# Can We Stop With The Name Calling Already ...



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

If you're into discussing hot button race or sex issues you're going to run into words like "bigot, racist, transphobic, etc ..." a lot. I mean, a freaking lot. Most of the time they are being used to control you and make the argument one sided. An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic. Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic. I mean, what ever happened to mutual consent or having a personal preference?

I came across an article by a transgender women who is "sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they’re transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between)." She said "Whatever your views are on transgender issues, chances are, you’re not transphobic. Real transphobia involves irrational behaviour and denies trans people a ‘fair go’ not at the expense of others. Real transphobia is physically hurting someone because they’re trans, or not hiring the best job candidate just because they’re trans. Transphobia can be real, but fake transphobia is also real, and throwing (or threatening to throw) fake transphobia accusations around, especially in public discourse, does not help the transgender cause."

I have a problem with REAL transphobia. The definition of a phobia includes an extreme aversion to something - not a general aversion. The term is being used out of context and too often. When people hear it they are like "Wait, am I being this?" and if you're asking yourself this question the answer is more than likely "no". People who would physically assault a trans person wouldn't think twice about asking themselves if they are a genuine transphobic person (in which case - they would be).

If I were working at a McDonald's and a trans person walked into the store and I thought to myself "I don't like this persons lifestyle choices so I probably won't like them" and proceeded to smile, ask them what they wanted, took their money and brought them their food I would not be doing anything transphobic. If I were working at a McDonald's and a trans person walked into the store and I thought to myself "I don't like this persons lifestyle choices so I probably won't like them" and proceeded to laugh at them, ask them what they wanted, took their money, short changed them and brought them their food (in which I spat in) I would be transphobic. Do you not see the difference?

The people who are overusing the term transphobic are part of the problem and are doing their cause more harm than anything else. The same can also be said and examples given in other hot button topics with terms like racist or bigot. Chances are too, in these cases, you're not!

When I see people overusing these terms to try to get moderators to shut down opposing opinions, shame you into having sex with them, participating in character assassination, trying to force you to use language only they support or basically get their own way all I see is people throwing hate for the purpose of control. It's my own personal opinion and I shouldn't have to apologize for it nor am I going to and if you fall into this trap of deception and control I'd advise you to take a stand against it.


----------



## Captain_N (Jun 5, 2019)

I actually dont give a crap about transgender people. They can do what ever they want. just dont get in my face about it. As for dating, i only date women that have a XX chromosome. That is my choice. I work with both a trans girl and a trans man. i get along fine with them because i dont care what they are.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> I actually dont give a crap about transgender people. They can do what ever they want. just dont get in my face about it. As for dating, i only date women that have a XX chromosome. That is my choice. I work with both a trans girl and a trans man. i get along fine with them because i dont care what they are.



That's a good way to go about it. I also don't agree with the transgender movement or the lifestyle usually related to it, but you won't see me physically assaulting anyone just because they are trans. If anyone, no matter who you are - nationality, race, gender - try to force me into sexual relations by playing mind games (like in the example I linked to) then we'd have a serious problem.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 5, 2019)

If I'm going to get into a relationship or have sex with someone I have the right to know whether she has two X chromosomes. If she does not, our relationship will be strictly platonic.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2019)

No.
If people are a variation of transphobic, it's not wrong to call them that.

You don't agree with transgender people and their lifestyle? That in itself is irrational, what's there to not agree about?

Not acting on your transphobia openly doesn't make you less of a transphobe, the same way it doesn't make a racist less of a racist if they just keep their irrational feelings bottled up.


----------



## Viri (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> That's a good way to go about it. I also don't agree with the transgender movement or the lifestyle usually related to it, but you won't see me physically assaulting anyone just because they are trans. If anyone, no matter who you are - nationality, race, gender - try to force me into sexual relations by playing mind games (like in the example I linked to) then we'd have a serious problem.






leafeon34 said:


> If I'm going to get into a relationship or have sex with someone I have the right to know whether she has two X chromosomes. If she does not, our relationship will be strictly platonic.


Pretty much these. I'm not trans phobic for wanting to date only a biological women. I don't agree with being trans, but as long as you're not talking to kids about this shit, and trying to get them to be trans, then I'm completely fine with it. Kids cannot consent and aren't old enough to decide if they want to be trans or not. As for adults, do what ever you want with your body, as long as it's legal, and not hurting others.

Same goes with being gay. As long as it's two consenting adults, then I don't care what you do in the bedroom, as long as it isn't illegal, and isn't harming others.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> No.
> If people are a variation of transphobic, it's not wrong to call them that.
> 
> You don't agree with transgender people and their lifestyle? That in itself is irrational, what's there to not agree about?
> ...



I don't agree with the transgender movement or the lifestyle that most of the transgender people lead. I'm in no way phobic of them. I don't treat a person differently due to the fact they are transgender. You can want to, in your mind, kill your coworker because you don't like him - that doesn't make you a murderer. If I meet a trans person that I am attracted to and things work out then good, but in no way, shape or form is anyone going to tell me if I refuse to have sex with them that I am being transphobic.

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



Viri said:


> Pretty much these. I'm not trans phobic for wanting to date only a biological women. I don't agree with being trans, but as long as you're not talking to kids about this shit, and trying to get them to be trans, then I'm completely fine with it. Kids cannot consent and aren't old enough to decide if they want to be trans or not. As for adults, do what ever you want with your body, as long as it's legal, and not hurting others.



The parents are the ones who address this issue. If you are addressing it then you are falling into a dark place.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't agree with the transgender movement or the lifestyle that most of the transgender people lead. I'm in no way phobic of them. I don't treat a person differently due to the fact they are transgender. You can want to, in your mind, kill your coworker because you don't like him - that doesn't make you a murderer.




Here's the thing, neither you, nor whomever you linked in your first post, have the monopoly on defining words.

Transphobia is widely used to describe *(per Wikipedia)* the range of negative* attitudes, feelings or actions *toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. Transphobia can be emotional disgust, fear, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectation.
Transphobia isn't depending on your physical actions, it's first and foremost depending on your mindset.

Your example doesn't apply, because unlike being a transphobe, being a murderer requires explicit physical action.


You're not accepting of transgender people. You pretend like there's a typical lifestyle and behaviors associated with it, meaning you're stereotyping transgender people.
You have a negative attitude and feelings towards transgender. You don't accept people for an arbitrary reason, because you perceive them to be different. Thus, you are a transphobe.

You don't want to be called transphobe? Then stop being transphobic.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 5, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Here's the thing, neither you, nor whomever you linked in your first post, have the monopoly on defining words.
> 
> Transphobia is widely used to describe *(per Wikipedia)* the range of negative* attitudes, feelings or actions *toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. Transphobia can be emotional disgust, fear, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectation.
> Transphobia isn't depending on your physical actions, it's first and foremost depending on your mindset.
> ...


Simply disagreeing with the movement is not transphobic. That's a very closed minded view you have, there. Ironic, even. Attaching -phobic as a scapegoat to a disagreement is petty. Don't sit here and tell me that I have to agree with the blanket definitions of what it means to be transgender. I can respect the people, but I don't have to follow their belief. If that's the case then I'm Xenophobic for not agreeing with every country's religions. It's wrong, and you know it. You're passionate about the subject, I get it. Labeling someone as transphobic when they're clearly not is desperate.

What's funny is that society twists phobias to meet the current agendas. Even if it makes zero sense. Thus creating and enforcing buzzwords to garner hype and gain traction on otherwise minor issues. No, I'm not talking about the blatant hate that certain groups of people get for being who they are. I'm talking about the divide among what should be a unified race. Joke's on me, though. I'm a white, cis-gendered male. So, my opinions and views are instantly null and I'm wrong according to modern definitions.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Here's the thing, neither you, nor whomever you linked in your first post, have the monopoly on defining words.
> 
> Transphobia is widely used to describe *(per Wikipedia)* the range of negative* attitudes, feelings or actions *toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. Transphobia can be emotional disgust, fear, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectation.
> Transphobia isn't depending on your physical actions, it's first and foremost depending on your mindset.
> ...



You're talking about defining words and then you're sourcing Wikipedia. Not the best source for information as it is clearly influenced by modern beliefs and not sourced from clear definitions (like in a normal dictionary). Also, the Wikipedia article talks about a "range" of stuff and conveniently left out the "extreme" parts, but the entire article goes against the actual definitions, common sense and of what most level headed people agree upon. So, guess what. I don't agree with the Wikipedia definition.

If I see someone who is trans and have some emotional disguest that's no different then seeing pickles on my hamburger and thinking "ew". I don't have a phobia of pickles; I just don't like them.

I don't agree with the modern movement and how the transgender people are dealing with it nor do I agree with the typical behaviors, which I am basing on what I've personally seen. I do admit, not every trans person is going to be the same nor do I judge every single one of them based on what I've experienced, but you have to start somewhere. If 95% of a certain group of people act in a certain manner you're going to base how you judge the group by that number. Is it wrong to judge an entire group based on the majority of their actions? I don't have a problem with that because that's how most things work and usually no one has a problem with it. It's only when it goes against their "cause" is when they have a problem with the time tested method. Usually, if you have a 95% chance of surviving a liver biopsy you're think "Well, I might as well get it done because I most likely won't die".

From what I've seen there are typical lifestyle choices and behaviors associated with it - like the overuse and misuse of the term "transphobic".

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



Memoir said:


> Joke's on me, though. I'm a white, cia-gendered male. So, my opinions and views are instantly null and I'm wrong according to modern definitions.



I'm a white, male and a LGBTQ member. It's funny how your race or your sexual orientation are deciding factors in whether or not your views are invalid. So you have people judging your opinions based on your race, sex and then calling you transphobic. Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2019)

Memoir said:


> Simply disagreeing with the movement is not transphobic. That's a very closed minded view you have, there. Ironic, even. Attaching -phobic as a scapegoat to a disagreement is petty. Don't sit here and tell me that I have to agree with the blanket definitions of what it means to be transgender. I can respect the people, but I don't have to follow their belief. If that's the case then I'm Xenophobic for not agreeing with every country's religions. It's wrong, and you know it. You're passionate about the subject, I get it. Labeling someone as transphobic when they're clearly not is desperate.
> 
> What's funny is that society twists phobias to meet the current agendas. Even if it makes zero sense. Thus creating and enforcing buzzwords to garner hype and gain traction on otherwise minor issues. No, I'm not talking about the blatant hate that certain groups of people get for being who they are. I'm talking about the divide among what should be a unified race. Joke's on me, though. I'm a white, cis-gendered male. So, my opinions and views are instantly null and I'm wrong according to modern definitions.



Transsexuality isn't a movement. It's not an agenda either. And it's not a belief-system.

You guys keep comparing it to other shit it's not comparable too.

No, you are not a xenophobe for not sharing another religions faith.

Yes, you are a transphobe for believing that transsexuals are somehow 'not acceptable'.




cots said:


> You're talking about defining words and then you're sourcing Wikipedia. Not the best source for information as it is clearly influenced by modern beliefs and not sourced from clear definitions (like in a normal dictionary). Also, the Wikipedia article talks about a "range" of stuff and conveniently left out the "extreme" parts, but the entire article goes against the actual definitions, common sense and of what most level headed people agree upon. So, guess what. I don't agree with the Wikipedia definition.
> 
> If I see someone who is trans and have some emotional disguest that's no different then seeing pickles on my hamburger and thinking "ew". I don't have a phobia of pickles; I just don't like them.
> 
> ...





Of course, that definition has a source beyond wikipedia, namely Chakraborti, Neil; Garland, Jon (2009). _Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses_. and Chrisler, Donald R.; McCreary, Joan C. (2010). _Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology, Volume 2_.

Yes, you do not define words. I do not define words. Society defines words and wikipedia is a very easily accessible collection of such agreed upon definitions. It's not randomly made up by some redditors or whatever, there is consent among professionals with expertise in the field. That makes that definition infinitely more accurate than your 'well it's only transphobic if people get hurt' bullshit.

But here, dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia 
*Definition of transphobia*
*: *irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people


How is it leaving out 'extreme' parts? Violence, it's clearly  there.
You are not common sense and level headed in this, you're clearly just upset because you're a homophobe and people are calling you out for it, so you're comming to this dumbass gamerforum looking for support like a little child.

Of course there's a difference between disgust towards pickles and disgust towards human beings.

Again 'modern movement' and 'typical behaviors', define  that. What movement beyond 'We'd like to be accepted without this kind of bullshit?' What typical behavior besides the inherent changing of gender and taking of hormones?

95%? Let me guess the source for that number: Your ass.
You're literally saying you judge them all based on your miniscule personal experience.

You are a transphobe.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> If you're into discussing hot button race or sex issues you're going to run into words like "bigot, racist, transphobic, etc ..." a lot. I mean, a freaking lot. Most of the time they are being used to control you and make the argument one sided. An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic. Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic. I mean, what ever happened to mutual consent or having a personal preference?
> 
> I came across an article by a transgender women who is "sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they’re transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between)." She said "Whatever your views are on transgender issues, chances are, you’re not transphobic. Real transphobia involves irrational behaviour and denies trans people a ‘fair go’ not at the expense of others. Real transphobia is physically hurting someone because they’re trans, or not hiring the best job candidate just because they’re trans. Transphobia can be real, but fake transphobia is also real, and throwing (or threatening to throw) fake transphobia accusations around, especially in public discourse, does not help the transgender cause."
> 
> ...


Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people is transphobia, so being against the trans movement in general is transphobic. The kind of prejudice required to immediately judge a person for being trans and assuming you probably won't like the person solely on the basis of him or her being trans is transphobia.

Swap trans for black in your post, for example, and you'll see how prejudicial and deplorable it is.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 5, 2019)

Okay...this is one weird topic. I'll only go into the first paragraph, but I think I can reply to just about anything.


cots said:


> If you're into discussing hot button race or sex issues you're going to run into words like "bigot, racist, transphobic, etc ..." a lot. I mean, a freaking lot. Most of the time they are being used to control you and make the argument one sided. An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic. Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic. I mean, what ever happened to mutual consent or having a personal preference?


The way I see it, those articles are about single case issues that a writer tries to elevate to the entire transgender population. I'm not really sure what the point is. So some transgender people can be assholes/cunts. Okay, not very fun for the community. But I wouldn't assume that their behavior says anything about the others.

Heck, let's drop the hypothetical shit and talk reality: I have a few transgender friends. I've been a bit closer with one of 'em, so I can't exclude the possibility she wanted sex with me. could have happened. What couldn't have happened, however, is that she, anyone else of that circle and most likely no one else (aside perhaps one or two individuals from that article) would somehow blame me for having a sexual preference that excludes them either for their gender, appearance, character or whatever else that might be my reason not to have sex with anyone. It's called mutual respect for one another, and it's fairly common where I come from.

Now here's what I think: that some cis-normalized people are too narrow minded to be comfortable around people with a different lifestyle, see this other lifestyle (incorrectly) as threatening, and either consciously or unconsciously act on that perception. Looks that are a bit condescending...smiles that are way too forced...tone of voice that's just a tad too bitter. You name it. Granted: it's not as bad as openly calling names at transgenders or races, but it gives them the same level of discomfort.


----------



## bandithedoge (Jun 5, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Yes, you are a transphobe for believing that transsexuals are somehow 'not acceptable'.


Nobody ever in this thread said a word about transsexuals being "not acceptable".


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people is transphobia, so being against the trans movement in general is transphobic. The kind of prejudice required to immediately judge a person for being trans and assuming you probably won't like the person solely on the basis of him or her being trans is transphobia.
> 
> Swap trans for black in your post, for example, and you'll see how prejudicial and deplorable it is.



Disliking something doesn't make it a phobia, but an extreme dislike that would cause you to act in a manner that wouldn't harm something would be a phobia. I'm against most of the way the movement is being handled. I don't see a trans person and suddenly think "I'm not going to like this person because they are trans". I do however take into consideration my person experiences with trans members and the life style choices that trans people usually make when considering who I would want to be around - this is no different than choosing what social group I would like to participate in or who I would want to play an online game with. When I meet someone, the first thing in my mind isn't "what is their skin color or are they LGBTQ". Not to say that never happens, but usually I'm more worried about how they are going to treat me or if they noticed that I'm wearing the same shirt I had on yesterday. 

Say for example I see a bunch of people using drugs at a local night club. Not everyone is using them, but I'm going to avoid that club.

Or, if a group of people are playing Halo. Not my sort of game. I generally dislike FPS. So I'm not going to join their group and play the game with them.

You could swap out "black" for "trans", but we're not talking about an entire race of people. They sort of relate, but not equally. I've dated people that were black or otherwise dark skinned from different ethnicities.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 5, 2019)

I often see trans issues get distorted and often it seems to stem from people on the side of trans rights.

IDK what they're trying to preach to me because they can't seem to all agree on what it is about.

I know trans people who feel the need to tell me they're not a part of the trans community and activist nonsense, because they don't feel the movement represents their needs. Which are access to meds and surgery to be in the body they feel comfortable with. They don't care about which bathroom they use and they don't want people to accept them in their pre transition body.

All the virtue signalling about letting men in the women's bathroom just cos they say they identify as a woman without having anything to show for it and throwing third gender theory under the trans umbrella etc, just attracts negative attention and fuels the ignorance on the other side.

And why is it treated like a political issue? It's just people going to a doctor to resolve a problem they're having with their body.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I often see trans issues get distorted and often it's by people on the side of trans rights.
> 
> idk what they're trying to preach to me because they can't seem to all agree on definitions.
> 
> ...



Depending on who you ask you tend to get a different definition which is used or interpreted in a manner of their choosing. I'm going to stick with the definition of "phobia" from a normal dictionary. Wikipedia is known to be completely and utterly biased.

I'm LGBTQ and I'm definitively not part of the modern movement. I have no interest in the way people are portraying themselves or trying to push their beliefs and opinions on other people.

The political aspect is the fact that the LGBTQ community is being used by both major political parties to further their agendas. Yes, used. The democrats and republicans are using us as tools to get what they want. I've seen it happen throughout the last 20 some years that I've actually been paying attention to how politics work. Once they are done with us they'll move on to the next group of people and we'll become "old news".


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2019)

I have pretty much nothing to say on this issue other than to tell everyone on the temp that the linked article by the op is about a woman who a long time ago was disowned by the British trans community for her actions. India Willoughby does not represent the believes or actions of the British trans community and I find it abhorrent her actions are being used to discredit the trans community at large. This joke of a woman does not represent us and never will. And that's all I have to say on the matter.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I have pretty much nothing to say on this issue other than to tell everyone on the temp that the linked article by the op is about a woman who a long time ago was disowned by the British trans community for her actions. India Willoughby does not represent the believes or actions of the British trans community and I find it abhorrent her actions are being used to discredit the trans community at large. This joke of a woman does not represent us and never will. And that's all I have to say on the matter.



Disowned you say? That makes me like her even more. I'll have to read up on why this happened. Thanks for the input.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Disowned you say? That makes me like her even more. I'll have to read up on why this happened. Thanks for the input.


Good starting point here for you
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...trans-people-rachel-johnson-a8160656.html?amp


----------



## Skelletonike (Jun 5, 2019)

I've been called quite a few things.  I don't really mind per se, but it does piss me off how toxic the "vocal" trans community can be.

I respect people no matter what their ethnicity or sexual preference is. However, if you do start making up random crap, or insult me due to my religious beliefs (which has been happening more and more often), I lose all respect for that person.

Unfortunately, there aren't many of the famous transgenders that I can actually respect.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

Trans Activists try to silence and get scientists fired so they can claim science is on their side.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/22/trans-activists-silence-science-can-claim-side/

Trans activists excommunicating people.

https://quillette.com/2019/06/01/watching-my-own-excommunication-on-a-facebook-video/


This is the problem with Trans activists. They become crazy. Even some trans people don’t want to associate with them because they make trans look bad. The activists are a minority but are the loudest and get scientists fired.



Not being in support of trans activists is similar to not supporting feminism. You can be in support of women’s rights but not support feminism because of what they’ve become. (Only about around 20% identify as feminist nowadays). You can support trans people but not the actions of some activists because of what they do.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

bandithedoge said:


> Nobody ever in this thread said a word about transsexuals being "not acceptable".


Being against _the trans rights movement_ is arguably tantamount to saying trans people should not be accepted.



cots said:


> Disliking something doesn't make it a phobia, but an extreme dislike that would cause you to act in a manner that wouldn't harm something would be a phobia. I'm against most of the way the movement is being handled. I don't see a trans person and suddenly think "I'm not going to like this person because they are trans". I do however take into consideration my person experiences with trans members and the life style choices that trans people usually make when considering who I would want to be around - this is no different than choosing what social group I would like to participate in or who I would want to play an online game with. When I meet someone, the first thing in my mind isn't "what is their skin color or are they LGBTQ". Not to say that never happens, but usually I'm more worried about how they are going to treat me or if they noticed that I'm wearing the same shirt I had on yesterday.
> 
> Say for example I see a bunch of people using drugs at a local night club. Not everyone is using them, but I'm going to avoid that club.
> 
> ...


When we say something is _transphobic_ or _homophobic_, one shouldn't take that to literally mean a _fear_ of something. I'd rather not argue semantics, but _transphobia_ is defined as the _dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people_. To say about a trans person "I don't like this person's lifestyle choices so I probably won't like them" is to prejudge someone on the basis of him or her being trans. That's prejudice, which objectively makes you transphobic.

You can redefine the word _transphobic_ if you want, but that's not how the rest of the world is using the term, and that makes having a conversation pointless.



cots said:


> I don't see a trans person and suddenly think "I'm not going to like this person because they are trans".


No, but you said, "I'm _probably_ not going to like this person because they are trans."



cots said:


> Say for example I see a bunch of people using drugs at a local night club. Not everyone is using them, but I'm going to avoid that club.
> 
> Or, if a group of people are playing Halo. Not my sort of game. I generally dislike FPS. So I'm not going to join their group and play the game with them.


There's a big difference between these examples and prejudice against an immutable characteristic.



cots said:


> You could swap out "black" for "trans", but we're not talking about an entire race of people. They sort of relate, but not equally.


It's actually a perfect comparison, since we're talking about a historically disenfranchised group of people that has done nothing wrong other than share an immutable characteristic (which isn't wrong, of course).

If you're going to argue comments like "I disagree with the trans rights movement" and "I'm _probably_ not going to like this person because they are trans" aren't transphobic, then to be consistent, you have to argue that comments like "I disagree with the black rights movement" and "I'm probably not going to like this person because they are black" aren't racist. That's difficult, if not impossible, to do, so your argument falls flat before it even gets the chance to take off.

I'm not trans, so I'm not going to attempt to speak for the trans community, but I'm probably correct when I say that nobody cares what you think about trans people. While your above comments are transphobic and bad, you have a right to be able to have prejudicial thoughts. What people care about are that you treat people with the dignity and respect they deserve at McDonald's, per your example, and that you don't hinder their access to equal treatment under the law by proposing and/or voting for policies and/or politicians that are anti-trans.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 5, 2019)

I have no problem with trans people, you can live however you want, but I generally try to avoid interaction with them because I'm basically forced to participate in something I don't believe in or change the way I talk.

For example I go to my local Swap Meet very frequently and a few of the stands are run by trans women. These people clearly don't have two X chromosomes, but in order to interact with them I have to play along by using female or neutral pronouns. It feels like I have to watch what I say and it's very uncomfortable. 

I HAVE to play along even if I don't agree. It isn't like religion. I'm not religious at all, but a lot of the people in my life are very religious. Tolerance is enough here. I disagree with these people, but I don't have to go along with their religion or change the way I act around them. They understand that I don't believe like they do.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue comments like "I disagree with the trans rights movement" and "I'm _probably_ not going to like this person because they are trans" aren't transphobic, then to be consistent, you have to argue that comments like "I disagree with the black rights movement" and "I'm probably not going to like this person because they are black" aren't racist. That's difficult, if not impossible, to do, so your argument falls flat before it even gets the chance to take off.



I could disagree view the way black rights were implemented, but not be a racist. If the majority of black people that I have encountered acted the same way, did the same things, believed the same stuff, treated me the same way I and the only common factor was that they were "black" then I would treat them according to that factor. However, that's not the case with race. Race doesn't determine those factors. I have found, with my interactions with the trans people with this particular movement share common factors that I disagree with and the main correlation is that they are trans and involved in the movement. Therefore, I would be cautious when trying to get into any sort of relationship with them. Sorta like, you would be cautious around a particular group of bees that are known to get pissy and sting you. Not all of the group is going to do that, but the majority would. You wouldn't be phobic of bees for handling them that way - as remember, a phobia doesn't include simply not liking something (no matter how you try to spin the definition).



> I'm not trans, so I'm not going to attempt to speak for the trans community, but I'm probably correct when I say that nobody cares what you think about trans people. While your above comments are transphobic and bad, you have a right to be able to have prejudicial thoughts. What people care about are that you treat people with the dignity and respect they deserve at McDonald's, per your example, and that you don't hinder their access to equal treatment under the law by proposing and/or voting for policies and/or politicians that are anti-trans.



You should be allowed to think whatever you want and under the United States Constitution say whatever it is that you are thinking. I agree that no matter what you think about a group of people you should treat every single person with respect - that includes not using the term transphobic in a controlling manner or not twisting the definition to suite your own needs. Of course, you don't have to treat someone with respect (an example is how trans people treat other people that don't agree with them). I am offended just as much from someone calling me transphobic (when I'm not) the same way as someone who is trans that is denied services because of being trans.

So your solution is what? Admit I'm transphobic? To do that I'd have to conform to their standards? I'd have to change my mind about the situation just so I wouldn't be targeted and labeled? Should I then drop on my knees in fear of being labeled when sex is demanded of me?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

Memoir said:


> Simply disagreeing with the movement is not transphobic. That's a very closed minded view you have, there. Ironic, even. Attaching -phobic as a scapegoat to a disagreement is petty. Don't sit here and tell me that I have to agree with the blanket definitions of what it means to be transgender. I can respect the people, but I don't have to follow their belief. If that's the case then I'm Xenophobic for not agreeing with every country's religions. It's wrong, and you know it. You're passionate about the subject, I get it. Labeling someone as transphobic when they're clearly not is desperate.
> 
> What's funny is that society twists phobias to meet the current agendas. Even if it makes zero sense. Thus creating and enforcing buzzwords to garner hype and gain traction on otherwise minor issues. No, I'm not talking about the blatant hate that certain groups of people get for being who they are. I'm talking about the divide among what should be a unified race. Joke's on me, though. I'm a white, cis-gendered male. So, my opinions and views are instantly null and I'm wrong according to modern definitions.


The whole thing has gotten crazy. There’s a lot of in group fighting.


There’s activists that want to remove the T in LGBT (LGB) because the philosophy of the Trans movement are in contradiction with LGB, particularly the B. LGB believes in binary sex which is what the the B is, but the Trans movement opposes the B, since they believe in 80+ genders. They don’t believe in sexual dimorphism. So the B (bisexual) is transphobic because it’s exclusionary to non binary people. And they fight over this.


There are feminists that want to remove the L. There are Gender critical feminists that are opposed to male to female trans. They don’t believe a man can ever be a women.


Trans BLM got in a fight and a pride event was cancelled because trans wanted cops for protection, but BLM didn’t want any cops because they think cops are racist. So they got in a fight and the event was cancelled.


There is a saying that the left eats itself. The movements are a big giant contradiction.

http://uncommongroundmedia.com/lgbt-dead-t-blame/


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Depending on who you ask you tend to get a different definition which is used or interpreted in a manner of their choosing. I'm going to stick with the definition of "phobia" from a normal dictionary. Wikipedia is known to be completely and utterly biased.




How is wikipedia biased? What the fuck are you even talking about?
And what dictionary are you using? Because Any run of the mill one would define 'phobia' in the medical or psychological context, which obviously does not apply to this conversation.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2019)

The fact that the op keeps turning this into an argument regarding sex is quite frankly ludicrous. I for one have never demanded sex from someone not interested in having sex with me I have also never  called someone transphobic for not wanting to have sex. I have also never witnessed anyone in the trans community do such a despicable thing. And I can assure you that if any British trans person did do such a thing they would be very quickly shunned by the community.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> as remember, a phobia doesn't include simply not liking something (no matter how you try to spin the definition).


If you are not going to acknowledge that _transphobia_ is defined as _the dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people_, then I'm not the one who is spinning definitions. Disliking trans people is transphobic, by definition.

I'd love to respond to the other parts of your post, because there was a lot of fun nonsense to address, but as I said earlier, failing to agree on the definition of _transphobia_ makes a conversation about what is or is not transphobic a pointless endeavor.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

invaderyoyo said:


> I have no problem with trans people, you can live however you want, but I generally try to avoid interaction with them because I'm basically forced to participate in something I don't believe in or change the way I talk.
> 
> For example I go to my local Swap Meet very frequently and a few of the stands are run by trans women. These people clearly don't have two X chromosomes, but in order to interact with them I have to play along by using female or neutral pronouns. It feels like I have to watch what I say and it's very uncomfortable.
> 
> I HAVE to play along even if I don't agree. It isn't like religion. I'm not religious at all, but a lot of the people in my life are very religious. Tolerance is enough here. I disagree with these people, but I don't have to go along with their religion or change the way I act around them. They understand that I don't believe like they do.



Well, I have no idea how to correctly address a trans person - just I have no idea how to correctly identify the rank of someone in the army. So if I address them incorrectly it's not on purpose. If the person would be rather called a "Mr" or "Mrs" it would be polite of them to ask me to address them in that manner and it would be polite of me to then address them as they requested. There's no reason for them to get all pissy because you didn't address them in the correct manner they preferred in the first place.

I've been around some religious people, call them "true believers" that worship stuff and some of them can be very manipulative, demanding and cruel. They will make it part of their life to ruin yours until you believe what they do. I find no difference between these sorts of fanatical Christians than I do in the modern trans movement.

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



Lacius said:


> If you are not going to acknowledge that _transphobia_ is defined as _the dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people_, then I'm not the one who is spinning definitions. Disliking trans people is transphobic, by definition.
> 
> I'd love to respond to the other parts of your post, because there was a lot of fun nonsense to address, but as I said earlier, failing to agree on the definition of _transphobia_ makes a conversation about what is or is not transphobic a pointless endeavor.



With any phobia, you're dealing with extremities. So yes, I do not acknowledged the definition you're using. Simply not liking a trans person because they chose to be trans is not a phobia. I don't like to eat grape jelly. I must be a racist or have a phobia against grapes.

Also, if per say, going by your definition, then the majority of the world is transphobic. Do we need to be 'cured'?


----------



## k7ra (Jun 5, 2019)

Haaa~, how annoying this transusual ppl with this transgenders politic...
If they want to be them, then let them be.
But I should know who are they If we would talk or work.
Phobia=scare. I don't scared of gey\transgender\pedophile\killer\oldppl\childs or anything.
But I don't want to be deceived and have good relationship with any same gender lovers or with trap ppl.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

k7ra said:


> Haaa~, how annoying this transusual ppl with this transgenders politic...
> If they want to be them, then let them be.
> But I should know who are they If we would talk or work



Trans people, like any other group of people can do whatever they want as long as they don't try to force me into believing what they do or otherwise try to control me and then the result is them becoming hostile because I won't conform to their standards. I don't believe that I should be treated like scum because I simply disagree with their life style choices. I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm asking to not be targeted, called names and denied freedoms because they disagree with me.


----------



## k7ra (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Trans people, like any other group of people can do whatever they want as long as they don't try to force me into believing what they do or otherwise try to control me and then the result is them becoming hostile because I won't conform to their standards. I don't believe that I should be treated like scum because I simply disagree with their life style choices. I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm asking to not be targeted, called names and denied freedoms because they disagree with me.


Yeap, you said all I think about


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> With any phobia, you're dealing with extremities.


There are varying degrees of hate and discrimination. Take the following:

Someone attacks a black man on the sidewalk because he's black.
Someone locks his or her car door when a black man walks down the sidewalk because he's black.
While one is far worse than the other, both are racist acts. Something doesn't have to be as bad as #1 to be racist.



cots said:


> So yes, I do not acknowledged the definition you're using. Simply not liking a trans person because they chose to be trans is not a phobia.


Then I suggest you read up on transphobia.

Regardless, the kind of stubbornness you're displaying about something as simple as word usage means that, respectfully, you probably lack the maturity needed to thoughtfully deal with a more complex issue like gender identity, and I doubt anything I say is going to make you change your mind.



cots said:


> because they chose to be trans


Gender identity is not a choice.



cots said:


> I don't like to eat grape jelly. I must be a racist or have a phobia against grapes.



People aren't grapes, so in keeping with the fruit metaphors, you're comparing apples and oranges.
If you don't like black people, you're racist.
If you dislike trans people, you're transphobic.
If you dislike gay people, you're homophobic.
If you dislike Muslims, you're Islamophobic.
Not only is this part uncomplicated, but it's also not particularly controversial.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Good starting point here for you
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/india-willoughby-celebrity-big-brother-trans-people-rachel-johnson-a8160656.html?amp



So I read it. Seems to me she has plenty of experience in the subject including the actual surgery and her views don't align with the popular views on the times. So she was raised up, praised, used and then thrown out by her community. Doesn't surprise me and I have more empathy for her now than I did before reading about her.

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



Lacius said:


> Gender identity is not a choice.



So what about the people that identify as a female to later in life then revert to identifying as a male?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> So what about the people that identify as a female to later in life then revert to identifying as a male?


Gender identity and gender fluidity are complicated issues, and I suggest you commit to going in with an open mind before reading up on these and other complicated topics. It takes a certain level of maturity to understand that, like sexuality in general, it's often not a black and white issue.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Gender identity and gender fluidity are complicated issues, and I suggest you commit to going in with an open mind before reading up on these and other complicated topics. It takes a certain level of maturity to understand that, like sexuality in general, it's often not a black and white issue.



Well, I'm not going to debate the choices that people are making and the fact they are choices. That's not what I started this thread for. I'm stating that simply by disliking something you don't have a phobia. Which is what I stated, and you haven't presented any sort of convincing argument otherwise.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> So I read it. Seems to me she has plenty of experience in the subject including the actual surgery and her views don't align with the popular views on the times. So she was raised up, praised, used and then thrown out by her community. Doesn't surprise me and I have more empathy for her now than I did before reading about her.



So let me get this straight. She is 100% the type of trans person you hate so much and are posting about but because she has been disowned from the trans community for her despicable actions and words that you hate so much she is suddenly worthy of your empathy that is some seriously fucked up logic.

And for the record her having the actual surgery that I also have had has zero relevance to her actions.


----------



## osm70 (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I'm not going to debate the choices that people are making and the fact they are choices. That's not what I started this thread for. I'm stating that simply by disliking something you don't have a phobia. Which is what I stated, and you haven't presented any sort of convincing argument otherwise.


Let me get this straight, so I actually understand what you are trying to say.

Is this your point?

"If I don't like trans people, it doesn't mean I am transphobic."


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I'm not going to debate the choices that people are making and the fact they are choices. That's not what I started this thread for. I'm stating that simply by disliking something you don't have a phobia. Which is what I stated, and you haven't presented any sort of convincing argument otherwise.


Hate is not necessarily rooted in fear (although it often is), but transphobia extends far beyond fear. It's an umbrella term that encompasses the full range of negativity against people who are trans. Word origins are complicated, and they often should not be dissected 100% literally. For example, in science, oil is considered to be hydrophobic because it does not attract water. If you're going to argue with me that transphobia is restricted to fear because it has the root word phobia in it, then you should also be arguing that oil is not hydrophobic because it lacks the capacity to fear anything. That argument would be as absurd as it is pointless.

Whether or not _you_ want to label your prejudice and hate for trans people _transphobic, transist, etc._ matters very little to me. However, I feel I've more than adequately explained to you what the word actually means and where you've made your mistakes, and your prejudice is bad regardless.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Depending on who you ask you tend to get a different definition which is used or interpreted in a manner of their choosing. I'm going to stick with the definition of "phobia" from a normal dictionary. Wikipedia is known to be completely and utterly biased.




How is wikipedia biased? What the fuck are you even talking about?

And what dictionary are you using? Because any run of the mill one would define 'phobia' in the medical or psychological context, which obviously does not apply to this conversation.

No one who isn't upset about being called transphobic for being clearly transphobic would argue the definition on wikipedia or meriam webster or literally any other dictionary.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I'm not going to debate the choices that people are making and the fact they are choices. That's not what I started this thread for. I'm stating that simply by disliking something you don't have a phobia. Which is what I stated, and you haven't presented any sort of convincing argument otherwise.


They don’t choose to be trans.

Well it depends on what Gender Dysphoria they have.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a choice. Usually because of society makes them believe they are trans when they are not.

Child Onset Gender Dysphoria and Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria aren’t choices. Autogynephilia is a sexual orientation and there is no evidence that people can change orientations. And there is scientific research, though not complete and is limited, says that people that transition after careful screening and consideration are happy with transition.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> So let me get this straight. She is 100% the type of trans person you hate so much and are posting about but because she has been disowned from the trans community for her despicable actions and words that you hate so much she is suddenly worthy of your empathy that is some seriously fucked up logic.
> 
> And for the record her having the actual surgery that I also have had has zero relevance to her actions.



I don't hate trans people. I have sympathy for a person that was created by, put up on a throne and then crushed by her "community" and survived. It just goes to show you what type of people are in the community. She had the surgery, which gives her much more experience in the matter of a "sex change" than someone who hasn't and therefor has "transitioned" successfully.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't hate trans people.


You've admitted to generally disliking trans people, so now you're splitting hairs.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You've admitted to generally disliking trans people, so now you're splitting hairs.



So we have you stretching a phobia to include "simply not liking something" and then "generally disliking the people in the current trans movement" to "hatred"?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> So we have you stretching a phobia to include "simply not liking something"


Read my earlier statements about how transphobia is not a phobia as you understand it. Respectfully, you sound ridiculous.



cots said:


> and then "generally disliking the people in the current trans movement" to "hatred"?


Generally disliking a group of people who share an immutable characteristic is a form of hate. They are both forms of antipathy, and they are synonyms.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Read my earlier statements about how transphobia is not a phobia as you understand it. Respectfully, you sound ridiculous.
> 
> Generally disliking a group of people who share an immutable characteristic is a form of hate. They are both forms of antipathy, and they are synonyms.



You must feel really tired after all of that stretching ...


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> You must feel really tired after all of that stretching ...


Good one. However, I wouldn't be a very good linguist if reciting basic word usage caused me to get tired. I suggest you look back at my previous posts about the popular usages of these words, why transphobia isn't a phobia as you know it, why the labels you pick don't really matter, and how your general antipathy towards trans people is bad regardless.


----------



## tooknie (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic.



This literally never happened to anyone... Ever.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

We’re Straight 
Don’t Hate
We’re only here to Debate

We’re Straight 
Don’t Hate
We’re only here to Debate.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Jun 5, 2019)

So it seems "dislike" is now a synonym of "phobia", huh?
My, how have the roots of the English language fallen to shreds.

Let's lecture the uncultured ones into etymology, because it seems like nowadays people like to make shit up based on whatever they think fits them the best:

The suffix *-Phobia* comes from the greek term "phobos", which means "irrational fear, horror, aversion, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror."
The prefix *Miso-* comes from the greek term "misos", which means "hater, hatred, hate."
The prefix *Dis-* (from dis-like) is a hard one to narrow down. I think it comes from Latin etymology instead of greek, and from what I recall it meant “apart, asunder, away, utterly."
Anyway, if at all the term of hated towards trans is "misotrans", not transphobia.
Transphobia is _*nothing more*_ than irrational fear or terror towards trans people, it has nothing to do with dislike.
Sure, dislike can develop into phobia, but both are not mutually inclusive, and "dislike" has no part in a "phobia". Stop using made up terms and changing words to fit what you want them to.

A clear example of the difference is a person disliking a kind of food, like an apple for example, is in NO WAY a Malusdomesticaphobic.
Speaking in terms of phobia/phobics, those persons can't even see nor sometimes even mention the object or person they fear, or they start acting erratically.
One thing is dislike, the other fear. Learn the difference, kiddos.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2019)

ShadowOne333 said:


> So it seems "dislike" is now a synonym of "phobia", huh?
> My, how have the roots of the English language fallen to shreds.
> 
> Let's lecture the uncultured ones into etymology, because it seems like nowadays people like to make shit up based on whatever they think fits them the best:
> ...


You clearly say

The suffix *-Phobia* comes from the greek term "phobos", which means "irrational fear, horror, *AVERSION*, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror."
Considering the word aversion means a strong dislike or disinclination or hatred of someone or something then what you are saying is wrong.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Jun 5, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> You clearly say
> 
> The suffix *-Phobia* comes from the greek term "phobos", which means "irrational fear, horror, *AVERSION*, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror."
> Considering the word aversion means a strong dislike or disinclination or hatred of someone or something then what you are saying is wrong.
> ...


Nope, it's not wrong, what I said still stands. It clearly says "_*strong*_ dislike".
As I mentioned, dislike can develop into a phobia, or hatred, it depends on the individual's exposure and response to the object or person that causes such dislike into it.

Any kind of dislike doesn't make you hate or fear something automatically.
Seems like the mere mention of the word in any kind of term or level makes people think it means the same, and it does not.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 5, 2019)

cots said:


> If you're into discussing hot button race or sex issues you're going to run into words like "bigot, racist, transphobic, etc ..." a lot. I mean, a freaking lot. Most of the time they are being used to control you and make the argument one sided. An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic. Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic. I mean, what ever happened to mutual consent or having a personal preference?
> 
> I came across an article by a transgender women who is "sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they’re transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between)." She said "Whatever your views are on transgender issues, chances are, you’re not transphobic. Real transphobia involves irrational behaviour and denies trans people a ‘fair go’ not at the expense of others. Real transphobia is physically hurting someone because they’re trans, or not hiring the best job candidate just because they’re trans. Transphobia can be real, but fake transphobia is also real, and throwing (or threatening to throw) fake transphobia accusations around, especially in public discourse, does not help the transgender cause."
> 
> ...



