California Court SHUTS DOWN Transgender Pronoun Law

WG481 · Jul 30, 2021

Lacius said:
With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.

Gender and sex are two different things.

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

Deleted member 559230 · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

Lacius · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

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

It is a joke, by definition.

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

ChronoTrig · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

SG854 · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

SG854 · Jul 30, 2021

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

tabzer · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

Goku1992A · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

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

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

jimbo13 · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

SG854 · Jul 30, 2021

Goku1992A said:
There is an unwritten rule that people are missing. Being LGBTQ is considered as an endangered species if people think about it. Somewhere down the line you need to have a man and a woman to reproduce because if you don't then that group will be extinct. Remember many men who are homosexual may still have wives and families and some transgender are only transgender for short periods of time which is why the logic will always be flawed because that specific group doesn't reproduce. If everyone followed that path then it would die out in 200 years tops but once again down the mix heterosexuality keeps it alive.

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

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

Goku1992A · Jul 30, 2021

SG854 said:
Where does the rule part kick in? LGBTQ was never considered an endangered species. They existed for centuries and will exist centuries more.

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

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

Lacius · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

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

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

jimbo13 said:
Not true, gender specific fashion evolved due what was functional based on biology.

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

Seliph · Jul 30, 2021

Goku1992A said:
This is what I mean.... let's just say there were 4 people. 2 men and 2 women that were considered gay/lesbian. Technically speaking if the opposite sex don't mate they would die out but down the road they mated. So what I'm saying is some men/women who liked the same sex still reproduced with the opposite sex because if they only stuck to the same sex then LGBTQ wouldn't have made it passed the first 100 years.

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

What

jimbo13 said:
Not true, gender specific fashion evolved due what was functional based on biology.

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

Lacius · Jul 30, 2021

Goku1992A said:
This is what I mean.... let's just say there were 4 people. 2 men and 2 women that were considered gay/lesbian. Technically speaking if the opposite sex don't mate they would die out but down the road they mated. So what I'm saying is some men/women who liked the same sex still reproduced with the opposite sex because if they only stuck to the same sex then LGBTQ wouldn't have made it passed the first 100 years.

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

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

Xzi · Jul 30, 2021

Goku1992A said:
LGBTQ lives on heterosexuality because without it the group will die within less than 100 years not everyone in the group is following the rules.

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

tabzer · Jul 30, 2021

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

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

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

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

Seliph · Jul 30, 2021

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

Ryan Gosling? Come on man

tabzer · Jul 30, 2021

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

super ghey.

Xzi · Jul 30, 2021

Seliph said:
Ryan Gosling? Come on man

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

tabzer · Jul 30, 2021

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

I really like how he refuses to eat cereal.

California Court SHUTS DOWN Transgender Pronoun Law

Official Waluigi Propagandist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Hail Mary

This place is a meme.

Well-Known Member

Terry Crews #1 Fan

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Best Girl ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

This place is a meme.

Best Girl ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ

This place is a meme.

Time to fly, 621

This place is a meme.

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum