(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best general gender studies

I can say that you're completely justifed in feeling worried - it's a new thing for you. Communication and discussion are very important in many issues and here they are important too. Talking about your concerns and fears with your bf might help and I do hope you two can discuss it and come to compromise that doesn't dissmiss your worries and puts all blame on you. Yes it is hard for him, but don't let that diminish your issues and make them insignificat.

I've read a number of books on kindle and I'd like to recommend you some that I think could be relevant:

1. [Something to Confess by Karen Adler.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008BI8GQS?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title)
Written from perspective of a crossdressers wife is about her dealing with her husband telling her and his crossdressing. I really like it as a good example of open communication between two adult people.

2. The Cross Dresser's Wife - Our Secret Lives by Dee A. Levy, B. Sheffield Hunt

3. Men in Bras, Panties and Dresses: The Secret Truths About Transvestites (European Medical Journal)
A medical study results conducted in UK. Could be interesting read and comparing your bf to different ppl that took part in that study and seeing how different crossdressers can be.

4. Out & About - The Emancipated Crossdresser by Lacey Leigh

*5. 7 Secrets of Successful Crossdressers by Lacey Leigh

Two books by Lacey Leigh. I really like her approach to crossdressing and dealing with society. She also talks about how she made it work for their family.

First two books might be more relevant then other 3 and I do hope they help.
Girlfriends and wifes of crossdressers (they could be named significant others) have a number of support groups and forums. You can google them and read or join.

I'm a crossdresser myself and I can try to answer your questions if you have any. Just rememeber that every person (and crossdresser) is different and my answers could be different from what your bf thinks or feels.

I second what /u/scorpious and /u/TheCabbitTori, said, and have a few things to add:

• As a dom, you have just as much right as a sub (that is, a total and absolute one) to safeword if you feel unsafe physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. If you are worried during a scene about whether your sub is feeling safe or not, and various check-ins don't asuage your concerns, then for your own sake it would likely be unwise and damaging to continue. Also, therapy and research, as previously stated.
  
  
• Some people play with each other on a more casual basis, but that is only one of many ways to incorporate kink into your personal life. You may find you're more comfortable doing bdsm activities with someone you've been good friends or romantic partners with for a while so that it is easier to trust your own understanding of their wishes, and to trust that they are willing and able to communicate their desires effectively with you; and that's completely okay! There are some wrong ways of doing kink (see Communication, Safety, and Consent), but there's no one right way. The right way is the way that works for you and your partner(s).
  
  
• Regarding the research and reading recommendation, I have a few suggestions, especially about abuse and how to avoid perpetrating it:
  
  
• The There's A War On series of posts by Thomas Millar, and pretty much everythig else he's ever written for the Yes Means Yes blog (here is a link to his author archive).
  
  
• This and pretty much every other post on The Pervocracy.
  
  
• I've only read a few pieces from this collection, but they were very thought-provoking: The S&M Feminist, by Clarisse Thorn.
  
  Good luck and let me know if you are interested in more reading recommendations!
  
  ^very ^slowly ^edited ^on ^my ^phone ^to ^actually ^include ^recommendations

Concerning introductory books, I'm better versed in German literature, but here are two books that might suit you:

• Laurie Penny: "Meat Market"; A quick and easy read, that gives a nice introduction to objectification and marketing of female bodies.
  
• Mimi Marinucci: "Feminism is Queer"; A short introduction to queer feminism, the intersection between feminism and queer theory. A bit more scholarly but still an accessible read.
  
  And just in case you can read German, I would heavily encourage you to read:
  
  
• Julia Korbik: "Stand Up"; A very comprehensive, accessible and furthermore damn pretty book about not only feminist thought, but also practical feminism.
  
  If you want a "real" scholarly book, there is incredibly much I could recommend. So if you have a specific area of interest, just ask.
  
  Personally I'd recommend most books by Judith/Jack Halberstam, I find them to be decently accessible, very relevant to both recent feminism as well as gender theory and with a heavy connection to pop culture, which makes them rather engaging.
  
  His/her most recent book, might be non-scholarly enough for you. In any case, I would heavily recommend it:
  
  
• Judith/Jack Halberstam: "Gaga Feminism"; An engaging view on pop culture and its interaction with queer narratives, before the backdrop of mainstream society.
  
  I hope that gives you a decent starting point.

You can never "get rid" of your privilege. It's something you have that you didn't ask for and the whole point of having it is that you aren't necessarily aware of it. So, in your example, there's lots of ways for white people to be allies, but it starts with educating yourself about the nature of whiteness and white supremacy, and ultimately ends in white people becoming active, vocal anti-racists who work towards anti-oppression by changing themselves, institutions, and by supporting people of color. Some people aspire to the term "race-traitor" in doing anti-white-supremacy work.

This model works pretty well for all types of privilege. The formula goes like this: you realize you have systemic privilege or benefit from the status quo (the way things currently are) in a way that is unfair/undeserved based on some arbitrary and uncontrollable characteristic that maybe before you took for granted (you are white, you were born to a wealth family, you're a citizen, you are able bodied, your gender is not considered inferior, your sexual orientation is not illegal). At this point, you should begin learning more both about the history of this injustice as well as more about what work is already being done to address it. Sometimes this is hard because it means learning to listen to people we have been explicitly taught are not competent or valuable. It means learning to take directions and leadership from people who we have been explicitly taught are not "leaders".

So here's the thing: gender is like 80% made up anyway, so IDing as NB because societal expectations for your assigned gender suck is fine, imo. That being said, at this point in my life and transition, I definitely feel that positive feedback is better for figuring out your gender.

In my case, I started transitioning because I hated trying to be a man and even though I didn't know what it felt like to be a woman, I wanted to be a woman. About a year ago, I realized that it was maybe a bit more complicated than that, in part because defining "man" or "woman" is incredibly difficult because of that made up 80% (at least, that's my guesstimate) but also because I was defining myself as much in a negative way as a positive way (I wanted to be a woman because I didn't want to be a man). So I decided that rather than try to be a woman, I'd just try to be myself and see where that got me. It's working pretty well.

Trying on some different labels can be helpful. I think the important thing to remember is that gender labels are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They are tools for understanding and communicating about our genders, not what determines who we are and how we must behave.

To move forward positively, I highly recommend checking out a diversity of trans and NB voices and listening for things you relate to without worrying too much about whether those folks share your particular labels. I've been getting into the Gender Reveal podcast lately and spending more time on NB Twitter and Reddit. This is a good book, too.

And I missed an opportunity to do a bit of self promotion!

If anyone wants an introduction to men's issues then of course my book is the only place to start (not biased) and you can download a free chapter first to get a taste of it:

http://equality4men.com/book/

That was written in 2013. Last year I co-edited a book of short articles on men, manhood with Dan Bell at insideMAN magazine that I'm really proud of because it succeeds (I think) it's aim to provide a platform for a really interesting diversity of voices on men's issues.

There's a review here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17820

And it's on Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/insideMAN-Dan-Bell/dp/1784625337

I'm biased and I think both, in different ways, are great ways to access men's issues---the first very calm, factual and really easy to read all in a single voice but with loads of references if you want to dig deeper.

The second like tuning into Man FM and hearing a load of great solo acts---the sum of which is greater than the parts---and if there's one guy you don't like much, don't worry because there's another writer coming along any minute with a different perspective that's more up your street.

I'm not going to enter into this argument at this stage on either side because I personally think you both make seriously excellent points! I'm just gonna hop in to be a mediator.

A couple points:

1. Well done to both you and u/LerrisHarrington for keeping it largely civil but let's keep the "people like you" down on both sides. Also, let's not ad hominem attack people here.
   
   
2. Let's, remember that both of you agree that trans people should be treated with respect and that assault or harassment verbal, physical and emotional should be avoided. Your disagreement is about specifics so act like it. Let's not pretend that either of you hates the other or hates cis/trans people.
   
   Ok now I'm going to be extremely nitpicky but I believe some clarity is needed. First, you say:
   
   > Gender identity is the strongest determining factor in whether you're a man or women. Not whats between your legs, thats your biological sex.
   
   Then you say:
   
   > all embryonic humans are female
   
   This needs a bit more clarification for me as it is a tad confusing.
   
   First lets cover this part:
   
   > all embryonic humans are female
   
   Biologically or psychologically?
   
   If you're going with a biological definition then this is simply not true. From the moment an egg and sperm come together, the embryo is biologically male or female. An embryo either has XX or XY chromosomes. It does not decide half way through development. Male embryos are never "female." They don't have a 'vagina' they have undifferentiated sexual organs which are physically androgynous. Source
   
   If you're going with a psychological definition then we'd be talking about gender identity which as you say is:
   
   > strongest determining factor in whether you're a man or women.
   
   Well, the baby doesn't really have a functional brain at this stage so it certainly can't tell you what it feels. Therefore, it cannot have a gender identity which "refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as masculine or feminine, or some combination thereof." Source. Go to page 8 of the book preview if you don't own the book.
   
   Therefore, by the process of elimination, you can only be talking about biological sex but this is only of secondary importance right?
   
   All in all, in my opinion, the whole:
   
   > all embryonic humans are female
   
   Is, therefore, meaningless from a biological and psychological point of view.
   
   
   You also say:
   
   > if you were to suffer an accident at work and lost your penis and testicles, would you continue to be a man? And if so is that because of whats between your legs? Or what you've determined yourself to be?
   
   False dichotomy much? I appreciate that you're using an analogy, I'll be the first to admit they're awesome but I think there are definitely more physical ways to define sex even for a person who doesn't believe in the idea of genders and gender identity. For example "men have Y chromosomes"
   
   > Since all men had vaginas,
   
   A transman may have had a vagina but as we've established not all men have had one.
   
   You then say:
   
   > Once you realize that transwomen are women as much as ciswomen are women,
   
   If we're using gender identity as the guide for defining a man/women sure. Personally, I agree with your statement but I don't think you've proven your point beyond reasonable doubt.
   
   Edit:
   
   You also say:
   
   > Sorry for the lateness,
   
   That is so cute and Canadian and I love it! :)

I'm not speaking for your spouse here, but I remember before transitioning having feelings when I looked at (some) men feeling this feeling that was sort of like desire toward them. It felt somewhat like I wanted to be with them but what I really desired was to be like them. It was confusing sometimes.

Certainly, that may not be the case for him and I'm not trying to say it is, it just reminded me of my own experience.

I do see now why you said some things that you did. Regardless, I do think that your feelings are common enough in people whose loves ones are questioning. I don't have experience on that side of things, but I have read posts in /r/mypartneristrans and also this book called, Trans-kin, with stories from people whose friends/loved ones transitioned.

Can your spouse (and you too maybe) see a therapist? They are really helpful with stuff like this and can provide resources and assistance in dealing with the complicated emotions that can come up in this kind of situation.

Interview with long time feminist Letty Cottin Pogrebin about her teaching and raising her two twin daughters and her son with non-sexist non-gender roles and gender stereotypes.




http://www.smith.edu/libraries/libs/ssc/activist/transcripts/Pogrebin.pdf
LETTY COTTIN POGREBIN - Smith College


www.smith.edu
Letty Cottin Pogrebin, interviewed by Allison Payne Tape 1 of 1 Page 2 of 14 Women’s Activism and Oral History Project Smith College






Feminist Letty Cottin Pogrebin's son didn't reject playing with dolls and tea sets, just as her identical twin daughters didn't reject the non-gender stereotyped toys and behaviors she encouraged them to have. And her son didn't grow up gay or transgendered he's married and I think has children,but he didn't grow up to be a macho football player either,as Letty said he's a chef and loves to cook.








And there is a lot wrong with sexist very limiting gender roles,gender myths and gender stereotypes that are mostly artificially created by the very sexist,gender divided,gender stereotyped,woman-hating male dominated family and society we all live in,which makes both sexes,into only half of a person,instead of full human people able to develop and express their full shared human traits,abilities,and behaviors etc. And then these artificial gender differences continue to reinforce gender inequalities,male dominance and men's violence against women,children and even each other.










