TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,550]  1 ... 562 563 564 565 566
567
568 569 570 571 572 ... 622

LGBT Rights and Religion:

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

"And it's not as if (analogies aside) Aquinas ever made animal ethology normative for human behavior, with or without divine grace into the bargain."

Considering how he praises several species for their virtuous traits over humanity, he might as well have.

"Let's say I used something from the theory of humours as an example to clarify an argument I just made about human responses to misfortune. Now, centuries later that analogy won't seem particularly strong or convincing ... but it won't invalidate the argument it was meant to support."

1- But it damages his notion of nature reflecting the divine.

2- His point posited is a outdated regardless. How fitting, that outdated ideas see reflection in outdated scientific studies evil grin

edited 4th Oct '13 1:00:03 PM by peryton

 14152 King Zeal, Fri, 4th Oct '13 12:58:23 PM from Well Above You
Tali'Shepard Vas Normandy-Rannoch
[up][up]

edited 4th Oct '13 12:58:36 PM by KingZeal

Per-fec-tion: -n- an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence (see also: King Zeal)
[up][up][up][up]Which doesn't invalidate my statement that at any point in time what is considered male garment or female garment is pretty well separated in the public cosnciousness.

The shorts: sportswear, with the high sides and tight cut they are currently likely worn more by girls.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:01:25 PM by blauregen

 14154 nightwyrm zero, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:04:23 PM Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, she is imaginary
[up]But surely there's a time where a garment in question is acceptable for both sexes. It's not like the switch over is instantaneous.

Re: the shorts, they look like 70s/80s style male shorts to me.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:05:09 PM by nightwyrm_zero

 14155 King Zeal, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:05:04 PM from Well Above You
Tali'Shepard Vas Normandy-Rannoch
Which doesn't invalidate my statement that at any point in time what is considered male garment or female garment is pretty well separated in the public cosnciousness.

Sure it does. Because "public consciousness" is just another word for "bullshit stereotype", and has absolutely no merit for establishing an inherent trait. Just because the public accepts something to mean a certain thing doesn't make it mean it.

The shorts: sportswear, with the high sides and tight cut they are currently likely worn more by girls.

Nope. They are unisex. Here's another pair: [1]

And besides that, that's a non-answer. "More likely" does not mean "exclusively". Men are more likely than women to carry a firearm; that doesn't mean that it's "for men".

edited 4th Oct '13 1:06:20 PM by KingZeal

Per-fec-tion: -n- an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence (see also: King Zeal)
[up][up]Sure. Plain T-shirts are for example an unisex-classic for decades. So for some garments the judgement can'tr be made. But for the majority of clothing the difference holds.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:07:12 PM by blauregen

 14157 King Zeal, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:10:52 PM from Well Above You
Tali'Shepard Vas Normandy-Rannoch
But that wasn't the point being made. The point was, for any given reason, that distinction can be dropped at any time.

For example, the Romans thought that pants were for sissies and barbarians.
Per-fec-tion: -n- an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence (see also: King Zeal)
 14158 Achaemenid, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:13:26 PM from the dear green place. Relationship Status: In my bunk
 14159 Hodor, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:19:41 PM from Westeros
Cleric of Banjo
IIRC in Ancient Greece socks were an item of women's clothing- as part of "deviant" behavior, comic actors wore socks.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
Sure it does. Because "public consciousness" is just another word for "bullshit stereotype", and has absolutely no merit for establishing an inherent trait. Just because the public accepts something to mean a certain thing doesn't make it mean it.

And regardless whether you call it stereotypical bullshit or currently accepted cultural norm, if the vast majority of people conform to it, it is a distinguishing trait between garments that are coded female and garments that are coded male. It is irrevelant whether the garment itself is male or female. Using this criterion, non would be, with the possible exception of bras. For the judgement of whether you are crossdressing, the important point is whether the garment is currently coded male or female in the public consicousness (or widely accepted stereotypical bullshit, if it makes you happy) of your culture.

And besides that, that's a non-answer. "More likely" does not mean "exclusively". Men are more likely than women to carry a firearm; that doesn't mean that it's "for men".

Sure. Crop tops for example are sometimes worn by men. Yet the vast majority of men won't wear one, because they are currently coded predominantly female, and therefore widely regarded as female garment. Frilly shirt-blouses are sometimes worn by men ( mostly LARPERS and goths ) and yet the vast majority of men won't consider them appropriate apparel for them, because frills are currently coded female, and most would likely see a man wearing one as crossdressed.

And yes, some garments are currently coded unisex (mostly sprtswear), so regardless of who wears them, they don't consitute crossdressing. But I really don't see how this leads you to the assumption that no garments are coded gender-specific.

But that wasn't the point being made. The point was, for any given reason, that distinction can be dropped at any time.

