I think that gender identity and sexual oriention are a social issue that should to be brought more to the light. Apparently, so did my AP Psych. teacher. Last week, we watched Sex: Unknown and Middle Sexes back to back.
Sex: Unknown was about individuals who are born being physically unrecognizable as a male or female. This really opened my eyes to see what really happens in the world, really until I saw this video; I was actually naïve enough to think that everyone is either born female or male. In some aspect that is right, there is only male and female when it comes to gender, but what about these "intersex" infants? In some cases if a child is genetically male but physically looks like a female, they are raised as a girl. Likewise, if a child is genetically female but physically looks like a male, they are raised as a male.
The whole movie, however, was not only about this. The beginning of the program told of an accident and an experiment. A normal baby boy, upon being circumcised (by a very unconventional means; burning) was left with nothing. He underwent an experimental surgery (the parents not knowing it was the first surgery of its kind) to shape him into a female. The surgery was successful, and the new baby 'girl' would be raised as such. This, however, lead to confusion of the growing child.
In the end we saw that this experiment of turning a perfectly normal male into a perfectly normal female had failed. I think it was an attempt at thinking that gender is something malleable, that can be changed at birth and change the thinking of the individual so they can become the opposite sex. To me, this all seems pretty ludicrous. We are either born male or female...so why would doctors surgically make genetic males into physical looking females, wouldn't they be able to surgically correct the problem so that the male could live as a normal male...not something he was not born to be? And vise-versa with females?
Now, about Middle Sexes. This documentary jumped from transsexual identities, to homosexuality, to culture differences in sexuality. Seeing this film, made me think a lot. Though it was very informative, I still find myself asking questions like: Why are there so many differences in sexuality? Are homosexuals born with homosexuality, is it a choice, or is it both?
One segment in this documentary did kind of make me mad...When they were talking about the African culture and sexuality. We saw a ceremony where they were dancing to their tribal music, suddenly, they started sexually embracing members of their own sex. One woman actually looked like she was having a seizure (or possessed, or something). The person being interviewed on this segment explained to the unseen interviewer that during those ceremonies, if a female is overtaken by a male spirit, she will desire females; likewise, if a male is overtaken by a female spirit, he will desire other males. -Here's the thing that made me mad- They think that those spirits come from God, and that it's okay because they come from God...yeah, and with that, I really have nothing left to say.
There's so much more on gender identity and sexual orientation that is still in the dark, I feel that even though we may not like it, it is our responsibility to teach and be taught about something that affects every human being on the planet. Let me know what you think about this.
then how do you know it is not from God??
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
Because I believe in what the bible (God's word) says. Homosexuality is a wrong way of thinking, it is not of God.
-Amanda-
please vote for me on brickfish
I would really appreciate it!
I believe in God, too. And I am a follower of Christ, and I have read the Bible. In fact, I have done quite a bit of extensive Bible study. Not just the "Bible Study" groups that you have after school, my dear, no, but actual college courses on the text and the content, the translation, the history. It's time to come away from your high school mind, from simply repeating what you have been taught, which is about as closed minded and non-progressive as one can get. I'll try to keep it simple.
The translation I imagine you are referring to is the NIV, which, although newer than the KJV, is actually quite aged. I will reference it only because you are probably more familiar with it. But I suggest you read a more accurate and up-to-date translation, which would be the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). The reason for this newer (and more historically and textually accurate) translation is because language is never idle. It is always changing. Believe it or not, the English language is constantly undergoing metamorphosis, constantly growing and changing, even from year to year.
The passage that the Christian church has taken as a foundation for their attacks on homosexuals is from 1 Corinthians 6. The NIV version of the particular verses say this:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you read it, you will notice that it does not actually say "homosexuals," but rather "homosexual offenders," which is quite a different thing. Take it in context: "sexually immoral nor idoloters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders." Those who lead a homosexual lifestyle are not necessarily offenders. Being gay or lesbian does not mean one commits adultery, practices prostitution, or is even sexually offensive or "immoral." It is a common misconception that gay/lesbian individuals are more obsessed with sex and "sleeping around" than those who are hederosexual. This is just not true. They are normal human beings who happen to prefer the love of someone from the same gender. And who are you to say that they are living wrongly?
Now let us look at a more accurate translation of the original text, the NRSV, the same passage:
9Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
There is nothing in the passage about homosexuality, so I believe there is no more discussion. However, if you would like to continue judging those who are gay/lesbian, let us take a look at the Bible in terms of that. I will now use only the NRSV, but I encourage you to also look in other translations.