There is a great 2005 book,Sex Lies And Stereotypes Challenging Views Of Women,Men and Relationships by social and cognitive British psychologist Dr.Gary Wood.He too shows plenty of great important research studies done over decades by many different psychologists that finds small average sex differences,and the sexes are much more similar than different.He also thoroughly demonstrates that gender roles,gender myths and gender stereotypes which are mostly socially and culturally constructed,harm both sexes because they are very liming,cause conflicts and misunderstands between women and men,and only allow each of them to become half of a person which can cause mental and physical conditions and diseases.






Psychologist Dr.Gary Wood’s description of his great important gender myth debunking book,Sex Lies And Stereotypes:Challenging Views Of Women,Men And Relationships






It says it even offers free non-surgical gender reassignment for every reader and this book first came out back in March 2005 before the transgender explosion and transgendering of children became so disturbingly common.





https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lies-Stereotypes-Challenging-Relationships/dp/1843308940/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494826861&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Dr.Gary+wood+Sex%2CLies+And+Stereotypes







And here are the great customer 5 reviews of this great important book,mine is one of them from March 2006.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lies-Stereotypes-Challenging-Relationships/dp/1843308940/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494823199&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Dr.Gary+wood+Sex%2CLies+And+Stereotypes

First of all, webmd or whatever blogs you're using as sources are worthless.

> we actually have direct proof of immense differences in male and female brain anatomy.

It's not "immense". The average differences within each sex are larger than the average differences between sexes.

What's different is that male brains are about 10 to 15% larger than women's brains on average... even when corrected for body size (Allen, et al. 2004). However, this does not confer or imply greater intelligence (Solms and Turnbull, 2002; LeVay, 1997; Pool, 1994)

Male brains have about four billion more neurons in the cerebral cortex, however female brains have more synapses (Pakkenberg and Gundersen, 1997).

Female sensory processing is much more acute than male sensory processing. Hearing is better, sight is better, smell and taste are better. Touch shows the most disparity, with the least sensitive woman being more sensitive than the most sensitive man.

> In fact, it has been shown that males have 6.5 times as much grey matter as females while females have 9.5 times as much white matter as males.

And actually this is factually incorrect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725764

For all structures, male volumes were greater than female, but the gray/white (G/W) ratio was consistently higher across structures in women than men.

So actually, according to this study, female brains have more gray matter than white matter.

>Now, the research is still young, but neuroscience is currently correlating grey matter with both IQ and STEM-type problem solving and white matter/frontal lobe organization with language.

lol... so according to YOU, women should have higher IQs and more STEM-type problem solving ability then?

> It's inconceivable that given such different structures, we wouldn't see a measurable difference in both average interests and performance. Here's an interesting collection of graphs with male vs female degrees in stem fields -- note how women are least frequent in the sciences closest to physics.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that this has anything to do with the ratio of brain structures or really anything to do with neurology. And you probably know this too which is why you didn't present any.

Let's be honest here, there are cultural factors at play here, which is why we don't see a consistent percentage of gender distribution across cultures when it comes to fields of study. And we also see the gender distributions changing over time...

>Yet, this is despite the fact that because of societal affirmative action, women earn 57% of all bachelor's degrees.

Women earn more bachelor's degrees because more women go to secondary education in the first place. And the reason behind this is because women have less opportunities for higher-paying jobs right out of college, especially since a lot of those career paths have severe penalties for women due to high rates of sexual harassment (such as the armed forces).

>We also know that IQ is 75% heritable, so from the very start we can tell the issue is largely a genetic one.

You might want to read the article you linked:

>>"We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence."[7]

And in fact, due to the feminization of poverty, this difference in IQ between sexes can be accounted for using this factor alone.

>Testosterone is linked to risk taking. I believe this is what's usually referred to as "aggression."

Risk taking =/= aggression. Besides, it's not enough to show that testosterone increases aggression. You have to show that the testosterone difference is significant enough to cause aggression that cannot be attributed to social or cultural factors that encourage male violence and aggression.

