Support NeoGAF

[Rocket Number 22]

Jordan Peterson is also neck-deep in criticisms of Marxism, and attempts to draw comparisons between Bill C-16 to the deaths of 100 million people (a disputed number, and a strange way by which to tally deaths since we do not, for instance, tally deaths "caused by capitalism").

What the fuck is this...do you also dispute the nazi death toll of Jews?

Heavens to Murgatroyd

 

[Dunki]

So what you're saying is that you have a basis as to why children would not be able to handle more pronouns? Because the alternative is that you are extrapolating your own personal difficulties and projecting them on children without any actual basis to it.

No I am saying that the effort, the money and time to actually archive this would be used better by actually helping trans and nb people. And I am saying that if you teach this at school you also need to to the why. You need to teach about transexuality and NB. And this kind of topic is way to compley for little children. You can not say you have to do this and not explain it at all.

As for Peterson: As far as I know he rejects this bill becaue he does not like that it is forcing people to accept this political ideology and that they have to learn a different language. He is not against Trans or nb people.

And for the comparision of 100 million death people I think you need to step back a little. This is ridiculous..

 

[YourMaster]

The point is that you do not feel like the sex you are born with so you become the opposite sex, not some in between attention seeking virtue signaler

Truth is, many people are born attention wh,.. seekers. Whatever gender identity or sexual orientation they may have. I'm no expert but I expect when you go through transitional surgery you don't get a 2-for-1 discount to also get treated for that, so the people are just there.
And unfortunately most groups suffer from vocal people with radical ideas not reflective of the whole group, often with that 'strong desire to be heard' that paints the group they belong to in a bad light. Feminists, Atheists, Weed smokers, you name it.

Basic human decency. No reason not to treat other people with basic kindness. It's what helps keep society from devolving into madness lol.

Could you imagine going to a grocery store and every person was just blurting out crude judgements of everyone else in the store? It'd be nuts.

I don't think it is basic human decency at all.
If a person asks to be referred to by he or she, it would be basic decency to comply. All the more easier if that person mostly looks the part, otherwise a slip of the tongue is almost inevitable. The real issue that still does need work is for people who clearly dress as a particular gender, but where either it is still visible to not be the original gender or simply known to be the case and you purposefully and out of disrespect/disgust/judgement you choose to use the original pronoun.

But using a made up pronoun goes, way, way beyond decency. I live in Germany now, as a non-native speaker, and let me tell you just in common usage, those pronouns are not easy. And this is being surrounded by people using them correctly all the time. Having made up pronouns you never get to practice and are not part of actual language is very taxing on the part of the speaker. If it were me, I'd probably would not go along with it.

And the thing is, language mostly fixes itself, but in cases where words are used. The fact that many pronouns are proposed for/by people who don't want to or can't identify with a single gender and non stick is telling. I would be totally open for neutral pronouns, but it would need to take a more prominent position in society first for the language to evolve around it. It is a shame that 'it' currently also has meaning to be 'non-human', instead of 'non-male and non-female'.
The neutral pronoun would not just be useful for people who emotionally feel a disconnect to a certain gender, but also people born with sexual characteristics of both genders - which is actually quite common. Right now it is very common for the parents to just 'pick one' and have the other bits surgically removed, which has social benefits but is often not in the best interest of the child. Especially because puberty will happen and can hit hard for those affected. For the over one in 2000 babies born that way society could open up more to accept 'undefined' as a gender. (There are more people born with intersex characteristics than with red hair)
When intersex is used and gets a place, when people are treated with respect and people in general understand this to be the case, hopefully parents with young babies born with a 'uuhhh I don't know'-baby are not as likely to quickly cut of bits that could have been very useful 18 years later.

 

[A Link to the Past]

No I am saying that the effort, the money and time to actually archive this would be used better by actually helping trans and nb people. And I am saying that if you teach this at school you also need to to the why. You need to teach about transexuality and NB. And this kind of topic is way to compley for little children. You can not say you have to do this and not explain it at all.

As for Peterson: As far as I know he rejects this bill becaue he does not like that it is forcing people to accept this political ideology and that they have to learn a different language. He is not against Trans or nb people.

And for the comparision of 100 million death people I think you need to step back a little. This is ridiculous..

The only person who brings up the death of 100 million people is Jordan Peterson.

Further, the notion that Peterson is not against trans people is an odd one considering he is saying things about Bill C-16 that do not accurately reflect the text as it is written.

Also, that's a weird caveat re: children. You're synthesizing your argument that children wouldn't understand with the notion that education of this concept would not make clear valuable information. You're projecting your own personal difficulties understanding this with an objective notion that it's inherently incomprehensible. Basically, it's not your failing, it must mean that the concept itself is erroneous.

Also, there should be no zero sum game when it comes to funding trans initiatives. It can be both, and it should be both.

What the fuck is this...do you also dispute the nazi death toll of Jews?

Heavens to Murgatroyd

You clearly misunderstand. The dispute is not that the deaths happened, the dispute is how determinations are made. How do you determine that a death was caused by an ideology? The actual figure of 100 million does not have an academic consensus behind it as to the reason why these people all died. In the case of the death toll of Jewish people, there is a very clear consensus on the motives. Like I said, it'd be like creating a death toll for American capitalism and including all the deaths in North Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. Having a vague notion of "Marxism killed 100 million people" means nothing when the deaths are not directly caused by Marxism, but by countries who have Marxist beliefs doing horrific things. Without the ideology itself promoting the horrific acts behind these killings, it's disingenuous to claim "Marxism caused 100 million deaths," and is reductive to the more reasonable explanation that there were a lot of powerful nations and groups that followed Marxism, communism, etc. And then there are things that muddle the stats, such as the fact that Khmer Rouge identifies as communists, but also have ideologies that match up with national socialism and fascism. The issue of it all is that people are only proving correlation rather than causation. When you look at the Wikipedia for instance, a huge bulk of the 100 million comes from the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Mao Zedong used the Soviet Union as an example for how he operated as the country's leader (using violence as a means by which to spread his ideology).

Ultimately, the whole discussion is kind of moot because Peterson made an appeal to outrage by drawing a comparison between mass killings under communist regimes and gender neutral pronouns. It's a weird comparison when you consider that a lot of communist regimes were not exactly fond of civil rights etc. and had a lot of elements, at least during the time when these mass killings were at their worst, that run contrary to what the "radical left" (his words) believe.

 

[AmaiMask]

Instead of even humoring these various genders, why aren't gays/lesbians/bi grouped differently from trans and all the others? It's one thing to be attracted to the same sex or both sexes, and another thing entirely to identify as a separate gender than the one you were clearly born with. Why isn't this considered a form of mental illness and treated as such? It doesn't mean you treat them badly, but it also doesn't mean you go out of your way to cater to them and act like it's totally OK to claim you're a boy when you're in fact a girl or vise versa.

I think we've gone a bit too far in society to be accepting of everyone without asking valid questions. Problem is when you even try to have said discussion you're labeled a bigot or something.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Instead of even humoring these various genders, why aren't gays/lesbians/bi grouped differently from trans and all the others? It's one thing to be attracted to the same sex or both sexes, and another thing entirely to identify as a separate gender than the one you were clearly born with. Why isn't this considered a form of mental illness and treated as such? It doesn't mean you treat them badly, but it also doesn't mean you go out of your way to cater to them and act like it's totally OK to claim you're a boy when you're in fact a girl or vise versa.

I think we've gone a bit too far in society to be accepting of everyone without asking valid questions. Problem is when you even try to have said discussion you're labeled a bigot or something.

Because being trans is not considered a mental illness and has not been for years. Why isn't being gay considered a mental illness, for example? Can you make such an argument that does not just as easily apply to trans people?

 

[YourMaster]

Instead of even humoring these various genders, why aren't gays/lesbians/bi grouped differently from trans and all the others? It's one thing to be attracted to the same sex or both sexes, and another thing entirely to identify as a separate gender than the one you were clearly born with. Why isn't this considered a form of mental illness and treated as such? It doesn't mean you treat them badly, but it also doesn't mean you go out of your way to cater to them and act like it's totally OK to claim you're a boy when you're in fact a girl or vise versa.

I think we've gone a bit too far in society to be accepting of everyone without asking valid questions. Problem is when you even try to have said discussion you're labeled a bigot or something.

Asking what kind of valid questions? What's wrong with accepting trans people, where's the harm? You don't actually need to cater to trans people, I don't see how anybody needs to go 'out of his way' if they've got a trans neighbor or coworker or whatever. Using made-up words to please them is a step too far yes, and I think many will be reluctant to go that far, but beyond that they can function in society just fine.

I also don't believe we have the other treatment to offer,... if you're born a man but feel like a woman it would be very nice if we could offer the choice to either have your body realign with your feelings, or your feelings realigned with your body, but we can't.
The only options on the menu right now are 'suck it up' and 'do something about it'.

Because being trans is not considered a mental illness and has not been for years. Why isn't being gay considered a mental illness, for example? Can you make such an argument that does not just as easily apply to trans people?

That's easy. Being trans is something that requires treatment somehow, otherwise it leaves people unhappy. They feel like they are different than how they are supposed to be.
Being gay is a natural state of human beings, we all have the genes to become homosexual and there are epigenetical factors that can switch those parts of our DNA on during pregnancy and it will make you different but not worse. In males for example the factors that can make the child gay are severe trauma/stress of the mother during or before pregnancy, or having older brothers(A fourth son is several times more likely to be born gay than the first one). The changes to the male are genetically advantages, the new male in the family will not compete for females with the brothers reducing stress, and they become generally less competitive, more sociable, supportive of their siblings and more intelligent. Several traits that help families that are large and/or have gone through trauma become successful overall. There's also no natural reason for the individual himself to be unhappy. That this is still the case is not because of the homosexuality, but because of a history where homosexuality has been seen against unnatural and against the will of god so that the gay child is often not made to feel as welcome as he should in his family or in his community.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Asking what kind of valid questions? What's wrong with accepting trans people, where's the harm? You don't actually need to cater to trans people, I don't see how anybody needs to go 'out of his way' if they've got a trans neighbor or coworker or whatever. Using made-up words to please them is a step too far yes, and I think many will be reluctant to go that far, but beyond that they can function in society just fine.

I also don't believe we have the other treatment to offer,... if you're born a man but feel like a woman it would be very nice if we could offer the choice to either have your body realign with your feelings, or your feelings realigned with your body, but we can't.
The only options on the menu right now are 'suck it up' and 'do something about it'.

I hate made up words. We should stick with the farm-grown words that just grew out from the Earth.

And yes, there are a lot of limitations (though I'd dispute that body realignment is not an option). One of them is to advance civil rights of trans people.

 

[AmaiMask]

Because being trans is not considered a mental illness and has not been for years. Why isn't being gay considered a mental illness, for example? Can you make such an argument that does not just as easily apply to trans people?

Being gay was considered a mental illness and is to some, but at least they still realize the genders they were born with. Also asking to be given the same marriage rights isn't the same as demanding people call you some special name that's literally not existed until a few years ago. Homosexuality is a documented thing that's existed for thousands of years, but only recently has the whole trans thing taken off with people having these sex changes and demanding this special treatment beyond what's reasonable.

Why do we really have to go along with these various genders?

Asking what kind of valid questions? What's wrong with accepting trans people, where's the harm? You don't actually need to cater to trans people, I don't see how anybody needs to go 'out of his way' if they've got a trans neighbor or coworker or whatever. Using made-up words to please them is a step too far yes, and I think many will be reluctant to go that far, but beyond that they can function in society just fine.

