You're now one of 3 people I've blocked on Reddit. I don't even mind people sperging out at me, but what I do mind is just the complete lack of real arguments.
Most trans people are leftist whites who want to claim victimhood to obtain status in the progressive stack and have an excuse for their mediocrity and failures
Transgenderism was never a mental illness, journalists are just conflating terms like they always do. Gender incongruence is was was but no longer is considered a mental illness. In very basic terms, gender dysphoria is being unhappy with your gender, while gender incongruence is believing that you are the opposite gender.
Think of it like this. Somebody with dysphoria says "I am not happy being a man so I will take steps to become a woman", whereas somebody with incongruence says "Despite having the body of a man, I am and always have been a woman". While they both will probably decide to transition and become transgender, their reasoning stems from different places.
They’re the exact same thing. The only difference is that all someone with dysmorphia has to do is say they felt that way since birth and bam! Suddenly it isn’t mental illness, but a civil rights issue.
It’s nonsense. If you don’t think your gender and sex matches your chromosomes you’re delusional. Your gender and sex are supposed to match your chromosomes.
You don’t need an advanced degree in the social sciences to point out bullshit when you hear it. Something doesn’t just suddenly not become a medical disease because of a self-reporting component. We’re still looking at behavioral and psychological issues that deviate wildly from the statistical norm of the species overall.
No but you do need an actual degree in mental health sciences (among other things) to make claims like "waaaaah gender brain sex MUST match" lol.
It's really hilarious to see mongs like you foam at the mouth of the existence of %1 of population different than you. It's in every thread with screechings like "i don't think so". It's ok sweaty! Even if you're clutching your pearls really hard, not a single one of your opinion is gonna enter that DSM.👏👏
You don’t need an advanced degree in the social sciences to point out bullshit when you hear it
chews dip see in my daddy/brother-in-law's good ol' state of arkansas, we didn't need no educated to tell us whats right and whats wrong fucks sister the whole thing is just a made up bullshit by liberals shoots illegal immigrant mhm most degrees are stupid made up shit spends entire $60 on truck mods and back alley abortions
"All these brainlets with extensive backgrounds in medicine and mental health are hysterical. TIL"
Man, why is every fucking retard of reddit defending tranny activism spewing this shit? "BUT MUH SCIENNNNNNNCE SAYYYYYYS SOOOO"
There is no consensus in those para-science that are psychology, sociology or even medecine, fuckboy. The WHO, or the DSM, or any other board of "specialists" are that, a board. They're there for power, and it's, O B V I O U S L Y, a political game.
If you don’t think your gender and sex matches your chromosomes you’re delusional.
This is objectively retarded. There literally is a medical condition where the Y chromosome is never expressed due to mutations in the gene for testosterone sensitivity, resulting in someone who is for all intents and purposes a sterile woman. And I mean an actual woman with natural tits and wide hips and a vagina that looks and feels like a vagina, not some East German heavyweight rower in a dress. Once again, STEMfags prove that they need to fucking study biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
That means for every 100,000 women, 5-10 of them have this condition. That's a little bit higher than your chances of being a homicide victim in any given year in the United States.
Also, I never claimed that people with CAIS are transgender. They have no reason to be transgender, they were born with a body that matches their brain. You just made claimed that thinking your sex chromosomes mismatch your gender is always delusional, and you were objectively wrong.
I guess people with incomplete AIS could be considered transgender, because they are born with bodies that don't fit into either of the two genders. They're truly unfortunate, and I can see why one of them would want to get surgery to correct that.
First of all, your odds comparison is bad. CAIS is a chronic condition, meaning that you have to be comparing it to the chance of being a homicide victim during your entire life. A CAIS patient will continue being a patient next year too.
Also You've got it the other way around.
Transgender has an incredibly weak correspondence with intersex conditions.
Finally, what does it even mean to have a gender. Like, aside from having a penis and testosterone and the accompanying biological signals, what does being male mean? It doesn't mean anything. There are 0 genders.
All right, go with 100,000 live births every year. My point still stands, it's rare but not so rare that it doesn't occur in a significant number of people.
From a biological perspective, such cases are very valuable as the establish how the machinery works. That's why things like JAMA and the Lancet published case studies and I think still do.
It occurs in a significant number of absolute people, but that's only because we're playing with big population numbers. As a percentage, it's still vanishingly small. Not enough to change the definition of how sex is determined, and in fact, reinforces it.
Finally, what does it even mean to have a gender. Like, aside from having a penis and testosterone and the accompanying biological signals, what does being male mean? It doesn't mean anything. There are 0 genders.
Galactic_brain.jpg
Seriously though apparently different people experience gender with different strength and a lot of cis people are kinda agender. And most TERFs are transmen in denial.
Anyway, if you're not also bisexual, contrast your question with "what could it possibly mean to be attracted to women?"
I am, but I'll entertain the question as if I were straight.
Quelle surprise. Well, my point is that you can't easily entertain that question "as if you were straight" any more than you could entertain the question of what even are dissonant colors if you were colorblind but "as if" you were not.
Still doesn't answer the question of "Can you describe gender in a way that can't substitute personality and have it still make sense?"
Yes and no. Go here and look at the picture with a pentagram and a star. You can also read all the text but I'm not going to subject you to that.
The point of the picture is that if you were an Artificial Intelligence unconstrained by computational constraints, then you could reason about the world as it is, with a network containing only known or unknown brute facts and their mutual probabilities of co-occurring, like the pentagram on the left. You'd have no need for concepts like "cat" or "dog", you could reason from "this object weights more than 20 pounds" and "it's whipping its tail" directly to the "low probability that I'm going to get bitten".
Human brains do have computational constraints and therefore work more like the star-shaped scheme on the right: first you weight all available brute facts to determine if it's a cat or a dog, then use the same weights to determine probabilities of unknown brute facts ("whips tail when upset") based on that.
The interesting thing is that not only this happens entirely automatically, but we can't naturally distinguish brute fact nodes from category assignment nodes. So, like, you see people who believe that "X is a man" is the same sort of statement as "X has stubble", when actually that's two completely different things, "has stubble" is a fact about the world while "being a woman" doesn't exist in the world, there's no observable characteristic corresponding to it, it's a virtual node that our brains make up to simplify computations.
So, finally back to your question: your sexual attraction as you talk about it seems to operate mostly without that extra "gender category" node. It's mostly about the brute facts: nice bone structure contributes to attractiveness, clear skin gives a bonus, being an asshole reduces it, all that stuff gets weighted up and added up and results in a desire to have sex with that person.
Strictly heterosexual people on the other hand have the gender node strongly influencing the "attractiveness" outcome, first all those brute fact characteristics are used to determine if you see that person as a man or woman, and then that, together with all those characteristics again, determines how much do you want to fuck them. And I want to emphasize that this is not a conscious process at all. And also that there's the Kinsey scale etc.
One's own gender works more or less the same way. I don't know, if you don't have the gender node strongly expressed I'm not sure what other analogy I could use to prove to you that in a lot of people it is strongly expressed, show this comment to your more exclusively gay or straight friends and ask if it makes sense to them.
Anything aside from core sexual differentiation is mutable and thus not based in anything but cultural mores.
Sure, but just like there's an insanely complex biological mechanism that allows children to learn language -- whatever language! entirely socially determined! -- and map it back to biological concepts like getting fed and cared for, there probably is a biological mechanism that lets people learn gender and map it to sexual attraction and exhibiting sexually attractive behavior and outlook.
Okay, so you obviously like ML models, so let me explain my thesis in a way that might make more sense.
Say we were to run a Mixed Markov Chain Model, with 200,000 repetitions, where we take human progenitors pre-society, randomize the situation but keep the innate biological markers and their distribution methods. Then, we see the characteristics that develop along the lines of either sex, and we run this simulation over and over and over.
Characteristics that more biological and ingrained in the starting conditions are ones that will appear most often. These at their core would be things like primary sexual characteristics, but as you go out among the characteristics may start to be things like "Propensity for anger due to testosterone". Things that have a biological impetus, but are not a sentence that is as near inevitable as the presence of genitals.
