# California Court SHUTS DOWN Transgender Pronoun Law



## Valwinz (Jul 24, 2021)

https://www.theblaze.com/news/california-trans-pronouns-free-speech


> A California Appeals court just shut down a law criminalizing misgendering in nursing homes. The court suggests that the first amendment still applies and the law requiring nursing home workers to use preferred pronouns was too restrictive on their right to speak. -



I guess California is not a lost cause


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 24, 2021)

Not only will I call Caetlyn Jenner "her" I will call her Governor _(Yes I stole that joke)._

I am going to say what is apparent to me, I am not adding nonsense words to my lexicon.  Humans are a dimorphic species and feelings and perceptions are not going to be policed by the state.

If you want to be called "her" and someone calls you "him" it's not their fault your failing at being trans.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jul 24, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Not only will I call Caetlyn Jenner "her" I will call her Governor _(Yes I stole that joke)._
> 
> I am going to say what is apparent to me, I am not adding nonsense words to my lexicon.  Humans are a dimorphic species and feelings and perceptions are not going to be policed by the state.
> 
> If you want to be called "her" and someone calls you "him" it's not their fault your failing at being trans.


I like this, but at the same time not.

Like, don't care if people is _*whatever*, _just *dont make me refer to you by a specific noun... it's enough trouble for me to type in another language... most of the times I'll forget it.

*


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 29, 2021)

Good. Feeding into peoples delusional state of mind isn't going to help them in the long run.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Humans are a dimorphic species



With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.
Gender and sex are two different things.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Good. Feeding into peoples delusional state of mind isn't going to help them in the long run.


Being transgender isn't "a delusional state of mind." People who are transgender perfectly acknowledge that their gender identity doesn't comport with their biological sex.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Good. Feeding into peoples delusional state of mind isn't going to help them in the long run.


Outside of the fact that actual research has shown that respecting trans people drastically reduces mental stress on them. So the only real delusional state is those who think being transphobic is somehow accomplishing anything.
https://news.utexas.edu/2018/03/30/name-use-matters-for-transgender-youths-mental-health/
https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/2019-05/Transgender people and suicide fact sheet.pdf
https://www.childtrends.org/blog/research-shows-the-risk-of-misgendering-transgender-youth
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...en-names-may-lower-suicide-risk-idUSKBN1HH2WH
Trans people shouldn't be disrespected, especially when they are at their most vulnerable. It's disturbing that people would deliberately disrespect anyone, especially the people they are supposed to be taking care of. It is malpractice to deliberately mistreat people in nursing homes and the elderly should be taken care of.


Lacius said:


> With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.
> Gender and sex are two different things.
> 
> Being transgender isn't "a delusional state of mind." People who are transgender perfectly acknowledge that their gender identity doesn't comport with their biological sex.


On an interesting note, I am actually intersex. That was something I found out rather recently but had suspected for many years based on some personal details.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.
> Gender and sex are two different things.
> Being transgender isn't "a delusional state of mind." People who are transgender perfectly acknowledge that their gender identity doesn't comport with their biological sex.





It's not any different than any other psychiatric dysphoria, and I reject politicized redefinition of words like gender.

If an adult who think's he is a parrot wants to cut his ears off or someone wants to remove their genitals whatever makes them happy but I draw the line at being compelled legally/civilly to acknowledge someone is a biological parrot.


----------



## Viri (Jul 30, 2021)

*calls everyone in this thread by the incorrect pronoun*


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

This thread is dumb, don't even know why this is newsworthy.


----------



## Goku1992A (Jul 30, 2021)

I may get spit on lol but I'm still standing firm there is only a male and female.

Now if that man/woman wants to sleep with the same sex that's their choice. If they want to change their "identity" once again their choice. I'm not homophobic or transphobic all I'm saying is just give the LGBT community their own section. Give them their own sports, TV Shows, bathroom and etc..etc..

Now when you are mixing Transgender with the opposite sex bathrooms and having them play on the opposite sports THEN it creates a problem. You can't have a biological male who is transgender playing on the girls sports team because that's not fair to the biological girls and the same thing applies to the bathrooms because it creates discomfort. 

Nothing wrong with being on TV shows with other heterosexuals' and etc..etc.. but you have to put limits on everything. 

That's why the age of consent was created. Just google predator poachers and you will see what I mean


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 30, 2021)

Not sure what people are going to do, when body modification become even more advance.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 30, 2021)

They need the like button to have an emoticon (thumbs up or laugh associated with) cause a lot of people just make me laugh even if I agree/disagree/don't care with their comment.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 30, 2021)

I call people by their preferred pronouns whenever they ask, but expecting and legally requiring everyone to do so, especially old people in nursing homes is ridiculous.

I reeeeally feel like this law was just proposed as bait to make the whole cause look bad and authoritarian. There is no better way to make your opposition angry than to try to take away their right to be angry.


----------



## RocaBOT (Jul 30, 2021)

Oh good, a thread to assemble all the transphobic peeps of this place in one spot so I can ignore them all at the same time, so sweet


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not any different than any other psychiatric dysphoria, and I reject politicized redefinition of words like gender.
> 
> If an adult who think's he is a parrot wants to cut his ears off or someone wants to remove their genitals whatever makes them happy but I draw the line at being compelled legally/civilly to acknowledge someone is a biological parrot.


Of course you are still using otherkins, lol. You are so pathetic and predictable. Otherkins don’t disprove trans people, period


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not any different than any other psychiatric dysphoria, and I reject politicized redefinition of words like gender.
> 
> If an adult who think's he is a parrot wants to cut his ears off or someone wants to remove their genitals whatever makes them happy but I draw the line at being compelled legally/civilly to acknowledge someone is a biological parrot.\


Are you arguing that things like hairstyle, clothes, etc. are biologically innate? How progressive of you, Jimbo.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Of course you are still using otherkins, lol. You are so pathetic and predictable. Otherkins don’t disprove trans people, period



Trans species & racial is entirely as valid as gender. Like I said it's all just different symptomatic expressions of dysphoria.



Lacius said:


> Are you arguing that things like hairstyle, clothes, etc. are biologically innate? How progressive of you, Jimbo.



Said nothing of the sort.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Said nothing of the sort.


You seemed to imply there's no difference between biological sex and gender. Do you acknowledge there is, in fact, a difference? Either way, how progressive of you, Jimbo.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You seemed to imply there's no difference between biological sex and gender. Do you acknowledge there is, in fact, a difference? Either way, how progressive of you, Jimbo.



You seem to not understand when I clearly stated I am not adopting the Newspeak definition of gender.

A synonym is a word, morpheme, or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word, morpheme, or phrase in the same language. For example, the words begin, start, commence, and initiate are all synonyms of one another; they are synonymous


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> You seem to not understand when I clearly stated I am not adopting the Newspeak definition of gender.
> 
> A synonym is a word, morpheme, or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word, morpheme, or phrase in the same language. For example, the words begin, start, commence, and initiate are all synonyms of one another; they are synonymous


Are you saying gender and sex are synonymous? If so, then my previous post commending you for your progressive stance of saying things like hairstyle, clothes, etc. are biologically innate stands.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> You seem to not understand when I clearly stated I am not adopting the Newspeak definition of gender.


Jesus Christ dude language grows and evolves all the time. The term gender doesn't mean the same thing it did 5 years ago which didn't mean the same thing it meant 5 years before that which didn't mean the same thing it meant 50 years before that. Language is always growing and changing, adapting with the times. Newspeak was a term invented by some writer for his fictional book, it has no actual bearing on how language works. The term gender doesn't mean the same thing across contemporary cultures, it's all relative.

You have every right to misinterpret or ignore the current Oxford definition of gender but doing so while spouting terms from a book you've never read to justify sticking your head in the sand is silly. It's not newspeak, it's not propaganda, it's just one term that we use to better communicate our social identities, identities that always grow and change with the times and with culture, just like language.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2021)

Valwinz and Jimbo should go start their own AM radio show for boomers.  I'm sure it'd do well.  They could have Tabzer on as a guest every now and then.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Valwinz and Jimbo should go start their own AM radio show for boomers.  I'm sure it'd do well.  They could have Tabzer on as a guest every now and then.


The Rush Limbaugh Show 2: Electric Boogaloo


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Valwinz and Jimbo should go start their own AM radio show for boomers.  I'm sure it'd do well.  They could have Tabzer on as a guest every now and then.





Seliph said:


> The Rush Limbaugh Show 2: Electric Boogaloo


No, @tabzer is the muffled call-in listener with dogs barking in the background.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Jesus Christ dude language grows and evolves all the time. The term gender doesn't mean the same thing it did 5 years ago .



It does in this household and I am not going to be compelled to change my usage.

5 years or 50 years from now Water will still be wet as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> It does in this household and I am not going to be compelled to change my usage.
> 
> 5 years or 50 years from now Water will still be wet as far as I am concerned.


That's progressive of you to say demonstrably nonbiological traits like clothes and hairstyle are actually biological traits linked to biological sex.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> demonstrably nonbiological traits like clothes and hairstyle are actually biological traits linked to biological sex.



That's beneath your typical well thought out posts to continually attribute claims to me which I did not make, I'll just take it as victory that you didn't have a coherent point and had to muck in the gutter.


----------



## Sarugetchu (Jul 30, 2021)

California is like Texas and Florida. they'll do a bunch of stupid shit but then will do something smart. I wouldn't say none of the states are listed as lost causes but are basically our Doctor Jecker and Mr. Hyde. I may have spelled that wrong but meh. Still, I stress people not misgendering someone to be a dick. Don't be an asshole as misgendering can be annoying. I am not even trans but it pisses me off people think I'm a girl because of my female avatars even though I got pictures of myself showing I'm a male.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 30, 2021)

The ruling basically says: deadname the fuck away. It's "free speech"

Making it a "law" to pronoun people correctly was a bit much


----------



## Nincompoopdo (Jul 30, 2021)

Wouldn't it be easier to call everyone 'it' - like animals?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> That's beneath your typical well thought out posts to continually attribute claims to me which I did not make, I'll just take it as victory that you didn't have a coherent point and had to muck in the gutter.


Are you saying biological sex is or isn't the same as gender?


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> 5 years or 50 years from now Water will still be wet as far as I am concerned.



Actually um.

Water isn't wet Jimbo. 

Wet is what happens when water (or any other liquid) gets on something.

Since water is already a liquid you can't actually just make it wet, you could freeze it into a solid like ice and pour water onto that ice to make it wet, but at that point, it isn't water anymore until it melts back into a liquid.

I'm sorry to inform you.

Of course, the whole water is/isn't wet debate is just that, a debate. You could realistically argue for either side. The term wet means different things to different people, there is no one way of defining it. The point is, again, everything is relative. Gender, like the wetness of water, is all relative. And it's up to you to decide whether you wanna be an asshole about it or if you wanna actually bother to learn something new. When you meet actual trans people in real life none of this stuff matters, just like whether water is or isn't wet. All that matters is that we communicate with each other, and gender (more specifically gender presentation) is just one of those methods used to communicate with other people, a social construct.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Trans species & racial is entirely as valid as gender. Like I said it's all just different symptomatic expressions of dysphoria.


You have no idea what you are going on about it’s funny as fuck. Otherkins are not trans, aren’t part of the trans community, there’s no science neither medical, psychological, biological, nor any idea the sort behind otherkins. It was a trend that barely even exists these days and has never been consider part of the trans community. Quite honestly it’s obvious that you don’t know shit and just think you do. You are pathetic and predictable, you’ve been saying the same obviously garbage nonsense for years and it that doesn’t give it credence.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You have no idea what you are going on about it’s funny as fuck. Otherkins are not trans, aren’t part of the trans community, there’s no science neither medical, psychological, biological, nor any idea the sort behind otherkins. It was a trend that barely even exists these days and has never been consider part of the trans community. Quite honestly it’s obvious that you don’t know shit and just think you do. You are pathetic and predictable, you’ve been saying the same obviously garbage nonsense for years and it that doesn’t give it credence.




Maybe you should take some of your own advice and stop dismissing peoples identity, if someone say's they are a parrot born in a human body it's just as valid as anyone else's claims of what's going on in their head.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yvwknv/what-does-it-mean-to-be-trans-species

Quit being transphobic.


----------



## Goku1992A (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Are you saying biological sex is or isn't the same as gender?



Let's spin this around are you saying it would be okay for an 18 year old man to date an 13 year old girl just because that girls "thinks" she is mature enough to date an 18 year old? Because it's kinda the same thing here.

It's like saying it's okay for a transgender woman to play on the all girls soccer team when it really isn't she needs to play with other transgender women.

This is what I'm trying to point out.  Nothing wrong with being transgender and etc..etc.. but you have to place a limit.

If I dig deeper is like saying it's okay with a transgender woman to shower in the girls lockroom with girls there is some things you can't escape and this is one of them.  I feel the goverment needs to give transgender equal rights and give them the appropriate sports, bathrooms, and etc..etc.. so they wont feel left out.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> Let's spin this around are you saying it would be okay for an 18 year old man to date an 13 year old girl just because that girls "thinks" she is mature enough to date an 18 year old? Because it's kinda the same thing here.


Let's spin this around are you saying it would be okay for a thief to steal a car just because that thief "thinks" he owns the car? Because it's kinda the same thing here.

See I can make up unrelated hypotheticals too! Saying what you said is the same type of fake gotcha as saying "oh you like dogs? Well Hitler liked dogs too so you must be a Nazi!" It's just a weird thing to say. Gender and age are entirely different things, no one is "transage", millions of people _are _transgender and have been for as long as people have existed. Your comparison is just an attempt to demonize trans people by making a weird comparison between being transgender and participating in a pedophilic relationship. There is zero correlation and it's really weird that you're trying to make that type of correlation because you are on a website and in a community with several trans people in it who deserve the respect you clearly don't have for them. How would you feel if I said the same types of things about you? Probably not great. Grow up dude.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Maybe you should take some of your own advice and stop dismissing peoples identity, if someone say's they are a parrot born in a human body it's just as valid as anyone else's claims of what's going on in their head.
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en/article/yvwknv/what-does-it-mean-to-be-trans-species
> 
> Quit being transphobic.


Lol, a fucking vice article, that’s your “gotcha?” You posted a vice article. Do you have any actual evidence for your bullshit or are you just hoping that saying “otherkins” is a good enough argument? 



Goku1992A said:


> Let's spin this around are you saying it would be okay for an 18 year old man to date an 13 year old girl just because that girls "thinks" she is mature enough to date an 18 year old? Because it's kinda the same thing here.
> 
> It's like saying it's okay for a transgender woman to play on the all girls soccer team when it really isn't she needs to play with other transgender women.
> 
> This is what I'm trying to point out.  Nothing wrong with being transgender and etc..etc.. but you have to place a limit.


This is a strawman and complete garbage, thanks for playing.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

I would be against laws that forces people to do stuff. If you can't force laws to make people take the vaccine then you can't force people to say certain words. The vaccine thread has me thinking that force is maybe not the best method.


----------



## Goku1992A (Jul 30, 2021)

Once again you guys are missing my point. I have no problem with LGBT and etc..etc.. what I'm saying is you can't expect other people to be comfortable with a transgender woman showring in the same lockeroom with girls or playing on the same sports team as girls....Boys shower with boys.... girls shower with girls... and transgender shower with transgender it's all about equality.  It's all about boundaries and respect for one another that is what I'm trying to say...

That's why I brought up the 13 year old and the 18 year old because this happened recently where a 12 year old was pregnant by a 24 year old and the guy didn't see nothing wrong with it but the public did. That guy needs to be with people his own age not someone who is 12 years old....

The issue is the government  hasn't fully address LGBT rights/laws which is why there is conflict and etc..etc. once the laws are addressed things would get better.

If I attempt to go into a women's restroom alleging I'm transgender I would be arrested.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> That's why I brought up the 13 year old and the 18 year old because this happened recently where a 12 year old was pregnant by a 24 year old and the guy didn't see nothing wrong with it but the public did. That guy needs to be with people his own age not someone who is 12 years old....
> 
> If I attempt to go into a women's restroom alleging I'm transgender I would be arrested.


So you are comparing pedophilia to being trans and using a series of strawman arguments. Gotcha.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not any different than any other psychiatric dysphoria, and I reject politicized redefinition of words like gender.
> 
> If an adult who think's he is a parrot wants to cut his ears off or someone wants to remove their genitals whatever makes them happy but I draw the line at being compelled legally/civilly to acknowledge someone is a biological parrot.



What I find interesting about the latest DSM reclassification of gender dysphoria is that it was reclassified for political purposes with objections from the actual psychiatrists that were in charge of the entire transsexual criteria. The left basically used their political power to further divide the rest of us using the trans people as pawns. I'm going to stick with the prior DSM classification as that's what the psychiatrists who authored the section say is the best thing to do. It's funny that the psychiatrists who objected to the change were labeled as transphobic when they were simply objecting to the politicization of the topic.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> What I find interesting about the latest DSM reclassification of gender dysphoria is that it was reclassified for political purposes with objections from the actual psychiatrists that were in charge of the entire transsexual criteria. The left basically used their political power to further divide the rest of us using the trans people as pawns. I'm going to stick with the prior DSM classification as that's what the psychiatrists who authored the section say is the best thing to do. It's funny that the psychiatrists who objected to the change were labeled as transphobic when they were simply objecting to the politicization of the topic.


Source for this? Always curious to learn more.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> What I find interesting about the latest DSM reclassification of gender dysphoria is that it was reclassified for political purposes with objections from the actual psychiatrists that were in charge of the entire transsexual criteria. The left basically used their political power to further divide the rest of us using the trans people as pawns. I'm going to stick with the prior DSM classification as that's what the psychiatrists who authored the section say is the best thing to do. It's funny that the psychiatrists who objected to the change were labeled as transphobic when they were simply objecting to the politicization of the topic.


Everything is political you dweeb, especially science and definitions. The previous definition of gender dysphoria was political as well.

Regardless, the exact opposite of what you said could be true as well. A significant amount of psychiatrists, both transgender and cisgender also pushed for the new definition, that's why it's the new definition.

You don't even need dysphoria to be trans anyways, you could just want to be a different gender than the one assigned to you at birth and that's totally fine. There's no need for it to be medicalized just as homosexuality shouldn't be medicalized either. Trans people have written abundant and well-sourced works about who they are, I think they can define themselves better than any transphobic psychiatrists could do. Simple as that.

Edit: whoopsies forgot you blocked me lol. Unblock me coward


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Maybe you should take some of your own advice and stop dismissing peoples identity, if someone say's they are a parrot born in a human body it's just as valid as anyone else's claims of what's going on in their head.
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en/article/yvwknv/what-does-it-mean-to-be-trans-species





Seliph said:


> Everything is political you dweeb, especially science and definitions. The previous definition of gender dysphoria was political as well.
> 
> Regardless, the exact opposite of what you said could be true as well. A significant amount of psychiatrists, both transgender and cisgender also pushed for the new definition, that's why it's the new definition.
> 
> You don't even need dysphoria to be trans anyways, you could just want to be a different gender than the one assigned to you at birth and that's totally fine. There's no need for it to be medicalized just as homosexuality shouldn't be medicalized either. Trans people have written abundant and well-sourced works about who they are, I think they can define themselves better than any transphobic psychiatrists could do. Simple as that.



Homosexuals aren't asking for tax payer funded surgeries and hormone treatments, we don't socialize the burden of cosmetic surgeries and hormones treatments are not authorized cause "I want to".


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

I'm all for calling people by whatever it is they prefer, but I do think it's silly to criminally go after anyone that uses the wrong words.  

Just treat each other with respect, if we all just did that then such silly laws would never even have to be proposed to begin with.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> I'm all for calling people by whatever it is they prefer, but I do think it's silly to criminally go after anyone that uses the wrong words.
> 
> Just treat each other with respect, if we all just did that then such silly laws would never even have to be proposed to begin with.



Most people are, the problem is passing laws to allow lawsuits and criminalize everyone from people intentionally being a prick to those who just made an honest mistake based on what was apparent to them.

If you want people think your a woman fine, easier solution than thought police is don't walk around the sauna with your pecker out.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 30, 2021)

ChronoTrig said:


> Source for this? Always curious to learn more.



Here's what I could find right now. I had to dig up what I could because most of what I remember that happened has been long lost to the Internets. Basically, this psychologist who helped author the DSM-V section on transsexuals stated in a row of tweets that he objected to the reclassification and that it was done for political purposes. I came to find this out because Twitter banned him or what not (I don't have a Twitter account) because of his actual opinions on transgenderism. I admit I couldn't find his exact objections to the reclassification, but it all surrounded the events linked to below.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...ing-clinical-opinion-on-transgenderism-n65799


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Most people are, the problem is passing laws to allow lawsuits and criminalize everyone from people intentionally being a prick to those who just made an honest mistake based on what was apparent to them.
> 
> If you want people think your a woman fine, easier solution than thought police is don't walk around the sauna with your pecker out.



I mostly agree.  I think it's dumb to prosecute bullies for being bullies (non physical ones that is), because these people already clearly live sad lives, no one just decides one day that they're specifically going to be an asshole toward one person or group of people without having some shitty thing happen in their upbringing.  Having said that, it truly is super lame to take out your problems on another person or people.  It probably is too much to ask such people to treat others with respect, for the most part they're never gonna change their ways.  Normal people will distance themselves from such assholes, and they'll just be left with other like minded assholes feeling miserable.  I'd say that should be punishment enough for being a bully in life, but it's still a shame that there has to be collateral damage for such self punishments to ever take hold.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Most people are, the problem is passing laws to allow lawsuits and criminalize everyone from people intentionally being a prick to those who just made an honest mistake based on what was apparent to them.
> 
> If you want people think your a woman fine, easier solution than thought police is don't walk around the sauna with your pecker out.



What I find more alarming regarding this topic is the reaction from the person or persons being misgendered. They freak out, attack you, call for you to be censored or banned and then make it their purpose to harass you into submission. That's not the behavior of someone who is tolerant of others. The shit goes both ways.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> No, @tabzer is the muffled call-in listener with dogs barking in the background.



Since you asked fo my 2 cents:  gender is a representation of biological sex.  If your gender doesn't match your sex, then you are akin to catfishing, or directly misleading society.  It's morally repugnant to mislead people.  As a joke, or an art form--that is honest, it can be appreciated.  If you want to conceal your sex, for whatever reason, that is at least more self-representing.  But playing dressup in society and wanting everyone to respect your roleplay makes you a joke by definition.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Here's what I could find right now. I had to dig up what I could because most of what I remember that happened has been long lost to the Internets. Basically, this psychologist who helped author the DSM-V section on transsexuals stated in a row of tweets that he objected to the reclassification and that it was done for political purposes. I came to find this out because Twitter banned him or what not (I don't have a Twitter account) because of his actual opinions on transgenderism. I admit I couldn't find his exact objections to the reclassification, but it all surrounded the events linked to below.
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...ing-clinical-opinion-on-transgenderism-n65799


gender dysphoria which not all trans suffer from, from what I know


Ray Blanchard still supports transition surgery and trans


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Since you asked fo my 2 cents:  gender is a representation of biological sex.  If your gender doesn't match your sex, then you are akin to catfishing, or directly misleading society.  It's morally repugnant to mislead people.  As a joke, or an art form--that is honest, can be appreciated.  If you want to conceal your sex, for whatever reason, that is at least more self-representing.  But playing dressup in society and wanting everyone to respect your roleplay makes you a joke by definition.



Genuine question: why do you care?  Like if people want to be perceived as a gender that they weren't born as, what difference does it make to you that that is their preference?  That makes them a joke to you?  That's cool, not saying you can't feel that way, but... why do you care?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Since you asked fo my 2 cents:  gender is a representation of biological sex.  If your gender doesn't match your sex, then you are akin to catfishing, or directly misleading society.  It's morally repugnant to mislead people.  As a joke, or an art form--that is honest, it can be appreciated.  If you want to conceal your sex, for whatever reason, that is at least more self-representing.  But playing dressup in society and wanting everyone to respect your roleplay makes you a joke by definition.