>There's also evidence that transgender people have different brain makeup than their original sex.

??? This statement doesn't make any sense. People who are transgender do not have an "original sex", any more than cisgender people have one. Transgender people are the same sex throughout their whole lives.

>transgenderism is a physical condition and not a mental one,

Transgenderism is a social movement for acceptance and equal rights for people who are transgender.

>and 2, that male and female brains are different enough that you can tell one from the other.

If you're a trained neuroscientist with special equipment that can detect the minor differences, yes. But you can't tell with the naked eye, because the differences aren't that much. Again, there is more variation within sexes than between sexes.

>I'm adding my example here after. The case was for David Reimer. He was, at 8 months, given a sexual reassignment surgery after a circumcision accident. His parents were told to treat him as a girl. Despite this, he always identified as male, wanted to act like a boy, and ultimately committed suicide due to this. Biology has a role, as if society molded a person, David would have identified as female.

That was one person, it doesn't mean you can conclude that therefore nobody's sexual orientation or identity is influenced by their environment. There is a reason why biological twins only have about a 50% chance of both being homosexual if at least one is homosexual... it's because there are environmental factors that contribute to sexual orientation and identity.

There are other things to consider such as the fact that our understandings of the hormones and social treatments necessary for a successful transition were incomplete at the time and the doctor there did some very bizarre and unethical things such as forcing the brothers to interact with one another and perform simulated sex acts on each other.

**

Initial parts are from [Brain, Mind, and Behavior* by Alfred Ernest Jones](http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Mind-Behavior-Introduction-Biopsychology/dp/0536352054).

First, you're not going to win any points coming to r/bisexuality and discussing the "so-called biphobia."

It's just rude.
Same as using the phrase "so-called homophobia."

We're supposed to be on the same team against all bigotry, especialy with a heteropatriachy opressing us all.

Second, your audience here is bisexuals and their allies. You should not be talking to "all you gays and lesbians out there."
If you phrased stuff to who you're speaking to, people may actually be able to read the kernel of good advice you had instead of being distracted by the ignorance scattered about.

Third, if you have been a long term reader of the sub, you'd know this group better. The people on this sub tend to be some of the most positively "you-pick-your-own-label", "you do you" groups. I am constantly amazed at the support people here have for each other as well as mazed by the diversity of people and opinion here. I've seen posts about not judging heterosexuals or homosexuals for sleeping or being interested with people of both sex (and still letting them choose whatever label they identify with). I have seen whole heaploads of posts on enjoyment of same-sex relationships as well as lots of posts asking for dating advice in those same relationships or how to get such relationships. I've seen lots of personal posts about bisexuals being spurred simply for being bisexual, or told their orientation did not exist, or ....

Try to educate yourself on what biphobia is before trying to speak against it as if it didn't exist. I'd recommend reading Bi: Notes on a Bisexual Revolution, by Shiri Eisner. Or pick up any book on the subject. Or start having respectful conversations with bisexual people. Judge less. Learn about the things you don't know about.

Here is a book that is free on Kindle (App for phone or computer also be free if you don't have a kindle).

Here is a book that is just what you said you are looking for.

This book is a little more sociological but cheaper than the one above

I love this website on Gender and Sexuality

Here are a couple of lists of good books around trans issues for kids/teens:

https://www.roomofonesown.com/trans-teens

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-21-best-transgender-b_b_9702762

https://www.bookish.com/articles/21-must-read-books-for-transgender-awareness-month/

>Still can't find anything to support the notion that our "patriarchy" mindsets are the cause huh? Sounds like a cop out to me....

I mentioned some things that support it...

>"The gender knot by Johnson"... Hahah good one.

It's a real book.

>And correlation without causation, I'm referring to just because there is an effect, in this case the earnings gap, and there is a theory that says its related to discrimination of the sexes, does not prove there is a patriarchy. Hence this is the common argument feminists use to prove there is a patriarchy system that places women in lower paying jobs.

You don't seem to have responded to many of my points.

