Good overview. I came to the same conclusion from a Christo-centric traditionalist frame and found the environment wise without and not collapsing (indeed enriching) my priors. So much so that I began mapping the masculine-feminine, internal-external, firm-gentle, global-local diads in my โ Frame Games - A Field Map, Rev. 0โ entry.
Many will not understand and thatโs fine but to my fellow Christ-loving traditionalists out there I can assure you there is much fruit in this field.
I'm not sure how this argument helps us move forward.
If you're talking about trans people, it doesn't add much-- nobody is saying that biological males are incapable of being feminine, and only a crazy, tiny minority say that being feminine makes you literally biologically female. (And I doubt they're reading this.) I'm not sure what your argument implies for trans people, as hormones/surgery are very different from "developing the masculine/feminine aspects of your psyche," and the latter won't resolve gender dysphoria.
You don't seem one to hide/talk around your thoughts, so I guess you might not be talking about trans people at all. (Though at least some of this comment section seems to think you are.) Then, though, I'm even more unsure of your point-- what's the "divisive topic"? Who disputes that women can be masculine, or that men are on average more aggressive, etc?
Good points, but I think they would land better if you avoided English gender vocab. Your profile image is just right. Substitute Yin and Yang, and emphasis the unity and balance of the whole. Putting these attributes on a simple linear gradient feeds polarization.
I think that's going in the opposite direction of what was intended in this post. I read it as an attempt to anchor the discourse in the biological realities (including the evolutionary psychology traits) without devolving into Handmaid's Tale.
I get the penis being a symbolic representation of masculine, but isnโt representing the feminine as a camel with a big ass a little sexist? Beginning to doubt that there is none who loves women more than you doโฆ
omd
"Also for the record, nobody loves women more than I do." Is priceless LOL
Good overview. I came to the same conclusion from a Christo-centric traditionalist frame and found the environment wise without and not collapsing (indeed enriching) my priors. So much so that I began mapping the masculine-feminine, internal-external, firm-gentle, global-local diads in my โ Frame Games - A Field Map, Rev. 0โ entry.
Many will not understand and thatโs fine but to my fellow Christ-loving traditionalists out there I can assure you there is much fruit in this field.
Unfortunately, like all rationalists, you have no respect for polar complementary, yet appeal to it in this article.
I'm not sure how this argument helps us move forward.
If you're talking about trans people, it doesn't add much-- nobody is saying that biological males are incapable of being feminine, and only a crazy, tiny minority say that being feminine makes you literally biologically female. (And I doubt they're reading this.) I'm not sure what your argument implies for trans people, as hormones/surgery are very different from "developing the masculine/feminine aspects of your psyche," and the latter won't resolve gender dysphoria.
You don't seem one to hide/talk around your thoughts, so I guess you might not be talking about trans people at all. (Though at least some of this comment section seems to think you are.) Then, though, I'm even more unsure of your point-- what's the "divisive topic"? Who disputes that women can be masculine, or that men are on average more aggressive, etc?
Good points, but I think they would land better if you avoided English gender vocab. Your profile image is just right. Substitute Yin and Yang, and emphasis the unity and balance of the whole. Putting these attributes on a simple linear gradient feeds polarization.
One man's opinion.
What about โpitchersโ and โcatchers?โ ๐
I think that's going in the opposite direction of what was intended in this post. I read it as an attempt to anchor the discourse in the biological realities (including the evolutionary psychology traits) without devolving into Handmaid's Tale.
Stream a game of gragas top ranked league of legends
Also I think Paul saying he loves women must be satire and therefore he's coming out as gay
I get the penis being a symbolic representation of masculine, but isnโt representing the feminine as a camel with a big ass a little sexist? Beginning to doubt that there is none who loves women more than you doโฆ
I still don't understand gender identity. Do people really FEEL there masculinity/femininity? That dosnt make sense to me