Why do you care, for example, if someone born biologically male wears a dress?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Why do you care, for example, if someone born biologically male wears a dress?



I don't really care that much but I have thoughts about it.  I do have concerns for future generations.  The only reason I'm here is because you tagged me, suggesting you wanted my perspective.

If I'm seeking a mate, and male tries to seduce me via dressing for their own kicks, I would be disgusted with them.

I also don't care much for the Kardashians or S. Korean plastic surgery culture for similar kinds  of reasons.




MikaDubbz said:


> That makes them a joke to you?



It is a joke, by definition.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

RocaBOT said:


> Oh good, a thread to assemble all the transphobic peeps of this place in one spot so I can ignore them all at the same time, so sweet


That’s the worst best part of these threads. Transphobic assholes expose themselves, which only helps to know who to ignore. Sure, it’s exposure to transphobia but it’s also a means of preventing yourself from dealing with it in the future


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It is a joke, by definition.


Sorry, that was a rhetorical, "That makes them a joke to you?" Note how I immediately follow that up with: "That's cool, not saying you can't feel that way, but... why do you care?" I was really just acknowledging that's how you feel, not actually asking if that actually does make them a joke to you.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 30, 2021)

SG854 said:


> gender dysphoria which not all trans suffer from, from what I know
> 
> 
> Ray Blanchard still supports transition surgery and trans



I never said that he doesn't support trans. I mean, he was one of the main authors of the DSM-V criteria for trans. I would have never run across his opinions if Twitter didn't ban him for saying that performing sex change surgery on kids is wrong. His comments started a firestorm for a few weeks and during that time I read more of his comments and that's when I discovered he wasn't alright with the reclassification. I feel stupid now that I can't find his exact tweet or tweets.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't really care that much but I have thoughts about it.  I do have concerns for future generations.  The only reason I'm here is because you tagged me, suggesting you wanted my perspective.
> 
> If I'm seeking a mate, and male tries to seduce me via dressing for their own kicks, I would be disgusted with them.
> 
> ...


Lacius likes you. He enjoys your company and your insights


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 30, 2021)

I guess with everything being said, is there an acceptable age to let a child have a sex change so they can better identify with what they identify as?
I was reading last year there's been a lot of children who have had the surgery and regretted it. I apologize for not having a source for this information.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I never said that he doesn't support trans. I mean, he was one of the main authors of the DSM-V criteria for trans. I would have never run across his opinions if Twitter didn't ban him for saying that performing sex change surgery on kids is wrong. His comments started a firestorm for a few weeks and during that time I read more of his comments and that's when I discovered he wasn't alright with the reclassification. I feel stupid now that I can't find his exact tweet or tweets.


I felt I had to say it more for me, so that people reading knows that I'm interpreting what he says correctly.

But I agree that the activists got a little crazy which got him banned on Twitter. He is one of the main guys behind DSM and the trans task force. People needs to go through testing to see if there's any mental problems, or other health issues that people may mistake for gender dysphoria before they can consider transitioning.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ChronoTrig said:


> I guess with everything being said, is there an acceptable age to let a child have a sex change so they can better identify with what they identify as?
> I was reading last year there's been a lot of children who have had the surgery and regretted it. I apologize for not having a source for this information.


The opinion of some psychiatrists is around 21ish


----------



## WG481 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.
> Gender and sex are two different things.




1. According to studies, approximately 1 in one hundred are intersex. Being closer to about 78,000,000:7,800,000,000. Thus, the truth. We can't forget biologically genderless either, which is INFINITELY more rare in terms of biology. In terms of identity, no.
2. Fair, if you look at them as separate things in the first place. Sex being your 23rd being XY, XX, XXY, XYY, XYX, etc, and gender being the role society wants you to have (however, it's more common to use gender role instead of gender.) This is not a disagreement, merely a conflict of terms.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 30, 2021)

ChronoTrig said:


> I guess with everything being said, is there an acceptable age to let a child have a sex change so they can better identify with what they identify as?
> I was reading last year there's been a lot of children who have had the surgery and regretted it. I apologize for not having a source for this information.



Ray Blanchard was attacked by the Left for stating that anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't get sex change surgery. The article I linked to describes how kids as young as 8 are being forced to have their balls cut off. I agree with him that 21 is a good age. I would hate to see a young kid get caught up in the hype or have parents who force them into having surgery only to later in life realize that the sex that they were born as is their actual sex and there's no way to change that. Call me phobic, I don't care. I don't believe that you can change your biological sex, especially by simply taking dangerous drugs and mutilating your body.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't really care that much but I have thoughts about it.  I do have concerns for future generations.  The only reason I'm here is because you tagged me, suggesting you wanted my perspective.
> 
> If I'm seeking a mate, and male tries to seduce me via dressing for their own kicks, I would be disgusted with them.
> 
> ...


It's completely arbitrary who wears dresses, so why is it detrimental to "future generations" if someone wears a dress?


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Ray Blanchard was attacked by the Left for stating that anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't get sex change surgery. The article I linked to describes how kids as young as 8 are being forced to have their balls cut off. I agree with him that 21 is a good age. I would hate to see a young kid get caught up in the hype or have parents who force them into having surgery only to later in life realize that the sex that they were born as is their actual sex and there's no way to change that. Call me phobic, I don't care. I don't believe that you can change your biological sex, especially by simply taking dangerous drugs and mutilating your body.


I agree that it can be extremely life altering if a person changes their mind or is pushed into it. That's a big question mark.
I'm honestly not sure what number I'd state as an age that's appropriate since each individual has a different mentality at which they grow. A 13 year old could be more precocious than a 16 year old. I was curious what Lacius, Lilith, Seliph had as age requirements since they have more input on being for it.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Ray Blanchard was attacked by the Left for stating that anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't get sex change surgery. The article I linked to describes how kids as young as 8 are being forced to have their balls cut off. I agree with him that 21 is a good age. I would hate to see a young kid get caught up in the hype or have parents who force them into having surgery only to later in life realize that the sex that they were born as is their actual sex and there's no way to change that. Call me phobic, I don't care. I don't believe that you can change your biological sex, especially by simply taking dangerous drugs and mutilating your body.


Not only Ray Blanchard but some of the activists also attacked other Phychiatrists and many of them were afraid to speak out. They were getting death threats and being harrased.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

They stood quiet because they didn't want to loose their jobs and financial support.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's completely arbitrary who wears dresses, so why is it detrimental to "future generations" if someone wears a dress?



It's not completely arbitrary, as social norms and function are surely considered in a decision.  "It is detrimental to 'future generations' if someone wears a dress" is you inserting a strawman in response to what I actually said.


----------



## Goku1992A (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Ray Blanchard was attacked by the Left for stating that anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't get sex change surgery. The article I linked to describes how kids as young as 8 are being forced to have their balls cut off. I agree with him that 21 is a good age. I would hate to see a young kid get caught up in the hype or have parents who force them into having surgery only to later in life realize that the sex that they were born as is their actual sex and there's no way to change that. Call me phobic, I don't care. I don't believe that you can change your biological sex, especially by simply taking dangerous drugs and mutilating your body.



There is an unwritten rule that people are missing. Being LGBTQ is considered as an endangered species if people think about it. Somewhere down the line you need to have a man and a woman to reproduce because if you don't then that group will be extinct. Remember many men who are homosexual may still have wives and families and some transgender are only transgender for short periods of time which is why the logic will always be flawed because that specific group doesn't reproduce.  If everyone followed that path then it would die out in 200 years tops but once again down the mix heterosexuality  keeps it alive.

LGBTQ lives on heterosexuality because without it the group will die within less than 100 years not everyone in the group is following the rules.

Homosexuality been around for 1000 of years if all men really stuck to what they said then that would have been died out long time ago but some men go both ways and it lives on and on. I'm pretty sure there were trans 1000 of years ago nothing is new. All I'm saying if people really lived what they represent the group would have died out long ago.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's completely arbitrary who wears dresses, so why is it detrimental to "future generations" if someone wears a dress?



Not true, gender specific fashion evolved due what was functional based on biology.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> There is an unwritten rule that people are missing. Being LGBTQ is considered as an endangered species if people think about it. Somewhere down the line you need to have a man and a woman to reproduce because if you don't then that group will be extinct. Remember many men who are homosexual may still have wives and families and some transgender are only transgender for short periods of time which is why the logic will always be flawed because that specific group doesn't reproduce.  If everyone followed that path then it would die out in 200 years tops but once again down the mix heterosexuality  keeps it alive.
> 
> LGBTQ lives on heterosexuality because without it the group will die within less than 100 years not everyone in the group is following the rules.


Where does the rule part kick in? LGBTQ was never considered an endangered species. They existed for centuries and will exist centuries more.


----------



## Goku1992A (Jul 30, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Where does the rule part kick in? LGBTQ was never considered an endangered species. They existed for centuries and will exist centuries more.



This is what I mean.... let's just say there were 4 people. 2 men and 2 women that were considered gay/lesbian. Technically speaking if the opposite sex don't mate they would die out but down the road they mated. So what I'm saying is some men/women who liked the same sex still reproduced with the opposite sex because if they only stuck to the same sex then LGBTQ wouldn't have made it passed the first 100 years. 

To further clarify you can have a man with a wife and 4 kids in the day but at night he likes other men or labels himself has transgender. I hope that made sense.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's not completely arbitrary, as social norms and function are surely considered in a decision.  "It is detrimental to 'future generations' if someone wears a dress" is you inserting a strawman in response to what I actually said.


The fact that some people wear dresses and some don't as a social norm is arbitrary.

If you don't think certain people wearing dresses is detrimental to future generations, then I am unsure why you brought up concern for future generations as a consequence of certain people wearing dresses.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jimbo13 said:


> Not true, gender specific fashion evolved due what was functional based on biology.


What you call gender specific fashion varies depending on which society and which time period we are talking about. It's arbitrary, and there's nothing genetic about most of what we assign to genders.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> This is what I mean.... let's just say there were 4 people. 2 men and 2 women that were considered gay/lesbian. Technically speaking if the opposite sex don't mate they would die out but down the road they mated. So what I'm saying is some men/women who liked the same sex still reproduced with the opposite sex because if they only stuck to the same sex then LGBTQ wouldn't have made it passed the first 100 years.
> 
> To further clarify you can have a man with a wife and 4 kids in the day but at night he likes other men or labels himself has transgender. I hope that made sense.


What



jimbo13 said:


> Not true, gender specific fashion evolved due what was functional based on biology.


What? Gender-specific fashion is entirely social-based, though mostly arbitrary. Across cultures you'll find men wearing dresses and women wearing pants or both wearing some form of dress or whatever, again, it's all relative to the culture. In Europe men were the first ones to wear high-heels, then they were mostly associated with women later on, now it really doesn't matter who wears them, though we still mostly associate them with women. You can find this is the case with many things. It's all social, not biological.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> This is what I mean.... let's just say there were 4 people. 2 men and 2 women that were considered gay/lesbian. Technically speaking if the opposite sex don't mate they would die out but down the road they mated. So what I'm saying is some men/women who liked the same sex still reproduced with the opposite sex because if they only stuck to the same sex then LGBTQ wouldn't have made it passed the first 100 years.
> 
> To further clarify you can have a man with a wife and 4 kids in the day but at night he likes other men or labels himself has transgender. I hope that made sense.


Do you believe that LGBT people don't come from cis heterosexual parents?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> LGBTQ lives on heterosexuality because without it the group will die within less than 100 years not everyone in the group is following the rules.


Put another way: we're all varying degrees of bisexual/down for whatever with whoever.  White people obviously still exist despite ancient Greece/Rome being *SUPER* gay.  I identify as cishet, but would I pass up a chance to diddle Ryan Gosling?  Fuck no.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The fact that some people wear dresses and some don't as a social norm is arbitrary.
> 
> If you don't think certain people wearing dresses is detrimental to future generations, then I am unsure why you brought up concern for future generations as a consequence of certain people wearing dresses.



What I get from this is that you think "social norms are arbitrary".  I disagree.  I think in terms of cause and effect.  You, wanting to call it random, seems to demonstrate an intent to ignore something that exists.

I made the point that the reason "certain" people wear a dress is in intent to dishonestly represent themselves.  I think that "normalizing" misrepresentation would have a negative impact on future generations.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Put another way: we're all varying degrees of bisexual/down for whatever with whoever.  White people obviously still exist despite ancient Greece/Rome being *SUPER* gay.  I identify as cishet, but would I pass up a chance to diddle Ryan Gosling?  Fuck no.


Ryan Gosling? Come on man


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Put another way: we're all varying degrees of bisexual/down for whatever with whoever.  White people obviously still exist despite ancient Greece/Rome being *SUPER* gay.  I identify as cishet, but would I pass up a chance to diddle Ryan Gosling?  Fuck no.



super ghey.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Ryan Gosling? Come on man


What?  He's cute and I respect his acting talent.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> What?  He's cute and I respect his acting talent.



I really like how he refuses to eat cereal.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> What?  He's cute and I respect his acting talent.


He's just... so basic.

Smh I can tell you aren't gay cuz then you'd have better taste in men


----------



## Goku1992A (Jul 30, 2021)

@Seliph
Well this is a general statement regardless if you are transgender or not.  Let's just say you are born and you have brothers and sisters. Remember you guys was born because your mom and dad had sex. Now if you nor your brother and sisters never have any children the family tree will end there will not be a future generation in your family tree. 

@Lacius 
A good percentage comes from heterosexual homes which isn't the problem I'm just making a point.... At some point heterosexuality is a vital necessity. Nothing wrong with being trans and etc..etc... but more than likely your bloodline will end with you unless you change your mind and reproduce.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I really like how he refuses to eat cereal.


I did not know that about him.  Maybe you're an even bigger fan?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I did not know that about him.  Maybe you're an even bigger fan?





You are totally missing out.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> At some point heterosexuality is a vital necessity.


Not really. Ever hear of a turkey baster baby and surrogate pregnancy? Reproduction with zero sex involved. Pretty common for couples that have problems having kids, especially gay (I'm using gay as a broad term since saying homosexual just sounds weird) couples. If all the straight people just died tomorrow we could have a world of gay people reproducing just fine. Also, trans gay people can sexually reproduce... so there's that too.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> He's just... so basic.
> 
> Smh I can tell you aren't gay cuz then you'd have better taste in men


Really?  Maybe now he's gone almost entirely mainstream, but he did a ton of memorable indie films starting out.  Obviously Keanu Reeves and Karl Urban are high up on my "gay pass" list too lol.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Not really. Ever hear of a turkey baster baby and surrogate pregnancy? Reproduction with zero sex involved. Pretty common for couples that have problems having kids, especially gay couples. If all the straight people just died tomorrow we could have a world of gay people reproducing just fine.



Masturbation is not sex guys!  Artificial sex is not real sex, either?

I can imagine that gay couples would have problems having kids.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The fact that some people wear dresses and some don't as a social norm is arbitrary.
> 
> If you don't think certain people wearing dresses is detrimental to future generations, then I am unsure why you brought up concern for future generations as a consequence of certain people wearing dresses.
> 
> ...



Nothing arbitrary about biology or the fashion that evolved to suit that biology.  Gendered behaviors evolved as they did due to practicality and necessity, sure a lot of it is trivial in a post technological society but these behaviors are ingrained in humans.

You don't have to go any further than the grocery store to see men and women still engaging in hunter/gathered activity, guys grabbing what they need and GTFO, women pushing around a empty basket blocking their gathering spot.

When I kick their basket out of the way it's common for me to return the dirty look with "move it berry picker, daddys hunting."


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Really?  Maybe now he's gone almost entirely mainstream, but he did a ton of memorable indie films starting out.  Obviously Keanu Reeves and Karl Urban are high up on my "gay pass" list too lol.


Hmmm... a bit better. I'll let it slide.


tabzer said:


> Masturbation is not sex guys!  Artificial sex is not real sex, either?
> 
> I can imagine that gay couples would have problems having kids.


Buddy what are you talking about


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Pretty common for couples that have problems having kids, especially gay couples.



How am I suppose to read that other than gay couples having trouble having kids?  Are they even trying?

Also, sexual reproduction is a must, over time, despite the method.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Masturbation is not sex guys!  Artificial sex is not real sex, either?
> 
> I can imagine that gay couples would have problems having kids.



If a woman found a glob of semen on the ground and rubbed that on her vagina, do you consider that sex?  Like don't get me wrong, a deed has been done that feasibly could potentially result in a child, something that requires sperm and an egg, but in that scenario, this would indeed be sexual reproduction, but that wouldn't be what anyone would call sex at all.  And I think that's the point they were making, yes a sperm and an egg are required for birth, they weren't denying that; but heterosexual sex as we know it?  Not really.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> If a woman found a glob of semen on the ground and rubbed that on her vagina, do you consider that sex?  Like don't get me wrong, a deed has been done that feasibly could potentially result in a child, something that requires sperm and an egg, but in that scenario, that wouldn't be what I'd call sex at all.  And I think that's the point they were making, yes a sperm and an egg are required for birth, they weren't denying that; but heterosexual sex as we know it?  Not really.



Sexual reproduction is sexual production.  If you want to rely on late-stage capitalism to utilize science to create babies for you so you can be gay without worry, then you do you.  AFAIK, the majority of the population aren't test-tube babies, so the idea that heterosexual relationships are sustaining the homosexual populations isn't "far out".   Even if the dream does become the reality, and test tubes create everyone, it's still heterosexualism that is propagating your lifestyle.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> How am I suppose to read that other than gay couples having trouble having kids?  Are they even trying?
> 
> Also, sexual reproduction is a must, over time, despite the method.


Gay couples generally cannot sexually reproduce...

There are non-sexual methods of reproduction. This is generally the way gay couples have kids. Like I said. These methods are well documented and easy to research.

I don't really wanna hear your opinions on sex, since that definitely doesn't seem to be your field of expertise.



tabzer said:


> the majority of the population aren't test-tube babies


Oh my god dude surrogate babies are not "test-tube babies" please stop talking about things you know nothing about. Straight people have been using surrogates as well for decades. It's awesome stuff.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Sexual reproduction is sexual production.  If you want to rely on late-stage capitalism to utilize science to create babies for you so you can be gay without worry, then you do you.  AFAIK, the majority of the population aren't test-tube babies, so the idea that heterosexual relationships are sustaining the homosexual populations isn't "far out".   Even if the dream does become the reality, and test tubes create everyone, it's still heterosexualism that is propagating your lifestyle.


I'm not gay, I'm just acknowledging that this idea that society needs heterosexuality to live on, really isn't true for an intelligent species such as ourselves at such a place in history.  It will certainly continue to be true, but feasibly we could all be gay and still make more babies.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

blep


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> There are non-sexual methods of reproduction.



How do you plan on reproducing?  Fission, budding, fragmentation, or parthenogenesis?  Otherwise it is going to be sexual.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> How do you plan on reproducing?  Fission, budding, fragmentation, or parthenogenesis?  Otherwise it is sexual.


Surrogacy dude. Like I said in my initial post.
https://www.circlesurrogacy.com/abo...t=Surrogacy is a method of,do so on their own.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Surrogacy dude. Like I said in my initial post.
> https://www.circlesurrogacy.com/about/what-is-surrogacy#:~:text=Surrogacy is a method of,do so on their own.



That is 100% reliant on sexual reproduction.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That is 100% reliant on sexual reproduction.


I would like to point out that this tangent started when Goku1992A said, "At some point heterosexuality is a vital necessity."  Which is when Seliph objected and said not really.  Seliph is absolutely correct to say not really as, heterosexuality is defined as "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of the opposite sex."  Note how no part of the definition describes procreation.  A sperm and an egg are needed for procreation, but no one has to be straight for that to happen.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That is 100% reliant on sexual reproduction.


At that point does that matter? There is no actual intercourse going on.

The point is, if a gay person wants to have a child with their partner, they can use a surrogate, no sexual contact has to be made whatsoever.

Now in this case you can technically call it "sexual reproduction" but this is still a method for gay couples to have their own kids, rendering the original point that I was countering moot. Again, if all straight people died tomorrow, gay people could still reproduce perfectly fine, no straights necessary. That was my original argument and I realize you've gotten me a bit off track. Is it sexual? Sure, but only in the most clinical way.

Anyways, personally for me I rely on mitosis baybeeeee


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> I would like to point out that this tangent started when Goku1992A said, "At some point heterosexuality is a vital necessity."  Which is when Seliph objected and said not really.  Seliph is absolutely correct to say not really as, heterosexuality is defined as "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of the opposite sex."  Note how no part of the definition describes procreation.  A sperm and an egg are needed for procreation, but no one has to be straight for that to happen.



Biologically speaking, the heterosexual sperm is attracted to the heterosexual egg.  Or maybe the egg just snatches it with its tentacles.

You need a female and a male to make babies.  That's hetero.  That's sex.  That's heterosex-uality.




Seliph said:


> this is still a method for gay couples to have their own kids



Lol, it's a method for gay couples to have someone else's kids.  If they want to program a genome and pretend that there is no sexuality involved, then they are still kidding themselves.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Biologically speaking, the heterosexual sperm is attracted to the heterosexual egg.  Or maybe the egg just snatches it with its tentacles.
> 
> You need a female and a male to make babies.  That's hetero.  That's sex.  That's heterosex-uality.



lol you're really trying your best not to be wrong here.  You know exactly the point being made here, heterosexuality is by definition: "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of the opposite sex."  So this thought that "At some point heterosexuality is a vital necessity." Is straight up wrong no matter how hard you try and change that narrative.  What you want Goku1992A to have started with was "At some point a sperm fertilizing an egg is a vital necessity."  But that simply is not what he said.


----------



## Seliph (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Biologically speaking, the heterosexual sperm is attracted to the heterosexual egg.  Or maybe the egg just snatches it with its tentacles.
> 
> You need a female and a male to make babies.  That's hetero.  That's sex.  That's heterosex-uality.
> 
> ...


At the end of the day, this really doesn't matter. None of this debate actually matters in real life. I'm still a lesbian if me and my girlfriend have a surrogate baby, and we would still always consider it definitely _our _kid. Surrogacy laws would legally make the child _our _kid. I don't care if the baby has a little bit of someone else's DNA, it is still _our _kid and I am still having *gay sex *with my girlfriend and neither of us is having any sexual contact with our surrogate. It will always be our kid and we will always be gay.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> lol you're really trying your best not to be wrong here.  You know exactly the point being made here, heterosexuality is by definition: "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of the opposite sex."  So this thought that "At some point heterosexuality is a vital necessity." Is straight up wrong no matter how hard you try and change that narrative.  What you want Goku1992A to have started with was "At some point a sperm fertilizing an egg is a vital necessity."  But that simply is not what he said.




Someone made the point that heteroesexuality is necessary for homosexual people to exist.  They aren't wrong.  There is no narrative of homosexual people reproducing without the hetero being a factor.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Someone made the point that heteroesexuality is necessary for homosexual people to exist.  They aren't wrong.  There is no narrative of homosexual people reproducing.



Doesn't really matter to the point at hand.  My point remains unchanged, if everyone went gay in the entire world, we could still procreate and create more gay babies who would grow up and procreate in the same way.  Heterosexuality isn't needed anymore.  Obviously it's not going anywhere, but we've long surpassed the point where, if heterosexuality somehow just disappeared entirely that humanity could no longer continue on with new generations.

Frankly what we should most fear in this regard is everyone suddenly becoming asexual lol.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Doesn't really matter to the point at hand.  My point remains unchanged, if everyone went gay in the entire world, we could still procreate and create more gay babies who would grow up and procreate in the same way.  Heterosexuality isn't needed anymore.  Obviously it's not going anywhere, but we've long surpassed the point where, if heterosexuality somehow just disappeared entirely that humanity could no longer continue on with new generations.



Okay, so that is your fantasy.  My point is that it deters from reality.

