rejection. More often than not in the form of an ambivalence.
Gender is a socio-biological construct; it is that same society which performs a given macro-culture within which micro-cultures amenable to the expression may occur.
Rejection connotes deliberation and choice. That is hardly the case.

Anything viewed as "deviant" from the norm are merely different shadows of the mainstream culture (if one culture is taken in a vacuum; cultural diffusion muddies my metaphor).


Rejection; not acceptance.

Your view of deviance is skewed; it is simply a failure to comply to a functional behavioural ideal. Most commonly exhibited-recognised in the rejection or exploitation of society. It is a general principle and as such functions in a heterologous culture.
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
Humour us with the logic, at least.


I'll briefly explain, if that will suffice.

Genderqueer, as a term, describes a sort of ambivalence to gender. At at's core lies mild to moderate GID, coupled with a misguided education upon the subject. A genderqueer identification informs a third party more about a person's cultural background than their psycho-sexual profile.
GID exists as a catch-all term, much like PDDNOS, to create a category that is less specific within such an umbrella is like to apply the abstractions of impressionism to surrealist scenes; a nonsense mess, something lacking in credibility.
From what I know, genderqueer has to do with failing to fit within the traditional norm, and yes, generalizes it. But, what needs mentioning is that cultural background influences "psycho-sexual profile" or what have you, since gender is, of course, a construct of culture.


It is not so much a failure to comply as a rejection. More often than not in the form of an ambivalence.
Gender is a socio-biological construct; it is that same society which performs a given macro-culture within which micro-cultures amenable to the expression may occur.
Rejection connotes deliberation and choice. That is hardly the case.

Anything viewed as "deviant" from the norm are merely different shadows of the mainstream culture (if one culture is taken in a vacuum; cultural diffusion muddies my metaphor).


Rejection; not acceptance.

Your view of deviance is skewed; it is simply a failure to comply to a functional behavioural ideal. Most commonly exhibited-recognised in the rejection or exploitation of society. It is a general principle and as such functions in a heterologous culture.
Regardless, the idea of gender is entirely socially constructed. The binary exists in biology, yes, but that in a vacuum, has no effect on anything besides physical traits (and apparently some minor neurological development, though I may be wrong here). As far as I know, GID would not exist in a society where there is no gender, correct?
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
Darkchild Angel
This is based on my legal education and experience in family court and paternity cases. 3nodding It's most definitely true, at least in my state.

It's true that court tend to REALLY want fathers to support their children. The child is innocent, so why should it suffer just because its parents don't get along? But the key word is "parent" and "father". When I say a man has to have NO contact and contribute NO support, I mean it. Basically he has to publicly and privately disclaim all presumption of paternity. The actual genetic paternity of the infant doesn't matter if from the inception of the pregnancy the man was not intending to be a father or have any future relationship with his offspring.

Often times men get "screwed" in these cases because they stick around while the woman is pregnant, maybe contribute some money to her prenatal care or to child-care after the birth. They'll often acknowledge the child as their own to their friends/family/coworkers. In this situation, then the man is definitely creating a presumption of fatherhood and he MUST pay child support.

It takes a cold man to 100% walk away from a pregnant woman carrying his offspring, but if he doesn't want to be a father, he has to commit to not being a father 100%.


Do you have any sources, specific court cases, etc, on this topic? I'm not doubting you, this meshes with what I've heard, it's just that I just wasted an hour on Google trying to find the appropriate legal cases for my own edification and failed : P
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
Ratttking
faerystrangeme
Until the day a fetus can be removed from a woman and grown in an incubator, men should have no say in what a woman does with her body.
I dealt with this same scenario in another thread recently...No, the woman should not be forced to permanently mix her genes with someone - possibly her rapist. She should not ever be forced to be the biological parent of a child she does not want to bring into existence.


I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to ask; if a woman has the right to not mix her genes with someone, then don't men have that right as well? (I heavily sympathize with people forced into being a biological parent, but if this statement were enacted into law it would quite clearly set two people's rights against one another, which gets...complicated. If you can convince me there is a fair and just way to carry out this kind of law, I'd be delighted.)
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
faerystrangeme
Ratttking
faerystrangeme
Until the day a fetus can be removed from a woman and grown in an incubator, men should have no say in what a woman does with her body.
I dealt with this same scenario in another thread recently...No, the woman should not be forced to permanently mix her genes with someone - possibly her rapist. She should not ever be forced to be the biological parent of a child she does not want to bring into existence.


