Which is funny, because it is a complete misconception (at least in the Catholic Church). Sex is and always has been viewed as "noble and honorable," (Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment #2362)

 

But only within marriage, correct?

I've searched, but cannot find any research articles on gender roles that support your ideas, but all that seems to be available are an overwhelming plethora of articles that echo what I've been trying to say in my humble non-professional way.

 

Here are just a small percentage of the many articles that are available, and there are countless more that support the idea that social conditioning plays a far larger role in male/female gender roles than just biological alone, and very much more so.

 

Again, we are all born naked and the rest is drag. We learn from day one what is expected of us.

 

Social construction of gender difference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Gender identity is a result of social conditioning. DYA | Random Musings

 

Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics | World news | The Observer

 

Factors Influencing Gender Identity - Child Development Theory: Middle Childhood

 

Children, Toys, and Social Conditioning | Diary of an Aspiring Writer

 

Well, with all due respect, I prefer to rely on a more scientific data driven source than Wikpedia and the diary of an aspiring writer.

 

Here's a link that explains the biochemical differences that start essentially from week 7 of gestation and going forward. Start at section IV. It's somewhat technical, I apologize for that, but it's exactly what my point was in the initial post.

 

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/edrv.20.5.0377

 

Again, we are all born naked and the rest is drag is hogwash unless your only worried about what color onesy your putting on your newborn. The biological differences are there as much as others would like to conclude otherwise.

In my own personal experience, if you don't mind an example of a resident BGP member who grew up different than the socially accepted norms, my parents, siblings, and childhood friends were 100% straight. Me developing as a gay child had nothing to do with unusual whacked out influences. I was raised just about as "normally" as most of you would hope a child should be raised.

 

Can "whacked out parents" play a role in leading their own children to various identities outside of the social norm? I'd say very certainly they can, but when a child develops such as this 7 year old has, it also can be situations just like myself where no apparent outside influence played a role.

 

Here's a description on Wiki of a real good movie that paints this out very well that the parents of the child in the movie had no designs to give this child any different of an upbringing than most would expect, yet the kid was different anyhow.

 

Ma vie en rose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my own personal experience, if you don't mind an example of a resident BGP member who grew up different than the socially accepted norms, my parents, siblings, and childhood friends were 100% straight. Me developing as a gay child had nothing to do with unusual whacked out influences. I was raised just about as "normally" as most of you would hope a child should be raised.

 

Can "whacked out parents" play a role in leading their own children to various identities outside of the social norm? I'd say very certainly they can, but when a child develops such as this 7 year old has, it also can be situations just like myself where no apparent outside influence played a role.

 

Here's a description on Wiki of a real good movie that paints this out very well that the parents of the child in the movie had no designs to give this child any different of an upbringing than most would expect, yet the kid was different anyhow.

 

Ma vie en rose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, that post makes total sense. But it's contradictory to your assertion that society has put this kid in a category. Society didn't categorize you, and you made your own way and decisions regarding your sexuality. This one is totally on the parent, IMO. And likely made it way more difficult on the kid. If nothing else, NOW mom has made "society" an issue for the child.

OK, that post makes total sense. But it's contradictory to your assertion that society has put this kid in a category. Society didn't categorize you, and you made your own way and decisions regarding your sexuality. This one is totally on the parent, IMO. And likely made it way more difficult on the kid. If nothing else, NOW mom has made "society" an issue for the child.

 

And within this whole thread I've not commented on my impression of the mother's role in this matter as I don't know the circumstances well enough to.

 

She might be a similar type person as the "Vagina cookie lady" or she might just be a regular everyday mother who is trying her best to figure our what's best in this situation as has decided for whatever reason to let the child act out in the way the kid feels most comfortable.

 

This all may be new to the whole school, but I've venture to say that the mother might have been dealing with this issue with the child for much longer, and could've possibly though soul searching came to the conclusion that she has.

 

Weather or not it'll prove to be the right approach for the child is still to be seen. Initially I'm sure she will suffer ostracizing etc..., but it's quite possible that her classmates will end up having a much easier time with it all than all of the parents who've have many more years of conditioned set ways.

Well, with all due respect, I prefer to rely on a more scientific data driven source than Wikpedia and the diary of an aspiring writer.

 

Here's a link that explains the biochemical differences that start essentially from week 7 of gestation and going forward. Start at section IV. It's somewhat technical, I apologize for that, but it's exactly what my point was in the initial post.

 

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/edrv.20.5.0377

 

Again, we are all born naked and the rest is drag is hogwash unless your only worried about what color onesy your putting on your newborn. The biological differences are there as much as others would like to conclude otherwise.

 

I don't believe that anyone can argue that there are "biological" differences between males and females, and neither have I.