To entertain prospects of the future, you can probably be sure that there will be heterosexual and homosexual narratives in play when it comes to genome fabrication.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Okay, so that is your fantasy.  My point is that it deters from reality.
> 
> To entertain prospects of the future, you can probably be sure that there will be heterosexual and homosexual narratives in play when it comes to genome fabrication.



Dude, how did you not get that we were talking about this all on a philosophical level?  Obviously I'm not sitting here saying heterosexuality is dying out, but we'll be OK when we all go gay because of technology.  Like how stupid do you think I am?  I thought we were clearly talking on a philosophical level, we have reached a point where feasibly we theoretically could all be gay and humanity would live on, that's true no matter how you slice it.  Whether or not you want to acknowledge that truth is up to you I guess, it seems like just the thought scares you somehow?

Again though, if you wanna be scared by such a thought, concern yourself with the reality of us all suddenly becoming asexual.  Oh but don't get too lost in that thought, I wouldn't want you believing I think that's actually about to happen.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Dude, how did you not get that we were talking about this all on a philosophical level?  Obviously I'm not sitting here saying heterosexuality is dying out, but we'll be OK when we all go gay because of technology.  Like how stupid do you think I am?  I thought we were clearly talking on a philosophical level, we have reached a point where feasibly we theoretically could all be gay and humanity would live on, that's true no matter how you slice it.  Whether or not you want to acknowledge that truth is up to you I guess, it seems like just the thought scares you somehow?
> 
> Again though, if you wanna be scared by such a thought, concern yourself with the reality of us all suddenly becoming asexual.  Oh but don't get too lost in that thought, I wouldn't want you believing I think that's actually about to happen.



Philosophically speaking, the sperm and the egg, both being an aspect of the people, are attracted to each other.  Heterosexuality is inherent to all sexed people.  Being scared about it has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Philosophically speaking, the sperm and the egg, both being an aspect of the people, are attracted to each other.  Heterosexuality is inherent to all sexed people.  Being scared about it has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.


lol wow, I don't think I can with you anymore.  You can't even acknowledge that I've made a genuine point and you kinda didn't have a great argument yourself.  Whatever, I'm done, this has been exhausting and now you've just taken like 3 steps back.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> lol wow, I don't think I can with you anymore.  You can't even acknowledge that I've made a genuine point and you kinda didn't have a great argument yourself.  Whatever, I'm done, this has been exhausting and now you've just taken like 3 steps back.


You have made useless points that nobody can use.  Dreams will be dreams...


----------



## RocaBOT (Jul 30, 2021)

And there we go with stupid transphobic peeps believing that spermatozoids and eggs have sexual preferences. Way to go, it's roughly on the same level as believing that fleas will magically pop out of existence from your cat's insides with no previous contact or anything at all.
Between that and the one who firmly believes that fashion has an actual biological function when it clearly does not, seeing as it goes on and off between gender attribution every few centuries in most cultures, this thread is great, I'll give you that. A great show of denial and stupidity from people who go every now and again "I'm not X but (...)", which in most cases indicate that you are, indeed, X (where X can be anything from transphobic or racist or whatever to antivax or flat-earther)


----------



## duwen (Jul 30, 2021)

There are certain pronouns that you just can't go wrong with... I'm particularly fond of "Twat".



> respecting trans people drastically reduces mental stress on them


...this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in this thread - it implies trans people require *more* respect than 'normies'. Surely ALL people deserve respect and have less mental stress when they receive it, no?


----------



## BeniBel (Jul 30, 2021)

Society really is hurting people with gender dysphoria. As a psychologist I've seen dozen of people suffering this condition. Surgery often had the worst outcome, as it results in dissociative disorders with suicide as a potential outcome.
Motivating them to express their surpressed feelings often results in depression and the feeling of not fitting in. The not fitting in is not related to bullying or not being accepted, but to the emotion of being different.
But for those who tried to embrace their biological gender, those were the once actually finding mental balance.

Life isn't always pretty and easy. It's hard and dreams rarely come true. We need to stop trying to change others in an atempt to satisfy our own view of reality. You're a biological male wanting to go out as a female? Go right ahead, but do not expect every single person out there to play along. Just be glad that you're actually able and allowed to express yourself that way. In a lot of countries, that same action would result in prison or worse.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

RocaBOT said:


> And there we go with stupid transphobic peeps believing that spermatozoids and eggs have sexual preferences. Way to go, it's roughly on the same level as believing that fleas will magically pop out of existence from your cat's insides with no previous contact or anything at all.
> Between that and the one who firmly believes that fashion has an actual biological function when it clearly does not, seeing as it goes on and off between gender attribution every few centuries in most cultures, this thread is great, I'll give you that. A great show of denial and stupidity from people who go every now and again "I'm not X but (...)", which in most cases indicate that you are, indeed, X (where X can be anything from transphobic or racist or whatever to antivax or flat-earther)




Oh look.  You are making a reference to me without quoting me.  Kind of cowardly.  Anyway.

I'm not transphobic. 

Also, sperm and eggs function sexually (hetero; definitely not homo), regardless of how the hosts estimates their fee fees.

Do fleas exist on your cat's insides?

Fashion functions as a sexual expression,  People, being sexual, choose their fashion according to their sexuality and how they estimate the attention it will attract.  If you have no sex, you will have no fashion.  Even attempts to be androgynous is still a nod to the existences of gender expression.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2021)

Americans and their weird gender/pronounce problems...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 30, 2021)

This case has nothing to do with sex, gender, gametes, chromosomes, fashion or any of the assorted guff - it has to do with compelled speech. You may very well have a preferred pronoun and you may request that other people refer to you using said preferred pronoun, but ultimately how people call you is not up to you, it's up to them. In the United States the state is legally prohibited from compelling speech on the basis of the first amendment which protects the right to free speech *as well as* the right not to speak in a given manner. If someone wants to refer to you as a "he" or a "she", that's their right, even if you consider this classification to be incorrect - you can't coerce them to do otherwise. If they're doing it on purpose to cause you grief, they're being an asshole, but that's not illegal. If you don't like this kind of communication, you should remove yourself from the situation and exercise your freedom of association by not associating yourself with people who are assholes to you. If said person refuses to leave you alone, there are anti-harassment laws on the books already - get a restraining order, stalking is illegal. You already have all the power in this scenario and are adequately protected, I see no reason to use the long, strong arm of the government to force people to speak a certain way that you subjectively find agreeable.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

What are ya'll talking about? There is gendered specific clothing that's not based on society social norms.

Bras exist


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Nothing arbitrary about biology or the fashion that evolved to suit that biology.  Gendered behaviors evolved as they did due to practicality and necessity, sure a lot of it is trivial in a post technological society but these behaviors are ingrained in humans.
> 
> You don't have to go any further than the grocery store to see men and women still engaging in hunter/gathered activity, guys grabbing what they need and GTFO, women pushing around a empty basket blocking their gathering spot.
> 
> When I kick their basket out of the way it's common for me to return the dirty look with "move it berry picker, daddys hunting."


Dresses, makeup, pink colors, etc. are all arbitrary and aren't even close to consistent across cultures and time periods. There's no biological link to these things.

About 9,000 years ago in the Americas, approximately 50% of big game hunters were female. Even back then, what you consider to be typical gender roles were societal constructs.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/45/eabd0310

Your grocery store example only demonstrates two things:

You have in your head gender roles that are, once again, arbitrary. Plenty of men take their time at the grocery store, and plenty of women grab what they need and "GTFO." In plenty of heterosexual relationships, the man is the only one who goes to the grocery store.
By bragging about kicking a woman's basket away and only responding with a dirty look, you're showing us you behave like an asshole. We are an enlightened social species, and we've been a social species for a long time, so I can't say you would have even been welcome or conducive to well-being if we sent you back in time 9,000 years. A world where men were unnecessarily rude to other humans generally didn't exist, and rudeness isn't a genetic trait innate to cis males.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> This case has nothing to do with sex, gender, gametes, chromosomes, fashion or any of the assorted guff - it has to do with compelled speech. You may very well have a preferred pronoun and you may request that other people refer to you using said preferred pronoun, but ultimately how people call you is not up to you, it's up to them. In the United States the state is legally prohibited from compelling speech on the basis of the first amendment which protects the right to free speech *as well as* the right not to speak in a given manner. If someone wants to refer to you as a "he" or a "she", that's their right, even if you consider this classification to be incorrect - you can't coerce them to do otherwise. If they're doing it on purpose to cause you grief, they're being an asshole, but that's not illegal. If you don't like this kind of communication, you should remove yourself from the situation and exercise your freedom of association by not associating yourself with people who are assholes to you. If said person refuses to leave you alone, there are anti-harassment laws on the books already - get a restraining order, stalking is illegal. You already have all the power in this scenario and are adequately protected, I see no reason to use the long, strong arm of the government to force people to speak a certain way that you subjectively find agreeable.


The issue is nursing home residents often can't "remove themselves from the situation" very easily. At the very least, I think you'd agree that there needs to be a mandate that nursing homes take a position on whether or not misgendering will be allow in their facilities and make that information overtly public. That way, elderly trans patients can make an informed decision before it's too late.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Dresses, makeup, pink colors, etc. are all arbitrary and aren't even close to consistent across cultures and time periods. There's no biological link to these things.
> 
> About 9,000 years ago in the Americas, approximately 50% of big game hunters were female. Even back then, what you consider to be typical gender roles were societal constructs.
> https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/45/eabd0310
> ...




You can save the nonsense feminist revisionist science, Gender roles evolved as they did out of necessity same with the what they chose to wear.  

Same bullshit as making a movie of how black women were responsible for NASA.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jul 30, 2021)

Wow, lots of antitrans going on here. OK GUYS, THEN WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HERMAPHRODITES? ARE THEY NOT HUMAN BEINGS ALSO? sheesh


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> You can save the nonsense feminist revisionist science, Gender roles evolved as they did out of necessity same with the what they chose to wear.
> 
> Same bullshit as making a movie of how black women were responsible for NASA.


It isn't "feminist revisionist science." It's just science. Ironically, by flatly denying science because the conclusions are inconvenient for your preconceived notions about sex and gender, you're the one being anti-science.

I suggest you read the article I linked to, because female big game hunters occurred "out of necessity."

There is very little I'm aware of in today's gendered clothing that arose out of necessity or from biology. Dresses are, and have been, worn by men in different cultures. Gendered long/short hairstyles vary by culture and time period. Gendered pink/blue colors vary by culture and time period. Make-up usage varies by culture and time period. There is very little, if anything, about what you consider typical gender roles that isn't a societal construct that varies by culture and time period. Even if there were something that was consistent across cultures and time periods, that wouldn't be a reason why it would be at all problematic for someone to defy that gender role.

As for your quip about the movie Hidden Figures (I haven't seen it), while there are some minor historical inaccuracies, it is true that there were women of color who were critical to NASA's early success, and there are women of color who continue to be critical. I'm sorry if you're somehow threatened by or opposed to these facts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The issue is nursing home residents often can't "remove themselves from the situation" very easily. At the very least, I think you'd agree that there needs to be a mandate that nursing homes take a position on whether or not misgendering will be allow in their facilities and make that information overtly public. That way, elderly trans patients can make an informed decision before it's too late.


A certain level of decorum should be guaranteed by an internal code of conduct, however the state should not mandate it. Are those public or private nursing homes? If they're privately ran, the owner can decide what is and is not acceptable.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A certain level of decorum should be guaranteed by an internal code of conduct, however the state should not mandate it. Are those public or private nursing homes? If they're privately ran, the owner can decide what is and is not acceptable.


I'm not saying the the state should mandate the level of decorum. I'm saying the state should mandate front-facing information about what the code of conduct for that facility is so consumers can make an informed decision.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not saying the the state should mandate the level of decorum. I'm saying the state should mandate front-facing information about what the code of conduct for that facility is so consumers can make an informed decision.


I agree, the internal code of conduct should be transparent and available to the public - informed consent is important.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

RocaBOT said:


> And there we go with stupid transphobic peeps believing that spermatozoids and eggs have sexual preferences. Way to go, it's roughly on the same level as believing that fleas will magically pop out of existence from your cat's insides with no previous contact or anything at all.
> Between that and the one who firmly believes that fashion has an actual biological function when it clearly does not, seeing as it goes on and off between gender attribution every few centuries in most cultures, this thread is great, I'll give you that. A great show of denial and stupidity from people who go every now and again "I'm not X but (...)", which in most cases indicate that you are, indeed, X (where X can be anything from transphobic or racist or whatever to antivax or flat-earther)


Lol I love how he tried to so hard to warp the definition of heterosexuality to be about sperm fertilizing an egg.  And the fact that he couldn't wrap his head around the fact that that isn't what that word means by it's very definition is pretty hilarious.  Definitely gives you an idea of the level of intelligence these kinds of people are working with.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It isn't "feminist revisionist science." It's just science. Ironically, by flatly denying science because the conclusions are inconvenient for your preconceived notions about sex and gender, you're the one being anti-science.
> 
> I suggest you read the article I linked to, because female big game hunters occurred "out of necessity."
> 
> ...



"Societal construct" narratives are agenda driven bullshit to justify progressive social engineering.  Men and women are biologically different, norms developed because what they did what was effective & functional.  Not this "nefarious plot" by the "male opressor"

Takes a special kind of 1984-esque brainwashed stupidity to buy that shit. And a serious lack of common sense and life experience.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> "Societal construct" narratives are agenda driven bullshit to justify progressive social engineering.  Men and women are biologically different, norms developed because what they did what was effective & functional.  Not this "nefarious plot" by the "male opressor"
> 
> Takes a special kind of 1984-esque brainwashed stupidity to buy that shit. And a serious lack of common sense and life experience.


Nobody is saying there aren't biological differences between male, female, and intersex individuals. However, my points about most, if not all, gender norms being societal constructs apparently stands.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

I mean if women really were hunters throughtout history then they would've evolved bodies for these type of tasks like men did. Men are just faster and stronger. The evidence is in our visible biological differences. Society norms didn't create this. Survival for our species did. 

But if women want to be hunters then I have nothing against that. Like Lacius said there was a need at certain points for women to hunt for human survival. Just not as often needed which is why evolution didn't give them the strength men has. 

And I dont think just because women didn't evolve to do these types of tasks as efficiently as men, doesn't mean they should be restricted either. They should be free to pursue whatever they want.


----------



## ChrisMCNBVA (Jul 30, 2021)

I don't understand the deal with pronouns in this way..that's all I'll say on the matter


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 30, 2021)

I do not understand the law in question, language barriers and stuff. For me is difficult to deal with neutral pronouns, because there are not much neutral words here. (in Portuguese "car" is male, "ship" is male, "space ship" is female, "Nintendo" is female, "Sony" is female, "Brazil" is male, "France" is female)

So my opinion on that matter is that we should treat a person the way that very person choose, and if someone by mistake calls by the wrong name, it has to be space for an excuse. What is plain wrong is call a person with the disliked word even after knowing that, and, at least here, many people do that intentionally.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

lokomelo said:


> I do not understand the law in question, language barriers and stuff. For me is difficult to deal with neutral pronouns, because there are not much neutral words here. (in Portuguese "car" is male, "ship" is male, "space ship" is female, "Nintendo" is female, "Sony" is female, "Brazil" is male, "France" is female)
> 
> So my opinion on that matter is that we should treat a person the way that very person choose, and if someone by mistake calls by the wrong name, it has to be space for an excuse. What is plain wrong is call a person with the disliked word even after knowing that, and, at least here, many people do that intentionally.


The law in question isn't about mistakenly misgendering someone. It's about people choosing to misgender people.


----------



## mammastuffing (Jul 30, 2021)

lokomelo said:


> So my opinion on that matter is that we should treat a person the way that very person choose, and if someone by mistake calls by the wrong name, it has to be space for an excuse. What is plain wrong is call a person with the disliked word even after knowing that, and, at least here, many people do that intentionally.



I agree. I don't understand why people insist on being disrespectful. People be like "Oh, you're name is John? Well you look like a James so I'm going to be referring to you as James".


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 30, 2021)

Goku1992A said:


> There is an unwritten rule that people are missing. Being LGBTQ is considered as an endangered species if people think about it. Somewhere down the line you need to have a man and a woman to reproduce because if you don't then that group will be extinct.


I mean, in the same way as people in general that don't want to reproduce.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> heterosexuality to be about sperm fertilizing an egg



You are relying on the idea that heterosexuality and sexual reproduction are not connected, so that you can pretend that homosexuality would reproduce in vacuum.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are relying on the idea that heterosexuality and sexual reproduction are not connected, so that you can pretend that homosexuality would reproduce in vacuum.


Sexual reproduction can occur with or without heterosexual parents.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jul 30, 2021)

fallguy441 said:


> Americans and their weird gender/pronounce problems...



US Laws aren't applicable anywhere else outside the country, so yeah, we foreigners might use *it, *or wathever the hell we want


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sexual reproduction can occur with or without heterosexual parents.


Dude, don't bother, they can not comprehend this idea.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sexual reproduction can occur with or without heterosexual parents.



The heterosexuality exists where the conception occurs, obviously or innately, regardless of how people identify themselves.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The heterosexuality exists where the conception occurs, obviously or innately, regardless of how people identify themselves.


Heterosexuality describes a person's attraction to a member of the opposite sex. Sexual reproduction can occur with heterosexuality and heterosexuals being completely absent from the situation.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Heterosexuality describes a person's attraction to a member of the opposite sex. Sexual reproduction can occur with heterosexuality and heterosexuals being completely absent from the situation.



If a part of a person is attracted to that of the other gender, then that person is at least, in that capacity, heterosexual.  Even if their minds disagree with physiology--nobody is purely homosexual/heterosexual.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If a part of a person is attracted to that of the other gender, then that person is at least, in that capacity, heterosexual.  Even if their minds disagree with physiology--nobody is purely homosexual/heterosexual.



You keep bringing it to a point beyond sexual preference though, which is all that heterosexuality describes by its definition. Think about it this way, you could be a heterosexual your whole life and never once have sex or fertilize an egg and thus never contribute to the next generation.  Heterosexuality is not what is vital for life continuing on, sperm fertilizing an egg is ultimately all that is required, the sexual preferences of the provider of the sperm or egg does not matter at all.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If a part of a person is attracted to that of the other gender, then that person is at least, in that capacity, heterosexual.  Even if their minds disagree with physiology--nobody is purely homosexual/heterosexual.


Sexual reproduction can occur without two people being attracted to each other. Sexual reproduction can occur without two people even being in the same room, building, or state.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The law in question isn't about mistakenly misgendering someone. It's about people choosing to misgender people.


That was of of the parts was unclear to me, ty.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

Fun Fact Homosexuals are Gay


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Fun Fact Homosexuals are Gay


That’s the first time I’ve heard this news, my world is rocked now.


tabzer said:


> You are relying on the idea that heterosexuality and sexual reproduction are not connected, so that you can pretend that homosexuality would reproduce in vacuum.


You realize that with medical science, people don’t even need to have sex to reproduce, right? Medical science has a lot of alternative means of conceiving a child that simply don’t require sex. There are same-sex parents who have had biological children through non-sexual means.
The only thing I’ve learned about this thread is that the anti-LGBT+ individuals don’t know shit about science and shouldn’t be taken seriously.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> There are same-sex parents who have had biological children through non-sexual means.



Like, from a stork?  "DUM"



Lacius said:


> Sexual reproduction can occur without two people being attracted to each other. Sexual reproduction can occur without two people even being in the same room, building, or state.



Sexual reproduction can happen outside of a person, but the point I am making is that sexuality is in the DNA.  Just because you want to be apart of a group that polarizes people and their sexuality in terms of homo and hetero doesn't mean that they have transcended their DNA.  Even if someone says,"I'm homosexual, there is no way that I like girls," the ability to "lend themselves to reproduction" is primal and deeper than their current facebook status.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Like, from a stork?  "DUM"


Just when I think you've hit your peak stupidy, you come at me with this shit.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Just when I think you've hit your peak stupidy, you come at me with this shit.



You seem to think that because it happens in a lab that it is no longer sexual reproduction.  Which is "DUM", as your glorious banner reinforces.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You seem to think that because it happens in a lab that it is no longer sexual reproduction.  Which is "DUM", as your glorious banner reinforces.


Holy shit, you just keep digging yourself deeper into your own stupidity, lol. Just say you don’t understand artificial insemination and get it over with, lol


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Holy shit, you just keep digging yourself deeper into your own stupidity, lol. Just say you don’t understand artificial insemination and get it over with, lol



Do you need a peer reviewed medical journal detailing sexual reproduction?  Just google it.  Turkey basters don't magically make the the process non-sexual.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Do you need a peer reviewed medical journal detailing sexual reproduction?  Just google it.  Turkey basters don't magically make the method non-sexual.


 You are the gift that just keeps on giving


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You are the gift that just keeps on giving



Ok fine.  You will disagree when I say it.

Will you disagree with Lacius if he says it?



Lacius said:


> Sexual reproduction can occur without two people being attracted to each other. Sexual reproduction can occur without two people even being in the same room, building, or state.



Remember, if you disagree with him, you disagree with science.

You literally have no room in the conversation other than to show off your LGBG badge.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Like, from a stork?  "DUM"
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual reproduction can happen outside of a person, but the point I am making is that sexuality is in the DNA.  Just because you want to be apart of a group that polarizes people and their sexuality in terms of homo and hetero doesn't mean that they have transcended their DNA.  Even if someone says,"I'm homosexual, there is no way that I like girls," the ability to "lend themselves to reproduction" is primal and deeper than their current facebook status.


Are you saying that a person's sexual attractions are biological and immutable? That's pretty progressive of you, tabzer, to imply gay people were born that way.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Are you saying that a person's sexual attractions are biological and immutable? That's pretty progressive of you, tabzer, to imply gay people were born that way.



I don't often share the progressive aspects on an online forum that is overly saturated with it.  That being said, there is always the ol' nature vs nurture argument.  Both are influential.  Nurture can create new nature and nature could be the source of the nurture.

Also, it's not only because of your DNA if you want to pretend you are a lgbt demon on online forums.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't often share the progressive aspects on an online forum that is overly saturated with it.  That being said, there is always the ol' nature vs nurture argument.  Both are influential.  Nurture can create new nature and nature could be the source of the nurture.
> 
> Also, it's not only because of your DNA if you want to pretend you are a lgbt demon on online forums.


It's Lilith that a Demon not Lacius. Open your eyes kupo.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Also, I am uncertain if DNA is immutable, or if DNA is just an expression of something else that we haven't observed yet.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't often share the progressive aspects on an online forum that is overly saturated with it.  That being said, there is always the ol' nature vs nurture argument.  Both are influential.  Nurture can create new nature and nature could be the source of the nurture.
> 
> Also, it's not only because of your DNA if you want to pretend you are a lgbt demon on online forums.


We, of course, understand there is a biological component to the entire spectrum of sexualities. I'm not sure how this is relevant, however, to the fact that heterosexuality isn't required for reproduction. Heterosexuals are having nearly as much areproductive sex as homosexuals.

I don't remember how or when I interjected on this conversation, but I also don't see its major relevance to the thread topic. Trans people exist, and they should be treated with respect and dignity. Misgendering trans patients in nursing homes is a real problem, and whether or not one believes the solution is for the government to limit speech, something needs to be done about it.



tabzer said:


> Also, I am uncertain if DNA is immutable, or if DNA is just an expression of something else that we haven't observed yet.


For all intents and purposes, one's genetics are an immutable characteristic.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Heterosexuals are having nearly as much areproductive sex as homosexuals



I would argue they are both able to do so because there is part of them that is heterosexual, too



Lacius said:


> Misgendering trans patients in nursing homes is a real problem, and whether or not one believes the solution is for the government to limit speech, something needs to be done about it.



Maybe it could be your calling to start a LGBT nursing home.



Lacius said:


> For all intents and purposes, one's genetics are an immutable characteristic.



You act like you know, but you don't know.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't often share the progressive aspects on an online forum that is overly saturated with it.  That being said, there is always the ol' nature vs nurture argument.  Both are influential.  Nurture can create new nature and nature could be the source of the nurture.
> 
> Also, it's not only because of your DNA if you want to pretend you are a lgbt demon on online forums.


I don’t “pretend” to be LGBT, that’s part of who I am. Enjoying myself as a demon online is just for fun. Nonetheless, at least I have a basic understanding of artificial insemination and don’t pretend heterosexuality is a requirement for insemination. The idea that my identity, online or offline, as means of invaliding my understanding of medical science is pretty shallow if you. I don’t discredit you for being a moogle.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I don’t “pretend” to be LGBT, that’s part of who I am. Enjoying myself as a demon online is just for fun. Nonetheless, at least I have a basic understanding of artificial insemination and don’t pretend heterosexuality is a requirement for insemination. The idea that my identity, online or offline, invalids my understanding of medical science is pretty shallow if you. I don’t discredit you for being a moogle, I discredit you because you continue to say wrong and stupid shit.



Artificial insemination is pretty basic.  There's not really a lot to understand.  What goes over your head that it is a facilitator of sexual reproduction, not a bypass.  You don't think.  You just paint people colors and then decide if you are going to listen to them or not based on what color you already selected.  Your "understanding of medical science" is invalidated by what you say.  The fact that you make additional effort to prop yourself as a caricature is your own doing.  I really can't tell if you are a joke or a spaz.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 30, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I don’t “pretend” to be LGBT, that’s part of who I am. Enjoying myself as a demon online is just for fun. Nonetheless, at least I have a basic understanding of artificial insemination and don’t pretend heterosexuality is a requirement for insemination. The idea that my identity, online or offline, as means of invaliding my understanding of medical science is pretty shallow if you. I don’t discredit you for being a moogle.


This convo is enlightening to say the least. I'm also glad you edited your last portion about what you said about him so it stays clean and to the science of the matter instead of throwing insults/pissing contest.

What happens when it's 2 LGBT people and theyre both male but trans to female? What are they called then? 2 lesbians? Please excuse my ignorance to the whole LGBT thing.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You seem to think that because it happens in a lab that it is no longer sexual reproduction.  Which is "DUM", as your glorious banner reinforces.


No one has said it isn't sexual reproduction, the only argument at hand here is that heterosexuality is necessary or not in humans for future generations to continue on.  Yes, you need sexual reproduction (in some form) to happen for there to be new life.  But that doesn't mean that anybody involved has to be a heterosexual.

Look, I'm not sure if you think it goes against God or something for people to procreate without there being a sexual attraction for the opposite sex involved, and hey maybe it is, maybe such practices are that of the devil; so what, that doesn't really matter to the point at hand.  But you can't deny that we (the human species) are both capable and do indeed create new babies now without the sexual preference of the mother and/or father being a factor.  I trust you can understand and acknowledge that (lol, I'm sure you wont acknowledge it, as that would be admitting some small amount of defeat).  If you can, then I guess I don't even care if you really understand what the actual concept of heterosexuality actually means.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I would argue they are both able to do so because there is part of them that is heterosexual, too


There is no more heterosexuality in a person who is a 6 on the Kinsey Scale than there is homosexuality in a person who is a 0 on the Kinsey Scale.



tabzer said:


> Maybe it could be your calling to start a LGBT nursing home.


I don't like having to acknowledge my own mortality too often.



tabzer said:


> You act like you know, but you don't know.


We know a person generally isn't in control of their own genetics, and aside from a few specific exceptions, one's DNA mostly doesn't change throughout one's lifetime. In the absence of widespread DNA-altering technology that only exists right now in science fiction, one's genetics are an immutable characteristic in the same way race is, for example. We have a pretty good understanding of how DNA works, how traits are inherited, etc.


----------



## Deleted member 560282 (Jul 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I identify as cishet, but would I pass up a chance to diddle Ryan Gosling?  Fuck no.


This is probably the best thing in this entire thread


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is no more heterosexuality in a person who is a 6 on the Kinsey Scale than there is homosexuality in a person who is a 0 on the Kinsey Scale.



I don't disagree with the essence of what you are saying, but you seem to be exercising a faith in the balance of the scale.  Care to suggest what metric we can determine it to be the real thing?



Lacius said:


> I don't like having to acknowledge my own mortality too often.



It's not all about you.



Lacius said:


> We know a person generally isn't in control of their own genetics, and aside from a few specific exceptions, one's DNA mostly doesn't change throughout one's lifetime. In the absence of widespread DNA-altering technology that only exists right now in science fiction, *one's genetics are an immutable characteristic*. We have a pretty good understanding of how DNA works, how traits are inherited, etc.



Okay.  I mostly agree, but I emboldened the irrational conclusion.  AFAIK radiation can damage DNA, so I would think that it could be used in a controlled process, theoretically.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 30, 2021)

why have none of these transphobic idiots been banned is beyond me personally i feel the Political subforum should be dismantled and anyone speaking of politics in any forum should be treated as spam and banned from both forum and discord but that's just my thought


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> No one has said it isn't sexual reproduction,



Yes they did.

To the rest of what you said, it's outdated.  Read and catch up before posting next time.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes they did.
> 
> To the rest of what you said, it's outdated.  Read and catch up before posting next time.


Who, who said that creating new life isn't sexual reproduction?

(Also, love how you brush off anything you know you have no counter argument against)


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> why have none of these transphobic idiots been banned is beyond me personally i feel the Political subforum should be dismantled and anyone speaking of politics in any forum should be treated as spam and banned from both forum and discord but that's just my thought



Who is being transphobic?  You should report them!




MikaDubbz said:


> Who, who said that creating new life isn't sexual reproduction?
> 
> (Also, love how you brush off anything you know you have no counter argument against)



I'm brushing you off, because it is obvious that you haven't made an effort to read the last page, in which every question you make already has an answer.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm brushing you off, because it is obvious that you haven't made an effort to read the last page, in which every question you make already has an answer.


This is the quote of someone who knows they've been beat.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> This is the quote of someone who knows they've been beat.



That's an easy thing to say.  What seems to not be easy is reading 1 page back.
I'll clarify the location.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's an easy thing to say.  What seems to not be easy is reading 1 page back.
> I'll clarify the location.


I came back after a night of assuming you'd recognize how retarded you've been.  You didn't, despite others telling you that you clearly don't have an understanding of basic definitions, so I came back to finish the job.  I think it's safe to say that I have at this point though.  There is nothing more that needs to be said to you here, you've perfectly illustrated what a fool you are and how unwilling you are to even recognize your most basic of mistakes in regards to linguistics and definitions.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> I came back after a night of assuming you'd recognize how retarded you've been.  You didn't, despite others telling you that you clearly don't have an understanding of basic definitions, so I came back to finish the job.  I think it's safe to say that I have at this point though.  There is nothing more that needs to be said to you here, you've perfectly illustrated what a fool you are and how unwilling you are to even recognize your most basic of mistakes in regards to linguistics and definitions.



Yes, but did you read page 8?  If you have something to say about what has been said instead of living out another fantasy of yours, feel free.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes, but did you read page 8?  If you have something to say about what has been said instead of living out another fantasy of yours, feel free.


The fact that you can't understand what a philosophical conversation is, is genuinely concerning, and further gets me to question why I've bothered discoursing with you to begin with.  I said it before, but I mean it this time, I'm out.  Feel free to get whatever last second zingers you want in against me, I don't have the patience to keep up with someone as stubborn as yourself.  So I'm sure you'll really come out on top when you do drop whatever zingers you got lol.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 30, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> The fact that you can't understand what a philosophical conversation is, is genuinely concerning, and further gets me to question why I've bothered discoursing with you to begin with.



The fact that you would frame contradictory sci-fi scenario as philosophical is.... "genuinely concerning".  lol

Did'jya check page 8 yet?  There's philosophical, about real things, in the now.


----------



## RocaBOT (Jul 31, 2021)

Sorry I didn't answer earlier my dear tabzer, I'm not making the effort to go read people on my ignore list too often as you can imagine. But yes, you have been spewing transphobic nonsense since page 3 of this thread, so I'm sorry to tell you that you are, in fact, transphobic, there's no questioning that. Heck, I'll even give you the quote so you can verify for yourself :


tabzer said:


> Since you asked fo my 2 cents:  gender is a representation of biological sex.  If your gender doesn't match your sex, then you are akin to catfishing, or directly misleading society.  It's morally repugnant to mislead people.  As a joke, or an art form--that is honest, it can be appreciated.  If you want to conceal your sex, for whatever reason, that is at least more self-representing.  But playing dressup in society and wanting everyone to respect your roleplay makes you a joke by definition.



The why or how you arrived to those conclusions about how people are jokes or how there has to be sexual preferences in things that cannot even show a hint of sentience is not really important, however. All I see is you are making up things, and saying people said things like reproduction not being sexual without even being able to quote one of them for proof, which tends to prove you are misinterpreting things yourself... Just like you spend your time pretending that others do on this forum. You know, it's nice and all, but maybe you should be careful to not do too much of what you belittle others' arguments for doing, because it doesn't do too much good to your credibility.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 31, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Artificial insemination is pretty basic.  There's not really a lot to understand.  What goes over your head that it is a facilitator of sexual reproduction, not a bypass.  You don't think.  You just paint people colors and then decide if you are going to listen to them or not based on what color you already selected.  Your "understanding of medical science" is invalidated by what you say.  The fact that you make additional effort to prop yourself as a caricature is your own doing.  I really can't tell if you are a joke or a spaz.


I’ve not said it wasn’t sexual reproduction but stated that it doesn’t require direct sex between the individuals. People don’t have to directly have sex with each other in order for a biological child to be created when using artificial insemination. There’s still a reproductive process but it can all be done in a lab. Medical science has come a very long way over the years


ChronoTrig said:


> This convo is enlightening to say the least. I'm also glad you edited your last portion about what you said about him so it stays clean and to the science of the matter instead of throwing insults/pissing contest.
> 
> What happens when it's 2 LGBT people and theyre both male but trans to female? What are they called then? 2 lesbians? Please excuse my ignorance to the whole LGBT thing.


Sometimes my less than pleasant thoughts get mixed into my posts and I either forget to remove before posting or post them without thinking things through. I will admit to be a rather emotional individual ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
If they are both trans women, then it would be considered a lesbian relationship. If it’s trans woman and a cis man, then it can be considered heterosexual or however they want to identify their relationship. Relationships labels are up to the individuals involved and not really up to anyone else to decide.


----------



## ClancyDaEnlightened (Jul 31, 2021)

*MESSAGE!

*


----------



## nemwolf (Jul 31, 2021)

I now know of all of the transphobes to mute/ignore now


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 31, 2021)

nemwolf said:


> I now know of all of the transphobes to mute/ignore now


Thread like this are good for that. Most of the time it’s the same people anyways


----------



## ClancyDaEnlightened (Jul 31, 2021)

Yall love donkey on Shrek tho


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 31, 2021)

I see the childish intolerant control freaks are out in full force trying to shut down any opinions that don't align with their hive mind. I'm glad the mods on this site aren't so easily controlled by people who try to manipulate others into submission with regards to having different opinions on the entire issue at hand. It's like a breathe of fresh air to be able to openly discuss our differences without the fear of being censored and/or banned. So go on, keep trying to manipulate and control others by using a word that you're not even defining or using correctly. Shove your usage of the word "transphobia" up your ass.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 31, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I see the childish intolerant control freaks are out in full force trying to shut down any opinions that don't align with their hive mind. I'm glad the mods on this site aren't so easily controlled by people who try to manipulate others into submission with regards to having different opinions on the entire issue at hand. It's like a breathe of fresh air to be able to openly discuss our differences without the fear of being censored and/or banned. So go one, keep trying to manipulate and control others by using a word that you're not even defining or using correctly. Shove your usage of the word "transphobia" up your ass.


Anti-LGBT+ shouldn’t be respected as it’s actually a harmful belief that has cost the lives of innocent people. LGBT+ people living their life and not harming others desire respect, full stop. Disrespecting them for trying to do so is a violation of their freedom and shouldn’t be respected.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 31, 2021)

RocaBOT said:


> The why or how you arrived to those conclusions about how people are jokes



I said transgenderism as an artform can be appreciated.  Transgenderism as a joke can also be appreciated.   I don't appreciate dishonesty.  Bossy people saying "think of me as a woman", when they are not, get the scorn that they are clearly expecting.  Also, check my sig.  "People" around here think artificial insemination transcends sexual reproduction.  If you want to cater to and reinforce such thinking, well you can do you.  I'm not aiming for "credibility".  I'm aiming for conversation.  As far as you know, I have 5 penises and 2 vaginas and am rightfully ashamed of people playing dressup and insisting that the rest of society entertain them.


----------



## RocaBOT (Jul 31, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Bossy people saying "think of me as a woman", when they are not, get the scorn that they are clearly expecting.


Oh, wow, could you be any more hateful? That does settle it, for the second time. Thanks for playing.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 31, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I said transgenderism as an artform can be appreciated.  Transgenderism as a joke can also be appreciated.   I don't appreciate dishonesty.  Bossy people saying "think of me as a woman", when they are not, get the scorn that they are clearly expecting.  Also, check my sig.  "People" around here think artificial insemination transcends sexual reproduction.  If you want to cater to and reinforce such thinking, well you can do you.  I'm not aiming for "credibility".  I'm aiming for conversation.  As far as you know, I have 5 penises and 2 vaginas and am rightfully ashamed of people playing dressup and insisting that the rest of society entertain them.


Your input is noted and still wrong and garbage. Trans people are real and they are the gender they say they are, either respect them or be called an asshole. Transphobia is a harmful practice that has cost the lives of innocent people and is far more harmful when people pretend it should be respected. It shouldn't be respected, period. I don't care what you have in your pants, respect for individuals is not determined by the junk in their pants.


----------



## weatMod (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Not only will I call Caetlyn Jenner "her" I will call her Governor _(Yes I stole that joke)._
> 
> I am going to say what is apparent to me, I am not adding nonsense words to my lexicon.  Humans are a dimorphic species and feelings and perceptions are not going to be policed by the state.
> 
> If you want to be called "her" and someone calls you "him" it's not their fault your failing at being trans.



or it's the fault of you not being able to pass , next time make sure your makeup is on fleek

also it's  trimorphic there are real hermaphrodites you know


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 1, 2021)

When it comes to transsexuals I simply believe they are mentally ill and need help. Even the DSM-V still classifies them as ill or otherwise they couldn't receive surgery, hormone therapy and other services. I also believe that there are only two sexes. 

As for treatment I believe that catering to their delusional state of mind and then trying to control the rest of us and how we think or treat mentally ill people is wrong. We should be helping them realize that there's only two sexes and work on helping them accept who they were born as regardless of how much they want to reject science and reality.

As for pronoun usage I don't believe in using a plural word to describe a single person nor am I going to differ from the norm I grew up with just because some mentally ill people are having a hard time dealing with reality. I'll call you him/his/her/she. Trying to pressure me into speaking a certain way will only be met with opposition.

---------------------------------------------
*
Harvard lecturer takes heat for defending existence of biological sex on 'Fox & Friends'*

_Her statement that there are two genders was labeled 'dangerous'

https://www.foxnews.com/us/harvard-...gue-for-defending-existence-of-biological-sex_


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> When it comes to transsexuals I simply believe they are mentally ill and need help. Even the DSM-V still classifies them as ill or otherwise they couldn't receive surgery, hormone therapy and other services. I also believe that there are only two sexes.
> 
> As for treatment I believe that catering to their delusional state of mind and then trying to control the rest of us and how we think or treat mentally ill people is wrong. We should be helping them realize that there's only two sexes and work on helping them accept who they were born as regardless of how much they want to reject science and reality.
> 
> ...


I believe you are an asshole using outdated garbage to justify being an asshole. You don't deserve respect nor do your outdated and harmful beliefs.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> When it comes to transsexuals I simply believe they are mentally ill and need help. Even the DSM-V still classifies them as ill or otherwise they couldn't receive surgery, hormone therapy and other services. I also believe that there are only two sexes.
> 
> As for treatment I believe that catering to their delusional state of mind and then trying to control the rest of us and how we think or treat mentally ill people is wrong. We should be helping them realize that there's only two sexes and work on helping them accept who they were born as regardless of how much they want to reject science and reality.
> 
> ...


Being transgender is not a mental illness, disorder, etc.



Lilith Valentine said:


> I believe you are an asshole using outdated garbage to justify being an asshole. You don't deserve respect nor do your outdated and harmful beliefs.


It's worse than that. He cited the DSM-V, which famously states that being transgender isn't a mental illness. In other words, he isn't being outdated; he's making things up.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Being transgender is not a mental illness, disorder, etc.
> 
> 
> It's worse than that. He cited the DSM-V, which famously states that being transgender isn't a mental illness. In other words, he isn't being outdated; he's making things up.


Big shock, transphobes making shit up, never heard that before.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 1, 2021)

If transsexuals weren't diagnosed with an illness they couldn't get services such as hormone therapy or have a sex change operation. For the insurance company to pay for those services one must first be diagnosed with a problem. Even though parts of the DSM-V were changed to reclassify things, such as the inclusion of Gender dysphoria one must still be diagnosed with a disorder to receive treatment.

Although, even if transsexuals didn't need a diagnoses to receive services that are paid on by insurance companies I still personally would believe that there's only two sexes and there's no way to change your sex therefor people thinking they are the opposite sex are mentally ill. You see, it wouldn't matter what the DSM-# says ... there's what I believe and that's not going to change.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If transsexuals weren't diagnosed with an illness they couldn't get services such as hormone therapy or have a sex change operation. For the insurance company to pay for those services one must first be diagnosed with a problem. Even though parts of the DSM-V were changed reclassify and change things, such as the inclusion of Gender dysphoria one must still be diagnosed with a disorder to receive treatment.
> 
> Although, even if transsexuals didn't need a diagnoses to receive services that are paid on by insurance companies I still personally would believe that there's only two sexes and there's no way to change your sex therefor people thinking they are the opposite sex are mentally ill. You see, it wouldn't matter what the DSM-# says ... there's what I believe and that's not going to change.


So it only mattered what it said when you though you could use it for justifying your bullshit but when it doesn’t agree with you, suddenly it doesn’t matter. Wow, you are a real piece of shit. As per the normal, the rest of your post is just dated garbage and doesn’t deserve a response


----------



## Seliph (Aug 1, 2021)

Hey gang remember when this website was about hacking your 3DS and wasn't inundated with threads made by the same loud ass 3-4 transphobic assholes who are still somehow allowed a platform despite repeatedly and publically spreading their awful awful bigoted opinion?

I sure don't

It's disappointing. @JonhathonBaxster specifically is one of these people. Literally nothing but negativity from this dude. He's repeatedly had his vile comments removed by mods but nothing ever actually comes from it. When will something be done?

Disappointing. This thread has absolutely nothing of value. These people who make these threads contribute nothing of value, they just want to spread their rhetoric and hope that one or two people who don't know any better will actually defend them. They don't contribute to real discussions, not discussions about gaming, not discussions about hacking, not even discussions about politics. Why the hell are these same threads from the same users that always have the same awful outcomes allowed? Is this good? Is this worth it? Does this create any sort of meaningful or constructive discourse? No. This sucks. These people are reprehensible.

For anyone who regularly deals with these assholes, here's a great video series.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ


----------



## Lacius (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If transsexuals weren't diagnosed with an illness they couldn't get services such as hormone therapy or have a sex change operation. For the insurance company to pay for those services one must first be diagnosed with a problem. Even though parts of the DSM-V were changed to reclassify things, such as the inclusion of Gender dysphoria one must still be diagnosed with a disorder to receive treatment.
> 
> Although, even if transsexuals didn't need a diagnoses to receive services that are paid on by insurance companies I still personally would believe that there's only two sexes and there's no way to change your sex therefor people thinking they are the opposite sex are mentally ill. You see, it wouldn't matter what the DSM-# says ... there's what I believe and that's not going to change.



Being transgender is not a mental illness, by definition.
Gender dysphoria, the distress that can result (for example) from being transgender and having to interact with transphobic people like you, also isn't a mental disorder but can be more than enough for medical interventions to be advised.
Not everyone who is transgender suffers from gender dysphoria.
It's possible to get medical services related to being transgender without suffering from gender dysphoria.
The existence of intersex individuals demonstrates there are more than just the prototypical male and female sex options.
Gender and sex are two different things.
Many, if not most or all, aspects of gender identity, such as attire and hairstyle, are wholly unrelated to biological sex.
Regardless of your beliefs about sex and gender, I'm not sure how another person's gender expressions concern you or how another person's gender expressions negatively affect anybody.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Being transgender is not a mental illness, by definition.
> Gender dysphoria, the distress that can result (for example) from being transgender and having to interact with transphobic people like you, also isn't a mental disorder but can be more than enough for medical interventions to be advised.
> Not everyone who is transgender suffers from gender dysphoria.
> It's possible to get medical services related to being transgender without suffering from gender dysphoria.
> ...



1.   Only because of progressive Newspeak and using a overly broad brush to diminish who/what is being discussed.
         2.   Has nothing to distress from abuse.​
_Dysphoria is a distinct mental disorder in which a person is preoccupied with an *imagined *physical defect or a minor defect that  others often cannot see.
_
3.  True.
4.  It's possible to be a body builder with a dysphoric condition and get Rx treatments and completely worthy of being viewed as ethically questionable.






Do we all need to play along that the kid is swole or do we need to be sued for discrimination?

5.   Genetic abnormalities happen, Big difference between someone who was born without an arm and someone with dysphoria cutting it off.   I sincerely doubt everyone who has a chromosomal disorder, birth defect, Hermaphroditism etc. wants to be placed under the transgender umbrella.

People are born with missing and extra limbs, it is still fair to presume humans are born with two of each.

Someone born with a medical abnormality is not the same condition as someone medically normal and mentally dissatisfied.

It is entirely disingenuous using peoples measurable medical issue to justify a behavior of someone who does not and is physically atypical.

6.  Gender and Sex have been synonymous in English for hundreds of years and many choose not adopt a redefinition.

7.  Raise multiple daughters and sons and come back and claim that. 

8.   It doesn't until you expect others to play along.

Men & women have different physical attributes and this is why we segregate athletics.
There is substantive monetary and career advancement issues at play here,  Want to make all divisions all inclusive?  Go ahead.

The vast majority of the population expects biologically segregated private spaces, such as gyms, saunas, bathrooms etc. and it has nothing to do with "MEHFEELZ".

If a woman doesn't want your phallus flopping around in front of their daughter there is nothing unreasonable about that.
​


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> 1.   Only because of progressive Newspeak and using a overly broad brush to diminish who/what is being discussed.
> 2.   Has nothing to distress from abuse.​
> _Dysphoria is a distinct mental disorder in which a person is preoccupied with an *imagined *physical defect or a minor defect that  others often cannot see.
> _
> ...


Your normal absolute garbage post, but you didn’t include otherkins, I am shocked. You even included one accurate statement with 3.Your overall opinion is still trash though.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> 1.   Only because of progressive Newspeak and using a overly broad brush to diminish who/what is being discussed.
> 2.   Has nothing to distress from abuse.​
> _Dysphoria is a distinct mental disorder in which a person is preoccupied with an *imagined *physical defect or a minor defect that  others often cannot see.
> _
> ...


None of the mental health professionals who work with gender dysphoric people will say that transgender is a mental illness. It is not. And it's not because of Newspeak. And it's not an imagined thing either.


Where you are correct is that sex is not a spectrum. We are a dimorphic species. Sex is binary. Male and Female are the only two categories. There is only two types of gametes. Small ones produced by men called sperm. And large ones produced by females called eggs. There is no intermediate types of gametes between a sperm and a egg. So this means sex is binary and not a spectrum.