I understand how you feel. I have noticed people say horrible things to one another. However, you can't stop them. None and not ever. Hate exist and it is not going to stop at all. We can't. We can educate them but hate isn't going away. Never. None. Thats the problem. The human is a corruption, that's why. Thanks God that we still have a good people out there that accept those people. I don't have problem with them. I respect them and show friendly and understanding them.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2019)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Nope, it's not wrong, what I said still stands. It clearly says "_*strong*_ dislike".
> As I mentioned, dislike can develop into a phobia, or hatred, it depends on the individual's exposure and response to the object or person that causes such dislike into it.
> 
> Any kind of dislike doesn't make you hate or fear something automatically.
> Seems like the mere mention of the word in any kind of term or level makes people think it means the same, and it does not.


Again you said a dislike of trans people is not transpobic yet you post that a phobia is a irrational fear, horror, *AVERSION*, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror.

Aversion means a dislike of someone or something. 

By your own words then if you dislike or have an aversion to trans people then you are transpobic.


----------



## lexarvn (Jun 5, 2019)

Just my two cents but this seems to be more about disliking the use of terminology more than anything else, homophobic or transphobic in particular. In all fairness, it does seem like the meaning of phobia has shifted over time. Having a phobia seemed to used to mean that you had an irrational fear to something so extremely that it is psychologically crippling and you can't reasonably be expected to ever get over it, and you would act in an involuntary hysteric manner if confronted with it. I mean, this perfectly describes my friends that have things like arachnophobia or acrophobia or trypophobia. It seemed to used to be strictly about fear, not aversion. Of course it is typical to be averse to what you are afraid of so the drift is kinda understandable. But if you are thinking of phobia in strictly a fear sense, it does seem like the term is overused.

Side note, but I've always disliked the terms homophobic or transphobic in the first place because of how it phobia seems to imply a certain amount of involuntary behavior to the thing you fear when I very much think people discriminating against those who are transgender or homosexual do so purposefully


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Jun 5, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Again you said a dislike of trans people is not transpobic yet you post that a phobia is a irrational fear, horror, *AVERSION*, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror.
> 
> Aversion means a dislike of someone or something.
> 
> By your own words then if you dislike or have an aversion to trans people then you are transpobic.


Oh wow, it doesn't matter what anyone says, people are hell bend on believing that any kind of dislike, doesn't matter the severity, makes you automatically transphobic. Sure, go ahead with that thought. If it makes you feel better.

Again, the definition of aversion explicitly says "*strong* dislike", not mild, not slight, not normal, not remote, a *strong* dislike, and some people here imply that even the slightest of dislikes automatically makes you feel aversion for something.
Seems like some people here don't really know the definition of levels in psychology, much less try to comprehend the true meaning behind the words.
Good thing no one here works as a psychologist, or else I pity the patients.

In any case, my word still stands.
Phobia is used for fears _*ONLY*_, doesn't matter what you, or anyone else believes it should mean, that's the definition, whether you like it or not.
Transphobia is a misused terminology, that not even the people that are vocal about it seem to get it seems.

Anyway, I won't keep talking, as obviously this would all fall into deaf ears.
See ya, buds!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 5, 2019)

As long as intolerance exists, people will continue to label intolerant individuals as such.  Sure, many can be entirely too reactionary and too quick to label others, but that's not a trait specific to the political right or left.  It's just people being people.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jun 5, 2019)

tbh i have met 3 trans people in social settings 1 was nice and didn't act like a big douche bag, 2 did, i accidentally called 1 by their old name and they threw a massive hissy fit and did indeed start throwing around the transphobia BS....no i just knew you as michael for 8 years, i don't care what you do to your body or who you fuck or what clothes you wear or what pronoun you would like to be referred to as.....what i do care about is you acting like a complete prick because someone made a genuine mistake and start sneaking around asking our friends not to invite me out because you want everyone walking on eggshells around you and triple thinking every word that comes out their mouth, sad fact is that after that night it seems half our friends don't ask her to come out any more as she did the same thing to 3 other people at different gatherings, for someone asking others to be more considerate about their feelings she certainly has no regards to how awkward and uncomfortable she made everyone else instead of just understanding that these things aren't just a flip of the switch and appreciating the fact everyone is trying their best to not upset you, i have a hard enough time remembering peoples names and often get peoples names mixed up just on a day to day basis and have never had someone throw a hissy fit because i called them steve instead of john

the next m>f trans person i met was a massive attention whore, if it was anyone, be it man or woman and they acted how this person acted i would dislike them, grinding on everyone, bending over saying oooops i think i got something stuck to my butt who wants to check for me, again the "transphobia" remark was made to another guy who simply said "do you mind not rubbing your arse on me"

final person works with my partner and is one of the most lovely people i have met, i have seen someone accidentally slip up and say "sir" to her and she just laughed it off and said "don't worry about it", she is older than the other 2 so idk if age is a factor here, but i think many people do use the "transphobia" remark as a weapon, people can dislike a trans person and it not be transphobic,

that also said i have met many pricks who aren't trans, its not a trait exclusive to trans people, but all people in general, some of them are pricks some of them aren't


----------



## Super.Nova (Jun 5, 2019)

I personally don't care whatever gender you call yourself as long as you don't personally bother me or anyone else.
To me, this is merely a hormonal disturbance that I hope to treat rather than a victimization opportunity.


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 5, 2019)

I'm not choosing sides here, (as I'd rather not step on anyone's toes) just pondering a couple questions...

There have been multiple claims here that the dislike of one who is transsexual is "*Transphobic*".

My question to you is, if you dislike women, is that "*Gynophobia*" or is it "*Misogyny*"?

*Should there* not also *be a different word for* the *dislike* vs the *fear of* a *transsexual individual*?

Second question...

"In human social behavior, *discrimination* is treatment or *consideration* *of*, or *making a distinction* *towards*, *a person based on* the *group*, *class*, or *category* to *which* *the person is perceived to belong*." (I know it can be a crappy source but...) -Wikipedia

Would *you*, *making* an *assumption of* the *person,* *based on* what *they identifiy as/with *("_I don't like this persons lifestyle choices so I probably won't like them_"), *not* be *considered discriminatory*?
And no, I *do not claim* that it is *any sort of external discrimination*, *however*, *wouldn't it at least* be some sort of *internal discrimination*?

I am *not claiming* that *internal discrimination* and *external discrimination* are *on equal levels*. In fact, there are *severe differences between the two*... *However*, are you at least *able to accept that *it *is* *discriminatory* to *judge someone* purely *because of what they identify as/with*?

If *someone considers*, for example, *a white person*, to be *racist*, *based purely on the fact* that *they are a white person*, and "*most white people are racist*" (Which *IS something* that [*SOME*] *people think*), and then they decide that "I probably won't like this person", is *THAT* not *discrimination*?

*What if they were black* and a *person judged them* to be *violent*, *based purely on the fact* that *they are a black person*, and "*most black people are violent*" (*Which*, *once again*, *IS* *something* that [*SOME*] *people think*), and then they decide that "I probably won't like this person", is *THAT* not *discrimination*?

Now, say *they're transsexua*l, and you *judge this person based on* some (or most, I'm not sure which you assume/believe) *transsexual people performing the following* "_An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic. Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic_." *or* perhaps *you disagree with their life choices*, so *therefore, you think* "_I probably won't like them_", *assuming that they will* either, *be*, *or are likely to be*, *what you* would *assume* the *majority* of their *sexual identity/group* *are like*, *based on those individual aspects of that individual*, *instead* of *treating them like what they are*, *an individual*. Is that not *technically discrimination*?

If you can understand where I'm coming from, then you can see that, *even though it's on a different level* from *outward discrimination*, can you not *agree that it is at least discriminatory*?

I *wouldn't go to the point of calling you trans-phobic*, *however*, *even if you didn't mean for it to be*, it is *still technically a form of discrimination*.

Those are my questions for the day. If you have any arguments against me or my examples, I am open to discussion.


----------



## cots (Jun 5, 2019)

Dasher_The_Viral said:


> If you can understand where I'm coming from, then you can see that, *even though it's on a different level* from *outward discrimination*, can you not *agree that it is at least discriminatory*?
> 
> I *wouldn't go to the point of calling you trans-phobic*, *however*, *even if you didn't mean for it to be*, it is *still technically a form of discrimination*.
> 
> Those are my questions for the day. If you have any arguments against me or my examples, I am open to discussion.



Yes, I agree that to some extent you are discriminating internally against the person - to the same extent I would be discriminating against concord jelly by not liking it the first time I see it.

This is no reason to use the term transphobic to hush others peoples freedom of speech, make them conform to your standards or otherwise try to control them and it's not reason to then, when denied these actions, to go all nuts and take things even further down the line. Requesting all "transphobic" conversation not to take place is exactly what Christians used to do to the LGBTQ community in their Churches and around their communities.



Super.Nova said:


> I personally don't care whatever gender you call yourself as long as you don't personally bother me or anyone else.



Same here. I see people going around all of the time making racist remarks about my race or gender, but not to me personally so I ignore it. It's not my job to try to silence the opinion of everyone else when it doesn't fit into my own perspective. Not saying that there aren't times that I will outline the fact they are being racist, but I haven't made it my mission in life to control them. I don't go reporting hatred towards men or general verbal abuses towards being white in an attempt to silence their viewpoints.



Xzi said:


> As long as intolerance exists, people will continue to label intolerant individuals as such.



I'm fine with others labeling me whatever they want - just not trying to use a word that doesn't apply to the situation in an attempt to control others. Maybe the if label were accurate and they weren't trying to shut down my opposing views then I wouldn't have such a problem with it. Which remember, I'm open to dating a trans person, have had trans friends (and still would if I wouldn't have moved recently) - I just don't agree with the current trans movement or the life style choices of most of the people that are in it. Which, I'm older, so my friends trans friends also considered what is going on now a days foolish. I'll also take your bait for the political spin on things, so I also don't agree with the media and politicians in general using the issue to their advantage when they clearly don't care about us in the LGBTQ community.



ShadowOne333 said:


> Again, the definition of aversion explicitly says "*strong* dislike", not mild, not slight, not normal, not remote, a *strong* dislike, and some people here imply that even the slightest of dislikes automatically makes you feel aversion for something.



I've been trying to explain that the definition includes stuff like extreme (in your definitions case, strong) for some time now. People aren't buying it because it doesn't fit in-line with their purpose. They should have really picked or made up a better word (that doesn't change the fact I still don't agree with how they are using the word).

I look at the hatred being spewed from the members of their own community towards each other and think to myself "I really don't want to move into this dirty, nasty trailer park" (aka - I don't want to be a part of this community).



tooknie said:


> This literally never happened to anyone... Ever.



It's happened enough that there are posts all over the Internet about it and if someone doesn't put the spot light on it then it'll only get worse. If I were to approach a random Latino women in her mid 30's on the street and demand sex and she declined and I called her a bad name in an attempt to shame her in front of her friends into having sex with me I think should would be in her right to call the police and also sue me for harassment. Are you now going to defend sexual predators, because no one likes sexual predators?


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> This is no reason to use the term transphobic to hush others peoples freedom of speech, make them conform to your standards or otherwise try to control them



I completely agree with you, nobody should use words or names to censor other people and their beliefs/observations. 

Though, it is also okay for them to assume things about you based on their own beliefs, as long as they aren't trying to censor you and/or convert/control/disown you based on misassumptions and/or disagreeing with your views/beliefs.

Also, I'm glad that you take a chance to get to know these people individually even if you don't completely agree with their lifestyle choices and/or group affiliation (sorry if those are incorrect assumptions), that's very good of you to do.

Nobody should use words to disown a person just because they don't agree with them, this is something that happens a lot between multiple groups.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

I just got back from McDonald's. I chose the eat the Big Mac and didn't get a McFlurry because I don't like them. I admit I was discriminating internally. So what phobia am I suffering from?


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I just got back from McDonald's. I chose the eat the Big Mac and didn't get a McFlurry because I don't like them. I admit I was discriminating internally. So what phobia am I suffering from?


As I said, I don't feel as though you were showing any phobias (like transphobia, seriously, they need to make a different word for it just so it's less misleading.).
I am glad that you can understand that it was discrimination. It makes it a lot easier to understand where you're coming from.

You seem like you're a good person who honestly doesn't want to hurt people and just wants to have their freedoms without the fear of someone hating you over your choices/beliefs, or labeling you as something that you are not. I can understand your position.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 6, 2019)

While not exactly a transphobe, I can relate to cots.
Why? Because according to anyone else, I'm a homophobe (also know by most people on the internet as a douchebag).


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 6, 2019)

UltraSUPRA said:


> While not exactly a transphobe, I can relate to cots.
> Why? Because according to anyone else, I'm a homophobe (also know by most people on the internet as a douchebag).



As long as you aren't actively trying to put people down, or hurt them due to their sexual orientation (and/or other defining factors about themselves [unless these are choices that they have made specifically to hurt others]), then that's okay. Everybody has a right to feel the way they do about others and their lifestyles. Sometimes, certain peoples attractions/beliefs, don't feel right with people and it can make them either uncomfortable or (usually in religious cases) offended. And for quite a few people, that isn't a choice on their part (Though, for some people, it is a choice), it's the same for certain orientations who are disgusted at the thought of their opposite orientation(s) (And once again, for some people, it is a choice).

As long as you're not trying to hurt/manipulate others, then it's okay to have different feelings about them.

There's one rule in life I always try to follow.

"Don't be a f***ing c**t"
- Me (IDK what the policy on swearing is like in this forum so, apologies for the censoring...)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 6, 2019)

Dasher_The_Viral said:


> As long as you aren't actively trying to put people down, or hurt them due to their sexual orientation (and/or other defining factors about themselves [unless these are choices that they have made specifically to hurt others]), then that's okay. Everybody has a right to feel the way they do about others and their lifestyles. Sometimes, certain peoples attractions/beliefs, don't feel right with people and it can make them either uncomfortable or (usually in religious cases) offended. And for quite a few people, that isn't a choice on their part (Though, for some people, it is a choice), it's the same for certain orientations who are disgusted at the thought of their opposite orientation(s) (And once again, for some people, it is a choice).
> 
> As long as you're not trying to hurt/manipulate others, then it's okay to have different feelings about them.


Then I'm okay.


Dasher_The_Viral said:


> (IDK what the policy on swearing is like in this forum so, apologies for the censoring...)


While not enforced (I've tried my hands at a petition), censoring is a good practice, though not a common one. But then again what do I know I've been here for over a year and I still only have a hundred and thirty nine posts.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 6, 2019)

According to an LGBT server I was in, I'm a homophobe for saying Sonicfox's antics make us look bad and it's embarrassing to be gay with the kind of attention he's attracting.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 6, 2019)

Jesus he's still comparing disliking certain sets of people to disliking... food or some shit like that.

What's wrong with you?


And most of you other guys, your issue isn't with LGBT people, it's with DICKS ONLINE!

Some humans are dicks. LGBT are humans.
Some LGBT are dicks.

Don't conflate the two like they're one and the same to justify your homophobia.

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



cots said:


> I just got back from McDonald's. I chose the eat the Big Mac and didn't get a McFlurry because I don't like them. I admit I was discriminating internally. So what phobia am I suffering from?



It's not a phobia, it's being a dumbass.
The fact that you keep comparing your dislike of people to your dislike of objects and food shows exactly what type of person you are.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 6, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Jesus he's still comparing disliking certain sets of people to disliking... food or some shit like that.
> 
> What's wrong with you?



The constant comparison between food and humans is quite frankly hilarious he fails to understand that humans unlike food have feelings that his dislike may hurt.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 6, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Some humans are dicks. LGBT are humans.
> Some LGBT are dicks.


Some also like dicks.


----------



## Bedel (Jun 6, 2019)

A transphobic person getting mad because people tell him what he is. Maybe you should just admit it and shut. There's no salvation for people like you.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jun 6, 2019)

The words homophobic and transphobic are as nonsensical as "to diss somebody".
Without the second element it just makes no sense.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

Bedel said:


> A transphobic person getting mad because people tell him what he is. Maybe you should just admit it and shut. There's no salvation for people like you.



Except, I'm not transphobic and the people calling me it are trying to shame me as an attempt to silence my opinions or to make me conform to their standards. I'm not transphobic because I do not support the current trans movement nor want anything to do with the life stlye associated with it. Calling me names and telling me I have no salvation is a prime example of the hate, bias and controlling factors that I am talking about. However, I'm not negative and believe there is hope for you.

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



AmandaRose said:


> The constant comparison between food and humans is quite frankly hilarious he fails to understand that humans unlike food have feelings that his dislike may hurt.



Well, in either case I'm not being phobic of either the food or the person. I understand food doesn't get insulted when it can't control me.

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



Snugglevixen said:


> According to an LGBT server I was in, I'm a homophobe for saying Sonicfox's antics make us look bad and it's embarrassing to be gay with the kind of attention he's attracting.



According to some people I'm also homophobic, which doesn't make sense because I've dated both women and men. I just don't agree with various ways certain groups of homosexuals protray themselves or treat their bodies - so I'm homophobic.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 6, 2019)

@cots you keep going on about your right to free speach and you should be able to say what you want yet you keep trying to shut up the trans community and take away their rights to free speak including using free speach to call someone transphobic if they think the person is.

You may or may not be transphobic but you certainly are a hypocrite that's for sure.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> According to an LGBT server I was in, I'm a homophobe for saying Sonicfox's antics make us look bad and it's embarrassing to be gay with the kind of attention he's attracting.



Now try putting up with that sort of hypocrisy coming from the current generations mainstream groups. I don't find other groups, especially the trans groups I've been involved the past, calling me a transphobic. They would be the first to tell you that I'm so far away from being one that it's silly even to consider such a thing and they would also agree with me that people are abusing the term transphobic.

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



AmandaRose said:


> @cots you keep going on about your right to free speach and you should be able to say what you want yet you keep trying to shut up the trans community and take away their rights to free speak including using free speach to call someone transphobic if they think the person is.
> 
> You may or may not be transphobic but you certainly are a hypocrite that's for sure.



I don't want to take away the trans communities rights to abuse a word in a manner meant to control, shame and manipulate others. I rather that people realize that this is happening and stop doing it. Even better, for the people that are victims of such hate coming from the trans community to stand up and not be silenced! I'm not saying they can't do it or there should be some law made to stop them from doing it (which is what the trans community is seeking to do to other people). I'm better than that.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 6, 2019)

Yet you are not going on about people claiming falsely about homophobic abuse or racist abuse or sexual abuse ect ect

You are not going on about how wrong real transphobic or homophobic or racist people are ect ect 

You have focused in on one thing which quite frankly comes across as bullying tactics and a complete and utter hatred of all trans people. I am sure there is a word for a person like that but I'm not gonna use it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 6, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> And most of you other guys, your issue isn't with LGBT people, it's with DICKS ONLINE!


Actually, no. I dislike the pure concept of homosexuality. Not the gays themselves, but the concept of being gay.
Whether that makes me a **** is purely up to your opinion.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> You have focused in on one thing which quite frankly comes across as bullying tactics and a complete and utter hatred of all trans people. I am sure there is a word for a person like that but I'm not gonna use it.



Well, considering I don't hate trans people I don't think your observation is valid. I'm not bullying anyone - I'm the one being bullied, although I'm not going to act like a victim. I will continue to expose the misuse of the term transphobic by the trans community as a way to silence, shame, manipulate, bully or otherwise try to control the other people who do not simply agree with them when there is no actual phobic behavior taking place. I suggest if you think you're being pushed around by conversing with me to simply walk away and avoid doing so. I'm not forcing you to do so and I can't help it if you're taking it personally. However, you won't silence me. I didn't start the name calling and abuse from the trans community, but I'm sure as hell not going to back down now that I am a target of it.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 6, 2019)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Actually, no. I dislike the pure concept of homosexuality. Not the gays themselves, but the concept of being gay.
> Whether that makes me a **** is purely up to your opinion.




why do you even feel the need to pretend like there's a distinction between these two things?
It definitely and objectively does make you a dick, yeah...


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

To anyone who thinks I'm being a bully. Please refer to the comments the trans community is making on the original article I linked to in the first post relating to the trans women who agrees with the fact that transphobia is being misused and you're most likely not transphobic. The clear and utter vile hatred toward her is a prime example of the toxic garbage that I'm addressing and dealing with. There is no excuse to treat a member of your own group let alone someone not in your group that has an opposing view like they are doing.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, considering I don't hate trans people I don't think your observation is valid. I'm not bullying anyone - I'm the one being bullied, although I'm not going to act like a victim. I will continue to expose the misuse of the term transphobic by the trans community as a way to silence, shame, manipulate, bully or otherwise try to control the other people who do not simply agree with them when there is no actual phobic behavior taking place. I suggest if you think you're being pushed around by conversing with me to simply walk away and avoid doing so. I'm not forcing you to do so and I can't help it if you're taking it personally. However, you won't silence me. I didn't start the name calling and abuse from the trans community, but I'm sure as hell not going to back down now that I am a target of it.



you're not being bullied, the term clearly does apply to you. and you do act like a victim. just like all the nazis are when you call them out for their backwards way of thinking.

and here's another thing, even if the term was being misused every once in a while, like many terms are, that 100% doesn't mean it can't ever be used and does never apply.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 6, 2019)

Now we're twisting free speech (again)? Oof...

This thread is quite the diverse one, innit..


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> you're not being bullied, the term clearly does apply to you.



Explain to me, how I'm being a bully. I'd like to know.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, considering I don't hate trans people I don't think your observation is valid. I'm not bullying anyone - I'm the one being bullied, although I'm not going to act like a victim. I will continue to expose the misuse of the term transphobic by the trans community as a way to silence, shame, manipulate, bully or otherwise try to control the other people who do not simply agree with them when there is no actual phobic behavior taking place. I suggest if you think you're being pushed around by conversing with me to simply walk away and avoid doing so. I'm not forcing you to do so and I can't help it if you're taking it personally. However, you won't silence me. I didn't start the name calling and abuse, but I'm sure as hell not going to back down now that I am a target of it.


Again you totally refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are focusing in on one issue and ignoring everything else. Why are you not talking about people falsely claiming racism? why are you not talking about people falsely claiming homophobia? or sexual abuse? ect ect why are you not condemning actual transpobic/homophobic people?

Attacking one group of people but not the others for actions that other groups also do is a form of bullying plain and simple even if it's not your intentions.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> Explain to me, how I'm being a bully. I'd like to know.


First of all, you're being a dumbass again, setting up the dumbest strawman you could think off.
I didn't say the term bully applies to you, though it absolutely wouldn't surprise me if did, I said the term we've been talking about for the last 5 pages, transphobe, does.

and people calling you that isn't people bullying you.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jun 6, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> why do you even feel the need to pretend like there's a distinction between these two things?
> It definitely and objectively does make you a dick, yeah...



I dislike the pure concept of drinking, I don't hate people who drink.
These two notions are certainly not the same. The Church is against homosexuality, but welcomes homosexuals (well officially)


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Again you totally refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are focusing in on one issue and ignoring everything else. Why are you not talking about people falsely claiming racism? why are you not talking about people falsely claiming homophobia? or sexual abuse? ect ect why are you not condemning actual transpobic/homophobic people?
> 
> Attacking one group of people but not the others for actions that other groups also do is a form of bullying plain and simple even if it's not your intentions.



Because, as of right now, I'm not being accused of those things and I'm addressing the subject matter in this topic. You can't fight for every cause or every person. I wonder why activists chose a certain cause and stick with it? Are they wrong for ignoring the other 1,000+ notable causes they could have partaken in? That's unrealistic. I already stated that real transphobic behavior is not acceptable. The aversion defintion you linked to, which is a common variable with justifying the behavior coming from the misuse of the word transphobia, clearly doesn't include the act of generally disliking something. It's an extreme dislike bundled in with other behaviors and beliefs. The reaching being done doesn't fool me.

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



Clydefrosch said:


> First of all, you're being a dumbass again, setting up the dumbest strawman you could think off.
> I didn't say the term bully applies to you, though it absolutely wouldn't surprise me if did, I said the term we've been talking about for the last 5 pages, transphobe, does.
> 
> and people calling you that isn't people bullying you.



So threating me, trying to force me into doing something or thinking something that I don't want to do, using a the term transphobic improperly as a control measure aggressively with the intent to dominate and intimidate me isn't bullying, but me simply disagreeing with someone and refusing to change is? Weird world we live in.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 6, 2019)

Just posting so that I stop receiving notifications.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 6, 2019)

Always amusing to see Trump supporters preach about name calling, bigotry, and the likes. The far right are THE single largest group of extreme hypocrites on the planet.


----------



## burial (Jun 6, 2019)

Nope......you you farking tree diddler!


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Always amusing to see Trump supporters preach about name calling, bigotry, and the likes. The far right are THE single largest group of extreme hypocrites on the planet.



Who exactly are these far right people you're talking about? This thread is addressing the issue of transphobia, not the idiotic actions coming from the far right or the far left.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> Who exactly are these far right people you're talking about? This thread is addressing the issue of transphobia, not the idiotic actions coming from the far right or the far left.



Oh, stop. You know 100% full well. Don't play dumb.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Oh, stop. You know 100% full well. Don't play dumb.



I'm not going to fall into any political trap. I'm not far (insert anything here). I'm an independent and part of the *LGBTQ* community. Nice fishing attempt, wrong type of bait.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not going to fall into any political trap. I'm not far (insert anything here). I'm an independent and part of the *LGBTQ* community. Nice fishing attempt, wrong type of bait.



Says the person continually making these exact same types of threads & lib bashing. But whatever you'd like to believe to make you feel better about yourself. If there are any baiting posts around here, plenty of yours would have to be at the top of the list. You're in the minority here with your opinions and right wing agenda. Spin it how ever you'd like. The majority see right through you & will call your bluff in a heartbeat. Maybe you should sign up for the Fox News forums or something similar - where like minded people will actually care about the trash you spread around.

Good day. I've nothing left to post here.

Edit: If you'd like. Feel free to direct myself and others to all of your pro Democrat/Liberal topics.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 6, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Always amusing to see Trump supporters preach about name calling, bigotry, and the likes. The far right are THE single largest group of extreme hypocrites on the planet.


Always amusing to see the left making outrageous assumptions about a person's political stance and who their favorite president is based on an observation. Go troll elsewhere, thanks.

Politics don't belong on the temp and this is why. So much baiting, trolling, bashing, and borderline hatred. 2009 was such a simpler time.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> So threating me, trying to force me into doing something or thinking something that I don't want to do, using a the term transphobic improperly as a control measure aggressively with the intent to dominate and intimidate me isn't bullying, but me simply disagreeing with someone and refusing to change is? Weird world we live in.



Losing ones patience with a dumbass isn't exactly the same thing as bullying, but I didn't say that I wasn't bullying you either. I said that people calling you transphobe aren't.
and I'm threating you like a dumbass because you clearly are one. you ignore everything told to you, your arguments keep going back to your random experience and a random online article supporting you.
you believe that you decide what words mean, which you don't and you pretend, dumbassly, that acting like 'you're just bringing attention to an important issue, namely that trans people are mean bullies using a word against you that absolutely applies to you' somehow veils that you're clearly just here to talk about how you don't like trans people and how they need to be put in check, with their mean word usage. just like any other oppressor of minorities would. just like all those dumbass straight pride month guys do.

YOU are using the term improperly.
you don't like transpeople, because you don't like 'the trans movement' and you don't like 'the typical trans lifestyle'.
simply believing that either of these are a homogeneous mass or that judgement over any single trans person could be cast based on your idea of such a movement or lifestyle, shows that you're a transphobe.
that's just how it is. you don't want to change how you view transpeople, that's fine. but stop whining about being called a transphobe then. 



cots said:


> I'm not going to fall into any political trap. I'm not far (insert anything here). I'm an independent and part of the *LGBTQ* community. Nice fishing attempt, wrong type of bait.



lol, you ideas clearly are on the right side of modern day politics and being part of the lgbtq community (which I also want to doubt, simply because you couldn't be this dense if you were) doesn't make it impossible to be politically right minded.




cots said:


> Who exactly are these far right people you're talking about? This thread is addressing the issue of transphobia, not the idiotic actions coming from the far right or the far left.


this threat isn't adressing the issue of transphobia. it's addressing the fragile ego of a person that rather wants to change everyones definition of words so that they wouldn't 'technically' apply to him, than changing their stupid irrational view. because you're dumb enough to think that a transphobe, by any other name, would be something other than a transphobe.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Losing ones ...



I'm done talking to you. Go harass and call someone else nasty names elsewhere.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm done talking to you. Go harass and call someone else nasty names elsewhere.



note how he wrote that less than 90 seconds after my post.
he didn't read it.
and he's clearly noticed that he's as fucking transparent as a window and that his bullshit doesn't fly.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

Memoir said:


> Always amusing to see the left making outrageous assumptions about a person's political stance and who their favorite president is based on an observation. Go troll elsewhere, thanks.
> 
> Politics don't belong on the temp and this is why. So much baiting, trolling, bashing, and borderline hatred. 2009 was such a simpler time.



This thread isn't about politics. Even though the left and the right are using the LGBTQ community as a tool, the thread is about the misuse of the transphobic term.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> This thread isn't about politics. Even though the left and the right are using the LGBTQ community as a tool, the thread is about the misuse of the transphobic term.


I know what the thread is about. A sad truth. However, to no surprise, people are turning it political for no reason other than to be heard. It's pathetic. We're all entitled to our views, but the hypocrisy is astounding. The sympathy shown for the LGBT community when someone wrongfully (and sometimes unintentionally) labels them as something they're not is great... But when the shoe is on the other foot there's nothing wrong? Are people really so dense? We're screwed.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jun 6, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Always amusing to see Trump supporters preach about name calling, bigotry, and the likes. The far right are THE single largest group of extreme hypocrites on the planet.



Only extremes of either side can say things like that.
For the majority of people (who are not extreme) you are allowed to have different opinions that won't necessarily make you an extreme.

Fun fact, i've been called far right and far left within the same day. It just had to be with a different group of people 

Both extremes are bad, counter productive, feeding each other, and generally pretty annoying to the rest of the population.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> If you're into discussing hot button race or sex issues you're going to run into words like "bigot, racist, transphobic, etc ..." a lot. I mean, a freaking lot. Most of the time they are being used to control you and make the argument one sided. An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic. Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic. I mean, what ever happened to mutual consent or having a personal preference?
> 
> I came across an article by a transgender women who is "sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they’re transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between)." She said "Whatever your views are on transgender issues, chances are, you’re not transphobic. Real transphobia involves irrational behaviour and denies trans people a ‘fair go’ not at the expense of others. Real transphobia is physically hurting someone because they’re trans, or not hiring the best job candidate just because they’re trans. Transphobia can be real, but fake transphobia is also real, and throwing (or threatening to throw) fake transphobia accusations around, especially in public discourse, does not help the transgender cause."
> 
> ...



Trans-phobic and homophobic are made up words by leftist.You are doing nothing wrong by not supporting these people's lifestyles. Many religions like Christianity and Islam condemn homosexuality so if people are giving you a hard time about your beliefs they are being prejudiced themselves.Who cares if people call you trans-phobic? Stay true to your beliefs regardless of what anyone says.You know deep down what's right and what isn't. We don't call aversion to heroin addicts "heroin-phobia" even though to the addict they have chosen a perfectly valid lifestyle. My point is that people will always defend their degeneracy at all cost and they will make YOU seem like the bad guy when you point it out to them. There was a speedrunner that didn't take care of himself at all named Cosmo(can't remember what game he ran), he had a girlfriend for a year that ended up cheating on him. After a few weeks he comes out as "transsexual" and now goes by the name Narcissa(yes from harry potter). What a coincidence that he was in love with a woman,but when things didn't work out he suddenly realized he was trans.

My personal opinion is that all humans want to be loved and not every human can easily attain said love.Being a heterosexual man is TOUGH, society chews you up and spits you back out constantly. Men get divorce raped all the time even though they are loving fathers and good human beings. Many men can't get romantic encounters for long periods of time if at all. What is the consequence of this? People turn to homosexuality and transsexualism to get those needs met. I knew someone that spent ten years without getting love from a woman before they decided to turn to men where they found that they could get laid whenever they wanted. Being a man in today's society involves taking a hell of a lot of punches with the expectation that you will keep getting back up for more until the day you day. If you aren't handsome or talented, society wants absolutely nothing to do with you as a heterosexual man and that reality makes people turn into alternative lifestyles. 

Anyways,I just wanted to conclude my rant by telling you to keep your head up. Don't let anyone make you feel bad about yourself because they try to lump you into a category of people they deem as "bad". Homophobia/transphobia are not at all similar to racism and they are completely made up words to try to socially punish individuals that don't agree with their lifestyle choices. You will be alright in the end if you just block out all that noise and stay true to who you are. Deep down,you know what is right and what is wrong. Good luck my friend.


----------



## tooknie (Jun 6, 2019)

cots said:


> Are you now going to defend sexual predators, because no one likes sexual predators?



You see, there you go again with your sensationalist comments. Are you sure you're not really Donald Trump?

I actually agree to some degree with most of your original post. My issue was with the first example you gave which I doubt is often brought up in debate and in any case such minority attitudes are far more prevelant in the straight community (fragile male egos when rejected by women) than the trans or gay communities. What your comment did was to suggest that issue is a gay or trans issue, when it isn't. In my view it was dangerous exaggeration on your part to get people to agree with you. IF your claim that such attitudes are ALL over the Internet then show me. You clearly have the Internet at your fingertips.


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

tooknie said:


> You see, there you go again with your sensationalist comments. Are you sure you're not really Donald Trump?
> 
> I actually agree to some degree with most of your original post. My issue was with the first example you gave which I doubt is often brought up in debate and in any case such minority attitudes are far more prevelant in the straight community (fragile male egos when rejected by women) than the trans or gay communities. What your comment did was to suggest that issue is a gay or trans issue, when it isn't. In my view it was dangerous exaggeration on your part to get people to agree with you. IF your claim that such attitudes are ALL over the Internet then show me. You clearly have the Internet at your fingertips.



Sure, there are straight men that prey on women and try to manipulate them into having sexual relations with them. It's not much different then a trans person using the term transphobic to do the same thing to a person they are attacked to that isn't willing to consent to sex. You must realize, that I'm not talking about straight men here and their predatory behavior - I'm talking about trans people and their predatory behavior related into trying to shame or otherwise force people that do not want to have sex with them to have sex with them and they are using the term transphobic (among other disgusting tactics) to prey on others. Thanks for pointing out it's a behavior that can be found in any community, but this forum topic isn't about every community or predatory behavioral in general - it's about the misuse of the term transphobic and this situation, which I linked to (the link is at your fingers) clearly outlines the blatant abuse of the term. I mean, it's only one of the examples I listed, and quick internet search will bring up a lot more.

Even if it's a limited case, which it's not, do you believe trans people are in their right to call you transphobic because you decline to have sex with them? If so, do you believe they should be able to use the term transphobic to try to shame you into having sex with them?


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 6, 2019)

You want to make this all about sex ok explain to me why it's acceptable that 50% of transgenders experience sexual abuse or assault at some time in their lives. Care to explains why all the following statics in the following are acceptable.

https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html


----------



## cots (Jun 6, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> You want to make this all about sex ok explain to me why it's acceptable that 50% of transgenders experience sexual abuse or assault at some time in their lives. Care to explains why all the following statics in the following are acceptable.
> 
> https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html



It's no more expectable for it to happen to them is it is acceptable for them to do it to other people Although, statistics show that people that are the victim of sexual abuse tend to go and abuse other people. That doesn't make it an excuse. It's a vicious cycle. I don't have an answer on how to solve the problem, other than chose how you treat people the same way you would like to be treated. Don't support or participate in any abusive activity and it's more than likely not going to happen to you. Although, you see this is not the case in mine and other situations. The abuse is directed towards me and other just because we don't agree with certain aspects of the trans movement or the trans lifestyle. I don't see how emulating the activities of the people who you claim to hate and taking it out on others who mean you no harm is a solution.


----------



## cots (Jun 7, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Now here's what I think: that some cis-normalized people are too narrow minded to be comfortable around people with a different lifestyle, see this other lifestyle (incorrectly) as threatening, and either consciously or unconsciously act on that perception. Looks that are a bit condescending...smiles that are way too forced...tone of voice that's just a tad too bitter. You name it. Granted: it's not as bad as openly calling names at transgenders or races, but it gives them the same level of discomfort.



I also run into the fake treatment a lot, especially from people who are supposedly the ones you should go to answers for or the ones that are called authority figures. It's really prominent on both sides of the political spectrum. They'll say one thing, but you can see it in their eyes that they don't mean it and it hurts them to treat you fairly. Although, I see this, I also realize that they are trying to and for the most part are treating me fairly. I don't particularity care why, but value the fact that I am being treated fairly. So they are faking it. Big deal. As long as it's not effecting the way I'm being treated then so be it. You can't ask them to suddenly give up their core values and beliefs, but you can demand equal treatment when it comes to things that matter. You know, decisions they make about your life - not how the fake smile makes you feel.

That's irrelevant and a fake smile isn't hurting you in a way that would be considered real transphobia. You know what the fake smile makes me feel? I feel pity. Not anger that they are giving me a fake smile, which is why judging a person on how you feel isn't a logical thing to base you entire conclusion on because everyone is going to feel different about it. If you go around basing everything you do on emotion and then wonder why you're an emotional wreck you clearly have no clue that you're doing it to yourself and need to stop (that's if you don't like being an emotional wreck).

Some people enjoy having the spotlight, being able to use a common cause to control and intimidate people, they enjoy censoring them and apparently this includes some of the people in the trans movement and one of their tools is shaming you with misused terms like transphobia. If people weren't trying to silence my opinions, removing or otherwise censoring my posts, trying to control me into conforming to believing in something that I have they have no right to make me believe in and using the term transphobia to do so I wouldn't have started this forum thread.

It's funny to have gone through so much with coming out and being rejected by society and actually been the victim of real homophobia and discrimination to grow older and then receive the similar treatment again by people that are supposed to understand.


----------



## cots (Jun 8, 2019)

Seems a LGBTQ couple were told they had to kiss each other and then were beaten because they refused to kiss. If it's wrong to try to force a LGBTQ couple into simply kissing, how is it right for a trans person to shame you if you won't have sexual intercourse with them? Neither are right. Just because you're trans and it's a hot button issue with some people doesn't mean you get a pass. You're still responsible for your own actions.


----------



## coffinbirth (Jun 8, 2019)

cots said:


> Seems a LGBTQ couple were told they had to kiss each other and then were beaten because of it. If it's wrong to try to force a LGBTQ couple into simply kissing, how is it right for a trans person to shame you if you won't have sexual intercourse with them? Neither are right. Just because you're trans and it's a hot button issue with some people doesn't mean you get a pass. You're still responsible for your own actions.


Wow, that is your takeaway? You have issues. Like, not a good person issues.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 8, 2019)

coffinbirth said:


> Wow, that is your takeaway? You have issues. Like, not a good person issues.


He can no longer hide he is transphobic after that comment. That was the lowest of low using a horrendous crime and turning it back on the trans community.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 8, 2019)

Lmao, this thread though... You can call me whatever name you want, still not having sex with a trans person. When is Mr Musk colonizing Mars? I wanna volunteer for the first crew. Fuck this planet and everyone on it. Previous generations delt with wars and the great depression, while in 2019 we're crying because we failed 1st grade biology and have difficulty identifying what gender we are, or we have people like @Taleweaver who are upset because people accepting their bizzare lifestyle arent being "genuine" enough or some rediculous garbage. I literally had no opinion on the LGBT community whatsoever until the topic exploded on the internet. People that use buzzwords like transphobic to support their own private agenda need to take a step back and realize all they are doing is making their entire community look bad. Unfortunate for those in the community that are pushing for real changes that actually matter.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 8, 2019)

cots said:


> If you're into discussing hot button race or sex issues you're going to run into words like "bigot, racist, transphobic, etc ..." a lot. I mean, a freaking lot. Most of the time they are being used to control you and make the argument one sided. An example is if you are in a situation where a trans person wants to have sex with you and you decline to do so; suddenly you're transphobic.




Most trans people don't think you're transphobic if you don't want to have sex with a trans person.
Note that your Daily Wire article mentions ONE person who believes this.

The Daily Wire is pegging an entire community with the opinion of one member of that community.

If I find a four leaf clover in a field of clovers, I can't just say "this is a field full of four leaf clovers".
This is an example of the Faulty Generalization fallacy.



cots said:


> Say, you disagree with the trans movement and you don't want to be a part of it - you're transphobic. I mean, what ever happened to mutual consent or having a personal preference?



How does one disagree with the _trans movement_ and not be transphobic? If you think all trans people are just "making it up", how could that be anything other than anti-scientific prejudice?

For example, if I said "I disagree with the _gay movement_" and think that gay people are simply just mentally ill, how could I be anything other than prejudiced against gay people? As is true with trans people, there is no evidence that being gay is a mental disorder, despite what many people (without scientific backgrounds) believe.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 8, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Lmao, this thread though... You can call me whatever name you want, still not having sex with a trans person. When is Mr Musk colonizing Mars? I wanna volunteer for the first crew. Fuck this planet and everyone on it. Previous generations delt with wars and the great depression, while in 2019 we're crying because we failed 1st grade biology and have difficulty identifying what gender we are, or we have people like @Taleweaver who are upset because people accepting their bizzare lifestyle arent being "genuine" enough or some rediculous garbage. I literally had no opinion on the LGBT community whatsoever until the topic exploded on the internet. People that use buzzwords like transphobic to support their own private agenda need to take a step back and realize all they are doing is making their entire community look bad. Unfortunate for those in the community that are pushing for real changes that actually matter.



This community attracts a crazy amount of transexuals, I have absolutely no idea what there correlation is between LGBT and gameboys but it is definately there.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 8, 2019)

A lot of this thread seems to be about prescriptive grammar, meaning "this is the right way to use it", which is just a red-herring for the most part.

Switch to descriptive grammar. That is, what is the phenomena being described? What is the word trying to get across? Focus on the goals of the words, not the words themselves. What are people trying to convey when they say a word, not "what is the actual, proper use of this word, traditionally". 

Otherwise you're just avoiding the topic entirely and going around in circles.  

Here's a little relevant pro-tip on how to be a proper human: people are people, first and foremost. Highlight the similarities, embrace the differences. realize your fear or discomfort are a you problem, and not a them problem. And when in doubt, ask someone from the group you're curious about. The universe is vast and forever weird. Be comfortable with the fact you do not know how it works, and allow others to change your perception of "normal". Understand there is no end-point; this is a life-long process that never ends. 

okay, that's all I have to say for now. stay weird, humans!