 

The article you have provided gives merit to the idea within "humans", that although difficult to determine completely, both biological and social conditioning play a role in gender identity.

 

I can accept that biological factors play a role, but to suggest that social conditioning concepts hold no merit would be an example of you yourself denying the points of reference within your article of proof.

 

Your article weighs heavy on the biological focus, whereas it does not denounce social conditioning as you so vehemently do.

 

In response to the articles I've provided, you've been partial to discount them with a broad stroke, ignoring and dispelling their merit.

 

I'm beginning to get a clearer picture of how accurate and on target you were when you first selected your profile name "spindoc". It's a very good description of what we might expect from you and how you present your case.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

spin doctor

 

:a person (such as a political aide) whose job involves trying to control the way something (such as an important event) is described to the public in order to influence what people think about it

 

Hopefully this post doesn't get your panties all in a wad.

I don't believe that anyone can argue that there are "biological" differences between males and females, and neither have I.

 

The article you have provided gives merit to the idea within "humans", that although difficult to determine completely, both biological and social conditioning play a role in gender identity.

 

I can accept that biological factors play a role, but to suggest that social conditioning concepts hold no merit would be an example of you yourself denying the points of reference within your article of proof.

 

Society didn't put a penis on this kid. Biology did.

Your article weighs heavy on the biological focus, whereas it does not denounce social conditioning as you so vehemently do.

 

This whole deal was about sexual identity, male vs. female. It's biological. Whether that child is homosexual, heterosexual, or digs sheep is another issue entirely, but you can't separate the two, obviously and have resorted to attacks, which is cool by me.

In response to the articles I've provided, you've been partial to discount them with a broad stroke, ignoring and dispelling their merit.

 

I'm beginning to get a clearer picture of how accurate and on target you were when you first selected your profile name "spindoc". It's a very good description of what we might expect from you and how you present your case.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

spin doctor

 

:a person (such as a political aide) whose job involves trying to control the way something (such as an important event) is described to the public in order to influence what people think about it

 

Hopefully this post doesn't get your panties all in a wad

 

I don't wear panties, for totally biological reason. There's no trap door, and I need a trap door. It had nothing to do with societal norms. Functional pee access.

 

.

This has been fun.

Edited October 9, 201412 yr by spindoc

 

She might be a similar type person as the "Vagina cookie lady" or she might just be a regular everyday mother who is trying her best to figure our what's best in this situation as has decided for whatever reason to let the child act out in the way the kid feels most comfortable.

.

 

From what I have been told here at work by people who know the people involved in this story...no, this is far from the case.

But only within marriage, correct?

 

Yes.

Which is funny, because it is a complete misconception (at least in the Catholic Church). Sex is and always has been viewed as "noble and honorable," (Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment #2362)

 

As long as it's within the confines of marriage. Outside of that, get ready for the guilt.

As long as it's within the confines of marriage. Outside of that, get ready for the guilt.

 

Well, thank God for marriage then! :thumb:

As long as it's within the confines of marriage. Outside of that, get ready for the guilt.

 

Absolutely! Maybe...

 

Do you mean guilt as in a person will feel guilt as a result of someone else pushing it onto them? Or guilt because they have done something objectively wrong? : )

 

Well, thank God for marriage then! :thumb:

 

Yes thank God, who did indeed create marriage!

This has been fun.

 

If misrepresenting my comments and taking them out of the context from which I stated them was your goal, you have succeeded.

 

Reiterating the context in which I've stated them time and again to convince you that you're misunderstanding them is proving to be futile.

 

Your responses time and again convince me that you have misunderstood my comments time and again.

 

The annoyance of our game of point/counterpoint has not stemmed from opposing opinions as much as your obvious misunderstanding and misrepresenting the context in which I have stated my points, and then me repetitively expressing that you are obviously misunderstanding what I'm saying by your action of again and again taking my points out of context.

 

I don't mind making points, and I don't mind hearing opposing views, but reiterating myself over and again for the sake of restating the same points that continue to be met by misrepresentation does not make for an interesting fair discussion.

 

I will make a mental note of this for future reference, and will do my best to avoid discourse with you for I am now well aware of the inevitable rabbit hole that I will go down by doing so.

Absolutely! Maybe...

 

Do you mean guilt as in a person will feel guilt as a result of someone else pushing it onto them? Or guilt because they have done something objectively wrong? : )

 

Both, boss.

Both, boss.

 

I figured that's what you meant :woot:

 

I think that the guilt is only an internal thing because of the Law of Human Nature. Everyone on earth knows 2 things 1)there is a way we ought to behave and 2) We feel bad when we do not in fact behave that way.

 

I think the guilt comes from the LHM because we know we did not do the right thing. JMO (and CS Lewis's :laugh: )