I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to ask; if a woman has the right to not mix her genes with someone, then don't men have that right as well? (I heavily sympathize with people forced into being a biological parent, but if this statement were enacted into law it would quite clearly set two people's rights against one another, which gets...complicated. If you can convince me there is a fair and just way to carry out this kind of law, I'd be delighted.)
Yes, they do. In my ideal world, reproduction would be regulated and prior consent of both parties to the pregnancy would be mandatory.
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
Ratttking
Yes, they do. In my ideal world, reproduction would be regulated and prior consent of both parties to the pregnancy would be mandatory.


Interesting. I presume in your ideal world everyone would be required to go on BC? What do you believe about a person's right to control their own body?

(Er, because the internet is bad at communicating this, I honestly find your proposal interesting. I'm not just trying to tear you to shreds.)
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
From what I know, genderqueer has to do with failing to fit within the traditional norm, and yes, generalizes it. But, what needs mentioning is that cultural background influences "psycho-sexual profile" or what have you, since gender is, of course, a construct of culture.


It is not so much a failure to comply as a rejection. More often than not in the form of an ambivalence.
Gender is a socio-biological construct; it is that same society which performs a given macro-culture within which micro-cultures amenable to the expression may occur.
Rejection connotes deliberation and choice. That is hardly the case.

Anything viewed as "deviant" from the norm are merely different shadows of the mainstream culture (if one culture is taken in a vacuum; cultural diffusion muddies my metaphor).


Rejection; not acceptance.

Your view of deviance is skewed; it is simply a failure to comply to a functional behavioural ideal. Most commonly exhibited-recognised in the rejection or exploitation of society. It is a general principle and as such functions in a heterologous culture.
Regardless, the idea of gender is entirely socially constructed. The binary exists in biology, yes, but that in a vacuum, has no effect on anything besides physical traits (and apparently some minor neurological development, though I may be wrong here). As far as I know, GID would not exist in a society where there is no gender, correct?


GID requires the presence of gender, it is even in the name.
Kimihiro_Watanuki's avatar

5,900 Points
  • Entrepreneur 150
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Darkchild Angel
Kimihiro_Watanuki
Darkchild Angel
Kimihiro_Watanuki
I think a man should have to options to "abort his rights" if he doesn't want the child. This, in a sense, is abortion for men. The man relinquishes all rights to the child. Custody, support, visits, etc. in exchange for having no responsibility for the child.


A man can already do this. If a man does not support the mother during the pregnancy, either financially or otherwise, if he does not acknowledge the child as his, if he has no contact with the child after birth, then a court cannot make the man pay child support. Courts can only go after "deadbeat" dads if they held themselves out as a father.

So if you find out your girlfriend is pregnant and immediate peace out, have no contact with her, don't see the kid after it's born, and never tell anyone you've become a father- then legally, you're nothing more than a sperm donor, and sperm donors don't pay child support. Only when there is some evidence of parenthood or fatherhood intentions from the man is a court able to make a guy pay.


I won't say you're wrong, but I'm wondering what this based on. I've seen a lot of men get ropes into child support, whether they acted like a parent or not. And child support cases more often get ruled in favor of single mothers against fathers who want nothing to do with the child.


This is based on my legal education and experience in family court and paternity cases. 3nodding It's most definitely true, at least in my state.

It's true that court tend to REALLY want fathers to support their children. The child is innocent, so why should it suffer just because its parents don't get along? But the key word is "parent" and "father". When I say a man has to have NO contact and contribute NO support, I mean it. Basically he has to publicly and privately disclaim all presumption of paternity. The actual genetic paternity of the infant doesn't matter if from the inception of the pregnancy the man was not intending to be a father or have any future relationship with his offspring.

Often times men get "screwed" in these cases because they stick around while the woman is pregnant, maybe contribute some money to her prenatal care or to child-care after the birth. They'll often acknowledge the child as their own to their friends/family/coworkers. In this situation, then the man is definitely creating a presumption of fatherhood and he MUST pay child support.