----------



## cots (Jun 8, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> Most trans people don't think you're transphobic if you don't want to have sex with a trans person.
> Note that your Daily Wire article mentions ONE person who believes this.
> 
> The Daily Wire is pegging an entire community with the opinion of one member of that community.
> ...



Because simply disagreeing with the way the trans movement is being played out doesn't make you phobic of anything. If I were transphobic please explain to me or to my trans friends who aren't involved in the current movement why I'm phobic. Simply disagreeing with the way things are doesn't mean you have a phobia. You realize I'm open to dating a trans individual and like I already said I have trans friends who think people who are abusing the term transphobic is wrong.

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

Also, the DSM categorizes trans people with a mental disorder, but having a mental illness is nothing to be ashamed about as I also have friends who are mentally disabled.

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



coffinbirth said:


> Wow, that is your takeaway? You have issues. Like, not a good person issues.



You have hetros trying to force LGBTQ to act in a way they don't want to and this is wrong. I totally agree. So you then have trans trying to force you into doing something similar, but this is okay and you're transphobic because you won't comply. If that's the case then what would you label the lesbian couple that refused to comply? What sort of bad word would you use or how would you shame them?

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



Whole lotta love said:


> How does one disagree with the _trans movement_ and not be transphobic? If you think all trans people are just "making it up", how could that be anything other than anti-scientific prejudice?
> 
> For example, if I said "I disagree with the _gay movement_" and think that gay people are simply just mentally ill, how could I be anything other than prejudiced against gay people? As is true with trans people, there is no evidence that being gay is a mental disorder, despite what many people (without scientific backgrounds) believe.



I also disagree with how many homosexuals go about doing things. I've had long talks with some of my homosexual partners about this. Clearly, since I simply disagree (like with the trans movement) I am homophobic, correct? You see how moronic that is. Homophobic people don't date other men on a regular basis. Simply disagreeing with a current movement or a particular group of trans people and how they conduct themselves doesn't make you phobic of anything.

Labeling other people with a word with the intent to manipulate and control them because you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions and also because you're intolerant of others beliefs and want silence them so you can continue to be irresponsible and force your will onto other people is wrong. Isn't that what the LGBTQ community is supposedly against? These LGBTQ members who are doing this need to stop.


----------



## cots (Jun 8, 2019)

Also, the Daily Wire isn't the only example of trans predators trying to force shame others into sex. Reddit is full of others, even LGBTQ members who have been preyed upon. 

I know this in a minority of trans people we're talking about (the ones calling you transphobic because you won't have sex with them). However, everyone seems to be focusing on minorities as the trans population is like 4% . So why is it okay for you to focus on minorities and not okay for me to do the same? You must also realize that was only one example of the many different ways the term transphobic is being used to justify hate.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 8, 2019)

Maluma said:


> This community attracts a crazy amount of transexuals, I have absolutely no idea what there correlation is between LGBT and gameboys but it is definately there.


The only correlation is that gaming is an inclusive hobby, and trans individuals don't have to worry about being physically assaulted online.  It's not like these people exist only on the internet, but they are given more free reign to express their thoughts and opinions here.


----------



## cots (Jun 8, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Lmao, this thread though... You can call me whatever name you want, still not having sex with a trans person. When is Mr Musk colonizing Mars? I wanna volunteer for the first crew. Fuck this planet and everyone on it. Previous generations delt with wars and the great depression, while in 2019 we're crying because we failed 1st grade biology and have difficulty identifying what gender we are, or we have people like @Taleweaver who are upset because people accepting their bizzare lifestyle arent being "genuine" enough or some rediculous garbage. I literally had no opinion on the LGBT community whatsoever until the topic exploded on the internet. People that use buzzwords like transphobic to support their own private agenda need to take a step back and realize all they are doing is making their entire community look bad. Unfortunate for those in the community that are pushing for real changes that actually matter.



It's just too bad people are letting themselves be manipulated by certain  trans people abusing the term transphobic. People should focus on real phobias like what happened to the lesbians in the UK. Getting your nose broken is a result of a real phobic person.

Also moderators, site administrators, news outlets shouldn't cave into their demands just because they want to avoid the attacks that will follow from the control freaks who didn't get their way. People in general should not condone such behavior and focus on real transphobic topics - like the Dallas killing's. By abusing other people the trans community is only going to attract more hate. You see abusing the term is counterproductive and only leads to other people disliking them even more. You're making us in the LGBTQ community look bad by doing so. PLEASE STOP!!!


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The only correlation is that gaming is an inclusive hobby, and trans individuals don't have to worry about being physically assaulted online.  It's not like these people exist only on the internet, but they are given more free reign to express their thoughts and opinions here.


Yes but why gameboy/3ds/switch? Why don't you see so many flamboyant LGBT members on se7ensins or other xbox forums? I find it extremely strange that Nintendo consoles attracts LGBT members more than other gaming platforms.I am wondering if it is maybe the cutesy themes of nintendo that attracts this particular group of people.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 8, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Yes but why gameboy/3ds/switch? Why don't you see so many flamboyant LGBT members on se7ensins or other xbox forums? I find it extremely strange that Nintendo consoles attracts LGBT members more than other gaming platforms.I am wondering if it is maybe the cutesy themes of nintendo that attracts this particular group of people.


Well, Nintendo has perhaps a wider appeal than just about any other gaming company.  Not only can their games be played by kids or adults, Nintendo also develops games in nearly every genre and tailored for every skill level.  Bottom line: Nintendo is incredibly proficient at what they do, and because of that, they're incredibly proficient in turning people into lifelong fans.  The sexual identity of those fans is pure coincidence, though we can probably infer that games like Gears of War and God of War aren't quite as appealing to the LGBTQ community at large as Nintendo's offerings are.


----------



## Alicias_lance (Jun 8, 2019)

Thread is cringe: first of all just because you disagree with a movement doesn't mean you despise the things the movement stand for. An example would be not agreeing with a Socialist movement because you feel certain things in their manifest are wrong, but you like certain aspects of Socialism. In other words you don't completely disagree with what their saying, but you just think they are going about it the wrong way. To think that a person that disagrees with a particular movement is the complete opposite of what they represent is extremist. If you are white, you must oppose black, if you are black you must oppose white. Its chess mentality, which is the mentality of war.

Second, saw a lot of name calling by some people in the thread: name calling is bullying in general. If you have to personally attack a person during an argument, it doesn't matter how right you are resorting to such demeanor is pathetic and it makes you look stupid. It just makes it seem like you not very intelligent and can't find any other way to defend your argument so you resort to attacking.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They don’t choose to be trans.
> 
> Well it depends on what Gender Dysphoria they have.
> 
> ...


On a sort of random note - I had to look up autogynephilia but I think many males have experienced that at some point in their lives. I have certainly wondered what it would be like to be female and been aroused by the thought. Even if only for a day it would be an interesting experience. That in itself doesn't really mean much - it's certainly got little to do with being trans.


----------



## Goffrier (Jun 8, 2019)

that thread demonstrates the world in 2019. P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C


----------



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2019)

Alicias_lance said:


> Thread is cringe: first of all just because you disagree with a movement doesn't mean you despise the things the movement stand for. An example would be not agreeing with a Socialist movement because you feel certain things in their manifest are wrong, but you like certain aspects of Socialism. In other words you don't completely disagree with what their saying, but you just think they are going about it the wrong way. To think that a person that disagrees with a particular movement is the complete opposite of what they represent is extremist. If you are white, you must oppose black, if you are black you must oppose white. Its chess mentality, which is the mentality of war.
> 
> Second, saw a lot of name calling by some people in the thread: name calling is bullying in general. If you have to personally attack a person during an argument, it doesn't matter how right you are resorting to such demeanor is pathetic and it makes you look stupid. It just makes it seem like you not very intelligent and can't find any other way to defend your argument so you resort to attacking.


Abraham Lincoln was against abolitionists but supported freeing slaves. Many people in the North were for freeing slaves but against abolitionists because they didn’t like the way abolitionists went about things.


The same logic can apply to other movements as well if you don’t like how they go about things but actually support the idea that they are fighting for, but not support the way they handle it. Movements are just groups and many can different movements can form.



The Real Jdbye said:


> On a sort of random note - I had to look up autogynephilia but I think many males have experienced that at some point in their lives. I have certainly wondered what it would be like to be female and been aroused by the thought. Even if only for a day it would be an interesting experience. That in itself doesn't really mean much - it's certainly got little to do with being trans.


Autogynephilia and autogynephilia gender dysphoria would be two separate things. Not everyone who is Autogynephilic has or will get gender dysphoria. But people that has that particular gender dysphoria has autogynephilia that precedes it and have a strong wish to transition.

Autogynephila is probably rare and would be classified as a Paraphilia. But it is common among MtF Transexuals that want to transition, of at least 75% of cases.

Most people don’t know about it even though it’s common in MtF transsexuals because you won’t hear about in the Media or from Activists, they try to hide it. Sometimes MtF trans is not simply women mind trapped in mans body, and people don’t like the idea that some want sex change because they find it strongly erotic.


It is controversial for social reasons not scientific because no data has seriously challenged it yet.



This should explain it more

https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/2019/01/26/response-to-contrapoints-on-autogynephilia/


----------



## Bonehead (Jun 8, 2019)

okay, but do you have any black friends, though?


----------



## cots (Jun 8, 2019)

Bonehead said:


> okay, but do you have any black friends, though?



Not having any any black friends doesn't make you racist. I've dated black, brown and yellow skinned people. Currently, I don't have any black friends where I live, but I just moved so I don't have any white friends either. Does currently having no white friends make me racist?


----------



## cots (Jun 8, 2019)

Alicias_lance said:


> Second, saw a lot of name calling by some people in the thread: name calling is bullying in general. If you have to personally attack a person during an argument, it doesn't matter how right you are resorting to such demeanor is pathetic and it makes you look stupid. It just makes it seem like you not very intelligent and can't find any other way to defend your argument so you resort to attacking.



Yet, people are defending the slanderous use of the term transphobic. Using the term the same way you would use any general expletive curse word is sort of ironic. Not that everyone uses it in such context, as I've pointed out it's being used in a far worse manner.


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 8, 2019)

There seem to be some people who are confused, or are misinformed.

Just because you disagree with a single aspect of a large groups actions (or the actions of one person on behalf of [or in spite of] said group) does NOT mean you disagree with the group in it's entirety and everything that it stands for.

You could disagree with Christianity and not believe in a god existing. You can disagree with the opinion that homosexual people will burn in hell for all eternity. But that doesn't mean that you automatically disagree with a Christians choice to go to church, or to pray to their god.

4-2≠0
4-2=2

If someone dislikes an aspect of the transgender group/movement or specific instances of actions either performed by the group, or people within the group, it does not then mean that they are completely against everything in the group and everyone that the group is trying to represent!

Just because you dislike piracy on some form of software/hardware, does NOT mean you completely hate the hacking scene due to it allowing piracy, you just dislike ONE ASPECT of the whole hacking scene!

Remember, nothing is black and white, there is a grey transition in between these two extreme ends.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 8, 2019)

cots said:


> Yet, people are defending the slanderous use of the term transphobic. Using the term the same way you would use any general expletive curse word is sort of ironic. Not that everyone uses it in such context, as I've pointed out it's being used in a far worse manner.


Yet you are making the slanderous statement that most transgenders are demanding sex from people then when they say no they are being called transphobic when it is a clear fact there is only 1 recorded incident of this ever happening. And like I previously said nobody is talking about the fact that 50% of transgenders get sexually assaulted as some point in thire life.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 8, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> A lot of this thread seems to be about prescriptive grammar, meaning "this is the right way to use it", which is just a red-herring for the most part.
> 
> Switch to descriptive grammar. That is, what is the phenomena being described? What is the word trying to get across? Focus on the goals of the words, not the words themselves. What are people trying to convey when they say a word, not "what is the actual, proper use of this word, traditionally".
> 
> ...


I can get behind this...  The human race is far too complex to be limited in such ways.


----------



## Bonehead (Jun 8, 2019)

cots said:


> Not having any any black friends doesn't make you racist. I've dated black, brown and yellow skinned people. Currently, I don't have any black friends where I live, but I just moved so I don't have any white friends either. Does currently having no white friends make me racist?



no white friends and no black friends.... Hmmm.  Do you have any friends at all?  Sounds like no.  Maybe do some self reflection and figure out why that's the case.

Hint:  It's not because you just moved.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 8, 2019)

Bonehead said:


> no white friends and no black friends.... Hmmm.  Do you have any friends at all?  Sounds like no.  Maybe do some self reflection and figure out why that's the case.
> 
> Hint:  It's not because you just moved.



Do you have any friends that aren't nerds? Maybe he would rather not spend his time with weird out of touch people. Judging him for not having friends is asinine, you don't know this man.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 8, 2019)

Alicias_lance said:


> resorting to such demeanor is pathetic and it makes you look stupid. It just makes it seem like you not very intelligent and can't find any other way to defend your argument so you resort to attacking.



Your point is moot.
Honestly, I've seen a lot of...everything--people do a fine job of looking stupid without cursing or name-calling.

I mean, I could literally nit-pick your entire paragraph, pointing out your peccadilloes, call you ____ or not call you ___, drop a few "spice words" or not and I'd still be correct in my amendment of your post, while proving I'm more intelligent than you for finding and fixing your mistakes.

That's what makes you point moot.

My point: it doesn't really matter. Nothing really matters.
I enjoy tasteful name-calling, like Ass McNuggetface--I find that hilarious and enjoyable because I never heard it being used on a person-to-person basis.
 I don't take offense to a lot of it because I've been name-calling for so long, it's just expected--the "Hello" to my "Good Morning!"

Don't take it as offense, I'm trying to give you an idea that some people are intelligent, but enjoy


----------



## bodefuceta (Jun 8, 2019)

Being trans or lgbt is haram

Don't like it? You are islamophobic.

It's just about using words in your favor. Marxists have been doing it for a very long time


----------



## Bonehead (Jun 8, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Do you have any friends that aren't nerds? Maybe he would rather not spend his time with weird out of touch people. Judging him for not having friends is asinine, you don't know this man.



He posts every thought he has on every subject.  We know him.  He's unlikable and doesn't have any friends.  lol.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 8, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> A lot of this thread seems to be about prescriptive grammar, meaning "this is the right way to use it", which is just a red-herring for the most part.
> 
> Switch to descriptive grammar. That is, what is the phenomena being described? What is the word trying to get across? Focus on the goals of the words, not the words themselves. What are people trying to convey when they say a word, not "what is the actual, proper use of this word, traditionally".
> 
> ...



So according to your post,if I am afraid of or dislike murderers the problem is with me? I think "proper" humans have a moral compass that lets them discern from right and wrong.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 9, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The only correlation is that gaming is an inclusive hobby, and trans individuals don't have to worry about being physically assaulted online.  It's not like these people exist only on the internet, but they are given more free reign to express their thoughts and opinions here.


Okay, but why HERE? There must be forums, chats, discord servers, etc that focus on this topic. Why is it brought up again and again on THIS site?


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 9, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Okay, but why HERE? There must be forums, chats, discord servers, etc that focus on this topic. Why is it brought up again and again on THIS site?


Because there are people like OP who like to share their opinion on the matter, and that certainly doesn't make everyone happy.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 9, 2019)

VinsCool said:


> Because there are people like OP who like to share their opinion on the matter, and that certainly doesn't make everyone happy.


I get that they want to, I just don't understand why HERE specifically... Why not say... a gaming subreddit? Something about THIS site brings about this topic again and again.


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 9, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> I get that they want to, I just don't understand why HERE specifically... Why not say... a gaming subreddit? Something about THIS site brings about this topic again and again.


Like I said, it's constantly brought over because some people need to share their opinion, because they need everyone to agree with them.
It is allowed here to talk about anything, in the appropriate section, so it happens.
If people don't share controversial or unpopular opinion on any topic, there would be no discussion period.

On the gaming subreddit, alternatively, this thread would be deleted, because it would be offtopic.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 9, 2019)

Reading through this thread is like watching people at a skating rink. Everyone is going in circles. IJS ... OK bye


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Because simply disagreeing with the way the trans movement is being played out doesn't make you phobic of anything. If I were transphobic please explain to me or to my trans friends who aren't involved in the current movement why I'm phobic. Simply disagreeing with the way things are doesn't mean you have a phobia. You realize I'm open to dating a trans individual and like I already said I have trans friends who think people who are abusing the term transphobic is wrong.



Of course disagreeing with tactical decisions is not transphobic. However, arguing that trans people are mentally ill can be cured is transphobic, which it sounds like you're arguing. You are confused about the definition of "transphobia" based on your original post. Transphobia is defined as:



> dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.


It is not like arachnophobia, but more refers to reactionary prejudice and not an autonomous response to certain stimuli.

Your original example of the McDonalds worker would be transphobic if they decided they didn't like the trans customer because they were trans. The degree to which they chose to punish this trans person is irrelevant to the original question of whether or not they hold prejudice against trans people.


> Also, the DSM categorizes trans people with a mental disorder, but having a mental illness is nothing to be ashamed about as I also have friends who are mentally disabled.



No it doesn't. Please provide a source in the DSM-5 that states that.



> I also disagree with how many homosexuals go about doing things. I've had long talks with some of my homosexual partners about this. Clearly, since I simply disagree (like with the trans movement) I am homophobic, correct? You see how moronic that is. Homophobic people don't date other men on a regular basis. Simply disagreeing with a current movement or a particular group of trans people and how they conduct themselves doesn't make you phobic of anything.



Just as Bell Hooks eloquently described women being crucial to the system of patriarchy, Having homosexual relationships doesn't absolve you from homophobia.
If a black american is calling for slavery to be started up again, how could you argue that he was not being racist? Reactionary beliefs can be internalized.
I find it hard to believe that you are so into identity politics that you believe that any one person is absolved of prejudice simply because of their identity.



> Labeling other people with a word with the intent to manipulate and control them because you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions and also because you're intolerant of others beliefs and want silence them so you can continue to be irresponsible and force your will onto other people is wrong. Isn't that what the LGBTQ community is supposedly against? These LGBTQ members who are doing this need to stop.



I would love to know how you have found out what the LGBTQ community has agreed on as a bloc. How can I see that survey? Where are the meetings?
It sounds like you are generalizing an entire group based on a few experiences, again.



> Also, the Daily Wire isn't the only example of trans predators trying to force shame others into sex. Reddit is full of others, even LGBTQ members who have been preyed upon.
> 
> I know this in a minority of trans people we're talking about (the ones calling you transphobic because you won't have sex with them). However, everyone seems to be focusing on minorities as the trans population is like 4% . So why is it okay for you to focus on minorities and not okay for me to do the same? You must also realize that was only one example of the many different ways the term transphobic is being used to justify hate.


Please cite your sources. I'm sorry that you _feel_ this way but no one is going to believe you unless you back up your claims with facts.

You have literally cited ONE person making this claim and have moved some saying they represent the "trans movement" overall (whatever that is), to now claiming that one person represents a minority. Please show me that this is anything more than a small handful of people?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 9, 2019)

VinsCool said:


> Like I said, it's constantly brought over because some people need to share their opinion, because they need everyone to agree with them.
> It is allowed here to talk about anything, in the appropriate section, so it happens.
> If people don't share controversial or unpopular opinion on any topic, there would be no discussion period.
> 
> On the gaming subreddit, alternatively, this thread would be deleted, because it would be offtopic.


Everything you say is true, and reddit was a bad example, but take a previous Switch-focused discord I used to run as a better example. We even had an (almost) no rules channel just for these sorts of topics, and it hardly ever came up. Idk, I just feel this site attracts it more than others.


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Yet you are making the slanderous statement that most transgenders are demanding sex from people then when they say no they are being called transphobic when it is a clear fact there is only 1 recorded incident of this ever happening. And like I previously said nobody is talking about the fact that 50% of transgenders get sexually assaulted as some point in thire life.



I said a minority of trans are doing that, never said the majority, funny though as I thought it's all about the minority (or does that only apply when it's convenient?). Also if you search through Reddit you'll find more than just one example - and that's just one site. Search more? I realize that trans people get assaulted more often than some other groups,  but this thread isn't about this and while it's no excuse trying to force yourself on others when they don't want you is a good way to end up being hurt. Not that it makes it right,  it's just how things work.  Maybe if you want to discuss assaults on them start you own thread and I'll gladly share ways to stop certain behaviors that others would assault you for and also comment on good ways to defend yourself. I'm not going to get into that here because it's off topic.

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



Maluma said:


> Do you have any friends that aren't nerds? Maybe he would rather not spend his time with weird out of touch people. Judging him for not having friends is asinine, you don't know this man.



I never said I don't have friends, I've got plenty except they are scattered around various states that I'm not currently in. I'm talking people I've known for many years and trust. I don't count a random person at the bar that you slept with a few times a real friend. I also don't  consider all of my various populated friends lists as friends, unless they are one of the friends that I've personally known in real life.

The person started with race bait then insulted me when he realized that it's probably not that smart to label someone as racist if they date people of others races, which also isn't any sort of valid indicator and then he tries to insult me over assuming I have no friends,  which if that was the case there is also nothing wrong with that as I rather have no friends than a bunch of fakes ones. His petty attempts at attacking me failed.


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I said a minority of trans are doing that, never said the majority, funny though as I thought it's all about the minority (or does that only apply when it's convenient?). Also if you search through Reddit you'll find more than just one example - and that's just one site. Search more? I realize that trans people get assaulted more often than some other groups,  but this thread isn't about this and while it's no excuse trying to force yourself on others when they don't want you is a good way to end up being hurt. Not that it makes it right,  it's just how things work.  Maybe if you want to discuss assaults on them start you own thread and I'll gladly share ways to stop certain behaviors that others would assault you for and also comment on good ways to defend yourself. I'm not going to get into that here because it's off topic.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...





Whole lotta love said:


> Of course disagreeing with tactical decisions is not transphobic. However, arguing that trans people are mentally ill can be cured is transphobic, which it sounds like you're arguing. You are confused about the definition of "transphobia" based on your original post. Transphobia is defined as:
> 
> 
> It is not like arachnophobia, but more refers to reactionary prejudice and not an autonomous response to certain stimuli.
> ...



One of the main authors of the sexuality based diagnosis in the DSM5 claims that even though trans are now considered less mentally I'll they are still mentally I'll. He wrote the diagnosis so I'll take his word for it. In the dsm4 it was a more severe illness,  but with the dsm5 it's been downgraded. That's facts not my opinion. My opinion is there is nothing wrong with being mentally I'll and also the whole psychiatry establishment claims everyone has some sort of mental illness or disorder. I wasn't trying  to shame trans because of this label as I was responding that it's a valid claim and I don't think being labeled mentally I'll makes you any less of a person. I don't recall the authors name of hand, but if you search for him given the limited info I provided for you you'll find his name and what he states just like if you'd spend some time reading Reddit you'd find the more examples of trans and other LGBTQ people doing what the sole single thread I linked to was doing. I don't have to provide you links, if you won't search yourself and want me to hand feed you then you're not going to learn anything.

Also, that was only 1 example of 3 links I presented dealing with the misuse of the term transphobic. If per say it only happened once to only that person would it be right? Would it be okay to try to force someone into sexual relations by shaming them with the word transphobic?

I do agree that you can be black and racist against black people. Look at the trendy movement of white people who are racist against other whites and also you can be homophobic and still have homosexual relationships, but it's not as likely to be the case and simply not liking someone because they are homosexual or transgender doesn't make you phobic of them.

I base things around the majority and have been joking about using the limited example of the trans person trying to shame people into sex. In reality,  even though it happens more than the single example I linked to, it is still in the minority of circumstances which is why I also included the other examples that I linked to. This thread isn't solely addressing just that link, but the misuse of the term transphobic in general.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> One of the main authors of the sexuality based diagnosis in the DSM5 claims that even though trans are now considered less mentally I'll they are still mentally I'll. He wrote the diagnosis so I'll take his word for it. In the dsm4 it was a more severe illness,  but with the dsm5 it's been downgraded. That's facts not my opinion. My opinion is there is nothing wrong with being mentally I'll and also the whole psychiatry establishment claims everyone has some sort of mental illness or disorder. I wasn't trying  to shame trans because of this label as I was responding that it's a valid claim and I don't think being labeled mentally I'll makes you any less of a person. I don't recall the authors name of hand, but if you search for him given the limited info I provided for you you'll find his name and what he states just like if you'd spend some time reading Reddit you'd find the more examples of trans and other LGBTQ people doing what the sole single thread I linked to was doing. I don't have to provide you links, if you won't search yourself and want me to hand feed you then you're not going to learn anything.


What author are you talking about that said that in DSM-5? Any hints since you forgot his name? What type of diagnosis did he describe? Do you remember that?


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What author are you talking about that said that in DSM-5?



I'm moving and don't have my main PC. All I have is this smart phone and don't have my bookmarks. He's real, he helped write the diagnosis and because of that I'll take his word. He's been mentioned numerous times in other LGBTQ thread on this site - if that helps any. I'm not setup to find his name right now as I'm struggling to just comment and navigate the net on this peice of shit phone. When I get my PC setup with internet on Tuesday I'll get you his name, but if you do some minor research (like reading threads NOT just using a crappy search engine like google) you'll come across his name as he is very vocal about defending his position. Remember it's been reclassified to a minor mental illness, not a major one like in the dsm4.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> One of the main authors of the sexuality based diagnosis in the DSM5 claims that even though trans are now considered less mentally I'll they are still mentally I'll.


Please show me where it does.



> He wrote the diagnosis so I'll take his word for it. In the dsm4 it was a more severe illness,  but with the dsm5 it's been downgraded. That's facts not my opinion. My opinion is there is nothing wrong with being mentally I'll and also the whole psychiatry establishment claims everyone has some sort of mental illness or disorder. I wasn't trying  to shame trans because of this label as I was responding that it's a valid claim and I don't think being labeled mentally I'll makes you any less of a person.



Modern editions of the DSM are written by a large team of scientists based on the bodies of scientific research for their specific fields, not one person, who you fail to cite. The DSM-5 was written by hundreds of scientists and clinicians from around the world.

Being trans is not listed as a disease in the DSM-5. It sounds like you are thinking of gender dysphoria, which often accompanies being trans, but is not exclusive to it, and is frequently treated effectively.



> Also, that was only 1 example of 3 links I presented dealing with the misuse of the term transphobic. If per say it only happened once to only that person would it be right? Would it be okay to try to force someone into sexual relations by shaming them?



No, forcing people into sexual relations in any context is bad. However, if I'm to agree that this is what this woman was doing (which I don't think she was), that's just one person being an abuser and can't be generalized to the broad trans or LGBTQ+ community in any way.



> I don't recall the authors name of hand, but if you search for him given the limited info I provided for you you'll find his name and what he states just like if you'd spend some time reading Reddit you'd find the more examples of trans and other LGBTQ people doing what the sole single thread I linked to was doing. I don't have to provide you links, if you won't search yourself and want me to hand feed you then you're not going to learn anything.



No, the burden of proof is on you. An argument is not rationally sound if you can't justify it's premises, and you have failed to justify your premises. You can talk about how you _feel _that the trans rights movement is bigoted all you want, but it doesn't make it a rational or coherent argument if you can't or won't back up your claims. This is very basic rationality.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm moving and don't have my main PC. All I have is this smart phone and don't have my bookmarks. He's real, he helped write the diagnosis and because of that I'll take his word. He's been mentioned numerous times in other LGBTQ thread on this site - if that helps any. I'm not setup to find his name right now as I'm struggling to just comment and navigate the net on this peice of shit phone. When I get my PC setup with internet on Tuesday I'll get you his name, but if you do some minor research (like reading threads NOT just using a crappy search engine like google) you'll come across his name as he is very vocal about defending his position. Remember it's been reclassified to a minor mental illness, not a major one like in the dsm4.


Dr. Ray Blanchard? I was the one that mentioned him.

Transsexualism and mild forms of gender dysphoria is definitely a mental disorder. The name was changed in DSM-5 but the diagnosis is mostly the same. People think that since transsexualism is not in DSM anymore it’s not a disorder but thats a naive outsiders interpretation of it.

Transsexualism and Transgenderism are 2 different things, Transgenderism is an umbrella term while Transsexualism is extreme dysphoria. Blanchard explains it here in this interview and the reason for the renaming.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/ray-blanchard-transgender-orthodoxy/amp/


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

Nevermind


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Yes I know I own a copy and these many people all tackle various issues based on their expertise and he was on of the main people responsible for the specific diagnosis - not the sole responsible individual.
> 
> I already listed 1 link related to the shaming for sex issue and openly admit it's in the minority,


You haven't even demonstrated this exists beyond this one woman. That's not a minority, that's one person.



> but you continue to focus on this one example like it invalidates the others I linked to and then claim that I must hold your hand to find the rest. Nice try, but you're not going to derail the entire issue at hand based on the fact you seem incapable of finding more examples. Go spend a few hours reading and maybe you'll learn something.



You linked to a reddit thread full of anonymous posts (who happen to agree with you), and an article written by a transwoman who uses a definition of transphobia almost no one else uses.

You would be better to build your argument off why the dictionary definition of transphobia is too encompassing, and should only characterize prejudice towards trans people that results in explicit acts contempt for their trans identity (as opposed to the current definition which refers to prejudice against trans identity).

I would love to read more but you won't back up your argument with anything so I have nothing to go off of. I just took a look through my DSM and nothing in it characterizes being transgender as a mental illness, indeed, the American Psychological Association, which publishes the DSM, disagrees with you.


> Gender dysphoria is not the same as gender nonconformity, which refers to behaviors not matching the gender norms or stereotypes of the gender assigned at birth.


I also googled for this author you mentioned and can't find anything. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

You should do some more reading to learn about the scientific basic for non-binary gender identity.

Nature - US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science
Fausto-Sterling - The Five Sexes Revisited
Richardson - Sexing the X: How the X Became the "Female Chromosome"
Olson - When Sex and Gender Collide

Let me know if you'd like me to send actual studies and literature reviews. Since you don't have a scientific background the laymen material is a better way to dive in.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Most
> 
> 
> So according to your post,if I am afraid of or dislike murderers the problem is with me? I think "proper" humans have a moral compass that lets them discern from right and wrong.


I don't think most humans classify those who murder as a cultural or personal existence thing. I hope not at any rate.

The particular line you're referencing works in context, but not on its own. Probably best to read it within the frame I made.

I get your point though. Understanding doesn't mean agreement, but it does mean acknowledging there's always more to learn and possibly re-adjusting. A moral compass should be refined and recalibrated on an on-going basis. it is a thing crafted through culture, experience, and desire. Very human, so tends to be flawed from time to time. "common-knowledge", which is just biases handed down to us by those who raise us and other relevant influences, usually messes with it. This is why topics like this are discussed, so we can troubleshoot and expose flawed thinking that leads to false magnetic norths.

But generally, humans not hurting other beings and just doing their thing should probably be allowed to keep doing whatever.


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> You haven't even demonstrated this exists beyond this one woman. That's not a minority, that's one person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The name of the author was posted by another member above. I disagree with peoples interpretation of transphobia and as another member pointed out who has a better understanding of language that it simply isn't a general dislike - it's an extreme one and this has been addressed already. A general  dislike aka simply disliking or disagreeing  with something isn't phobic. I'll read the links you provided. Thanks.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Yes I know I own a copy and these many people all tackle various issues based on their expertise and he was on of the main people responsible for the specific diagnosis - not the sole responsible individual.
> 
> I already listed 1 link related to the shaming for sex issue and openly admit it's in the minority,  but you continue to focus on this one example like it invalidates the others I linked to and then claim that I must hold your hand to find the rest. Nice try, but you're not going to derail the entire issue at hand based on the fact you seem incapable of finding more examples. Go spend a few hours reading and maybe you'll learn something.
> 
> ...


I don’t think the problems you say in the op is a big problem. Transgenders are around 1-2% of population. And even a smaller number of that will call you Transphobic for rejecting their advances. I agree that they shouldn’t do that but it’s just not big enough to worry. 


I think you are badly explaining yourself because some things you say just comes off as off. Some of the stuff you say I have a hard time seeing your logic, and it’s really weird logic too. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you might have a point but are explaining yourself badly which others see it as transphobic or whatever.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 9, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I don't think most humans classify those who murder as a cultural or personal existence thing. I hope not at any rate.
> 
> The particular line you're referencing works in context, but not on its own. Probably best to read it within the frame I made.
> 
> ...



What about activities that humans partake in a consensual manner that ultimately lead to their demise?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> The name of the author was posted by another member above. I disagree with peoples interpretation of transphobia and as another member pointed out who has a better understanding of language that it simply isn't a general dislike - it's an extreme one and this has been addressed already. A general  dislike aka simply disliking or disagreeing  with something isn't phobic. I'll read the links you provided. Thanks.


Mild dysphoria and transsexualism is indeed a mental disorder, not all Transgenders suffer from dysphoria.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/expert-q-and-a


I also want to add when you go through the Nature article Whole lotta love linked it’s a criticism of the Trump administration and their policies and not a criticism of U.S. scientists, I just wanna make that clear.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jun 9, 2019)

Oh, the good old "I'm not transphobe/racist/bigot but..."! My favorite kind of bigotry, makes for amusing threads <3


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 9, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Oh, the good old "I'm not transphobe/racist/bigot but..."! My favorite kind of bigotry, makes for amusing threads <3


"I'm not trans-phobic/racist/bigot but I'm sexually attracted to white women."
Is that wrong? Like if your trans we can be friends, but I'm not sexually attracted to trans people... See my point how that's a really bad blanket statement?


----------



## atlboyz_247 (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> The name of the author was posted by another member above. I disagree with peoples interpretation of transphobia and as another member pointed out who has a better understanding of language that it simply isn't a general dislike - it's an extreme one and this has been addressed already. A general  dislike aka simply disliking or disagreeing  with something isn't phobic. I'll read the links you provided. Thanks.



I understand that you are trying to prove that you shouldn't be distinguished as a homophobic person as the definition is defined on many credible sources, but as it stands, you fit under the umbrella of the definition as defined by the current definition as it stands today since you mentioned before how you've applied your discrimination of transgender people to the whole community based on the behavior of the few that you've encountered (one of your earlier posts mentions how you avoid transgender people due to the behaviors of a few and that you've legitimized this thought of discrimination because of them).

I'm not saying that you'd be wrong if the word was redefined to your liking, but as it currently stands, it is what it is due to the word being defined as it is, and it's hard to understand why you can't admit to this fact as it is true due to the way it is defined today.

I believe that most members that have been arguing against you just want you to admit that under the current definition, they're right. You may disagree and be uncomfortable with the statement, but it's the truth as the definition stands.

EDIT: Reading the whole thread made me forget the original purpose of your original post, and I understand that it undermines your current fight with the way it attacks every individual with the wide array of people it targets under the scope of the definition. But it serves its current purpose as extreme as it sounds because of the extreme prejudice transgender people face as a whole today. If you normalize the definition to a more appropriate level of your taste, it creates a blanket term for those that want salvation for their more extreme prejudices/discriminations to avoid what happened years before when the black community suffered from similar reactions from the majority (transgender is undeniably a minority).


----------



## Pipistrele (Jun 9, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> "I'm not trans-phobic/racist/bigot but I'm sexually attracted to white women."
> Is that wrong? Like if your trans we can be friends, but I'm not sexually attracted to trans people... See my point how that's a really bad blanket statement?


That's hardly the way OP voiced it, though. Besides, it's not like anyone forces you to be sexually attracted to _anyone - _trans or not, I doubt any normal person will demand sex from you unless you're open for it, so trying to turn it into a problem instead of, well, just not going out with trans people, is a bit self-telling.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 9, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> That's hardly the way OP voiced it, though. Besides, it's not like anyone forces you to be sexually attracted to _anyone - _trans or not, I doubt any normal person will demand sex from you unless you're open for it, so trying to turn it into a problem instead of, well, just not going out with trans people, is a bit self-telling.


People have argued that to me. Literately calling me trans-phobic because I didn't have sexual interest in them. (sexual as in attractive. not sex sex.) Which in itself was a problem. So I was proving the fact that there is a counter point to be made. Other than that one time it has happened. I have no problems with trans people. People are people, and should be treated as such.


----------



## atlboyz_247 (Jun 9, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> People have argued that to me. Literately calling me trans-phobic because I didn't have sexual interest in them.



I don't think you should perceive that your not having sexual interests in transgender people should incite anyone to call you homophobic on that basis alone. If you aren't interested in dating a gay man, they shouldn't call you out for being homophobic either. However, it *can* fit under the definition on the term as you are discerning them (labeling the whole) from everyone else. Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as 'an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals,' and discrimination's secondary definition is defined as 'recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another' though on the basis of its main definition 'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex,' you aren't being unjust as it's your personal preference that dictates your sexual preference.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 9, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Oh, the good old "I'm not transphobe/racist/bigot but..."! My favorite kind of bigotry, makes for amusing threads <3


Dude "transphobe" and racism aren't even remotely in the same category. A person can do absolutely nothing about their race.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jun 9, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> People have argued that to me. Literately calling me trans-phobic because I didn't have sexual interest in them. Which in itself was a problem. So I was proving the fact that there is a counter point to be made. Other than that one time it has happened. I have no problems with trans people. People are people, and should be treated as such.


Stuff happens sometimes - I don't think demanding sexual interest is a good or ethical thing, so I'm with you here. Still, I do think there's a room for transphobia, depending on context; like, did you reject them due to not being attracted to their looks/not getting along well/not considering them a good fit for you, or did you reject them simply because they're trans? If that's the latter, and you told them off primarily because of their gender identity, that is kind of a textbook definition of transphobia.

The problem I see with OP's post is that 1) it generalizes the whole trans community based on a few flimsy examples (two of which come from conservative-biased articles), and 2) used it for an elaborate and unfriendly argument about something that isn't really a problem once you put stereotyping aside.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 9, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Mild dysphoria and transsexualism is indeed a mental disorder, not all Transgenders suffer from dysphoria.
> 
> https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/expert-q-and-a
> 
> ...



I included it because it relates trans rights as political movement (where we started) into a scientific understanding of sex and gender (where we ended up) in a digestible piece for lay people.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jun 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Dude "transphobe" and racism aren't even remotely in the same category. A person can do absolutely nothing about their race.


I didn't imply they're the same - I'm talking more about the common kind of bigotry where someone makes a bigoted statement while trying to prove they're not a bigot c: Trans-related issues aren't that simple either though - gender dysphoria is a thing after all, and there's not much you can do about it either.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I said a minority of trans are doing that, never said the majority, funny though as I thought it's all about the minority (or does that only apply when it's convenient?). Also if you search through Reddit you'll find more than just one example - and that's just one site. Search more? I realize that trans people get assaulted more often than some other groups,  but this thread isn't about this and while it's no excuse trying to force yourself on others when they don't want you is a good way to end up being hurt. Not that it makes it right,  it's just how things work.  Maybe if you want to discuss assaults on them start you own thread and I'll gladly share ways to stop certain behaviors that others would assault you for and also comment on good ways to defend yourself. I'm not going to get into that here because it's off topic



Funny how the fact I want to talk about the huge rate of trans people getting sexually abused is off topic but you are now going on about  trans people having mental disorders. What the fuck had that got to do with your original post. Nothing but it's OK for you to go off topic but not me. Once again you are a hypocrite.

Anyway its kinda  hilarious that haters always say oh it's a mental disorder yet the world's leading medical organisation says differently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-48448804


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

atlboyz_247 said:


> I understand that you are trying to prove that you shouldn't be distinguished as a homophobic person as the definition is defined on many credible sources, but as it stands, you fit under the umbrella of the definition as defined by the current definition as it stands today since you mentioned before how you've applied your discrimination of transgender people to the whole community based on the behavior of the few that you've encountered (one of your earlier posts mentions how you avoid transgender people due to the behaviors of a few and that you've legitimized this thought of discrimination because of them).
> 
> I'm not saying that you'd be wrong if the word was redefined to your liking, but as it currently stands, it is what it is due to the word being defined as it is, and it's hard to understand why you can't admit to this fact as it is true due to the way it is defined today.
> 
> I believe that most members that have been arguing against you just want you to admit that under the current definition, they're right. You may disagree and be uncomfortable with the statement, but it's the truth as the



If you read into the definition it clearly states an extreme dislike or adversion and when you lookup a adversion the definition also includes an extreme  or very strong. It's not simply disagreeing or disliking something.  That's not a phobia and I can't help it if you're interpretation is off.

Even if you're interpretation was valid, do you agree with the way trans people are trying to control or otherwise deny you a voice,  censor you, shame you for simply disagreeing with them? Forget about the forced sex part as I'm asking you about how do you think about the majority of the trans who are using the term in a controlling manner? This was part of my original complaint.


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

https://spectator.us/transphobic-question-transgenderism/

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160306014901AAupIXS

https://www.ign.com/boards/threads/...ender-confusion-is-a-mental-illness.454460439
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/11/19/compassion-cover-transgender-allies-dodge-debate/

https://ryanrittenhouse.wordpress.c...and-reinforcing-the-false-dichotomy-of-gender

https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/3o2wwu/am_i_being_transphobic/

Man, all of this simple searching is so hard it makes me value those social media representatives jobs. Yeah right. It's funny how people want you to hold your hand and not do a damn thing on thier own. Anyway, those are some of the best examples I found in under 3 minutes out of like 500 some articles basically addressing the same issue.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jun 9, 2019)

glad to see this thread is still a fuckfest.


----------



## cots (Jun 9, 2019)

Since I've said everything there is to really say I won't be responding to this thread anymore. In the future when a person tries to shame me, silence me , deny my rights, etc... by calling me transphobic I will sleep better knowing I'm not and will simply disregard this type of behavior coming from the vocal group in the current trans movement minority that has a toxic community that I what not part in. Thank you all for helping me work through this.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I'll gladly share ways to stop certain behaviors that others would assault you for and also comment on good ways to defend yourself. I'm not going to get into that here because it's off topic



So what you have basically said is the way trans women behave ect is the reason 50% of us get raped are you being serious? People's behaviour should never be blamed for them getting raped. You are clearly one of those people who believe that if a woman dresses a certain way then it's her fault she is sexually attacked ect.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 9, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> You should do some more reading to learn about the scientific basic for non-binary gender identity.


You should do some reading about the scientific basic about how every person on the planet can only be born with 1 out of 2 possible genitalia. These other "genders" are made up, superficial words invented to make insecure people feel like they fit in somewhere. Kind of ironic that a group that tries so hard to force others to accept them "how they are" cant even accept their owm gender they were born with, imo.