My thesis is that because we are only living in one iteration of this system, we tend to identify traits that are oversexed. But that looking at enough iterations, those traits that are strongly linked to sex are more minimal than might be expected.
Anything else is a self-assigned burden. With a little help from society. Hence, no genders. Or alternatively, as many genders as there are people. Either/or.
But that looking at enough iterations, those traits that are strongly linked to sex are more minimal than might be expected.
I don't disagree at all.
If you live in the early 29th century then blue is the calm female color and pink is the aggressive male color (true thing btw). And if you live now then it's the other way around without much of an explanation even.
But then I say that I'd expect a usual human to be hard-wired to very efficiently learn what color her or his particular society assigns to their gender and then experience gender dysphoria if they are forced to wear the wrong color.
Because it's kinda very important for reproducing to be able to be only attracted to the opposite sex and to present in such a way that the opposite sex is attracted to you, regardless of the particular customs of your tribe. The people who weren't good at that didn't reproduce and aren't among your ancestors, so all of your ancestors were at least passable at doing that.
So, biologically there are two sexes, therefore there are two almost entirely socially determined genders. People figure out what the social markers of their gender are and end up wearing pink and attracted to blue if they are males in 1900 or females in 2000. Roughly speaking. Point is, there's no fundamental contradiction here.
And nothing about that is a "self-assigned burden", go tell your best lesbian friend that not being attracted to men is a "self-assigned burden" and she'd enjoy her life much more if she just gets over it. OK, you don't instinctively understand why she would slap you in the face, because you're bisexual and above all this silly stuff, but you do know that she would, right? People are different, she is different from you like that, you can't directly experience the insides of other people's heads, so with enough of them telling you, you just have to trust that they are not pulling your leg.
And nothing about that is a "self-assigned burden", go tell your best lesbian friend that not being attracted to men is a "self-assigned burden" and she'd enjoy her life much more if she just gets over it. OK, you don't instinctively understand why she would slap you in the face, because you're bisexual and above all this silly stuff, but you do know that she would, right? People are different, she is different from you like that, you can't directly experience the insides of other people's heads, so with enough of them telling you, you just have to trust that they are not pulling your leg.
Now we're getting into sexual orientation, which is something entirely different. Why we have princess and lumberjack lesbians. Both lesbians.
Now we're getting into sexual orientation, which is something entirely different.
Not "now", it was literally the first thing I asked you: how do you reconcile wondering how having a gender is even possible with accepting that people could be exclusively attracted to one gender? That's two sides of one and the same coin.
Lesbian does not mean attracted to female presenting people. It means having an incredibly strong preference for vaginas. Again, someone attracted to a lumberjack lesbian or a princess lesbian IS STILL A LESBIAN.
Considering that secondary sexual characteristics allow you to very strongly guess about the primary, yes genitals are written into the face and your very bone structure. Facial hair is on your face, just so you know.
There is no such thing as a woman ideotype, except for sexual characteristics. A princess and a lumberjack woman are still women. And why are they women? Because of primary and sexual characteristics. Thus, no gender. Only sex.
Considering that secondary sexual characteristics allow you to very strongly guess about the primary, yes genitals are written into the face and your very bone structure. Facial hair is on your face, just so you know.
There is no such thing as a woman ideotype, except for sexual characteristics. A princess and a lumberjack woman are still women. And why are they women? Because of primary and sexual characteristics. Thus, no gender. Only sex.
That sounds like a contradiction to me. So I have an algorithm that looks at bone structure, face, height, behavior, dress, hair, voice, and says if it's a woman or not. You give it a princess and you give it a lumberjack and it identifies them as women. So while there are different archetypes of women, the very fact that this algorithm manages to guess the presence of vagina without seeing the vagina itself means that there is such a thing as female gender, expressed strictly in secondary characteristics.
You can try to avoid calling it gender and say that this node in your brain organization that lights up for different kinds of women is an "inferred vagina", but it refers to the same reality that I call "female gender", relabeling it can't change anything. I could use that terminology and state that lesbians are sexually attracted to inferred vaginas not to actual vaginas, and that transwomen are compelled to present in such a way (of multiple possible) that causes inferred vagina, and so on.
So Buck Angel has an inferred penis, and even after I discover that he actually has a real vagina I have zero sexual attraction, because the inferred penis is in the way, still as real as ever. At which point it makes sense to drop the confusing terminology and say that he's a dude with vagina.
(looking at edge cases is the most educational btw, because it's there where bad explanations break down and good explanations endure)
So while there are different archetypes of women, the very fact that this algorithm manages to guess the presence of vagina without seeing the vagina itself means that there is such a thing as female gender, expressed strictly in secondary characteristics.
Otherwise known as sexual secondary characteristics. Note the sexual, not the gender. Because these are derived from bio-systems, not choices.
Which renders the rest of the paragraphs equally moot. Buck has secondary sexual characteristics, but not the primary, for a male, due to a substitution (hormones). Hence the inferred penis.
All of this is sexual, not gender. Not based off of self-reporting, or how one feels. Direct and observable.
And edge cases make poor rules. Otherwise humans have variable numbers of chromosomes, no set organs, and may or may not have a functioning body.
Otherwise known as sexual secondary characteristics. Note the sexual, not the gender. Because these are derived from bio-systems, not choices.
I didn't mean secondary sex characteristics, I meant all of them, including cultural. Have you never seen a half-competent drag queen? How do you think all these secretly female popes and warriors managed to pass?
The gender-determination algorithm takes a bunch of inputs and produces the output.
Which renders the rest of the paragraphs equally moot. Buck has secondary sexual characteristics, but not the primary, for a male, due to a substitution (hormones). Hence the inferred penis.
...but even then, are you now saying that a woman who took enough hormones to grow a beard and fool a casual observer becomes a man? What happened to the "it's about the vagina and vagina only?"
All of this is sexual, not gender. Not based off of self-reporting, or how one feels. Direct and observable.
You are confusing different parts of my argument. It has two parts. In one, I insist that if you allow lesbians (or heterosexuals) then you should allow transsexuals. Because if there's a thing in the brain that says "this thing wears a dress, long hair, and make up, it's a woman and I'm attracted" then there should be a thing in the brain that says "I'm a woman, I want to wear a dress, long hair, and make up and be attractive to men". (Many radical feminists don't believe in "born this way" lesbians, by the way, because they choose to deny biological reality of gender entirely, because they are transmen in denial).
Now we discuss the other part, where you said that actually lesbians are attracted strictly to vaginas, and then I pointed out that they are attracted to inferred vaginas which is a different thing. Here there's no "feels and self-reporting", we are discussing how the attraction to a specific gender works, using direct and observable characteristics.
And here I think that even if I let you claim that it's strictly about secondary sex characteristics (which I strongly disagree with for the record), you still mostly conced the argument when you agree that the algorithm works on everything except the vagina (but the stuff that's usually biologically derived from having a vagina), because then HRT changes gender for real.
And edge cases make poor rules. Otherwise humans have variable numbers of chromosomes, no set organs, and may or may not have a functioning body.
That's literally true though. If your rules say that I'm only pretending to be a human because I don't have the appendix, your rules are bad and stupid, lol.
Have you never seen a half-competent drag queen? How do you think all these secretly female popes and warriors managed to pass?
By obfuscating primary and sexual secondary characteristics. Next.
...but even then, are you now saying that a woman who took enough hormones to grow a beard and fool a casual observer becomes a man? What happened to the "it's about the vagina and vagina only?"
Because secondary characteristics imply the primary. Largely because the two are coincidental. They arise from the same sexual phenomena. If I see someone with no facial hair, angular bone structure, slender hands, then it can be implied that they are likely to have a vagina.
"I'm a woman, I want to wear a dress, long hair, and make up and be attractive to men"
Of those things, none of them relate to a secondary sexual characteristic. A dress is not determined by biology, neither is long hair (the quality maybe, but not the length). They are not innately female. They do not relate to biological systems. You are assuming these flags would remain among all iterations.
As for HRT, it cannot erase all traces, but if for example there were a surgery that imitated perfect organs, developed eggs, and reversed years of hormones, then I would say it changes sex. For now, it's an inbetween.
That's literally true though. If your rules say that I'm only pretending to be a human because I don't have the appendix, your rules are bad and stupid, lol.
No, it means that if you are missing an appendix and if that is an organ on a significant amount of the population, that you are an outlier. Intersex is far, far, far outside the normal distribution. p=.005 at a very generous estimate.
By obfuscating primary and sexual secondary characteristics. Next.
That's not an argument, that's a zinger. How does it refute my point that we determine gender from a multitude of observables?
...but even then, are you now saying that a woman who took enough hormones to grow a beard and fool a casual observer becomes a man? What happened to the "it's about the vagina and vagina only?"
Because secondary characteristics imply the primary. Largely because the two are coincidental. They arise from the same sexual phenomena. If I see someone with no facial hair, angular bone structure, slender hands, then it can be implied that they are likely to have a vagina.
... how is that related to what I asked, besides "so in a sense it all comes from vagina so in a sense to vagina it returns" or some other weird halo effect embodied?
"I'm a woman, I want to wear a dress, long hair, and make up and be attractive to men"
Of those things, none of them relate to a secondary sexual characteristic. A dress is not determined by biology, neither is long hair (the quality maybe, but not the length).
An astute observation and also my point.
They are not innately female. They do not relate to biological systems.
That's the entire point of this part of the debate and you're supposed to do better than asset without an argument.
You are assuming these flags would remain among all iterations.
Now this is becoming annoying. Can you please do me a favor and actually read my comments in the future? Like the part where I explicitly say that I don't assume that and explain myself?
As for HRT, it cannot erase all traces, but if for example there were a surgery that imitated perfect organs, developed eggs, and reversed years of hormones, then I would say it changes sex. For now, it's an inbetween.
This, again, is not an argument, it's an assertion. We are discussing what lesbians are attracted to and you run that part about "developed eggs, and reversed years of hormones". Is that what lesbians are attracted to? My face right now.
Look, in the comment above I outlined what I think the general structure of our discussion, what are the points being argued and so what the arguments should be to be arguments, not zingers.
Can you similarly explain what is that you are arguing for in general and how the smaller arguments are supposed to fit in? Because the whole thing really seems to be devolving.
You keep on swapping between sex, gender, and then also throwing in sexual orientation as well.
Lesbians are not a single unitary body except that they are a descriptor of people who enjoy vaginas and probably also some variation of secondary sexual characteristics that go with those vaginas in 99.999% of cases. That is LITERALLY the definition of a lesbian.
The whole issue is that you keep swapping between all these definitions as if they're fundamentally interchangeable when it's clear that you don't think they are.
My point is this. There is no monolithic female gender experience save for sexual characteristics. There is no monolithic male gender experience save for sexual characteristics. There is nothing that being male actually means outside of those primary and secondary sexual characteristic.
Thus, you can't feel male, because that implies that there's a universal male experience ASIDE from the aforementioned assigned characteristics. You can feel what you believe being male is like, but that's not the same thing as it's based out of a belief, not a reality.
Wearing dresses is not female, because there is no such thing as being female.
My point is this. There is no monolithic female gender experience save for sexual characteristics. There is no monolithic male gender experience save for sexual characteristics. [..]
Wearing dresses is not female, because there is no such thing as being female.
This assertion is very hard to be discussed directly, because it involves comparing people's internal states which is impossible and which you also sneeze at because it's "feels" as opposed to "reality".
So I make an argument that greatly simplifies the discussion: I say that we can discuss if being attracted to a gender exclusively is a real thing, rather than feeling like being of a gender. Because, I assert, if being attracted to a gender exclusively is a real thing then feeling like being of a gender most probably should be a thing too: the evolution would've made us experience that in order to force us to make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex.
Do you agree or disagree with this argument and the shift in the focal point of the debate? You still could ask how some assertion translates from liking a gender to having a gender at any time, whenever you feel that whatever argument I am making doesn't actually survive the un-simplification.
I don't understand this stance. Both WHO and APA have acknowledged transgederism. These are organizations staffed by top medical professionals and scientists around the world. I get that conservatism is an ideology cemented on "I don't want things to change," but when people far more educated than you are telling you that you are wrong, the very least any non-retard could do is grab a book.
Like, I get the arguments against "they're just like a regular woman." I don't think they should be in their new gender's group when it comes to athletics, I think they ought to disclose the fact that they're trans to any potential partners before sex or the start of an ltr, and all those other ant hills people want to die on for some reason; but not calling them "insane" doesn't seem like a pretty big concession, especially when actual research concludes "you know what, these people may not be way off mark after all."
I don't understand this stance. Both WHO and APA have acknowledged transgederism. These are organizations staffed by top medical professionals and scientists around the world.
Your gender and sex are supposed to match your chromosomes.
This is a profoundly dumb thing to state as fact lmao. Like, I've seen people cite that sex = chromosomes =/= gender, but you're now saying that if your sex doesn't match up to your chromosomes that's bad? idgi, how are you even measuring sex in this context? I've heard of being more Catholic than the Pope, you're more TERF than the TERFs.
Trannies are insane, hence why they kill themselves at 12x the normal rate. You want to encourage their delusional road to suicide; we want to help them. You are a bad person for putting virtue signaling over human life.
You're actually the one that is nuts, they are perfectly sane. They have a disorder of the body, not the mind. You have a mental disorder called "hatred".
I think he might be /u/IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu, returned from the IP ban. The only problem with this theory is that that guy was too old to know how to Internet properly.
The telltale similarity for me is that they both strike me as mainstream Amerimutt far-righters (think Teds Cruz and Nugent) trying to pass as 'pedos. The clue is how awkward they are with T_D "bantz" (such as it is). It's like how educated Indians can speak technically flawless English, but still almost always have some quirks that tell you that it's not their mother tongue.
But how does that differ from what transgender's say/believe? As a psych student, I understand the necessity of proper nomenclatures in psychology and that definitions are based more on a cluster of behaviors but the difference seems to be more surface level than anything; perhaps even a political move which the psych community has absolutely done before. Like, say, shell shock is different than PTSD and denotes a more antiquated, and limited set of behaviors but trangenderism is exactly the very thing being described here. So, to me, this has way more to do with a semantics play within the mental health community rather than an actual differentiation.
If possible I'd like someone more informed to answer this question: Is it possible for someone suffering from Gender incongruence or dysphoria not be inherently a transgender person? Because, to me, they are both interrelated in the most fundamental sense.
Luckily transfags still BTFO themselves after a few years anyways. Transfags on the highway, they get sucked under an 18 wheeler and there's no ride for them, oh no no no!
Somebody with dysphoria says "I am not happy being a man and believe I would be happier as a woman", whereas somebody with incongruence says "Despite having the body of a man, I am and always have been a woman".
They're the ideal form although I'm disappointed we haven't done nearly enough research on neovaginas and all the other things that don't transition as well. Voicebox surgery and self lubing neovaginas should have more research money put into them. Once we have the system really good we should start transitioning way more people. Bare minimum any violent criminals and severely mentally I'll people would be transitioned.
Gotta conserve dem kiddy diddling culture family values my African American companion. Being nailed to a cross naked might seem gay to you but Jesus ain't never suck no dick! 😤
People who are different are icky and need to be cured.
this is true though. people who are different are incapable of living the lives society intends for them, therefore why should the group accept the individual who will do nothing but subverse the majority?
Oh oh. The number of neo vags and whatever chicks get mounted over their old vags will surely plummet if they are paying out of pocket :( this is an attack on the lgbtqa++ community. Those evil insurance companies win yet again.
Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria is a condition from extreme shame or anxiety or depression over your transgender identity. Someone could be transgender and proud as fuck about it.
Such many opinions in such a small thread. Correct me if I'm wrong but shifting gender dysphoria from mental disorders chapter to the conditions related to sexual health chapter is only a step forward if you have a prejudice against mental illness 🧐And I'd prefer to be in the same chapter as depression and psychosis rather than being hanging out with the paraphilias and sexual dysfunctions, but that's just me. Truely astonishing how the polarises opinion
"Even though we definitely and conclusively felt this was a mental illness before we no longer think that because we want to appear impartial and progressive."
As a truly enlightened radical centrists I'd like to lead you to the light. Trannies are actually natural radical centrists being both boy and girl. In the beautiful future we see all people will be trans.
We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the hardest, most mentally demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital token saying we did.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider torture, because we think it's fun.
We'll spend most if not all of our free time min maxing the stats of a fictional character all to draw out a single extra point of damage per second.
These people honestly think this is a battle they can win? They take our media? We're already building a new one without them. They take our devs? Gamers aren't shy about throwing their money else where, or even making the games our
Gamers are competative, hard core, by nature. We love a challange. The worst thing you did in all of this was to challange us. You're not special, you're not original, you're not the first; this is just another boss fight.
Unpopular opinion: Transgender is a problem with decision making. You either come with two X chromosomes, or an XY. Having the bits chopped off and the ends tucked in, doesn't change the sex you came with at birth. CMM
Jesus you're so insane and must be disabled. It was 556 am at the time of that post, and you can label me however you like kippot, just remember your side lost, and in your bitterness you cant stop lashing out becoming the very thing you think you mock. Nobody unironically agrees with you here we just love the in fighting but you're still a very special level of retarded believing there are actual "sides". 4 years from now I'll be on my 3rd or 4th alt seeing the next wave of over weight libtards spouting nonsensical rage at everyone on the wrong side, and frankly, I still wont care.
232 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-19
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-19
Yes I am.
1 you_got_it_jobin 2018-06-19
You're now one of 3 people I've blocked on Reddit. I don't even mind people sperging out at me, but what I do mind is just the complete lack of real arguments.
You're just boring.
1 Pragmatic_Shill 2018-06-19
Lol is this a serious comment.
It's a bot m8.
1 error404brain 2018-06-19
Newfag, out, out, out.
1 Pragmatic_Shill 2018-06-19
I've been socially engineering places like SRD for years now because they rubbed me the wrong way, watch yourself.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
Y⭕️u're👊 n🅾w ⭕️ne☝️ 🅾f 3️⃣ 🖖🅿️e🅾🅿️le👨🏿👩🏻👦🏽 ℹ️'ve 🅱l⭕️cked😡❌🚷🚫‼️ 🅾n 🅱eddit👽. ℹ 💁d⭕️n't even Ⓜ️ℹ️nd💅 🅿️e🅾🅿️le 👦🏽👴👵🏼👮🏻 s🅿️er🅱ℹ️ng ⭕️ut😡😤😤 at Ⓜ️e😱, 🅱ut wh🅰t ✋☝️ℹ d🅾 Ⓜ️ℹ️nd👀😤 ℹ️s just the c⭕️Ⓜ️🅿️lete😣 l🅰ck 🅾f re🅰l™💯🕵 🅰r🅱uⓂ️ents.📚
Y⭕️u're 👊👐✋just 🅱🅾rℹ️ng🙄😣.
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2018-06-19
Jesus Christ dude
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-19
Downvote this person please.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Inb4 totally non-obsessed agendaposters
1 headasplodes 2018-06-19
when your inb4 post is the type of post that you're inb4ing
really activates my almonds
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Ur just mad i got here before you and the rest of your posse 😉
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
you sure?
1 kippot 2018-06-19
I think I was like 2 mins before him tho
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
Inb4 everyone when the biggest gaps in your posting is 5 hours. Seriously dude we get it, you want to thought police drama...
1 kippot 2018-06-19
And there's another one, hi obsessed agendaposter, how are you today?
Are my opinions triggering you?
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
I'd rather have an agenda that doesn't involve prescription medications and the constant threat of over dose or accidental fent...
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Btw, brave of you to admit to having an agenda, finally
Screencapped btw, agendaposter 😉
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
Everyone has agendas, half the mods unironically defend trannys...
1 kippot 2018-06-19
does that upset you?
when people dont join in your pathetic little hatejerk?
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
Lmao "hate" because i know they're mentally ill? Could you be any more current year?
1 kippot 2018-06-19
I wonder.... did you get tricked by a trans at some time?
is that the reason for your irrational obsession/hatred?
or did your dad go trans or something? what is it?
1 Candideeststupide 2018-06-19
He's angry retard acceptance isn't in yet.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
/u/wewuzkang5 is this why you are bussyblasted?
1 bigwordalt 2018-06-19
Most trans people are leftist whites who want to claim victimhood to obtain status in the progressive stack and have an excuse for their mediocrity and failures
u/Ed_Butteredtoast
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
https://i.imgur.com/cse7i7S.png
1 bigwordalt 2018-06-19
Caring about reddit seniority and Internet points should be classified as a mental illness tbh
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
😴😴😴
1 bigwordalt 2018-06-19
😴😴😴
1 HailSanta2512 2018-06-19
😏🍆😴
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
1 aqouta 2018-06-19
Why don't we hang out anymore ed? Is it because I didn't make the power user's list?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
You don't love me anymore that's why.
1 aqouta 2018-06-19
You don't let me love you bby😢😢😭😭😢😢😞😔😚😚😚😘
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
https://i.imgur.com/YMC6hSf.gif
1 serialflamingo 2018-06-19
There's a power user list below the discord fags lmao?
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-06-19
Says the altist
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-19
While this is true, I don’t see how it’s an issue
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-19
They’re gross.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Does the existence of trannies hurt your poor fee-fees? 😭😭😭
1 FcpEcvRtq 2018-06-19
The only fee he's going to pay is the fee of wrongthink 😎😎😎awesomestyle👌👊👌👍🍐😚🤣💶🔝💶🥖🤜👀🛐💶
1 tfdidido 2018-06-19
You dont see how mayos existing is an issue???
1 soinavoice 2018-06-19
I’m doing my part!
1 smallbreastsarebest1 2018-06-19
California reduced bugging peple to a misdemeanor
1 cup_bored 2018-06-19
If you genuinely believe this then you're fucking retarded.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
1 kippot 2018-06-19
yeah, thats the thing, they are retarded ::fittingemoji::
1 Plexipus 2018-06-19
Lol this is the most convoluted explanation I've seen of transgenderism yet
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-06-19
If it's anything like how the dsm decides whats a mental illness or not it's basically we don't want these people to feel bad
1 Neon_needles 2018-06-19
Psy 101: no hurt fefe
1 Matues49 2018-06-19
cri
1 GrittyOil 2018-06-19
uhh so let me get this right
gender dysphoria still is a mental illness
transgender(ism) isnt a mental illness anymore. i dont really get why that was even a mental illness to begin with then wtf lol
1 Myrsephone 2018-06-19
Transgenderism was never a mental illness, journalists are just conflating terms like they always do. Gender incongruence is was was but no longer is considered a mental illness. In very basic terms, gender dysphoria is being unhappy with your gender, while gender incongruence is believing that you are the opposite gender.
Think of it like this. Somebody with dysphoria says "I am not happy being a man so I will take steps to become a woman", whereas somebody with incongruence says "Despite having the body of a man, I am and always have been a woman". While they both will probably decide to transition and become transgender, their reasoning stems from different places.
1 GrittyOil 2018-06-19
right, that makes sense i think
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
/u/boyoyoyoyong when you take your break from posting dindu statistics (lol) try giving this a read.
1 Mary-Celeste 2018-06-19
Came here to say this.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-19
They are both fucking nuts
1 DoktorSteven 2018-06-19
They’re the exact same thing. The only difference is that all someone with dysmorphia has to do is say they felt that way since birth and bam! Suddenly it isn’t mental illness, but a civil rights issue.
It’s nonsense. If you don’t think your gender and sex matches your chromosomes you’re delusional. Your gender and sex are supposed to match your chromosomes.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
lol
You said so it MUST be true! TIL
1 DoktorSteven 2018-06-19
You don’t need an advanced degree in the social sciences to point out bullshit when you hear it. Something doesn’t just suddenly not become a medical disease because of a self-reporting component. We’re still looking at behavioral and psychological issues that deviate wildly from the statistical norm of the species overall.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
vs.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
No but you do need an actual degree in mental health sciences (among other things) to make claims like "waaaaah gender brain sex MUST match" lol.
It's really hilarious to see mongs like you foam at the mouth of the existence of %1 of population different than you. It's in every thread with screechings like "i don't think so". It's ok sweaty! Even if you're clutching your pearls really hard, not a single one of your opinion is gonna enter that DSM.👏👏
1 yourdeadwife 2018-06-19
Manchild ironically rants about unimportant opinions
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-06-19
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
It means you have something other than "invests in Bitcoin" on your resume 😂
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-06-19
Oh, you mean an actual degree in BitCoin Sciences?
1 Zizac 2018-06-19
chews dip see in my daddy/brother-in-law's good ol' state of arkansas, we didn't need no educated to tell us whats right and whats wrong fucks sister the whole thing is just a made up bullshit by liberals shoots illegal immigrant mhm most degrees are stupid made up shit spends entire $60 on truck mods and back alley abortions
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Cletus, is that you back on the dialup again goshdarnit?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
/u/_MAGAMEMNON_ IRL
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-19
Please never roleplay with emotes in comments again.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
this sounds like censorship circo, i thought you were better than this ;( ;( ;(
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-19
Only a suggestion. I was dry heaving too much to click the remove button.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
oh well, you get one off ;)
1 watermark02 2018-06-19
BUT MUH FEEELSSS
1 Mircy 2018-06-19
if we aborted all downies you'd never be born though
1 Jackdom95 2018-06-19
yikes, lashing out I see
1 Mircy 2018-06-19
Non harmful deviances aren't bad unless you're Iceland
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 ChateauJack 2018-06-19
"All these brainlets with extensive backgrounds in medicine and mental health are hysterical. TIL"
Man, why is every fucking retard of reddit defending tranny activism spewing this shit? "BUT MUH SCIENNNNNNNCE SAYYYYYYS SOOOO"
There is no consensus in those para-science that are psychology, sociology or even medecine, fuckboy. The WHO, or the DSM, or any other board of "specialists" are that, a board. They're there for power, and it's, O B V I O U S L Y, a political game.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
why do you care though?
1 ChateauJack 2018-06-19
why do you care that I care
1 kippot 2018-06-19
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
I think the objection is that the "brainlets" are very clearly making this decision for sociopolitical reasons, not scientific reasons.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
This is objectively retarded. There literally is a medical condition where the Y chromosome is never expressed due to mutations in the gene for testosterone sensitivity, resulting in someone who is for all intents and purposes a sterile woman. And I mean an actual woman with natural tits and wide hips and a vagina that looks and feels like a vagina, not some East German heavyweight rower in a dress. Once again, STEMfags prove that they need to fucking study biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
That would be 2-5 incidences per 100,000 people.
Downs Syndrome is 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 700. Meaning that Down's syndrome is 20-50x more common than CAIS.
I don't think people are going to start arguing that Down's isn't a problem. It's not just differentially chromosomed.
Additionally, of 52 people that presented at a GI clinic, only one had any measurable disorder relating to sex chromosomes.
Source:Not Wikipedia
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
That means for every 100,000 women, 5-10 of them have this condition. That's a little bit higher than your chances of being a homicide victim in any given year in the United States.
Also, I never claimed that people with CAIS are transgender. They have no reason to be transgender, they were born with a body that matches their brain. You just made claimed that thinking your sex chromosomes mismatch your gender is always delusional, and you were objectively wrong.
I guess people with incomplete AIS could be considered transgender, because they are born with bodies that don't fit into either of the two genders. They're truly unfortunate, and I can see why one of them would want to get surgery to correct that.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
First of all, your odds comparison is bad. CAIS is a chronic condition, meaning that you have to be comparing it to the chance of being a homicide victim during your entire life. A CAIS patient will continue being a patient next year too.
Also You've got it the other way around.
Transgender has an incredibly weak correspondence with intersex conditions.
Finally, what does it even mean to have a gender. Like, aside from having a penis and testosterone and the accompanying biological signals, what does being male mean? It doesn't mean anything. There are 0 genders.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
All right, go with 100,000 live births every year. My point still stands, it's rare but not so rare that it doesn't occur in a significant number of people.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
From a biological perspective, such cases are very valuable as the establish how the machinery works. That's why things like JAMA and the Lancet published case studies and I think still do.
It occurs in a significant number of absolute people, but that's only because we're playing with big population numbers. As a percentage, it's still vanishingly small. Not enough to change the definition of how sex is determined, and in fact, reinforces it.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
Galactic_brain.jpg
Seriously though apparently different people experience gender with different strength and a lot of cis people are kinda agender. And most TERFs are transmen in denial.
Anyway, if you're not also bisexual, contrast your question with "what could it possibly mean to be attracted to women?"
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
I am, but I'll entertain the question as if I were straight.
If I meet a person I like and get along with, and also they have a vagina, then that's sexual attraction.
If it's the former only, that's a friend.
If it's the latter only, then that's a thot.
Two separate requirements, one of which only has to do with a vagina due to the fact that it matters to other people (the personality).
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
Quelle surprise. Well, my point is that you can't easily entertain that question "as if you were straight" any more than you could entertain the question of what even are dissonant colors if you were colorblind but "as if" you were not.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
Okay.
Still doesn't answer the question of "Can you describe gender in a way that can't substitute personality and have it still make sense?"
Anything aside from core sexual differentiation is mutable and thus not based in anything but cultural mores.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
Yes and no. Go here and look at the picture with a pentagram and a star. You can also read all the text but I'm not going to subject you to that.
The point of the picture is that if you were an Artificial Intelligence unconstrained by computational constraints, then you could reason about the world as it is, with a network containing only known or unknown brute facts and their mutual probabilities of co-occurring, like the pentagram on the left. You'd have no need for concepts like "cat" or "dog", you could reason from "this object weights more than 20 pounds" and "it's whipping its tail" directly to the "low probability that I'm going to get bitten".
Human brains do have computational constraints and therefore work more like the star-shaped scheme on the right: first you weight all available brute facts to determine if it's a cat or a dog, then use the same weights to determine probabilities of unknown brute facts ("whips tail when upset") based on that.
The interesting thing is that not only this happens entirely automatically, but we can't naturally distinguish brute fact nodes from category assignment nodes. So, like, you see people who believe that "X is a man" is the same sort of statement as "X has stubble", when actually that's two completely different things, "has stubble" is a fact about the world while "being a woman" doesn't exist in the world, there's no observable characteristic corresponding to it, it's a virtual node that our brains make up to simplify computations.
So, finally back to your question: your sexual attraction as you talk about it seems to operate mostly without that extra "gender category" node. It's mostly about the brute facts: nice bone structure contributes to attractiveness, clear skin gives a bonus, being an asshole reduces it, all that stuff gets weighted up and added up and results in a desire to have sex with that person.
Strictly heterosexual people on the other hand have the gender node strongly influencing the "attractiveness" outcome, first all those brute fact characteristics are used to determine if you see that person as a man or woman, and then that, together with all those characteristics again, determines how much do you want to fuck them. And I want to emphasize that this is not a conscious process at all. And also that there's the Kinsey scale etc.
One's own gender works more or less the same way. I don't know, if you don't have the gender node strongly expressed I'm not sure what other analogy I could use to prove to you that in a lot of people it is strongly expressed, show this comment to your more exclusively gay or straight friends and ask if it makes sense to them.
Sure, but just like there's an insanely complex biological mechanism that allows children to learn language -- whatever language! entirely socially determined! -- and map it back to biological concepts like getting fed and cared for, there probably is a biological mechanism that lets people learn gender and map it to sexual attraction and exhibiting sexually attractive behavior and outlook.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
Okay, so you obviously like ML models, so let me explain my thesis in a way that might make more sense.
Say we were to run a Mixed Markov Chain Model, with 200,000 repetitions, where we take human progenitors pre-society, randomize the situation but keep the innate biological markers and their distribution methods. Then, we see the characteristics that develop along the lines of either sex, and we run this simulation over and over and over.
Characteristics that more biological and ingrained in the starting conditions are ones that will appear most often. These at their core would be things like primary sexual characteristics, but as you go out among the characteristics may start to be things like "Propensity for anger due to testosterone". Things that have a biological impetus, but are not a sentence that is as near inevitable as the presence of genitals.
My thesis is that because we are only living in one iteration of this system, we tend to identify traits that are oversexed. But that looking at enough iterations, those traits that are strongly linked to sex are more minimal than might be expected.
Anything else is a self-assigned burden. With a little help from society. Hence, no genders. Or alternatively, as many genders as there are people. Either/or.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
I don't disagree at all.
If you live in the early 29th century then blue is the calm female color and pink is the aggressive male color (true thing btw). And if you live now then it's the other way around without much of an explanation even.
But then I say that I'd expect a usual human to be hard-wired to very efficiently learn what color her or his particular society assigns to their gender and then experience gender dysphoria if they are forced to wear the wrong color.
Because it's kinda very important for reproducing to be able to be only attracted to the opposite sex and to present in such a way that the opposite sex is attracted to you, regardless of the particular customs of your tribe. The people who weren't good at that didn't reproduce and aren't among your ancestors, so all of your ancestors were at least passable at doing that.
So, biologically there are two sexes, therefore there are two almost entirely socially determined genders. People figure out what the social markers of their gender are and end up wearing pink and attracted to blue if they are males in 1900 or females in 2000. Roughly speaking. Point is, there's no fundamental contradiction here.
And nothing about that is a "self-assigned burden", go tell your best lesbian friend that not being attracted to men is a "self-assigned burden" and she'd enjoy her life much more if she just gets over it. OK, you don't instinctively understand why she would slap you in the face, because you're bisexual and above all this silly stuff, but you do know that she would, right? People are different, she is different from you like that, you can't directly experience the insides of other people's heads, so with enough of them telling you, you just have to trust that they are not pulling your leg.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
Now we're getting into sexual orientation, which is something entirely different. Why we have princess and lumberjack lesbians. Both lesbians.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
Not "now", it was literally the first thing I asked you: how do you reconcile wondering how having a gender is even possible with accepting that people could be exclusively attracted to one gender? That's two sides of one and the same coin.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
Lesbian does not mean attracted to female presenting people. It means having an incredibly strong preference for vaginas. Again, someone attracted to a lumberjack lesbian or a princess lesbian IS STILL A LESBIAN.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
Considering that secondary sexual characteristics allow you to very strongly guess about the primary, yes genitals are written into the face and your very bone structure. Facial hair is on your face, just so you know.
There is no such thing as a woman ideotype, except for sexual characteristics. A princess and a lumberjack woman are still women. And why are they women? Because of primary and sexual characteristics. Thus, no gender. Only sex.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
That sounds like a contradiction to me. So I have an algorithm that looks at bone structure, face, height, behavior, dress, hair, voice, and says if it's a woman or not. You give it a princess and you give it a lumberjack and it identifies them as women. So while there are different archetypes of women, the very fact that this algorithm manages to guess the presence of vagina without seeing the vagina itself means that there is such a thing as female gender, expressed strictly in secondary characteristics.
You can try to avoid calling it gender and say that this node in your brain organization that lights up for different kinds of women is an "inferred vagina", but it refers to the same reality that I call "female gender", relabeling it can't change anything. I could use that terminology and state that lesbians are sexually attracted to inferred vaginas not to actual vaginas, and that transwomen are compelled to present in such a way (of multiple possible) that causes inferred vagina, and so on.
So Buck Angel has an inferred penis, and even after I discover that he actually has a real vagina I have zero sexual attraction, because the inferred penis is in the way, still as real as ever. At which point it makes sense to drop the confusing terminology and say that he's a dude with vagina.
(looking at edge cases is the most educational btw, because it's there where bad explanations break down and good explanations endure)
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
Otherwise known as sexual secondary characteristics. Note the sexual, not the gender. Because these are derived from bio-systems, not choices.
Which renders the rest of the paragraphs equally moot. Buck has secondary sexual characteristics, but not the primary, for a male, due to a substitution (hormones). Hence the inferred penis.
All of this is sexual, not gender. Not based off of self-reporting, or how one feels. Direct and observable.
And edge cases make poor rules. Otherwise humans have variable numbers of chromosomes, no set organs, and may or may not have a functioning body.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
I didn't mean secondary sex characteristics, I meant all of them, including cultural. Have you never seen a half-competent drag queen? How do you think all these secretly female popes and warriors managed to pass?
The gender-determination algorithm takes a bunch of inputs and produces the output.
...but even then, are you now saying that a woman who took enough hormones to grow a beard and fool a casual observer becomes a man? What happened to the "it's about the vagina and vagina only?"
You are confusing different parts of my argument. It has two parts. In one, I insist that if you allow lesbians (or heterosexuals) then you should allow transsexuals. Because if there's a thing in the brain that says "this thing wears a dress, long hair, and make up, it's a woman and I'm attracted" then there should be a thing in the brain that says "I'm a woman, I want to wear a dress, long hair, and make up and be attractive to men". (Many radical feminists don't believe in "born this way" lesbians, by the way, because they choose to deny biological reality of gender entirely, because they are transmen in denial).
Now we discuss the other part, where you said that actually lesbians are attracted strictly to vaginas, and then I pointed out that they are attracted to inferred vaginas which is a different thing. Here there's no "feels and self-reporting", we are discussing how the attraction to a specific gender works, using direct and observable characteristics.
And here I think that even if I let you claim that it's strictly about secondary sex characteristics (which I strongly disagree with for the record), you still mostly conced the argument when you agree that the algorithm works on everything except the vagina (but the stuff that's usually biologically derived from having a vagina), because then HRT changes gender for real.
That's literally true though. If your rules say that I'm only pretending to be a human because I don't have the appendix, your rules are bad and stupid, lol.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
By obfuscating primary and sexual secondary characteristics. Next.
Because secondary characteristics imply the primary. Largely because the two are coincidental. They arise from the same sexual phenomena. If I see someone with no facial hair, angular bone structure, slender hands, then it can be implied that they are likely to have a vagina.
Of those things, none of them relate to a secondary sexual characteristic. A dress is not determined by biology, neither is long hair (the quality maybe, but not the length). They are not innately female. They do not relate to biological systems. You are assuming these flags would remain among all iterations.
As for HRT, it cannot erase all traces, but if for example there were a surgery that imitated perfect organs, developed eggs, and reversed years of hormones, then I would say it changes sex. For now, it's an inbetween.
No, it means that if you are missing an appendix and if that is an organ on a significant amount of the population, that you are an outlier. Intersex is far, far, far outside the normal distribution. p=.005 at a very generous estimate.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
That's not an argument, that's a zinger. How does it refute my point that we determine gender from a multitude of observables?
... how is that related to what I asked, besides "so in a sense it all comes from vagina so in a sense to vagina it returns" or some other weird halo effect embodied?
An astute observation and also my point.
That's the entire point of this part of the debate and you're supposed to do better than asset without an argument.
Now this is becoming annoying. Can you please do me a favor and actually read my comments in the future? Like the part where I explicitly say that I don't assume that and explain myself?
This, again, is not an argument, it's an assertion. We are discussing what lesbians are attracted to and you run that part about "developed eggs, and reversed years of hormones". Is that what lesbians are attracted to? My face right now.
Look, in the comment above I outlined what I think the general structure of our discussion, what are the points being argued and so what the arguments should be to be arguments, not zingers.
Can you similarly explain what is that you are arguing for in general and how the smaller arguments are supposed to fit in? Because the whole thing really seems to be devolving.
1 Lumene 2018-06-19
You keep on swapping between sex, gender, and then also throwing in sexual orientation as well.
Lesbians are not a single unitary body except that they are a descriptor of people who enjoy vaginas and probably also some variation of secondary sexual characteristics that go with those vaginas in 99.999% of cases. That is LITERALLY the definition of a lesbian.
The whole issue is that you keep swapping between all these definitions as if they're fundamentally interchangeable when it's clear that you don't think they are.
My point is this. There is no monolithic female gender experience save for sexual characteristics. There is no monolithic male gender experience save for sexual characteristics. There is nothing that being male actually means outside of those primary and secondary sexual characteristic.
Thus, you can't feel male, because that implies that there's a universal male experience ASIDE from the aforementioned assigned characteristics. You can feel what you believe being male is like, but that's not the same thing as it's based out of a belief, not a reality.
Wearing dresses is not female, because there is no such thing as being female.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-19
This assertion is very hard to be discussed directly, because it involves comparing people's internal states which is impossible and which you also sneeze at because it's "feels" as opposed to "reality".
So I make an argument that greatly simplifies the discussion: I say that we can discuss if being attracted to a gender exclusively is a real thing, rather than feeling like being of a gender. Because, I assert, if being attracted to a gender exclusively is a real thing then feeling like being of a gender most probably should be a thing too: the evolution would've made us experience that in order to force us to make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex.
Do you agree or disagree with this argument and the shift in the focal point of the debate? You still could ask how some assertion translates from liking a gender to having a gender at any time, whenever you feel that whatever argument I am making doesn't actually survive the un-simplification.
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
Damn...I wonder how many dudes I've fucked without even knowing it!?!?!??!?!?
1 ItsSugar 2018-06-19
I don't understand this stance. Both WHO and APA have acknowledged transgederism. These are organizations staffed by top medical professionals and scientists around the world. I get that conservatism is an ideology cemented on "I don't want things to change," but when people far more educated than you are telling you that you are wrong, the very least any non-retard could do is grab a book.
Like, I get the arguments against "they're just like a regular woman." I don't think they should be in their new gender's group when it comes to athletics, I think they ought to disclose the fact that they're trans to any potential partners before sex or the start of an ltr, and all those other ant hills people want to die on for some reason; but not calling them "insane" doesn't seem like a pretty big concession, especially when actual research concludes "you know what, these people may not be way off mark after all."
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
WHO?
TOP
MENMEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND SCIENTISTS1 serialflamingo 2018-06-19
This is a profoundly dumb thing to state as fact lmao. Like, I've seen people cite that sex = chromosomes =/= gender, but you're now saying that if your sex doesn't match up to your chromosomes that's bad? idgi, how are you even measuring sex in this context? I've heard of being more Catholic than the Pope, you're more TERF than the TERFs.
1 AHAPPYMERCHANT 2018-06-19
Trannies are insane, hence why they kill themselves at 12x the normal rate. You want to encourage their delusional road to suicide; we want to help them. You are a bad person for putting virtue signaling over human life.
1 serialflamingo 2018-06-19
You're the one virtue signalling tho lmao
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-19
Oh look a retard. Tell me, how do intersex people fit into this? Or do they just not count?
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 watermark02 2018-06-19
You're actually the one that is nuts, they are perfectly sane. They have a disorder of the body, not the mind. You have a mental disorder called "hatred".
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-19
what is it
1 ChateauJack 2018-06-19
lmao
1 UsifMugabe 2018-06-19
said the one who thinks north Africans are racially inferior.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
Why did you delete /u/ImagineAllTheGenders? Seems like it would have been a better account to use for this thread.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
thats him as well? jfc how many alts does this centipedo have?
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
I think he might be /u/IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu, returned from the IP ban. The only problem with this theory is that that guy was too old to know how to Internet properly.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
lets see, we got Leftist-Degenerate , SocialistEphebophile and now this MAGAMEMNON , which are all his right?
idk if this is grampa tick tock but he is very similar for sure
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
The telltale similarity for me is that they both strike me as mainstream Amerimutt far-righters (think Teds Cruz and Nugent) trying to pass as 'pedos. The clue is how awkward they are with T_D "bantz" (such as it is). It's like how educated Indians can speak technically flawless English, but still almost always have some quirks that tell you that it's not their mother tongue.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
ur pretty fucking perceptive lad, i havent analyzed it this much in depth
you might be right!
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
No analysis here at all, just going with my gut feelings
1 kippot 2018-06-19
i think you might be right on the money tho, we'll see
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-06-19
Lol, I glance at this a day later and it looks like he went through here and downvoted everyone who mocked him.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
'course he did :D
he's completely un-mad after all!
1 Baconlightning 2018-06-19
Guess otherkin isn't a mental illness either then
1 ChateauJack 2018-06-19
I think this is so, so, so fucked up that people are even given the choice to be honest.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
did a trans trick you? ;) be honest
1 DepressToImpress 2018-06-19
But how does that differ from what transgender's say/believe? As a psych student, I understand the necessity of proper nomenclatures in psychology and that definitions are based more on a cluster of behaviors but the difference seems to be more surface level than anything; perhaps even a political move which the psych community has absolutely done before. Like, say, shell shock is different than PTSD and denotes a more antiquated, and limited set of behaviors but trangenderism is exactly the very thing being described here. So, to me, this has way more to do with a semantics play within the mental health community rather than an actual differentiation.
If possible I'd like someone more informed to answer this question: Is it possible for someone suffering from Gender incongruence or dysphoria not be inherently a transgender person? Because, to me, they are both interrelated in the most fundamental sense.
1 tio4ins 2018-06-19
Luckily transfags still BTFO themselves after a few years anyways. Transfags on the highway, they get sucked under an 18 wheeler and there's no ride for them, oh no no no!
1 captainpriapism 2018-06-19
one of them got enabled harder
1 do0rkn0b 2018-06-19
You don't get why dick girl and vag boy is a mental illness? You might be retarded.
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-19
if anything, those sound like physical ailments
or boons
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
In Thailand it would put you in a higher earnings bracket.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Got a problem with bussy?
You might not belong here
1 do0rkn0b 2018-06-19
speaking of retarded
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Oh shit, u just REKT ANUTHRR LIBTURD LE EPIC STYLE XD CD XD
1 do0rkn0b 2018-06-19
ok
1 Tobans 2018-06-19
Pucciboi gotem rekt XDXDxdXd
1 aqouta 2018-06-19
They're the ideal form although I'm disappointed we haven't done nearly enough research on neovaginas and all the other things that don't transition as well. Voicebox surgery and self lubing neovaginas should have more research money put into them. Once we have the system really good we should start transitioning way more people. Bare minimum any violent criminals and severely mentally I'll people would be transitioned.
1 Ewindal 2018-06-19
Futanari is the least gay porn, retard
1 Tobans 2018-06-19
Mental illness comes with harm. The only harm dick girls are getting is harm to their poor little boiholes.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 Candideeststupide 2018-06-19
It's better to be trans than to not be
1 Ewindal 2018-06-19
For the same reason being gay was considered a mental illness. People who are different are icky and need to be cured.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
Gotta conserve dem
kiddy diddling culturefamily values my African American companion. Being nailed to a cross naked might seem gay to you but Jesus ain't never suck no dick! 😤1 FirearmThrowaway 2018-06-19
Holy shit, that's why you are a pasta connoisseur. That was some good drama right there. I don't even know how to emotionally respond to this one.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-19
Trans literally want pills and surgery so
1 db1923 2018-06-19
mayos love pills and surgery too
1 aqouta 2018-06-19
Being straight should be listed as a mental illness.
1 Tobans 2018-06-19
The only straight man I want to see is one tied to an ATM. I have to fuel my addiction to sexual deviency somehow.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
PREACH
1 Tobans 2018-06-19
🍑🍑
1 kippot 2018-06-19
freeze those peaches! my man
1 ChateauJack 2018-06-19
Homosexuality is studied and more or less understood now, it's recognized as a normal occurences of the living.
Whereas trannies literally can't watch themselves in the mirror without going insane lmao. Totally similar situation 👌👌👌
1 drvgyn3 2018-06-19
this is true though. people who are different are incapable of living the lives society intends for them, therefore why should the group accept the individual who will do nothing but subverse the majority?
1 Mikeavelli 2018-06-19
I was under the impression a condition needed to be officially classified as an illness if you wanted insurance to pay for it.
1 AwanBros 2018-06-19
Oh oh. The number of neo vags and whatever chicks get mounted over their old vags will surely plummet if they are paying out of pocket :( this is an attack on the lgbtqa++ community. Those evil insurance companies win yet again.
1 pepperouchau 2018-06-19
Yup, pretty much nothing changed but it's about trans people so it's time to get outraged.
1 cup_bored 2018-06-19
You know you're fucking dumb when you speak in a condescending tone about the determinations of experts in the field.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
what do you expect? this is /drama and there are IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT HATING TRANNIES!!!!!!
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 TheTaoOfBill 2018-06-19
Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria is a condition from extreme shame or anxiety or depression over your transgender identity. Someone could be transgender and proud as fuck about it.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 SageKnows 2018-06-19
Gender dysphoria is still a mental illness and will always be due to the fact that it causes dysfunction through anxiety.
Being trans on its own does not cause it, a lot of trans people experience no more or severely reduced gender dysphoria after transitioning.
1 Not_for_consumption 2018-06-19
Such many opinions in such a small thread. Correct me if I'm wrong but shifting gender dysphoria from mental disorders chapter to the conditions related to sexual health chapter is only a step forward if you have a prejudice against mental illness 🧐And I'd prefer to be in the same chapter as depression and psychosis rather than being hanging out with the paraphilias and sexual dysfunctions, but that's just me. Truely astonishing how the polarises opinion
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-19
Are you fucking seriousposting in /r/drama?!
OUT! OUT!
1 Not_for_consumption 2018-06-19
Oops. I thought I was in SRD!
How embarrassing.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
DUDE BUSSY LMAO
1 Snowayne2 2018-06-19
/u/purplemonkeeeeSpank damn you really got your feelings hurt. It's okay, you can come here, we are a safe space for people like you :)
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
"Even though we definitely and conclusively felt this was a mental illness before we no longer think that because we want to appear impartial and progressive."
1 kippot 2018-06-19
"I don't have an agenda at all and I'm not obsessed about trannies just because I compulsively agendapost about it 😭😭😭😭😭"
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
Found the tranny.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
aaand there it is :D
i was gonna ask you to accuse me of being a tranny next lmao
1 vodrin 2018-06-19
Since birth I’ve felt you’re a tranny and that isn’t a choice
1 kippot 2018-06-19
did you forget to switch back after downvoting on ur alt? LMAO
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
Imagine thinking you're important enough for someone to buy a 7 year old alt, holy shit my sides.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
You sure? You do seem upset
1 HailSanta2512 2018-06-19
Calling others obsessive loses a lot of it's punch when your obsessed, shit stained fingers are all over this thread laddo.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
ah i see, an elightened centrist joins us!
so just to get it right here, i'm obsessed because i called out obsessed agendaposters?
1 HailSanta2512 2018-06-19
mmhmmm
this a classic accomodation sans compensation that you've set up for yourself :(
1 kippot 2018-06-19
what does that make the original agendaposters tho?
pls enlighten me, radical centrist guru
1 aqouta 2018-06-19
As a truly enlightened radical centrists I'd like to lead you to the light. Trannies are actually natural radical centrists being both boy and girl. In the beautiful future we see all people will be trans.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
fucking PREACH!!!!!
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
/r/shitredditsays is that way, you perpetually triggered little princess.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Lmao, the-dotard welcomes you
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
Just stop posting, everything you say is fucking retarded.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Make me, centipedo 😃
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
Holy fuck knock it off moron.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Fuck you, centipedo 😄
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
My god you are the epitome of a loser.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Said the centipedo, certain his scathing reply would strike deep at his target
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
Says the absolute dork who thinks adding an ‘o’ to the end of a word is funny and/or clever. Gas yourself for the good of humanity.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
You seem upset, centipedo?
Why is that?
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
You’re worse than pizzashill and ed, and that’s saying something because they’re both idiots.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Aww, if you're that bussyblasted, maybe you should gtfo? Centipedo
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
😒
1 kippot 2018-06-19
You're in for a rude awakening in a couple of weeks 😃
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
What are you babbling about now?
1 kippot 2018-06-19
When you gotta go back to school 😃
1 ImNakedYo 2018-06-19
Every time I think you can’t get any more lame, you outdo yourself.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
No ur lame 😓
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-19
Guess they can be bullied like normal ppl niw
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-19
Good, they don’t require medical treatment now.
1 Robot879 2018-06-19
So dickgirls are real women now? Whoa.
1 anothga 2018-06-19
That's the biggest amount of comments marked as controversial that I have ever seen in a single Reddit comment section.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
this particular shithole gets even more shittier in the summer
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
I have noticed that you're posting more. :D
1 kippot 2018-06-19
I lined that one up for you 😉
1 jubbergun 2018-06-19
Indeed you did. Excellent teamwork.
1 kippot 2018-06-19
Gogo drama raaangers
1 LSeww 2018-06-19
isnt it just sorting method?
1 UmbellateSaxhorn 2018-06-19
Still waiting for them to declassify bipolar as a mental illness......
1 TryingMyBestOK 2018-06-19
Wot
1 XSCR 2018-06-19
oh god. the liberals have just lost their bundy standoff card
1 broden 2018-06-19
If wanting to cut off your genitals is somehow unhealthy, then call me the sick man of /r/drama
1 Karlore473 2018-06-19
Stem lord whites who struggle with eye contact give their takes on psychology
1 kippot 2018-06-19
savage
1 DepressToImpress 2018-06-19
Let me guess, one side is predominantly trying to be agnostic on the issue and the other side is screaming bigotry?
1 hyledog 2018-06-19
They targeted gamers.
Gamers.
We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the hardest, most mentally demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital token saying we did.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider torture, because we think it's fun.
We'll spend most if not all of our free time min maxing the stats of a fictional character all to draw out a single extra point of damage per second.
These people honestly think this is a battle they can win? They take our media? We're already building a new one without them. They take our devs? Gamers aren't shy about throwing their money else where, or even making the games our
Gamers are competative, hard core, by nature. We love a challange. The worst thing you did in all of this was to challange us. You're not special, you're not original, you're not the first; this is just another boss fight.
1 znaXTdWhGV 2018-06-19
thinking your body is wrong and pumping it full of foreign drugs: not an illness
playing games: illness
ok
1 comebepc 2018-06-19
Stuff like this makes me regret being banned from r/news
1 Mouthtrap 2018-06-19
Unpopular opinion: Transgender is a problem with decision making. You either come with two X chromosomes, or an XY. Having the bits chopped off and the ends tucked in, doesn't change the sex you came with at birth. CMM
1 Mouthtrap 2018-06-19
As I said, Unpopular opinion. Get used to it :) It's mine.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-19
LEGALIZE FUTA
1 GeneralDelight 2018-06-19
Good. I hate being made fun of because I love the feminine penis and the boipucci
1 [deleted] 2018-06-19
[removed]
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-19
Jesus you're so insane and must be disabled. It was 556 am at the time of that post, and you can label me however you like kippot, just remember your side lost, and in your bitterness you cant stop lashing out becoming the very thing you think you mock. Nobody unironically agrees with you here we just love the in fighting but you're still a very special level of retarded believing there are actual "sides". 4 years from now I'll be on my 3rd or 4th alt seeing the next wave of over weight libtards spouting nonsensical rage at everyone on the wrong side, and frankly, I still wont care.
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-19
Walls of texts, you aren't mad.