I also don't believe we have the other treatment to offer,... if you're born a man but feel like a woman it would be very nice if we could offer the choice to either have your body realign with your feelings, or your feelings realigned with your body, but we can't.
The only options on the menu right now are 'suck it up' and 'do something about it'.

I don't object to just letting these individuals do as they please, but it seems we both agree that the whole made up words thing is taking things too far, yes? That's the main part of what I'm saying. I have nothing against trans people, unless they're going to push the issue about their names like what's happening in Canada. At which point then I will take issue and go with the whole mental illness thing. Gay people aren't being as intrusive with their gayness as some trans people and those that speak for them are being about their names, is what I'm really getting at.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Being gay was considered a mental illness and is to some, but at least they still realize the genders they were born with. Also asking to be given the same marriage rights isn't the same as demanding people call you some special name that's literally not existed until a few years ago. Homosexuality is a documented thing that's existed for thousands of years, but only recently has the whole trans thing taken off with people having these sex changes and demanding this special treatment beyond what's reasonable.

Why do we really have to go along with these various genders?


I don't object to just letting these individuals do as they please, but it seems we both agree that the whole made up words thing is taking things too far, yes? That's the main part of what I'm saying. I have nothing against trans people, unless they're going to push the issue about their names like what's happening in Canada. At which point then I will take issue and go with the whole mental illness thing. Gay people aren't being as intrusive with their gayness as some trans people and those that speak for them are being about their names, is what I'm really getting at.

Okay, first off, there are several documented trans people in history what are you even talking about.

Trans man

Trans woman

Trans woman

There were also Native American tribes before colonists settled on America who recognized more than two genders, and need I even touch upon figures in ancient Rome and Greece?

Don't just make stuff up lol

 

[YourMaster]

I hate made up words. We should stick with the farm-grown words that just grew out from the Earth.

And yes, there are a lot of limitations (though I'd dispute that body realignment is not an option). One of them is to advance civil rights of trans people.

You take my argument the opposite from how I meant it. I agree that body realignment is an option, what I'm saying that beyond 'just sucking it up' it's the only option. You CAN"T go to a psychiatrist, buy 10 sessions and walk out 'normal'.
I'm saying trans people need very little additional rights because they have hardly any special needs. Treating them with dignity and respect is not a special need, and that's in my view the main thing that's needed: social advancement on the issue. Acceptance and understanding are needed a lot more than changes in laws.

And no, words don't grow on trees, but they aren't made up either. If I make up a word right now it's not a word. Language evolves naturally. To google has become a verb not because google decided that to be the case (in fact they are against it) but because that was a useful verb to people and they started using it.

I don't object to just letting these individuals do as they please, but it seems we both agree that the whole made up words thing is taking things too far, yes? That's the main part of what I'm saying. I have nothing against trans people, unless they're going to push the issue about their names like what's happening in Canada. At which point then I will take issue and go with the whole mental illness thing. Gay people aren't being as intrusive with their gayness as some trans people and those that speak for them are being about their names, is what I'm really getting at.

That's because luckily despite heavy resistance from many people all over the world, homosexuality has become pretty normal. Not to trivialize the long road still needed there, but when you're gay there's not much you need to explain and there are many places for you to fit in and there are even subcultures available specifically for your needs. And they still need more awareness and laws to get the same rights as straight people and have parades where they 'flaunt their gayness' to be accepted.

Trans people still need to fight a lot more for acceptance, and it seems that the more eccentric members of this 'community' get most of the attention.
In the US I think most of the attention came from the other direction mind you. Here in Europe I've never heard about bathroom-laws, people just went to whatever bathroom they pleased and nobody cared. I guess this was also the case in the US 10 years ago. Conservatives went on the run with this issue, making up problems where there were none, giving more media attention to transgender issues - for better or worse - and the media found the voices of people with 'unique demands' made for better TV than those of the people who pleaded for stuff like 'treat me with respect, and cover my medical needs'.

And that sex-change is a new thing is because the ability to do a sex-change is a new thing. People living like the other gender - or wanting to - is nothing new.

 

[A Link to the Past]

And another, Elagabalus, a Roman Emperor, who is reported to have sought out a doctor to perform SRS on them

You take my argument the opposite from how I meant it. I agree that body realignment is an option, what I'm saying that beyond 'just sucking it up' it's the only option. You CAN"T go to a psychiatrist, buy 10 sessions and walk out 'normal'.
I'm saying trans people need very little additional rights because they have hardly any special needs. Treating them with dignity and respect is not a special need, and that's in my view the main thing that's needed: social advancement on the issue. Acceptance and understanding are needed a lot more than changes in laws.

And no, words don't grow on trees, but they aren't made up either. If I make up a word right now it's not a word. Language evolves naturally. To google has become a verb not because google decided that to be the case (in fact they are against it) but because that was a useful verb to people and they started using it.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

That said, people wanting to use certain gender neutral pronouns shouldn't be the issue. To an extent, it is the obligation of the person with such a thing to make this clear if they wish to use lesser known pronouns. However, these are not entirely that recent. For example, "Ey" is more than 40 years old.

 

[AmaiMask]

Okay, first off, there are several documented trans people in history what are you even talking about.

Trans man

Trans woman

Trans woman

There were also Native American tribes before colonists settled on America who recognized more than two genders, and need I even touch upon figures in ancient Rome and Greece?

Don't just make stuff up lol

I was really speaking about the actual sex changes and the names, not people claiming to be a man or woman. I'm speaking specifically about the actual sex operations and the pronouns. I'll concede the point on the examples you gave though about two genders, didn't know that. Still, I'm not OK with the names and think sticking to two genders isn't transphobic or whatever other term it's called. If a person decides they'll respect a trans person desire to be called whatever that's fine, but refusing to identify a person the way they want to be identify is not the same as calling a person out of their name or denying them their rights, at all. That's where I'll always clash with trans people and those that speak for them. Seeing things like what's happening in Canada only further spurs me on.

 

[AmaiMask]

You take my argument the opposite from how I meant it. I agree that body realignment is an option, what I'm saying that beyond 'just sucking it up' it's the only option. You CAN"T go to a psychiatrist, buy 10 sessions and walk out 'normal'.
I'm saying trans people need very little additional rights because they have hardly any special needs. Treating them with dignity and respect is not a special need, and that's in my view the main thing that's needed: social advancement on the issue. Acceptance and understanding are needed a lot more than changes in laws.

And no, words don't grow on trees, but they aren't made up either. If I make up a word right now it's not a word. Language evolves naturally. To google has become a verb not because google decided that to be the case (in fact they are against it) but because that was a useful verb to people and they started using it.



That's because luckily despite heavy resistance from many people all over the world, homosexuality has become pretty normal. Not to trivialize the long road still needed there, but when you're gay there's not much you need to explain and there are many places for you to fit in and there are even subcultures available specifically for your needs. And they still need more awareness and laws to get the same rights as straight people and have parades where they 'flaunt their gayness' to be accepted.

Trans people still need to fight a lot more for acceptance, and it seems that the more eccentric members of this 'community' get most of the attention.
In the US I think most of the attention came from the other direction mind you. Here in Europe I've never heard about bathroom-laws, people just went to whatever bathroom they pleased and nobody cared. I guess this was also the case in the US 10 years ago. Conservatives went on the run with this issue, making up problems where there were none, giving more media attention to transgender issues - for better or worse - and the media found the voices of people with 'unique demands' made for better TV than those of the people who pleaded for stuff like 'treat me with respect, and cover my medical needs'.

And that sex-change is a new thing is because the ability to do a sex-change is a new thing. People living like the other gender - or wanting to - is nothing new.

Like I said before, I'm totally fine with trans people doing whatever they want, that's not the issue for me. They can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to call them that, nor should I be called transphobic because I choose not to identify them as "zir" or whatever, and believe there are only two genders. You're either born a guy or a girl, how you mentally perceive that doesn't change said fact. This notion shouldn't be such a controversy is my argument.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Like I said before, I'm totally fine with trans people doing whatever they want, that's not the issue for me. They can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to call them that, nor should I be called transphobic because I choose not to identify them as "zir" or whatever, and believe there are only two genders. You're either born a guy or a girl, how you mentally perceive that doesn't change said fact. This notion shouldn't be such a controversy is my argument.

But since there are a number of academics and scientists who disagree with you that gender operates on a binary, that kind of does devalue the argument that it is noncontroversial. Further, you claim that being trans is considered a mental illness, when the authorities on mental illness do not agree with this.

(also people getting a sex change and people wanting a sex change are not the same thing. Of course people in recent times are getting more sex changes than they used to, for the same reason why medical treatment in any other area is more common than it used to be.)

(also also, what is happening in Canada is that trans people were given greater protections against direct hatred, as specified by the courts that any fine imposed under Bill C-16 would require active encouragement of hate against trans people. You're either a victim of misinformation or a perpetrator of it, and I make the good faith assumption that it is the former.)

 

[Dunki]

But since there are a number of academics and scientists who disagree with you that gender operates on a binary, that kind of does devalue the argument that it is noncontroversial. Further, you claim that being trans is considered a mental illness, when the authorities on mental illness do not agree with this.

(also people getting a sex change and people wanting a sex change are not the same thing. Of course people in recent times are getting more sex changes than they used to, for the same reason why medical treatment in any other area is more common than it used to be.)

Being trans is a biological defekt which also will efect your brain. So while its not a mental illness it has a lot to dow with your mind. AS for your academics. Depends who they are and what kind of evidence they have for it.

Example: I do not see gender studies or researches who are not using biological and psychological research methods and evidence as science.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Being trans is a biological defekt which also will efect your brain. So while its not a mental illness it has a lot to dow with your mind.

Being gay can be argued as a biological defect as well (and in fact has). Can you offer a justification for why this argument is valid for one and not the other?

 

[Dunki]

Being gay can be argued as a biological defect as well (and in fact has). Can you offer a justification for why this argument is valid for one and not the other?

Being gay does not change your biological structure. Being trans does this. Experts already know what happens in your body when you are trans. They know the differences. Also being trans means you should undergo treatment in terms of sexchange etc. If you do not do this you will have a lot of psychological problems and it will not get better.

Thats why I also believe this should be paid by your health insurance

 

[AmaiMask]

But since there are a number of academics and scientists who disagree with you that gender operates on a binary, that kind of does devalue the argument that it is noncontroversial. Further, you claim that being trans is considered a mental illness, when the authorities on mental illness do not agree with this.

(also people getting a sex change and people wanting a sex change are not the same thing. Of course people in recent times are getting more sex changes than they used to, for the same reason why medical treatment in any other area is more common than it used to be.)

(also also, what is happening in Canada is that trans people were given greater protections against direct hatred, as specified by the courts that any fine imposed under Bill C-16 would require active encouragement of hate against trans people. You're either a victim of misinformation or a perpetrator of it, and I make the good faith assumption that it is the former.)

Listen man, if you're trying to argue that there are a number of scientists that have some kind of scientific proof that there are more genders than just being a boy or girl then I'm just not going to buy it. Like, you either have a penis or you have a vagina, and that determines whether you're a boy or girl. I don't believe the scientific community is going to debate this and change their minds on this as a whole beyond whatever group you're referencing. Mental illness experts may not agree being trans is a mental illness, but its certainly far from being the norm for the average person born, yes? Well, I don't think the rest of us should at any point be forced to learn new pronouns for the minority unless we so choose to use said pronouns. I don't think that constitutes transphobia at all.

And I've heard Jordan was given shit because of his views in Canada and even watched that debate where the person in favor of trans people seemed to imply people wouldn't get to choose on being locked up or something along those lines? Point is, I don't at all like the attitude many on the trans side have, it's incredibly hostile and makes me even more hostile in return. Now, if Trans people are being physically and verbally assaulted then of course I'm against that. If this verbal assault is defined as refusing to identify them as their made up nouns then they can fuck right off with that.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Listen man, if you're trying to argue that there are a number of scientists that have some kind of scientific proof that there are more genders than just being a boy or girl then I'm just not going to buy it. Like, you either have a penis or you have a vagina, and that determines whether you're a boy or girl. I don't believe the scientific community is going to debate this and change their minds on this as a whole beyond whatever group you're referencing. Mental illness experts may not agree being trans is a mental illness, but its certainly far from being the norm for the average person born, yes? Well, I don't think the rest of us should at any point be forced to learn new pronouns for the minority unless we so choose to use said pronouns. I don't think that constitutes transphobia at all.

And I've heard Jordan was given shit because of his views in Canada and even watched that debate where the person in favor of trans people seemed to imply people wouldn't get to choose on being locked up or something along those lines? Point is, I don't at all like the attitude many on the trans side have, it's incredibly hostile and makes me even more hostile in return. Now, if Trans people are being physically and verbally assaulted then of course I'm against that. If this verbal assault is defined as refusing to identify them as their made up nouns then they can fuck right off with that.

A lot of things aren't the norm. Hey redheads, you're mentally ill! Being rare and being a mental illness are two different things, so it's ridiculous that you're clinging to justifications.

Being gay does not change your biological structure. Being trans does this. Experts already know what happens in your body when you are trans. They know the differences. Also being trans means you should undergo treatment in terms of sexchange etc. If you do not do this you will have a lot of psychological problems and it will not get better.

Thats why I also believe this should be paid by your health insurance

I'm sorry, can you clarify what happens in your body when you are trans?

 

[Dunki]

A lot of things aren't the norm. Hey redheads, you're mentally ill! Being rare and being a mental illness are two different things, so it's ridiculous that you're clinging to justifications.



I'm sorry, can you clarify what happens in your body when you are trans?

I could give you a small definition in German if this helps^^

Dabei ist in der Medizin schon längst bekannt, dass es im Embryonalstadium zu einer unterschiedlichen Entwicklung zwischen Gehirn und Genitalen gekommen ist. Diese kann durch Gendefekte, Umwelteinflüsse, schwankende Hormonspiegel und vieles mehr verursacht werden.

So basically there is a contrasting development between your brain and your genitals during the embryonic stage This can result from genetic deffects, environmental influences, hormone levels etc.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I could give you a small definition in German if this helps^^



So basically there is a contrasting development between your brain and your genitals during the embryonic stage This can result from genetic deffects, environmental influences, hormone levels etc.

Having looked into this, the author does not say that being trans involves biological changes, the author gives biological defects as an example of one cause, not THE cause. The author then goes on to clarify that being trans is no more an illness than being quite tall.

 

[AmaiMask]

A lot of things aren't the norm. Hey redheads, you're mentally ill! Being rare and being a mental illness are two different things, so it's ridiculous that you're clinging to justifications.



I'm sorry, can you clarify what happens in your body when you are trans?

Readheads aren't demanding I call them Redheads, nor would they get mad and protest if I called them blueheads, blonde, or whatever. Probably.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Readheads aren't demanding I call them Redheads, nor would they get mad and protest if I called them blueheads, blonde, or whatever. Probably.

So to be clear, you feel that they are mentally ill because they want to be referred to with the proper pronouns

Also, readheads aren't demanding that because readheads either don't exist or they are people who are really into reading.

 

[Dunki]

Having looked into this, the author does not say that being trans involves biological changes, the author gives biological defects as an example of one cause, not THE cause. The author then goes on to clarify that being trans is no more an illness than being quite tall.

The autor states that there is a disconnect that is happening during the embryonic state. As for the illness part. Gigantism is again a hormone disorder which will later cause trouble and also will also shorten your lifespan

 

[A Link to the Past]

The autor states that there is a disconnect that is happening during the embryonic state. As for the illness part. Gigantism is again a hormone disorder which will later cause trouble and also will also shorten your lifespan

The author cites this as an example, yes, but not as the sole one. The author also did not mention gigantism, he gave "more than two meters." This could theoretically include gigantism, but does not necessarily, especially as very tall people can be that tall without having gigantism.

 

[AmaiMask]

So to be clear, you feel that they are mentally ill because they want to be referred to with the proper pronouns

Also, readheads aren't demanding that because readheads either don't exist or they are people who are really into reading.

I think they're mentally ill to think they're anything other than a boy or girl, yes. But whatever, live and let live or however the saying goes. That goes both ways though, don't come at me crazy because I don't agree with you on there being multiple genders, or me refusing to go by whatever pronoun you or whatever other trans wants. That's my argument. Now, I'm likely to just go ahead and call a trans who identify as the opposite sex male or female because whatever. However, I'm not going to play along with that "xir" bullshit. I shouldn't get in trouble for that.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think they're mentally ill to think they're anything other than a boy or girl, yes. But whatever, live and let live or however the saying goes. That goes both ways though, don't come at me crazy because I don't agree with you on there being multiple genders, or me refusing to go by whatever pronoun you or whatever other trans wants. That's my argument. Now, I'm likely to just go ahead and call a trans who identify as the opposite sex male or female because whatever. However, I'm not going to play along with that "xir" bullshit. I shouldn't get in trouble for that.

Alas, you are not qualified to make a diagnosis of mental illness.

Also, you don't think there are multiple genders?

(also again, you are overstating what Bill C-16 does: "People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects," the top court ruled.)