Could you imagine if someone decided "I'm not a black man, I'm a young white child," then got surgery to change their skin color, plastic surgery, and started sleeping with young boys? Oh wait, that was Michael Jackson. Well whatever, he seemed like a perfectly normal, well adjusted member of society, right?

Just be happy youre alive kids. Maybe you dream about how the grass could be greener, so to speak, who doesnt? ...but it didnt play out that way. Life isnt fair. Get used to it. I wish I was born into a rich family with an easy life.... No surgery for that.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> What about activities that humans partake in a consensual manner that ultimately lead to their demise?


Individually, the best you can do is educate and maybe make it a bit harder to do, if it'll actually help. Individuals who actively seek their own educated demise with clear and sound mind cannot be saved. They have control over their life, the best we can do is give them the tools and environment to help make the best choices for them. They're still the ones making them and we should allow them to do so.

If it's something affecting other folks who aren't willingly participating, then it's a social issue and should be addressed through whatever social medium makes sense. One-on-one, Government intervention, education, or whatever makes sense for the context.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> This community attracts a crazy amount of transexuals, I have absolutely no idea what there correlation is between LGBT and gameboys but it is definately there.


Probably some are transtrenders.


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 9, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> So what you have basically said is the way trans women behave ect is the reason 50% of us get raped are you being serious? People's behaviour should never be blamed for them getting raped. You are clearly one of those people who believe that if a woman dresses a certain way then it's her fault she is sexually attacked ect.



I'm very confused... Where in that did Cots state that he meant rape, when he said assault? Where did you get this "_50% of us_" from his statement. And finally, Judging by the context of the rest of his comment, "_trying to force yourself on others when they don't want you is a good way to end up being hurt_", is it not more likely that Cots could have been referring to what I've quoted from that same comment? And if it wasn't that, Cots could have been referring to actions that could lead to people being assaulted such as, for example, myself acting out due to my mental disability and myself getting the sh*t kicked out of, for the way that I had acted. (And yes, obviously, people should be able to act the way that they naturally feel inclined to [as long as those actions don't negatively effect others], but, the world isn't perfect, and bad people will make poor decisions, so, like myself, sometimes you have to adjust to society, until it is willing to change, to keep yourself safe from horrible people.)



MadMageKefka said:


> Could you imagine if someone decided "I'm not a black man, I'm a young white child,"



Just stating a simple fact here, Michael Jackson did not get that skin treatment because he wanted to be white, he got that skin treatment due to a rare skin disorder he had which was causing parts of his skin to start to turn white, and he then decided to just turn the rest of his skin white to try to combat this.

Edit: Just realized that the 50% was more likely to be a statistic on the percentage of trans individuals who are raped, rather than a direct reference to their quote of Cots. My apologies.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 9, 2019)

Dasher_The_Viral said:


> I'm very confused... Where in that did Cots state that he meant rape, when he said assault? Where did you get this "_50% of us_"
> .


I linked to a post that talks about how 50% of trans people get raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their life and @cots quoted what I said and replied with I'll gladly share ways to stop certain behaviors that others would assault you for which is him basically saying it's trans people's fault they get raped.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 9, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> So what you have basically said is the way trans women behave ect is the reason 50% of us get raped are you being serious? People's behaviour should never be blamed for them getting raped. You are clearly one of those people who believe that if a woman dresses a certain way then it's her fault she is sexually attacked ect.


You are transgender?


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> You are transgender?


I think most of the site already knows I am as I have never kept is secret.


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 9, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I linked to a post that talks about how 50% of trans people get raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their life and @cots quoted what I said and replied with I'll gladly share ways to stop certain behaviors that others would assault you for which is him basically saying it's trans people's fault they get raped.



Okay, I didn't notice that. Thank you for the clarification. I can see why that upsets you and I agree, it's not okay for someone to claim that someone should change their behaviors to avoid sexual assaults. 

It's more important for one to be able to defend them self in situations like this, because (as it's most likely obvious) rapists don't care, they're horrible people that, more likely than not, do not care about what someone does or how they act, and are likely to assault persons regardless of an individual changing their actions.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Dasher_The_Viral said:


> Just stating a simple fact here, Michael Jackson did not get that skin treatment because he wanted to be white, he got that skin treatment due to a rare skin disorder he had which was causing parts of his skin to start to turn white, and he then decided to just turn the rest of his skin white to try to combat this.


I was mostly trying to use sarcastic humor to get my point across, but yes, you are 100% correct and I am aware. That's also why he always wore gloves before the surgery; to hide the white spots.


----------



## Dasher_The_Viral (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> I was mostly trying to use sarcastic humor to get my point across, but yes, you are 100% correct and I am aware. That's also why he always wore gloves before the surgery; to hide the white spots.



Understandable, just wanted to be sure you knew the actual reason and weren't just misinformed. lol


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> You should do some reading about the scientific basic about how every person on the planet can only be born with 1 out of 2 possible genitalia. These other "genders" are made up, superficial words invented to make insecure people feel like they fit in somewhere. Kind of ironic that a group that tries so hard to force others to accept them "how they are" cant even accept their owm gender they were born with, imo.



What texts should I read? 
Interested to know what scientific literature you're reading that denies the existence of intersex people.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 10, 2019)

I guess it's time to add to the whole gender discussion.
So people can have xy and xx chromosomes. this is what in the states is considered normal. But the issue of gender comes from the fact that it is not entirely based on the organs you have. There is also btw a xxy chromosome. Which I'm not going to get into. But the issue is birth doesn't always go the "intended" xx and xy only dictate genitalia, if in the situation too much estrogen or testosterone enters the baby while being formed, they can end up having a xx chromosome (female) but have a male mind due to the testosterone influencing that factor. Gender isn't sex. It's pretty much how you show your body language, how you perceive yourself, sex related organs.
With that out of the way.
I personally do believe to some degree that these terms are being overused.
But then again the internet is a huge echo chamber. We only hear the loudest sub group of a minority often. Not all SJW are the stereotype, but there is a sub group of them that fits it. Not all left people support legalization of marijuana or extreme socialism. Not all people on the right support Trump. But with the internet, and the media, it often can seem like that.
I personally don't care if your part of LGBTQ+ or if your trans, gay, bi or everything else that falls under LGBTQ+ 
But... here's the issue. Due to the echo chamber it has made both the internet space and the real world extremely polar. (at least as far as I can tell.) And more and more of these extreme views are popping up. I think a lot of the current issues in regards to the internet and politics in the states at least can be attributed to this echo chamber...


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> What texts should I read?
> Interested to know what scientific literature you're reading that denies the existence of intersex people.


Biology.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Biology.


Which biology text?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> Which biology text?


Literally anything that covers the X and Y chromosomes.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Literally anything that covers the X and Y chromosomes.


Okay, so like Ann-Fausto Sterling's Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World?
Or Rebecca Jordan-Young's Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences?
Or one of the cognitive neuroscience textbooks I used in my undergrad Neuroscience 101 class
Brain & Behavior, 5th edition
You should read the chapter: _The Biology of Sex and Gender






_
All of these biology texts disagree with your gender essentialism. It would help if you could cite any sources to back up your claims.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> Okay, so like Ann-Fausto Sterling's Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World?
> Or Rebecca Jordan-Young's Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences?
> Or one of the cognitive neuroscience textbooks I used in my undergrad Neuroscience 101 class
> Brain & Behavior, 5th edition
> ...


For a guy that studies so much, you sure have a hard time counting penis and vagina. I notice all your sources listed are on neuroscience. So you're saying that what defines gender is in your brain, right? If my brain makes me think I'm god, does that make it true? People can have all sorts of sexual preferences, that much is pretty obvious. This does not show that there are more than 2 genders. As I said before, they are made up terms to give people a place to belong; to feel "normal." They are strictly social / mental, not physical.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> For a guy that studies so much, you sure have a hard time counting penis and vagina. I notice all your sources listed are on neuroscience. So you're saying that what defines gender is in your brain, right? If my brain makes me think I'm god, does that make it true? People can have all sorts of sexual preferences, that much is pretty obvious. This does not show that there are more than 2 genders. As I said before, they are made up terms to give people a place to belong; to feel "normal." They are strictly social / mental, not physical.



The study of gender is largely done under the domains of neurobiology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology (aka behavior).
I feel like I'm arguing with a middle schooler. Do you have any understanding of how mammals develop and that you can't just separate the nervous system from that?

You claimed that "biology" has proven gender essentialism to be true, while refusing to cite any evidence to back up your claim. If it's all of biology that proves that, it should be really easy to find a source, right? And yet, when I provided biology literature that argues contrary to what you feel to be true, you dig your heels in the sand. I'm sorry you _feel _that intersex people don't make up 2% of the human population and that chromosomes determine gender identity, but that's not what the literature says. I can't help your feelings, but if you want to have an actual discussion, please bring some evidence. Scientific inquiry is based on repeated and rigorous observation, not what you feel to be true.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Literally anything that covers the X and Y chromosomes.


those sound like highschool or middleschool textbooks, I'm guessing. Possibly outdated and poorly written. It's a bit of a problem for schools at the moment, to be honest, outdated and poorly written textbooks. You'll find most highschool textbooks tend to take the "ehhh, more or less" approach. There's a reason why folks say you have to unlearn most everything you learned in highschool when you get to college. What you were taught as rules are actually more like fuzzy concepts not explained very well.

But biology is pretty messy. it's not as straight-forward as you were led to believe. But to help out, there are, at least, 3 different categories you can break this down into:
-chromosome
-presenting sex
-gender

chromsomes are usually xy or xx. but they can be xxx, xxy, etc, etc. lots of combinations. Rare, perhaps, but they still happen to loads of people. They don't not exist because it doesn't happen terribly often.

presenting sex is what kind of sex you could pass as (read: what you look like). depends on how a body reacts to the various hormones or whatnot, among other things. For example, If your body didn't really react to testosterone, even if you were XY, you'd have all the physical aspects of a woman and probably consider yourself a woman. Or maybe not. Brains and bodies are fun like that.

gender is the "men act and look like this", "women act and look like this" nonsense. But folks aren't exactly cookies, so neither of those two categories fit a great great many people. And when the categories don't fit the people, you don't try and shove them into the categories to make your life easier. You make new categories to better reflect reality. You adapt to reality, reality doesn't adapt to you. Simple as that. Mix and match this with those above and you've got a lot of people who understand themselves in ways that aren't reflected very well with the language and concepts we currently use.

And that's even before we get into the science of transgendered and other related topics. Understand the above and you're a step closer to understanding how complicated the biology is on the topic. Biology is far more varied and interesting than you give it credit for


----------



## Engezerstorung (Jun 10, 2019)

Chromosome can even be XX but with an X presenting the specifics genes of Y making you having a male biological (and fuctionnal) sex and making you 100% biologicaly male, and XY but with the Y missing thoses same genes, basically making you a biological female.
Science is fun when you dig in it, what is less fun is those people thiking that their highschool grade knowledge on a subject make them as experts as any scientist, the same way we now have platists "hur hur look if i empty a bottle of water on a ball it dont stick hence gravity is bullshit, duhr duhr, do your own research"


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> The study of gender is largely done under the domains of neurobiology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology (aka behavior).
> I feel like I'm arguing with a middle schooler. Do you have any understanding of how mammals develop and that you can't just separate the nervous system from that?
> 
> You claimed that "biology" has proven gender essentialism to be true, while refusing to cite any evidence to back up your claim. If it's all of biology that proves that, it should be really easy to find a source, right? And yet, when I provided biology literature that argues contrary to what you feel to be true, you dig your heels in the sand. I'm sorry you _feel _that intersex people don't make up 2% of the human population and that chromosomes determine gender identity, but that's not what the literature says. I can't help your feelings, but if you want to have an actual discussion, please bring some evidence. Scientific inquiry is based on repeated and rigorous observation, not what you feel to be true.


Even 10 seconds just now on Wikipedia says that anything outside the typical XX and XY combinations are rare mutations. You're absolutely right, I have no sources to cite. It's very nice that you do and super interesting, but at some point in my life I decided I didnt really need to study neuroscience to help me better identify genitalia.



osaka35 said:


> gender is the "men should do this", "women should do this" nonsense.


Gender is still literally shown in the dictionary as a synonym for sex. Excluding a VERY small number of rare mutations, there are still only 2 sets of reproductive organs that I am aware of. Can you show me a 3rd, common(ish) one? I will not question the complexity of the human body, nor deny my lack of a thorough understanding of its ins and outs. There are lots of unique people in the world for sure, and they all deserve the same rights, but as far as I'm aware, there are still only 2 sets of reproductive organs, excluding the rare mutations.


----------



## Bedel (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Gender is still literally shown in the dictionary as a synonym for sex.



Let me put it simple for you: this is what you may do when you don't know the difference between two things difference between two things.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jun 10, 2019)

"Can We Stop With The Name Calling Already ..."
Look at Mr. AllUpTight here.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Bedel said:


> Let me put it simple for you: this is what you may do when you don't know the difference between two things difference between two things.


Funny, that's the same site that told me they were synonyms. It's almost like if you type something in there, it returns what you're looking for. Let me put it simple for you: typically if you search why things are different, its not going to return results about why they are the same. That's how a search engine works.


----------



## Bedel (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Funny, that's the same site that told me they were synonyms. It's almost like if you type something in there, it returns what you're looking for. Let me put it simple for you: typically if you search why things are different, its not going to return results about why they are the same. That's how a search engine works.


So, you did the wrong search.
Either way, I don't care if you are wrong in your understanding of sexuality and gender. Just wanted to help somehow. Didn't came here to teach you, but to see if the op was still crying for being transphobic.
Have a great day mate.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Bedel said:


> So, you did the wrong search.
> Either way, I don't care if you are wrong in your understanding of sexuality and gender. Just wanted to help somehow. Didn't came here to teach you, but to see if the op was still crying for being transphobic.
> Have a great day mate.


You cared enough to comment twice, and I somehow doubt your sarcastic "let me google that for you" was intended to be helpful.

...regardless, you do the same my odd new internet acquaintance.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Even 10 seconds just now on Wikipedia says that anything outside the typical XX and XY combinations are rare mutations. You're absolutely right, I have no sources to cite. It's very nice that you do and super interesting, but at some point in my life I decided I didnt really need to study neuroscience to help me better identify genitalia.
> 
> 
> Gender is still literally shown in the dictionary as a synonym for sex. Excluding a VERY small number of rare mutations, there are still only 2 sets of reproductive organs that I am aware of. Can you show me a 3rd, common(ish) one? I will not question the complexity of the human body, nor deny my lack of a thorough understanding of its ins and outs. There are lots of unique people in the world for sure, and they all deserve the same rights, but as far as I'm aware, there are still only 2 sets of reproductive organs, excluding the rare mutations.



Intersex people make up 2% of the population, the same as redheads. Are redheads just "rare mutations" and don't count as a hair color?

An English dictionary isn't a biological text. Why did you demand that I look at "biology" to prove your point, and then when I referenced biological literature you ran to an English language dictionary? Sex and gender are used interchangeably colloquially because language norms lag behind scientific discovery.

Since I finally got you to read something, how about we take a look for the wiki for Gender since you find it a suitable reference.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> An English dictionary isn't a biological text. Why did you demand that I look at "biology" to prove your point, and then when I referenced biological literature you ran to an English language dictionary?


....probably because I was talking to a different person in that section. That's why it was below a quote that wasn't yours.

Until someone shows me a new set of human genitals besides a penis or vagina that is capable of reproduction, the count remains at 2.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 10, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> The study of gender is largely done under the domains of neurobiology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology (aka behavior).
> I feel like I'm arguing with a middle schooler. Do you have any understanding of how mammals develop and that you can't just separate the nervous system from that?
> 
> You claimed that "biology" has proven gender essentialism to be true, while refusing to cite any evidence to back up your claim. If it's all of biology that proves that, it should be really easy to find a source, right? And yet, when I provided biology literature that argues contrary to what you feel to be true, you dig your heels in the sand. I'm sorry you _feel _that intersex people don't make up 2% of the human population and that chromosomes determine gender identity, but that's not what the literature says. I can't help your feelings, but if you want to have an actual discussion, please bring some evidence. Scientific inquiry is based on repeated and rigorous observation, not what you feel to be true.


Gender and Sex is Binary and not a social construct. And behaviors are observable at birth. Unless people want to argue that a baby born is capable of learning gender stereotypes while they are in the womb. Gender identity, gender expressions are all related. Science doesn’t really back the 80+ genders and people won’t really find much research that says otherwise.


Usually misinformation and bad science comes from the humanities and grievance studies departments which has no scientific backing and many don’t go and test their hypothesis. They just present ideas without testing them.



Biological Sex is either Male or Female based on reproductive functions. Gender is how we feel in relation to our biological sex. It can be somewhat affected by socialization but it doesn’t override biology.




Hormones/biology in Utero dictate babies gender identity. For around 99% of people biological sex is gender identity. Prenatal testosterone changes the way Brians grow.


Intersex people contain anatomy that is characteristic of both sexes. It’s still binary. And which is due to differences in genetic and hormonal exposure in the womb. Biology is still at play here and the existence of intersex people does not prove anything.


Even the idea of gender as a social construct is ridiculous when you think it through. That means actual trans people can be trained not to be trans anymore if it is a construct, so society should work at that. And society at birth should get at the core and train babies not to be trans when they grow up, which is something trans activists complain about when they say doctors assign sex at birth.



Scientists that study social psychology coming out to back James Demore after he got fired from google.

https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Gender and Sex is Binary and not a social construct. And behaviors are observable at birth. Unless people want to argue that a baby born is capable of learning gender stereotypes while they are in the womb. Gender identity, gender expressions are all related. Science doesn’t really back the 80+ genders and people won’t really find much research that says otherwise.
> 
> 
> Usually misinformation and bad science comes from the humanities and grievance studies departments which has no scientific backing and many don’t go and test their hypothesis. They just present ideas without testing them.
> ...



Gender roles are largely arbitrary and aren't necessarily binary.
Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex and isn't necessarily binary.
Sex isn't necessarily binary.
Most of your post reads like, "Gender identity is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not," or, "Sex is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not."


----------



## SG854 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Gender roles are largely arbitrary and aren't necessarily binary.
> Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex and isn't necessarily binary.
> Sex isn't necessarily binary.
> Most of your post reads like, "Gender identity is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not," or, "Sex is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not."


You can choose to ignore the science and ignore the first video I linked if you want.

No one fits perfectly as completely male or female but that does not mean it’s not binary, the 80+ genders is just not backed by science.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> You can choose to ignore the science and ignore the first video I linked if you want.
> 
> No one fits perfectly as completely male or female but that does not mean it’s not binary, the 80+ genders is just not backed by science.


Which of my list of three things do you disagree with, and why? Your response was pretty much just, "No," which doesn't do much to continue the discourse.

I'm also not arguing that there are 80+ genders, so you can kill that strawman when you're talking to me.

Also, to say "no one fits perfectly as completely male or female" demonstrates that gender identity (or sex; I don't know which one you were talking about) is fluid.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Even 10 seconds just now on Wikipedia says that anything outside the typical XX and XY combinations are rare mutations. You're absolutely right, I have no sources to cite. It's very nice that you do and super interesting, but at some point in my life I decided I didnt really need to study neuroscience to help me better identify genitalia.
> 
> 
> Gender is still literally shown in the dictionary as a synonym for sex. Excluding a VERY small number of rare mutations, there are still only 2 sets of reproductive organs that I am aware of. Can you show me a 3rd, common(ish) one? I will not question the complexity of the human body, nor deny my lack of a thorough understanding of its ins and outs. There are lots of unique people in the world for sure, and they all deserve the same rights, but as far as I'm aware, there are still only 2 sets of reproductive organs, excluding the rare mutations.


The dictionary has a lot of errors and is not a replacement for actual definitions. It's the Wikipedia of definitions; a good start if you have no clue, but has no merit in an argument. They get a lot of biological terms wrong or not quite right. They're not experts, they plop in there kind-of, close enough, what most folks say. Which, as we discussed earlier, is what we're trying to change. Because it's wrong.

Oh, I believe Kathoey is a third gender is thialand on official documents and whatnot, if that's what you mean. 

Point is, you shouldn't use dictionaries to limit how people can define themselves. you should let people tell you how they define themselves.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Which of my list of three things do you disagree with, and why? Your response was pretty much just, "No," which doesn't do much to continue the discourse.
> 
> I'm also not arguing that there are 80+ genders, so you can kill that strawman when you're talking to me.
> 
> Also, to say "no one fits perfectly as completely male or female" demonstrates that gender identity (or sex; I don't know which one you were talking about) is fluid.


So you’re talking specifically about expression, that is to observable with the earnings gap and career choices. Not all societal roles are arbitrary.


A man that’s likes MMA but likes talking on the phone still doesn’t mean he’s is female or expresses as one. He is just a man that has some some female typical traits. I don’t really know what you are getting at TBH, i’ve already addressed all your points it’s connected to biology which is a what I said, it should all be answered when you read the research.

When you say it’s not binary that’s basically saying there’s more then 2, that is basically arguing for 80+ genders and isn’t a straw man. All your points I already addressed, like I said look at the research. Like prenatal testosterone and it’s effects on Girls with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, and Autism is essentially extreme maleness.


This is just a few of many. 

Early androgen exposure and human gender development


Linking autism, sex, gender and prenatal hormones

Fetal Testosterone Predicts Sexually Differentiated Childhood Behavior in Girls and in Boys

The Essential Difference: the male and female brain

Autism

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So you’re talking specifically about expression, that is to observable with the earnings gap and career choices. Not all societal roles are arbitrary.
> 
> 
> A man that’s likes MMA but likes talking on the phone still doesn’t mean he’s is female or expresses as one. He is just a man that has some some female typical traits. I don’t really know what you are getting at TBH, i’ve already addressed all your points it’s connected to biology which is a what I said, it should all be answered when you read the research.
> ...



You're not telling me which of my three specific points you disagree with or why, so I guess I'll take your post point by point.


SG854 said:


> So you’re talking specifically about expression, that is to observable with the earnings gap and career choices. Not all societal roles are arbitrary.


Gender roles are *largely* arbitrary and aren't *necessarily* binary.



SG854 said:


> A man that’s likes MMA but likes talking on the phone still doesn’t mean he’s is female or expresses as one.


Okay, but what about someone who identifies as a gender that's opposite one's sex? What about someone who doesn't identify as one gender or the other? Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex and isn't necessarily binary.



SG854 said:


> He is just a man that has some some female typical traits.


Your MMA/phone examples of male/female traits are completely societal and arbitrary.



SG854 said:


> I don’t really know what you are getting at TBH, i’ve already addressed all your points it’s connected to biology which is a what I said


I didn't say there was no biological connection between sex and gender. Re-read the three points in my previous post. So no, you haven't addressed my points.



SG854 said:


> it should all be answered when you read the research.


I'm aware of the research, but I'm trying to have a conversation with you.



SG854 said:


> When you say it’s not binary that’s basically saying there’s more then 2, that is basically arguing for 80+ genders


"Not two" isn't the same thing as saying "80 plus." This isn't something I need to explain any more than that, right?



SG854 said:


> and isn’t a straw man.


If you're arguing against something that I'm not arguing as if it is my position, then it's a strawman by definition. If you're not actually interested in having a conversation with me, one of the quickest ways to get me to leave is to continue arguing against a strawman instead of talking to me.



SG854 said:


> All your points I already addressed


You haven't. See above.



SG854 said:


> like I said look at the research.


Telling me to "look at the research" doesn't address any of my points.



SG854 said:


> Like prenatal testosterone and it’s effects on Girls with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, and Autism is essentially extreme maleness.


Could you explain what these things have to do with any of my three points? Some effects of biology on sex or gender development doesn't change anything I said.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Gender roles are largely arbitrary and aren't necessarily binary.
> Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex and isn't necessarily binary.
> Sex isn't necessarily binary


I don't think you have read the research because it is all answered.


1) Gender roles? What roles are you talking about specifically? Societies structure themselves based on biological realities. Man had stronger upper body strength so they would chop down trees. Women would milk cows. As a man got older his pay went down as his physical strength dwindled. That’s how it was in the past but technology advancement changed that. With the median age of max earnings going up.

Gender roles are not arbitrary in career choices. Women are more people oriented and men are more thing oriented. This is observable in job choices. Women do just as well as men in math and earn as much degrees but more likely choose Teacher profession (people oriented) and men more likely choose STEM (thing oriented).



2)Gender identity is based on sex. A women gives birth and breast feed a baby, she will need some biological cognitive factors to be able to achieve these tasks, this so where your gender expression comes in. To think millions of years of evolution didn’t shape the brain and didn’t affect how we express ourselves is kinda ridiculous.


3)Sex is binary. And you contradicted yourself when you say roles are largely arbitrary but I didn’t say there was no biology connection involved.


If they identify as the opposite gender that is still from a binary choice. And Gender non binary, gender neutral, a gender, pan gender, gender fluid are things that don’t exist, they are not supported in the scientific field. That was already answered in a link a gave.


People argue for either genetics or socialization but research will tell you of a third influence which is hormones, essentially biology. Even if XX and XY doesn’t match up biology/hormones are a great influence.


The Phone example is not arbitrary, those are examples they use in sex research for classification reasons.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> 1) Gender roles? What roles are you talking about specifically? Societies structure themselves based on biological realities. Man had stronger upper body strength so they would chop down trees. Women would milk cows. As a man got older his pay went down as his physical strength dwindled. That’s how it was in the past but technology advancement changed that. With the median age of max earnings going up.
> 
> Gender roles are not arbitrary in career choices. Women are more people oriented and men are more thing oriented. This is observable in career choices. Women do just as well as men in math and earn as much degrees but choose Teacher profession (people oriented) and men choose STEM (thing oriented).


When it comes to gender roles, you're speaking in a lot of generalities. Saying men are stronger than women, for example, isn't necessarily true all of the time. In addition, most examples of stereotypical gender roles are completely arbitrary, such as video games being a stereotypical male activity. Lots of gender roles vary by society and/or culture, demonstrating that a lot of them are arbitrary.



SG854 said:


> 2)Gender identity is based on sex. A women gives birth and breast feed a baby, she will need some biological cognitive factors in able to achieve these tasks, this so where your gender expression comes in.


Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex. You can ask anyone who is trans. Like sexuality, gender identity is a complicated thing that is based on both biological and environmental factors.



SG854 said:


> 3)Sex is binary.


Sex is not necessarily binary. You can ask anyone who is intersex.



SG854 said:


> And you contradicted yourself when you say roles are largely arbitrary but I didn’t say there was no biology connection involved.


I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence due to your use of interchanging first-person pronouns and second-person pronouns. If you fix it to be more clear, I'll happily respond.



SG854 said:


> If they identify as the opposite gender that is still from a binary choice.


Well, pretending for a second that's true (it's not), it would at least demonstrate that gender identity isn't necessarily based on sex.



SG854 said:


> And Gender non binary, gender neutral, a gender, pan gender, gender fluid are things that don’t exist, they are not supported in the scientific field. That was already answered in a link a gave.


Merely asserting something doesn't exist does not mean it actually doesn't exist. The APA and WHO, for example, recognize the complexity of gender identity and acknowledge gender fluidity. Saying gender fluidity doesn't exist because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of a gender binary is like me saying bisexuality does not exist because it doesn't conform to my preconceived notions of a sexuality binary.



SG854 said:


> People argue for either genetics or socialization but research will tell you of a third influence which is hormones, essentially biology. Even if XX and XY doesn’t match up biology/hormones are a great influence.


As I said earlier, gender identity is a complex result of both environment and biology, like sexuality.

People's sexualities generally comport to their biological sex (i.e. they're heterosexual), but people have varying sexualities (e.g. homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.) due to both environmental and biological reasons. The same goes for gender identity.



SG854 said:


> The Phone example is not arbitrary, those are examples they use in sex research for classification reasons.


Lots of gender roles vary by society and/or culture, demonstrating that a lot of them are arbitrary.

*mod snip*


----------



## SG854 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> When it comes to gender roles, you're speaking in a lot of generalities. Saying men are stronger than women, for example, isn't necessarily true all of the time. In addition, most examples of stereotypical gender roles are completely arbitrary, such as video games being a stereotypical male activity. Lots of gender roles vary by society and/or culture, demonstrating that a lot of them are arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex. You can ask anyone who is trans. Like sexuality, gender identity is a complicated thing that is based on both biological and environmental factors.
> ...


Your whole argument is based on a few of exceptions as if it debunks what is representative of the majority. 

That is not how you should interpret the science and sex researchers will tell you that. I am basing what they say straight from their mouths from interviews i’ve seen of them elaborating on their research. Which a few I already linked.

I already addressed the intersex issue. It is definitely binary.


For 99% of cases Sex matches Gender identity. The 1% transgenders is not proof of anything.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> The dictionary has a lot of errors and is not a replacement for actual definitions. It's the Wikipedia of definitions; a good start if you have no clue, but has no merit in an argument. They get a lot of biological terms wrong or not quite right. They're not experts, they plop in there kind-of, close enough, what most folks say. Which, as we discussed earlier, is what we're trying to change. Because it's wrong.
> 
> Oh, I believe Kathoey is a third gender is thialand on official documents and whatnot, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Point is, you shouldn't use dictionaries to limit how people can define themselves. you should let people tell you how they define themselves.


Just googled Kathoey. It's another term for a male crossdresser, or even what some might consider transgender. They are still born with a penis. They are biological males.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Your whole argument is based on a few of exceptions as if it debunks what is representative of the majority.
> 
> That is not how you should interpret the science and sex researchers will tell you that. I am basing what they say straight from their mouths from interviews i’ve seen of them elaborating on their research. Which a few I already linked.
> 
> ...


Which takes us back to the beginning:


Lacius said:


> Gender roles are largely arbitrary and aren't necessarily binary.
> Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex and isn't necessarily binary.
> Sex isn't necessarily binary.
> Most of your post reads like, "Gender identity is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not," or, "Sex is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not."


The fact that it's a minority of people who are transgender, etc. is irrelevant to my points. It's also not a "few exceptions."

If you're arguing that gender roles are based entirely on biological sex, you're mistaken. Many gender roles have absolutely nothing to do with biology.
If you're arguing that gender roles are never arbitrary, you're mistaken. Gender roles vary from society to society.
If you're arguing that gender roles are entirely binary, you're mistaken. Any individual can have any mix of gender roles.
If you're arguing that gender identity is always based on sex, you're mistaken. Gender identity is developed from biological and environmental factors, and one's gender identity can be different from one's biological sex.
If you're arguing that gender identity is always binary, you're mistaken. Gender identity can be complicated, and one can identify and something other than male or female.
If you're arguing that sex is always binary, you're mistaken. People can be intersex.
I've already used this example, but your arguments are analogous to arguing that people who aren't heterosexual don't exist. A majority of people are hetersexual, and a person's sexuality often comports with biological sex, but sexuality is the result of biological and environmental factors, and a person's sexuality does not have to comport with biological sex. In addition, sexuality is not binary, and a person can have a sexuality different from heterosexual or homosexual. I don't get to say, "Men are sexually attracted to women, and women are sexually attracted to men," just because the exceptions are a minority. I don't get to say, "People are always either homosexual or hetersexual," because the exceptions are a minority.



SG854 said:


> That is not how you should interpret the science and sex researchers will tell you that. I am basing what they say straight from their mouths from interviews i’ve seen of them elaborating on their research. Which a few I already linked.


No, you've committed a selective pleading fallacy by only focusing on the "research" (a lot of it isn't research) that comports with your view. Most experts will acknowledge that gender, like sexuality, can be a spectrum. I also don't see any of the popular research on gender identity and brain scans, for example, so it would at least be a stretch to call your posts intellectually honest.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Just googled Kathoey. It's another term for a male crossdresser, or even what some might consider transgender. They are still born with a penis. They are biological males.


You asked about gender. chromosomes and presenting sex are a separate topic. I'm not quite sure why you're not getting this. I can quote where I explained the differences again, if that'd help.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> They are still born with a penis. They are biological males.



I dont give a fuck what you or others think I am biologically. My passport says I am female my birth certificate says I am female all my other forms of ID say I am female. Everyone who knows me and I care about says I am female. I legally have all the rights of a female. I AM FEMALE.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Which takes us back to the beginning:
> 
> The fact that it's a minority of people who are transgender, etc. is irrelevant to my points. It's also not a "few exceptions."
> 
> ...


It’s not a spectrum as Dr. Debrah Soh says here.

Science Shows Sex Is Binary, Not a Spectrum



You’ll actually find many cultures to be similar in male/female career choices.

Gender Roles aren’t 100% based on biological sex and that’s not what I’m arguing. There’s is always exceptions. What I am arguing is for the majority of cases it does. And it’s observable cross culturally.

Environment can have an impact but when you eliminate environment all you have left is biology, and gender differences are bigger because biology isn’t restricted by the environment, essentially people can truly aspire what they want instead of being forced into jobs they don’t want to be in because they are desperate for money. Male and Female differences are smaller in less gender equal countries and bigger in gender equal countries. This is known as the gender paradox.

Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding.





And like I said in a previous post Sex is based on our anatomy and reproductive functions, it is by definition binary. I don’t see a third option of reproduction something other then a penis or vagina. Intersex like someone with a vulva and testicular tissue is still from a binary sex, which is only 1% of people.

An example would be humans have 10 fingers. And the majority is born this way. Just because vary rare occurrences where someone is born with 9 fingers instead doesn’t change our understanding and doesn’t call for a re-conceptualization of how many fingers a human has.



The case of David Reimer should also show how someone can not easily be socialized. Along with research here.

Prenatal Hormones and Postnatal Socialization by Parents as Determinants of Male‐Typical Toy Play in Girls With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia



And with evolutionary psychology here.

Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism: a reply to Eagly and Wood

Sex-Specific Effects of Testosterone on the Sexually Dimorphic Transcriptome and Epigenome of Embryonic Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells



There is also 0 evidence that gender fluidity is a real thing and the NIH study that you might come across was flawed with no control group. As Dr. Q Van Meter says.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20844/


----------



## omgcat (Jun 10, 2019)

ITT: people who run around with a grade-school level understanding of biology trying to scream that they are the educated ones and that people with actual college degrees are indoctrinated.

sex: based on chromosomes, however there are MANY ways this can be false. e.g. XXY, XYY, X0, XX..Y ect. hell there can be gene transcription errors that copy over SRY gene functions off the Y chromosome resulting in a near XX phenotype (androgen insensitivity syndrome).

biology doesn't work in a nice and neat 2 box system, shit gets fucked up all the time, its gross and messy just like everything else in nature. all the people that yell get upset about "feels before reals" somehow miss actual biology when it comes to this topic and thus stick to the thing they hate.

gender is non-binary, sex is non-binary, don't let your feels get in the way of facts and logic my friends.

fun fact: being born intersex is just as common as having red hair, ~2%

for further research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quigley_scale
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex


----------



## Naendow (Jun 10, 2019)

I don't understand both sites of this discussion to be honest. People are allowed (and also should) live however they want. If someone is transgender, nobody should complain, because it is the "decision" of another human. From my point of view, there is no space for any discussion about this.
But that is pretty much the point for both sides. Example: I probably wouldn't have a relationship with a transgender woman. It is really a weird imagination for me. That does not mean in any way that I judge transgender people in any way.
A good friend of mine is trans, and he is one of the best persons I know on this planet. His sexuality and feelings are his freedom, as mine is to say that I don't want to have sex with a trans woman. Everyone is allowed to do and think whatever they want, as long as your opinion and doings won't take the freedom of anyone else.

From this point of view, I don't understand anyone who is discussing here. If my opinion has any aspects in it that are wrong, then tell me please.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s not a spectrum as Dr. Debrah Soh says here.
> 
> Science Shows Sex Is Binary, Not a Spectrum


Debrah Soh is not only wrong about this, but she's wrong about a lot of things, including but not limited to her position on conversion therapy for minors not being harmful, despite the preponderance evidence to the contrary. She's an internet troll, and for every Soh you can find on the internet, you can find 100 reputable researchers. Posting Soh also suggests that you've maybe made up your mind and are working your way backwards to find evidence for your position, not the other way around.

Regarding the topic at hand, Soh's point is contingent upon ignoring intersex people. If you don't ignore them, one can see that sex is not necessarily binary.



SG854 said:


> You’ll actually find many cultures to be similar in male/female career choices.


And in many ways, you will find that they're different. That's what it means to be arbitrary.



SG854 said:


> Gender Roles aren’t 100% based on biological sex and that’s not what I’m arguing. There’s is always exceptions. What I am arguing is for the majority of cases it does. And it’s observable cross culturally.


Gender roles are largely arbitrary and vary across cultures.



SG854 said:


> Environment can have an impact but when you eliminate environment all you have left is biology


You can't eliminate environment.



SG854 said:


> and gender differences are bigger because biology isn’t restricted by the environment, essentially people can truly aspire what they want instead of being forced into jobs they don’t want to be in because they are desperate for money. Male and Female differences are smaller in less gender equal countries and bigger in gender equal countries. This is known as the gender paradox.
> 
> Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding.


I'm well aware of the gender paradox, having earned my undergrad degree in linguistics with a concentration in sociolinguistics. Biology is only one possibility for these results, and it's probably only part of the story. There are plenty of environmental factors at play, and this doesn't contradict anything I've said about gender roles.



SG854 said:


> And like I said in a previous post Sex is based on our anatomy and reproductive functions, it is by definition binary.


You made quite the leap there. If we agree sex is based on our anatomy and reproductive functions, then it is by definition biological, not necessarily binary.



SG854 said:


> I don’t see a third option of reproduction something other then a penis or vagina.


Binary, successfully reproductive sexual intercorse is irrelevant to whether or not there are more than two sexes. We don't define a person's sex by whether or not one is reproductive. That wouldn't be possible a lot of the time.



SG854 said:


> Intersex like someone with a vulva and testicular tissue is still from a binary sex


There are many forms of being intersex, and if there are cases (there are) where people who is intersex can't be classified as male or female, then sex is not necessarily binary.



SG854 said:


> which is only 1% of people.



It's probably closer to 2%.
It's irrelevant to my point how small the intersex population is.



SG854 said:


> An example would be humans have 10 fingers. And the majority is born this way. Just because vary rare occurrences where someone is born with 9 fingers instead doesn’t change our understanding and doesn’t call for a re-conceptualization of how many fingers a human has.



Sex is not necessarily binary.
Humans do not necessarily have ten fingers.
This isn't rocket science, but regardless of how much this point makes sense to you, I don't expect you to concede anything.



SG854 said:


> The case of David Reimer should also show how someone can not easily be socialized. Along with research here.
> 
> Prenatal Hormones and Postnatal Socialization by Parents as Determinants of Male‐Typical Toy Play in Girls With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
> 
> ...


Yes, there are biological factors, as well as environmental factors, when it comes to gender identity. What is your point?



SG854 said:


> There is also 0 evidence that gender fluidity is a real thing and the NIH study that you might come across was flawed with no control group. As Dr. Q Van Meter says.
> 
> https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20844/



There is plenty of research affirming nonbinary gender identities. As I said earlier, for each crackpot researcher you give me, there are 100 legitimate ones out there. It's like finding "research" demonstrating that climate change isn't happening.
I read some of the research. You might want to, as well. It's mostly predicated on the idea that trans people might regret their transitions later due to how society treats them, not because trans and genderqueer people don't exist.
When you're selectively choosing data you think demonstrates your point, you might want to stay away from unscientific hate groups with an agenda. Quentin Van Meter is an staunch anti-LGBT crusader who is a member of a literal hate group organization.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> You asked about gender. chromosomes and presenting sex are a separate topic. I'm not quite sure why you're not getting this. I can quote where I explained the differences again, if that'd help.


The literal dictionary defines sex and gender as a synonym. You yold me dictionaries which exist solely to define words, isnt a credible source for the definition of words. They are the same and the idea that they are not is an extremely new concept that is very clearly not accepted as cold hard fact. If it was, debates on the topic wouldnt exist. People like Ben Shapiro wouldnt have a job. Gender and gender identity are also not the same. As I said people can have all sorts of chemistry. Im not denying that people are complicated and can have all sorts of preferences, feelings, etc, but there are still only 2 sets of genitals, and therefore 2 genders.



AmandaRose said:


> I dont give a fuck what you or others think I am biologically. My passport says I am female my birth certificate says I am female all my other forms of ID say I am female. Everyone who knows me and I care about says I am female. I legally have all the rights of a female. I AM FEMALE.


If you "dont give a fuck" then why did you feel the need to say this? Clearly you give many fucks. You are more than welcome to call yourself whatever you want and Ill even play along and use the "correct" pronoun for you, because I ACTUALLY dont give a fuck. If it makes you happy then great, it doesnt hurt anyone and everyone has the right to be happy. There are still only 2 genders.


----------



## Naendow (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> There are still only 2 genders.


OK, that is the only point that I really do not understand. As I said, everyone has the freedom for pretty much everything imo. But why / how do some people feel different than male or female?
I do not want to offend anyone or something, I am just a bit curious. So if anyone is able to explain this, I would be very thankful.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> The literal dictionary defines sex and gender as a synonym.


That depends on which dictionary you're looking at. Gender identity and sex are fundamentally different things, although one is often related to the other.



MadMageKefka said:


> They are the same and the idea that they are not is an extremely new concept that is very clearly not accepted as cold hard fact. If it was, debates on the topic wouldnt exist.


I would not say it's an "extremely new concept." It's been around since the late 1800s, and it's been widely used and accepted since the 1960s.



MadMageKefka said:


> Im not denying that people are complicated and can have all sorts of preferences, feelings, etc, but there are still only 2 sets of genitals, and therefore 2 genders.



There are not only two sets of genitals. There are intersex possibilities.
There hypothetically only being two sets of genitals would get you closer (but not there) to saying there are only two sexes, not two genders.



MadMageKefka said:


> There are still only 2 genders.


Gender is not necessarily a binary.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> The literal dictionary defines sex and gender as a synonym. You yold me dictionaries which exist solely to define words, isnt a credible source for the definition of words. They are the same and the idea that they are not is an extremely new concept that is very clearly not accepted as cold hard fact. If it was, debates on the topic wouldnt exist. People like Ben Shapiro wouldnt have a job. Gender and gender identity are also not the same. As I said people can have all sorts of chemistry. Im not denying that people are complicated and can have all sorts of preferences, feelings, etc, but there are still only 2 sets of genitals, and therefore 2 genders.
> 
> 
> If you "dont give a fuck" then why did you feel the need to say this? Clearly you give many fucks. You are more than welcome to call yourself whatever you want and Ill even play along and use the "correct" pronoun for you, because I ACTUALLY dont give a fuck. If it makes you happy then great, it doesnt hurt anyone and everyone has the right to be happy. There are still only 2 genders.