Most intersex which is atypical are still either the binary male or female. And a very small percentage of intersex that has a blend of male and female sexual features still does not invalidate that sex is still a binary.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 1, 2021)

SG854 said:


> None of the mental health professionals who work with gender dysphoric people will say that transgender is a mental illness. It is not. And it's not because of Newspeak. And it's not an imagined thing either.
> 
> 
> Where you are correct is that sex is not a spectrum. We are a dimorphic species. Sex is binary. Male and Female are the only two categories. There is only two types of gametes. Small ones produced by men called sperm. And large ones produced by females called eggs. There is no intermediate types of gametes between a sperm and a egg. So this means sex is binary and not a spectrum.
> ...



My definition for Dysphoria came from a Webmd, we disputing them as right wing crack pots this week?  As far I know it's a perfectly reasonable source for a quick description of a condition.

It's not my fault it's a medical condition when they want hormone treatments, surgery or special accommodations and a perfectly normal state of birth when they want to be offended.

We don't remove body parts and provide long term pharmaceutical treatments to physically healthy typical people and when we do it's cosmetic, not a health issue.

Here is a quick write up on the legal and ethical status of cosmetic surgery on minors, but the common consensus is no.
https://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Bioethics/981230Cosmetic.htm

It is ridiculous to conflate a person who has genetic abnormalities with a perfectly typical healthy person without those conditions based on their feelings, a person without legs or paralyzed is not the same as someone who decides they don't want to walk.

So we have a typical human without medical issues and a penis, it doesn't take a medical professional to know what the word for that is.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> My definition for Dysphoria came from a Webmd, we disputing them as right wing crack pots this week?  As far I know it's a perfectly reasonable source for a quick description of a condition.
> 
> It's not my fault it's a medical condition when they want hormone treatments, surgery or special accommodations and a perfectly normal state of birth when they want to be offended.
> 
> ...


I like how you selectively found the specific word and definition that you agree with and decided that’s good enough. Shows how egotistical a person you are when you find every small means of pretending to put yourself above others. The rest are not requirements to be trans. Trans people don’t need hormones if they don’t want them, don’t need surgeries either. Even if they want them or feel the need for them, so what? Why does that matter to you? Why does that warrant disrespect of them?
No one was talking about minors during this part of the conversation. You are just injecting that as another means of attempting to control the conversation. You seem to enjoy doing that when the conversation is out of your control. It’s obvious and sad that you feel the need to try and control the conversation.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> My definition for Dysphoria came from a Webmd, we disputing them as right wing crack pots this week?  As far I know it's a perfectly reasonable source for a quick description of a condition.
> 
> It's not my fault it's a medical condition when they want hormone treatments, surgery or special accommodations and a perfectly normal state of birth when they want to be offended.
> 
> ...


I get my information from neuroscientists and sex researchers

And I'm going to have to do some agreeing and disagreeing with you.


It is true that some activists push unscientific things. Many researchers leave academia because of all the bullying they receive. So research work there has been corrupted. If Ray Blanchard the main guy behind the DSM task force being banned from Twitter wasn't an indicator already that researchers are bullied and have their friends and families targeted for not following ideology not backed by science.


With that said researchers that do follow actual science and not corrupted science will still tell you that transgender is not a mental disorder. Not all trans like you said are dysphoric. Not all physically transition with surgery. Not all are mentally depressed by their own transgenderism. Only depressed by others causing their depression. If someone is bullied you at school and become depressed you don't blame the victim. You target the bullies. You may teach the victim to better mentally cope with the bullying. But is still not the fault of the victim.

Many have genetic abnormalities that don't negatively affect the person. Like an extra finger or toe or something. That doesn't mean anything. And it's only a problem and a mental disorder if their own transgenderism (and not from bullying) is causing them feeling depressed and maybe suicidal. So this is where treatment and treating it like a mental disorder will make sense because the goal is to get them to not kill themselves.

But not all Transgenders are depressed and suicidal, and many are happy. So there is no need to treat them or treat it like a disorder if they are enjoying life (again considering outside sources like bullying). Mental disorders are only considered Mental disorders if there is something negatively affecting them and negatively affecting their life. But if transgenderism isn't negatively affecting their life and they go through everyday just fine then it's not a mental disorder.


And I do agree that young children should not transition. But older people once they reach a certain age should have the freedom to do as they see fit with their bodies.


----------



## RocaBOT (Aug 1, 2021)

SG854 said:


> But not all Transgenders are depressed and suicidal, and many are happy


I may add: most of those who are depressed and suicidal are so because of others being assholes to them, just like you said two paragraphs before. So indeed, the cause is on those who cannot accept for the life of them that people may be diverse and different, and are so sure about that they're willing to bully anyone who doesn't fit their idea of "dimorphic humans".


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 1, 2021)

RocaBOT said:


> I may add: most of those who are depressed and suicidal are so because of others being assholes to them, just like you said two paragraphs before. So indeed, the cause is on those who cannot accept for the life of them that people may be diverse and different, and are so sure about that they're willing to bully anyone who doesn't fit their idea of "dimorphic humans".



Are you complaining about bullying and harassment or acceptance.  Not the same things, not incumbent of anyone to accept or include someones life style or behavior they don't care for.

I don't include or accept anyone who deviates from the Swanson pyramid of greatness.


----------



## RocaBOT (Aug 1, 2021)

Please, just shut up, you're not making any sense and your being an asshole has been demonstrated enough times to not need more examples.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Are you complaining about bullying and harassment or acceptance.  Not the same things, not incumbent of anyone to accept or include someones life style or behavior they don't care for.
> 
> I don't include or accept anyone who deviates from the Swanson pyramid of greatness.


The fuck are you on about? Lol


----------



## SG854 (Aug 1, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Are you complaining about bullying and harassment or acceptance.  Not the same things, not incumbent of anyone to accept or include someones life style or behavior they don't care for.
> 
> I don't include or accept anyone who deviates from the Swanson pyramid of greatness.


----------



## Deleted member 560282 (Aug 2, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Are you complaining about bullying and harassment or acceptance.  Not the same things, not incumbent of anyone to accept or include someones life style or behavior they don't care for.
> 
> I don't include or accept anyone who deviates from the Swanson pyramid of greatness.


....what in the fuck


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Your input is noted and still wrong and garbage. Trans people are real and they are the gender they say they are, either respect them or be called an asshole. Transphobia is a harmful practice that has cost the lives of innocent people and is far more harmful when people pretend it should be respected. It shouldn't be respected, period. I don't care what you have in your pants, respect for individuals is not determined by the junk in their pants.



I totally agree that people should respect people.  When are you going to start?

If you are going to respect people, maybe you shouldn't be a liar and spend your time getting mad at people who don't enjoy your LARP.



RocaBOT said:


> Oh, wow, could you be any more hateful? That does settle it, for the second time. Thanks for playing.



Did that 100% true fact about reality bother you?


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I totally agree that people should respect people.  When are you going to start?
> 
> If you are going to respect people, maybe you shouldn't be a liar and spend your time getting mad at people who don't enjoy your LARP.
> 
> ...


You don’t deserve respect. Respecting people who’ve only ever disrespected me would be respect wasted. Your first interaction with me was editing my quotes, from there you’ve just been a piece of shit on this site. On the topic of this thread, transphobia doesn’t deserve any form of respect.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You don’t deserve respect. Respecting people who’ve only ever disrespected me would be respect wasted. Your first interaction with me was editing my quotes, from there you’ve just been a piece of shit on this site. On the topic of this thread, transphobia doesn’t deserve any form of respect.



Oh you don't respect people who don't share your values or culture and don't want them associating with you?

Welcome to everyone else's stance.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Oh you don't respect people who don't share your values or culture and don't want them associating with you?
> 
> Welcome to everyone else's stance.


Lol, you of all people believing you have some moral high ground. You treat people with as much respect as you have sources for your bullshit claims.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You don’t deserve respect. Respecting people who’ve only ever disrespected me would be respect wasted. Your first interaction with me was editing my quotes, from there you’ve just been a piece of shit on this site. On the topic of this thread, transphobia doesn’t deserve any form of respect.



Though I don't agree with your recollection of our interactions, I think we can both say that I deserve respect, because I am a person.  If gender is a social construct, then it is possibly as real as god.  Are you ready to accept Jesus as your savior?


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Though I don't agree with your recollection of our interactions, I think we can both say that I deserve respect, because I am a person.  If gender is a social construct, then it is possibly as real as god.  Are you ready to accept Jesus as your savior?


No, to just all of that. You don’t deserve respect, provide proof for some of your nonsense and maybe you might earn a little respect.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> No, to just all of that. You don’t deserve respect, provide proof for some of your nonsense and maybe you might earn a little respect.



I don't even know if you are real person.  That seems like it would be a waste of effort.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't even know if you are real person.  That seems like it would be a waste of effort.


I’ve already stated multiple times in the past that I am demon that lives on the server but at least I can provide sources to back up my posts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

But kudos to you, admitting that people aren't inherently worthy of respect.  At least I can see that you are self-loathing in your projections.

"Proof is only what I agree with"

-Lilith Valenstein


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> But kudos to you, admitting that people aren't inherently worthy of respect.  At least I can see that you are self-loathing in your projections.
> 
> "Proof is only what I agree with"
> 
> -Lilith Valenstein


What do you gain from distracting trans people? How are trans people wronging you by existing and wanting to be respected? What’s the point in going through all of this when trans people are going to keep going on and living their life with or without your input?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> But kudos to you, admitting that people aren't inherently worthy of respect.  At least I can see that you are self-loathing in your projections.
> 
> "Proof is only what I agree with"
> 
> -Lilith Valenstein


Some people truly aren't worthy of anyone's respect, like fascists and billionaires.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Some people truly aren't worthy of anyone's respect, like fascists and billionaires.



I disagree.  There is an appropriate way to respond to people in all kinds of different situations, including fascists and billionaires.  If you respect the living, you are respecting those people by not selling yourself to them.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I disagree.  There is an appropriate way to respond to people in all kinds of different situations, including fascists and billionaires.


There is an appropriate way to respond to those groups, yes, and it's eliminating them by force for the former, eating them for the latter (literally or metaphorically, your choice).


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> What do you gain from distracting trans people? How are trans people wronging you by existing and wanting to be respected? What’s the point in going through all of this when trans people are going to keep going on and living their life with or without your input?



Trans people are not wronging me by existing.  I respect people, as people.  I don't need to agree with their ideas or lifestyle.  I can have an opinion about it without being afraid of it.  In fact, I have a strong position due to my attempts to understand.  Calling me "transphobic" is just a bypass to confronting uncomfortable (differing) points of view.  You don't want to admit that I have said anything valid, so you just call it your flavor of evil, and dismiss it without thinking about it, because "being mindless is fun and liberating".



Xzi said:


> eliminating them by force for the former, eating them for the latter (literally or metaphorically, your choice).



Balance is tricky, because you risk becoming the thing you swore to be against.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Trans people are not wronging me by existing.  I respect people, as people.  I don't need to agree with their ideas or lifestyle.  I can have an opinion about it without being afraid of it.  In fact, I have a strong position due to my attempts to understand.  Calling me "transphobic" is just a bypass to confronting uncomfortable (differing) points of view.  You don't want to admit that I have said anything valid, so you just call it your flavor of evil, and dismiss it without thinking about it, because "being mindless is fun and liberating".


Because you don’t actually have anything valid to say. You can’t just “disagree” with someone’s existence and expect that to be treated the same way as disagreeing if pineapple should go on pizza or not. Trans people exists, countless studies, medical, psychology, and so much more proves trans people exist. There’s also plenty of evidence that shows that respecting the identity of trans people is one of the best things people can do. Acting like “disagreeing” with trans people is something that should be respect is the same as acting like someone “disagreeing” with existence of someone’s race or skin color. It’s just as uncontrollable a factor and just as wrong to disgree with.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Balance is tricky, because you risk becoming the thing you swore to be against.


It's not tricky at all, as this only applies to those two groups exclusively.  Very few people will own up to being fascist, even when pushed; and billionaires make sure to avoid us "unwashed masses" as much as possible.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Because you don’t actually have anything valid to say. You can’t just “disagree” with someone’s existence and expect that to be treated the same way as disagreeing if pineapple should go on pizza or not. Trans people exists, countless studies, medical, psychology, and so much more proves trans people exist. There’s also plenty of evidence that respecting the identity of trans people is one of the best things people can do. Acting like “disagreeing” with trans people is something that should be respected is asking the same as respecting someone “disagreeing” with existence of someone’s race or skin color. It’s just as uncontrollable a factor and just as wrong to disgree with.



If you think that being trans comes before being human, then I think there is something wrong with your priorities.  If you think being trans is in your DNA, then congrats, you are hardcore.  Me disagreeing with someone about what kind of life is the best life, or most sincere life, is not me disagreeing with their existence.  It's me, being a different existence.

Maybe you truly are tabzerphobic afterall.  You think you are the *underepresented minority.  Hah.



Xzi said:


> It's not tricky at all, as this only applies to those two groups exclusively.  Very few people will own up to being fascist, even when pushed; and billionaires make sure to avoid us "unwashed masses" as much as possible.



Well, should I take your denial as evidence of which category you want to be in the most?


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

I wouldn't mind your peer reviewed sources stating that trans people exist.  Should be pretty interesting.


----------



## linuxares (Aug 2, 2021)

All of you who are having a discussion whatever if Transgender is a mental disorder or not, are both wrong and right. 
It's still not clear why some people are trans and why some aren't. Some say it's a mental disorder some say it's by "culture" etc.

So just drop it already. When people that are smarter than you that works in this field can't figure it out, it's probably not going to be solved on a GBAtemp post.


----------



## Skelletonike (Aug 2, 2021)

Damn, I need to stop checking these threads. They start interesting but then they go to shit.

Anyway, it's a good thing that they shut down such a law, while I do believe people should respect each other, forcing someone to use pronouns they may not even now is just wrong.

It's hard to guess what people want to be called and unless you know the person, it's just not feasible. In case you do know them, well, it's different.

For example, at work I get a lot of calls, people tell me their name and I just call them by whatever name they give me.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

linuxares said:


> All of you who are having a discussion whatever if Transgender is a mental disorder or not, are both wrong and right.
> It's still not clear why some people are trans and why some aren't. Some say it's a mental disorder some say it's by "culture" etc.
> 
> So just drop it already. When people that are smarter than you that works in this field can't figure it out, it's probably not going to be solved on a GBAtemp post.




Since you responded in a way that seemed to be perturbed, I assume it is because people were zealously hitting the report button over things that they disagree with.

Because you added this to the discussion, one that I was compelled to participate in--out of risk of forfeiting my own representation (thanks @Lacius), I'm going to carry.

First, I don't think anyone is attempting to solve anything.  I think people want to challenge/change the colloquial understanding, and are willing to sacrifice any remaining trace of social dignity for the sake of feeling like "at least I fought for what I believe in".  Some people "fake it until you make it", and are trying to "be the change that they want to see in the world".  Some people want to accurately understand/describe how the world actually is.  I see both states of mind to often be at odds with each other.

Second, "transgender" is defined as "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex."  That's a pitiful definition, as it's not just their "birth sex", it's their sex, period.  Even if they get artificial genitalia and hormone supplements (injections), they are still genetically what they are.  People who don't identify with themselves are going to have a clear disadvantage in identifying with other people.  They will identify with ideas that other people, like them, identify with--but they will be at odds with their body.  If such a person cannot represent their own body faithfully, who is to say or suggest that they could represent any body?

Whether that is an advantage or disadvantage, is really up to their personal experience and outcome.  Not all transgender people think the same, and not all want to be addressed by a specific pronoun.  Some are actually smarter than people posting on GBAtemp and twitter.

Third.  Consider that the word 'disorder' is exactly what it suggests.  A disorder is anything that departs from the expected norm.  Calling things mental disorders is a lack of understanding of the situation.  Perhaps the norm caused these "disorders" in the first place.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 2, 2021)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## linuxares (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Since you responded in a way that seemed to be perturbed, I assume it is because people were zealously hitting the report button over things that they disagree with


Nay, I were reading the topic and replied. Please don't assume how we moderate.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 2, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Nay, I were reading the topic and replied. Please don't assume how we moderate.



Would you believe me if I said I tried not to?


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 2, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Not sure what people are going to do, when body modification become even more advance.


Cyborgs should be banned from competing in sports against natural humans... Your move.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 2, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> Cyborgs should be banned from competing in sports against natural humans... Your move.


I would pay to see that sport.


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 2, 2021)

wonder how long before this is a thing?


----------



## RichardTheKing (Aug 2, 2021)

Such "rules" are dumb and illogical - if you don't know someone, how the hell are you supposed to know what pronouns they prefer? We can't read minds! 
Not to mention how easy it is to have a memory lapse and forget about preferred pronouns every now and then, until you're friends with the person in question.

They made the only logical choice here.


----------



## Harumyne (Aug 2, 2021)

You can always put in a little effort just to be decent!

If in doubt, you can still be respectful to your fellow human beings without "having to remember or assume" all this _confusing_ metadata about other humans.


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 2, 2021)

I have more important things to worry about than thinking about what pronoun to use for someone I don't know.
Let's just start using XX and XY, good luck denying chromosomes.

rare cases being the exception ofcourse


----------



## lokomelo (Aug 2, 2021)

Harumyne said:


> You can always put in a little effort just to be decent!
> 
> If in doubt, you can still be respectful to your fellow human beings without "having to remember or assume" all this _confusing_ metadata about other humans.



Look, I'm all for people be called in a way they fell comfortable. But please understand that for languages without widespread neutral pronouns it is freaking hard to go without doing mistakes. Lantin based languages (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian and others) speakers will do this mistake online, the context will tell you if is intentional or not, many times will be not intentional. I did the mistake to use he/she where I had to use they, and It was not intentional at all.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 2, 2021)

Harumyne said:


> You can always put in a little effort just to be decent!
> 
> If in doubt, you can still be respectful to your fellow human beings without "having to remember or assume" all this _confusing_ metadata about other humans.


Good example, but it only applies to people with a certain grasp of English. In fact, this topic in general seems to be alienating to non-English speakers.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 2, 2021)

Wow. 12 pages of conservatives whining about a law that has very little, if at all, to do with them. 

It's funny how the first thing people focus on is their freedom of speech as opposed to the gross medical misconduct that could arise from not calling someone what they wish to be called, especially in regards to procedures that may require a professional to know their biological history. If old Mr. Jenkins isn't doing too well and becomes unresponsive due to a medical situation, wouldn't it be pertinent for the people who work around him need to be aware of, and comply with, something as simple as acknowledging his Trans status in terms of medical related questioning and having to run tests to determine a diagnosis?

Oh, wait. That's a scenario people don't care about because it imparts on their ability to be discourteous and self absorbed. 

"BUT, BUT, people need their free speech! "

Except, you still have your free speech. Prolonged usage of such language that belittles them comes with a price. It's the same basic logic as calling someone the n-word or the ch-word or the sp-word over and over again. Technically, you have your free speech, you just don't have your freedom of repercussions, which many people (conservatives and liberals alike!) don't seem to grasp. 

TL;DR?

California lawmakers shot down a law that attempted to ease the integration of a growing community of Trans people who want to be treated like people. 

No wonder all the other countries make fun of us


----------



## RocaBOT (Aug 2, 2021)

You guys *do* understand that the text was never about *guessing blindly* anyone's pronouns or preferred names, but about actual harassment that comes from people *refusing to use them even when they've been told countless times*, right? Just like what some people in this thread advocate doing? (Like, calling peeps whatever they want because they're assholes that can't be bothered with respecting someone's identity?)

And you guys *also understand* that the point we're trying to make is about that specific disrespectful behaviour, and nothing else, right? Right?
There's nothing wrong about genuine mistakes, my family members even do those from times to times. And those were never the target of the law or of the point we're making in this thread.
Like, all we ask is that you *make an effort* to *not deliberately call us by our deadnames or wrong pronouns.* The keyword being *deliberately*. You do it once in a while by mistake because tired or whatever is fine. You do it all the time without even questioning it is just lack of basic respect, in which case you don't deserve ours. Simple as that.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Though I don't agree with your recollection of our interactions, I think we can both say that I deserve respect, because I am a person.  If gender is a social construct, then it is possibly as real as god.  Are you ready to accept Jesus as your savior?





Lilith Valentine said:


> No, to just all of that. You don’t deserve respect, provide proof for some of your nonsense and maybe you might earn a little respect.


@Lilith Valentine this is why I have said in the past that pushing the idea that gender is a social construct will give fuel for these people to use against trans. Because if gender is a social construct then why not pray the gay away essentially. I always go with biological reasons for someone's gender. And maybe a mix of environmental. A bit if both. But not purely social construction. Going with some biological reasoning for gender validates trans existence more then the purely social construction argument. And has science backing too.


----------



## izy (Aug 2, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Nay, I were reading the topic and replied. Please don't assume how we moderate.


i just assume you wing it unless its piracy related


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

SG854 said:


> @Lilith Valentine this is why I have said in the past that pushing the idea that gender is a social construct will give fuel for these people to use against trans. Because if gender is a social construct then why not pray the gay away essentially. I always go with biological reasons for someone's gender. And maybe a mix of environmental. A bit if both. But not purely social construction. Going with some biological reasoning for trans validates their existence more then the purely social construction argument. And has science backing too.


That’s actually why I stopped using that phrase when I realized it was harmful towards the trans community. It ignores all of the factors that actually go into one’s gender and is just wrong. The actual phrase should be “gender expression is a social construct,” because it is. How one expresses their gender has little to do with their gender.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> That’s actually why I stopped using that phrase when I realized it was harmful towards the trans community. It ignores all of the factors that actually go into one’s gender and is just wrong. The actual phrase should be “gender expression is a social construct,” because it is. How one expresses their gender has little to do with their gender.


Even if you have realized it other trans haven't. And still push for that idea. So anti trans will base their counter arguments agaisnt that.

But it'll be best to make it known so that the person you are arguing against knows how your wording differs and explain the differences so that they can better understand. Against tabzer highly likely things won't change. But it's good for other people tuning in.

The trans argument does have alot of not so great properly worded points and that wording is what's leading to alot of confusion. And because of this it's more understandable why people are just not 100% on board. So give it some time, refining your arguments and a little bit of patience I think is the best approach to this.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I wouldn't mind your peer reviewed sources stating that trans people exist.  Should be pretty interesting.


Ok, some are a bit dated but the research hasn't really changed since those publications and is still commonly cited
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18980961/
https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/155/suppl_1/1550107.xml
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30695-0/pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6400230/


SG854 said:


> Even if you have realized it other trans haven't. And still push for that idea. So anti trans will base their counter arguments agaisnt that.
> 
> But it'll be best to make it known so that the person you are arguing against knows how your wording differs and explain the differences so that they can better understand. Against tabzer highly likely things won't change. But it's good for other people tuning in.
> 
> The trans argument does have alot of not so great properly worded points and that wording is what's leading to alot of confusion. And because of this it's more understandable why people are just not 100% on board. So give it some time, refining your arguments and a little bit of patience I think is the best approach to this.


You are preaching to the choir in regards to the misuse of that phrases and issues with the trans community. Unfortunately, I think the trans community wants a quick retort like how transphobes have, "There is only 2 gender," the trans community wants something like that. And just like the commonly used phrases from transphobes, the ones we came up with were mostly incorrect and invalidated due to the nature of omitting details.
As for my responses, I do agree that I could go about them in a better way and refine them.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 3, 2021)

Thanks for the research.  I will follow up at another time.  As far as the "there are only 2 genders" thing, you have to understand that the polarizing of people started with sexuality before gender (homo hetero).  I personally think such classifications are a waste of time and deters people from seeing people as people (and instead symbols), and by extension, gender.  Gender, being purposely more abstract and subjective in this context, isn't really in anybody's realm of domain.  You have as much of a right to desire to be called something as someone has the right to want to call you something else.  If you are respectful people will generally treat you with respect.  If you wear your calling as a badge like religious people do, you will experience rejection and probably disdain.  It isn't hateful to admit these things.  In fact, I'm showing you more respect in responding to you despite your consistent name-calling and demonization of me.  Ironic, isn't it?



