EA Forums

Modern sex is quickly evolving to be far less based on simple reproduction and more and more based on personal choices of what excites a person. Sex is less and less reproductive in advanced cultures today. The number of sex acts in which producing a baby is the desired goal is a tiny fraction of even heterosexual sex act intentions. Under this very clear fact, reproduction is not the normally desired goal or outcome of the vast majority of sexual acts in any sub group of modern males and females.

Castrated males are therefore not abnormal in enjoying and seeking sexual pleasures in non reproductive forms and neither are male or female homosexuals. Reproductive sex is a fraction of sex for pleasure in modern societies currently.

Also, the ease with which many heterosexual males and females will engage in homosexual sex acts with great enthusiasm in single sex settings such as prisons, military services of the past, shipboard, and in isolated settings away from the opposite sex, indicates that pleasure is the desired goal regardless of genetics.

When the opposite sex becomes available, the formerly homosexual then often return to heterosexual sex as their first preference in sex partners. Just as some people prefer sex with members of their own sex as their first choices. Maroon a gay man on an island of only females and he will likely seek sexual pleasures in his second choice gender.

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:37 am I hate to tell you - but homosexuality is abnormal. It's what, 10-15% of the population? That is abnormal. Left-handedness, too, is abnormal. I never said that it was automatically bad to be abnormal. You believing such is entirely on you.

Not so fast. Being a minority and being abnormal are not the same thing.

My entire point is that all humans are normal. Are there differences? Sure. There's average and there's normal. A man with a 3" penis has a normal penis even if the average is larger.

By saying that gay people are abnormal became they are 10 to 15% of the population, you are saying any minority is abnormal. In fact, gay men and women making up 10 to 15% of the population of any group is "conforming to the standard, usual, and expected". Again, having a population of 10 to 15% gay men and women is the norm it is "usual, average and the typical state or condition".

It's also perfectly usual, average and a typical state or condition for there to be left handed people.

If redheads, people with blue eyes, men with third nipples, gay men and women, left handed people suddenly stopped being born, that would be abnormal.

I think we've reached the point at which we are failing to communicate and have a fundamental disagreement. It's your opinion that gay men and women are abnormal, I get that. I call it gayphobic. Especially since you don't use the term gay but rather homosexual. Hey, at least you don't use the scientifically BS term SSDD - so , there's hope yet. I say hope springs eternal.

tjstill (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:36 am I have followed this thread with interest, and I am pleased it has not become a "flaming mess". It does however seem to have drifted from the title. A eunuch is not necessarily homosexual and the thread has moved towards homosexuality as the key term in the last posts.

Normal is a very poor term to introduce to the discussion as it has many connotations that are unhelpful, it is hard to define "normal" when describing anything with such unclear boundaries. If you do not take care, I am sure you will become embroiled in an argument based on English definitions, statistical meaning, and quantifying how "homosexual"anyone is (since it is clearly a non binary/non linear characteristic).

Abnormal is very provocative and poor term to use in any discussion on social and sexual topics. Even if there is a statistical evaluation of a population, who is to say there is indeed a line to be drawn in the bell curve at any point to define normality, it is a not a quantity you can simply apply a standard deviation too, it is a subjective definition at best and to apply objective and quantitive terms will merely end in expression's of differing opinion and obscure the original topic of discusion

I read your post after replying my last time. I'm done discussing "normal". As I said in my last point. We're no longer having a failure to communicate, but, rather a disagreement.

For our new member in this thread, let me say this: the ice is getting pretty damn thin, even if this is a cold spring season.

I've gone over this thread, and I will come right out and say that I take personal offense at the initial, and continued use of the word "abnormal".

Let me make one thing clear, Ritter - if you are here to troll, forget it. I find your posts offensive from the get-go, and while we try to be welcoming, I am about an inch away from booting you already. Your posts here are inflammatory.

PERIOD.

This thread goes back to a discussion of what constitutes a third gender, without derogatory comments involved.

That's not what this site is for, and while we're at it - until the Flaming Nun is back in good health and gets her happy ass back to work here, I OWN THIS FUCKING PLACE, SO DON'T FUCK WITH ME!

Yeah brother!:d

Thanks Paolo!

