Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural manhood
So, we need to work against this. We need to abolish this gender role. We need to stop viewing penetration as a masculine quality and being penetrated as a feminine quality, because that is not based on reality.
But, is the way to go ahead, to redefine 'men' as 'males who desire women' and 'third genders' as 'men who desire men'? I don't think so. This is taking the oppression of men to the extreme.
The answer is to remove these gender roles altogether, and keep the distinction between 'men' and 'third genders' to its basic, biological distinction of 'gender orientation'. Men means males with a male inner identity. And, 'third gender' means, males with a female inner identity. Whether one gets penetrated, or penetrates, or desires men, women, third genders, animals, rodents, no one ... that is all immaterial, as far as this identity should be concerned.
|
NM, you contradict yourself over and over. First you say work against stereotypical sexual orientation bias, then you say, it’s still o.k. if it allows men who penetrate to remain in the ‘real” men 1st gender regardless of the “homosexual” act which really isn’t “homosexual” because men are supposed to penetrate and it doesn’t matter what hole they penetrate, they are not “gay” or 3rd gender unless they are receivers, or they act or appear effeminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural manhood
Third gender is not about so-called 'homosexual' inclinations at all. Third gender is about male effeminacy. Receptive sex is their gender role. But, you can be a third gender without receptive sex. However, according to your own definition, homosexual is more than receptive sex, isn't it?
|
Yes NM, homosexual sex is a term used to define a sexual encounter between to person of the same sex, it really is that simple, no judgments here. You can be a giver or a receiver, if you’re both males, it is homosexual sex, if you’re both females, it is a homosexual sex….. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Receptive sex is not a gender role; it is a physical sensation preference…….being a receiver does NOT make you effeminate nor does being a giver make you masculine. Just because you like to stick your “manhood” into a hole, does not a “real” man make, nor does it make the hole….. effeminate.
Just because someone may have a homosexual experience does not necessary make them homosexuals….. That is a personal choice. Your thinking just removes the choice part altogether which allows your society to judge others and then label them, this is not a western idea, this is a homophobic idea that is being not only perpetuated by your culture, it is being transformed into a true reason for segregation based on sexual preferences.
You can try to stop it all you want NM, but the “gay” community, effeminates or not will only tolerate so much of your segregation….. I imagine the non-effeminate gays and the effeminate straight men completely deny this third gender placement….. this “segregation” really only serves the purpose of benefitting “straight/masculine” men in their opportunity to continue homosexual penetration and to not take on the “stigma” of being “Third Gender” in your seemingly self serving narrow interpretation of human sexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural manhood
A social identity as 'third gender' is different from the fact that third genders and male femininity are stigmatized in the world. Don't forget, that the concept of 'third gender' goes back to the most original societies, when third gender was not looked down upon at all. Rather, it was believed to be the most respected of all genders and referred to as 'two-spirited' and a representation of god itself.
And don't forget, that its your society that condemns and stigmatizes male femininity to such an extent. There is a lot of acceptance of male femininity in our society.
|
Again, as I read your posts and responses, it still comes back to a basic distrust and core dehumanization of anything effeminate; in the end this thinking will continue to destroy any foundations for healthy sexual relationships with women in your culture.
What a shame.
You still have yet to define the “anti-man” agenda.