Let me just take perhaps the most salient point. Let us grant biological determinism. It is a fact of nature that women are more suited to certain jobs than men and vice versa and that this explains why people choose the jobs they choose. Why are the jobs women are suited to jobs that happen to pay less than the ones men are suited to? Why is that true?

> The whole obsession with sex is really a conservative trait.

This is gleefully described by Thadeus Russell on the Joe Rogan Podcast. He is masterful at defensive powertalk too. Joe puts him in a position where he could easily be fired from his history professor's gig just for being in the room with Joe.

His discormfort and fear are palpable, but he courageously soldiers on. First restraining his analysis to a historical description of how colleges got to where they are, free of editorial content that someone could quote.

He then precisely articulates the agent-vs-victim problem within current feminism, then uses it to accuse the Cathedral (without naming it) of being "anti-feminist" and "conservative"

He could still get fired, and knows it, but he does his best to maintain intellectual honesty while using defensive rhetoric.

I read a book in the mid 1990s called "The New Victorians" which described modern feminists in exactly these terms. It was a somewhat inoculating read, and is remarkably prescient given it's almost 2 decades old.

Everyday Sexism by Laura Bates is a great collection of personal experiences, statistics, political highlights, and media influence that really show the female experience around the world.

No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women is a good primer on the history of women's rights.

Feminism Is for Everybody by Bell Hooks is another great one.

Have you ever read Changing Ones? Although it's specific to Native American cultures, I think it's reasonable to assume it was not uncommon in other pre-Christian cultures as well.

People transitioned socially even though there was no way to transition medically. In some cultures they held a special place - a third gender - and in others they took on the roles and social status of the gender not assigned at birth. It's a great read for anyone interested in anthropology or archaeology, or just trans history.

I listed a few just last week on a reply to someone's question, here's the list:

• Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality
  
  
• Becoming Two-Spirit: Gay Identity and Social Acceptance in Indian Country
  
  
• Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America
  
  Unfortunately, I've moved fairly recently and my library is somewhat fractured, so I don't have all of my books handy at the moment. I see that Kate Bornstein's books have been mentioned, she's a fun author. There's also Miss Vera's Crossdress For Success which is not exactly about gender (also a little brusque at times), but more about achieving desired gender presentation.

Anyone interested in what's written here might want to check out the book "White Privilege" by Paula Rothenburg, which discusses a lot of these issues.

That looks good, I'll have to pick it up.

I would also recommend Good Will Toward Men by Jack Kammer, in a similiar vein.

You can pick up a used copy for only a penny.

As am I. Every time a remotely queer topic comes up, they get hordes of Hoteps and Ankheads trying to spit some myths about how "Africa never had homosexuality" and "it's a white invention."

Thankfully there are more than enough knowledgeable people that are willing to share information about the subject.

EDIT

>Men just have a tendency of being stupid an immature

That is ridiculously sexist. I'm sure you think it's cool, though, because it's misandrist instead of misogynist. It has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with being smart and mature vs. being stupid and immature.

From a book on sexism:

>One of the women, therapist Laurie Ingram, said that women often flatter themselves that they're more emotionally mature than men, and that women's emotions mature faster. But in her professional experience, Ingram thought that a large percentage of women were functioning at the same emotional level as a nine or ten year old child: a combination of deeply insecure, entitled and arrogant, and passive-aggressive communication.

> You do know that the concept of "Nations" and countries in Most of Europe wasn't invented back then?

Ummm yeah. When I said they are more than 30 countries in Europe, I meant each one of these countries have their own unique history. Different tribes, empires and cities had different rules. Ofcourse the borders dont look the same today, that wasn\t my point. I was just saying Europe wasnt monolith. Each had different levels of tolerance, some more than others. But most still had heteronormative expectations of gay people.

I AM GAY. And honestly, expecting gay people to birth babies and engage in a heterosexual \public life\ IS STILL HETERONORMATIVE. Not all homophobia is killing gays or hating us. Expecting gays to fullfill heteronormative standards in society is still homophopbia. I\m sure a gay man asking the father of his male lover to take his sons hand in marriage would look down upon. Same if lesbians did the same.

Ancient Greece is my favourite civilization and I always quote them and speak fondly of them. They were definately progressive, speficially the Spartans. I\m just saying heteronormative standards still existed for gay people in Greek society. Ofcouse it wasn\t as bad as the Christian. But I never said they were worse.

My original opinion was simply >>>>> ||| Homophobia existed before Christianity. |||| I originally never made any mention criticizing the Greeks. You brought them up and I said it\s true that they were accepting of gay relations but they still expected gay people to abide by heterosexual formal life.

I know tons of examples of gay acceptance in cultures. I mean, in sub saharan Africa, there was a concept of sister
husbands and boy wife. http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Wives-Female-Husbands-Studies-Homosexualities/dp/0312238290. Its example of gay accpeting socities in pre colonial Africa, but I am also of African origin so I know that a couple of reigions and empires being accepting is not equal to EVERY African tribe being accepting. That is what I meant when I said \ they are more than 30 countries in Europe and Ancient Greece didn\t represent the values of ALL of continental Europe.

My point is that ... Humans will create a hierarchy based on anything. And Im just saying that Christianity didnt invent it. Its all politics. Im sure most people wouldnt have given a fuck about gays if they werent rewarded in social ways from being homophobic.

This article is about WW2 gay prisioners being discriminated by allies. Someone blamed Christian values for the gay prisioners being left behind. Meh, I dont entirely see it that way. USA was anti Nazi but still invited over nazis
to America to continue with their medical experiments. Humans are selfish and opportunistic, that trumps everything before Christian values.


Im just saying that the allies leaving gay prisioners behind wasnt the only fucked up thing they did... Human selfishness is the root of all evil. And the problems in Christianity exist because of it. That is what I meant when I said homophobia existed before Christianity.

Even the good side aka the allies, were still corrupt, because they were human with their own agenda.

My original point was never specifically about homophobia. It was about humanity in general. Some guy blamed it on Christianity and I responded to him saying that humans have always been fucked up

Yall should check out White Privilege by Paula Rothenberg. It explains why youll see cards that say "Young gifted and black" but never "young gifted and white". And it explains other things regarding race of course.

> Researchers are using a new approach to understand why same-sex behaviour is so common across the animal kingdom

Although homosexual behavior is rather common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity not to say about formation of permanent homosexual pairs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/african-homosexuality-colonial-import-myth

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/09/being-gay-african-history-homosexuality-christianity

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/africatoday.58.1.55?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Wives-Female-Husbands-Studies-Homosexualities/dp/0312238290

Gosh, I dunno if I can point to any one thing. Lemme just second "White Privilege" by Paula Rothenburg.

I don't really think it's an extraordinary claim to say that many Jews are considered white in society but that we'd also be dumped quick from the white club if shit hits the fan. I can't get you the exact pages because I no longer have the book, but this book goes into how Jews were considered "white" and also not white at times.

I also don't get your comment about Jews being liberal and philanthropic. I don't disagree, but I don't get it either.

> I can't get you the exact pages because I no longer have the book, but this book goes into how Jews were considered "white" and also not white at times.

Here's how certain white people view this kind of 'white bashing' book written by a 'Jewish' academic (notice - non-white):

http://www.amazon.com/White-Privilege-Essential-Readings-Racism/product-reviews/1429233443/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1CVVT1AE5KH94

> "White priviledge" written by a Jewish author. I've seen more than a few of these "whiteness studies" books written by authors of Jewish heritage. Interesting. They write anti-white bashing literature but will NEVER write a book about racist Jewish supremacism (aka Zionism). Gee, I wonder why. Whiteness studies is just the next phase of racist, anti-white (specifically non-Jewish white) bashing. It is the next phase in trying to brainwash people...


____

Take note, that the author is NOT viewed as white, but as an instrument of the elite... which will be used to destroy the "real blue collar white man"

This story is as old as Judaism. Jews trying to integrate with the majority society & certain elements violently opposing that "racial mixing".

Which brings us back to the linked joke in the submitted article (no one wants a Jewish baby).