Lilith Valentine said:


> Ok, some are a bit dated but the research hasn't really changed since those publications and is still commonly cited
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
> ...


----------



## VzUh (Aug 3, 2021)

im gonna regret posting here and im certainly not going to read the 13 pages nor the link in the op. but after reading the first page and part of the last, im gonna say that i bet most of you cant even tell the difference between your god and religion, seeing that you cant tell apart gender and sex, or notice the difference between male-female and "a dude wants to be a parrot" (spoiler: one is a gender thing and the other isnt. guess wich one is wich)

im also gonna add that i have yet to see any olimpic gold on a trans woman, and that i have read about more bathroom attacks by cis men than i can number vs zero bathroom attacks by trans women. at most, cis men trolling/trying to evade jail, e.g. noone taking hormones etc. if you want any colective to attack because sexual assault, i can point to police and church.

also im guessing noone here who says "the children" actually has a remote idea of how hormones work at all, as they A are hard as hell to get, and B you can do a "stop puberty for a few years while you think about it. after that, if you still think you wanna transition, we will give you the hormones you need, and if you changed your mind you can just stop taking puberty blockers and your body will resume where it left"

if im gonna get banned or whatever because i didnt bother to link any page that clarifies that there are thousands of sexual assaults made by church employees (i dont know the exact word now, but you get it) or something like that, please just remove the part of the comment that offended you and leave the rest here, invisible mod

also i'd like to note that there are 1.5% redhaired and 2% green eyed ppl in the world. intersex ppl made about 1.7% so there goes the "it is not natural" excuse too


----------



## tabzer (Aug 3, 2021)

VzUh said:


> im also gonna add that i have yet to see any olimpic gold on a trans woman



I know you weren't talking to me, because it is obvious that you haven't read me.  But I am curious.  Are you disappointed, or holding out hope?  IMO I think the transgender fad is primarily dominated by men idiots, and in the end, hurts actual women.

In a real respect, it is evidence that the mentality in which people abuse others is being cornered.  So does that mean that all the would-be wife-beaters are turning into sissies?

That's progressive.


----------



## VzUh (Aug 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I know you weren't talking to me, because it is obvious that you haven't read me.



that is correct. i havent read much of this thread, and im not gonna do it because i read some other threads like this in the past and they are all always the same, and i have better things to do (watching paint dry is a better thing to do than reading this type of threads, so it isnt very hard to have better things to do)




tabzer said:


> But I am curious.  Are you disappointed, or holding out hope?  IMO I think the transgender fad is primarily dominated by men idiots, and in the end, hurts actual women.



i literally dont care, i just said that because "oh but muh rights, trans ppl is going to steal all women medals with their superior bodies" and other stuff ppl say as reasons not to let trans ppl exist



tabzer said:


> In a real respect, it is evidence that the mentality in which people abuse others is being cornered.  So does that mean that all the would-be wife-beaters are turning into sissies?
> 
> That's progressive.



1-what
i really dont understand what you just said. maybe because its almost 6am here, maybe because not first language, maybe because it is too unsensical for me to get it
2-if you are saying what i think you are saying, i will resort again to the fact that 40% of policemen are reported for domestic violence, with the real numbers being even higher. it is way easier to become a police than to transition, you know


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 8, 2021)

60's/70's: We are gays. Accept us.
80's/90's: We are gays. God made us this way because God doesn't make mistakes.
00's/10's: We are trans. God made a mistake putting us in the wrong bodies.

I accept all of you but effing make up your minds.


----------



## Dakitten (Nov 8, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> 60's/70's: We are gays. Accept us.
> 80's/90's: We are gays. God made us this way because God doesn't make mistakes.
> 00's/10's: We are trans. God made a mistake putting us in the wrong bodies.
> 
> I accept all of you but effing make up your minds.



You do realize gay folk and trans folk are different, they just come together in seeking equality and fair representation, right? Some trans folk are "straight" by conservative definitions, and gay folk certainly don't have to be trans to love someone of their gender.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 8, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You do realize gay folk and trans folk are different, they just come together in seeking equality and fair representation, right? Some trans folk are "straight" by conservative definitions, and gay folk certainly don't have to be trans to love someone of their gender.


Classic gaslighting. People from western privilege have developed a habit of "fighting" for a "just cause" when all they're doing is being arrogant and talking down to others.

I am a coloured chap. I have sex with women and men. In my culture we have men who dress like women and live like women, whilst others do the same but more of a "drag" thing.

We also have hermaphrodites, gays and lesbians.

It is not an issue for anyone as long as what is done is done in the privacy of one's personal life and not pushed onto another. People accept it and there's those who don't. All are allowed to do as they wish as long as they're not impeding on someone else's life.

What people like YOU in the west do is dictate how others should and should not feel. If they ever say something you don't agree with, you come down on them with such unbridled hatred that its no wonder the nazi movement started amongst your kind (in the west).

Do YOU realise the point I was making or did it go over your head? Obviously gay people and trans people are different, but their message could not be more diametrically opposed - one says they were born gay and the whole basis of who they are is that nature doesn't make mistakes. The others chirp the opposite.

If gender is a societal construct then explain this - what makes a man and a woman? what is the difference netween being male, female, man and woman?

Socially one can get breast implants and gouge their penis out and make it a vagina, but what about their biological chromosomes. I a biological born woman transitions to become a man, when menopause hits them and they need therapy for bone density, hot flashes and other things, will they be denied this treatment because they're men?

Think about it. Don't rage about it. You people in the west don't think, just whinge a lot. Too much.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Nov 8, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Classic gaslighting. People from western privilege have developed a habit of "fighting" for a "just cause" when all they're doing is being arrogant and talking down to others.
> 
> I am a coloured chap. I have sex with women and men. In my culture we have men who dress like women and live like women, whilst others do the same but more of a "drag" thing.
> 
> ...


I had seven strokes, three seizures, twenty-six facepalms, eight headdesks and a partridge in a species-wide existential despair tree reading this.
The first 3/4 of this consists of exaggeration, generalization and possibly-deliberate misuse of terms. I don't know what you think gaslighting means, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean "lying about your cause or justification"- and even if it does, that is _ALSO_ not what is happening here.
As for the classic "don't push it onto others", not only is "this is just who I am and these are the pronouns I go by" not even remotely close to that, but even if it was, such an argument goes both ways by default- any time someone deliberately misgenders a trans person, they're pushing their transphobic views onto them. Any time someone touts their LGBTQ+phobic views as fact when they clearly are not, distorts the actual facts at hand for the sake of bigotry and personal opinion, et cetera, they are pushing their bigoted views on whoever they're trying to convince.
Not all people of a certain group, regardless of the group (whether biological, neurological or ideological), have the same justification for the group's existence or their being in it- if they even have or need a justification. Claiming that, especially nowadays, all or even most gay people use a "God made me this way" excuse (or even any excuse at all, because _they shouldn't have to provide one by now just to EXIST_), or that all or most trans people use a "God made a mistake" excuse (and once again, one they fundamentally should not need to provide just in order to not be discriminated against) is an extreme generalization and demonstrably false.
In regards to gender... have you read the past couple of pages? Gender itself is not a social construct, and the phrase stating it is is one that desperately needs abandoning, as others have stated. Gender _expression,_ on the other hand, is absolutely a social construct- it varies heavily from culture to culture, throughout history, et cetera. Assuming someone else's biological sex and/or gender identity based solely on their clothing (a sadly recurring counter-"argument" throughout this thread) is a completely baseless assumption, and the consequences of that guess being incorrect lie entirely on the person making said assumption.
And finally, the cherry on top: a complete lack of understanding as to what biological sex and chromosomes are and mean. No, it's not all black and white. No, it's not all black and white with a thin veneer of "socially justified surgery" (or whatever the deep-fried fuck you're trying to call it, six of the seven strokes I mentioned earlier occurred while reading that paragraph). That shit's _complicated,_ and the SRY gene isn't going to 100% reliably behave a certain way according to the whims of the uneducated.

Note: In order to avoid the dreaded "fallacy fallacy", I must contractually state that this does not directly mean the things you are trying to prove are automatically false. They flat-out objectively are, and they're even morally reprehensible at every level as a nice fringe benefit, but that's a topic for another time that will hopefully be never because you and the others spouting similar arguments will hopefully *learn* from this discussion and become better, more accepting people.


----------



## Dakitten (Nov 8, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Classic gaslighting. People from western privilege have developed a habit of "fighting" for a "just cause" when all they're doing is being arrogant and talking down to others.
> 
> I am a coloured chap. I have sex with women and men. In my culture we have men who dress like women and live like women, whilst others do the same but more of a "drag" thing.
> 
> ...


I don't believe I was raging, but your reply is a bit all over the place and kinda laughable in the assumptions you've made regarding my heritage. I was just pointing out, in two sentences, that your statement doesn't work because you're comparing two different groups and assuming your interpritation of their message to the world is linked... not even touching on the whole "god made a mistake" nonsense. Did you revive this thread because you need a chat, comrade? We can just talk without the accusations and pitchforks if you've got anxieties you'd like addressed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

At some point during this discussion we’ve lost sight of what it was about, a proposed legal requirement of referring to someone using their preferred name and pronouns under threat of jail time and hefty fines. If we’re done mud slinging now, we should return to that subject, although it has been a while since July, so I’m not sure if there even is anything more to say on the matter, especially not anything constructive.

EDIT: I’ll be deleting any further personal disputes that have no connection to the subject at hand. If your post doesn’t contribute to the conversation, or you have no comment, you don’t need to press the Reply button.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> 60's/70's: We are gays. Accept us.
> 80's/90's: We are gays. God made us this way because God doesn't make mistakes.
> 00's/10's: We are trans. God made a mistake putting us in the wrong bodies.
> 
> I accept all of you but effing make up your minds.


The LGBT+ movement was largely started by trans women of color. The trans community and trans rights have always been part of the greater LGBT+ movement.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> The LGBT+ movement was largely started by trans women of color. The trans community and trans rights have always been part of the greater LGBT+ movement.


The multiverse was started by trans women of colour. Sure.


----------



## osirisjem (Nov 8, 2021)

ChronoTrig said:


> They need the like button to have an emoticon (thumbs up or laugh associated with) cause a lot of people just make me laugh even if I agree/disagree/don't care with their comment.


click and Hold the Like button


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> The multiverse was started by trans women of colour. Sure.


The Gay Liberation Movement was literally started by and ran by trans women. Trans people go back even further protecting for LGBT+ right. This isn’t some new phenomenon, trans people have always been fighting for the rights of the LGBT+ and trying to get respect our identities.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> The Gay Liberation Movement was literally started by and ran by trans women. Trans people go back even further protecting for LGBT+ right. This isn’t some new phenomenon, trans people have always been fighting for the rights of the LGBT+ and trying to get respect our identities.


The Gay Liberation movement didn’t enter the scene until the late 1960’s, and the first mention of “transgender women of colour” I can find dates back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The LGBT movement in America dates back to at least 1950, the first openly gay organisation was started by a gay man named Harry Hay, it was called the Mattachine Society and it was co-founded by Rudi Gernreich who provided financial support. The Daughters of Bilitis, founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 1955 also comes to mind. You could even argue that the Society for Human Rights started by Henry Gerber in 1924 “counts”, but it was shut down within a few months and had a far more all-encompassing mission statement that didn’t explicitly name homosexuality, even though it was obviously included. In any case, your reference is out of date by at least 20 years, not that it even matters since it’s irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I hope the history lesson is out of the way now.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Are you saying gender and sex are synonymous? If so, then my previous post commending you for your progressive stance of saying things like hairstyle, clothes, etc. are biologically innate stands.


Get back to me when you can change your chromosomes. Until then, you will never be a woman .


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

Haloman800 said:


> Get back to me when you can change your chromosomes. Until then, you will never be a woman .


I don’t think @Lacius is transgender, so that’s not exactly a concern for him. That doesn’t exclude him from the conversation, or from having an opinion, or from stating that there is a distinction between biological sex and how one chooses to present themselves to the world.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The Gay Liberation movement didn’t enter the scene until the late 1960’s, and the first mention of “transgender women of colour” I can find dates back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The LGBT movement in America dates back to at least 1950, the first openly gay organisation was started by a gay man named Harry Hay, it was called the Mattachine Society and it was co-founded by Rudi Gernreich who provided financial support. The Daughters of Bilitis, founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 1955 also comes to mind. You could even argue that the Society for Human Rights started by Henry Gerber in 1924 “counts”, but it was shut down within a few months and had a far more all-encompassing mission statement that didn’t explicitly name homosexuality, even though it was obviously included. In any case, your reference is out of date by at least 20 years, not that it even matters since it’s irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I hope the history lesson is out of the way now.


When you deleted my post I wasn't best pleased. It showed to the blind ignorance of the person I was speaking to towards the "heejra" culture in the indian subcontinent and the middle east. (Because americans like to mostly be late to a party and then claim they discovered it). I thought you did me a disservice in deleting the post.

I found your post above quite intelligent and steeped in fact. I also feel you deleted my post not to be biased but to keep the topic, on topic.

Pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> When you deleted my post I wasn't best pleased. It showed to the blind ignorance of the person I was speaking to towards the "heejra" culture in the indian subcontinent and the middle east. (Because americans like to mostly be late to a party and then claim they discovered it). I thought you did me a disservice in deleting the post.
> 
> I found your post above quite intelligent and steeped in fact. I also feel you deleted my post not to be biased but to keep the topic, on topic.
> 
> Pleasantly surprised.


Thank you for the compliment, but I did ask to keep personal matters to other channels, we have a private message system if you want to express gratitude or disappointment. This section of the forum is notorious for going off the rails and well into the mud slinging contest territory, so I once again implore all participants to stick to the topic or not post at all.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The Gay Liberation movement didn’t enter the scene until the late 1960’s, and the first mention of “transgender women of colour” I can find dates back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The LGBT movement in America dates back to at least 1950, the first openly gay organisation was started by a gay man named Harry Hay, it was called the Mattachine Society and it was co-founded by Rudi Gernreich who provided financial support. The Daughters of Bilitis, founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 1955 also comes to mind. You could even argue that the Society for Human Rights started by Henry Gerber in 1924 “counts”, but it was shut down within a few months and had a far more all-encompassing mission statement that didn’t explicitly name homosexuality, even though it was obviously included. In any case, your reference is out of date by at least 20 years, not that it even matters since it’s irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I hope the history lesson is out of the way now.


I noted that and I am talking more about what we consider the current LGBT+ movement, not the history of the movement as a whole. Of course I did completely butcher my own history lesson as it was more to make a point that the trans community isn’t something new and asking for respect for both the LGBT+ as well as for the trans community are nothing new. I digress though and won’t continue my wonky history lesson as it’s off topic and also has way more additional details that are also off topic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I noted that and I am talking more about what we consider the current LGBT+ movement, not the history of the movement as a whole. Of course I did completely butcher my own history lesson as it was more to make a point that the trans community isn’t something new and asking for respect for both the LGBT+ as well as for the trans community are nothing new. I digress though and won’t continue my wonky history lesson as it’s off topic and also has way more additional details that are also off topic.


Excellent, seems like both sides of the debate are pleased with the resolution. The whole point of the law is whether or not there should be a legal requirement to refer to people based on how they choose to present themselves, or more broadly, by the name and gender they identify as, or whether that’s a violation of First Amendment rights. It would be nice if we discussed that, since it’s far more interesting than discussing who did what “first”. It’s a fairly well-known fact that gays, lesbians and transgender people have existed for as long as our species has, the same phenomena exist in nature in other species, so that’s not “news”.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

On topic, I feel like you should either respect trans people or not deserve respect yourself. Trans people are just everyday people who are trying to live their lives to the fullest, they doesn’t deserve to be disrespected by others for doing so. There shouldn’t need to be a law to protect trans people as transphobia should come with the same social stigma as racism. Unfortunately, I can see why the government feels the need to step in because we haven’t gotten to the point where it’s socially unacceptable to be transphobic.


----------



## forerofore (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.
> Gender and sex are two different things.
> 
> Being transgender isn't "a delusional state of mind." People who are transgender perfectly acknowledge that their gender identity doesn't comport with their biological sex.


i agree with you on this, but that doesnt mean we should regulate how people refer to them.
whatever pronoun should be used is based on how you look, and asking people what pronoun they prefer is silly.
if you are transgender and look like a girl, i might aswell refer to you as a "her" or "she" but if you dont look like a girl, i will most likely call you a dude.
i agree with the ruling on this, extremes are bad on both sides of the political spectrum.
calling people by what they look like is inherently an instinct to be respecful to them and how they dress up, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> On topic, I feel like you should either respect trans people or not deserve respect yourself. Trans people are just everyday people who are trying to live their lives to the fullest, they doesn’t deserve to be disrespected by others for doing so. There shouldn’t need to be a law to protect trans people as transphobia should come with the same social stigma as racism. Unfortunately, I can see why the government feels the need to step in because we haven’t gotten to the point where it’s socially unacceptable to be transphobic.


I’m of a similar mindset when it comes to the government criminalising any kind of speech, it seems like a violation of basic human rights to me. The First Amendment protects speech, this includes speech we don’t like, and unless one can demonstrate quantifiable damages (defamation/libel, and even those are exceedingly difficult to argue in court, especially in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Incitement is another exception, and one that’s considerably easier to prove) the speech is protected. The right to speak freely includes the right to be an asshole, and it is up to the employer (in this case healthcare establishment) to set their own rules of conduct. If the establishment is private, they have full authority to dictate what is expected of their employees, if it’s under the purview of the government then the government cannot violate its own laws, including the supreme law of the land.


----------



## forerofore (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m of a similar mindset when it comes to the government criminalising any kind of speech, it seems like a violation of basic human rights to me. The First Amendment protects speech, this includes speech we don’t like, and unless one can demonstrate quantifiable damages (defamation/libel, and even those are exceedingly difficult to argue in court, especially in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Incitement is another exception, and one that’s considerably easier to prove) the speech is protected. The right to speak freely includes the right to be an asshole, and it is up to the employer (in this case healthcare establishment) to set their own rules of conduct. If the establishment is private, they have full authority to dictate what is expected of their employees, if it’s under the purview of the government then the government cannot violate its own laws, including the supreme law of the land.


i can tell you this, there is training in healthcare to avoid being disrespectful to transgender people, or people who would like to undergo hormonal therapy. if a nursing home is being disrespectful to a transgender patient, then report the incident, and if its systematic (eg involving all personell) switch to another one (even if that means getting a diff insurance this year).


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m of a similar mindset when it comes to the government criminalising any kind of speech, it seems like a violation of basic human rights to me. The First Amendment protects speech, this includes speech we don’t like, and unless one can demonstrate quantifiable damages (defamation/libel, and even those are exceedingly difficult to argue in court, especially in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Incitement is another exception, and one that’s considerably easier to prove) the speech is protected. The right to speak freely includes the right to be an asshole, and it is up to the employer (in this case healthcare establishment) to set their own rules of conduct. If the establishment is private, they have full authority to dictate what is expected of their employees, if it’s under the purview of the government then the government cannot violate its own laws, including the supreme law of the land.


I am of the mindset that the best the government can do is lead by example. The best example is fighting against anti-trans laws and being vocal while doing so. Anti-trans laws are a massive government overreach and just as much violates humans rights. Laws that protect trans people sound great on paper but they are easy to shot down with very little effort. At the same time, those arguments that shutdown those laws can be flipped to fight against unjust laws, which sends a stronger message that doesn’t limit others. It can also send a message that transphobia is unacceptable without directly going after it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I am of the mindset that the best the government can do is lead by example. The best example is fighting against anti-trans laws and being vocal against them. Anti-trans laws are a massive government overreach and just as much violates humans rights. Laws that protect trans people sound great on paper but they are be shot down with very little effort. At the same time, those arguments that shutdown those laws can be flipped to fight against unjust laws, which sends a stronger message that doesn’t limit others. It can also send a message that transphobia is unacceptable without directly going after it.


I don’t know if I agree with this sentiment or not - my favourite kind of government is so small you can barely see it, or hear it for that matter. With that being said, I can find some common ground in disapproving of any restrictive laws since I also believe it’s none of the government’s business to dictate how people choose to live their lives. What you do in your own house doesn’t cost me anything and doesn’t impede the exercise of my own rights, I don’t need the government to enforce any particular moral standard. The problem here is that most efforts to combat discrimination are conducted by giving government more legal power over the citizens, as opposed to taking power away from the government so that it is not empowered to dictate ridiculous policy in the first place.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know if I agree with this sentiment or not - my favourite kind of government is so small you can barely see it, or hear it for that matter. With that being said, I can find some common ground in disapproving of any restrictive laws since I also believe it’s none of the government’s business to dictate how people choose to live their lives. What you do in your own house doesn’t cost me anything and doesn’t impede the exercise of my own rights, I don’t need the government to enforce any particular moral standard. The problem here is that most efforts to combat discrimination are conducted by giving government more legal power over the citizens, as opposed to taking power away from the government so that it is not empowered to dictate ridiculous policy in the first place.


I quite agree and also want a small and quiet government, but right now we don’t have that. My point is more that the counter to anti-trans laws shouldn’t be aggressively pro-trans laws, it should be shutting down the anti-trans laws and arguing that they violate human rights. This approach argues that trans rights are already protected by basic human rights while not making laws that limit others. This can send a better example of social acceptance of trans people without overstepping. It can also be argued that anti-trans laws are overstepping and thus unacceptable, again without overstepping.


----------



## mikefor20 (Nov 8, 2021)

You can do whatever you want. I'll call you whatever i want. I'll respect you IF you respect me. If you're a moron. Then in will call you moron.  I don't care what you wear or who you screw. What's it to me?

I'll respect the pronoun if you're not being ridiculous. I have a good friend, born female, who dresses like a man but if you call her a man she gets mad and says that she's a woman. I call her she but she is obviously just confusing the issue. She has a mustache. Hides her boobs. Wears mens clothes. Even boxers. She's great.  But she's constantly complaining about identity. I tell her all the time she's ridiculous and shouldn't care. She's just Johnny. This is San Francisco. We are progressive but if you want to cause a problem because you're confusing the hell out of everybody you can kiss my ass.

 And once again if you respect me I will respect you. I know a lot of lgbtq people. I live in SF. My whole life in the bay. Some of them are way cool. Amazing people. Some of them are total fucking jerks. Because we are all just people. Just because you belong to a "new and fragile Community," doesn't mean you get a pass on being a human being. My friends are as diverse as it gets. And by that I don't mean strictly not white. That's not diverse either.

There shouldn't be a law restricting what you call people. That wouldn't be fair or free.

 It doesn't matter if you're gay straight red white purple or Jew . Most of you still suck. Just like the everyone else. Get over it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I quite agree and also want a small and quiet government, but right now we don’t have that. My point is more that the counter to anti-trans laws shouldn’t be aggressively pro-trans laws, it should be shutting down the anti-trans laws and arguing that they violate human rights. This approach argues that trans rights are already protected by basic human rights while not making laws that limit others. This can send a better example of social acceptance of trans people without overstepping. It can also be argued that anti-trans laws are overstepping and thus unacceptable, again without overstepping.


