easy targets

male and female--these are the internal identifications of sexual identity, of which on its own we cannot come to a reasonably accurate estimation of which sex a particular self-identified individual is attracted to. hence we have additional modifiers for sexual preference: gay & straight. further compounding layers upon the issue are the existence of bisexuals and transsexuals, and the queer heterosexuals (dominant females and effeminate men). this apparent complexity which evades understanding is unlikely to be as one might say an obscure puzzle, but a simple phenomenon looked through a blurry lens occluded by false assumptions.

there may be many terms to sexually self identify and then claim a second identification of preference. but if for a moment we ignore the established practice associating the penis with aggressiveness and risk-taking and the breasts with nurturing and submissiveness thereby separating phenotype biology from emergent anthropological behaviour we find that many problems of understanding sexuality is a result of the false, yet rampant belief that males should be masculine and females, feminine. no doubt, one reason for the perpetuation of this belief is the fact that the respective words themselves originated in the same root. "why should we believe that males shouldnt be masculine, when the word masculine itself means of the male?" simple. because the existing belief impedes understanding of the phenomena. the removal of this belief brings focus into what is occuring, even if one still wishes to see the events as things which should not happen.

from where does the assumption come that a man must behave a certain way to be called a man, or a woman, to be called a woman? who is the judge that says you do not deserve your penis because you behave like those who have breasts? how is this judge special that he may ever deserve to be placed in such a powerful position? does he not have either the penis or the breasts? is he or she not the same as  you or me?

we all have a psychological identity and a biological identity. sometimes, a person may end up with two psychological identities, or in some cases two biological identities. who is to say that these two rarities cannot end up in the same person?  now if hermaphroditic bisexuals exist, who can say that a male psychological identity cannot exist from within a female biological identity? who can say that nature intends for all males to behave masculine and all females to behave feminine, without now appearing to be a fool spouting wasted words?

if one truly wishes to understand the phenomenon, one must discard preconceived notions of what the term nature's intention entails--this requires the belief that nature itself is an all-controlling entity which appropriately determines each human's representation in the sociosexual sphere--a logical fallacy in itself. first of all, there is no Mother Nature, only a cool name by which we can anthropomorphise the outward universe including everything single thing we have yet to find a way to explain. secondly, how can one expect the universal laws of cosmology to converge upon human beliefs of what is socially appropriate? Mother Nature is an entity which allows for the convenient attribution of blame for when we experience things we cant agree with, eg "wow that guy is queer. Mother Nature must have really screwed up at his birth."

many times the criteria which man has used to determine right from wrong is itself, wrong. we determine something is abnormal simply by identifying a minority from within a majority, which to me is veiled stupidity. so sorry, until you prove that this guy doesnt serve a purpose to at least one other human being, there is no screw up.

a "normal" person who marginalizes and attacks an "abnormal"--that's a screw up.