Wow!! It was never my intention to start a fire with this post, but merely raise a topic for discussion. Now I love a good debate, which is why I maintain friendship with people of opposite political and social views.

But to have a debate each side must - above all else - remain civil. When the first insult is thrown, it's no longer a debate.

​You did nothing wrong, Sean.

​You did nothing wrong, Sean.

Thanks Paolo, but at the risk of incurring your wrath I'd now like to (somewhat) defend Ritter's post. Forgive me if I'm a bit daft, but I read his comments as coming from strictly an anthropological point of view and without intentional malice. Both he and Topman deviated from the thread's subject, yet each presented an articulate argument.

So isn't that what a forum such as this is all about, exchanging ideas and opinions?

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:14 pm The term 'gender' is a bit more problematic. ........Now people say it is a social construct, and that you can basically be any type of 'gender' you want. The latter concept is absurd and renders the term 'gender' to be completely meaningless and useless.

......Metaphysically, a man can be less than a man or can be more or less feminine. This explains both homosexuality and transgenderism.

......Homosexuality and transgenderism are simply the result of 'intermediate forms' in a spiritual or metaphysical sense. Such as when a man has the soul of a woman (transgender) or when a man is not entirely metaphysically male (homosexuality).

so basically you agree that there are non-binary forms of sexuality - you just call it "metaphysical" instead of "gender"!

sean; my thought is that as far off topic they went with such an intriguing debate, they should be in a different thread about their topic.

seanthomas (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:42 am Thanks Paolo, but at the risk of incurring your wrath I'd now like to (somewhat) defend Ritter's post. Forgive me if I'm a bit daft, but I read his comments as coming from strictly an anthropological point of view and without intentional malice. Both he and Topman deviated from the thread's subject, yet each presented an articulate argument.

So isn't that what a forum such as this is all about, exchanging ideas and opinions?

Of course debate is good, but I think Ritter was incorrect to introduce the term "Normal" in such a flippant way. He merely proposed a percentage and proceeded to write as if this were accepted as a meaningful statistic and conclusion. Basically I tried to point out he was wrong from any point of view you care to adopt. I also pointed out that this was not the thread topic and perhaps we could shift focus back onto that.

I feel the thread question is too loose for any simple conclusion to be reached without a lot of debate on the meaning of the terms and even the culture in which it is applied. If we take "Sex" to be synonymous with "gender" as defined by a persons genes then it is clear that removal of the genitals does not alter your genes. By this definition the answer is a simple no.

If we introduce the idea that a persons "sex" is their expressed sexuality or phenotype (combination of environmental and genetic influences to give the expressed character ) then the answer depends on whether you accept the existence of alternate sexualities. If you accept them then the answer is clearly yes.The term third pre-presumes that there are only three sexes ( more debate) and the term Eunuch does not define sexual preference (hence my previous comment about the introduction of homosexuality into the discussion). The question would be better addressed by breaking it down into various parts, it is too broad for answering in its current form in anything much shorter than a book:)

I hardly think I was "flippant."

I simply stated my opinions. All the other arguments following that are about semantics and the plain, natural meaning of words (which, for some reason, people find offensive).

But let's look at the facts.

I did not go into hysterics.

I did not use profanity.

I did not use personal attacks.

I even stated, more than once, that abnormal did not mean bad.

RittervonRitter, You are confusing sex drive with sexual orientation. On average gays have the highest sex drive and women have the lowest.Regarding abnormal. "Normal variation" is a more appropriate term to use. It is normal to be ignorant of Eunuchs. Normal should never be something to strive for. I would strive for higher. Normal is common. Your normal yes, but not everyone's else's normal. Einstein wasn't normal etc.

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:44 am I hardly think I was "flippant."

I simply stated my opinions. All the other arguments following that are about semantics and the plain, natural meaning of words (which, for some reason, people find offensive).

But let's look at the facts.

I did not go into hysterics.

I did not use profanity.

I did not use personal attacks.

I even stated, more than once, that abnormal did not mean bad.

Flippant in that you used "normal" without thinking through what it meant in the context, it seemed clear that it could be taken in quite a derogatory way as you used it despite your note.

I started my input saying it was good that the thread had not become a flaming mess and I don't think you were accused of going into hysterics were you?

I completely agree you did say abnormal did no mean bad but despite this I am afraid that the word abnormal has connotation of bad within it so it was construed that way by people.

It is important to consider the terms you use when debating a topic that has such strong social and personal implications such as sexuality. Use terms like abnormal and normal at your peril despite your annotations.

I feel they were not even the correct terms to use so it was not just semantics or "natural meaning" once you started to mention percentages. Your idea of something like sexuality deviating from the mean by a certain percentage and therefor not being "normal" could only be applied once some values have been assigned and data collected. I mean how "Gay" does someone need to be before they fall into your definition of gay that constitutes just 15% of the population? I think that would be another book worth of work altogether.

@tjstill

It was other people who went into hysterics. TopMan claimed that I was referring to intersex people as "defective." While I called it a birth defect, based entirely on the definition (https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... 8&oe=UTF-8). He was the one who was using the term "defective." I never used the term. This is a term applied inanimate objects, not people. Calling a human being "defective," which I never did, would simply be asinine. He later went on a rant about eugenics, something no one mentioned and is totally off topic.

The only reason I didn't correct TopMan on the matter (in hindsight, I clearly should have) is because his responses were rather verbose and I prefer to be terse in my responses.

gay2girl (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:33 am so basically you agree that there are non-binary forms of sexuality - you just call it "metaphysical" instead of "gender"!

I don't agree with that at all. I reject the modern (post-modern) classification of 'gender.'

Sex should be classified according to biology. The whole purpose of a classification is to order and group things in order to better understand the world.

The creation of non-binary genders does not meet this purpose. It only leads to misunderstanding and confusion.

Gender, if the term is to be used outside of linguistics, needs to be used in a way that allows us to better understand and classify the world. The non-binary thing only causes unnecessary complication.

A better definition of gender would be the expression/identity of male or female.

If it was not your intention to get peoples backs up or cause offence, then perhaps an apology for any unintentional offence caused wouldn't go amiss.

Without very careful use of language describing people as 'abnormal' is inflammatory to say the least, and likely to provoke a strong reaction.

But perhaps that was your desire all along?

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:12 am TopMan claimed that I was referring to intersex people as "defective."

I had made up my mind that I'd only read this thread from now on. I was not going to post. Yeah, that didn't work out so well.

My use of the word defective did not ascribe it to @RitterVonRitter. I was referring to why an non-binary person would hide from the world out of fear of being labeled as defective. I quoted the author correctly

One example:

TopManFL (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:58 pm Why, would someone hide such a thing? because people use terms like "abnormality and a defect" to describe them.

When I used quotation marks in my verbose posts, I quoted correctly.

As @Paolo said, we are most likely being trolled.

No matter if we are or are not being trolled, I understand the argument being made against the existence of a any sex beyond male or female - I just don't agree with the intolerant logic.

Alright, now I am done posting in this thread. And resign the last word to whomever disagrees with me.

From a purely and most basic biological sense, males and females can be defined by the sexual organs they possess, or by their ability to reproduce, or by their chromozones, as the most clear factual proof.

Eunuchs cannot reproduce in the future without frozen sperm in a sperm bank. But many, if not most, eunuchs already had children before they got castrated. Their chromozones do not change after castration. They still have a penis, prostate, and the same internal male sex organs such as cowper s glands, seminal vesicals, and similar. Even nullos retain many male sexual organs internally.

Overall, a eunuch is not much different from an infertile male with non functioning testicles in a purely biological sense of reproduction and which sex organs they have. A man with no penis can still reproduce by impregnation. So, I think some people are looking at this question from a basic biological function viewpoint and some from a much more complicated personal sexual identity or cultural viewpoint. Talking past each other in different lanes of traffic.

I m assuming most eunuchs alive today did not freely choose to be castrated in the modern societies of today. Most lost their balls to medical problems or injuries. Those eunuchs and most infertile and intentionally sterilized men of today would identify themselves as men and still sexually as males.

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:19 am I don't agree with that at all. I reject the modern (post-modern) classification of 'gender.

Sex should be classified according to biology. The whole purpose of a classification is to order and group things in order to better understand the world.

The creation of non-binary genders does not meet this purpose. It only leads to misunderstanding and confusion.

Gender, if the term is to be used outside of linguistics, needs to be used in a way that allows us to better understand and classify the world. The non-binary thing only causes unnecessary complication.

