Social Transgender Megathread Vol. 2

Did you join the pronoun circus?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
the use is that is allows for the creation of a moral limit through debate and evaluation according to personal ethics and code of morality. these things are important.
perhaps the answer is zero. or two. or a thousand.

Right. So saying I don't know isn't so silly after all.
 
Right. So saying I don't know isn't so silly after all.
you could try one according to your internal morality code and personal ethics.
don't those tell you anything?
for me these acts perpetrated against kids are so monstrous that i simply cannot be silent.
it would be better for me to just avoid this thread altogether and act like it's none of my business.
 
I’ve never “dodged” any genuine questions. I try not to engage too much with the knuckle-dragging alt-right type crowd, as you guys often hold steadfast to your extreme beliefs and are resistant to reason.

I asked you a reasonable question: What are the long term studies that shows the safety of giving puberty blockers to children (in regards to cognitive development, bone density risk, cancer risk, infertility issues, etc)?
 
It depends.

Having a strong opinion on the subject without any real knowkedge seems stupid and redundant, no?

I'm just going to explain how I see it. When it comes to minors we do not let them make a host of decisions and the reasoning is that they are not old enough to have the capacity to consent to those decisions. Imo there is no reason why that would change on this subject. It's actually crazier to for this to be some exception when it involves cutting off or mutilating body parts. For me it's clear as day.
 
Debunking your untruths (eg DSM only discusses genetics, transgender patients are merely treasure chests for doctors to mutilate and exploit) is not whining and running away. It’s exposing you for what you are, a know-nothing, hateful transphobe. Now goodbye.

Ah the ole mudslinging transphobe at us and running away. Classic.
 
Lol he edited that post.
If you are talking about my post, which I’m sure you can see the original version that was quoted, I only edited it to add the word “other”. I’m at work and writing quick replies on my phone during brief downtimes, so I’m bound to make typos and write less precisely worded sentences sometimes. Not sure what you think the significance is of adding a single word.
 
If you are talking about my post, which I’m sure you can see the original version that was quoted, I only edited it to add the word “other”. I’m at work and writing quick replies on my phone during brief downtimes, so I’m bound to make typos and write less precisely worded sentences sometimes. Not sure what you think the significance is of adding a single word.

My fault. I mixed up that post with another one. Disregard.
 
Imagine ever being bothered at being labelled a "transphobe".
 



I believe this person among many others does genuinely believe, deep down, he's a woman. He also knows he isn't and no amount of surgical mutilation or forced participation will make him one. He knows that even those who call him female pronouns, don't actually believe his delusions - they are just being polite. A bit like a 30 stone man having his female friends tell him "hey, you'll find someone....you're a great guy....you have such a cool personality and a lovely smile."

And this knowledge makes him absolutely resent women because it represents what he wants so badly to be but will never be.

It's also why tons of trans women still commit suicide after surgery. They look in the mirror and despite all the time,money, emotional trauma and investment, the physical pain they now feel (which wasn't there pre surgery) the fact they are highly unlikely to be able to have actual sex again without limitations (which wasn't there pre surgery, whether that be hetero or homosexual intercourse)....

After all that. The mirror still says
.........man. a changed man, a more feminine man.

But still a man. A man who's now made irreversible changes to his body.
 
It seems this language is used to emphasize the fact that a person's sex is not something that they can choose, but rather it is a biological characteristic that is named by the doctor at the time of their birth. Additionally, I think this wording can help to avoid confusion or ambiguity, as terms like gender, sex, gender identity are not well-understood by many people.
How can they possibly be well understood when supposed experts use such imprecise terminology? With rampant usage of such imprecise terminology, one can't help but wonder if it is the experts who are confused.

Biological sex does not cease to exist if the doctor fails to identify it at birth. To say biological sex is the characteristic named by the doctor at the time of birth communicates zero information about what biological sex actually is. Identification by a doctor is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria of biological sex. It is not a property of biological sex. Identification by the doctor is a proxy.

By analogy, it is the equivalent of someone asking, "How can you determine a person's blood type?", and answering, "A person's blood type can be determined by asking the person's doctor." It is a technically true answer. But it communicates no useful information, because identification by the doctor is not a property of what blood type is.

In the gender identity context, people define gender identity in the same manner. People will say gender is what someone self identifies as, as if self-identification is the fundamental property of gender. Whether this is true or not simply depends on how you define gender, which I take no position on. However, it may be useful for you to confirm whether you believe self-identification is the fundamental property of gender -- or whether self-identification is analogous to the way in which a doctor identifies sex -- a proxy to a more fundamental property.
 
Biological sex does not cease to exist if the doctor fails to identify it at birth. To say biological sex is the characteristic named by the doctor at the time of birth communicates zero information about what biological sex actually is. Identification by a doctor is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria of biological sex. It is not a property of biological sex. Identification by the doctor is a proxy.

Birth registration is a required process to document a child's birth. The sex goes on the baby's birth certificate. They don't karyotype every baby. Whether sex should be removed as a legal designation on birth certificates is a different topic.
 
Birth registration is a required process to document a child's birth. The sex goes on the baby's birth certificate. They don't karyotype every baby. Whether sex should be removed as a legal designation on birth certificates is a different topic.
What on earth do legal descriptions have to do with this discussion? Of course the law can define anything arbitrarily. I thought we were talking about biology.
 
I thought we were talking about biology.
We're talking about the process of a physician or midwife inspecting a newborn's genitalia when the baby is delivered and assigning the baby a sex. Pretty straightforward concept.
 
Back
Top