Yes. Some find it difficult to believe, but dictionaries are not the authority on definitions. They merely collect them. This is what a dictionary is. Feel free to email/ask the various dictionary companies themselves.

As they merely collect definitions, they get things wrong. They also tend to go with popular definitions rather than proper definitions. Remember when one of the dictionaries decided to make literal and figurative synonymous because of over misuse? 

Don't use dictionaries as an authority. That's not their intended purpose, as stated by them.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There are not only two sets of genitals. There are intersex possibilities.


Show me a 3rd that is capable of producing another human.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Show me a 3rd that is capable of producing another human.



Whether or not an intersex person can have offspring is irrelevant to whether or not one is intersex.
Many intersex individuals can reproduce.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 10, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Show me a 3rd that is capable of producing another human.


Yawn its the same bloody argument in every one of these threads blah blah blah you are not a woman if you can't reproduce. Blah blah blah biology. Seriously it's boring is that all you have? are you not smart enough to come up with a new argument about this?

Side note not all women can reproduce like my best friend that was born a woman and has MRKH syndrome does that make her any less of a woman?

Oh and to answer your above question some people who are Intersex can reproduce.

I would also suggest you read this https://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2011/09/intersex-fertility.html?m=1


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 11, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Seriously it's boring is that all you have?


Do I need more?



AmandaRose said:


> Side note not all women can reproduce like my best friend that was born a woman and has MRKH syndrome does that make her any less of a woman?


She was born with a defect. It happens. Its not fair, but it happens.



Lacius said:


> Whether or not an intersex person can have offspring is irrelevant to whether or not one is intersex.
> Many intersex individuals can reproduce.


Do said individuals mentioned in part 2 have a penis, vagina, or some 3rd body part I haven't mentioned yet?


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 11, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Do I need more?


Like I said its boring to hear people spouting the same old bullshit over and over that others have been saying for years. You want people to actually take notice of what you are saying then approach the subject in a way others haven't in the past. Just a bit of friendly advice for you.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Do said individuals mentioned in part 2 have a penis, vagina, or some 3rd body part I haven't mentioned yet?


That depends on whom you're talking about and what you mean by third body part. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant though. See my previous post.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 11, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Like I said its boring to hear people spouting the same old bullshit over and over that others have been saying for years. You want people to actually take notice of what you are saying then approach the subject in a way others haven't in the past. Just a bit of friendly advice for you.


Flat earthers refuse to believe the same satellite images of a round earth shown to them over and over. Just because you're "bored" of an argument doesnt invalidate it, sorry.



Lacius said:


> That depends on whom you're talking about and what you mean by third body part. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant though. See my previous post.


By 3rd body part I mean a reproductive organ that can, by design, produce anotger human being that is neither a penis nor a vagina. Im really not sure how to be more clear.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Debrah Soh is not only wrong about this, but she's wrong about a lot of things, including but not limited to her position on conversion therapy for minors not being harmful, despite the preponderance evidence to the contrary. She's an internet troll, and for every Soh you can find on the internet, you can find 100 reputable researchers. Posting Soh also suggests that you've maybe made up your mind and are working your way backwards to find evidence for your position, not the other way around.
> 
> Regarding the topic at hand, Soh's point is contingent upon ignoring intersex people. If you don't ignore them, one can see that sex is not necessarily binary.
> 
> ...


I meant to say Gender Equality Paradox. Which on the link you gave says the Gender Paradox is not to be confused with Gender Equality Paradox. I didn’t put the word Equality in there but with the scientific link I gave should’ve gave hints that I was talking about that. Which is different from the linguistic Gender Paradox. But I won’t hold you to it since I didn’t put he word equality to differentiate the two.

There was a Norwegian Documentary a while back I saw about the Gender Equality Paradox here.





Dr. Debrah Soh is not a troll and I hope you are not getting your information from Gender Scholars, Feminists, and Trans Activists they are not actual scientists. They make up lies all the time and go after actual researchers and scientists and try to shut them down. They even went after Dr. Ray Blanchard who worked on DSM-5 misrepresented and straw manned what he said to try to discredit him.





Promoting transgender to kids is can be very harmful because most desist when the get older and hit puberty. There’s help groups here where people lives were ruined from it especially with the existence of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria where female might think they are trans when they are not. It is similar to recovered memories or multiple personality epidemic and therapists got sued afterwards.




And it is also Dr. Ray Blanched (not just Debrah Soh) that says that trans activists try to hijack the success of the Gay Rights Movement by using the word Conversion Therapy to emotionally manipulate people to get them to stop. But transgender and gay is not comparable so Conversion Therapy in the sense they are using it does not apply, they are trying to maliciously confuse the two issues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/ray-blanchard-transgender-orthodoxy/amp/



There’s kids that may benefit by getting them to act like their biological sex. Explained here. But activists are trying to prevent this.


You are being bullshited by trans activists and you are falling for it.




One thing you’ll notice also when you research how many regret transition and regret going on cross sex hormones is that activists say it’s a very small number, but when you actually look into it many studies have been shut down by activists so we don’t actually know what the real numbers are. They are trying to prevent research into this.



I gave you a few links from other researchers and not just Debrah Soh. Like Simon Barren Cohen (cousin of the guy that plays Borat) or does he not count? Activists went after him too and called his research sexist which is ridiculous.


If you say Dr. Ray Blanchard is a troll then you are lost.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> By 3rd body part I mean a reproductive organ that can, by design, produce anotger human being that is neither a penis nor a vagina. Im really not sure how to be more clear.



It's not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not intersex exists, as I said earlier.
I'm not sure what you mean specifically by "by design," which makes responding even more difficult.
"Neither penis nor vagina" is open to interpretation when we're talking about people who are intersex.
I'm not trying to be difficult nor nitpicky. I'm just trying to make sure we're clear.



SG854 said:


> I meant to say Gender Equality Paradox. Which on the link you gave says the Gender Paradox is not to be confused with Gender Equality Paradox.


If it's not be be confused with the Gender Equality Paradox, then don't confuse them.



SG854 said:


> Dr. Debrah Soh is not a troll


She's intentionally inflammatory for attention, so yes, she's a troll. Regardless of whether or not we agree she's a troll, she's wrong.



SG854 said:


> and I hope you are not getting your information from Gender Scholars, Feminists, and Trans Activists they are not actual scientists. They make up lies all the time and go after actual researchers and scientists and try to shut them down. They even went after Dr. Ray Blanchard who worked on DSM-5 misrepresented and straw manned what he said to try to discredit him.


Do you remember what I said about strawman arguments? It's the easiest way to get me to lose interest in a conversation. I didn't bring up these people, so when you argue against them, you're no longer having a conversation with me.



SG854 said:


> Promoting transgender to kids is can be very harmful because most desist when the get older and hit puberty. There’s help groups here where people lives were ruined from it especially with the existence of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria where female might think they are trans when they are not. It is similar to recovered memories or multiple personality epidemic and therapists got sued afterwards.


What's "promoting transgender"? If you mean telling kids they should be trans, then that's a problem. If you mean acknowledging to kids that it's completely normal to be trans, and there's nothing wrong with it, then I have no problem with that. It's objectively harmful to do anything but that.



SG854 said:


> And it is also Dr. Ray Blanched (not just Debrah Soh) that says that trans activists try to hijack the success of the Gay Rights Movement by using the word Conversion Therapy to emotionally manipulate people to get them to stop. But transgender and gay is not comparable so Conversion Therapy in the sense they are using it does not apply, they are trying to maliciously confuse the two issues.


It is the position of the APA and other reputable groups that is it harmful to force kids to be more gender-conforming. Anything contrary to this is pseudoscientific nonsense, assuming that's Blanched's position (I figured this would be easier for me than researching his positions).



SG854 said:


> There’s kids that may benefit by getting them to act like their biological sex. Explained here. But activists are trying to prevent this.


Aside from changing how society might treat them, there's no explicit benefit from trying to get a kid to conform to the parent's perceived gender, and there is a likelihood of harm. Aside from society's issues, there's no harm in letting a kid expressing his or her gender identity. That's the position of the APA and actual reputable groups.



SG854 said:


> You are being bullshited by trans activists and you are falling for it.


The science is pretty clear about the harm of conversion therapy.



SG854 said:


> One thing you’ll notice also when you research how many regret transition and regret going on cross sex hormones is that activists say it’s a very small number, but when you actually look into it many studies have been shut down by activists so we don’t actually know what the real numbers are. They are trying to prevent research into this.


I'm not going to waste my time responding to unsubstantiated conspiracy theory nonsense.



SG854 said:


> I gave you a few links from other researchers and not just Debrah Soh. Like Simon Barren Cohen (cousin of the guy that plays Borat) or does he not count? Activists went after him too and called his research sexist which is ridiculous.



The stuff you posted from Simon Baron-Cohen was irrelevant to our conversation. If we pretend everything he said is 100% true (it's not), my points remain valid.
At worst, his ideas are completely false. At best, his ideas are partially true. His ideas on empathizing/systemizing have garnered a lot of criticism from the scientific community, and these ideas don't carry a lot of explanatory power when it comes to autism. The Extreme Male Brain hypothesis doesn't explain a lot of the symptoms of autism, for example.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> One thing you’ll notice also when you research how many regret transition and regret going on cross sex hormones is that activists say it’s a very small number, but when you actually look into it many studies have been shut down by activists so we don’t actually know what the real numbers are. They are trying to prevent research into this.



Trying to shut down research lol we don't know what the real numbers are lol.

If transgenders are trying to shut down research then what the hell was the 2015 US transgender survey? That over 27000 transgenders took part in. Oh and what did they find? Yes very few regretted transitioning and even fewer transitioned back.

The _2015 U.S. Transgender Survey_  of 27,715 tragenders found the following,

"_Respondents were asked whether they had ever 'de-transitioned', which was defined as having 'gone back to living as [their] sex assigned at birth, at least for a while.' Eight percent (8%) of respondents reported having de-transitioned *at some point*. Most of those who de-transitioned did so only *temporarily*: 62% of those who had de-transitioned reported that they were currently living full time in a gender different than the gender they were thought to be at birth._

_Transgender women were more likely to report having de-transitioned (11%), in contrast to transgender men (4%). Rates of de-transitioning also differed by race and ethnicity, with American Indian (14%), Asian (10%), and multiracial (10%) respondents reporting the highest levels of de-transitioning._

_Respondents who had de-transitioned cited a range of reasons, though *only 5% of those who had de-transitioned reported that they had done so because they realized that gender transition was not for them, representing 0.4% of the overall sample*. The most common reason cited for de-transitioning was pressure from a parent (36%). Twenty-six percent (26%) reported that they de-transitioned due to pressure from other family members, and 18% reported that they de-transitioned because of pressure from their spouse or partner. Other common reasons included facing too much harassment or discrimination after they began transitioning (31%), and having trouble getting a job (29%)._"


It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I’ve personally met/encountered possibly as many as a hundred transgender people - people I personally interacted with, in person or online, however briefly. I cannot remember a single one of those people said they regretted the whole thing because they felt it actually wasn’t right for them. Some of them expressed regrets about specific things they had done; and some of them had to stop some part of the process or other because of financial or social or institutional adversity; but literally none of them expressed regret over the entire endeavor.

Out of that considerable number _plus_ the number of those I had never directly interacted with, but whose comments I read online (i.e. additional hundreds or more), I can recall maybe only ten people - tops - who said they regretted the whole thing and wished somebody had stopped them sooner. Among those:


Some of those people were pretty evidently cis people who had, for some reason or another, become convinced that they needed to transition. This is regrettable, but they were by far the slightest fraction, and many of them backed out before irreversible changes started happening.
Some of those people may have been trans or nonbinary, but they took some serious missteps early in their transition that scared them off of the process. I emphasize the “or nonbinary”, here, because it’s possible that some of these people were either nonbinary or gender-nonconforming and ended up going too far with their transition, to the point of pushing their dysphoria over to the other direction.
Some of those people were probably trans people who got shoved far enough back into the closet by other people that they ended up completely suppressing the idea that they could be trans. This is an unfortunate consequence of transphobia.
Some, I believe, may have been cis transphobes concocting a story for the sake of their polemic. I couldn’t have said for sure, but I saw things that pointed to that scenario.
All of this is anecdotal, but there’s a growing body of research that suggests that few, if any, transgender people regret the entirety of the transition process. That number is vanishingly small. Other answers cover this.

If transition is conducted at a cautious pace and in conjunction with therapy, most people should “wash out” of transition long before they reach the point where they will deeply regret some irreversible facet of the transition. All of the things one encounters early in the process are pretty reversible.

All, of course, but the social factors involved with coming out - and that particular cat can’t be put back into the bag. Unfortunately, the society we live in induces a lot of trauma for transgender people, and some of that splashes on people who only think momentarily that they _might_ be transgender.

I think deep regrets of this type might abate (insofar as they exist at all) if we, as a society, were more accepting than we are at present.

Ah. Yes. This ratty old argument keeps getting pulled out every so often like one of those godawful Christmas sweaters your blind grandmother gets you and you don't have the heart to throw away and claim your house burnt down.

Here's the deal with gender change regret: it's bullshit. Which is not to say that it _never_ happens, but the numbers have been wildly inflated since the, um, early 1980s. There's a story behind it that I think bears telling.

The early 1980s, like any turn of the decade, had a lot of hold-overs from the previous decade. And the 1970s were a very tumultuous time in US history. At the time, Johns Hopkins University had one of the premier gender reassignment clinics in the country. They also had a doctor named Paul McHugh. McHugh was a devout catholic, and he was no big fan of the transgender community. He conducted a study which is a case study in bad science. He found that gender transition did not significantly diminish depressive symptoms in transgender individuals. In Sweden. In the winter.

I don't know if you've ever been to Sweden in the winter, but I have. And if you like being around people and bustling activity, it can be a very depressing place in the winter. It starts snowing in September or October and doesn't stop until March. And it's very dark. Of course people are depressed there! Also, his sample size was laughably small to prove no reduction in symptoms across the whole population, and seemingly hand-picked the sample group to suit his conclusions. All of which are bigtime bad science. But science isn't free and no one pays for science that proves them wrong, so...

Then he came back to America and hucked this garbage at the revered institution that is Johns Hopkins (who, being just excellent scientists, ate it up), and shortly thereafter they closed their gender clinic and are, to this day, the single most staunchly anti-transgender major medical establishments in America.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not intersex exists, as I said earlier.
> I'm not sure what you mean specifically by "by design," which makes responding even more difficult.
> "Neither penis nor vagina" is open to interpretation when we're talking about people who are intersex.
> I'm not trying to be difficult nor nitpicky. I'm just trying to make sure we're clear.
> ...


It matters when talking about gender having biology and career choices not being a social construct. Which is what we’ve been talking about these few posts. It’s all interrelated Hormones, CAH, Career Choices, People vs Thing oriented, and all adds to the supporting evidence which is why I even mentioned them I the first place.





AmandaRose said:


> Trying to shut down research lol we don't know what the real numbers are lol.
> 
> If transgenders are trying to shut down research then what the hell was the 2015 US transgender survey? That over 27000 transgenders took part in. Oh and what did they find? Yes very few regretted transitioning and even fewer transitioned back.
> 
> ...


Wow you gave me a real long response, in a way I’m kinda glad, it shows you really care about this.


I want to make a distinction, were these people properly screened? Dr. Ray Blanchard has written a couple of papers supporting transition only after they’ve been properly screened and lived some time in their gender role, usually around 21 years old. The majority were generally happy with transition.


But what about ones that aren’t properly screened what’s the regret rate for that? Adults properly screened vs children that are rushed to transition.

Especially with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria being a very recent thing which shows its a societal social cotangent. It’s so recent that we don’t have enough research on it, and much research on de-transitioning is from the past or not sufficient enough. Site I linked earlier had around 300 in just two months. That’s just one site so who knows how much with other sites.




Numbers of people identify as trans is growing. Much more nowadays then in the past is regretting transition. Little Research has been done looking into the long term effects of hormonal and surgical treatments, most are short term. And were very small scale with few people. Studies are only accurate if you represent them accurately and also post their limitations.

The few Long Term studies had worse lower response rates of less then 50%. So it may not support that regret rate is low.

The Swedish Study also has limitations because it only looks at people that regret and had transitioned back, but ignores people that regret but didn’t transition back.

Basically more data need to be collected to see longitudinal effects.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/22/trans-activists-silence-science-can-claim-side/



Activists shutting Down Research

A University turned down research on de transitioning to avoid backlash.


Bath Spa University 'blocks transgender research'



Activists shut down a clinic and got one of the guys that worked on DSM-5 Dr. Keneth Zucker fired.

Trans Activists praised his fire, but more 500 of his clinician colleagues petitioned in his defense.



Brown University deletes link to study

Lisa Litman vilified then lost consulting position for researching ROGD. 

Also here.



And the article below also says academics are being shut down by trans activists. Along with the other articles I linked, instead of claiming it’s a conspiracy theory if Lacius actually did a quick google search then he would’ve found them.

There’s also many scientists saying they are afraid to speak out because they don’t want to get fired.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...ed-female-male-realised-had-made-mistake/amp/


----------



## Lacius (Jun 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It matters when talking about gender having biology and career choices not being a social construct. Which is what we’ve been talking about these few posts. It’s all interrelated Hormones, CAH, Career Choices, People vs Thing oriented, and all adds to the supporting evidence which is why I even mentioned them I the first place.


It seems you didn't read my original post. I'm in a good mood today, so I'll give you a pass and hold your hand on this one.


Lacius said:


> Gender roles are largely arbitrary and aren't necessarily binary.
> Gender identity is not necessarily based on sex and isn't necessarily binary.
> Sex isn't necessarily binary.
> Most of your post reads like, "Gender identity is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not," or, "Sex is always binary, ignoring the times when it's not."


I never argued that there are no biological factors when it comes to gender roles and gender identity. In fact, I've said numerous times that there are both biological and environment factors when it comes to gender. That's why it was irrelevant.

The fact that some gender roles might have historically been based on biology doesn't mean gender roles aren't largely arbitrary, and it doesn't mean gender roles are necessarily binary.
The fact that gender identity has biological, as well as environmental, influences doesn't mean gender identity is necessarily based on sex, and it doesn't mean gender identity is necessarily binary.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Wow you gave me a real long response, in a way I’m kinda glad, it shows you really care about this.
> 
> But what about ones that aren’t properly screened what’s the regret rate for that? Adults properly screened vs children that are rushed to transition.



Ok so extremely busy today so don't have a lot of time to discuss this but I just wanted to address a few things. 

Yes I do really care about it here in Scotland in my spare time I am a transgender counsellor I have also campaigned successfully for several Scottish laws to be changed for the good of not only trans women but for all woman. I have had personal one on meetings with the British prime minister about other trans issues. My biggest problem though is I care too much and get unnecessarily upset at certain comments or discussions that I have heard a thousand times before and am bored actually answering.

In regards screening I can really only talk about how it's done here in Scotland as not fully up on how the rest of the world does it. 

Here in Scotland a trans person must go a minimum of two years assessment with various doctors and psychiatrists before they will even be considered for GRS. Normally it lasts a lot longer than two years round about 4 to 5 years on average. Then you must face a panel of 5 other doctors and you have to unanimously convince them that GRS is necessary for you. It's a one shot deal and if you don't convince all 5 you will never get GRS. Even then if you do convince all 5 they can still delay GRS and send you for more screening or they can block you from ever getting it.

I have no doubt other countries are not as strict and I do wish they followed the Scottish way of doing it. Because here we  have one of the lowest regret rates in the world.


----------



## notimp (Jun 11, 2019)

Didnt follow this thread for obvious reasons, but read your last posting - very interesting. 

Do you care to comment on the notion, that with the WHO not recognizing it as a disorder anymore (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48448804), that that might cut funding for psychological assistance (treading carefully with my words here). False dichotomy?

Also - what are your experiences - so far - in regards to societal acceptance. Not down to the specifics, but as a general notion - if you can. 

Nevertheless, didnt know half of what you are describing, so thank you for an interesting read.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 11, 2019)

OP is right. These words have pretty much lost their value because they've been used so vaguely and loosely plus, everyone nowadays who disagrees with the legacy media (and the likes) is a "Nazi", "Alt-Right", "Far-Right" or all three. It's hard to have a discussion these days as folks just end up screaming the typical buzzwords so.. no point in it.

Thanks for having the courage to speak up, OP.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 11, 2019)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer


----------



## notimp (Jun 11, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer


Those are too heavy sorts of canons you are using.

This has a mutilation angle to it that was introduced by social force ("religious customs") that likely resulted in trauma - then it has a malpractice angle to it as well. This is not an ideal case to show concepts - its multilayered with issues that you would rather want to separate from the topic at hand, if you can.


----------



## zomborg (Jun 11, 2019)

Transgender people suffer from a pervasive mental illness, and as a result they deserve our sympathy. There is no reason to be violent or mean toward them. Still, we should not be expected to affirm their neuroses anymore than we should affirm the beliefs of a schizophrenic who believes himself to be an alien.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 11, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Transgender people suffer from a pervasive mental illness, and as a result they deserve our sympathy. There is no reason to be violent or mean toward them. Still, we should not be expected to affirm their neuroses anymore than we should affirm the beliefs of a schizophrenic who believes himself to be an alien.


This old bullshit again funny how the world's top doctors say its not a mental illness funny how the world's leading health organisation says its not a mental illness. Funny how as a transgender woman I had to go through 24 months of screening by psychiatrists to prove that I DID NOT HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS before being allowed GRS.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...r-reclassified-not-mental-disorder/index.html


----------



## Naendow (Jun 11, 2019)

You know that being trans is by far not a mental illness, right? That has been proven 2 years ago or so.


----------



## PZT (Jun 11, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> OP is right. These words have pretty much lost their value because they've been used so vaguely and loosely plus, everyone nowadays who disagrees with the legacy media (and the likes) is a "Nazi", "Alt-Right", "Far-Right" or all three. It's hard to have a discussion these days as folks just end up screaming the typical buzzwords so.. no point in it.
> 
> Thanks for having the courage to speak up, OP.


You know who actually has courage? Aurora Wright
You're all cowards


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 11, 2019)

PZT said:


> You know who actually has courage? Aurora Wright
> You're all cowards


Spot on but I'm no coward myself and Aurora are very similar lol.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Those are too heavy sorts of canons you are using.
> 
> This has a mutilation angle to it that was introduced by social force ("religious customs") that likely resulted in trauma - then it has a malpractice angle to it as well. This is not an ideal case to show concepts - its multilayered with issues that you would rather want to separate from the topic at hand, if you can.




Except that John Money was the primary 'professional' source for transgender theory at its inception in the late-60's, early-70's. He was basically the original researcher in the field, and the source for these concepts in late-20th/early-21st century western thought. And he liked to pose naked boys in positions of sexual intercourse and take pictures.




AmandaRose said:


> This old bullshit again funny how the world's top doctors say its not a mental illness funny how *the world's leading health organisation says its not a mental illness*. Funny how as a transgender woman I had to go through 24 months of screening by psychiatrists to prove that I DID NOT HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS before being allowed GRS.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...r-reclassified-not-mental-disorder/index.html



That was a _political_ decision. They vote on it, and keeping their positions and social pressures most certainly influence the vote. The DSM-5 still says mental disorder.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 12, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> That was a _political_ decision. They vote on it, and keeping their positions and social pressures most certainly influence the vote. The DSM-5 still says mental disorder.



What the vastly outdated Bible of trans haters who ignore key facts in it like it's own recommended treatment for gender dysphoria. And I quote directly from the DSM-5

[Treatment options for gender dysphoria include counseling, cross-sex hormones, puberty suppression and gender reassignment surgery.] 

Now the DSM-5 was put together by psychiatrists around the world so
If it truly was a mental disorder why the hell would they they recommend GRS instead of you know actually doing their job and treating this so called mental illness like they would do you know with an actual proper mental illness.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Ok so extremely busy today so don't have a lot of time to discuss this but I just wanted to address a few things.
> 
> Yes I do really care about it here in Scotland in my spare time I am a transgender counsellor I have also campaigned successfully for several Scottish laws to be changed for the good of not only trans women but for all woman. I have had personal one on meetings with the British prime minister about other trans issues. My biggest problem though is I care too much and get unnecessarily upset at certain comments or discussions that I have heard a thousand times before and am bored actually answering.
> 
> ...


Usually proper screening is what should be done especially if you go to the surgical route, there’s no going back. The problem is activists becoming sensationalists and saying if you don’t affirm your child to transition they will commit suicide. Which is plain emotional manipulation, not true, and the researchers in the suicide studies they cite talk about the limitations of it.





The fact that over 500 clinicians and researchers had to petition to defend Dr. Zucker should be telling how corrupt it’s become. Dr. Zucker says that the field of gender dysphoria has been corrupted by politics. As Dr. Blanchard says the same thing. Both worked on DSM-5.


So does Dr. Debrah Soh and I don’t take what Lacius says seriously, especially when his complaint about her is ridiculous. I’m guessing he was talking about this Reddit post since he mention that she was a troll and mentions conversion therapy. It’s just too much a perfect match.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/6i4blw/debra_soh_jumps_the_shark/#thing_t1_dj3ew8d


When you actually read the article the reddit post was criticizing it answers all of Lacius criticisms that he copied from the Reddit post.

It clearly says while Gender Identity is flexible in kids it normalizes when they get older. Normalize should answer the criticism. Especially since the majority desist when they get older. So pushing transition before they reach puberty is a bad idea.


Lacius criticism of Conversion Therapy is also answered in that article. Dr. Debra Soh says it’s not to be conflated with the Therapeutic Approach. And activists are calling it Conversion Therapy to conflate the two as if they are the same, but they are not. It’s also the thoughts of Dr. Ray Blanchard, he also says activists are conflating the two. And also the thoughts of Dr. Zucker that’s it not conversion therapy, which he got fired over. And over 500 clinicians and researchers petition in his defense.

So it’s not only the thoughts of Dr. Debra Soh, Dr. Ray Blanchard, or Dr. Zucker that are saying this, it’s also the 500+ researchers and clinicians defending what they say.


And even if Dr. Debra Soh contradicted herself I don’t see how that makes her a troll, I would’ve labeled it as a mistake or not thinking her ideas through instead. And the criticism misses the bigger picture she was talking about which is the conversion therapy thing, and to proceed child transition with caution.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 12, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> This old bullshit again funny how the world's top doctors say its not a mental illness funny how the world's leading health organisation says its not a mental illness. Funny how as a transgender woman I had to go through 24 months of screening by psychiatrists to prove that I DID NOT HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS before being allowed GRS.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...r-reclassified-not-mental-disorder/index.html



It was listed as a mental illness for most of human history and was only recently removed as a mental illness for political reasons. It really doesn't make evolutionary/biological sense that someone could be trapped in the wrong body.


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Transgender people suffer from a pervasive mental illness, and as a result they deserve our sympathy. There is no reason to be violent or mean toward them. Still, we should not be expected to affirm their neuroses anymore than we should affirm the beliefs of a schizophrenic who believes himself to be an alien.


Hm.

Why.

Especially as things arguably arent so clear cut, when it comes to gender - or gender identities. (Subs, doms, cuckolds, cuckqueens, you know the pages on the internets..  )


Lets take the most impactful step, which is gender reasignment surgery.

If there exists the manifest urge of that person. If it is connected to psychological strain (so that person really suffering from their condition). First they need a conceptual way out. So you give them the opportunity for that surgery.

There is nothing that speaks against that.

Then you make it freaking hard to attain - because they basically have to be at a point, where they give up themselves, before you grant it to them. This you do because of two factors. One - risk of the surgery, on someone that isnt in "physical medical need" for it. Second - if regrets set in, it becomes fucking hard to deal with that.

But - as it is medically viable - you need the option. And you also need for it to actually be performed. Otherwise you highten structural suffering.

("No way out." "Society doenst want me to find peace, ...")

So there is really absolutely nothing that speaks against having this as a far, far reachable option, at the end of a road that goes through all prior forms of treatment that there are.

Please acknowledge that. 

Certainly not your notion, that it must be horrible to have to neglect advances of a transitioning, or transitioned individual. Those concerns are so tiny in comparison - they might not even count. At all.. 


The part thats actually more problematic is societal recognition. Something that literally anyone would fight for - that identifies themselves as not a normy (dont read too much into the indentify thing - as in SJW lingo).

If you are in such a minority - its freaking hard to change societies images of your behavior. If you remove stigma - everyone is helped. But with removed stigma should come societal recognition - and if thats not there, if large parts of society cant jump the gap mentally - stuff becomes rather tragic again.

Now looking at Ls, Gs, and Bs - they managed to change societies and recognize them as part of the norm. It took decades. It can happen. Its not freaking easy. And there are limits. We just don't know where.

But certainly - they are not at "I might have to be confronted with sexual advances of such an individual once in my lifetime". Not argumentatively. Emotionally they might be. Which is kind of the problem. Its freaking hard to change that - and SJW might not help here.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2019)

Maluma said:


> It was listed as a mental illness for most of human history and was only recently removed as a mental illness for political reasons. It really doesn't make evolutionary/biological sense that someone could be trapped in the wrong body.


By nature's logic, nothing humans do makes sense.  Still, there are species who have evolved the ability to change sex, and nearly every species of animal exhibits homosexual behavior.  It's a hell of a reach to suggest that no semi-intelligent animal, such as a dolphin, has ever felt as though it was trapped in the wrong body.  We can't read their minds, but based on statistics alone it's likely to have occurred way more than once.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> By nature's logic, nothing humans do makes sense.  Still, there are species who have evolved the ability to change sex, and nearly every species of animal exhibits homosexual behavior.  It's a hell of a reach to suggest that no semi-intelligent animal, such as a dolphin, has ever felt as though it was trapped in the wrong body.  We can't read their minds, but based on statistics alone it's likely to have occurred way more than once.



Where is the proof that statistics show dolphins have transexual urges? Incidences of homosexuality rise in times of peace for whatever reason, we aren't talking about homosexuality though. We are talking about transexuality. Why was it classified as a mental illness only to be removed from the dsm? Besides that it used to be called Gender Identity Disorder and now it's referred to as Gender Dysphoria. What species has evolved the ability to change sex?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Where is the proof that statistics show dolphins have transexual urges?


Like I said, we can't read their minds, it can't be proven without a doubt either way.



Maluma said:


> Why was it classified as a mental illness only to be removed from the dsm?


I can only assume it's because our understanding of things becomes more comprehensive with time.  Clinging to outdated research and information is how we get flat Earthers.



Maluma said:


> What species has evolved the ability to change sex?


Several species of birds, amphibians, insects, fish, and other aquatic life.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Like I said, we can't read their minds, it can't be proven without a doubt either way.
> 
> 
> I can only assume it's because our understanding of things becomes more comprehensive with time.  Clinging to outdated research and information is how we get flat Earthers.
> ...



That's a pretty interesting read,but that same article states that humans cannot change sex.I do like the article though so thank you.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2019)

Maluma said:


> That's a pretty interesting read,but that same article states that humans cannot change sex.I do like the article though so thank you.


Certainly not to the extent that we're able to change reproductive organs on a whim.  But had we followed a slightly different evolutionary path it may well have been possible.  In any case I think it's clear that sex isn't such a binary issue from nature's point of view.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not intersex exists, as I said earlier.
> I'm not sure what you mean specifically by "by design," which makes responding even more difficult.
> "Neither penis nor vagina" is open to interpretation when we're talking about people who are intersex.
> I'm not trying to be difficult nor nitpicky. I'm just trying to make sure we're clear.



1. If you say so.
2. Meaning, able to do so unless affected by something else such as an unrelated disease or illness that caused the inability to reproduce.
3. "Open to interpretation" I mean, isn't all of this? So basically, you mean "no."


----------



## Lacius (Jun 13, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> 2. Meaning, able to do so unless affected by something else such as an unrelated disease or illness that caused the inability to reproduce.


Then the answer is yes, not that it's relevant.



MadMageKefka said:


> 3. "Open to interpretation" I mean, isn't all of this? So basically, you mean "no."


Don't tell me what I mean. Some individuals who are interesex have genitalia that is neither male nor female.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 13, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Don't tell me what I mean. Some individuals who are interesex have genitalia that is neither male nor female.


Then why didn't you just say "yes?"


----------



## cots (Jun 15, 2019)

For anyone that still thinks that transgendism isn't defined as a mental disorder.

It turns out that the WHO has reclassified transgender people to change them from having a mental disorder to having a lessor disorder under the panel's sexual health chapter (mainly to reduce stigma). It won't be put into effect until 2022. 

So the WHO up until today and continuing until 2022 classify it as a mental disorder (I was unaware of this because I don't care about the WHO).

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/health/who-transgender-reclassified-not-mental-disorder/index.html

The DSM-V still categorizes transgender people having a mental illness, but the severity of the diagnosis had been reduced from what the DSM-IV had it as (again to reduce stigma).

You do realize that it has to be defined as a medical or mental condition for insurance companies to pay for fixing or treating the problem? If it wasn't some sort of disorder than you'd have to pay for it yourself, but that's not the only reason why it's classified as such (just pointing out to the people using my money to get their treatment might not want to have it become normal otherwise they're going to have to pay for it themselves without the help from my taxes).


----------



## Lacius (Jun 15, 2019)

cots said:


> For anyone that still thinks that transgendism isn't defined as a mental disorder.
> 
> It turns out that the WHO has reclassified transgender people to change them from having a mental disorder to having a lessor disorder under the panel's sexual health chapter (mainly to reduce stigma). It won't be put into effect until 2022.
> 
> ...


Neither the WHO nor the DSM classifies being transgender as a mental disorder.

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



MadMageKefka said:


> Then why didn't you just say "yes?"


Because that depends on one's interpretation.


----------



## cots (Jun 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Neither the WHO nor the DSM classifies being transgender as a mental disorder.



Well, under the WHO it's only going to be a mental illness until after the changes take effect in 2022, but before then and up until a few days ago it was still classified as a disorder.

The DSM-V reclassified transgenderism into a lessor category, but it's still classified and they didn't get rid of it (in the DSM-IV it was a more server illness - now it's a less severe illness)

I can't help if you deny facts. I can't fix stupid.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 15, 2019)

cots said:


> For anyone that still thinks that transgendism isn't defined as a mental disorder.
> 
> It turns out that the WHO has reclassified transgender people to change them from having a mental disorder to having a lessor disorder under the panel's sexual health chapter (mainly to reduce stigma). It won't be put into effect until 2022.
> 
> ...


Please give a detailed breakdown of what your own personal taxes are being used for exactly. You have zero evidence that any of your own personal taxes have ever been used to treat transgenders just as I have zero evidence if my own taxes are being used to treat drug addicts or being used for any other practice I disagree with.

Using that argument is pointless because

A) You have zero evidence that you own taxes have ever financed any transgender procedure
B) you have zero evidence that a transgender person's own taxes has or has not financed their own treatment.

And besides it is just another one of your comments that is straight out of the transphobic handbook 101.

Must used quotes out of the transphobic handbook.

1. It's a mental disorder

2. I don't want my taxes

3. Biologically you are not a woman

The only thing missing from any of your comments is

I'm not transphobic but.



(One world, one love, all of us are the same we are all human, fuck the bullshit. Let’s just L️‍️‍OVE each
other)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 15, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, under the WHO it's only going to be a mental illness until after the changes take effect in 2022, but before then and up until a few days ago it was still classified as a disorder.
> 
> The DSM-V reclassified transgenderism into a lessor category, but it's still classified and they didn't get rid of it (in the DSM-IV it was a more server illness - now it's a less severe illness)
> 
> I can't help if you deny facts. I can't fix stupid.


If you're going to conflate gender nonconformity with gender dysphoria, you will continue to make these mistakes. Being transgender is not a mental disorder.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 15, 2019)

Transsexualism and Transgenderism are different.

Dysphoria is a mental disorder not transgenderism as far as I’m aware.


Proper screening is needed to see if someone is not suffering from some other mental illness that outwardly appears as  gender dysphoria. Like autism, if they get the transgender idea stuck in their head they might obsess over it and make it seem they had it all their life when really they didn’t. And treating them for autism rather then transgender would be better.

The recent Dysphoria, Rapid Onset Dysphoria has a social contagion aspect and most likely someone with depression or some other mental illness besides gender dysphoria, mostly females, are likely to get it. And treating their mental illness/depression rather then treating transgender is better. That’s why proper screening is needed see exactly what’s really going on. If it’s actual transgenderism or something else.



For some reason girls more then males are likely to get these mental illnesses. Like the Witch trials they killed women to protect little girls that had weird seizures, or Recovered Memories epidemic they jailed fathers they thought was raping their daughters because of recovered memories from little girls that didn’t exist that was pushed by therapists (human brain is susceptible to having false memories implanted, which is why eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence), or now with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria pushed by society and online community’s gives people groups they can follow to praise and push this.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Transsexualism and Transgenderism are different.
> 
> Dysphoria is a mental disorder not transgenderism as far as I’m aware.
> 
> ...


 I agree with most of what you said and that is why I previously said in this thread that you here in Scotland need to go through a minimum of two years of screening to prove you don't have a mental illness before even being considered for GRS.


----------



## cots (Jun 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to conflate gender nonconformity with gender dysphoria, you will continue to make these mistakes. Being transgender is not a mental disorder.



Both encompass transgender people. I'm not confusing anything, you're trying to interpret the facts they way you want to, not the way they were written. The WHO article is a clear example, it states that it was a mental disorder and now is not going to be considered one any longer. So you can use it as an example of why it's not considered a mental disorder and I can use it as an example of *why it used to be called* a mental disorder and* won't officially be recognized* until 2022.



AmandaRose said:


> Must used quotes out of the transphobic handbook.
> 
> 1. It's a mental disorder
> 
> ...



I didn't define it as a mental disorder, just stating facts, nor do I care if someone is mentally ill to begin with. My taxes are used to fund anything that the Government does. If the Government is paying for people to transition then they are using my money. There are two sexes and a rare genetic mutation that results in the two being mixed somehow. There aren't 3 or more different sexes, there is two. You either have one or the other reproductive parts. That's biology. I agree you can identify as a pink giraffe and in your mind you may believe you are, but it doesn't change you original sex you were born as.

This thread got me over the fact that I will be faced with transgender people trying to control me and make me believe what they do and if not will shame me or try to have my views censored by calling me transphobic, but I've gotten over it. Call me it all you want - doesn't change the fact that I'm not transphobic and *you're not going to silence me*.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 16, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I agree with most of what you said and that is why I previously said in this thread that you here in Scotland need to go through a minimum of two years of screening to prove you don't have a mental illness before even being considered for GRS.


This is why people need to proceed with it by caution and question when someone claims they are transgender. Once you put them on cross hormones or get surgical treatment there’s no going back. 


IDK, now that I think about it, maybe I care too much about this topic. I got caught up in it from the Feminist debate. So I tried to learn all aspects of gender for that reason. I’m not Trans, Gay, LGBT or any of that stuff so it doesn’t affect or concern me. I just like learning how life works I guess. I learn about a fishes circulatory system. It’s doesn’t affect me and I’m not a marine biologist so it’s useless information but I still learn out of interest. It’s the same with the trans topic. I guess it’s useful information for being skeptical when someone claims they are trans, I’m aware that it might be some other mental illness instead or not.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2019)

cots said:


> Both encompass transgender people.


I suggest you do some research, because they are not synonyms. I guess it goes to show you that prejudice is often born from ignorance.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> IDK, now that I think about it, maybe I care too much about this topic. I got caught up in it from the Feminist debate. So I tried to learn all aspects of gender for that reason. I’m not Trans, Gay, LGBT or any of that stuff so it doesn’t affect or concern me.


A good realization to have.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Because that depends on one's interpretation.


Again, there's no "interpreting" a penis or vagina. It either is or isn't. Until you show me something that is neither, the answer is a solid and obvious "no."


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 16, 2019)

cots said:


> .
> This thread got me over the fact that I will be faced with transgender people trying to control me and make me believe what they do and if not will shame me or try to have my views censored by calling me transphobic, but I've gotten over it. Call me it all you want - doesn't change the fact that I'm not transphobic and *you're not going to silence me*.


You are such a hypocrite and don't even realise it do you? You keep banging on about being controlled by transgender people when the whole point of your thread was to control transgender peoples rights to call someone transphobic when they are being transphobic. You keep saying you won't be silenced while trying to silence others. You also keep saying you are not transphobic while making constant transpobic comments. Take a look at this link and notice how you made comments that are clearly defined transphobic. You  have done point 1 and 2 and 3 and 9 and probably more all in this thread.

https://www.anunnakiray.com/2017/08...ueerphobia-intersexphobia-and-homophobia/amp/

You don't want to be labelled as transphobic then stop making transphobic comments.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 16, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Again, there's no "interpreting" a penis or vagina. It either is or isn't. Until you show me something that is neither, the answer is a solid and obvious "no."


If there's no room for interpretation, and it either is or isn't, then my answer to your original question would be a _yes_, not a _no_.


----------



## cots (Jun 16, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> You are such a hypocrite and don't even realise it do you? You keep banging on about being controlled by transgender people when the whole point of your thread was to control transgender peoples rights to call someone transphobic when they are being transphobic. You keep saying you won't be silenced while trying to silence others. You also keep saying you are not transphobic while making constant transpobic comments. Take a look at this link and notice how you made comments that are clearly defined transphobic. You  have done point 1 and 2 and 3 and 9 and probably more all in this thread.
> 
> https://www.anunnakiray.com/2017/08...ueerphobia-intersexphobia-and-homophobia/amp/
> 
> You don't want to be labelled as transphobic then stop making transphobic comments.



I'm not trying to control anyone. You can continue to try to silence me by calling me names, but it isn't going to work because I'm not being phobic and am glad I discovered the truth.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 16, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not trying to control anyone. You can continue to try to silence me by calling me names, but it isn't going to work because I'm not being phobic and am glad I discovered the truth.


Your whole thread is about getting people to stop calling you transphobic when you clearly use transphobic comments as I have demonstrated above in my previous post that had the link in it. 