Matthew 22:36-40
36"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38This is the greatest and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Your job as a Christian is not to condemn or to judge (as will be noted in a moment) others by their lifestyle, but simply to love them. Read 1 Corinthians 13 in this light. We are not to just have faith in God, but to love others. When you look at anyone, you are looking into the face of God, for we are all made in that image. Do not judge them. Concern yourself with your own. You have no basis to believe that because their lifestyle is different, they are so much different from you. They are also, often, seeking to love others, as they should be, and as you should be.
Matthew 7:1-5
1Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
And often times, what you think is a speck in someone else's eye is actually a misjudgment on your part because you have such a giant log in your own eye. Although, who am I? The point is, you have no right in this discussion to make a decision on who is right and who is wrong. There is no biblical evidence to prove that they are any less right, or, as the church would put it, "living in sin." Get over yourself.
Be careful how you present yourself. You are still so young and highly uneducated. I understand your opinionatedness, but you need to remain open minded, also, particularly if you would like to continue representing Christ, whose mission was to spread love, acceptance, community, and peace, and never hate or judgment.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
Very well said, I definitely could not have expressed all of that as well as you kariskoett. College is a place where one learns to think critically, and not simply believe everything that your parents, teachers or even the bible tells you. I think that this, along with learning independence, are among the most important lessons one can learn in college.
Now, to say that homosexuality is a way of thinking is simply ignorance. Why would someone choose to join only 10% of the population, thus having fewer partners to choose from and then also to be susceptible to ridicule, judgment and persecution by closed-minded and judgmental people? I believe in accepting others and agree that Christ would have loved all people, no matter their sexual orientation, ethnicity or any other factors.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kelliecor
Anything that comes out of John Hopkins University psychiatry unit has to be totally suspicious. You realise that with this experiment they failed to notify physicians who had adopted their techniques for nearly 15 years after they discovered that their wacked out theories were totally flawed????
Before they inflicted that pain on the poor unfortunate boy there was alternative research being done that discovered some rather pronounced differences in the structure of certain sectors of the brain between male and female. But the staff at Hopkins decided to ignore that research totally and continue on with their socialisation theories. Since that time socialisation has been totally discounted as the major driving factor in the differences between the sexes.
I am currently hunting down an article I read not so long ago that was about the experiments of Hopkins and how far off the game they truly are in this respect
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
I have looked for the article I referred to earlier and unfortunately I did not book mark it at the time and unfortunately a google search has at this time given no joy :( . Undoubtedly I will stubble across it shortly after posting this here. That is usually the order of things in my life. LOL
So here is a major question to you... How do you determine the true gender of an intersexed child at birth? Unfortunately there is no sure fire way of determining in which gender that that individual will function within the best. But intersexed children are one case that the assignment of gender has been at least a little successful. Lets face it, it comes down to a 50-50 choice so statistically the doctors will get it right half the time, but is half the time good enough?
Cases like that of Bruce / Brenda / David (the names that he was known by in his life) Reimer, even with the available knowledge in 1968, should never have been gender reassigned. Transsexuals? Well there is a completely different case in point entirely.
Unfortunately the gender of a child can not be determined simply by the genitals that are between the legs, there is so much else that makes a determination on their true gender. For a start chromosomes can play a role, and for the majority of people they really are the only real test needed. Sadly however chromosomes are not conclusive in the gender identity of an individual. So when you say that we are either born male or female, how can you be so sure?
Getting back to the issues with John Hopkins University... Unfortunately John Money is one person that I can't decide if he is a hero or a total asshole.
In the first instance John Money was responsible for a lot of research into intersex and transsexual conditions. He was responsible for the first clinic in the US that treated transsexualism with a physical operation, rather than trying to convince transsexuals that they were indeed the gender that they were assigned at birth. For that he can be classed as a bit of a hero.
However John Money's theories of gender identity being totally a product of socialisation were so wrong, and so evidentially wrong, that his insistance to deny the mistakes he made, even going to the point of blaming Reimer's twin brother, parents and treating psychologists for the failure of his experiment, he seems to me to have lost all his credibility. Hence for these reasons I think the term asshole fits well.
Unfortunately Money's successor at Hopkins, Paul McHugh seems to have based his ideas solely on his religious views. Saly this means that a once prestigious and ground breaking school of psychiatry has become a less than reliable source of information.
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.