And Ben Shapiro, so the Jewish community is represented(at least in the eyes of the GOP).
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
If they marry I'll be sick and won't attend. Or accidentally book a trip to Madeira for the same weekend or something.
It's half of it, because obviously normativity pressures the non-normative to conform or stay in the closet. But Mitch and Cam in Modern Family are both gay and heteronormative. Sure, the series is pretty tame.
I think cisnormativity can include transpeople. All we have to do is accept that the non-passing person wants to look passable as their preferred gender. So it wouldn't be a carnival or a f*cked up [slur here].
So you don't want people to repress their sexualities or gender identities but... you do want to police how they're allowed to act, and shame them if you don't think they're attractive enough. That's what I'm hearing here.
All of this prurient, obsessive micromanagement of other peoples' lives can GTFO.
You're currently attempting to argue by refusing to defend any stance.
Why? Again, if it's a person with a penis saying "I want a vagina", that's not normal, but it's not a contradiction. If the person is saying the reason is "because I'm a woman", that's a contradiction. The conclusion relies on two contradictory premises:
a) You don't need a vagina to be a woman. Otherwise, the individual would not be claiming to be a woman.
b) Women have vaginas. Otherwise, being a women wouldn't be an intrinsic justification for vaginoplasty.
No, because it isn't fully reversible in any situation. You've just been deceived into believing so. The drugs must be continually used to maintain their effect, yes, but there are also multiple known long-term side-effects even in adults, and not an exceptionally huge body of research to judge from.
Because it seems like you simply want to replace gender identity with a socially enforced sexed identity without realizing that they are literally the same thing.
Imagining yourself to be a type of human being (a man, a biological male, whatever) because of your genitals or chromosomes is a socially learned behavior based on sex, and what do we call socially learned behaviors based on sex?
What do you imagine that means?
No, they don't.
The most accurate and authoritative way to determine sex is a physical examination. The sex on your birth certificate is recorded on the basis of a physical examination. Karyotype testing used to be carried out in some sporting events but was abandoned because it turned out to be too inaccurate.
But moreover, determining sex on the basis of chromosomes makes literally no sense, because chromosomes don't affect anything. They are just macrostructures housing genes. Their shape is essentially meaningless beyond the fact that it correlates with the possession or absence of the primary gene involved in sex determination.
So if your measure of sex is based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, then what you're really saying is that sex is completely meaningless. It doesn't affect anything about the human body except that it usually correlates with certain other features that do.
If chromosomes determine sex, then the vast majority of the human race doesn't actually know what sex they are because they've never been karyotype tested. A boy who thinks they're a boy because they have a penis is wrong. The sex on everyone's birth certificate is wrong. Sex is so meaningless it's not necessary for anyone to know it or even to be curious about it.
Sex, in the sense you're describing it, has absolutely no meaning. It's inconsequential to anything and noone should care about it.
I mean, I wouldn't go that far but if you insist..
It may not have been what you meant, but it's what you said. Because you quoted as evidence a piece of research intended to demonstrate it.
Okay, but again, that's not the argument you provided evidence for. You quoted a study written by practitioners of reparative therapy about children at a clinic practicing reparative therapy and meant to demonstrate the effectveness of reparative therapy.
In fact, let me tell you the secret behind the piece of research you quoted, and let me tell you why it bothers me so much. You may think that taking a child's toys away is trivial, but imagine being a child who is struggling to come to terms with not being comfortable in their assigned sex and who is using play to explore other identities, and having that simple act of play met with punishment and a loss of parental love and support. What is the logical response to that situation?
I'll tell you the response. You lie.
By punishing children for showing symptoms, you aren't curing those symptoms, you're teaching those children to lie about having symptoms. That's how all conversion therapy works. It's how coercive behavioral modification works in general. It doesn't "cure" anyone, it just makes them more willing to pretend for fear of being met with rejection and punishment. That's why it only works on people in positions of vulnerability and dependence, like children, abuse victims or people in close-knit religious communities (once again, a reminder that the "therepeutic" use of coercive behavioral modification techniques was pioneered by a cult).
If you want to know how puberty affects the experience of GNC children, you could have just asked. If you had simply asked me, in a spirit of openness and curiosity, I could have told you what it is like to have untreated gender dysphoria and to go through puberty. Then you would have had something, some evidence, something to base an opinion or understanding on. As it is, you have nothing.