Also trying to stop people saying you are transhopic is a form of control. You previously stated about your right to freedom of speach yet are trying to stop others having the right to freedom of speach. 

Why are you allowed freedom of speach but when someone else says something that does not fit to you agenda then you try and stop them from using it?


----------



## cots (Jun 16, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Your whole thread is about getting people to stop calling you transphobic when you clearly use transphobic comments as I have demonstrated above in my previous post that had the link in it.
> 
> Also trying to stop people saying you are transhopic is a form of control. You previously stated about your right to freedom of speach yet are trying to stop others having the right to freedom of speach.
> 
> Why are you allowed freedom of speach but when someone else says something that does not fit to you agenda then you try and stop them from using it?



I'd like people to not abuse the term and refuse to let them control me by doing so and encourage others to do the same. You're still free to abuse the term to force your beliefs and behavior on others, nothing is stopping you and I'm not going to stoop down to others level by trying to censor or otherwise control people abusing the term. I simply disagree and refuse to let it effect me anymore and if and when it happens again know that I'm not the one abusing anyone and also state that's what I believe. If then people continue to call me names or try to silence me know that I'm in the right.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If there's no room for interpretation, and it either is or isn't, then my answer to your original question would be a _yes_, not a _no_.


Okay, well since you clearly can't seem to tell, we disagree on this point, so repeating yourself isn't gonna help. If you want to change my mind, stop giving me a half-assed explanation and SHOW me like I asked. For now I'll just assume you can't, and that it doesn't exist.



AmandaRose said:


> Your whole thread is about getting people to stop calling you transphobic when you clearly use transphobic comments as I have demonstrated above in my previous post that had the link in it.
> 
> Also trying to stop people saying you are transhopic is a form of control. You previously stated about your right to freedom of speach yet are trying to stop others having the right to freedom of speach.
> 
> Why are you allowed freedom of speach but when someone else says something that does not fit to you agenda then you try and stop them from using it?


Okay.... you both realize the "freedom of speech" thing only applies to the government, right? It protects you from the GOVERNMENT punishing you for saying things they don't like. Freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with the public vs other members of the public. If you say something stupid in someone's store, for example, they still have every right to throw you out. Or say a forum moderator doesn't like something you said. They have the right to remove it. Seems like a lot of people here like to do this; take buzzwords, and conform them to better suit their agenda.


----------



## cots (Jun 16, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Okay, well since you clearly can't seem to tell, we disagree on this point, so repeating yourself isn't gonna help. If you want to change my mind, stop giving me a half-assed explanation and SHOW me like I asked. For now I'll just assume you can't, and that it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Okay.... you both realize the "freedom of speech" thing only applies to the government, right? It protects you from the GOVERNMENT punishing you for saying things they don't like. Freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with the public vs other members of the public. If you say something stupid in someone's store, for example, they still have every right to throw you out. Or say a forum moderator doesn't like something you said. They have the right to remove it. Seems like a lot of people here like to do this; take buzzwords, and conform them to better suit their agenda.



Indeed. I understand that trans people have been oppressed, but the solution doesn't involve trying to then oppress the others and twist words to try to force them to conform. You're doing the same thing you dislike and are going to cause friction. 

Sort of like how Liberals find it perfectly okay to be racist against a certain skin color - that's not progress.

I filled out a government form a few months back that asked for your "assigned sex at birth" like somehow sugar coating the issue was solving anything. Sort of like calling something a different name because you don't like the original. It doesn't change the original name or meaning. You're either assigned as a Male or female at birth and in very rare cases hermaphrodites are born. I understand that someone might think they are not a male, but that doesn't change the fact they are. If so sex reassignment would be unnecessary as what would it matter if you have Male genitals if having them doesn't represent your sex? 

To actually have the government pay for your therapy or transitioning requires you to have an illness otherwise it would just be cosmetic surgery and that's usually up to the person to pay for themselves. If you fight to have it no longer be categorized as an illness due to stigma then be prepared not to depend on me to pay for something that isn't wrong with you.

People seem to think because I state that it is an illness means I'm somehow against it. I don't hate skitzophrenic people because they are ill. I understand that some people discriminate against people with mental illness, but I'm not one of them. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to deny the fact it is an illness or start calling things different names to make someone who can't deal with criticism feel better. I'm not doing them or myself any favors by pandering to them. People need to learn how to deal with criticism in a constructive manner and not go all ape shit crazy because thier feelings got hurt. How about you learn how to deal with them instead of trying to simply avoid them in a non constructive and dangerous manner.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 16, 2019)

@cots you keep saying you don't want your taxes used to treat transgender people right? But is it not fair to argue that the very same transgender people have also been paying taxes so they have the right to the treatment?


----------



## cots (Jun 16, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> @cots you keep saying you don't want your taxes used to treat transgender people right? But is it not fair to argue that the very same transgender people have also been paying taxes so they have the right to the treatment?



So give me a refund and I'll call it even. Until that happens I will vote against the practice and support anything that limits my taxes being spent on something that you claim isn't an illness therefore shouldn't be a problem.

Unless it is an illness then I suppose it's okay. I don't agree with the treatment, but I also disagree with various other treatment methods for other illnesses. 

I'm not going to pay for you to paint your car blue because you suddenly chose to stop liking its current color or never liked the original color.

Transgender people are free to pay for themselves and I'm sure they're also against some forms of government spending in which case they should also speak up and vote.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 16, 2019)

cots said:


> So give me a refund and I'll call it even. Until that happens I will vote against the practice and support anything that limits my taxes being spent on something that you claim isn't an illness therefore shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> I'm not going to pay for you to paint your car blue because you suddenly chose to stop liking its current color or never liked the original color.
> 
> Transgender people are free to pay for themselves and I'm sure they're also against some forms of government spending in which case they should also speak up and vote.


So do you say the same for drug addiction or alcoholism? Both of which are self inflicted or is it just tragenders you don't wish your taxes to be spent on?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 17, 2019)

cots said:


> Indeed. I understand that trans people have been oppressed, but the solution doesn't involve trying to then oppress the others and twist words to try to force them to conform. You're doing the same thing you dislike and are going to cause friction.
> 
> Sort of like how Liberals find it perfectly okay to be racist against a certain skin color - that's not progress.
> 
> ...


I was literally just commenting on the "freedom of speech" term being used. I didn't feel like scrolling back to find the first quote to mention it, so I said "you both." I agree with just about all your points.


----------



## cots (Jun 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> So do you say the same for drug addiction or alcoholism? Both of which are self inflicted or is it just tragenders you don't wish your taxes to be spent on?



Drug addiction is usually a bad choice that spun out of control. According to some you don't have a choice when it comes to what gender you think you are which is weird because you develop your own identity over time and it's influenced by choices you've made and it can change due to you changing your mind (making a choice). Either way if both are an illness and are hurting people I think that using some of my taxes to help is okay. I also don't agree with chopping anything off as with the rejection possiblity (another choice) I'd feel bad for the person and in general and I think it's gross.

Overall if it's really a bad problem then I would gladly chip in those two instances.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A good realization to have.
> 
> View attachment 169946


This is a great mentality and I agree. At the same time I don't agree with flat earthers just to make them feel better. People can do whatever they want, I legit do not care, I'm just not going to humor imaginary genders for it either.


----------



## cots (Jun 17, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> This is a great mentality and I agree. At the same time I don't agree with flat earthers just to make them feel better. People can do whatever they want, I legit do not care, I'm just not going to humor imaginary genders for it either.



I don't agree with flat earthers (I've seen my share of space shuttle and rocket launches) or ant-vaxxers (meds do have rare side effects,  sometimes - 81mg of aspirin can kill you), but I respect them as people and as long as they don't try to force thier beliefs on me or use my taxes to support their private interests we're all good.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 17, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't agree with flat earthers (I've seen my share of space shuttle and rocket launches) or ant-vaxxers (meds do have rare side effects,  sometimes - 81mg of aspirin can kill you), but I respect them as people and as long as they don't try to force thier beliefs on me or use my taxes to support their private interests we're all good.


But you are assuming that transgender procedures are being paid for out of your taxes when the truth is people in your own country have to self finance the treatment though either their own money or through medical insurance. So your argument about your taxes is somewhat pointless.

https://www.finder.com/pay-for-transgender-surgery-medical-expenses


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Okay, well since you clearly can't seem to tell, we disagree on this point, so repeating yourself isn't gonna help. If you want to change my mind, stop giving me a half-assed explanation and SHOW me like I asked. For now I'll just assume you can't, and that it doesn't exist.



Please calm down.
If you're going to say there's no interpreting a penis or vagina and that it either is or isn't, then some intersex genitalia can't be described as either a penis or a vagina, per your dichotomy. This is why I wanted us to be clear.
I don't find this conversation about intersex genitalia particularly relevant to whether or not intersex people exist, and if intersex people exist, then sex isn't necessarily binary.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A good realization to have.
> 
> View attachment 169946


I think its my competitive personality seeping through. It makes me care more then I should because I’m focused on winning debates and not looking dumb, whatever the topic is.



I don’t really agree with the meme though. You shouldn’t just accept anything, question things. Even for any other topic besides trans. Especially when law is involved, and people are getting somewhat involved. It’s better to learn at least the basics to have an understanding of what going on.


I was also talking more about going too deep into the topic, not about surface level understanding. And I feel the same way with not just the trans topic but also with general politics. I’m spending too much time on this stuff to research it when I have a huge list of goals and things I could do instead. I’m wasting my time.


It wasn’t all a waste though. I learned more about psychology and what gets classified as a disorder. It has to cause distress or negative side effects. Even if it hits all the disorders bullet points, if it doesn’t cause distress then it’s not a disorder. This also applies to transgender.

But now I feel diminishing returns, time is limited and probably better spent elsewhere. If people see me not engaging anymore and try to frame it as me running away because they’ve won the debate then so be it. As long as I spend my time on my goals instead of wasting my time researching to win some internet debate with random people then let them think whatever they want.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 17, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Please calm down.
> If you're going to say there's no interpreting a penis or vagina and that it either is or isn't, then some intersex genitalia can't be described as either a penis or a vagina, per your dichotomy. This is why I wanted us to be clear.
> I don't find this conversation about intersex genitalia particularly relevant to whether or not intersex people exist, and if intersex people exist, then sex isn't necessarily binary.



Stressing one word in caps doesn't really make me upset, but okay.
I did everything I could be be extremely clear after you asked last time. If you still don't get it, that's on you. If you ask me it seems like you're intentionally acting like it's not clear to help push your vague "it's open to interpretation" claim. If it doesn't fit a simple "yes or no," maybe it's because it's imaginary, like I originally said.

You still haven't been able to show me a 3rd gender, so going to continue to disagree with you here. Again.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Jun 17, 2019)

I'd like to take a moment to thank all sides of this debate for remaining civil. 

I wasn't aware GBAtemp could be this mature. 

Thank you.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t really agree with the meme though. You shouldn’t just accept anything, question things.


That's not what the quote is saying.  Questioning THINGS is great, but you don't need to question why people are who they are.  Odds are that's only going to lead to arguments or feelings being hurt, and you won't learn anything new from it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 17, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> I did everything I could be be extremely clear after you asked last time. If you still don't get it, that's on you. If you ask me it seems like you're intentionally acting like it's not clear to help push your vague "it's open to interpretation" claim. If it doesn't fit a simple "yes or no," maybe it's because it's imaginary, like I originally said.


I'm not sure what your point is anymore, so I will summarize my view. My point is that sex isn't necessarily binary, and if your point is that there are only two kinds of genitalia (male and female), you are mistaken. Intersex genitalia can be neither male nor female, and if we use your parameters (i.e. there's no room for interpretation), then you agree with me. If you want to argue that intersex genitalia can always be interpreted to be either male or female, then that would require the suspension of your parameters. That would also be a difficult position to defend.



MadMageKefka said:


> You still haven't been able to show me a 3rd gender, so going to continue to disagree with you here. Again.


Are we talking about sex, or are we talking about gender?

If we are talking about sex, which is what I thought we were doing, then I refer you to my response above about people who are intersex.
If we are talking about gender, then I refer you to anybody who identifies as anything other than male or female (e.g. non-binary).


----------



## cots (Jun 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> But you are assuming that transgender procedures are being paid for out of your taxes when the truth is people in your own country have to self finance the treatment though either their own money or through medical insurance. So your argument about your taxes is somewhat pointless.
> 
> https://www.finder.com/pay-for-transgender-surgery-medical-expenses



The page doesn't specifically look at insurance companies involved in the process. It's a general outline of ways you could possibly pay for the procedure yourself (which is good because I rather not pay for it). Which insurance company are they using? If they are using various medical insurance programs paid by the Government then they are using my money. If they are using a Government entity to pay for their procedure (like any of the armed services) they are using my money. If they are using a private insurance company that is not subsidized the Government, which they pay their own premiums, deductibles and for their own procedures than they aren't using my money.

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



Lacius said:


> Are we talking about sex, or are we talking about gender?
> 
> If we are talking about sex, which is what I thought we were doing, then I refer you to my response above about people who are intersex.
> If we are talking about gender, then I refer you to anybody who identifies as anything other than male or female (e.g. non-binary).



Hermaphrodite's don't have a third sex. These rare individuals have a mixture of the two due to rare mutations. Did I mention rare? Most trans people don't suffer from any sort of rare mutations, they simply don't like the fact they were either born a female or a male, which is determined by if they have a male or female reproductive system. In rare cases some people are born with two heads, but we don't go around trying to make up and justify the use of fallacies on the basis of something that barely ever happens. I don't even see why using hermaphrodite's as an example is even considered a valid excuse to argue your points with. It's a way to divert from the real fact that most people are either born a female or a male. How you "feel" about the penis you have between your legs doesn't change the fact you have a penis between you legs and if you chop it off it doesn't change the fact that you were born a male and used to have a penis between your legs. I don't see why people fall for or even need to consider arguing over the rare crap that never really even happens - it's a trap. I mean, a jumbo jet could possibly burst into flames and crash into my apartment - so because of this rare possibility we should redesign and rebuild every building on earth to be able to handle taking a jumbo jet crashing into them? 

@MadMageKefka - I'd simply move on from this line of debate. It's useless and he's trying to trap you into arguing about something that is rarely the case to justify something that is normally not the case. It's pretty pointless, he's wrong and is desperate. That's it. Pretty simple.


----------



## Kigiru (Jun 17, 2019)

People live in misinformed, outraged society where people's feelings and mood are affected by media and politicians.

Here's my take: You can be black, you can be gay, you can be trans, you can be whatever the heck you want and i'll support you unless obviously your ways of life will directly threaten my ways of life, in this case we will need to settle it down somehow.
And by "you" i mean person, not a member of some letter soup movement like LGBT++++whatever or BLM, these things were created and maintained exactly by people that want to control and abuse your sexuality, gender and skin color and i would feel freaking disgusted with myself if i would compromise anybody's existence to these things lol.
This is also this "pride month" bs feels awful for me - It's glorification of person's one single trait that in wider scale does not make them good or bad. There's in every person on Earth hundreds of better things to be prideful of. Your talents, your hard work, your kindness... Don't let you guys and gals and other friendly people put yourself into these crappy brackets separating you from others...

I'm starting to rant mindlessly... but you probably see - I'm pretty fed up in how is working now and angry at elites abusing things like sexuality, skin color, beliefs etc. for their own agenda.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 17, 2019)

Kigiru said:


> People live in misinformed, outraged society where people's feelings and mood are affected by media and politicians.
> 
> This is also this "pride month" bs feels awful for me - It's glorification of person's one single trait that in wider scale does not make them good or bad. There's in every person on Earth hundreds of better things to be prideful of. Your talents, your hard work, your kindness... Don't let you guys and gals and other friendly people put yourself into these crappy brackets separating you from others..


You talk about misinformed people then talk about pride when you actually have no idea what pride is actually about. It's about commemorating the Stonewall riots that took place in June 28/29 1969 and about having pride in the people who stood up for our community during said riot. It's not about glorifying one personal trait as you claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots?wprov=sfla1


----------



## Kigiru (Jun 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> You talk about misinformed people then talk about pride when you actually have no idea what pride is actually about. It's about commemorating the Stonewall riots that took place in June 28/29 1969 and about having pride in the people who stood up for our community during said riot. It's not about glorifying one personal trait as you claim.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots?wprov=sfla1



That's cool, but then why so many people commemorating Pride Month are freaks in what can be only called huge orgies in the middle of the street? Why children are more often than not dragged into it? Why it pretty much always goes along with hostility towards oh-so-scary Whytemale boogeyman?

If this is your way to remember these brave people then be fucking aware that you are insulting them by turning their sacrifice into reason to normalize obscene perversion. And there's still nothing to be prideful of for you.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 17, 2019)

Kigiru said:


> That's cool, but then why so many people commemorating Pride Month are freaks in what can be only called huge orgies in the middle of the street? Why children are more often than not dragged into it? Why it pretty much always goes along with hostility towards oh-so-scary Whytemale boogeyman?
> 
> If this is your way to remember these brave people then be fucking aware that you are insulting them by turning their sacrifice into reason to normalize obscene perversion. And there's still nothing to be prideful of for you.


But that's you assuming that every pride event around the world is like that when it is not. You can't just make a general assumption about something when you don't actually know. I can assure you any pride event in my country is not like what you seem to assume it is like.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> I'd simply move on from this line of debate. It's useless and he's trying to trap you into arguing about something that is rarely the case to justify something that is normally not the case. It's pretty pointless, he's wrong and is desperate. That's it. Pretty simple.


It's not really a debate at this point, more just humoring him to prove despite it, he still isn't going to / can't provide the evidence I asked for. I think multiple pages over multiple days should suffice...




Lacius said:


> Are we talking about sex, or are we talking about gender?
> 
> If we are talking about sex, which is what I thought we were doing, then I refer you to my response above about people who are intersex.
> If we are talking about gender, then I refer you to anybody who identifies as anything other than male or female (e.g. non-binary).


...yup. Okay, so first off, sex and gender are the same thing. I have been arguing that since the beginning. You clearly don't agree, but if you wish to not be confused, assume I am speaking as if they are synonymous (which they are).

So, to avoid further "confusion," assume we are talking about your #1, and show me a SEX that is neither male, nor female. If you have a penis, but feel like a woman inside, you are a boy. I already know A LOT of people reading this aren't gonna like it, but we can't all like how we are born, none of us get to choose. If you wanna THINK you're a girl, dress like them, get surgery to have the non-functioning parts of one, that's your choice and I legitimately do not care, however, until someone can show me a 3rd set of genitals, there are 2 genders / sexes. Penis equals boy, vagina equals girl.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Penis equals boy, vagina equals girl.


Thank you for finally agreeing that I am a woman as I have a vagina. Much appreciated.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Thank you for finally agreeing that I am a woman as I have a vagina. Much appreciated.





MadMageKefka said:


> I already know A LOT of people reading this aren't gonna like it, but we can't all like how we are born, none of us get to choose.





MadMageKefka said:


> born


Clearly reading into context isn't your strong suit.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Clearly reading into context isn't your strong suit.


Clearly a sense of humour is not your strong suit  especially sarcastic humour


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Clearly a sense of humour is not your strong suit


Just wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> It's not really a debate at this point, more just humoring him to prove despite it, he still isn't going to / can't provide the evidence I asked for. I think multiple pages over multiple days should suffice...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sex and gender are not the same thing.


----------



## Damon_girl (Jun 18, 2019)

Just casually stating my opinion on the matter, don’t mind me.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 18, 2019)

Best to get along with everyone, but, I will say I strongly disagree with giving children hormones, that should be something you can only personally decide as an adult.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Sex and gender are not the same thing.


Compelling argument, but I'm going to continue to disagree. You still haven't shown me what I asked for.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Best to get along with everyone, but, I will say I strongly disagree with giving children hormones, that should be something you can only personally decide as an adult.


 I see people say that alot so I'm curious what countries are allowing children to be given hormones? Because in all of Europe excluding Great Britain and Ireland and I think Iceland the minimum age is 18. And for Britain/Ireland/and Iceland it's generally 18 but is some case they can be given to 16 year olds.

Also very few people in the trans community would be happy for anyone younger to get them either.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 18, 2019)

This is from the comments:

"My grandma had all boys but wanted a girl so she used to dress my dad as a girl sometimes as a young child. Fast forward a few dacades, and after living as a man and marrying my mom and having me, he surgically chopped his dick and balls off and now lives as a woman. He says cutting his balls off was one of the best things he ever did in life. However, I remember a few years ago my dad telling me that he was interested in getting into teaching or being a tutor, and presenting as male (this was after he had already turned himself into a woman). I think my dad is just really fucking confused. I feel bad for him. You can't change gender. I think it's delusional to try. I'm sorry. I can't help how I feel about it. I tried not to. I really did. I feel guilty about even having these thoughts and feelings at all. I haven't told my dad any of this. I can't bare the thought of hurting him like that. I love and accept my dad, but I simultaneously wish that he wouldn't have run away from his masculinity, and surgically mutilated his body. When I show pictures of what he used to look like to people, the overwhelming response is that he used to be a good looking guy, but that he ruined it. It's sad. I just keep quiet about how I feel. He is also married to another "MTF". I just have so many mixed feelings and it drives me insane. I think my dad is just very confused. He seems to love his "female" life though, even though it played a huge part in my parents' divorce and lead to a couple siblings completely disowning him. He must feel very strongly about it apparently though. I don't understand, and never will. At least he's happy. I guess that's all that matters. *shrug*"

It's sad to me how all this gets pushed upon us by the media and people get permanently alter their lives in ways that cannot be reversed.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 18, 2019)

Maluma said:


> It's sad to me how all this gets pushed upon us by the media and people get permanently alter their lives in ways that cannot be reversed.


Do you have any examples whatsoever, or is this just more conspiracy theory nonsense about subliminal messaging?  Because I see an insane amount of commercials pushing prescription drugs on people, but not a single one pushing homosexuality or transsexuality.  These are some of the most persecuted groups in America, so nobody is gay or trans for the 'glory' of it.  That much I can assure you.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Do you have any examples whatsoever, or is this just more conspiracy theory nonsense about subliminal messaging?  Because I see an insane amount of commercials pushing prescription drugs on people, but not a single one pushing homosexuality or transsexuality.



The proof is that 20 years ago no one would even be debating these things on a gameboy forum.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 18, 2019)

Maluma said:


> The proof is that 20 years ago no one would even be debating these things on a gameboy forum.


That's not proof.  To steal a quote from John Oliver, in the 70s people thought Liberace just hadn't found the right woman yet.  The US remained willfully ignorant about the LGBTQ community as long as we possibly could.  That doesn't mean it didn't exist.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Compelling argument, but I'm going to continue to disagree. You still haven't shown me what I asked for.


If you're too stubborn to acknowledge that sex refers to one's anatomy and gender refers to one's roles and identity, then I see no reason to continue this conversation. We have to agree on terms to be able to have effective discourse.

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



cots said:


> Hermaphrodite's don't have a third sex. These rare individuals have a mixture of the two due to rare mutations. Did I mention rare? Most trans people don't suffer from any sort of rare mutations, they simply don't like the fact they were either born a female or a male, which is determined by if they have a male or female reproductive system. In rare cases some people are born with two heads, but we don't go around trying to make up and justify the use of fallacies on the basis of something that barely ever happens. I don't even see why using hermaphrodite's as an example is even considered a valid excuse to argue your points with. It's a way to divert from the real fact that most people are either born a female or a male. How you "feel" about the penis you have between your legs doesn't change the fact you have a penis between you legs and if you chop it off it doesn't change the fact that you were born a male and used to have a penis between your legs. I don't see why people fall for or even need to consider arguing over the rare crap that never really even happens - it's a trap. I mean, a jumbo jet could possibly burst into flames and crash into my apartment - so because of this rare possibility we should redesign and rebuild every building on earth to be able to handle taking a jumbo jet crashing into them?


There's a lot to unpack here.

I'm not explicitly talking about _hermaphrodites_.
The rarity of intersex individuals (not that rare, actually) is irrelevant to my point about sex not necessarily being binary.
Some people are not born the male sex nor the female sex.
Having a penis in-between one's legs, for example, doesn't invalidate one's female identity. There's a difference between sex and gender, and one's gender identity doesn't necessarily match one's sex.
Being a trans female doesn't change that she was born with a penis, correct. There's a difference between sex and gender, and that's what makes her a trans female.
It doesn't matter how rare an occurrence is. Intersex people exist. Trans people exist. A person doesn't cease to exist because that group hasn't met your quota for viability.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's not proof.  To steal a quote from John Oliver, in the 70s people thought Liberace just hadn't found the right woman yet.  The US remained willfully ignorant about the LGBTQ community as long as we possibly could.  That doesn't mean it didn't exist.


You have to ask yourself why the gameboy nerds are so passionate about this particular subject. I don't think it's just a coincidence that gameboy nerds almost unanimously support that being transsexual is not a mental disorder. LGBT is not anything new and has been a part of society since the beginning of humanity, the only thing that changes from time to time is the way that people view it.

If it is so natural to support LGBT, why are regions like Africa and the Middle East so vehemently against it?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 18, 2019)

Maluma said:


> You have to ask yourself why the gameboy nerds are so passionate about this particular subject.


I've encountered just as many gamers who are vehemently against any mention of it, so this seems to be anecdotal at best.



Maluma said:


> If it is so natural to support LGBT, why are regions like Africa and the Middle East so vehemently against it?


When did I say it was 'natural' to support LGBTQ?  It's actually the opposite, people tend to hate what they don't understand, and that's why trans individuals are still constantly victimized, even in the US.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've encountered just as many gamers who are vehemently against any mention of it, so this seems to be anecdotal at best.
> 
> 
> *When did I say it was 'natural' to support LGBTQ*?  It's actually the opposite, people tend to hate what they don't understand, and that's why trans individuals are still constantly victimized, even in the US.


So you are saying it's not natural to support LGBTQ.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 18, 2019)

Maluma said:


> So you are saying it's not natural to support LGBTQ.


Nature doesn't play a role here at all.  People choose whether to be bigoted or not, and whether to remain ignorant or not.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nature doesn't play a role here at all.  People choose whether to be bigoted or not, and whether to remain ignorant or not.



I am not a bigot though. Here is the definition of bigot. 

big·ot
/ˈbiɡət/
Learn to pronounce
_noun_

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.


In this particular case, I agree with your assertion that it isn't natural to support LGBTQ as stated in one of your previous post. I also respect that people have the freewill to believe that mutilating their anatomy is a valid response to a mental illness.

It is my belief that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, I don't think by definition it makes me a bigot to have a different opinion though. If someone wants to believe the earth is flat, I am not one to challenge their right in that belief. However, I do not think that disagreeing that the earth is flat makes me a bigot.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There's a lot to unpack here.
> 
> I'm not explicitly talking about _hermaphrodites_.
> The rarity of intersex individuals (not that rare, actually) is irrelevant to my point about sex not necessarily being binary.
> ...



My point was that most trans people aren't hermaphrodites (a very rare mutation). Using that as an excuse to justify it when it doesn't apply to you doesn't win any brownie points. So it doesn't apply to most people and I'm addressing what applies to most people so it's irrelevant. You're focusing on the rare mutation like it applies to everyday situations. Your tactics don't fly with me. Most trans people simply chose to identify as something that they feel like they are, not something they actually are. Someone mentioned that my example of trans person who believes that you're transphobic if you don't have sex with him/her has been said to be invalided and shouldn't be used an example because it's a rare case. You can't have it both ways people.

Anyway, that also doesn't change the fact that there are two sexes. I'm not arguing that people identify as a female when they were born a male. I can go around thinking all day long that I'm a parakeet and even cut my arms off and replace them with synthetic wings, doesn't change the fact that I'm a human that for whatever reason thinks I'm a bird. So their gender identity is female and their original birth sex was male - they are still a male. Nothing changed. If you cut off your penis and identify as a women then you're a male that cut off his penis that thinks he's a female. I understand that sex and gender used to be the considered the same thing and granted it took me a while to see why they are now different when I was taught they were the same, but your gender is simply what you identify as and it doesn't change your sex, which, I remind you, in most cases is either female or male and in rare cases is a mixture between the two, which is not a third, forth or whatever you want to call each variation - it's a mutation, not a different sex.

Sorta makes me wonder why you have to address a trans person using either "he" or "she" not "it" or any other word. Surely, if there are more than 2 sexes you'd be in the right to address them as a "it". 

So you've got your assigned sex at birth and then what you identify as. I suppose it would be polite to address the person as what they identify as, if that's what they want you to address them as, but calling a rooster a horse doesn't change the fact that the rooster isn't a horse and the rooster would also be in the wrong to get up in your face and give you shit because you called him a rooster when you had no idea he wanted to be called a horse.

I wonder if I try to sell my old stapler and advertise it as a Nintendo Switch, ship it to the buyer and then claim that I identify it differently if I could avoid a charge back to my credit card when I refuse to refund the money while claiming that by doing so would hurt my feelings therefor the buyer is being phobic and I'm the victim.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 18, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I am not a bigot though. Here is the definition of bigot.


I didn't say you were, I used 'people' very much in the general sense.  'Bigoted' in that sentence can also be replaced by any number of other adjectives with similar meaning, such as transphobic, hateful, intolerant, etc.  People make the choice to act in that manner, it's not a matter of genetics.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

Ah so now someone has popped up and is going on about  genital mutilation let's address that shall we.


The phrase genital mutilation is a transphobic sentiment filled with irony. Really dark irony.

The same people who accuse trans people who decide to undergo surgery of “genital mutilation” often circumcise their sons. Or are circumcised. And how many of these people _chose _to get the procedure? Did _they _have to go through countless therapists and consultations to get circumcised? Did _they _have to have multiple professionals give them a letter of permission to be circumcised? No. And neither did the parents who did it to them.

Circumcision literally is, by all accounts, actual genital mutilation that is no less reprehensible than female infant circumcision sometimes practiced in other nations. And almost all of the amab people who are circumcised didn’t have a say in the procedure (unlike transitioning).

But what about men who are happy with their circumcisions, the men who prefer life without foreskin? Almost every single “I’m grateful” story I’ve heard from circumcised men rationalizes it with either a) “But women prefer this!” or b) “But now I don’t have to clean it





Oh, right, okay. We can cut skin off of a baby’s penis because it’ll be easier for him to get laid in the future (because isn’t that the first thing we all think of when we see are newborns? “Aww, welcome to the world. Now how can I make you more fuckable?”), or because he’s too damn lazy to practice hygiene (I mean, we all have to wipe our asses after we shit…we don’t try to remove them because wiping is too much of a hassle.) And this totally makes sense, apparently, but undergoing transitional surgery because it is literally _actively painful and excruciating _to have the wrong body is “mutilation.”

And for that matter, who decides where the line at “mutilation” is drawn? What about tattoos, piercings, or haircuts? Or is it only mutilation when it offends you?

Whether or not something is considered mutilation should be determined logically, not with some knee-jerk reaction. So _logically, _we should ask:


Was it consensual?
Was it life-threatening?
How does the person feel about it?
On that note, we shouldn’t consider a mother cutting her toddlers hair mutilation (even if the child may have fussed about it). Why? It isn’t actually dangerous, and the kid probably doesn’t actually care much. Should we consider it mutilation if a father forced his toddler to get a tattoo? Yes, we probably should…hence why this is illegal. Why? A child cannot consent to this, it may become infected, and the child may not have wanted this but is now practically stuck with it permanently.

But using these guidelines, we can see that any trans person who undergoes surgery is _not _being mutilated because they consent to the operation, it isn’t any more risky than other surgeries, and generally, it saves a person from a life of debilitating discomfort

HOWEVER, the topic of mutilation gets even more…interesting…when we take intersex infants into account. Intersex newborns go through _forced _sex-reassignment surgeries regularly. But where is all the protest for this? Are we again going to tolerate legitimate genital mutilation (even it it _is _sex-reassignment) on the basis of future potential for sexual attraction? The mutilation of intersex children is often justified with “but no one will want to sleep with a h************e!” So? Shouldn’t we instead be teaching society to value these people, instead of telling everyone it makes sense to be disgusted by intersex people? But even so, one of the most common (if not _the _most) reasoning behind forced surgeries for intersex newborns is so that mothers are able to bond better. Imagine that. Imagine having to go through _sex-reassignment surgery when you’re an infant just for your mother to properly love you.*



 



Another statement that ties in with the above is the following. 

You should love your body the way God made it!

Mhm. I wonder how many Christian women love the hair god put on their armpits. I wonder how many Christian men love the hair god put on women’s vaginas, for that matter. How many men love their body enough to not take protein shakes? How many women are happy with their natural eyebrows? How many people love the natural scent god endowed us with during puberty?

Any time you shave, get a hair cut, brush your teeth, paint your nails, put on makeup, get a spray tan, clip your nails, take “male enhancement pills,” or put on perfume/cologne, you are changing something natural about your body. 

Do women who get spray tans hate themselves? It’s not likely. Do men who shave their beards lack self-respect? Probably not. Do either of these categories of people inherently hate god and deserve to burn in hell for those actions? Let me guess, most people would probably say “no.” And they’re right. And trans people who chose to physically transition are no different.



We get into a bit of a different tone when it comes to matters of plastic surgery. Because while trans people are often under scrutiny for altering their bodies via surgery, many cis people are as well (though to a lesser extent). Society still clings to an arbitrary notion of “realness” and women with butt implants or lip injections are often deemed “fake.” Still, this isn’t exactly the same line of criticism against trans people who undergo surgery (who are considered “fake” in another sense), because these people are more frequently seen as perverted people who do so for sexual gratification or due to dangerous delusions. If anything, cis people (namely women) who undergo plastic surgery are pitied as having been pressured into their choices by a society with rigid beauty standards.

But needless to say, there are many cis people who get plastic surgery of their own volition who pay no regard to beauty standards. This is especially, but not only, true of people like María José Cristerna and others with an alternative aesthetic.



 

Things like nose jobs or liposuction might still carry a bit of stigma, but overall: These things make people happier and typically, (also hypocritically) society enjoys seeing the results. It’s essentially a win-win, or would be, if we weren’t so attached to this fake sense of authenticity. People who get nose jobs or lipo are no less themselves than they were before.

Let me repeat that: Those who alter their physical appearance by any means (be it cosmetics, surgery, push-up bras, dieting, bodybuilding, etc) are still themselves. And any implication otherwise relies on this toxic and shallow assertion that the reality of someone is inherently tied to their appearance.

That’s right. Those who get breast implants or whatever aren’t the “fake” or shallow ones, it’s those who think your “real self” is ultimately just however someone looks. So next time you’re feeling sanctimonious because you still have your “real” eyebrows and a “real” butt, maybe learn that no one gives a shit about how “real” you body is….your “real” self should lie in your personality, and by being a decent human being. Afterall, who would you rather be friends with: A “real” person who is deceptive, judgemental and manipulating, or someone who had work done but is sweet and cares about you?

So to conclude, unless you’re an intactivist, intersex-right’s activist who looks like this




 

You’re being hypocritical any time you judge a trans person for altering their body (in a way that literally doesn’t affect you any way), because you damn well aren’t in a natural pristine condition either._


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> My point was that most trans people aren't hermaphrodites (a very rare mutation). Using that as an excuse to justify it when it doesn't apply to you doesn't win any brownie points. So it doesn't apply to most people and I'm addressing what applies to most people so it's irrelevant. You're focusing on the rare mutation like it applies to everyday situations. Your tactics don't fly with me. Most trans people simply chose to identify as something that they feel like they are, not something they actually are. Someone mentioned that my example of trans person who believes that you're transphobic if you don't have sex with him/her has been said to be invalided and shouldn't be used an example because it's a rare case. You can't have it both ways people.
> 
> Anyway, that also doesn't change the fact that there are two sexes. I'm not arguing that people identify as a female when they were born a male. I can go around thinking all day long that I'm a parakeet and even cut my arms off and replace them with synthetic wings, doesn't change the fact that I'm a human that for whatever reason thinks I'm a bird. So their gender identity is female and their original birth sex was male - they are still a male. Nothing changed. If you cut off your penis and identify as a women then you're a male that cut off his penis that thinks he's a female. I understand that sex and gender used to be the considered the same thing and granted it took me a while to see why they are now different when I was taught they were the same, but your gender is simply what you identify as and it doesn't change your sex, which, I remind you, in most cases is either female or male and in rare cases is a mixture between the two, which is not a third, forth or whatever you want to call each variation - it's a mutation, not a different sex.
> 
> ...


Disclaimer: I didn't read your whole post, since what I read grossly mischaracterizes the purpose of my most recent posts.

The conversation I've been having lately is about the fact that sex is not necessarily binary, not about trans people. I'm not using intersex people to justify the trans experience. I'm using intersex people to explain that sex is not necessarily binary.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're too stubborn to acknowledge that sex refers to one's anatomy and gender refers to one's roles and identity, then I see no reason to continue this conversation. We have to agree on terms to be able to have effective discourse.




Concede, or the conversation is over.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Concede, or the conversation is over.



I don't think I was responding to you, so I don't think you have any say regarding when my conversation is over.
I'm not sure what you're wanting me to concede.
Sex and gender, by definition, are not the same thing, regardless of one's beliefs about whether or not one's gender always comports with one's sex. This part is not controversial.
If one wants to argue that there's no difference between the two words, then we can't have a conversation about sex and gender since we need to agree on terminology before having a spirited debate.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Ah so now someone has popped up and is going on about  genital mutilation let's address that shall we.



Minor modifications like ear piercings, circumcision or cutting your hair could technically fit under mutilating something, but that's a stretch and doesn't' come to simply cutting on an entire sexual organ. If you don't see any distinction between cutting your finger nails to chopping off your penis then you need to seek help.

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

So, it's commonly know, for whatever reasons, that trans people are prone to kill themselves in greater rates then people with other lifestyles. So this doesn't surprise me. I mean, you chose to live a risky lifestyle and shit happens then that's sorta how the risk factor fits into it. I know as I've been in many situations were keeping my sexual preference to myself was less risky then not. Sad, but true. As for the links below, I believe the first two can explain the 3rd.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/californias-new-sex-ed-program-is-legalized-lewd-conduct

https://www.hometownlife.com/story/news/2019/06/11/library-hosts-pride-week-story-time/1411929001/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids...eople-reach-their-highest-level-2000-n1018376


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't think I was responding to you, so I don't think you have any say regarding when my conversation is over.
> I'm not sure what you're wanting me to concede.
> Sex and gender, by definition, are not the same thing, regardless of one's beliefs about whether or not one's gender always comports with one's sex. This part is not controversial.
> If one wants to argue that there's no difference between the two words, then we can't have a conversation about sex and gender since we need to agree on terminology before having a spirited debate.




My post was a condensed restatement of your post, which I quoted. You're telling @MadMageKefka that if he doesn't concede to your definitions and worldview, you won't have a discussion. You repeated this expectation at #4 above. You are in effect stating that you will not debate whether or not your definition of "gender" is valid. The opposing person in the conversation must concede to your definition of "gender" in order for there to be a conversation at all. In other words, you're insisting on winning the debate before it begins.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> My post was a condensed restatement of your post, which I quoted. You're telling @MadMageKefka that if doesn't concede to your definitions and worldview, you won't have a discussion. You repeated this expectation at #4 above. You are in effect stating that you will not debate whether or not your definition of "gender" is valid. The opposing person in the conversation must concede to your definition of "gender" in order for there to be a conversation at all. In other words, you're insisting on winning the debate before it begins.



His approach to the argument is dishonest to say the least (example, the derailing attempts).


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> My post was a condensed restatement of your post, which I quoted. You're telling @MadMageKefka that if doesn't concede to your definitions and worldview, you won't have a discussion. You repeated this expectation at #4 above. You are in effect stating that you will not debate whether or not your definition of "gender" is valid. The opposing person in the conversation must concede to your definition of "gender" in order for there to be a conversation at all. In other words, you're insisting on winning the debate before it begins.


It's actually the other way around. He's insisting that gender and sex are synonymous (they're not), which makes talking about whether or not one's gender always comports with one's sex over before it begins. If we define the two words identically, then one's gender necessarily has to match one's sex by definition.

Fortunately, one deals with anatomy, and the other deals with roles and identity. Once that's acknowledged, we can actually talk about whether or not one's gender always comports with one's sex (it doesn't).



cots said:


> His approach to the argument is dishonest to say the least (example, the derailing attempts).


When have I derailed? Please use specific quotes.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> Minor modifications like ear piercings, circumcision or cutting your hair could technically fit under mutilating something, but that's a stretch and doesn't' come to simply cutting on an entire sexual organ. If you don't see any distinction between cutting your finger nails to chopping off your penis then you need to seek help.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Ok so you want to talk about the suicide rate in the trans community.

Lets start with Europe which out of all the continents is the most accepting of the trans community where there is very little transphobic hatred and a trans suicide rate of 3% witch is equal to other suicide rates. Let's break it down further and look at the three most accepting countries in Europe of the trans comunity

Spain trans suicide rate is 1.5%
Italy trans suicide rate is also 1.5%
My own country of Scotland trans suicide rate of 1%

Now let's look at North America especially the USA which has a high rate of transphobic crime.

Suicide rate in the trans community 38%

Surely you can see why the suicide rate is so high in America?

Also funny how the three most vocal people against the trans community in this thread are  @cots @MadMageKefka  and @Hanafuda are yes you guessed it American.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's actually the other way around.



No it's not. You're insisting on your opinion being given as the truth, and his as rubbish, before you'll even discuss. 




> He's insisting that gender and sex are synonymous *(they're not)*



See, right there.




> which makes talking about whether or not one's gender always comports with one's sex over before it begins. *If we define the two words identically, then one's gender necessarily has to match one's sex by definition.*



Yeah, that's what he's saying. You disagree? Fine. What do you have to disprove it? What does he have to disprove your opinion? _That's_ the discussion.

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



AmandaRose said:


> Also funny how the three most vocal people against the trans community in this thread are  @cots @MadMageKefka  and @Hanafuda are yes you guessed it American.



Nice generalization. You'd be good at rounding up all people of a certain type for the concentration camps.

