Gender Roles in the World

I agree. Things like toys and colors are just stereotypical labels we've basically invented and then forced genders into. So I can totally see evolving past that point. I can't say that I'd ever give my son a Barbie doll to play with or paint his room pink. But I also don't think I'd ever try to impose on him what it means to be a boy. When he's of age and assuming I'm qualified to give him one of those many "talks," I might try to explain to him what I feel my idea of being a man is. But like me with my father, I wouldn't expect him to really listen until he was ready. And if he didn't want to, that's on him. Likewise with a girl. But I feel that the mother would have the wisdom here, not the father. And I don't find anything wrong with that nor do I see anything discriminatory about that. That couple attempting to raise a child without a gender just strikes me as completely ridiculous. You're exactly right. It makes the child feel as if there's something wrong with gender in principle. And the story I was speaking about in my discussion just strikes me as even more scary, because it's not the parents teaching this but the schools. On a parent-to-child level, you can expect this type of thing to be a sporadic, wildly unbelievable story like the couple refusing to assign gender to their child. When it's the schools, however, it's something that threatens to spread quickly. Thanks for the response!

I agree. An individual wanting to be referred to as another gender is a personal decision that he or she can make for him or herself. But to attempt to remove the terms from society is just something I cannot understand at all. As far as homosexuality, I think enough people do believe that it is a naturally occurring thing in nature. But using that politically is actually a bad thing. I mean, almost every other species outside of humans has to scratch and claw to survive. They eat, sleep and procreate. So in the animal community, homosexuality is a total biological defect. Whether or not it happens to curb procreation in any species is as good a theory as any, but it is much more likely that it is a mistake, like being born minus a leg. Humans can be socially acceptable of these things, as slow as we may be to come around. But that doesn't mean we should forget any idea of gender. Thanks for the response!

but in a lot of species, not every animal within a social heirarchy will expect to procreate. in some pack animals, only the more dominant individuals breed, while the rest do not, and in some animals, their contribution to the continuation of the species is to ensure that the mother and babies are fed, and protect, even babysit the young and the breeding pair. so some animals are structured not to have all of them breed, and this keeps the population stable.

Okay, well that is certainly the first time I have ever heard homosexuality being compared to blindness, deafness, and brain damage. I really don't believe that they are comparable at all. Being homosexual does not prevent you from doing anything. And yes humans can artificially impregnate, but I don't really see your point in this. Animals do need to procreate to survive, but they don't need to constantly be doing this. If the population is too great, they will also die because they will wipe out other species. Sound familiar? Luckfully, humans also have the technology for birth control or else the population problem would be even more severe. At any rate, anything we do technologically is still part of our natural evolution. If a crow uses a tool, nobody questions how natural the tool is. People are animals just like the rest of them. Just because we can do some different things, doesn't mean that it isn't following the same pattern. I disagree that homosexuality is only viewed as normal and natural because of only compassion and tolerance. We are learning more and more about homosexuality every day and I believe that eventually we will understand it better and I also believe that this will lead to us realizing just how natural it is. I definitely would liken it to skin color and other such things. All people have different levels of both feminine and masculine characteristics. Those with too much of either have a lot of problems. Asexuals and homosexuals are often much more balanced in this sense, having characteristics of both genders. It sounds like a step up in the evolutionary process if you ask me, and evolution is, without a doubt, a natural process. It reminds me of X-men. They call the ones with powers "mutants" and they say that it is unnatural, despite the fact that they are actually more advanced than the other humans. You may think of homosexuality as a defect, but mutations in a species can make that species much stronger. The easiest and most effective way of reproduction is asexual reproduction. I am not saying that this is or isn't what is happening here, but we really do not have enough information to rule out the many different possibilities in which homosexuality is the next step in the evolutionary process. I do not believe that we can rule out the possibility that homosexuality is unnatural. Perhaps a lot of information may seem to point to the contrary, but we do not have enough understanding of the world to flat out state that it isn't. I have known quite a few homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered people, etc. and I see absolutely nothing wrong with them at all. I can not call it a defect. The only hindrance that it puts on their life is a result of the social stigma surrounding their sexuality. Besides this, it causes no problems or pain inside or out. They can literally do anything that a straight person can do.