Women

I agree with you in that no one parent should be the dominant but you say because of the mans devotion to his family etc that he should, (if needed), be the one to make the final desicion, but the woman is equally devoted. And if the situation means the male makes the decision then the woman is submissive and you dont agree with one being dominant? And i wouldnt be submissive to a man iether, it is exactly the same as you not wanting to be submissive to a woman. If both sexes are equal and the man, (if need be), makes the final decision based on his devotion, im sorry it just doesnt make sense?

Yeah but William im quite happy to go out and hunt and gather and all that and im a woman? hmmm?

Yes but it's very rare that early/school courtships go on to marriage, (or a permanent relationship), most people would not settle down with their first love. And alot of people want to experience sex first without settling down or having a baby so what you're saying wouldnt work. As ive saind in op, adoption is not an option in the UK anymore, there are thousands of unwanted children in childrens homes so adoption wont work either because there is a serious lack of carers.

Yeah niether do i but we all got to live in it.

Hey, does anyone remember which philosopher made an experiment and raised a boy as a girl and a girl as a boy? And what happened to the boy and the girl? Okey, sorry my english sucked in this post, but I hope you get what I'm saying..

I'm not sure that you are really asking the right question, william, because once genetic, genital, and gender identity are set, we have no way of changing that (which is basically why homosexuality was finally deleted from the list of disorders to be correct by psychologists...it's most usually (not always) just a result of natural flows). You see, all this hormone stuff is simply (and mostly) 'up stream' events from genetical events which build us, and set us organisms off on a cetain track. Enviornment and personal history will, nevertheless, have some effect, but case after case has taught us that there is very little chance of altering the 'hard wiring' after birth. It can concieveably be done during an en vitro gestation period (outside the womb), it seems.

But here, William, why try to force against the grain of nature, what is natural? This is one major reason why I see problems with the set-up you are insisting on, namely, that some (not all) elements of your proposition attempt to work cross-grain with nature itself. There will without doubt be some genetic and genital males who will be as good (and some even better) at raising children than some genetic and genital females will be. Therefore any attempt to blindly draw lines along what we see on the outside as being a gender, is not good enough.

Also, this will surely draw more focus on the idea of 'equality' in the pair-bonded setting--that is, equality between two human beings first and foremost. A number of applications can be made; one being that rather than acquiescing any role of 'final-decision-maker-in-disagreement-situations' on either of the two in a pair bond situation based on sexual state, we would find a greater leverage in rendering that role to the one of better qualification for the particular task at hand. In fact, that can be applied downward towards a fair number of decisions, can it not?

It is a natural fact that there will be the occasional woman who'll know more about tuning the engine than the man she may be in a pair bond with, and the occasional man who'll have a much better working knowledge of nutrition than the woman he may be in a pair bond with. . . so. . . rather than leaning on social norms of ages gone by that are steeped in misinformation and ignorance, would it not be better to reach out and attempt to work with what nature has given us?

If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that humans have caused homosexual builds in all the some 1,000 plus species which display the exact same phenomenon? Did human activity cause the penguin population to have some homosexual members--running at about 6% (but not always permanent)?

I do believe, salima, that I have come across an article on that, but to save my skin, I cannot recall which journal that would have been in... Do you happen to have any further details on that? I would offer here, however, that the basic identity sex had been female, and that either the internal female organ had actually been developed to some degree, or that it had been built in (which would be easy enough if the hormones were to have already been being coded for). Otherwise, I'd have to have the details of the case.

I do know of some other cases. That boy named John who had made some headlines back in the early 70's, and had become, then, Joan is the one you refer to in that second case. A physician's error in his earliest infancy had, through some deliberation, led to his genital being rebuild as female, and being raised as a female. Of course nature took its course, and he came to fully realize (gender identity) that he was, in fact a he. He went on to marry and so on, but, eventually he identified himself publically as David Reimer, and collaborated on a book about his life (Colapinto, 2001). But, as you have just found out, he killed himself in 2004, at the early age of 38. He had some bad turns in his life, really, really, unlucky. The whole piviot was that doctor's mistake on his circumcision, which rendered his male organ useless...and so the story.

Of course, William, you are very free to disagree. The question will yet remain as to which, or what, understanding stands more reasonable as the total degree of evidence that we do have is all correlated, cross-referenced, cross-examined, and shifted through. It is true, I'm sure you'll agree, that just because a person believes something, or comes to some understanding before having searched as thoroughly as possible, that such belief or understand may be contrary to fact--to whatever degree, little or much or totally.

If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that humans have caused homosexual builds in all the some 1,000 plus species which display the exact same phenomenon? Did human activity cause the penguin population to have some homosexual members--running at about 6% (but not always permanent)?