I simply don't accept that a person with a dong who thinks he's a woman is actually a woman. He's a person with an identified psychiatric disorder. But that doesn't make him eligible to compete in the women's 100m dash. I don't believe anyone's rights are being violated to insist that penises go to the men's facilities, vaginas go to the women's facilities. If that sounds like crazy talk to you, and makes me a bad person in your opinon, I'm sorry. If that reinforces your stereotypes and preconceived notions of "Americans" for some reason, good for you. More confirmation bias in your life is sure to make you feel better.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jun 18, 2019)

I still believe gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and should be treated as such, no matter what the WHO says.
Transgender people have the highest rate of suicide out of any minority, doesn't that seem strange? Maybe it's because they're fucked in the head that's why.

I don't want people dying and I don't want people so confused with themselves that they literally believe they're in the wrong body, this doesn't make me transphobic (my auto-correct doesn't even think that exists), it makes me a decent person for wanting other's well being.

If you wanna dress more feminine, or more masculine regardless of your gender, do it, go ahead, I believe that's normal and some people have personal preferences, but wanting to chop your dick off or attaching a useless piece of meat to your fanny, that's not normal.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

Pacheko17 said:


> I still believe gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and should be treated as such, no matter what the WHO says.
> Transgender people have the highest rate of suicide out of any minority, doesn't that seem strange? Maybe it's because they're fucked in the head that's why.
> 
> I don't want people dying and I don't want people so confused with themselves that they literally believe they're in the wrong body, this doesn't make me transphobic (my auto-correct doesn't even think that exists), it makes me a decent person for wanting other's well being.
> ...


Did you not see my post two above your's that clearly talks about the suicide rate?


----------



## Damon_girl (Jun 18, 2019)

Pacheko17 said:


> I still believe gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and should be treated as such, no matter what the WHO says.
> Transgender people have the highest rate of suicide out of any minority, doesn't that seem strange? Maybe it's because they're fucked in the head that's why.
> 
> I don't want people dying and I don't want people so confused with themselves that they literally believe they're in the wrong body, this doesn't make me transphobic (my auto-correct doesn't even think that exists), it makes me a decent person for wanting other's well being.
> ...


I absolutely agree. I don’t care what people do with their lives, but I don’t have to support it either. To me it’s wrong, so I’m not gonna try to do the impossible and change the sex I was born as, nor would I ever date a trans person either. That’s not transphobic, it’s called having a preference, just so we’re clear.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> No it's not. You're insisting on your opinion being given as the truth, and his as rubbish, before you'll even discuss.


_Disclaimer: My intention was not to come off as catty when I typed the following, but I probably could have edited it better._

It's not my opinion. It's how the words are largely used. Regardless of any of that, if he wants to use different definitions for these words, then it's hard to have a conversation involving those words.

If he's so stubborn that he refuses to use the words correctly, then we can just assign labels to what we're talking about instead. For example, we can use the made-up word _sexflembaggin_ for one's anatomy, and we can use the made-up word _gendorgon_ for one's roles and identity. Doing this would allow us to have a conversation about whether or not one's _sexflembaggin_ necessarily comports with one's _gendorgon_, all while preserving his delicate feelings about the words _gender_ and _sex_, but I would find this to be an unnecessary waste of time. He could just improve his vocabulary or, if he's going to remain stubborn, temporarily accept the above definitions for the sake of conversation. Refusing to use the words properly does nothing to make his point nor counter mine. It merely alters the semantic parameters of the conversation, and I'm not particularly interested in the kind of semantic masturbation that falsely appears to demonstrate an argument (i.e. "one's gender comports with one's sex because the words are synonymous") when it actually has no bearing on what's true about the topic.



Hanafuda said:


> See, right there.


_Sex_ and _gender_ are not necessarily synonymous, and it's not how I'm using those words. To ignore what I mean when I use those words is to sidestep the conversation. See above for how we could arbitrarily change the labels, and it wouldn't matter. I'm more interested in actual arguments over semantic arguments.



Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, that's what he's saying. You disagree? Fine. What do you have to disprove it? What does he have to disprove your opinion? _That's_ the discussion.


I agree that if we define the two words identically, then one's gender necessarily has to match one's sex by definition. It's not particularly relevant to whether or not one's identity necessarily has to match one's physiology, which is the conversation I'm interesting in having. See above for more detail on why this kind of semantic masterbation bores me. He can either accept how the words _sex_ and _gender_ are used (even if it's temporarily), change the labels, or leave the conversation.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 18, 2019)

Damon_girl said:


> I absolutely agree. I don’t care what people do with their lives, but I don’t have to support it either. To me it’s wrong, so I’m not gonna try to do the impossible and change the sex I was born as, nor would I ever date a trans person either. That’s not transphobic, it’s called having a preference, just so we’re clear.




American. hmmph. Figures.


(j/k)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

Pacheko17 said:


> Transgender people have the highest rate of suicide out of any minority, doesn't that seem strange? Maybe it's because they're fucked in the head that's why.


Suicide rates are higher for trans people, gay people, etc. because of how these people are treated by society. This is one of the many reasons why these aren't mental disorders.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Suicide rates are higher for trans people, gay people, etc. because of how these people are treated by society. This is one of the many reasons why these aren't mental disorders.


Which again backs up the suicide figures I posted above.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're too stubborn to acknowledge that sex refers to one's anatomy and gender refers to one's roles and identity, then I see no reason to continue this conversation. We have to agree on terms to be able to have effective discourse.





Lacius said:


> Disclaimer: I didn't read your whole post, since what I read grossly mischaracterizes the purpose of my most recent posts.
> 
> The conversation I've been having lately is about the fact that sex is not necessarily binary, not about trans people. I'm not using intersex people to justify the trans experience. I'm using intersex people to explain that sex is not necessarily binary.


...and yet instead of showing me the third SEX, you continue to argue that sex and gender are not the same. I already told you what I meant according to your own terms. If you still refuse to show me what I asked for, I'm just going to continue to assume you cant.


AmandaRose said:


> Ah so now someone has popped up and is going on about  genital mutilation let's address that shall we.
> 
> 
> The phrase genital mutilation is a transphobic sentiment filled with irony. Really dark irony.
> ...


Did you seriously just compare genital surgery to a hair cut? Okay, lets ignore that insane claim for a second... I dont think anyone here has tried to defend plastic surgery at all, so youre kinda pulling this argument from nowhere. Also, Im sorry, while I agree with you infant circumcision is wrong, you cant possibly compare to the removal of extra skin to the procedure of turning a penis into a fake vagina. ...and before you get upset at me for saying "fake" I wanna remind you of your constant use of the term "cosmetic surgery," meaning, only visual changes.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> ...and yet instead of showing me the third SEX


I've already talked about individuals who are intersex and don't necessarily fall under the categories of male or female.



MadMageKefka said:


> you continue to argue that sex and gender are not the same. I already told you what I meant according to your own terms.


See my posts above for why we cannot continue our conversation if you're going to use the words _sex_ and _gender_ synonymously (or what we can do about it). In short, we can't talk about physiology vs. identity if you're going to say the labels I am using for each of those things are synonymous. That redefines the words.



MadMageKefka said:


> If you still refuse to show me what I asked for, I'm just going to continue to assume you cant.


Wanting to deal with semantic barriers to an effective conversation should not be confused with any inability or lack of desire on my part.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Also funny how the three most vocal people against the trans community in this thread are @cots @MadMageKefka  and @Hanafuda are yes you guessed it American.


Oh, so you're a nationalist?.... Good to know. This really helps your argument and makes you seem like a rational person. Don't discriminate against LGBT, but Americans? Pft. Fuck them amirite? /s



Lacius said:


> He can either accept how the words _sex_ and _gender_ are used (even if it's temporarily), change the labels, or leave the conversation.


Why should I conform to your logic? My logic has been used for literally thousands of years. This is an excuse anyway, I already gave you an answer pretending like I accepted your logic and you STILL didnt show me what I asked for. This stall game is becoming pathetic. How many pages has it been now? Its very clear to me you know that any extra gender, sex, "sexflembaggin," or whatever you want to call it does not exist anywhere but mentally but are still clinging to any vague explanation you can instead of just showing me what I asked for.



Lacius said:


> I've already talked about individuals who are intersex and don't necessarily fall under the categories of male or female.


You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between "show" and "tell."


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Why should I conform to your logic?


I'm talking about semantics, not logic. If you're unwilling to use the words _sex_ and _gender_ as a way to distinguish between physiology and identity, then I don't know how else to help you. We need to be able to speak the same language to be able to effectively communicate with one another.

This would all be like use trying to have a conversation about the Switch, but you refuse to use the word Switch to mean the gaming device because, historically, it's been used other ways, such as to mean making and breaking the connection in an electric circuit. I try to explain how the word is used, but you're too stubborn to use it properly for our discourse. You could just use the word properly for the time being, even if you aren't going to change how you use the word outside the context of this conversation, so the discourse can continue, but you still refuse. We could choose a different word to use instead, but at that point, the conversation just isn't worth the effort from my point of view.



MadMageKefka said:


> My logic has been used for literally thousands of years.


Acknowledging how long people have used a particular meaning of a word is irrelevant to how the word is used now. Acknowledging how long people have believed something is irrelevant to whether or not we have good reason to continue believing that same thing.



MadMageKefka said:


> This is an excuse anyway, I already gave you an answer pretending like I accepted your logic


No, you told me to assume you mean _gender_ and _sex_ synonymously for all future references, which is why we had to stop the conversation. That disconnect is untenable.



MadMageKefka said:


> and you STILL didnt show me what I asked for.


I explained that intersex genitalia isn't necessarily male or female. If, after we figure out how we're going to communicate physiology vs. identity, you want to explain how genitalia that's neither male or female is somehow one or the other, I'd like to hear it.

Edit: You're also the one who said there's no room for interpretation. That says to me that if there is any ambiguity, it can't be classified as male or female, since that would require interpretation.



MadMageKefka said:


> This stall game is becoming pathetic. How many pages has it been now? Its very clear to me you know that any extra gender, sex, "sexflembaggin," or whatever you want to call it does not exist anywhere but mentally but are still clinging to any vague explanation you can instead of just showing me what I asked for.


See my post above about why we can't have a conversation about physiology vs. identity when you're saying their respective labels are the same thing. You can also see above for why it's necessary to deal with a semantic boundary, and insisting on doing so should not be taken as any sort of inability or lack of desire to continue that specific part of our conversation.



MadMageKefka said:


> You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between "show" and "tell."


I'm not going to post pictures of intersex genitalia, if that's what you're asking for. You're free to address my point above about how you're apparently going to tell me how genitalia that's neither male or female is somehow one or the other (after we deal with our semantics), since that's where we seem to be at.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Also funny how the three most vocal people against the trans community in this thread are  @cots @MadMageKefka  and @Hanafuda are yes you guessed it American.



Nice potshot at a Nationality to avoid rational discussion. So much hypocrisy in this thread...

Literally has nothing to do with anything. Especially considering that ignorance isn't exclusive to the NA regions.

Personally, I'm learning a fair bit as of recent. Not just in the topic of gender-isms.. But it's still astounding. Some of the points of discussion in this thread on all sides is informative.. But also indicative of how arrogant we are.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> When have I derailed? Please use specific quotes.



Guess I'll repost what I've already posted.

"Your tactics don't fly with me."


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to post pictures of intersex genitalia, if that's what you're asking for. You're free to address my point above about how you're apparently going to tell me how genitalia that's neither male or female is somehow one or the other (after we deal with our semantics), since that's where we seem to be at.


I've still yet to see this unidentifiable genitalia you keep talking about, thus why I want to be shown. How can I explain something you cant even prove exists? You're the one claiming it does, not me.

You can claim bigfoot exists, you can show me documents of people studying bigfoot, but until I see a picture of bigfoot, or see/meet one, Im going to assume he's made up.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> Guess I'll repost what I've already posted.
> 
> "Your tactics don't fly with me."


If my point was, for example, a person's gender identity doesn't necessarily comport with his or her physiological sex, then it only takes one instance for that to be correct. If my point was that sex is not necessarily binary, then it only takes one intersex person for that to be true. The rarity of these things is irrelevant, and neither is particularly rare.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Ok so you want to talk about the suicide rate in the trans community.
> 
> Lets start with Europe which out of all the continents is the most accepting of the trans community where there is very little transphobic hatred and a trans suicide rate of 3% witch is equal to other suicide rates. Let's break it down further and look at the three most accepting countries in Europe of the trans comunity
> 
> ...



Well considering I'm not against the trans community your point is mute. I was simply pointing out that choosing to live a risky lifestyle has consequences and encouraging children to do so is going to lead to problems. If a certain lifestyle leads to suicide and then you encourage children to lead that lifestyle and wonder why they are killing themselves you're the problem. I agree if there was more acceptance in the USA that could contribute to less attempts, but you're not going to get acceptance by trying to force your views on others.

The Left wants to push the trans issue on everyone and trans people want to be accepted, but that's going to require accepting that other people don't have to accept you and that the bullying tactics and name calling that the trans movement are doing is going to cause friction. If the Left wasn't trying to make something that isn't an issue for most people an issue then you're going to have to learn that no body has to agree with you and you can't control the argument by misusing terms to try to silence the opposition. If you want to be accepted then maybe you should be the better person and practice acceptance yourself.

Transphobic crime is bad, like the recent killings in Dallas, Texas. That's real transphobia. Claiming you don't agree with someone chopping off their sexual organs because they dislike them isn't phobic behavior. I don't agree that people should be pulling their healthy teeth out to replace them with gold stubs, what phobia does that fit under? Keep up with the name calling and manipulative behavior and you're going to get that in return and nothing is going to get any better.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

@cots 
Again where are children being encouraged to be transgender that simply does not happen here in Scotland. You are making out like I do encourage this behaviour so where in any of my posts have I said I encourage them. I have never said that in fact I have said in posts here I fully support the minimum age policy most countries have to transition.

You are trying to argue a point I actually agree with you on.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> So it's just coincide the fact that America is one of the most intolerant countries in the world to the transgender community and  the three most vocal people in the thread against the trans community are all American then?


"So it's just coincidence more crimes are tied to black people?"

....See how bad that sounds? A nationalist comment is a nationalist comment.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> I've still yet to see this unidentifiable genitalia you keep talking about, thus why I want to be shown. How can I explain something you cant even prove exists? You're the one claiming it does, not me.



We still haven't established how we are going to discuss the differences between physiology and identity.
Not all individuals who are intersex have ambiguous genitalia, and they're still not necessarily male or female. So, although it's somewhat on-topic, I don't find the topic of intersex genitalia particularly interesting as it pertains to the topic of sex not necessarily being binary.
There are various types of ambiguous genitalia, including but not limited to aphallia, penile agenesis, testicular agenesis, clitoromegaly, chordee, gonadal dysgenesis, ovotestis, etc. I'll let you do your own research.
If there is no room for interpretation, as you said, then arguably all of the above examples could be neither male nor female, since categorizing them would require some interpretation.
You might argue that some of these are not fertile and don't count, but that's irrelevant to whether or not they're something other than male or female.
You might argue that these are mistakes and don't count, but that is an arbitrary distinction given the evolution of sex having been the result of a _mistake_ in the first place. Whether or not they're arbitrarily classified as mistakes is also irrelevant to the fact that some are neither male nor female.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Suicide rates are higher for trans people, gay people, etc. because of how these people are treated by society. This is one of the many reasons why these aren't mental disorders.



Except, the main author of the section covering trans people in the DSM-V claims that being trans (not just dysphoria) is a mental disorder and that media is purposely misleading the public. I'm going to take his word over CNN.com.

Or the fact that the WHO stated that being trans is no longer a mental disorder (they didn't specify just dysphoria). If it's no longer going to be a mental disorder starting in 2022 then it was considered a mental disorder previously and officially will be still considered a mental disorder until the changes take effect in 2022.

These are facts. You can reject them, but doesn't change anything for the rest of us.

Although, I don't think that using the *fact it's a mental disorder *to shame the trans community is good behavior. That's like shaming a child with autism because he's autistic.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There are various types of ambiguous genitalia, including but not limited to aphallia, penile agenesis, testicular agenesis, clitoromegaly, chordee, gonadal dysgenesis, ovotestis, etc. I'll let you do your own research.


This is the first answer in god knows how many pages that actually contained the info I was asking for. I will look into it later.




Lacius said:


> You might argue that these are mistakes and don't count, but that is an arbitrary distinction given the evolution of sex having been the result of a _mistake_ in the first place. Whether or not they're arbitrarily classified as mistakes is also irrelevant to the fact that some are neither male nor female.


Okay, I haven't even replied yet and you're on the defensive. I obviously haven't looked into the conditions you named yet, but I can already say an evolutionary "mistake" stops being a mistake when it benefits the species and sticks around. You can't say sex itself was a mistake because its literally what keeps our species going. Unless I find that these "genders" are actually slowly becoming the majority and the future of the human race, then it would be safe to say they are mutations that do not benefit our species. This goes back to my original point that labeling rare-case scenarios is arbitrary, and would only be in place to make the select few that fall into the category feel more included.

Again, though, this is just in response to your preemptive defense. I have not looked into any of the conditions you named yet.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> and that media is purposely misleading the public.


With this above statement I'm interested to know why the media would be missleading the public. What would the media have to gain by missleading them? Not having a go generally interested th hear what the media gain for using such a tactic.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> @cots
> Again where are children being encouraged to be transgender that simply does not happen here in Scotland. You are making out like I do encourage this behaviour so where in any of my posts have I said I encourage them. I have never said that in fact I have said in posts here I fully support the minimum age policy most countries have to transition.
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I actually agree with you on.



I wasn't aware that I was arguing the point with you. I was stating how I felt about the issue while addressing your other comments. Sorry that I wasn't more precise. I'm glad you agree with me. For example, celebrities that have 4 year old children who teach them about transsexual people and then encourage someone who can't think on their own to be trans so they can have their 5 minutes of fame - what the hell is up with that? It's the same thing as parents who wanted a boy, but got girl and force them to basically be their little boy. Parents shouldn't be choosing their child's identity. You see that using the issue for political purposes is actually not doing the trans community any sort of good. 

About what I was addressing, the fact that choosing to live a risky lifestyle is going to lead to problems. What do you think the solution is? Trans people aren't widely accepted in the USA. Smoking weed isn't accepted in China and can result in you be put to death. Possibly, if you don't want to get executed maybe avoid the behavior that is going to get you executed? Fire is hot, it burns you. If you don't want to get burnt don't play with fire otherwise no one is going to feel sorry for you or sympathize with you because you got burnt knowing damn well that is the result of playing with fire.

So, they aren't accepted in the USA, why is that? What type of behaviors do they participate in that aren't accepted? I see the name calling as a big issue. Using words to insult others to try to control what they say or think and otherwise try to censor them isn't any sort of solution. If you want acceptance then maybe you need to participate in it yourself. 

So, what do you think could help people in the USA accept trans people more to avoid real transphobic behavior? If your country has a 1% rate of suicide, than what works over there that could possibly work over here?



Lacius said:


> We still haven't established how we are going to discuss the differences between physiology and identity.
> Not all individuals who are intersex have ambiguous genitalia, and they're still not necessarily male or female. So, although it's somewhat on-topic, I don't find the topic of intersex genitalia particularly interesting as it pertains to the topic of sex not necessarily being binary.
> There are various types of ambiguous genitalia, including but not limited to aphallia, penile agenesis, testicular agenesis, clitoromegaly, chordee, gonadal dysgenesis, ovotestis, etc. I'll let you do your own research.
> If there is no room for interpretation, as you said, then arguably all of the above examples could be neither male nor female, since categorizing them would require some interpretation.
> ...



Your sex isn't on a spectrum. You can label every single type of mutation however you like, doesn't change the fact there is either female or male. Your gender identity can be whatever you want it to be, but it doesn't change the fact that there are only two sexes. It seems @MadMageKefka isn't realizing that gender, from what had been normally taught, is now not the same as your biological sex assigned at birth and you're also not realizing that there's only two types sexes.

I think it's more fitting to include "identity" with "gender" aka "your gender identity", because that's just what you think your are - not what you actually are.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> Except, the main author of the section covering trans people in the DSM-V claims that being trans (not just dysphoria) is a mental disorder and that media is purposely misleading the public. I'm going to take his word over CNN.com.


The DSM-V does not categorize being transgender as a mental disorder. When you talk about the "main author saying it's a mental disorder" or "CNN.com," I don't know what you're talking about.



cots said:


> Or the fact that the WHO stated that being trans is no longer a mental disorder (they didn't specify just dysphoria). If it's no longer going to be a mental disorder starting in 2022 then it was considered a mental disorder previously and officially will be still considered a mental disorder until the changes take effect in 2022.


To be clear (mostly for others who are reading our conversation), what you're talking about is the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, released by the WHO and similar to the DSM revisions. When we talk about the ICD-11 not going into effect until 2022, we are talking about giving countries time to adopt and adapt for logistic reasons. The WHO does not consider being trans to be a mental disorder. If you want to acknowledge the above technicality, that doesn't particularly bother me. You're right to acknowledge it not going into effect until 2022. On the other hand, if you want to argue that we should look at the ICD-10 (1990) for the WHO's position on trans people because of the above technicality, that's not an honest representation of the WHO's position on trans people. The new position has been voted on and adopted, and the WHO does not presently consider being trans to be a mental disorder.



MadMageKefka said:


> This is the first answer in god knows how many pages that actually contained the info I was asking for. I will look into it later.


Perhaps you shouldn't have jumped down the semantic argument rabbit hole then.



MadMageKefka said:


> Okay, I haven't even replied yet and you're on the defensive.


It's good practice to acknowledge and counter a person's counter arguments before one has made them.



MadMageKefka said:


> I obviously haven't looked into the conditions you named yet, but I can already say an evolutionary "mistake" stops being a mistake when it benefits the species and sticks around.


The difference between "beneficial mistake" and "non-mistake" is arbitrary.



MadMageKefka said:


> You can't say sex itself was a mistake


It's the result of random mutations, so yes, it objectively was a mistake.



MadMageKefka said:


> because [sex is] literally what keeps our species going.


Well yes, because our species is defined in part by our sexual reproduction. If sex had never evolved and we were an asexually reproducing species, then no, sex wouldn't keep our species going. In fact, if we use a narrow definition of _species_, the evolution of sex might have actually destroyed our asexual ancestors as they were outcompeted.



MadMageKefka said:


> Unless I find that these "genders"


You mean _sexes_.



MadMageKefka said:


> Unless I find that these "genders" are actually slowly becoming the majority and the future of the human race, then it would be safe to say they are mutations that do not benefit our species.


That's irrelevant to whether or not they exist.



MadMageKefka said:


> This goes back to my original point that labeling rare-case scenarios is arbitrary, and would only be in place to make the select few that fall into the category feel more included.



The rarity of intersex is irrelevant to whether or not they exist. It only takes one intersex individual for sex not to be necessarily binary.
The odds of having intersex genitalia is somewhere around 1 in 2,000, which isn't super rare.
The odds of being intersex without ambiguous genitalia is even more common.



cots said:


> Your sex isn't on a spectrum. You can label every single type of mutation however you like, doesn't change the fact there is either female or male.


This statement is only true if you ignore intersex individuals. They fall on a spectrum, and they demonstrate that sex is not necessarily binary. Depending on how broadly or narrowly we define the male and female sexes, a lot more people fall on the sex spectrum than just intersex people.



cots said:


> Your gender identity can be whatever you want it to be


I'd argue there's little choice involved with gender identity, but I think we are mostly on the same page here.



cots said:


> It seems @MadMageKefka isn't realizing that gender, from what had been normally taught, is now not the same as your biological sex assigned at birth


We are on the same page here.



cots said:


> I think it's more fitting to include "identity" with "gender" aka "your gender identity", because that's just what you think your are - not what you actually are.


We are on the same page here if by "what you actually are," you mean a person's sex.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> With this above statement I'm interested to know why the media would be missleading the public. What would the media have to gain by missleading them? Not having a go generally interested th hear what the media gain for using such a tactic.



"Except, the main author of the section covering trans people in the DSM-V claims that being trans (not just dysphoria) is a mental disorder and that media is purposely misleading the public. I'm going to take his word over CNN.com."

That's what I posted.

Well, both sides are after clicks (money) and votes (power). I highly doubt most of them actually care about the wellbeing of LGBTQ people. Some may, but with my experience most don't. The Left, specifically, who are the ones trying to take something that doesn't effect the majority of society and make it an issue are purposely trying to twist the DSM-V to fit their narrative (for clicks, money, votes and power). Hey, that's fine if they were actually using the real facts, but by twisting it they are being dishonest and lying to the public. I don't want to follow a group of people that base their values on lies. Well, the right, who the majority also don't give a shit about LGBTQ people, are then using the opportunity for clicks, money, votes and power, but at least they, in this instance, aren't lying when they state that transgenderism is a mental disorder. Both sides are benefiting from the issue and both sides are definitely showing hate (the left promoting manipulative, dishonest and controlling behavior) and the people on the right who are attacking the trans people. Generally speaking, as there are also a lot of normal democrats that don't agree with the lifestyle and being LGBTQ isn't inclusive just the left.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> So, what do you think could help people in the USA accept trans people more to avoid real transphobic behavior? If your country has a 1% rate of suicide, than what works over there that could possibly work over here?
> .



So that is actually a very good question I can't really answer. Scotland has always been a country accepting of all. We also have a church that supports the trans community unlike America. I guess perhaps it's also because we don't have politicians on either side whipping up a transgender related storm for votes.its kinda wierd that the only thing Scottish people truly care about is what soccer team you support which is either Rangers or Celtic.And and if you are ever asked by a Scottish person what soccer team you support be prepared as the wrong answer can lead to some very heated arguments. 

For the record Rangers is the only acceptable answer lol.


----------



## cots (Jun 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The DSM-V does not categorize being transgender as a mental disorder. When you talk about the "main author saying it's a mental disorder" or "CNN.com," I don't know what you're talking about.



It seems you haven't been paying attention to the links I've provided about the author and the reclassification. I suggest you reread the thread.



> To be clear (mostly for others who are reading our conversation), what you're talking about is the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, released by the WHO and similar to the DSM revisions. When we talk about the ICD-11 not going into effect until 2022, we are talking about giving countries time to adopt and adapt for logistic reasons. The WHO does not consider being trans to be a mental disorder. If you want to acknowledge the above technicality, that doesn't particularly bother me. You're right to acknowledge it not going into effect until 2022. On the other hand, if you want to argue that we should look at the ICD-10 (1990) for the WHO's position on trans people because of the above technicality, that's not an honest representation of the WHO's position on trans people. The new position has been voted on and adopted, and the WHO does not presently consider being trans to be a mental disorder.



I'm not familiar with the WHO, but the article on CNN stated that transgerism isn't a mental disorder because the diagnosis has changed in the most recent WHO to now no longer being a mental disorder. If it's now not considered a mental disorder, because it previously was considered to be one then, well, it used to be considered one. Specifically, transgenderism used to fall under the "Mental and Behavioural Disorders" of the ICD-10 (1990) and no longer is going to be.

So according to the new ICD-11, transgederism is not a mental disorder.

According the the current DSM-V, it still is, but to a lessor degree.

Although, gender dysphoria describes a condition in which someone is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be, the opposite gender. Some of these people may live as their desired gender, and may even seek gender reassignment surgery that can allow them to trade, for example, a penis for a clitoris and a scrotum for a vagina. So that applies to most transgender people.

Maybe I start using that term, to replace the old term, to be more politically correct, thus, that wouldn't change the fact that I'm simply calling it by another name.

So, now, to be current in times, I'll state that "gender dysphoria is a mental disorder" and that "it's simply been renamed from transgenderism to make people feel better".

Sorta like, how you don't call mentally handicap people "retarded" anymore because of the stigma. Doesn't change the fact that they're retarded.

So, you're too caught up in technicalities. Anyone who states that transgerism is a mental disorder just needs to be explained that they are correct, but they are using outdated terminology.

"Look mah, I have a red car". 

- "But, it's blue"

"Not anymore, we call blue red now"

- "I suppose if it'll make you feel better I'll call your blue car red."

"Thanks mah!"


----------



## Lacius (Jun 18, 2019)

cots said:


> It seems you haven't been paying attention to the links I've provided about the author and the reclassification. I suggest you reread the thread.


If I didn't directly respond to something in this thread, or if I wasn't tagged, I probably didn't read it.



cots said:


> I'm not familiar with the WHO, but the article on CNN stated that transgerism isn't a mental disorder because the diagnosis has changed in the most recent WHO to now no longer being a mental disorder. If it's now not considered a mental disorder, because it previously was considered to be one then, well, it used to be considered one. Specifically, transgenderism used to fall under the "Mental and Behavioural Disorders" of the ICD-10 (1990) and no longer is going to be.


That is correct. It was once considered to be a mental disorder, but as our understanding improved, it was reclassified. That's true of lots of things. See below for more details.



cots said:


> So according to the new ICD-11, transgederism is not a mental disorder.
> 
> According the the current DSM-V, it still is, but to a lessor degree.


No, neither the ICD-11 nor the DSM-V consider being transgender to be a mental disorder. More on this below.



cots said:


> Although, gender dysphoria describes a condition in which someone is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be, the opposite gender. Some of these people may live as their desired gender, and may even seek gender reassignment surgery that can allow them to trade, for example, a penis for a clitoris and a scrotum for a vagina. So that applies to most transgender people.


Gender dysphoria is distress related to one's assigned gender or sex, and although it is in the DSM-V, it is not classified specifically as a mental disorder. Gender dysphoria also should not to be confused with being transgender. Not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria. You can think of gender dysphoria as being the distress that might be caused by being transgender, although a lot of what causes gender dysphoria is the result of society's treatment of people who are trans.

Something gets classified as a mental disorder if, among other requirements, it negatively affects one's life. Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder, but since it generally doesn't negatively affect one's life, aside from how society treats gay people, it cannot be considered a mental disorder. Being transgender generally does not negatively affect one's life, aside from how society treats a trans person, so it cannot be considered a mental disorder either.



cots said:


> So that applies to most transgender people.


Gender dysphoria probably doesn't apply to _most_ transgender people, but there isn't a lot of data. What we do know is approximately 40% of trans people don't transition, and many of those who do transition don't experience gender dysphoria.



cots said:


> So, now, to be current in times, I'll state that "gender dysphoria is a mental disorder" and that "it's simply been renamed from transgenderism to make people feel better".


Neither statement is accurate. See above.



cots said:


> Sorta like, how you don't call mentally handicap people "retarded" anymore because of the stigma. Doesn't change the fact that they're retarded.


Sure, but that's a matter of political correctness, not what is and isn't factually true.



cots said:


> So, you're too caught up in technicalities. Anyone who states that transgerism is a mental disorder just needs to be explained that they are correct, but they are using outdated terminology.


No, being transgender is not a mental disorder according to the WHO, APA, DSM, etc. See above.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's the result of random mutations, so yes, it objectively was a mistake.


You do realize what "objectively" means, right? You keep using words like this and "arguably," or "interpretation." You're basically telling me "no, you're wrong because someone might see it differently which is 100% accurate all the time." Just, what even?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> You do realize what "objectively" means, right? You keep using words like this and "arguably," or "interpretation." You're basically telling me "no, you're wrong because someone might see it differently which is 100% accurate all the time." Just, what even?



Inheritable mutations are, by definition, mistakes that occur during the DNA-replication process.
_Objectively_ means not a matter of opinion (as opposed to _subjectively_).
Mutations are objectively mistakes.
Edit: I don't use the word lightly. If something is arguable or open to interpretation, I say so. If something is objectively true, I say so.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Inheritable mutations are, by definition, mistakes that occur during the DNA-replication process.
> _Objectively_ means not a matter of opinion (as opposed to _subjectively_).
> Mutations are objectively mistakes.
> Edit: I don't use the word lightly. If something is arguable or open to interpretation, I say so. If something is objectively true, I say so.


Yeaaa, that one's on me. Oops. Still, sorry, but its not objective here. You can't possibly tell me it was a mistake that our species has a way to reproduce.... Kinda important if we intend to survive past a single generation. Literally every species we know of has a way to reproduce. There is no way you can tell me every creature on our planet just accidentally decided to reproduce, just no.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That is correct. It was once considered to be a mental disorder, but as our understanding improved, it was reclassified. That's true of lots of things. See below for more details.
> 
> Sure, but that's a matter of political correctness, not what is and isn't factually true.
> 
> No, being transgender is not a mental disorder according to the WHO, APA, DSM, etc. See above.



Transgenerism used to be considered a mental disorder and was used as an umbrella term, got relabled, reclassified, broken down and now it's generally called, but not limited to gender dysphoria, which the principal author of the section of the DSM-V covering the issue clearly has stated was done for political purposes, therefor, by your own admission, isn't factually true.

Whatever the reasoning, that's what happened (and remind you it happened recently) and despite objections from the principal author, is now agreed upon by the psychiatric community.

So, to be politically correct and to follow the authority of the psychiatric community it would be appropriate to state that transgender people suffering from various types dsyphoria are mentally ill.

So stating that transgender people are mentally ill is no longer correct.

I'll do this, knowing that they used to be considered mentally ill and that like the author I mentioned, who I agree with, should still be considered as such. Thus I will address them how they wish, to avoid conflict, but in my heart and mind know that they are ill as I don't have to agree with the psychiatric community, but it would be the polite thing to do. It however won't for me personally, drop any of the related knowledge I've learned from dealing with trans people. It's not a reset button.

You can change the name of the Nintendo Virtual Boy to the Nintendo Switch and call it a radio instead of a video gaming console, but in my mind, it'll always be the Virtual Boy the video gaming console. That's something that you or the psychiatric community will have to realize that you can't fix, because there is nothing to edit, reclassify, or change because nothing is broken. It'll always be the Virtual Boy for me - and that's all that matters.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Yeaaa, that one's on me. Oops. Still, sorry, but its not objective here.


The mutations that led to the sexes are, _objectively_, just as much mistakes as any other mutation.



MadMageKefka said:


> You can't possibly tell me it was a mistake that our species has a way to reproduce


I'll do you one better. Our entire species is defined by the culmination of countless genetic mistakes. Our eyes, nose, mouth, brain, sexes, etc. are all the result of different genetic mistakes.



MadMageKefka said:


> Kinda important if we intend to survive past a single generation. Literally every species we know of has a way to reproduce. There is no way you can tell me every creature on our planet just accidentally decided to reproduce, just no.



There are forms of reproduction that don't involve sex. They're called asexual reproduction.
All forms of reproduction we observe today, sexual or not, are the result of genetic mistakes.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The mutations that led to the sexes are, _objectively_, just as much mistakes as any other mutation.
> 
> 
> I'll do you one better. Our entire species is defined by the culmination of countless genetic mistakes. Our eyes, nose, mouth, brain, sexes, etc. are all the result of different genetic mistakes.
> ...


Wow, repeating yourself with slightly different words really opened my eyes, thanks... And yes, I am aware of asexual reproduction. "A way" would include that.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 19, 2019)

@Glyptofane  Once again can I point out that to be even considered for GRS you need to be screened for a minimum of two years by a number of psychiatrists and doctors then after that you have to convince a independent panel of  5 doctors that you DO NOT have a mental illness who must all unanimously agree that in fact YOU DO NOT HAVE a mental illness before you can be put forward for GRS.


----------



## guicrith (Jun 19, 2019)

Why cant everyone quit whining and except that everyone is hated by someone and everyone hates someone.
Thats how humans work, they hate what they have had a bad experience with, if your sample size for a group is 1 crazy activist then yeah you will hate that group.
All this "disliking people(for whatever reason, mean or irrational included) = though crime you need to be deleted from history for" nonsense has gone wayyy too far.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

cots said:


> Transgenerism used to be considered a mental disorder and was used as an umbrella term, got relabled, reclassified, broken down and now it's generally called, but not limited to gender dysphoria


As I said earlier, gender dysmorphia is not synonymous with being transgender. See my previous reply to you. In short, gender dysmorphia refers specifically to distress, not gender identity itself.



cots said:


> which the principal author of the section of the DSM-V covering the issue clearly has stated was done for political purposes


I'm sure there were politics involved. When it came to homosexuality as a mental illness being removed from the DSM, for example, there was an intense lobbying effort from both outside and inside the psychiatric community. That doesn't mean they weren't correct. I'd be surprised if a similar thing didn't happen with the trans community, but I admittedly don't know a lot about what specifically led to that DSM change.



cots said:


> therefor, by your own admission, isn't factually true.


I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. What admission, and what isn't factually true?



cots said:


> Whatever the reasoning, that's what happened (and remind you it happened recently) and despite objections from the principal author, is now agreed upon by the psychiatric community.


For good reason. See my previous response to you for some of what it takes for something to be classified as a mental disorder and why homosexuality and being transgender aren't mental illnesses. I'm not particularly concerned with what one of the authors is saying, unless it gives a good reason to reclassify being transgender as a mental disorder (which I highly doubt). It also doesn't matter how recently it occurred.



cots said:


> So, to be politically correct and to follow the authority of the psychiatric community it would be appropriate to state that transgender people suffering from various types dsyphoria are mentally ill.



Not all transgender people experience gender dysmorphia.
Gender dysmorphia is also not considered a mental disorder, although it is a condition acknowledged in the DSM-V.



cots said:


> So stating that transgender people are mentally ill is no longer correct.


Being transgender is not a mental illness, correct.



cots said:


> I'll do this, knowing that they used to be considered mentally ill and that like the author I mentioned, who I agree with, should still be considered as such. Thus I will address them how they wish, to avoid conflict, but in my heart and mind know that they are ill as I don't have to agree with the psychiatric community, but it would be the polite thing to do. It however won't for me personally, drop any of the related knowledge I've learned from dealing with trans people. It's not a reset button.



I don't think anybody cares what you believe, as long as you are treating people with the dignity and respect they deserve. However, that doesn't mean you aren't prejudiced against people who are trans, if you think they're all mentally ill.
If you believe being transgender is a mental illness, you are incorrect. See my previous response for details. The WHO, DSM, APA, and all other reputable, relevant organizations state that being transgender is not a mental illness.



cots said:


> You can change the name of the Nintendo Virtual Boy to the Nintendo Switch and call it a radio instead of a video gaming console, but in my mind, it'll always be the Virtual Boy the video gaming console. That's something that you or the psychiatric community will have to realize that you can't fix, because there is nothing to edit, reclassify, or change because nothing is broken. It'll always be the Virtual Boy for me - and that's all that matters.


I'm not sure what your point is here. If your point is that reclassifying something from a mental illness to not a mental illness is arbitrary, you are mistaken. Our understanding has changed over time, and our classifications change accordingly. That's in part how science works, and you probably wouldn't want it any other way.

If your point is that being transgender has been arbitrarily renamed _gender dysmorphia_, that's not what happened. Gender dysmorphia is not the same thing as being transgender.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

guicrith said:


> Why cant everyone quit whining and except that everyone is hated by someone and everyone hates someone.
> Thats how humans work, they hate what they have had a bad experience with, if your sample size for a group is 1 crazy activist then yeah you will hate that group.
> All this "disliking people(for whatever reason, mean or irrational included) = though crime you need to be deleted from history for" nonsense has gone wayyy too far.


3 guys in Boston are having a "straight pride" parade and the media is going apeshit. Apparently youre only allowed to be proud if youre not a white, heterosexual male. What a time to be alive.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

guicrith said:


> Why cant everyone quit whining and except that everyone is hated by someone and everyone hates someone.


Because that would make me complicit, and this thread demonstrates that a lot of the hate is based on falsehoods and prejudice.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> 3 guys in Boston are having a "straight pride" parade and the media is going apeshit. Apparently youre only allowed to be proud if youre not a white, heterosexual male. What a time to be alive.


If this is the one I'm thinking of, it's no longer a "pride parade" when you bring guns.  At that point it's a threat.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If this is the one I'm thinking of, it's no longer a "pride parade" when you bring guns.  At that point it's a threat.


I've heard nothing about guns, but if that is the case then I would be inclined to agree. A quick google search tells me that there is, in fact, going to be a parade. Floats and all.

Edit: It also kinda depends on the situation too. For example, if the NRA were to hold a parade I wouldn't really call it a threat if they had guns, for example.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> 3 guys in Boston are having a "straight pride" parade and the media is going apeshit. Apparently youre only allowed to be proud if youre not a white, heterosexual male. What a time to be alive.


"Straight pride" exists as a counterprotest to "gay pride." There's nothing wrong with being straight, of course, but for a group that's not a marginalized _other_ to proclaim pride is to implicitly say, "We are proud that we are not gay." That means, while "gay pride" is positive, "straight pride" is negative.

It's similar to the "blue lives matter" movement. It exists as a counterprotest to the "black lives matter" movement. There is nothing wrong with being a police officer, and they should generally be celebrated (despite some systemic issues), but to proclaim "blue lives matter" as a response to "black lives matter" is to implicitly say, "Blue lives matter more than black lives."


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

This Tweet had me in stitches:


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> "Straight pride" exists as a counterprotest to "gay pride." There's nothing wrong with being straight, of course, but for a group that's not a marginalized _other_ to proclaim pride is to implicitly say, "We are proud that we are not gay." That means, while "gay pride" is positive, "straight pride" is negative.
> 
> It's similar to the "blue lives matter" movement. It exists as a counterprotest to the "black lives matter" movement. There is nothing wrong with being a police officer, and they should generally be celebrated (despite some systemic issues), but to proclaim "blue lives matter" as a response to "black lives matter" is to implicitly say, "Blue lives matter more than black lives."


Its not a counter protest to the protest itself, but a protest to the message specifying a single group. The idea is that all walks of life deserve respect, not one particular one. Here you say that straight groups being proud shows a negative view on gay, so by that same logic, wouldn't positive views on being gay show negatively on straight? Oh, but you say its because the straight group isn't marginalized. So because one group is in a different situation, they aren't entitled to the same things? Sounds like discrimination to me... Who are you to say if someone is allowed to feel marginalized or not? This logic is everything that is keeping us from making any real progress in the world. Even when fighting for equality we remain divided. Its insane.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Its not a counter protest to the protest itself, but a protest to the message specifying a single group. The idea is that all walks of life deserve respect, not one particular one. Here you say that straight groups being proud shows a negative view on gay, so by that same logic, wouldn't positive views on being gay show negatively on straight? Oh, but you say its because the straight group isn't marginalized. So because one group is in a different situation, they aren't entitled to the same things?


The difference is gay pride was born out of the need to exist without persecution. All walks of life deserve respect, yes, but only one of these two groups has to actively fight to get it, and that's gay pride. The history of straight pride is also one of ridicule and criticism against the LGBT community, and I suggest you look into that history before posting nonsense.

