I have read them. There is nothing for me to learn there.DGA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:03 amHi Jesse,Jesse wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:08 am
It's nice and all that you purport to be more informed than the medical community while linking no relevant credible research, but I think I'll trust peer reviewed research.
Everything that you mention is a cultural advancement, and does not apply to basic biology. Biology is a science. For example if you are born with a male body, no matter how much you wish it; you can not bear children within your own body. Why? Because your body is male. (Male is a simple conceptual construct identifying a combination of genetic and chromosome combinations, and the resulting body structure.)
As far as biology is concerned, there are essentially two sexes. Male, and Female. Period.
Trying to impose social stances onto a science is about as ignorant as ignorant gets.
It's about as ignorant as trying to impose biology as a defacto stance to what applies to something like the mind, identity, and personality.
No matter the hormosone variations a person is born with there still remain two essential genders, and I would love for your to identity a brand new gender, because not only I, but the entire biology community, and hell humanity would be quite amazed.
PS (The name of the article is quite relevant.)
I work with biologists. I can say with confidence that you are holding to a somewhat idealistic and perhaps naive view of how science works. This leads to you hastily dismiss perspectives that don't correspond to your vision, and to misunderstand the claims that you yourself are trying to make.
I suggest you go back and read KathyLauren's posts, and Quay's too. Even if you disagree with them, you are likely to learn something from them.
Simply put, they are both incorrect.
Also, who would respond to someone's post who started out by attempting to invalidate your post by using a completly incorrect understanding of emptiness? While in their first post argued against points which I neither made, nor insinuated. In fact their entire post was entirely irrelevant to what I had said.
Ahh, and here. Assuming that my gender Identity is that of a man. Also implying that men somehow do not have a place in a discussion on 'what is a woman'. I suppose that means biologists should only be female as well?KathyLauren wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:31 amWell, you are hardly going to become more informed whth that attitude, are you?
I should have expected that attitude from a man in a thread titled "What is a woman".
Om mani padme hum
The ignorance in this thread is astounding. As is the obviousness of the inner circles on this community, but hey don't let me interfere. This is why I quit posting here as much, this place is a cesspool of angst, and veiled aggression. TBH, I see it going the way of E-Sangha.
It's actually pretty distasteful all in all, I'm being told I should "Learn, and Listen" to other people's viewpoints, while no-one is expecting, nor told to listen to mine.
I suppose then that I've been "shown who's who of Dharmawheel", and whos opinion matters here eh? Perhaps you all should just start another "Who's the most popular, and most enlightened' Thread again, but of course, we all know who wins those. Cough.
I've nothing more to say on the topic, but I suppose I'll continue to poke my head in from time to time, for what reason I don't really know, because really this forum has little to offer these days.