I mean, can you even explain theoretically how this is meant to work? How is puberty, a time when even healthy children often end up feeling miserable and struggling with issues of identity, meant to fix a child suffering from gender dysphoria?
Why do you think it is a bad thing?
Last edited:
You know, it's kinda funny. In Australia, Evangelicals are a broad church, pardon the pun. Many Evangeicals are SJWs here
But, I've hit my head on the desk over this too many times. 'If we dont act all the same, we are pro-segregation.' Like how we have Congress people crying on the floor, desperate for other member to vote for 'real marriage only.' Because gay marriage destroys Christianity somehow
Kinda gives me an understanding of why Tstorm think LBJ is a worse president than Reagan. One president did very little to unify the country and helped African Americans financially who were being targeted by racist bosses... which made racisb bosses be more racist. Another sent a bunch of drugs to everyone so he could 'save' hostages and then he blamed the drug problem he created on African Americans. The latter situation is clearly unifying the country /s
Yes, Regean. You are the example of how terrifying 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' can be. Lesson learnt
I'm still waiting for someone to marry a bridge like the ACL promised.
Wait, what now?
I somehow missed when marrying bridges became the new fire and brimstone threat. Last I heard it was "If Gay Marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, straight marriage becomes illegal".
At least that's somewhat more classy than the argument that allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope to legalizing bestiality.
Because gay people are less than human, apparently.
The Australian Christian Lobby are a special kind of stupid and said if same sex marriage was allowed it would end up with people marrying bridges. They should stand by their convictions and have one of their members marry a bridge.
I forget sometimes that the American Fundies don't have the monopoly on stupid. Partially because the ones here are really loud and annoying.
Last edited:
No, I've told you what my stance is, and you've instead engaged with others you've created that you've ascribed to me and others. See below for a Prime example.
The second "premise" isn't one the person in question is claiming as an absolute. You think it is because you're engaging with an imaginary enemy that you've created positions for.
The two primary physical sexes are heavily associated with corresponding gender identities. But not universally, not absolutely. There are occasional, relatively rare exceptions, attested for centuries.
Imagine for a moment somebody who has a physically male body, and identities as a male, suffers a horrific accident or attack and loses his penis. It has happened. That person now no longer has all the physical characteristics of the physical male sex.
Do you imagine that when that happens, he's not a man because "men have penises", and therefore it doesn't matter whether the surgeon recreates a penis or not? After all, you could apply your two premises there /just as easily/ and deem it a contradiction that he wants the surgeon to do that! He can't believe that "men have penises" and that he's a man, according to those premises!
Obviously that doesn't hold. He still identifies as a man. Lacking a physical characteristic of the male sex, through misfortune, doesn't change that-- and he would be much more comfortable if it was surgically recreated.
I've been "deceived" by.... the researchers and medical practitioners who have the relevant experience, and the affected people who have actually taken blockers, have I? They're all in on this grand deception for no discernible reason, and they're lying when they say it was beneficial for them?
Just stop with the identities! Stop trying to design yourself to fit a social category. That's an option.
It is what I said the entire time, you're choosing to respond to what you want to argue against, rather than what I said.
That child does not exist. All of the stuff about sex and identity is projection onto children, but children don't have identities unless you teach them to. All the weird things people do in their teen years happen then because that's the point in life people look to define their identity. A kindergartener playing with dolls doesn't understand that kind of thing at all. They aren't exploring identities, they aren't trying to find or define themselves, they're just doing what they feel like.
You don't know what that is like, any more than I know what it's like for a cis child to go through puberty. I am one person, I know only my own experiences. You are one person, you know only your own experiences. Your singular experience isn't evidence of anything. That's one of the many logical failures of transgender theory: how could someone possibly know they feel like the other sex, when the only experience they've ever had is that of the sex that they are? It would be wildly presumptuous for me to say "I'm a man, so I know what men feel like", it would be way beyond the bounds of reason for me to say I know what women feel like.
You answered your question: in puberty, people struggle with issues of identity. Then they reach adulthood, regain some stability in their hormones, and are left with a stronger sense of self having lived through those struggles. Puberty is uncomfortable, but it is temporary, and is how you reach adulthood.
It is entirely possible your theoretical person wants a reconstructed penis entirely because he feels he isn't a man without it.
The second premise you are saying people don't think is absolute, sure, lots of people don't think that's absolute. There are plenty of people who think "man" and "woman" are genders and sex characteristics are irrelevant. They aren't the ones doing sex changes. Without the premise that men and women have distinct sex characteristics, none of the hormone therapies and sex change surgeries are rational. Why make major medical changes for something unrelated?
You think you are getting information from those with relevant experience? No, you're getting information from stupid people with agendas on the internet. If you look for puberty blockers, zoladex is the first thing to pop up, and the people who researched and created to drug have this to say about use in children: .... nothing. They say nothing. Safety and efficacy in children has not been established. Sure, we can say with reasonable confidence that hormone levels will return to normal after treatment is stopped. That does not mean there aren't lasting consequences. There are lasting consequences. They aren't reversed.
It's actually even weirder, because the modern idea of humans having a fixed biological sex dates to the late 18th century at the earliest. Once you go past that, things start to diverge from any modern understanding of sexual anatomy.
In 1601, a Protestant chambermaid baptized under the name Marie de Marcis sought permission to marry a woman and to be rebaptized into Catholicism as a man named Marin. The authorities were unimpressed and put him on trial for sodomy. Marin, under interrogation, revealed that he had always considered himself a man, and his partner insisted that he in fact was a man and that they had had intercourse. Unfortunately, the doctors bought in to examine him could find no evidence of male anatomy. In fact, in appearance and behavior Marin appeared very much to be a woman. His employers testified that he had regular periods.
At the last minute another doctor was bought in and this one had more luck. Through stimulation of Marin's vulva he discovered that he did in fact possess a tiny penis that emerged only when aroused, and more importantly that he was able to produce male semen.
See, because men have stronger souls than women, the vital fluids of their body are more animated. Semen is an irritating substance that builds up inside the body until it is expelled and, in its base form, resembles blood. In the male body, however, exposure to the vital heat stimulates the semen into a kind of foam, which resembles phlegm rather than blood. While it's not unusual for men who are exhausted or who have sex too often to produce female semen, only men can produce male semen.
Thus, the conclusion drawn was that Marin was a hermaphrodite, in the process of becoming a man. This process was deemed to be incomplete, and thus he was ordered to live as a woman and to refrain from intercourse for several years, but upon turning 25 he would be fully recognized as a man and, as far as we know, lived out the rest of his life as a man.
In terms of what's really going on here. Who the fuck knows? Maybe Marin was intersexed, or the doctor mistook a certain kind of vaginal discharge for semen, or someone bribed him to lie. The point is, the entire understanding of the human body at this point is so alien it's hard to keep track of what being a man or woman even means. What we do know is that Marin was baptized and raised as a girl but thought of himself as a man and ultimately was recognized as having become a man. As anachronistic as it would be to call him trans masc, it's also kind of silly not to acknowledge the similarity.
How do you deal with abnormality then? Back in my home town there's or at least was a cashier dude who had long blonde hair. Then I glimpsed at their nametag once and it said "Jessica". I assume that they don't want to look like a blonde dude who stole someone's nametag. I assume that they'd like to look like a Jessica, but as of that moment they didn't.
If the answer is that we shouldn't assume anything then give yourself a prize, but normal people assume normal things. When we hear hooves clip-clopping we call it a horse even though zebras exist.
Just roll with it, no point in trying claim everything that clip-clops is a horse, especially when donkeys, mules, zebras, and ponies exist. You're essentially trying to enforce a false dichotomy
Hilariously doc gu6 might've just found the clit and had no idea what it was. Which would mean most men's knowledge of female anatomy hasn't really changed in 400 years
Two different meanings of "deal with", not sure which one you mean.
Anyhoo, the world is full of people who aren't average in various ways, most ways of not being average we've learnt to accept, just need to extend that a bit.
Yes, this is what I mean. We probably disagree on how far norms can be relaxed in different situations, and maybe even how much they should, but that is subject to change over time. Statistically "average" and "normal" mean different things, of course. Colloquially "normal" depends on the point of view.