Gay pride comes from a place of necessity to be treated with respect. Straight pride comes as a petty response to gay pride. That's a big difference, and it's what makes one positive and one negative.



MadMageKefka said:


> Sounds like discrimination to me...


Nobody is claiming that straight pride parades shouldn't be allowed to take place, so it's not discrimination. The fact that you aren't using the the word _discrimination_ properly is evidence, however, that straight pride probably doesn't need to exist.



MadMageKefka said:


> Who are you to say if someone is allowed to feel marginalized or not?


Heterosexuals, objectively, are not a marginalized group. That's another term you're misusing. Heterosexuals are the majority, and LGBT people are the minority. In addition, LGBT people are still very much treated as unequal under the law.



MadMageKefka said:


> This logic is everything that is keeping us from making any real progress in the world.


No, what's hindering progress is the idea that heterosexuals are as marginalized a group as LGBT people. If that is the perception, then progress cannot be made with regard to gay rights.

It's similar to the "all lives matter" mantra in response to "black lives matter." We can all agree that all lives matter, but using it as a response to "black lives matter" distracts from the issue and prevents progress. It would be like somebody stealing an old woman's purse, and in response to the old woman's cries, a man says, "all purses matter." All purses do matter, but that doesn't do anything to solve the specific problem being addressed, and it hurts the old woman. "All lives matter" hurts "black lives matter." "Straight pride" hurts "gay pride."


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The difference is gay pride was born out of the need to exist without persecution.


Considering the lashback on straight pride, its pretty evident this is becoming the case.



Lacius said:


> Heterosexuals, objectively, are not a marginalized group. That's another term you're misusing. Heterosexuals are the majority, and LGBT people are the minority. In addition, LGBT people are still very much treated as unequal under the law.


I said FEEL marginalized. You know, kinda like how some men FEEL like women, even though OBJECTIVELY they arent?



Lacius said:


> Nobody is claiming that straight pride parades shouldn't be allowed to take place, so it's not discrimination.


Yes, yes they absolutely are.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Considering the lashback on straight pride, its pretty evident this is becoming the case.


The _backlash_ is warranted. See above. It's a movement born out of hate and ridicule, and there's no need for it.



MadMageKefka said:


> I said FEEL marginalized.


Straight people are not a marginalized group in society. Respectfully, I suggest you learn what the word means.



MadMageKefka said:


> You know, kinda like how some men FEEL like women, even though OBJECTIVELY they arent?


If you continue to refuse to acknowledge a difference between _sex_ and _gender_, you're going to continue to make silly mistakes like this one.



MadMageKefka said:


> Yes, yes they absolutely are.


I'm not necessarily against barring straight pride parades, given their history, but who is advocating that they be banned? I imagine that would violate some First Amendment rights.


----------



## Damon_girl (Jun 19, 2019)

Funny how there was never a difference between sex and gender before until this new age of PC babies were born and demanded to feel special...


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The _backlash_ is warranted. See above. It's a movement born out of hate and ridicule, and there's no need for it.


No, I actually mean lash back which means to fight back. I made a stupid mistake earlier. Take your victory there and stop trying to use it as the basis of your argument. What's next? Spelling? Clearly some people feel the need for straight pride, but you dismiss their concerns as unimportant, even advocate violating the group's rights simply because you don't agree. This is exactly what I mean.



Lacius said:


> Straight people are not a marginalized group in society. Respectfully, I suggest you learn what the word means.


Men are not women. Respectfully, I suggest you learn what a penis is.




Lacius said:


> If you continue to refuse to acknowledge a difference between _sex_ and _gender_, you're going to continue to make silly mistakes like this one.


That's kinda what started this entire conversation, so yea, I'm going to continue to refuse a difference between sex and gender.




Lacius said:


> I'm not necessarily against barring straight pride parades, given their history, but who is advocating that they be banned? I imagine that would violate some First Amendment rights.


I'm really not invested in this enough to take the time to find quotes and post them here. Its clear we aren't going to agree on anything here, really not sure what the point is any more. Just check around social media, primarily Twitter.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

Damon_girl said:


> Funny how there was never a difference between sex and gender before until this new age of PC babies were born and demanded to feel special...


You mean the 1960s?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You mean the 1960s?


Pretty sure 1960 just had boy and girl...


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Pretty sure 1960 just had boy and girl...


That's not what we're talking about.

Edit: Also, you're not correct either.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's not what we're talking about.
> 
> Edit: Also, you're not correct either.


Not what YOU'RE talking about maybe.... not sure who you think "we" is. And yes, yes I am. Check any 1960 birth certificate. Pretty sure helicopter isn't on any of them.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Not what YOU'RE talking about maybe.... not sure who you think "we" is. And yes, yes I am. Check any 1960 birth certificate. Pretty sure helicopter isn't on any of them.


Show me any example where anyone in the world has helicopter on their birth certificate. Because to claim someone does is quite frankly ludicrous.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit that laws and norms created in the 1800s might be outdated and ass-backwards.  The constitution doesn't even have an equal rights amendment (ERA) for WOMEN yet, let alone the LGBTQ community.  You can interpret it as granting equal rights to women, but nowhere is it written, so at current it can just as easily be interpreted to be exclusionary.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> No, I actually mean lash back which means to fight back. I made a stupid mistake earlier. Take your victory there and stop trying to use it as the basis of your argument. What's next? Spelling?


I don't entirely understand what's going on here, so I'm going to sidestep it.



MadMageKefka said:


> Clearly some people feel the need for straight pride, but you dismiss their concerns as unimportant


You bet. See above for why.



MadMageKefka said:


> even advocate violating the group's rights simply because you don't agree.


I never did this.



MadMageKefka said:


> Men are not women. Respectfully, I suggest you learn what a penis is.


A person's gender identity doesn't necessarily comport with one's physiological sex. So, for example, a trans woman can have a penis. Respectfully, the idea that the world is as black and white as you make it out to be is a pretty immature worldview. I mean that literally, not insultingly.



MadMageKefka said:


> That's kinda what started this entire conversation, so yea, I'm going to continue to refuse a difference between sex and gender.


That sounds like a personal problem, because we don't even have to use the labels _sex_ and _gender_. You should be able to understand if I use words like _identity_ and _physiology_ instead.



MadMageKefka said:


> I'm really not invested in this enough to take the time to find quotes and post them here. Its clear we aren't going to agree on anything here, really not sure what the point is any more. Just check around social media, primarily Twitter.


Regardless, I'm noticing the irony is lost on you here.



MadMageKefka said:


> Not what YOU'RE talking about maybe.... not sure who you think "we" is.


Are you unaware that @Damon_girl and I were having a conversation that only pertained to the topic of the historical uses of the words _sex_ and _gender_? I'm starting to believe you're not reading my posts.



MadMageKefka said:


> And yes, yes I am. Check any 1960 birth certificate. Pretty sure helicopter isn't on any of them.



Intersex people existed in the 1960s, regardless of what was put onto one's birth certificate.
_Sex_ and _gender_ are two different things, so what was put onto the birth certificate isn't necessarily relevant to one's gender identity. If you don't want to acknowledge that, then all you need to know is that physiology is not the same thing as one's identity. One is the body, and one is the brain. What was put onto one's birth certificate related to one's body, not the baby's identity.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't entirely understand what's going on here, so I'm going to sidestep it.
> 
> 
> You bet. See above for why.
> ...


Even if I accepted your logic, it WAS NOT this way in 1960. That much is fact. No idea what you're getting at.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Even if I accepted your logic, it WAS NOT this way in 1960. That much is fact. No idea what you're getting at.


What was not this way in 1960, and how is it relevant to the conversation I was having?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> gender. Like beating a dead horse.


Please be more specific and don't get catty because you're using one-word responses.

If you're saying that, in the 1960s, the word _gender_ wasn't used to mean one's identity as opposed to one's biological sex, you are mistaken. The distinction between the words _sex_ and _gender_ was popularized in the 1960s.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> I've still yet to see this unidentifiable genitalia you keep talking about, thus why I want to be shown. How can I explain something you cant even prove exists? You're the one claiming it does, not me.
> 
> You can claim bigfoot exists, you can show me documents of people studying bigfoot, but until I see a picture of bigfoot, or see/meet one, Im going to assume he's made up.



Dude, you've been at it for 4 pages. He clearly can't provide proof of a third sex. You got the color blue? How many color blues are there? Well, there's one color blue. You got different shades of blue, but only 1 blue. He's not going to be able to answer your question and I don't think he's even going to try as he clearly is playing word games to dance around the fact that he refuses to answer the question. Which, there is no question. You have a male and female. End of debate.

I could imagine this guy, with all of his knowledge, going to the store to buy a cd card, to find out they only carry 32GB and 64GB, but arguing with the store clerk that he refuses to purchase either one because there is a rare chance that a 51GB was produced in error and is sitting in the back of the store.

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



AmandaRose said:


> @Glyptofane  Once again can I point out that to be even considered for GRS you need to be screened for a minimum of two years by a number of psychiatrists and doctors then after that you have to convince a independent panel of  5 doctors that you DO NOT have a mental illness who must all unanimously agree that in fact YOU DO NOT HAVE a mental illness before you can be put forward for GRS.



That doesn't change the fact that people end up rejecting the assignment and can't go back. Oops! My bad!


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> gender. Like beating a dead horse.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Where did I say I used irony


MadMageKefka said:


> gender. Like beating a dead horse.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


*sarcasm*
noun [ U ] UK 
the use of words to *criticize* something or someone in a humorous way:

Says nothing about irony. Look at the key part of that where it says noun then UK. 
It appears the word has a different definition in the uk to America.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Its not a counter protest to the protest itself, but a protest to the message specifying a single group. The idea is that all walks of life deserve respect, not one particular one. Here you say that straight groups being proud shows a negative view on gay, so by that same logic, wouldn't positive views on being gay show negatively on straight? Oh, but you say its because the straight group isn't marginalized. So because one group is in a different situation, they aren't entitled to the same things? Sounds like discrimination to me... Who are you to say if someone is allowed to feel marginalized or not? This logic is everything that is keeping us from making any real progress in the world. Even when fighting for equality we remain divided. Its insane.



It's still bias and hate, but it's coming from a group that should be allowed to hate and show bias because they had the same thing happen to them, which in turn is only going to produce more hate and bias. Doesn't seem like any solution to me, but it makes people "feel better" in the short term, and that's the only important matter, right? I see @Lacius is justifying the hate and bias coming from one side, but it's okay because "it's the right side".

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



Xzi said:


> If this is the one I'm thinking of, it's no longer a "pride parade" when you bring guns.  At that point it's a threat.



What a person is carrying in their pocket at a parade doesn't change the meaning of the parade. Nice low balling shot at guns. Next!


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 19, 2019)

cots said:


> That doesn't change the fact that people end up rejecting the assignment and can't go back. Oops! My bad!


 so they can't go back then what is gender reversal surgery then? Plus the reversal rate is so low its not even worth discussing. 

For instance 
A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent GRS surgery later underwent reversal surgery.


----------



## Chary (Jun 19, 2019)

Has anyone considered that we actually listen to the TITLE of this thread, and actually, I don't know, NOT name-call people, or spiral into bickering contests that take personal potshots at each other? If you can't follow basic forum etiquette and decency towards each other while having a discussion, then either this thread will be locked, preventing people from actually being able to discuss the topic, or warns will be given out.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> so they can't go back then what is gender reversal surgery then? Plus the reversal rate is so low its not even worth discussing.
> 
> For instance
> A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent GRS surgery later underwent reversal surgery.



How many simply changed their mind that they didn't want to identify as female and wanted their original johnny back, but didn't want someone else's? Sure, it's rare, and I'm glad they spend 2 years giving a person enough time to decide it might not be the best choice, but I'd really hate to discover I made a mistake after the fact if I were the person losing my sexual organ.

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



Chary said:


> Has anyone considered that we actually listen to the TITLE of this thread, and actually, I don't know, NOT name-call people, or spiral into bickering contests that take personal potshots at each other? If you can't follow basic forum etiquette and decency towards each other while having a discussion, then either this thread will be locked, preventing people from actually being able to discuss the topic, or warns will be given out.



I'm sorry, as I've come to the conclusion about the original topic matter and was just replying to what other people brought up after that fact. I figured it was better to discuss the stuff other people brought up here instead of making a new thread for each subject.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2019)

cots said:


> Dude, you've been at it for 4 pages. He clearly can't provide proof of a third sex.



I was trying to clarify our usages of the words _sex_ and _gender_. It was a more pressing issue, since not doing so would have meant the end of that particular conversation.
Some intersex individuals are neither male nor female. That should have sufficed.
I later provided what he wanted in more detail, and he said he would look into it later. You're a little behind.



cots said:


> You got the color blue? How many color blues are there? Well, there's one color blue. You got different shades of blue, but only 1 blue.


There are more kinds of blue aside from the different shades, so that's a poor analogy. You're forgetting about hue and chroma, in addition to shade. The topics of sex and gender, like many other topics, aren't simple enough to be completely black and white (or rather, black and blue).



cots said:


> He's not going to be able to answer your question and I don't think he's even going to try as he clearly is playing word games to dance around the fact that he refuses to answer the question. Which, there is no question. You have a male and female. End of debate.



I fulfilled the request.
Intersex individuals exist.



cots said:


> I could imagine this guy, with all of his knowledge, going to the store to buy a cd card, to find out they only carry 32GB and 64GB, but arguing with the store clerk that he refuses to purchase either one because there is a rare chance that a 51GB was produced in error and is sitting in the back of the store.


I'm not sure what the purpose of this comment was. It's not even close to accurate.



cots said:


> It's still bias and hate, but it's coming from a group that should be allowed to hate and show bias because they had the same thing happen to them, which in turn is only going to produce more hate and bias. Doesn't seem like any solution to me, but it makes people "feel better" in the short term, and that's the only important matter, right? I see @Lacius is justifying the hate and bias coming from one side, but it's okay because "it's the right side".


The easiest way to end a conversation with me is by misrepresenting my views. I don't think anybody should be barred from holding a parade, but I'm acknowledging that straight pride is unnecessary, misses the point of pride, and historically comes from a place of hate. I'm not sure what's hateful about that, but you're free to try to spin it whatever way you want.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 19, 2019)

cots said:


> How many simply changed their mind that they didn't want to identify as female and wanted their original johnny back, but didn't want someone else's? Sure, it's rare, and I'm glad they spend 2 years giving a person enough time to decide it might not be the best choice, but I'd really hate to discover I made a mistake after the fact if I were the person losing my sexual organ.


Again 0.3% lol its so rare it's not even worth worrying about. The 0.3 should never have been allowed to get that far and that is the fault of the people screening them.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Again 0.3% lol its so rare it's not even worth worrying about. The 0.3 should never have been allowed to get that far and that is the fault of the people screening them.



Well, the trans people are also a minority so why even bother addressing their concerns? *Yawn*, I'll pulling your chain here. I mean my original statement as a light hearted joke. You know, because that situation (deciding you don't want to identify as a female anymore after your surgery) would really, really, really, suck. I'm allowed to make jokes right?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jun 19, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Where did I say I used irony


sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Learn to pronounce
_noun_

the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting; More



cots said:


> I'm allowed to make jokes right?


Only if you're not a white, heterosexual male.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

MadMageKefka said:


> Only if you're not a white, heterosexual male.



Nope, not this week. I'm identifying as a Lebanese squirrel, but haven't decided on what color I want to be yet. Give me two more years to figure it out.


----------



## Damon_girl (Jun 19, 2019)

So I can make jokes since I'm a real female. Yay


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

Damon_girl said:


> So I can make jokes since I'm a real female. Yay



Well, technically (jokes aside), I'm not a white heterosexual male.


----------



## Damon_girl (Jun 19, 2019)

cots said:


> Nope, not this week. I'm identifying as a Lebanese squirrel, but haven't decided on what color I want to be yet. Give me two more years to figure it out.


I'm thinking about identifying as a vampire in a few years. I mean that would be cool, right? Way better than a squirrel.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

Damon_girl said:


> I'm thinking about identifying as a vampire in a few years. I mean that would be cool, right? Way better than a squirrel.



That's more realistic too as there are people that actually do identify as vampires, don't go outside until it's dark, drink blood, etc ... I mentioned the squirrel because of this -> https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-man-attack-squirrel-meth-aggressive

*On the real: *

I guess the thread has veered off topic, but I've decided that phobic behavior isn't simply disliking something. I welcome other peoples opinions on the matter, but I'm done with conversation related to deciding whether or not it is, and since chary stated we must stay on topic then I suppose I'm done posting here.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit that laws and norms created in the 1800s might be outdated and ass-backwards.  The constitution doesn't even have an equal rights amendment (ERA) for WOMEN yet, let alone the LGBTQ community.  You can interpret it as granting equal rights to women, but nowhere is it written, so at current it can just as easily be interpreted to be exclusionary.


The simple fact is that human nature can not be so easily defined. Our biggest mistake was trying to put a word to every action and feeling.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 19, 2019)

I have this joke about my son with my wife when he comes out as trans I scream "Oh please just be gay". He won't be though. He's going to be a Nazi.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

Memoir said:


> The simple fact is that human nature can not be so easily defined. Our biggest mistake was trying to put a word to every action and feeling.


I don't think it was a mistake to start the long march toward progress on human rights.  The mistake is the belief that any one doctrine is infallible, that no more progress is necessary.  That's how we end up with priests who think it's okay to engage in pedophilia, but not okay to marry women.



Glyptofane said:


> I have this joke about my son with my wife when he comes out as trans I scream "Oh please just be gay". He won't be though. He's going to be a Nazi.


Yeah that's not the way kids work.  If you try to make his decisions for him, the result is going to be an extremely rebellious teenager.  He's more likely to end up Antifa if you try to force Nazism on him.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's not the way kids work.  If you try to make his decisions for him, the result is going to be an extremely rebellious teenager.  He's more likely to end up Antifa if you try to force Nazism on him.


I know, you're probably right. I thought about it. They are saying the teenagers now are the most conservative since like WW1. I was thinking it's backlash against the indoctrination public schooling but also mostly their Bernie Bros millenial parents.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> They are saying the teenagers now are the most conservative since like WW1.


Who is "they?"  With a cursory glance it seems to be easy to find articles suggesting either: conservative media says Gen Z is moving to the right, liberal media says they're moving further left.  The only election so far that a reasonable number of Gen Z voters have been able to participate in was 2018, and it does seem they went mostly for liberal candidates.  Only time will tell if that trend is going to continue.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Who is "they?"  With a cursory glance it seems to be easy to find articles suggesting either: conservative media says Gen Z is moving to the right, liberal media says they're moving further left.  The only election so far that a reasonable number of Gen Z voters have been able to participate in was 2018, and it does seem they went mostly for liberal candidates.  Only time will tell if that trend is going to continue.


You know who "they" are, but I really just did mean media in the general sense that time. I forget where I read that, but it was like a year or two ago, so I did the cursory glance after your reply and saw that the predictions/polls really do vary almost as wishful thinking depending on the publisher.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 20, 2019)

Female Athletes are suing making a civics complaint against Trans Women competing against them.



The lawsuit is about violation of Title 9 that gave women protections against discrimination in education and sports, and complaint is that allowing Trans Women compete in female sports reverses 50 years of female advancement.


The complaint says that CIAC Policy allows boys to displace girls from advancement to post season competition because of superior athletic ability and performance advantages. And girls will lose acknowledgements, opportunities, scholarships, and other benefits.


Basically the point where you give opportunities and rights to certain groups, you take away opportunities and rights for others.



Trans females are recognized as biological males. From physical strength to bone density to muscle mass.





https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/48568/breaking-teen-athletes-challenge-ct-policy-amanda-prestigiacomo?amp

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspag...ticut-policy-that-abolishes-girls-only-sports



The complaint link below. It lists run times between male and female, showing males outcompeting females, showing physiological differences on performance between boys and girls, and athletic performance in different sports.


http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SouleComplaintOCR.pdf




I knew something like this will happen sooner or later.


Like I said before, I’m not going to engage in debate because i’ll be wasting my time. This was in my recommended news section and i’ll let other people go at this one and talk about cross sex hormones. I already have my thoughts but I won’t say much.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Female Athletes are suing making a civics complaint against Trans Women competing against them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny how bone density is meantioned when several scientific studies have proven transgender women have pretty much the same bone density as cis women.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/articl...-ht-have-lower-bone-density-more-fat-mass-men


----------



## SG854 (Jun 20, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Funny how bone density is meantioned when several scientific studies have proven transgender women have pretty much the same bone density as cis women.
> 
> https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/articl...-ht-have-lower-bone-density-more-fat-mass-men


The title should answer your point.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The title should answer your point.



*Transgender women on HT have lower bone density, more fat mass than men.*


The title clearly says transgender women have lower bone density than men. 



Also if you actually read what I linked to it clearly says 
Lumbar spine density was lower than in reference men but similar to that of reference women


----------



## SG854 (Jun 20, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Funny how bone density is meantioned when several scientific studies have proven transgender women have pretty much the same bone density as cis women.
> 
> https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/articl...-ht-have-lower-bone-density-more-fat-mass-men


Like I said. I have not shared my opinions on the matter.

I’m just linking articles on what the Title 9 lawsuit is about. Those are not my thoughts. Whether or not I agree I have not shared.

I also mention in my post that people can talk about cross sex hormones. Which is what the article you linked mentioned in the Title, Trans Women on HT. Basically they are being physiologically altered with hormones. So people can talk about it’s use and how old of age when taking it can they be considered a eligible. And about Trans that have not taken HT.

So this shows there is clear biological differences to male and females. And 2) if there wasn’t then they wouldn’t need cross sex hormones to make changes.


I’m guessing you made assumptions. But like I said I’m not going to waste my time talking about this and i’ll just watch other people and hear what they say.


----------



## cots (Jun 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I’m guessing you made assumptions. But like I said I’m not going to waste my time talking about this and i’ll just watch other people and hear what they say.



Possibly, could you start a new thread? This is interesting, but not related to the topic I started. I'd like to address the issue, but Chary mentioned that we need to stay on topic.


----------



## cots (Jun 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Female Athletes are suing making a civics complaint against Trans Women competing against them.



So, I guess I'l roll with it.

Doesn't surprise me. Just because you think you're a women in your head doesn't change the sex your were assigned at birth nor does chopping off any body parts and replacing them with others. I believe it would be unfair to allow people that were born males to compete with females if the rules state it's a female only event (which they do). No one is being discriminated against. You have male sports and female sports, because, there are only two sexes.

Of course, the people going around trying to discriminate against others by calling them transphobic and trying to manipulate and control the situation and silence others are the ones that are showing their true colors. They also think they are activists, but simply posting on Twitter all day long isn't any type of work. Try telling a Mexican farm worker that your back hurts from sitting in your chair for hours on end pretending to be an activist. They really are the new Rev. George Lee's. Give me a break. The trans "issue" isn't a major civil rights issue. It barely effects anyone personally. Trans are such a low minority which are categorized under another minority. I think these kids need to read their history books before comparing themselves and their made up causes to the past. It's like trying to force discussion on everyone about minor rectal bleeding.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

I didn't read every single page so I might've missed it but no one here has argued that gender and sex are the same thing right? I said that because the athletics thing is only contentious if you need to force people into seeing gender and sex as the same.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2019)

subcon959 said:


> I didn't read every single page so I might've missed it but no one here has argued that gender and sex are the same thing right? I said that because the athletics thing is only contentious if you need to force people into seeing gender and sex as the same.


People have mistakenly argued that gender and sex are the same thing, yes.


----------



## YetoJesse (Jul 29, 2019)

Is this EOF?...

*double checks

Hmmm.. it's not... 

On topic: Words are bull anyway and as I do not want to be banned from this place, I'll refrain from using my preferred way of speech. 
At a certain point, people got too into boasting 'Freedom of speech' which went from phrases such as:
 "I, as person A, don't feel valued as much as person B." 
into: 
"I have a right to call you whatever I want, even if it's degrading" 
into: 
"No matter what you say, I'll just say you said this and that to make myself feel superiour."

At this point, we reached this one fantastic threshold:
If there is Freedom of Speech, than Freedom of Opinion should be just as important.

Example. We use the N-word in our inner-circle only to refer to people having certain dark tan. which mainly means they're either from Nigeria, Africa, Suriname etc. 
(our inner circle does indeed also mean the people that fit to this group, yet out of respect, we tend to ask for said person's approval first, preferably in the utmost respectable way.)
This gives said people, in our opinion, also the right to come with their names for us 'white people'. 

Freedom of Opinion: As some are trying to disapprove said word, we prefer taking the negativity out of it and only use said negativity as satire. 

this ofcourse means that certain people will call us racist, yet it's okay to say that all asians look alike and call a chinese guy japanes or vice versa. (Wonderful world we're in.).

In other words, I don't believe in all this trans, lgbt, pride bullcrap, just as much as I believed in these cults labeled as religions. 
I prefer using the negativity around these made up words as dark-humour/satire and not give any further attention to it whatsoever. 

Same with being called a racist. If you're happy with calling me a racist, well good for you. Fetch yourself a cake, buttercup.
But seriously, it's bothering you more than it's bothering me and to be frank, after all these years growing up, being bothered from all sides, I've sort of lost interest taking these snowflakes seriously. 

TL;DR?: If you like humping a stuffed animal and it makes you happy, good for you! Just don't pay attention to me calling you a fag.
In the end, we're both laughing and if you lose your stuffed animal, I'll still help you find it, mate.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> People have mistakenly argued that gender and sex are the same thing, yes.


Oh dear, well I think I'll just leave it then as it will undoubtedly get out of hand quickly. Silly me, I actually genuinely thought that the athletics thing was pretty clear cut and not nuanced like most other issues.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 29, 2019)

Well seeing as has how people keep mistakingly saying trans athletes especially trans  women have an unfair advantage in sports I'm gonna leave this here. Its just one of many reports that have been done that say trans athletes have zero advantage.

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/


Also The Canadian scientist Joanna Harper, published a study in 2015  that showed male-to-female transgender athletes tended to run significantly slower after having hormone therapy to reduce testosterone, to the point where they had no advantage over other women.


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2019)

YetoJesse said:


> I prefer using the negativity around these made up words as dark-humour/satire and not give any further attention to it whatsoever.


I'd actually call you someone that culturally appropriates then. And your specific way of doing it - most recently became popular because of a kind of popcultural phenomenon on the far right - I like to call "the rise of the pepe people". (After Pepe the frog.)

The thing is, that none of this was done naively. The far right had a tough PR problem to solve - with all different forms of racism having been pretty clearly labeled as racism for the better part of three, four generations now.


So they got inventive. Following the same sentiment of no 'insert cultural subgroup here' in my country - they suddenly wouldnt want to call themselves racist - but 'cultural nativist' (everyone should live n the country they are born in). Makes absolutely no sense (what you anti travelers now?) but on the surface level its just ambiguous enough - that it didn't trigger the "yep thats racist" threshhold in society - for maybe two years or so. Nowadays - knowing how it came to be - we would say, that yes - its racist.

Another thing they came up with is to post openly racist content - but insisting, that they are doing so as part of a hilarious satire - that people didn't really get. Because there was none. It followed the principle of 'say something horrible' then add 'just kidding' at the and, and people dont quite know how to react anymore. Thats all the magic, behind the racially charged pepe memes. Its far right propaganda, making it possible again for people to 'talk' about racially charged stereotyping that was a societal taboo for generations.

So you might not like those cults people call religions, but you seemed to have found your own one of these which you are pretty happy with. And thats also only there because someone thought it would be a wonderful way to manipulate people into tolerating stuff, they didn't tolerate for generations. (Societal taboo.)


There are a few inklings, that you do what you do - by sharing tropes (stuff other people said), and that you havent thought this through entirely. Or that you are only out there to convince people, of lets say a certain mental aptitude (everytime I say 'stupid people exist' a moderater in here insists that they have to censor it, because its not respectful to whoever I'm accusing, so I have to find ways to say it - without saying it (kind of making the bigger point here...)) -- very similar to professional spammers who only target the not quite educated - because percentage wise, they are loosing time with more intelligent folks.


Here are two of those inklings. "I'm sorry, but are you from Nigeria [country in africa], Africa, Suriname - because I would wan't to call you the N word" is not something people ask in real life. I'm sorry to tell you.

The N word is partly 'usable' (with permission) in certain black subcultures, because it has power. The word was used for centuries to denigrate an entire group of people as 'less than humans'. In concept, and in practice. So black subcultures have tried and successfully culturally appropriated it - stripping it entirely of its original meaning - and "owning" it. This is a psychological concept - where something looses (implied, social) power over you, once you make/use/do it yourself/your own. It takes the sting out of it. They took what it meant for generations, and they made something less horrible - bordering on endearment. Its used that way to 'get over it'. But as soon as anyone else in society - pronounces - 'No, no - I also only use it that way - so 'they' can get over it' - kind of doesnt work anymore, does it.

So its still taboo - for pretty much everyone - so dont try.

There is power in this taboo as well. And no it is not a problem. Not a problem even close to the original issue, that we are trying to deal with here as society.

The next inkling that you might have not thought so good is, that you say that you would just be using the word - out of a sense of satire, irony maybe. ('If people call me a racist for that, then its not my fault.')

Now - satire, and irony are concepts (emotions) that are born out of loss. And a way to deal with sadness. So - you only venture into satire - usually - if you know of a certain thing - pretty much by heart, and because of living through it - know that it is wrong, and that you cant change it. And still have to deal with it. You don't 'make just a funny a joke with satire' to be funny. And if you do - it doesnt work.

Thats usually also something you wouldnt have to follow up with 'you can call me a racist, but', because the distinction should be very clear.

So here is your easy guideline from today on - if you have to do a double take on something with 'you can call me racist, but..' with it in the latter part of a sentence, chances are - that you said something racist. That you understood that it was racist. And that you are now worried about public perception - and now are backpadling.

But the good thing is, that you caught yourself doing it, so you know what it meant, and social shunning (taboos) still work as intended.


'I only use the negativity of those words to make fun of them' thereby doesnt work - AT ALL.

You dont decide what  meaning the word gay has. Or yew. Or transsexual. Or... society does. To 'make fun' of the negativity in those words - you must understand that, when you are doing that - you are stripping them of meaning.

You do that intentionally - so people start to look at certain concepts at all, or jut so they don't always associate negative thoughts with a certain word - just the same. But you never do it "just because they are negative".

Because from that sentiment alone, all the world ever needs is some sugar frosting, and some helium balloons.


People that devide the world in toxic (negative), and positive (happy) - havent quite understood how the world, societies, or language works.

When it comes to loaded terms. A good joke always is insightful, and a bad joke is one that wasnt needed.

If you want to challange certain positions of the lets say SJW community, by all means - do it. But never do it because 'they so negative'.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Well seeing as has how people keep mistakingly saying trans athletes especially trans  women have an unfair advantage in sports I'm gonna leave this here. Its just one of many reports that have been done that say trans athletes have zero advantage.
> 
> https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/
> 
> ...


I'm having a hard time trusting any of papers I've read on this topic (for either side) as they always seem to be by people with a specific agenda. I don't really want to debate the issue though as I don't want to offend anyone here over something I definitely don't feel as strongly about as they probably do.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 29, 2019)

subcon959 said:


> I'm having a hard time trusting any of papers I've read on this topic (for either side) as they always seem to be by people with a specific agenda. I don't really want to debate the issue though as I don't want to offend anyone here over something I definitely don't feel as strongly about as they probably do.


Same here basically. But I just want to point out that you don't need to read any papers on it. You just need logic:
Men to women transsexuals often outcompete women in sports
Women to men do not outcompete men in sports.
(+Men have an andvantage over women in sports)
Ergo: Gender is linked to sex/biology.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Same here basically. But I just want to point out that you don't need to read any papers on it. You just need logic:
> Men to women transsexuals often outcompete women in sports
> Women to men do not outcompete men in sports.
> (+Men have an andvantage over women in sports)
> Ergo: Gender is linked to sex/biology.


Yes, thats what I meant by clear cut but it seems some people don't see it that way and I don't see any merit in debating it.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 29, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Men to women transsexuals often outcompete women in sports
> 
> (+Men have an andvantage over women in sports)
> Ergo: Gender is linked to sex/biology.




I would love for you to name more than 1 trans sports woman who constantly out perform cis women in high profile professional sports.

Other than Rachel McKinnon winning the woman's sprint World Track Cycling Championship in the 35-44 age bracket there isn't any other trans female that has been a world champion in a major sport.

Let's also look at the Olympics where trans male and females have been allowed to compete since 2004. How many trans athletes have won medals the answer is zero. The same at the World athletics championships and so on.


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2019)

Now you are making the 'hey nothing will change that much in society at large' arguments... 

Kind of shows you how big societies power in defining conventions and norms really is.

So for anyone afraid that they will not recognize the world tomorrow, neh - usually not how those things work.

When everyone stops thinking about an issue, because thats just how things were - then you have achieved full societal recognition.

That change - the one that usually matters, is quite slow and nothing people necessarily have to be afraid of, or worried about.

Outrageous examples:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/4-bad-side-effects-of-rea_b_5513451

https://daily.jstor.org/the-racism-of-19th-century-advertisements/


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 30, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I would love for you to name more than 1 trans sports woman who constantly out perform cis women in high profile professional sports.
> 
> Other than Rachel McKinnon winning the woman's sprint World Track Cycling Championship in the 35-44 age bracket there isn't any other trans female that has been a world champion in a major sport.
> 
> Let's also look at the Olympics where trans male and females have been allowed to compete since 2004. How many trans athletes have won medals the answer is zero. The same at the World athletics championships and so on.



I don't know Rachel McKinnon, nor do I care. I only saw a trans man to woman weightlifter winning because it was in the news. The number of trans people competing in sports is very low. I could also not name you an Estonian female golfer.

If you reject the claim that gender is linked to or based on sex/biology, you need to explain to us why no men complain about unfair advantages of women to men trans people competing with them. But it does exist the other way around.
I don't advocate for rule changes because I personally don't care.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 30, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I would love for you to name more than 1 trans sports woman who constantly out perform cis women in high profile professional sports.
> 
> Other than Rachel McKinnon winning the woman's sprint World Track Cycling Championship in the 35-44 age bracket there isn't any other trans female that has been a world champion in a major sport.
> 
> Let's also look at the Olympics where trans male and females have been allowed to compete since 2004. How many trans athletes have won medals the answer is zero. The same at the World athletics championships and so on.



There's Fallon Fox in MMA who only has a single loss on her professional record and broke an opponents skull.
There's Mary Gregory who broke a powerlifting world record in her masters category.
There's Laurel Hubbard in weightlifting.

There's more but I CBA to list them all out when a simple google search reveals what you're asking for quickly.

TBF, I don't really give a shit about masters categories they're mainly recreational competition for people who never made the pros and some post-retirement pros, so I really take no interest in McKinnon's, Gregory's or Dumaresq's records or world championships. However, Cycling is notorious for fierce amateur competition with regular occurences of doping, so a person who wins a world championship there a few years after starting the sport and only a year after transitioning to the track would raise suspicion even if she wasn't trans, you can watch Icarus on Netfix if you're interested in that.
Regarding UCI's rules for trans women it should also be said that they're allowed to maintain the maximum allowable testosterone levels for females through controlled medication which cis women aren't allowed to do, that in itself is an inherent advantage trans women athletes have.

What I'm more concerned about than professional sports even is youth sports. Results in youth competitions dictate whether you can get assistance in the form of financial help for training camps or scolarships.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 30, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> There's Fallon Fox in MMA who only has a single loss on her professional record and broke an opponents skull.
> There's Mary Gregory who broke a powerlifting world record in her masters category.
> There's Laurel Hubbard in weightlifting.
> 
> There's more but I CBA to list them all out when a simple google search reveals what you're asking for quickly.


Ok so I asked for you to name trans woman people dominating in their sport so let's look at the people you listed.

Fallon Fox MMA record 5 wins and 1 lose.
If you actually look at the women she beat every one of them have a terrible lose record against other women the one time she faced anyone good she lost. That is hardly dominanting her chosen sport. Had she a record of 30 wins and 0 losses then you would have an argument but not with a 5-1 record. And yes in her fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents did suffer a concussion, and an orbital bone fracture, but that type of injury is not uncommon in MMA and has nothing to do with Fallon being a trans woman.

Also just want to post this about Fallon and other trans women in combat sports.

Eric Vilain, the director of the Institute For Society And Genetics at UCLA, worked with the Association of Boxing Commissions when they wrote their policy on transgender athletes. He stated in Time magazine that "Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males" and said that, to be licensed, transgender female fighters must undergo complete "surgical anatomical changes ..., including external genitalia and gonadectomy and subsequently a minimum of two years of hormone replacement therapy, administered by a board certified specialist. In general concurrence with peer-reviewed scientific literature, he states this to be "the current understanding of the minimum amount of time necessary to obviate male hormone gender related advantages in sports competition". Vilain reviewed Fox's medical records and said she has "clearly fulfilled all conditions.

He clearly states that trans women have zero advantage over cis women in combat sports.

Mary Gregory does not count as her world records have rightly been striped from her as she has not yet fully transitioned and should never have been allowed to compete in the first place as she never even made the requirement of being on Hrt for a minimum of two years required by all trans athletes to complete in sports.

Laurel Hubbard has won a few minor weight lifting competitions but has not one anything major so again she is not dominating her chosen sport.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 30, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Ok so I asked for you to name trans woman people dominating in their sport so let's look at the people you listed.



I anticiapated that you would pick and chose but why even bring up Rachel McKinnon then?



AmandaRose said:


> Laurel Hubbard has won a few minor weight lifting competitions but has not one anything major so again she is not dominating her chosen sport.



Why does Wikipedia list them as results in majors?



AmandaRose said:


> you actually look at the women she beat every one of them have a terrible lose record against other women the one time she faced anyone good she lost.



That's just absurdly untrue, her last three opponents, including the one she lost to and the one whose skull she broke, do not have a losing record. At the time the woman that she lost to had a professional record of 1-0.



AmandaRose said:


> Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males



This is relevant how? No one has a problem with male to female transsexuals competing against men.



AmandaRose said:


> Eric Vilain, the director of the Institute For Society And Genetics at UCLA, worked with the Association of Boxing Commissions when they wrote their policy on transgender athletes. He stated in Time magazine that "Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males" and said that, to be licensed, transgender female fighters must undergo complete "surgical anatomical changes ..., including external genitalia and gonadectomy and subsequently a minimum of two years of hormone replacement therapy, administered by a board certified specialist. In general concurrence with peer-reviewed scientific literature, he states this to be "the current understanding of the minimum amount of time necessary to obviate male hormone gender related advantages in sports competition". Vilain reviewed Fox's medical records and said she has "clearly fulfilled all conditions.



AFAIK the upper limit for testosterone for females is believed to be 10 nmol/L while it's believed 99% for women are below roughly 3 nmol/L. Transgender athletes need to show they're below 10 nmol/L for 2 years, effectively allowing them to control testosterone to be three times as high as 99% of women. Testosterone levels are one of the best indicators for performance. Here's what Vilain had to say about it:



> The rule allowed for testosterone to be considerably above the normal female range, so I have always looked at the guidelines as very inclusive.



Of course there is no perfect solution to an imperfect situation but claiming that transgender females don't have an advantage because they only have an advantage over 99% of women for inclusivity is ridiculous.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 30, 2019)

why even bring up Rachel McKinnon then?
Because yes she is world champion but she is not dominating the sport


Ok so you asked. Why does Wikipedia list them as results in majors?
It says major results not major tournament wins there is a huge difference


You also state the one whose skull she broke,

She did not brake someone's skull she fractured her orbital bone again a huge difference and as I previously stated a common injury in MMA that has happened before with cis women fighting each other. The injury has nothing to do with the fighter being a trans woman

You said This is relevant how? No one has a problem with male to female transsexuals competing against men.

It's relevant because it clearly states a trans woman does not have an advantage over a cis woman. As I have previously stated there has been numerous scientific studies done the provide evidence that tran women have similar levels of testosterone as cis women and they gain zero advantage.

And if they did gain an advantage then there would be more trans world champions when there isn't.

Again there is zero evidence of trans women dominating there chosen sport.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 30, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> It says major results not major tournament wins there is a huge difference



OK let's look at the minor competitions she had major results in, because you know, Wikipedia lists them.

World Championships
Commonwealth Games
Oceania Championships
Commonwealth Championships
Pacific Games
Arafura Games
World Masters Games
Also something I didn't know before. Apparently a DNF is a major result now.



AmandaRose said:


> You also state the one whose skull she broke,
> 
> She did not brake someone's skull she fractured her orbital bone again a huge difference and as I previously stated a common injury in MMA that has happened before with cis women fighting each other.



Fair enough



AmandaRose said:


> The injury has nothing to do with the fighter being a trans woman



Care to substantiate that claim?



AmandaRose said:


> It's relevant because it clearly states a trans woman does not have an advantage over a cis woman. As I have previously stated there has been numerous scientific studies done the provide evidence that tran women have similar levels of testosterone as cis women and they gain zero advantage.



First of all, that's just plain wrong. Your Statement "Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males" says nothing about trans women in relation to biological women. Having a disadvantage against men does not mean they do not have an advantage over females.



AmandaRose said:


> As I have previously stated there has been numerous scientific studies done the provide evidence that tran women have similar levels of testosterone as cis women and they gain zero advantage.



Don't conflate trans women with trans women athletes. One of them has a motivation to keep their testosterone levels high the other doesn't.



AmandaRose said:


> And if they did gain an advantage then there would be more trans world champions when there isn't.



Holy fallacy.


----------



## Uiaad (Dec 12, 2019)

People are people. Black, white, gay, straight, trans, non-binary. Every person on this planet is a person with their own thoughts, feelings and ideas and they can call or be whatever they like doesn't change the fact they are still people. If you don't like what someone calls you or says just walk way, no one is forcing you to be around a particular person or group. Great thing about being human is that we have full autonomy to do what the fuck we like. Find another group or person to hang about with if you find the problem keeps on following you then you may have to face the fact that the problem is you if not then problem solved and you can stop your whining.

Seem you have an axe to grind, I mean necrobumping a 5 month old, we get what? 80 rotations around the sun on this planet as we hurtle through the vast emptiness of space if we are lucky. Life's too short bickering and arguing over shit. If I don't like something yeah i'll say something but sweet jesus and the baby orphans, learn to let stuff go. You'll live longer and enjoy life more.


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 12, 2019)

This thread has far outlived its purpose.


----------