 

[Dude Abides]

I think they're mentally ill to think they're anything other than a boy or girl, yes. But whatever, live and let live or however the saying goes. That goes both ways though, don't come at me crazy because I don't agree with you on there being multiple genders, or me refusing to go by whatever pronoun you or whatever other trans wants. That's my argument. Now, I'm likely to just go ahead and call a trans who identify as the opposite sex male or female because whatever. However, I'm not going to play along with that "xir" bullshit. I shouldn't get in trouble for that.

Your “argument” is that you want to be an asshole to people because reasons.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Alas, you are not qualified to make a diagnosis of mental illness.

Also, you don't think there are multiple genders?

(also again, you are overstating what Bill C-16 does: "People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects," the top court ruled.)

Their are two genders.

 

[daniell]

But since there are a number of academics and scientists who disagree with you that gender operates on a binary, that kind of does devalue the argument that it is noncontroversial.

That such a disingenuous "argument" you are literally taking the word of people that want to push this out of ideological reason into science to the point if you pin them down to explain it they literally cant the left is now at the point where actual scienctific facts would hinder their imagined "utopia" and thats why they now try to subvert it or attack actual scientist. Non biased science doesnt agrees with them, at all!
When you have literally scientist attacks by radical leftist that discovered dna, when you have biology teachers and scientist attacked by radical left by self proclaimed social "scientists" you know you fucked up in your idiot movement.


Just because you cut off your dick doesnt change that basically every cell in your body is xy. You literally cant change this fact about a person.
AT BEST its only in the head of the person there is no other way.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That such a disingenuous "argument" you are literally taking the word of people that want to push this out of ideological reason into science while no actual non biased science agrees with them at all.
Just because you cut off your dick doesnt change that basically every cell in your body is xy. You literally cant change this fact about a person.

...This post is such a word salad, haha. You don't even know who I am citing, and are inherently assuming bias for no other reason than that they hold a certain opinion. Telling. :v

Your argument is predicated on the notion that gender is defined by chromosomes, which the scientific consensus does not agree. (and to be clear, if you're citing biology, I'd like to see the scientific consensus of the biology community on trans people. Ultimately I am just kind of curious what these scientific facts are that hinder the utopia)

Their are two genders.

Their ain't no grammer

 

[daniell]

...This post is such a word salad, haha. You don't even know who I am citing, and are inherently assuming bias for no other reason than that they hold a certain opinion. Telling. :v

Your argument is predicated on the notion that gender is defined by chromosomes, which the scientific consensus does not agree. (and to be clear, if you're citing biology, I'd like to see the scientific consensus of the biology community on trans people)



Their ain't no grammer

We are in a thread literally discussing how random people get ddr tier questioned by self-proclaimed social " science" while actual biologist and scientists get at best ignored at worst attacked.

There are hundrets of PUBLIC examples just the last 4 years, you playing stupid is not an argument when its a well know issue.

 

[A Link to the Past]

We are in a thread literally discussing how random people get ddr tier questioned by self-proclaimed social " science" while actual biologist and scientists get at best ignored at worst attacked.

There are hundrets of PUBLIC examples just the last 4 years, you playing stupid is not an argument when its a well know issue.

You could just give me some examples of biologists.

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

If you want to lose your mind every time some minor issue bubbles up to Ben shapiro then enjoy your insanity

?!?


The story is about censorship, discrimination and other issues within Canada's education system... It's a huge social and political debate that affects a country of 34 million people...

I mean, why are you here bitching about Ben Shapiro anyway? there are countless other news media outlets covering this very same story...It's not just "bubbling up Ben Shapiro"


This story affects an entire country's education system, freedom of expression, human rights, etc...
It's not a "minor issue" at all, The fact that you see it that way, tells a lot more about your world view (or lack thereof) than anything else, hence my original post.

 

[daniell]

You could just give me some examples of biologists.

First it is now well known and spread to the point its infecting not just US campuses but outside the US too, therefore your call for examples is just something you use to temporarily annoy people, i am not inventing the wheel for you again just so you can ignore it or "explain it away" with "lol exception not the rule!" even thought this crap is increasing and spreading.
You know how to use google i am not your teacher and i am not your mother.
Do your research on a topic before you open your mouth about it and than demand everyone else to educate you even on things that are so well known they routinely make big splashes in the media and science community for years now.

 

[A Link to the Past]

First it is now well known and spread to the point its infecting not just US campuses but outside the US too, therefore your call for examples is just something you use to temporarily annoy people, i am not inventing the wheel for you again just so you can ignore it or "explain it away" with "lol exception not the rule!" even thought this crap is increasing and spreading.
You know how to use google i am not your teacher and i am not your mother.
Do your research on a topic before you open your mouth about it and than demand everyone else to educate you even on things that are so well known they routinely make big splashes in the media and science community for years now.

Research does not involve researching every single potential dissenting opinion. Do not insert yourself into a discussion, make an argument, and then refuse to backup your argument. The onus is on you to show your work. Did you get upset in middle school when your math teacher asked that you show how you came to your conclusions too?

Look, I'm a writer, and part of my job involves being able to back up what I say. You're actively claiming that this is something so present and common sense and significant that I could trip over it, but you also can't name person one. In my experience, a lack of sources has been the cause of that refusal to cite sources, not some imagined ethos that people just just "Google it, shitlord."

 

[daniell]

Research does not involve researching every single potential dissenting opinion. Do not insert yourself into a discussion, make an argument, and then refuse to backup your argument. The onus is on you to show your work. Did you get upset in middle school when your math teacher asked that you show how you came to your conclusions too?

Look, I'm a writer, and part of my job involves being able to back up what I say. You're actively claiming that this is something so present and common sense and significant that I could trip over it, but you also can't name person one. In my experience, a lack of sources has been the cause of that refusal to cite sources, not some imagined ethos that people just just "Google it, shitlord."

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face, you denying you even see the things that have been routine outrage over the last 4 years is your own problem.
In actuality the fact that you throw around words like shitlord is further prove you know exactly what i am saying and probably even know several examples yourself but wont admit it cause it goes against you in this instance. Stop your act its pathetic.
Again, you playing stupid is not an argument its just you playing stupid.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face, you denying you even see the things that have been routine outrage over the last 4 years is your own problem.
In actuality the fact that you throw around words like shitlord is further prove you know exactly what i am saying and probably even know several examples yourself but wont admit it cause it goes against you in this instance. Stop your act its pathetic.
Again, you playing stupid is not an argument its just you playing stupid.

Dude, "Google it, shitlord" is a line I quoted from a bad anime. What is this conspiratorial nonsense lol. Just do your due diligence and provide your sources. The longer it takes the easier it becomes to conclude that the lack of sources is "my bluff didn't work."

 

[daniell]

Dude, "Google it, shitlord" is a line I quoted from a bad anime. What is this conspiratorial nonsense lol. Just do your due diligence and provide your sources. The longer it takes the easier it becomes to conclude that the lack of sources is "my bluff didn't work."

Stop your act dude no one is this dense you are not neutron star buddy.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Stop your act dude no one is this dense you are not neutron star buddy.

*patiently waits*

See, the only reason I'm curious is because I have had discussions like this go the same way so many times, where the person finds it either difficult to find their sources, or they say what you say. So apologies, it makes me inclined to assume that this is just you being angrily defensive about your shoddy argument. *shrugs*

 

[daniell]

*patiently waits*

This is the last time i give you attention so revel in it you willfully dishonest person.

"science is a social construct" Therefore if you buy into this easily disproven nonsense it means science doesnt provide facts.
The radical left and the socials studies fools (at least many of them) have bought fully into this and now use this ignorance as a weapon for their other nonsense that science disagrees with/prevents their perceived "utopia" of equal outcome.

There is no secret about this and there is no need for a conspiracy theory because it isnt even hidden and thats why i dont believe you.

This crap is forced into the minds of people while being easily disproven and this crap is spread as "science" while having no scientific backing, at all!

https://imgur.com/a/TOQFi

 

[YourMaster]

Like I said before, I'm totally fine with trans people doing whatever they want, that's not the issue for me. They can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to call them that, nor should I be called transphobic because I choose not to identify them as "zir" or whatever, and believe there are only two genders. You're either born a guy or a girl, how you mentally perceive that doesn't change said fact. This notion shouldn't be such a controversy is my argument.

Not wanting to use a pronoun of their choosing doesn't make you transphobic. But your believe that there are only two genders is simply not correct. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, it's simply the way nature works.
People who are born with balls and ovaries a penis and a vagina, it should be clear there to you that they are intersex right? Like I mentioned before, there are more people born where the doctor can't assign a gender looking at the naked baby than there are people born with red hair.
Now, it also shouldn't be so hard to understand that there are more differences between boys and girls than just the bits between their legs. Many of these differences are actually in the brain. So would you for example agree that a person with no ovaries, but balls, penis and a vagina and a brain that is partly developed as a male brain and partly developed as a female brain is intersex?
Now, if your brain is developed mostly female, and your genitals are developed fully male and from birth to puberty there's actually very little hormones those genitals produce to affect how your brain grows, that person can be considered intrasex? And sure, at this point you CAN say well I still call this person a man, but what's the point? That doesn't help this person.

With most things in life, these isn't a clear boundary between X and Y, and in nature this is especially the case. Your worldview that there are just two genders isn't controversial, it's outdated. It used to be the norm and it took surgeons operating on babies to keep that worldview intact.
Right now it is too early for intersex people to become considered normal, simply because they are too rare. When - and this development is happening - people stop operating on babies to force them into one box in 30/40 years there are enough people out there that can't be defined as either male or female it becomes normal enough and we need a vocabulary around this.
And I'm fine with an operation when the person has gone through puberty and after that desires a surgery and decides what to keep and what to take away.

 

[A Link to the Past]

This is the last time i give you attention so revel in it you willfully dishonest person.

"science is a social construct" Therefore if you buy into this easily disproven nonsense it means science doesnt provide facts.
The radical left and the socials studies fools (at least many of them) have bought fully into this and now use this ignorance as a weapon for their other nonsense that science disagrees with/prevents their perceived "utopia" of equal outcome.

There is no secret about this and there is no need for a conspiracy theory because it isnt even hidden and thats why i dont believe you.

This crap is forced into the minds of people while being easily disproven and this crap is spread as "science" while having no scientific backing, at all!

https://imgur.com/a/TOQFi

You wrote all of that instead of naming a person who you're citing

Like I have to wonder the kind of person who has sources but instead of citing them when asked, goes on a rant unrelated to the request. People who have sources that could amount to just name dropping an individual have no reason to do so, and people who don't get really defensive when asked for them.

Not wanting to use a pronoun of their choosing doesn't make you transphobic. But your believe that there are only two genders is simply not correct. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, it's simply the way nature works.
People who are born with balls and ovaries a penis and a vagina, it should be clear there to you that they are intersex right? Like I mentioned before, there are more people born where the doctor can't assign a gender looking at the naked baby than there are people born with red hair.
Now, it also shouldn't be so hard to understand that there are more differences between boys and girls than just the bits between their legs. Many of these differences are actually in the brain. So would you for example agree that a person with no ovaries, but balls, penis and a vagina and a brain that is partly developed as a male brain and partly developed as a female brain is intersex?
Now, if your brain is developed mostly female, and your genitals are developed fully male and from birth to puberty there's actually very little hormones those genitals produce to affect how your brain grows, that person can be considered intrasex? And sure, at this point you CAN say well I still call this person a man, but what's the point? That doesn't help this person.