Eh, no. The point of contention was whether it is feasible to enforce a prohibition of crossdressing, when fashion leads over time to changes in which garments are understood as male garments or female garments.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:26:41 PM by blauregen

 14161 King Zeal, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:27:46 PM from Well Above You
Tali'Shepard Vas Normandy-Rannoch
And regardless whether you call it stereotypical bullshit or currently accepted cultural norm, if the vast majority of people conform to it, it is a distinguishing trait between garments that are coded female and garments that are coded male. It is irreevelant whther the garment itself is male or female.

For the judgement of whether you are crossdressing, the important point is whether the garment is currently coded male or female in the public consicousness (or idely accepted stereotypical bullshit, if it makes you happy) of your culture.

No, it's quite relevant, because we're talking about a religious creed, which believes that a higher power condemns people who ignore this distinction. So, with that in mind, the fact that fashion is mutable makes this distinction pretty arbitrary. Even if "society" decides something is "for men" and "for women", society is a group of people, which means it's also subject to subsects and individuals. So, is a circus clown acting against God's will if he wears a flower and pink shirt? Is a working woman doing it when she wears pants? What about a men who wears panties because boxers chafe?

What you're talking about does nothing but advocate tyranny of the majority.

Using this criterion, non would be, with the possible exception of bras.

No shit.

Sure. Crop tops for example are sometimes worn by men. Yet the vast majority of men won't wear one, because they are currently coded predominantly female, and therefore widely regarded as female garment. Frilly shirt-blouses are sometimes worn by men ( mostly LARPERS and goths ) and yet the vast majority of men won't consider them appropriate apparel for them, because frills are currently coded female, and most would likely see a man wearing one as crossdressed.

And yes, some garments are currently coded unisex (mostly sprtswear), so regardless of who wears them, they don't consitute crossdressing. But I really don't see how this leads you to the assumption that no garments are coded gender-specific.

Because they aren't. Again, everything you're talking about is a prescriptive assumption. Again, it's Circular Reasoning. "Skirts are for girls because skirts are for girls." There's no reason for this to be the case other than you believe it in the first place. But your belief does not make it inherently true.

Eh, no. The point of contention was whether it is feasible to enforce a prohibition of crossdressing, when fashion leads over time to changes in which garments are understood as male garments or female garments.

Which is still problematic. There are tons of examples of people wrongfully arrested for wearing "indecent" or "obscene" clothing because it's not considered "appropriate" for their gender when the clothing in question was meant for their gender.

For example, what about the train operators in Europe who decided to wear skirts to work because the transit company banned shorts? Should they be arrested? Are skirts still "for women" in this context if a group of men all decide to do it?

According to your argument, yes, because "society" still says it's wrong.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:34:47 PM by KingZeal

Per-fec-tion: -n- an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence (see also: King Zeal)
 14162 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:31:06 PM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
His point posited is a outdated regardless. How fitting, that outdated ideas see reflection in outdated scientific studies

I made that one up, as an example of how an outdated scientific notion used as illustration doesn't impugn the preceding argument it illustrates. But I'm confused now: are you saying that the whole concept of human response to misfortunes (my example) is outdated?

edited 4th Oct '13 1:31:26 PM by Jhimmibhob

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
No, it's quite relevant, because we're talking about a religious creed, which believes that a higher power condemns people who ignore this distinction. So, with that in mind, the fact that fashion is mutable makes this distinction pretty arbitrary. Even if "society" decides something is "for men" and "for women", society is a group of people, which means it's also subject to subsects and individuals. So, is a circus clown acting against God's will if he wears a flower and pink shirt? Is a working woman doing it when she wears pants? What about a men who wears panties because boxers chafe?

What you're talking about does nothing but advocate tyranny of the majority.

Ok, First: I never said the rule wasn't arbitrary. I only stated that it is enforceable, because for the majority of human history and currently in western culture, the vast majority of garments worn are distinctly coded male or female. Which garments are coded as male or female may change, but as far as I know, so far the two sets never vanished and always had a rather small common subset.

Second: I don't advocate anything. I am describing the status quo. If it soothes your heart: I firmly support any persons freedom to wear whatever they want. Where I live this is legally only limited by a few laws regarding public nuisance, and socially by your resistance to public mockery.

Which is still problematic. There are tons of examples of people wrongfully arrested for wearing "indecent" or "obscene" clothing because it's not considered "appropriate" for their gender when the clothing in question was meant for their gender.

And where did I state that I condone such measures? Some crossdressers give me admittedly slight cognitive dissonance, if they don't even try to fit in the social role, they purport to present as, but that's no reason for me to want to stop them.

For example, what about the train operators in Europe who decided to wear skirts to work because the transit company banned shorts? Should they be arrested? Are skirts still "for women" in this context if a group of men all decide to do it?

Good for them. They found a loophole in the regulations, and if they can get them widely socially accepted, then they managed to erase the female encoding of their skirt-suit-uniform. Currently though, if someone would consider Deut. 22.5 important, they would be likely considered crossdressed and detested by god. smile

According to your argument, yes, because "society" still says it's wrong.

My argument was about feasibility. Not about intrinsic value judgments. Really, I am very much pro choice. Doesn't change the status quo and doesn't change history though.

edited 4th Oct '13 1:47:45 PM by blauregen

 14164 King Zeal, Fri, 4th Oct '13 1:57:06 PM from Well Above You
Tali'Shepard Vas Normandy-Rannoch
To summarize my response:

First, I apologize for claiming that you advocated something you didn't. But, to debate further, you're talking about enforcing this, which means than litigation will need to keep up with any arbitrary or practical changes in fashion. As I was mentioning before, there are cases of people being arrested for wearing clothing inappropriate to their gender, but it's problematic. In this case, you can't dismiss the gray area just because it's a minority, because that gray area is not a single fixed point. For example, are a pair of baggy shorts for men or women? What about pink shorts? What about baggy pink shorts?

edited 4th Oct '13 1:59:26 PM by KingZeal

Per-fec-tion: -n- an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence (see also: King Zeal)
 14165 Silasw, Fri, 4th Oct '13 2:14:08 PM from UK :( Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
[up][up]Men (well boys) wearing skirts because shorts are banned happens pretty much every summer, in the UK at least one schoolboy will put on a skirt and make it into the papers each summer.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael
[up][up]Is ok. I should have picked up earlier what you were arguing against. Misunderstandings happen.

[up]I imagine. He wouldn't make it into the papers if the skirt were understood as unisex. Although, if it becomes a mass movement at some time, it may become.smile

edited 4th Oct '13 2:20:26 PM by blauregen

 14167 Antiteilchen, Fri, 4th Oct '13 2:32:36 PM from Switzerland Relationship Status: They grew on me like a tumor...
[up][up][up][up] The problem is, if crossdressing is prohibited in all instances, fashion changes could not happen. So the fact that fashionchanges and with it the notion of what male/female clothing is, means that somewhere someone must have violated the crossdressing law.

When is the time when something stops beeing crossdressing? Or did it never stop and all women today who wear pants are actually crossdressing?

[up]Some orthodox jews might argue they do. smile

I think, it stops being crossdressing when most people are used to the garment being worn by the opposit gender they were culturally encoded with. With trousers for women it apparently went necessity then fashion. Here.

Doesn't have to be that dramatic though, and can vary from group to group in some cases. I remember for example back when I had my first Tai Chi Chuan group, some of the guys gave me skeptic looks because of my ballet slippers, which are just the best shoes I know for it. It became more or less a group-intern fashion for the guys too, after they tried it and found them better than the usual shoes or doing it in stockings.

edited 4th Oct '13 3:03:26 PM by blauregen

 14169 Antiteilchen, Fri, 4th Oct '13 3:00:46 PM from Switzerland Relationship Status: They grew on me like a tumor...
[up]But in order to get a majority of people to accept it as normal there needs to be an "avantgarde" that MAKES it normal, before it is. It's therefore necessary that people crossdress for a while to change the general perception. No crossdressing, no change in perception.

 14170 Pykrete, Fri, 4th Oct '13 3:02:40 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
People don't tend to care nearly as much if there's a solid pragmatic reason. I mean, not many of even the stodgiest people will bat an eye at a female soldier getting a buzzcut, a male athlete wearing sweat-wicking tights, or even an astronaut or racecar driver wearing diapers.

Then again, around here people don't tend to care much even in the cases that have pretty much no purpose but saying fuck the police. I mean, you walk around University of Oregon for ten minutes and you'll see 2-3 guys wearing skirts.

[up][up]True.

[up] Mostly utility kilts here, if at all. If we start to see a lot of guys in poodles, pencils, flared minis or vintage prairie skirts, skirts have stopped being encoded female.

I think we should try to find a way back to religion though.

edited 4th Oct '13 3:18:19 PM by blauregen

Reopening of a topic far more eloquently phrased then I can I do it, at the appropriate place (given that they are religiously based).

Apparantly NOM not only branches from marriage to 'student privacy' but also exports to russia.

edited 5th Oct '13 11:47:55 AM by blauregen

 14173 Soban, Wed, 16th Oct '13 2:13:41 PM from The Park Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Feeder Of Pigeons
A lot of people don't seem to understand that Christians think Reality is broken.
As is in accordance with prophecy.
 14174 Tobias Drake, Wed, 16th Oct '13 2:16:07 PM from Colorado, USA Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
 14175 Muramasan 13, Wed, 16th Oct '13 2:17:23 PM Relationship Status: Not war
[up][up] Yes, but who broke reality? Adam and Eve? Satan, perhaps?

But God made Adam, Eve, and Satan. And since he is supposed to be omniscient, he should have known exactly what they would be inclined to do. He could have made them differently and didn't, with full knowledge of what that would entail.

So by Christian theology, if reality is "broken", it is because God intended it to be from the very start.

[up] The "Fall", as a result of the original sin. It is the quintessential Christian answer explanation for why the world isn't perfect.

edited 16th Oct '13 2:18:44 PM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!
Total posts: 15,550
 1 ... 562 563 564 565 566
567
568 569 570 571 572 ... 622


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy