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 7:14 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 7:42 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.