Depending on what we consider to be trans rights, the vast majority of them are already protected adequately under the U.S. Constitution. The problem here is deciding whether or not referring to people in a specific way is included in that list of rights - in my estimation it is not, it’s compelled speech. Anyone can “misgender” others regardless of whether they’re trans or not, it’s a fairly common (albeit childish) form of insult. “You punch like a girl” is as old as time, for instance. I don’t see how it’s any different than any other insult, and if it’s used in earnest then it’s an expression of belief that identifying biological sex trumps personal self-identification, both of which would seem protected to me. Regardless of the scenario, I don’t think there is an enumerated right to not have your jimmies rustled - you’re the one in charge of your jimmies. There are legal protections against harassment if an individual contacts you repeatedly against your wishes, and those also protect all citizens regardless of whether they’re trans or not. I was always of the opinion that enumerating rights that only apply to a specific subset of society is counterproductive - rights should apply to everyone equally and encompass everybody. When slavery was outlawed, it wasn’t outlawed based on a specific skin tone, it was outlawed outright, not piecemeal.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Depending on what we consider to be trans rights, the vast majority of them are already protected adequately under the U.S. Constitution. The problem here is deciding whether or not referring to people in a specific way is included in that list of rights - in my estimation it is not, it’s compelled speech. Anyone can “misgender” others regardless of whether they’re trans or not, it’s a fairly common (albeit childish) form of insult. “You punch like a girl” is as old as time, for instance. I don’t see how it’s any different than any other insult, and if it’s used in earnest then it’s an expression of belief that identifying biological sex trumps personal self-identification, both of which would seem protected to me. Regardless of the scenario, I don’t think there is an enumerated right to not have your jimmies rustled - you’re the one in charge of your jimmies. There are legal protections against harassment if an individual contacts you repeatedly against your wishes, and those also protect all citizens regardless of whether they’re trans or not. I was always of the opinion that enumerating rights that only apply to a specific subset of society is counterproductive - rights should apply to everyone equally and encompass everybody. When slavery was outlawed, it wasn’t outlawed based on a specific skin tone, it was outlawed outright, not piecemeal.


I am not in any disagreement with this post because really just adds to the point I am trying to make. This to say that anti-trans laws should be shutdown with the notion that they violate laws already in place to protect human rights. There’s already laws against harassment and there doesn’t need to be laws specifically protecting trans people, as the current one just needs to be enforced and upheld for trans people equally. My extended argument is that this stance should be the one held as it doesn’t make trans people the target and is inclusive to say that laws that protect everyone should extend to everyone regardless of gender, sex, race, and so on.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 8, 2021)

Haloman800 said:


> Get back to me when you can change your chromosomes. Until then, you will never be a woman .


I'm a cis male, so no, I am not a woman. However, there is a difference between one's biological sex (which isn't itself binary) and one's gender identity, and they often don't comport with one another.


----------



## AncientBoi (Nov 8, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You do realize gay folk and trans folk are different, they just come together in seeking equality and fair representation, right? Some trans folk are "straight" by conservative definitions, and gay folk certainly don't have to be trans to love someone of their gender.



hear hear, hear hear 

Gay to the end.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm a cis male, so no, I am not a woman. However, there is a difference between one's biological sex (which isn't itself binary) and one's gender identity, and they often don't comport with one another.


I find the notion of “you can’t change your chromosomes” to be silly. I am literally XX intersex, I am and have always been closer to biologically female. I was born with both parts (external male, internal female,) so which one am I? Do my female chromosomes determine that I am female or do my external parts determine me as male? What about the rest of my genetics? I definitely developed traits from both, so which one am I? The argument of chromosomes only gets muddier the more one researches the topic and gets past a middle school understanding of biology. I find it sad that transphobes don’t actually appreciate this kind of stuff, the biology and psychology of trans and intersex people is deeply fascinating. To keep this on topic, it’s ridiculous to reduce laws to external parts alone.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I find the notion of “you can’t change your chromosomes” to be silly. I am literally XX intersex, I am and have always been closer to biologically female. I was born with both parts (external male, internal female,) so which one am I? Do my female chromosomes determine that I am female or do my external parts determine me as male? What about the rest of my genetics? I definitely developed traits from both, so which one am I? The argument of chromosomes only gets muddier the more one researches the topic and gets past a middle school understanding of biology. I find it sad that transphobes don’t actually appreciate this kind of stuff, the biology and psychology of trans and intersex people is deeply fascinating. To keep this on topic, it’s ridiculous to reduce laws to external parts alone.


Social conservatives are anti-science? Fascinating.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Social conservatives are anti-science? Fascinating.


There’s nothing anti-science in saying that one cannot change their genes, and using rare cases of physical/genetic abnormality or congenital disease to redefine scientific categories like biological sex is scientific dishonesty. We don’t do it for any other syndrome or disease, and we shouldn’t do it here. I don’t think anyone would argue in earnest that sex isn’t a spectrum, at least not anyone with a basic understanding of the subject - it clearly is since there are more masculine or more feminine men and women, and those differences go well beyond nurture and into the nature category. With that being said, it is a spectrum with two distinctive peaks that correspond to two biological sexes, which is to be expected in a sexually dimorphic species. I never saw the intersex conundrum as “muddled” - the hint is in the name, intersex individuals are somewhere between the sexes, and I consider it unfair to enforce classification as one or the other considering their karyotypes are atypical (47,XXY for instance) or another anomaly has occurred prior to birth (atypical SRY gene crossover leading to XX-male etc.) - they don’t fit the binary classification, and that’s fine. People who suffer from polydactylism also don’t fit the mold, but their existence doesn’t mean that our species doesn’t have 5 digits on each hand. Nature be crazy like that, all sorts of weird stuff can happen. Does it establish the existence of a third sex? No, not really.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s nothing anti-science in saying that one cannot change their karyotype, and using rare cases of physical/genetic abnormality or congenital disease to redefine scientific categories like biological sex is scientific dishonesty. We don’t do it for any other syndrome or disease, and we shouldn’t do it here. I don’t think anyone would argue in earnest that sex isn’t a spectrum, at least not anyone with a basic understanding of the subject - it clearly is since there are more masculine or more feminine men and women, and those differences go well beyond nurture and into the nature category. With that being said, it is a spectrum with two distinctive peaks that correspond to two biological sexes, which is to be expected in a sexually dimorphic species. I never saw the intersex conundrum as “muddled” - the hint is in the name, intersex individuals are somewhere between the sexes, and I consider it unfair to enforce classification as one or the other considering their karyotypes are atypical (XXY, for instance) or another anomaly has occurred prior to birth (atypical SRY gene crossover leading to XX-male etc.) - they don’t fit the binary classification, and that’s fine. People who suffer from polydactylism also don’t fit the mold, but their existence doesn’t mean that our species doesn’t have 5 digits on each hand. Nature be crazy like that, all sorts of weird stuff can happen. Does it establish the existence of a third sex? No, not really.


It's anti-scientific to argue gender is the same thing as sex, and it's anti-scientific to argue sex doesn't have more than two options.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's anti-scientific to argue gender is the same thing as sex, and it's anti-scientific to argue sex doesn't have more than two options.


You didn’t read what I said. Let me help you.


> I don’t think anyone would argue in earnest that sex isn’t a spectrum, at least not anyone with a basic understanding of the subject - it clearly is since there are more masculine or more feminine men and women, and those differences go well beyond nurture and into the nature category. With that being said, it is a spectrum with two distinctive peaks that correspond to two biological sexes, which is to be expected in a sexually dimorphic species.


In the purely biological sense and strictly from a reproductive perspective there are indeed two sexes, male and female, both of which develop different primary and secondary sexual characteristics and produce one of two different types of gametes, eggs or sperm. That is how our species overwhelmingly forms and reproduces, although some anomalies do exist, in the same way as any other genetic anomaly. How close any given individual is to a given peak on the spectrum, by which I mean how their genes express, is dependent on a variety of factors. Pretending otherwise is dishonest, and will always be dishonest. None of this has any bearing on gender, which you could’ve gathered from the previous posts in this thread.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You didn’t read what I said. Let me help you.
> In the purely biological sense and strictly from a reproductive perspective there are indeed two sexes, male and female, both of which develop different primary and secondary sexual characteristics and produce one of two different types of gametes, eggs or sperm. That is how our species overwhelmingly forms and reproduces, although some anomalies do exist, in the same way as any other genetic anomaly. How close any given individual is to a given peak on the spectrum, by which I mean how their genes express, is dependent on a variety of factors. Pretending otherwise is dishonest, and will always be dishonest. None of this has any bearing on gender, which you could’ve gathered from the previous posts in this thread.


Let me help you. The only points I made were that gender is different from sex, and there are more than two sexes. I don't know why you're trying to force an argument between us, 3-4 months after I last posted anything substantive in this thread, when I haven't seen any substantive disagreement between us regarding the science. Let me know if I'm mistaken. Until then, I don't understand the purpose of this conversation.

I can see that I'm missed, but I don't post here as frequently because GBATemp is a cesspool of toxicity and incompetent staff. I can be coaxed into a conversation here and there if it I'm tagged by name and it peaks my interest, but this one doesn't do the latter.


----------



## smf (Nov 8, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not any different than any other psychiatric dysphoria, and I reject politicized redefinition of words like gender.


Trans denial is also psychiatric dysphoria.



Lacius said:


> It's anti-scientific to argue gender is the same thing as sex, and it's anti-scientific to argue sex doesn't have more than two options.


It's anti science to say there are only two genders as well.

Saying that there are two and any people that don't fit into that are abnormal and don't count, is trans phobic.

It's no different to thinking that black people are abnormal.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Let me help you. The only points I made were that gender is different from sex, and there are more than two sexes. I don't know why you're trying to force an argument between us, 3-4 months after I last posted anything substantive in this thread, when I haven't seen any substantive disagreement between us regarding the science. Let me know if I'm mistaken. Until then, I don't understand the purpose of this conversation.
> 
> I can see that I'm missed, but I don't post here as frequently because GBATemp is a cesspool of toxicity and incompetent staff. I can be coaxed into a conversation here and there if it I'm tagged by name and it peaks my interest, but this one doesn't do the latter.


I was under the impression that there was some disagreement, and based on your chosen phrasing there clearly is one, but admittedly it goes well beyond the scope of the thread, much like some of the other diversions the thread went through so far. I believe some clarity on the subject is somewhat beneficial as it adds context to the discussion, but it seems that point was already reached. In the interest of expediting this disagreement, we can end it here.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Gender and sex are two different things.




Bullshit. And you've got nothing that says otherwise except other people who think the same as you, who say otherwise. There is no hard scientific support for this. It all goes back to a crazy pervert named Dr. John Money, and his victims the Reimer brothers.


----------



## RocaBOT (Nov 9, 2021)

This is not the topic of this thread, and you clearly don't have any idea what the scientific consensus on the question is in 2021. Can we discuss how relevant it is that states might want to force removal of laws that are clearly inegalitarian versus the proposed addition of a law that would instead potentially deepen the issue? That was the topic at hand, last I checked.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 9, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Bullshit. And you've got nothing that says otherwise except other people who think the same as you, who say otherwise. There is no hard scientific support for this. It all goes back to a crazy pervert named Dr. John Money, and his victims the Reimer brothers.


Outside of the hard evidence from peer-reviewed research that is constantly being updated.


The Catboy said:


> Ok, some are a bit dated but the research hasn't really changed since those publications and is still commonly cited
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
> ...


This is just a small fracture of the studies publically available if you feel inclined to do some actual research.


----------



## Deleted member 514389 (Nov 9, 2021)

It doesn't matter if each snowflake wants a right.
If they roll over you together as avalanche you're done for.

The same people who want to be "adressed correctls" seldom are able to give others the same benefit of doubt.
Nor do they have any understanding for the effect that decades of stupid socalisation have on your minds ability to switch "pronouns" or - anything - at will.

Good thing I loathe people on principle,
saves time.




Hanafuda said:


> Bullshit. And you've got nothing that says otherwise except other people who think the same as you, who say otherwise. There is no hard scientific support for this. It all goes back to a crazy pervert named Dr. John Money, and his victims the Reimer brothers.


That was extremly sad..
Poor David.
I wonder if that docu is still on yt.
"Lovemaps" yeah.
He was called "Dr.Money" rightfully.
He revoked most of his stupid assertions.

But much like the fool that falsely claimed "alpha/beta blabla people" existed, only to wish he never did when it turned out false:
Public memory is ridiculously persistant.
Yuck.


----------



## DS1 (Nov 9, 2021)

Belligerent nursing home attendant handing out pills: “Here you go, GRAMPS!”

“Damned whippersnapper…”


----------



## Deinexim (Nov 9, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Hey gang remember when this website was about hacking your 3DS and wasn't inundated with threads made by the same loud ass 3-4 transphobic assholes who are still somehow allowed a platform despite repeatedly and publically spreading their awful awful bigoted opinion?
> 
> I sure don't
> 
> ...


I 100% agree with you. I legit joined GBATemp just to find tips on modding my DSi and Wii, and seeing these anti-trans people repeat poorly substantiated takes that have been debunked dozens of times is really annoying.

Also, thumbs up for linking to Innuendo Studios. Those videos have really helped me to deal with internet trolls and bigots.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2021)

*misgenders everyone in this thread again*


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I find the notion of “you can’t change your chromosomes” to be silly. I am literally XX intersex, I am and have always been closer to biologically female. I was born with both parts (external male, internal female,) so which one am I? Do my female chromosomes determine that I am female or do my external parts determine me as male? What about the rest of my genetics? I definitely developed traits from both, so which one am I? The argument of chromosomes only gets muddier the more one researches the topic and gets past a middle school understanding of biology. I find it sad that transphobes don’t actually appreciate this kind of stuff, the biology and psychology of trans and intersex people is deeply fascinating. To keep this on topic, it’s ridiculous to reduce laws to external parts alone.


Nothing muddy about chromosomes. You can be intersex and still be chromosomal XX, XY and rarely XXY. To conflate intersex people who make up roughly ) 0.019% of the world's population with "modern transsexual" people is an *absolute *misnomer.

The whole argument of "I am a boy if I feel and behave like a boy" or girl for that matter is a psychological phenomenon. It has nothing to do with being intersex which is wholly biological with a psychological leaning of the intersex person on the gender spectrum. (and I use the word spectrum very carefully).

The fact you said you're XX means you're chromosome female. Just because you may have a penis doesn't mean you will ever be able to change this very biological fact. You can't just become biologically XY.

This is a universal, undeniable fact. It doesn't make someone transphobic.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 9, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Nothing muddy about chromosomes. You can be intersex and still be chromosomal XX, XY and rarely XXY. To conflate intersex people who make up roughly ) 0.019% of the world's population with "modern transsexual" people is an *absolute *misnomer.
> 
> The whole argument of "I am a boy if I feel and behave like a boy" or girl for that matter is a psychological phenomenon. It has nothing to do with being intersex which is wholly biological with a psychological leaning of the intersex person on the gender spectrum. (and I use the word spectrum very carefully).
> 
> ...


I am actually trans as well but that being said, it’s actually roughly between .05 to 1.7% of the population that is intersex/has intersex traits. https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UNFE-Intersex.pdf
As for the rest, my gender still isn’t defined by my sex and there’s plenty of research (that I literally just posted,) that agrees with me. One gender is far more than just a psychological phenomenon or a matter of “feelings.” Your information is just grossly outdated.


----------



## Vergeeley (Nov 9, 2021)

Cut my head off for saying this but I just have to.

First of all, this law is ridiculous and I can't actually believe there was even a possibility it could exist. I guess people love their lables THAT much.

Yes, your "gender" is just another label you use for whatever reason. There is no such thing as "I feel like a boy/girl" if you stop thinking about "feminine/masculine" things in the first place. Having long hair doesn't make me a girl, it makes me a long-haired guy. If I like skirts that means I'm a crossdresser and it doesn't make me a girl. Heck, even a wish to have boobs doesn't make me a girl. Etc, etc. 
Instead of accepting yourself as a human with your own interests or whatever you chose to conform to some stereotypes. You're not making life any easier for yourselves nor anybody else. Actually making it harder for people "somewhere inbetween".

You know, I don't really care. Just don't get angry at me if I use a "wrong" noun. If you don't feel good in your body that's another case and no one should have problems with that.
I'm not transphobic, I'm just not a huge fan of sexism.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Ok, some are a bit dated but the research hasn't really changed since those publications and is still commonly cited
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
> ...





The Catboy said:


> Outside of the hard evidence from peer-reviewed research that is constantly being updated.
> 
> This is just a small fracture of the studies publically available if you feel inclined to do some actual research.



Our data supports the finding that ....
Suggests that ...
May, could ...

Nobody's been able to specifically identify a biological differentiation between gender and sex. Mental differentiation maybe, but not biological. "Gender" itself is a word that didn't have much use or meaning outside of the study of Latin and Romance languages (Spanish, French, Catalan, Italian, Portuguese), as a way for prudish teachers to avoid using the word "sex,"  until this theory/lifestyle came along.

I'm not saying it won't someday be proven. There's certainly a lot of effort going into trying to prove it (tells ya something, doesn't it?) But Lacius shouldn't be stating it is settled fact, or saying it's "anti-scientific" to disagree with him. Medically speaking, gender dysphoria is still treated as a psychological condition, which in the extreme case is treated by hormonal and surgical modification.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 9, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Our data supports the finding that ....
> Suggests that ...
> May, could ...
> 
> ...


It is a fact, gender isn't sex.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I am actually trans as well but that being said, it’s actually roughly between .05 to 1.7% of the population that is intersex/has intersex traits. https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UNFE-Intersex.pdf
> As for the rest, my gender still isn’t defined by my sex and there’s plenty of research (that I literally just posted,) that agrees with me. One gender is far more than just a psychological phenomenon or a matter of “feelings.” Your information is just grossly outdated.


What's gross is your entitlement and arrogance.

The issue with research is you can quite literally find research in support of any hypothesis and turn around and find an almost equal amount disputing the same.

You are the prime living example of the complication here - you're biologically XX, you claim to have genitals for both and even internal parts for both. You're intersex which means you are a tiny fraction of the world's population with this condition.

Arguably you're both male and female.

Then you say you're trans which begs the question, for someone with XX chromosome, who presents both genitals and internal organs, how can someone possibly, in their right mind, in this or any other universe, ever, in this history of existence and beyond EVER, correctly wager a guess as to what your pronoun is?

If there is a law which criminalizes this person for misgendering you, do you realise how it affects their life? their record and their employability for the future? So just because you are such a unique case they should suffer for the rest of their lives? I am saying this to stay on topic.

Do you also not see the safest way for anyone to exist around you in this regard is to just avoid you altogether, because if they engage you, they will forever be on eggshells and risk their very livelihood? Does that not make you the literal ticking bomb to be near? Is that not toxic? I am not being facetious, think about it.

Who even gave you the right to be so entitled that you get to decide someone's life and fate in this manner?

By calling unsuspecting people trans-phobic you are not only hurting them but creating a problem for yourself here. If you follow European history it is exactly situations such as this which led to movements in germany which I will not go into. Its because people had enough of these shenanigans and it only ended up hurting a lot of innocents.

I mean it in the most sincere way - calm down, you're clearly a very special person. Appreciate who you are and if people don't understand it then let them be, don't call them phobes, they may not know what they are doing. Respect is earned and never demanded. Same for acceptance.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Nov 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> *Snip!*


You're not wrong. I read through that fetid doorstopper of a counterargument, and it can be summarized as:
-You're entitled because... you just are? (tautology)
-Research bad because some research might be wrong, so any research can't be trusted (flagrant violation of common sense and basic logic)
-You fall under the gender binary because I say so (bullshit)
-I refuse to realize the issue being discussed here is _deliberate_ misgendering and the like, not accidental (refusal to realize the solution to not knowing someone's pronouns is to ask them, and the solution to being a transphobic asshole is not being a transphobic asshole)
-You're dangerous for being different in a way that does not detract from you being a human being that deserves equal treatment because... once again, I'm not even going to put _effort_ into being a bigot (see above)
-Victim-blaming (victim-blaming)
-You're calling "unsuspecting people" transphobic, apparently (see above- a combination of victim-blaming and deliberate ignorance)
-Three gallons of condescending nonsense
Yeah, it's not worth reading. That's two minutes of my life I'll never get back.

EDIT: Response to a deleted post, but I’ve chosen to leave it unaltered since it at least lists counter points. -Foxi4


----------



## smf (Nov 9, 2021)

notrea11y said:


> The same people who want to be "adressed correctls" seldom are able to give others the same benefit of doubt.
> Nor do they have any understanding for the effect that decades of stupid socalisation have on your minds ability to switch "pronouns" or - anything - at will.


I don't know about you, but the people I know who choose their own pronouns are quite tolerant.

They are less worried about the people who occasionally slip up & a bit more upset about the people who scream in their faces "_I refuse to call you what you want, you disturbed faggot_".

But being trans doesn't stop someone from being an asshole, same as someone who isn't trans can be an asshole too.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 10, 2021)

Genuine question out of interest, does the pronoun issue exist in other languages/cultures or is it only an English-speaking thing?


----------



## Deleted member 560282 (Nov 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Genuine question out of interest, does the pronoun issue exist in other languages/cultures or is it only an English-speaking thing?


As far as I can tell, here in Spanish speaking countries we have a big dilemma with "inclusive language" cause of the way our language work


----------



## RocaBOT (Nov 10, 2021)

French and many other languages with gendered pronouns as the main way of pointing to people have the same issue. Not all of them have an "historic" neutral like singular they in English even, which makes it worse at times (and that's not even inclusive of people that fell neutral doesn't help better represent their identity then the existing gendered pronouns, to tell you how deep the thing could spread). A single neutral pronoun that does not include or exclude anyone by design would be far easier to handle tbh, but hey, we do with what we're given


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm a cis male, so no, I am not a woman. However, there is a difference between one's biological sex (which isn't itself binary) and one's gender identity, and they often don't comport with one another.


Glad to see you agree that trans "women" are biological men. This is the first sensical thing you've posted :^)


Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think @Lacius is transgender, so that’s not exactly a concern for him. That doesn’t exclude him from the conversation, or from having an opinion, or from stating that there is a distinction between biological sex and how one chooses to present themselves to the world.


I am aware.


----------



## RocaBOT (Nov 11, 2021)

Why the quotation marks? Aside from being a jerk obviously, I mean. What does it cost you to treat people with a minimal amount of decency, of all things, when you most certainly expect them to be civil as well and not shove their own shit on your face? It's not like we're depriving you of anything or whatnot...


----------



## Esjay131 (Nov 11, 2021)

Haloman800 said:


> Glad to see you agree that trans "women" are biological men. This is the first sensical thing you've posted :^)
> 
> I am aware.



Careful not to cut yourself on all that edge


----------



## Lacius (Nov 11, 2021)

Haloman800 said:


> Glad to see you agree that trans "women" are biological men. This is the first sensical thing you've posted :^)
> 
> I am aware.


Transgender people have a gender identity that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth, yes. That doesn't mean that a trans woman, for example, isn't a woman. Do you have a point?


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 11, 2021)

Haloman800 said:


> Glad to see you agree that trans "women" are biological men. This is the first sensical thing you've posted :^)
> 
> I am aware.


Try to stretch before making a reach like that again


----------



## Vergeeley (Nov 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> You're not wrong. I read through that fetid doorstopper of a counterargument, and it can be summarized as:
> -You're entitled because... you just are? (tautology)
> -Research bad because some research might be wrong, so any research can't be trusted (flagrant violation of common sense and basic logic)
> -You fall under the gender binary because I say so (bullshit)
> ...


It works for both sides so your countercounteragrument can be summarized as well:
- You're stupid bad because you say these things and that's because you're stupid and ignorant that makes you stupid
I would suggest you take this kind of "counteragrumenting" to 4chan or something. The guy literally explains his point, you twist it without explaining your own.


> Yeah, it's not worth reading. That's two minutes of my life I'll never get back.


I'm pretty sure those two minutes were worthless anyway so don't worry.


RocaBOT said:


> Why the quotation marks? Aside from being a jerk obviously, I mean. What does it cost you to treat people with a minimal amount of decency, of all things, when you most certainly expect them to be civil as well and not shove their own shit on your face? It's not like we're depriving you of anything or whatnot...


It's not a problem if they just ask. Heck, I used to ask people to call me "she" at some point in my life and nobody had problems with that. I just didn't get mad if someone dared to "misgender" me. (Until I learned that the whole purpose of gender is to switch pronouns and do things of opposite sex which you can do without it whatsoever)


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 11, 2021)

Vergeeley said:


> It works for both sides so your countercounteragrument can be summarized as well:
> - You're stupid bad because you say these things and that's because you're stupid and ignorant that makes you stupid
> I would suggest you take this kind of "counteragrumenting" to 4chan or something. The guy literally explains his point, you twist it without explaining your own.
> 
> ...