A better definition of gender would be the expression/identity of male or female.

Some people are confused by the fact that gender in humans relates to the presence of XX chromosomes in the female and XY chromosomes in the male. The X and Y binary identification leads one to assume it is a simple binary system. However the expression of the combination of the X and the Y after fertilisation is what truly creates the gender and it is not a binary expression. If it were truly a binary system we would only have MALES XY and FEMALES XX.One only has to look around to see that this is not the case. "Gender" as a term is generally (but loosely) used to differentiate between male and female and in its simplest form this is true.

When speaking in the context of the biological sciences and medicine where perhaps classification is required to be formal then this simple case does not hold. Sex (gender) is determined by genes, there are genetic disorders whereby the X and Y chromosomes are not represented by the simple binary male /female system (XY is male XX is female). An individual who inherits chromosomes XXY for example is has underdeveloped genitals (Klinefelters syndrome). An individual with X- has Turners syndrome and develops similar to an immature female. When the X and Y chromosomes are not a simple XY male /XX female category then gender is clearly a non binary description for the process of classification purely because there are more than two! I do not understand how you can hold to a definition of the term that predates the discovery of the genes that control the expression of sexual characteristics. I have clearly listed four separate genders XY, XX, XXY, X- already, just because there are only two chromosomes used to create these four individuals does not make the expression of the genes a simple binary sytem. If you wanted to round it up to just two, for your convenience, by picking male or female, depending on which they most closely resembled with their genitals then I feel this would be a poor way to classify things scientifically. We may as well call anything that can fly "a sparrow" for the sake of simplicity.

So loosely speaking you get away with "gender" meaning male or female, but surely in the context of this forum where the specific topic revolves around this we should be clear it is non- binary in the correct scientific sense?

Speaking of expressed gender in a social sciences context, it is very unhelpful to limit yourself to only two genders. Here you have all the social and environmental aspects that combine to determine gender expression. The expressed gender of an individual is the genotype (for example XY) after all the other aspects of development from egg to individual have been taken into account ( this is called the phenotype). It is clear that even with my simple example of 4 different genotypes being acted on by myriads of environmental and social factors that gender expression is more of a continuous variety from what you would call male all the way through to female.

If we assigned a gender score in a very crude way as below

An individual you would class as VERY male scored 50.

An individual you classed as VERY Female scored at 50

An individual with male genitals but very female character attributes scored 0

An individual with female genitals and male character attributes scored 100

And then score indivuduals across this range depending on their percentage of the two extremes

Plot the graph and you would get a classic bell shaped curve. The vast majority would be in the 40 to 60 score range. For sure there are not only two points on the graph showing a BINARY separation of gender.

So back to the OP and the question of is "Eunuch" a third sex. I hope it is clear now why I found the question too open to be answered without considerable clarification. If we take any male genotype or phenotype individual and remove the testicles what effect does that have on the individuals concept of their sex or gender or even our interpretation of their sex and gender?

Lets take a simple example of an individual with XXY chromosomes, this individual may well present as male but have underdeveloped genitals. Upon castration this individual may well change in terms of character due to depletion of any T the underdeveloped testicles were making. On top of this there would be the social impact of castration and their own evaluation of their sexuality, the age of the operation and their personal circumstances (married or with a male partner if gay etc). As you can perhaps understand the gender definition for this individual would have blurred boundaries and may not fit a binary definition.

Your assertion that individuals fit neatly into a simple binary classification very poorly models the population and serve no purpose in any serious investigation into the manifestation of a variety of gender expressions that we experience.

There are undoubtedly people reading the forum who do have genders that fall into the tails of the Bell curve I mentioned. Some of these people may have had elective surgery to try and align their physical state with their mental one. In the past there have been ill advised medics who have forced their concept of what is right onto people, and there are crimes committed against groups of people by a majority who do not comprehend what it means to be different and want to either change those who are different or get rid of them. The negative reaction you have received I feel has it roots in in the core assumptions of your posts which through their simplistic outlook would seem to align with the views of those who are either ignorant, bigots, or worse.

Sorry for the long post, I could have some of this wrong of course and would welcome constructive criticism but I have put forward my views as clearly as I can on this very interesting subject.