With most things in life, these isn't a clear boundary between X and Y, and in nature this is especially the case. Your worldview that there are just two genders isn't controversial, it's outdated. It used to be the norm and it took surgeons operating on babies to keep that worldview intact.
Right now it is too early for intersex people to become considered normal, simply because they are too rare. When - and this development is happening - people stop operating on babies to force them into one box in 30/40 years there are enough people out there that can't be defined as either male or female it becomes normal enough and we need a vocabulary around this.
And I'm fine with an operation when the person has gone through puberty and after that desires a surgery and decides what to keep and what to take away.

The thing with it is, one of the more effective ways to work towards that is by adopting gender neutral pronouns in preparation for such a thing. I mean, don't you think we would have been better off if the idea of gender neutral pronouns were taught back when several were coined in the 70s? We'd certainly not be in as much of a kerfuffle as we would be now.

 

[daniell]

With most things in life, these isn't a clear boundary between X and Y, and in nature this is especially the case.

Nonsense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD6h-wDj7bw

 

[A Link to the Past]

You know what, you're right, daniell. I really ought to be Googling biologists' views on the concept of transgender. Here's what I found

Biology Teacher Expertly Smacks Down Transphobe Who Cited ‘Science’

hm

 

[AmaiMask]

Not wanting to use a pronoun of their choosing doesn't make you transphobic. But your believe that there are only two genders is simply not correct. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, it's simply the way nature works.
People who are born with balls and ovaries a penis and a vagina, it should be clear there to you that they are intersex right? Like I mentioned before, there are more people born where the doctor can't assign a gender looking at the naked baby than there are people born with red hair.
Now, it also shouldn't be so hard to understand that there are more differences between boys and girls than just the bits between their legs. Many of these differences are actually in the brain. So would you for example agree that a person with no ovaries, but balls, penis and a vagina and a brain that is partly developed as a male brain and partly developed as a female brain is intersex?
Now, if your brain is developed mostly female, and your genitals are developed fully male and from birth to puberty there's actually very little hormones those genitals produce to affect how your brain grows, that person can be considered intrasex? And sure, at this point you CAN say well I still call this person a man, but what's the point? That doesn't help this person.

With most things in life, these isn't a clear boundary between X and Y, and in nature this is especially the case. Your worldview that there are just two genders isn't controversial, it's outdated. It used to be the norm and it took surgeons operating on babies to keep that worldview intact.
Right now it is too early for intersex people to become considered normal, simply because they are too rare. When - and this development is happening - people stop operating on babies to force them into one box in 30/40 years there are enough people out there that can't be defined as either male or female it becomes normal enough and we need a vocabulary around this.
And I'm fine with an operation when the person has gone through puberty and after that desires a surgery and decides what to keep and what to take away.

How many of the people demanding pronouns are actually intersex and have both genitals? Even then a person who has both or a combo of genitals is still a mix of either a boy or a girl, not some 3rd gender.

What's in the brain is irrelevant, either you have a male genitals, female genitals, or both male and female genitals. There's no "zir" or whatever the hell else gender where you're born with a tentacle or something. This is where I part ways with trans people, call yourself whatever you want and think whatever you want, but there's still only 2 genders and a combo of the 2 in a rare number of people.

 

[A Link to the Past]

How many of the people demanding pronouns are actually intersex and have both genitals? Even then a person who has both or a combo of genitals is still a mix of either a boy or a girl, not some 3rd gender.

What's in the brain is irrelevant, either you have a male genitals, female genitals, or both male and female genitals. There's no "zir" or whatever the hell else gender where you're born with a tentacle or something. This is where I part ways with trans people, call yourself whatever you want and think whatever you want, but there's still only 2 genders and a combo of the 2 in a rare number of people.

There are more people in America who do not comfortably fit as boy or girl than there are people living in North Dakota. Why does North Dakota get special treatment? Why do they get to be called North Dakotans?

With all seriousness, this is a rather silly argument. The concept of gender clearly does not inherently require two genders "and a combo." Gender is something that society created in order to differentiate. There are other civilizations in history that do not adhere to the notion that there are only two genders. Why is "two genders" an objective truth?

 

[llien]

Again, we are not talking about all transgender people, but only about subset of them that identifies with neither female nor male gender.


Somewhat relevant:

In South Asia, a Hijra (for translations, see [n 1]) is a transgender individual who was assigned male at birth.[1][2] They are also known as Aravani, Aruvani or Jagappa.

The hijras are officially recognized as third gender by some governments,[5][6] being considered neither completely male nor female. Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period. This history features a number of well-known roles within subcontinental cultures, part gender-liminal, part spiritual and part survival.
Many hijras live in well-defined and organised all-hijra communities, led by a guru.[7][8] These communities have sustained themselves over generations by "adopting" boys who are in abject poverty, rejected by, or flee, their family of origin.[9] Many work as sex workers for survival.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)



Recognizing them as "third gender" is not accepted by some or even (I'd assume) many trans people, who want to identify as female (or male).

 

[AmaiMask]

There are more people in America who do not comfortably fit as boy or girl than there are people living in North Dakota. Why does North Dakota get special treatment? Why do they get to be called North Dakotans?

With all seriousness, this is a rather silly argument. The concept of gender clearly does not inherently require two genders "and a combo." Gender is something that society created in order to differentiate. There are other civilizations in history that do not adhere to the notion that there are only two genders. Why is "two genders" an objective truth?

Because your genitals are the proof of your gender, how much more simple can it get? How your brain is wired doesn't change what your body actually is. If you have a penis and balls you're a male, if you have a vagina and ovaries you're a female, if you have some weird mix you're still a mix of either male or female.

The genitals themselves decide that there's only 2 genders, not society. You don't have tentacle humans or some other crazy kinda nonsense, do you? It's either a penis or a vagina, right? Why is this even a debate then? Not even trying to be mean, I just can't understand how I have to even explain this.