Cycling UK Forum

pwa wrote:. And don't tell me kilts are practical. Think of the midges.

With the plaid you can dress yourself in a couple of minutes. No tailoring or stitching required just a pin here and there and off you go. That's practical surely?

Paulatic wrote:

pwa wrote:. And don't tell me kilts are practical. Think of the midges.

With the plaid you can dress yourself in a couple of minutes. No tailoring or stitching required just a pin here and there and off you go. That's practical surely?

I'm just thinking of the midges and where they can get to! My instinct in the presence of a cloud of midges is to keep as much of my skin covered as possible, even to the extent of wrapping a towel around my face.

Vorpal wrote: Or is it a recognition that we aren't all perfect and manly or feminine and destined for a 9-5 job, a semi-detached house, 2,5 children, and a dog?

Those are the values that we have evolved to in our western world. It's our natural instinct to fall into that pattern, perhaps peer group pressure but that has to start somewhere.... human instinct. At the end of the day our primary purpose, as the animal we are, is to find food, have shelter, heat if necessary and breed. That as a species works, and if say 10% of males indulge only in male to male activities it does not impact on the survival of the species. I think outside of our modern western lifestyle we'd not be talking of these "gender" identity issues. I can't picture people within amazon tribes having the same issues because they spend their time surviving not analysing and categorising. They are how we once were, their focus on living+surviving, not all the distractions we have in our comfortable spoon fed media driven western lives.

My daughter is in year 5 and most of the children wear exactly the same uniform which is the "boys" uniform ie standard t-shirt and sweatshirt with trousers. Very few girls opt for the special girls' option of skirt or summer dress unless it is really hot.

It seems to be an age when they are released from their parents' influence to wear "girly" clothes and not yet in the age of being peer pressured by other girls into wearing "girly" clothes.

When I take my daughter shopping for shoes and clothes, she will head for the boys' section. She chooses boys' shoes and boys' trousers, not exclusively but it is where she starts looking because it normally has the sort of clothes that she wants.

She is making the choice on the practical grounds of what she wants to wear, not to conform to pre-determined gender roles. At a later age she may wish to dress in a way that "advertises her sexuality or femininity" as is normal for adolescents, is it a school uniform's job to assist in that or to inhibit it?
I dont think that society has truly worked that one out, which is why something like this is an "issue".

If you think gender studies in humans is complex then look into animal gender studies. Sexual orientation too is complex. Animals have been shown over and over again to be more variable in orientation. Gay, straight or bi- is all present in the animal kingdom just as it's in the primates branch.

I remember a Sunday Times article on a sexual orientation lobby that started in the US, asexual that is. This is a group who have no sexual interest but can have relationships (gay, straight or bi-) just not sexual. The activists claimed to be at the level of prejudice that homosexuality had in the earliest days of gay pride. Only they got it from all sides.

Gender, sexual orientation and identity are very complex and beyond the wearing of textiles.

Tangled Metal wrote:Gay, straight or bi- is all present in the animal kingdom just as it's in the primates branch.

Yes totally natural and I've seen several events of homosexual behaviour in dogs..... It isn't "normal" behaviour in the sense that it's outcome doesn't produce the results nature wants. If a species evolved to 100% homosexual then we all be ******** .

nature isn't perfect but outside of the human species they don't analyse themselves they just get on with doing what they have to do. Perhaps our ability to observe and analyse the world around us is detrimental in some ways.

It's a frightening and sad reflection of our modern world that these conditions are allowed to develop and become a label

Or, alternatively, it's a wonderful and heartening reflection of our modern world that these conditions are recognised and language developed to aid our understanding of them.

Although, obviously, there's a long way to go.

old_windbag wrote: If a species evolved to 100% homosexual then we all be ******** .

Google "Cnemidophorus uniparens"

One of several species (of lizard) which consist only of females.

old_windbag wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:Gay, straight or bi- is all present in the animal kingdom just as it's in the primates branch.

Yes totally natural and I've seen several events of homosexual behaviour in dogs..... It isn't "normal" behaviour in the sense that it's outcome doesn't produce the results nature wants. If a species evolved to 100% homosexual then we all be bu**ered .

nature isn't perfect but outside of the human species they don't analyse themselves they just get on with doing what they have to do. Perhaps our ability to observe and analyse the world around us is detrimental in some ways.

Why isn't something that happens in nature not normal. It happens widely across a very wide range of species. To say it's not normal just because of a cultural interpretation that sexual behaviour is for reproduction is a bit outdated. Although I can quite understand that it'll take society a while to understand and accept this view. Culture is often slow to evolve.

just because of a cultural interpretation that sexual behaviour is for reproduction is a bit outdated.

I do love this term outdated!

Sexual behaviour was not created by cultures but through what we understand as biology.

meic wrote:

just because of a cultural interpretation that sexual behaviour is for reproduction is a bit outdated.

I do love this term outdated!

Sexual behaviour was not created by cultures but through what we understand as biology.

Bit of both, surely.

Yes, you are quite right the behaviour is the result of culture having restrained or redirected the natural urges.
I was thinking more about the natural tendencies and urges supplied by our nature before culture gets its hands on them.

Tangled Metal wrote:Why isn't something that happens in nature not normal

You have to be so careful with wording around here. For our species we procreate by a males interaction with a female( don't bring up test tube fertilisation or sperm donors ). What I was getting at is the fact that as long as that happens in the species we will continue and if there are a percentage of the population whose desires will never see them behave in that way it will not affect us as a species, there will still be a majority who are producing the next generation.

Yes there may be hermaphrodites etc in some species and thats how they've evolved..... but the critical point is that they multiply their species by that means. We as a species don't and we rely on two members( or more ) of the opposite sex to get the result nature intends us to do. If changes happen in the long run that alter that situation then we could fade away at present it's not likely.

So I used the term "normal" to represent the majority of the species conforming to the required method to produce the next generation in the natural sense.

meic wrote:

just because of a cultural interpretation that sexual behaviour is for reproduction is a bit outdated.

I do love this term outdated!

Sexual behaviour was not created by cultures but through what we understand as biology.

Interpretation of sexual behaviour for reproduction is the cultural part. Should be clearer if you put the word "just" in front of reproduction. Act of reproduction is biology interpretation of it is cultural in that it imposes a view on the various actions. Well that's how I see it.

Isn't it also true that conception, gestation and birth isn't the whole story with regards to continuation of the species? There's nurture through to independence. AFAIK there's theories along the lines that homosexual activity in animal societies create bonds that benefit the continuation of the animal group's genes.

I don't know the details since I didn't hold any interest in it when a student of gender issues/researcher in gender studies gave me a lecture on the theories. Needless to say animal behaviourists who are not tied to cultural interpretations such as homosexual behaviour being just communes are finding increasing evidence of homosexuality in increasing numbers of species. There is even an evolutionary advantage.

I think we're probably still evolving our cultural ideas on identity, gender and sexuality. It's fluid so there's lots to debate on.