It takes a cold man to 100% walk away from a pregnant woman carrying his offspring, but if he doesn't want to be a father, he has to commit to not being a father 100%.


Okay then. Let's flip the situation around a bit. Say a man gets a woman pregnant. For a while, they both state their intent to keep and raise the child. Then, one day, the woman gets cold feet for whatever reason and has an abortion. The man doesn't find this out until later and now has to deal with the emotional and mental stress of the situation, essentially, on his own.

According to the legal system and I would say, most pro-choice people, his situation is simply just not as important and the woman is still justified in her actions because she has a right to physical autonomy. But, even as a pro-choice individual and a male, I am extremely turned off to the idea of having children because I could find myself in this situation.

What say you to that?
Darkchild Angel's avatar

Beloved Friend

8,150 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Friendly 100
  • V-Day 2011 Event 100
faerystrangeme
Darkchild Angel
This is based on my legal education and experience in family court and paternity cases. 3nodding It's most definitely true, at least in my state.

It's true that court tend to REALLY want fathers to support their children. The child is innocent, so why should it suffer just because its parents don't get along? But the key word is "parent" and "father". When I say a man has to have NO contact and contribute NO support, I mean it. Basically he has to publicly and privately disclaim all presumption of paternity. The actual genetic paternity of the infant doesn't matter if from the inception of the pregnancy the man was not intending to be a father or have any future relationship with his offspring.

Often times men get "screwed" in these cases because they stick around while the woman is pregnant, maybe contribute some money to her prenatal care or to child-care after the birth. They'll often acknowledge the child as their own to their friends/family/coworkers. In this situation, then the man is definitely creating a presumption of fatherhood and he MUST pay child support.

It takes a cold man to 100% walk away from a pregnant woman carrying his offspring, but if he doesn't want to be a father, he has to commit to not being a father 100%.


Do you have any sources, specific court cases, etc, on this topic? I'm not doubting you, this meshes with what I've heard, it's just that I just wasted an hour on Google trying to find the appropriate legal cases for my own edification and failed : P


Here's one case off the top of my head. It's also in the NYC family law statutory code as well, but I don't have access to that at the moment.

It's New York specific, but if you do any sort of legal research try "equitable estoppel' + "child support" + "paternity"
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
CH1YO
The Living Force
From what I know, genderqueer has to do with failing to fit within the traditional norm, and yes, generalizes it. But, what needs mentioning is that cultural background influences "psycho-sexual profile" or what have you, since gender is, of course, a construct of culture.


It is not so much a failure to comply as a rejection. More often than not in the form of an ambivalence.
Gender is a socio-biological construct; it is that same society which performs a given macro-culture within which micro-cultures amenable to the expression may occur.
Rejection connotes deliberation and choice. That is hardly the case.

Anything viewed as "deviant" from the norm are merely different shadows of the mainstream culture (if one culture is taken in a vacuum; cultural diffusion muddies my metaphor).


Rejection; not acceptance.

Your view of deviance is skewed; it is simply a failure to comply to a functional behavioural ideal. Most commonly exhibited-recognised in the rejection or exploitation of society. It is a general principle and as such functions in a heterologous culture.
Regardless, the idea of gender is entirely socially constructed. The binary exists in biology, yes, but that in a vacuum, has no effect on anything besides physical traits (and apparently some minor neurological development, though I may be wrong here). As far as I know, GID would not exist in a society where there is no gender, correct?


GID requires the presence of gender, it is even in the name.
Yes. Which means that genderqueer must exist, if only because it is characterized as anything falling outside of the traditional dichotomy. Things fall outside of it. QED.
Kuja v5
The Living Force
CH1YO


Rejection; not acceptance.

Your view of deviance is skewed; it is simply a failure to comply to a functional behavioural ideal. Most commonly exhibited-recognised in the rejection or exploitation of society. It is a general principle and as such functions in a heterologous culture.
Regardless, the idea of gender is entirely socially constructed. The binary exists in biology, yes, but that in a vacuum, has no effect on anything besides physical traits (and apparently some minor neurological development, though I may be wrong here). As far as I know, GID would not exist in a society where there is no gender, correct?


"Entirely socially constructed"...

Outdated idea. Might want to catch up.
Might've not been so extreme in my response, you are correct. Most is safe, I suppose. 3nodding

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games