I did end up reading that post and it really wasn’t worth wasting my time. Getting mad and trying to police my identity without asking for clarification. The legal and medical handling around someone like me is actually kind of interesting because I am a legally treated like a trans a person but my medicine and actual medical treatment is very different from most trans people. It’s actually kind of interesting and a shame that it wasn’t expanded upon at the time.

You can switch pronouns and not have to change your life. Experimenting with your gender, pronouns, etc. doesn’t come with the requirement of major life changes, unless you want it to.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Nov 11, 2021)

Vergeeley said:


> It works for both sides so your countercounteragrument can be summarized as well:
> - You're stupid bad because you say these things and that's because you're stupid and ignorant that makes you stupid
> I would suggest you take this kind of "counteragrumenting" to 4chan or something. The guy literally explains his point, you twist it without explaining your own.
> 
> ...


...I literally already gave my own point, etc.
Please backread _before_ you reply.
Also... what? The purpose... of _gender..._ what???
I genuinely can't even tell what you're trying to say there. Gender is a concept, not a tool to be utilized- you must have it confused with something, but I can't figure out what.


----------



## Drak0rex (Nov 11, 2021)

There are only 2 genders, male and female. Boys have penises, girls have vaginas. The fact that this is even an issue just goes to show how far humanity has fallen.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 11, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> There are only 2 genders, male and female. Boys have penises, girls have vaginas. The fact that this is even an issue just goes to show how far humanity has fallen.


I didn’t realize science progressing past your middle school understanding of human sex and gender is the fall of humanity


----------



## Dakitten (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> There are only 2 genders, male and female. Boys have penises, girls have vaginas. The fact that this is even an issue just goes to show how far humanity has fallen.


Y'know, everything else aside, folk being intersex DOES happen, right? I mean, you're obviously dead wrong and bigoted aside from this simple fact and refuse to see reason, but even playing your own game, you're still wrong. You should stop "falling" and blaming it on humanity.


----------



## Drak0rex (Nov 12, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I didn’t realize science progressing past your middle school understanding of human sex and gender is the fall of humanity


I didn't realize people suffering from gender dysphoria, hacking off their genitals because they don't know which bathroom to use, and then constantly seeking attention and special treatment for it was considered science


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> I didn't realize people suffering from gender dysphoria, hacking off their genitals because they don't know which bathroom to use, and then constantly seeking attention and special treatment for it was considered science


The generalisation in your post is simply amazing.

Not all trans people have gender dysphoria.

Not all trans people have GRS (oh and most of us know what toilets to use thank you very much) 

Not all trans people look for attention 

And most of us don't want special treatment. We just want to be treated the same as CIS people.


----------



## Drak0rex (Nov 12, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Y'know, everything else aside, folk being intersex DOES happen, right? I mean, you're obviously dead wrong and bigoted aside from this simple fact and refuse to see reason, but even playing your own game, you're still wrong. You should stop "falling" and blaming it on humanity.


You're talking about a freak occurrence in humans that accounts for a fraction of a percent of the population. And just because someone has a view that you don't like doesn't make  them a bigot. I don't think you're less of a human being because of the weird shit you do behind closed doors, I just have no desire to be aware of it.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> I didn't realize people suffering from gender dysphoria, hacking off their genitals because they don't know which bathroom to use, and then constantly seeking attention and special treatment for it was considered science


None of that is required to be trans and your transphobia is wrong. Actual science disagrees and it has for decades now, so there’s no debate here, you are just wrong.
Here’s a post with just a fraction of the sources showing that you are wrong. Trans people deserve respect and science agrees. I am more than willing to bet that you can’t provide any recent peer-reviewed papers to counter these points. 


The Catboy said:


> Ok, some are a bit dated but the research hasn't really changed since those publications and is still commonly cited
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
> ...


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Nov 12, 2021)

As long as the person makes an honest mistake about calling someone a mam or sir, and they are not that gender. I don't see the problem, now if someone is deliberately calling them a different sex to be mean. Then yeah your fine to be a bit pissed off... Honestly I don't care what someone identifies as. The only times it bothers me a bit is when it comes to like sports. That South Park episode did it best where they had Macho Man Randy Savage identifying as a woman and just beating the hell out of the women. The episode was hilarious but it did raise some interesting questions.


----------



## Drak0rex (Nov 12, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> The generalisation in your post is simply amazing.
> 
> Not all trans people have gender dysphoria.
> 
> ...


That's fair. I realize that most people just want to be left alone and not draw attention. I'm talking about the vocal minority that are pushing their agenda on society in an effort to change standards and normalize bizarre behavior, claiming that anyone who speaks up against it must be a horrible person. I'm talking about drag queen story hour. I'm talking about diversity for the sake of diversity. I'm talking about taking established characters from our popular culture and making them gay for no reason and then proclaiming that it's so stunning and brave. I'm talking about people making up 90 different "genders" and then getting mad when you call them the wrong pronoun. There are more important things to worry about in the world.


----------



## RocaBOT (Nov 12, 2021)

You realise that the "vocal minority" you speak of does not exist, it's an invention of peeps that would like to keep us from being equal to other people. Much like all "vocal minorities" that the far right and the like invents, and often times even impersonate themselves, to throw dismay on movements they consider a "deadly threat" (like sure, I'm really eager to kill all of humanity by being equal to the rest of people, that's definitely my number 1 priority. Yep. Definitely not a joke, definitely not irony at all here )


----------



## Drak0rex (Nov 12, 2021)

Why is there an entire month dedicated to gay pride? Who decided this needs to be a thing? What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 12, 2021)

RocaBOT said:


> You realise that the "vocal minority" you speak of does not exist, it's an invention of peeps that would like to keep us from being equal to other people. Much like all "vocal minorities" that the far right and the like invents, and often times even impersonate themselves, to throw dismay on movements they consider a "deadly threat" (like sure, I'm really eager to kill all of humanity by being equal to the rest of people, that's definitely my number 1 priority. Yep. Definitely not a joke, definitely not irony at all here )



I doubt the case of Oberlin College was a conspiracy from the far right. It had nothing to do with fighting for more equality, more about promoting tribalism in our society. And on twitter it was defended as such. They're trans, I'm trans, so they're necessarily right, and if you're against it you're necessarily ~phobe.

The LGBTQ community (and by extension trans community) suffers from lobbyism just like every community. We're a lot more effective at defending equality for everyone when we learn to say no to excessive behaviors.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> Why is there an entire month dedicated to gay pride? Who decided this needs to be a thing? What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?


It being a month long was not decided by the LGBT community it was done by politicians. 

US president Bill Clinton officially declared June “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month” in June 1999 before fellow Democrat Barack Obama extended its title to the more inclusive “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month” a decade later.


And as for you asking why we have pride. Google stonewall Riots.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?


Well, for one thing, the whole concept of "traditional family values" is bullshit.  Every family has a differing set of morals and values, as does every individual within a family.  Only when it's forced upon people by the state do they become somewhat monolithic, aka only fascism promotes such a thing.

Secondly, procreation of the species doesn't need to be promoted, it very frequently happens even by accident.  LGBTQ+ people have existed throughout all of history, so it's not as if they've managed to stop the population from growing, or that that was ever their goal in life.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> Why is there an entire month dedicated to gay pride? Who decided this needs to be a thing? What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?


It’s funny how “traditional family values” seems to only be disrespecting the identity of trans people and being against gay people living their lives. Why can’t it be able accepting people and encouraging them to live their lives to the fullest? Why is it only exclusive to being a bigot?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Nov 12, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> None of that is required to be trans and your transphobia is wrong. Actual science disagrees and it has for decades now, so there’s no debate here, you are just wrong.
> Here’s a post with just a fraction of the sources showing that you are wrong. Trans people deserve respect and science agrees. I am more than willing to bet that you can’t provide any recent peer-reviewed papers to counter these points.


ngl I really hate to say this, especially considering the spot-on counterargument, but this time I don't rly think they or their argument you're countering are worth responding to
even compared to the previous contenders for Highest Transphobia Concentration (measured in mR/mr, or micro-Rowlings per mega-rant), such raw unfiltered strawman wording as... _every single word that guy's said in the past couple of pages_ ("hacking off their genitals because they don't know which bathroom to use"? REALLY?) is too extreme to be true
I know, I know, Poe's Law and all, but I'd rather not risk this already-frail thread getting derailed by an exaggerational troll
...never mind, I was a couple pages behind view-wise
it already has been
shit, what do we do now


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> That's fair. I realize that most people just want to be left alone and not draw attention. I'm talking about the vocal minority that are pushing their agenda on society in an effort to change standards and normalize bizarre behavior, claiming that anyone who speaks up against it must be a horrible person. I'm talking about drag queen story hour. I'm talking about diversity for the sake of diversity. I'm talking about taking established characters from our popular culture and making them gay for no reason and then proclaiming that it's so stunning and brave. I'm talking about people making up 90 different "genders" and then getting mad when you call them the wrong pronoun. There are more important things to worry about in the world.


actually, huh
you've got the horribly, _horribly_ wrong idea about literally every facet of this, but I think you might be acting in good faith here


Drak0rex said:


> Why is there an entire month dedicated to gay pride? Who decided this needs to be a thing? What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?


...and there goes that.
I'd genuinely try to rip through every single portion of these posts like I have before but at this point I'm tired of this bullshit because there isn't even an actual argument to counter
it's just
really godawful ad hominem attacks, more strawmen than the storage of a scarecrow salesman, the world's worst stock bigot phrases ("traditional family values", "promoting the procreation of the species"), it almost reads like you're pulling from a Mad Libs script designed to, fittingly enough, make "libs" mad by being as arrogant, ignorant and flagrantly discriminatory as possible to the LGBTQ+ community while constantly motte-and-bailey wheeling back and forth between flaunting your bigotry and denying it
I don't even know what to say


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> That's fair. I realize that most people just want to be left alone and not draw attention. I'm talking about the vocal minority that are pushing their agenda on society in an effort to change standards and normalize bizarre behavior, claiming that anyone who speaks up against it must be a horrible person. I'm talking about drag queen story hour. I'm talking about diversity for the sake of diversity. I'm talking about taking established characters from our popular culture and making them gay for no reason and then proclaiming that it's so stunning and brave. I'm talking about people making up 90 different "genders" and then getting mad when you call them the wrong pronoun. There are more important things to worry about in the world.


LGBT+ existing and wanting respect isn’t “bizarre behavior” and your comments have made you a horrible person. The whole argument of “vocal minorities” is just a sad attempt to paint anyone vocal about these issues as being a smaller group and dismissible loud people, it’s literally just a silencing tactic. And the whole “they changed these characters,” why does that only matter when they change them away from a cishet white guy? Actually, why doesn’t anyone get mad when they’ve changed in them in the past? There’s a version Spider-man called “Spiders-Man,” which is just a hive mind of spiders with the personality of Parker, why no outrage over that?


----------



## Dakitten (Nov 12, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ngl I really hate to say this, especially considering the spot-on counterargument, but this time I don't rly think they or their argument you're countering are worth responding to
> even compared to the previous contenders for Highest Transphobia Concentration (measured in mR/mr, or micro-Rowlings per mega-rant), such raw unfiltered strawman wording as... _every single word that guy's said in the past couple of pages_ ("hacking off their genitals because they don't know which bathroom to use"? REALLY?) is too extreme to be true
> I know, I know, Poe's Law and all, but I'd rather not risk this already-frail thread getting derailed by an exaggerational troll
> ...never mind, I was a couple pages behind view-wise
> ...


Orgy, no bigots allowed!  Seriously though, I don't get how there is a discussion at all here. It would be one thing if folks were asking questions in good faith to further their own knowledge, but the level of discourse here is another sign that this place has a terrible infestation of right wing edge~


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 12, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> I didn't realize people suffering from gender dysphoria, hacking off their genitals because they don't know which bathroom to use, and then constantly seeking attention and special treatment for it was considered science


"If" true, this affects you how?



Drak0rex said:


> I don't think you're less of a human being because of the weird shit you do behind closed doors, I just have no desire to be aware of it.





Drak0rex said:


> The fact that this is even an issue just goes to show how far humanity has fallen.


Is this not thinking of people as lesser?



Xzi said:


> Secondly, procreation of the species doesn't need to be promoted, it very frequently happens even by accident.


Birthdays? Baby showers? Anyway, there's nothing stopping people from promoting it, they just don't have to be jerks to LGBT people, which stuff like "straight pride" usually is.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 12, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Birthdays? Baby showers?


Happen _after_ the act of procreation has already occurred, and are not compelling reasons on their own to have a child.  Our primate brains and hormones do more than enough to promote procreation by themselves, no other fanfare is really necessary.



KingVamp said:


> Anyway, there's nothing stopping people from promoting it


I guess not?  I'm just having a hard time imagining how one can go about doing that without coming off like a total creep lmao.  "Hey, you two make a cute couple.  You should be fuckin' without birth control."


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I guess not?  I'm just having a hard time imagining how one can go about doing that without coming off like a total creep lmao.  "Hey, you two make a cute couple.  You should be fuckin' without birth control."


I think we call that shipping.


----------



## Vergeeley (Nov 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ...I literally already gave my own point, etc.
> Please backread _before_ you reply.
> Also... what? The purpose... of _gender..._ what???
> I genuinely can't even tell what you're trying to say there. Gender is a concept, not a tool to be utilized- you must have it confused with something, but I can't figure out what.


Don't play dumb with me, please. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
If you say gender is a concept. The concept of _what_ exactly? "I have a dick but I feel like a girl"? The whole "I feel like a girl" is a bunch of stereotypes people take for themselves. 
I didn't see your point at all. As I said, you took their view and said "yeah that's bullshit bc u stupid"
And as I said, I literally don't care. Don't get mad at people for dumb reasons and don't make life for neutral people harder.
Because following this concept, I should be treated as a girl or "feel like a girl" since I'm not really masculine (Not a bad thing tho. if you think about it skirts are cool owo)


----------



## Osakasan (Nov 15, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> Why is there an entire month dedicated to gay pride? Who decided this needs to be a thing? What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?


Because traditional family values hasn't been banned for religious reasons, cishetero men and women hasn't been killed for commiting the mere sin of existing, heterosexual lovers has never had the need to hide their relationship trying to pass as "just good friends", heterosexual people has never been forced to marry someone of a sex they don't feel attracted to only to keep appearances.

There's a reason why gay pride is a thing: Every day, people die somewhere in he world just because they are gay. 

And i'm going to add something: It's perfectly fine to promote traditional family values and procreation, but NOT at the expense of someone else's happiness.

It doesn't need promoting tho, it's *everywhere* and nobody bats an eye. Tell me, what happens when a gay couple is introduced in a movie or a show? What happens when a character or ambiguous or unconfirmed sexuality turns out to be gay? How does people react, hmmmm?

Think about what i just told you and ask yoursel again why the gay pride, an event created to give gay people a sliver of exposure, to give them the chance to express themselves, is needed.


----------



## HK-51 (Nov 15, 2021)

I hate this phenomena. Its really creepy when you see a dude at the register and then they have the voice of a woman. Its like a bug in  oblivion where  NPCs have the wrong dialog.


----------



## RocaBOT (Nov 15, 2021)

If you're bothered by people being who they want to be, maybe you're the bug in the game


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 15, 2021)

Welp, that’s that. If anybody else gets any bright ideas, a quick reminder that usage of slurs or threatening language leads directly to a holiday off the site. To everybody else, don’t respond to trolls (so that I don’t have to work as hard to clean threads after the fact).

Continue.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Nov 16, 2021)

Drak0rex said:


> That's fair. I realize that most people just want to be left alone and not draw attention. I'm talking about the vocal minority that are pushing their agenda on society in an effort to change standards and normalize bizarre behavior, claiming that anyone who speaks up against it must be a horrible person. I'm talking about drag queen story hour. I'm talking about diversity for the sake of diversity. I'm talking about taking established characters from our popular culture and making them gay for no reason and then proclaiming that it's so stunning and brave. I'm talking about people making up 90 different "genders" and then getting mad when you call them the wrong pronoun. There are more important things to worry about in the world.



You bring up some good points. I wouldn't let the people on this forum that support killing unborn children get to you. It's okay to have an opinion that differs from others. It's also okay to point out their hypocrisy. You see the Leftists want you to repeat what they say and do as they do as they have no desire to hear things coming out of your mouth that they didn't tell you to say. Thinking for yourself is discouraged. It's a good thing they are a minority in the USA so I really wouldn't let the ones on this site get to you.



Drak0rex said:


> Why is there an entire month dedicated to gay pride? Who decided this needs to be a thing? What's so bad about promoting traditional family values and the procreation of the species ?



I've got no problem with other people celebrating for an entire month. I may not agree with what they are celebrating, but the great thing is that I can opt-out of celebrating anything I don't want to celebrate. Unlike the others on this forum that are calling you names and saying you're a bad person for having a different point of view I won't do that to you or to them. They are entitled to think whatever it is they want to think and so am I. I don't need to repeat group think or be part of anything I don't want to be a part of. I also don't have to go along with whatever it is they are pushing on others this month. I'm free to say "no".

California is known to create some really stupid mandates and laws so I'm not surprised they tried making a perceived insult a crime, but I'm also free to insult anyone I want to at any time I want to. You may not like it, but that's tough shit. However, there are consequences for your actions so if I were to go around insulting people on this forum, like the Leftists are doing to you and get banned then that would be the result of my actions. So even though the Leftists get to insult you here I'm not going to go around insulting them because I don't want to get banned. I just sit back and laugh at the double standards coming from the moderators.

That's all I have to say about that. Try to have a good day and smile a little. Liberals are famous at being miserable so don't let them get to you. Just smile and do something nice for yourself or someone you care about. Cheers!


----------



## Kurt91 (Nov 17, 2021)

I don't have an issue with using the pronouns that a person prefers, but I think rejecting a law that enforces it is a good idea. This is only for one reason alone: Laws are clear-cut, no exceptions.

You guys keep mentioning how this is about malicious mis-naming, not innocent mistakes. Thing is, laws aren't like that. You don't get to pick and choose when a law is enforced. I know this is going to be a really odd analogy, but...

Let's say I walk into a convenience store and steal all the money in the cash register. That is obviously a crime, and I would get punished. Now let's say a convenience store is robbed, and the bag full of money is left just around the corner out of sight while the criminal ran away. I happen to walk by at the worst possible moment, pick up the big bag full of money out of disbelief and curiosity, and the cops manage to show up just in time to see me holding the big bag full of money. Regardless of my excuses, they're going to arrest me for stealing the money, it's in my possession. Even though it's an honest mistake. Either way, the law is going to be followed.

Bringing this back to pronoun usage. I deliberately mis-gender a person. That's breaking the law and I get arrested and whatever penalty is applicable is applied. I accidentally mis-gender a person. That's still breaking the law, and if the person in particular is particularly malicious about it, can claim it was deliberate, I get arrested, and whatever penalty is applicable is still applied. How on earth am I supposed to defend it as an honest mistake in a way that a deliberate mis-gendering can't just claim the same mistake? Do I need to constantly carry a voice recorder on my person every time I go into public, just to record any potential conversation and prove that any instance is accidental?

Making something like this an actual law will either do absolutely nothing as it's impossible to prove either way and will just be a useless "oh, we did something" for government while no police officer in the state will enforce it except for situations where they use it as grounds to arrest a person they simply want to arrest for unrelated reasons, or it will cause waves of unjust arrests and tie up the court system as countless innocent mistakes are mixed in with deliberate maliciousness and the courts have to constantly try and decide which instances are which. How do they do that, other than look at the person and decide "Yeah, that person looks like the kind of person who would do something like that". Now you're encouraging profiling in a courtroom, more than what's there already.


----------



## MariArch (Nov 17, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Outside of the fact that actual research has shown that respecting trans people drastically reduces mental stress on them. So the only real delusional state is those who think being transphobic is somehow accomplishing anything.
> https://news.utexas.edu/2018/03/30/name-use-matters-for-transgender-youths-mental-health/
> https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/2019-05/Transgender people and suicide fact sheet.pdf
> https://www.childtrends.org/blog/research-shows-the-risk-of-misgendering-transgender-youth
> ...


Sorry, I just don't agree with this idea. Even if it is true that apparent 'misgendering' is a cause for higher suicide rates amongst trans folks, what gives the state the right to compel people to use language that they know is contradictory to what they can see with their own eye? In principle, enacting such a law is a slippery slope and tramples on the rights of the citizenry to score political points. Not saying trans folks shouldn't be called what they wish to be called, but forcing people to do it via the gun of government is just preposterous


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 17, 2021)

HighJrLinoone said:


> Sorry, I just don't agree with this idea. Even if it is true that apparent 'misgendering' is a cause for higher suicide rates amongst trans folks, what gives the state the right to compel people to use language that they know is contradictory to what they can see with their own eye? In principle, enacting such a law is a slippery slope and tramples on the rights of the citizenry to score political points. Not saying trans folks shouldn't be called what they wish to be called, but forcing people to do it via the gun of government is just preposterous


To not risk repeating myself, please refer to these comments by my and @Foxi4 
https://gbatemp.net/threads/california-court-shuts-down-transgender-pronoun-law.591785/post-9651015
TL; DR though, I also don’t like government overreach and that the government should lead by example, such as removing anti-trans laws as they violate current human rights. As well, help promote a social change to treat transphobia as socially unacceptable as racism. I am more in favor of social changes through protection under current laws and rights over governments trying to make easily shutdown bills.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> To not risk repeating myself, please refer to these comments by my and @Foxi4
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/california-court-shuts-down-transgender-pronoun-law.591785/post-9651015
> TL; DR though, I also don’t like government overreach and that the government should lead by example, such as removing anti-trans laws as they violate current human rights. As well, help promote a social change to treat transphobia as socially unacceptable as racism. I am more in favor of social changes through protection under current laws and rights over governments trying to make easily shutdown bills.


That still doesn’t mean that the government should compel speech, which is what this is, in effect. In fact, the government *can’t* enact a law like this - you could very easily argue that it’s unconstitutional. They sure can release an internal memo that this is their code of conduct in government-ran facilities, but it’s not enforceable on citizens outside of that.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That still doesn’t mean that the government should compel speech, which is what this is, in effect. In fact, the government *can’t* enact a law like this - you could very easily argue that it’s unconstitutional. They sure can release an internal memo that this is their code of conduct in government-ran facilities, but it’s not enforceable on citizens outside of that.


My want for limited government is having them remove anti-trans laws as they violate human rights. The social unacceptability of transphobia is the hopeful goal of this approach and not something I believe can be done through created laws. Basically, remove anti-trans laws under the promise that they violate the rights of trans people and push that current human rights and laws already protect trans people. Hopeful outcome, transphobia starts to become less socially acceptable. I went more in detail in those posts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> My want for limited government is having them remove anti-trans laws as they violate human rights. The social unacceptability of transphobia is the hopeful goal of this approach and not something I believe can be done through created laws. Basically, remove anti-trans laws under the promise that they violate the rights of trans people and push that current human rights and laws already protect trans people. Hopeful outcome, transphobia starts to become less socially acceptable. I went more in detail in those posts.


I can shake on that, considering trans people are undoubtedly human just like anybody else and deserve to exercise the same human rights as everybody else, regardless of one’s opinion on the subject of “trans rights”.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can shake on that, considering trans people are undoubtedly human just like anybody else and deserve to exercise the same human rights as everybody else, regardless of one’s opinion on the subject of “trans rights”.


Precisely. A system like this basically says that someone is allowed to be a transphobic asshole but they aren’t allowed to makes laws that violate the innate human rights that trans people have. It’s a system that protects everyone as a collective and doesn’t limit speech. I honestly believe that this would get better results towards respecting trans people over laws that specifically target the trans community.


----------

