Abomination said:
Speak for yourself? For something to be offensive one needs to distinguish it as offensive. You have to process it and consider it offensive before you can have an emotional response to it. First you decide if something is offensive THEN you have the emotional resposne. You don't have an emotional response THEN decide it's offensive because of the emotional response.
And that's why I said a direct insult is offensive unless the individual CHOOSES to not take offense to it... but the default stance is to take offence.
You're confusing different forms of offense. There's verbal emotional offense, verbal physical offense, and physical offense. We are discussing the verbal emotional offense. A better term for the other two is being "threatening" and "aggressive".
You cant control what you think of, so no. If i call a gay guy a ******, he doesnt choose to think about it, he hears the word, and then his brain processes it without his consent, and then he takes it however he takes it. He doesnt choose to process, it isnt a computer.
And im not confusing the terms. Offensive is a vague term that can and is used for many scenarios, like when someone is threating you, or being aggressive, they still apply. A verbal emotional offense can still be considered a legal assult anyways, so im not sure of your point.
If a woman doesn't apply makeup it's not likely she will be mistaken for a man because of it. Trans, however, are far far more likely to be mistaken for a man.
The likelihood is irrelevant, because ugly women or homely women in general are still to be mistaking for a man, so trans women would fall under those terms then, still a women none the less. Fat people in general are androgynous too, so you can throw them into that mix as well.
Not true. The difference between a trans and an intersex is an intersex has a combination or mismatched sexual organs. Intersex is a physical scenario. Trans is a mental scenario.
No, trans and intersex share the same scenario more than you think. When a trans person transitions they will have primary/2ndary sexual traits from whatever orgin sex. Then when they take HRT, that will cause them to get 2ndary sexual traits from the oppiste sex, making a intersexed person with mixed sexes. The origin doesnt matter, its the end result, a mixed sex person, in which both cases are comparable.
Not true in all intersex transitions.
Whats your point? I know its not true, i even said so. The fact remains that its comparable, since there are intersexed women who exist and trasition from a state similar to that of transwomen, and still be considered women. Thats my point.
No, it's just another way of identifying an anomaly.
What exactly do you mean by identifying an anomaly? Intersexed/trans people are both anomalies by virtue of being a low % of the population.
A person who was born a man then undergoes procedures to make themselves appear as a woman is now a person who was born a man but has undergone procedures to make themselves appear as woman. They will never change the part that they were born a man and there are parts of them that will always betray that.
They do change the parts that make them a man, since the parts that make them a man are their sexual characteristics. Their manhood in a general sense. Being a man isnt about chromosomes, thats a misnomer really, since chromosomes just configure the body, when the acutal result is the cause of the hormones, which is what we make the judgement on. We dont make the judgement on
chromosomes, for they can at times not reflect the body that is shown. And if that were the case, then intersexed women with MALE parts would never be considered women by the medical profession, which they ARE. So your point is a bit moot.
Yes, they are both anomalies. But as I mentioned earlier that trans are a mental/emotional anomaly whereas intersex are a physical anomaly.
Trans people become a physical anomaly once they undergo HRT or SRS, so the point is again moot, once they take the steps of HRT/SRS you can really consider them intersexed if you wanted to be strict about the logic.
The situation isn't comparable because the "ailment" originates in a different way. The only thing they have in common is they were (supposedly) born with sex/gender anomaly.
Its COMPARABLE, just not EQUIVALENT, i think this is the third time ive gone over this. Things can be similar, but not the same, and still share enough commonalities to make a conclusion that both result in the same thing. So they dont have to share the same orgin, since at the end result, they will still be at a intersexed state. And since intersexed people are given social approval to transition, so should trans people, for at the time of HRT/SRS, they are comparable in circumstance.
Well, a woman can have the same physique as a man too, doesn't mean she can produce sperm.
Whats your point? Some men cant produce sperm, yet we still call them men. We base sex on physical characteristics, not sexual capabilities. It SHOULD be based on sexual capabilities, but if you were to do that, then calling it a MALE sex or FEMALE sex wouldnt really be relevant. The only thing that would be would be the reproductive capabilities, ie fertile XX , fertile XY. Since male or female cant describe as accurately inter sexed scenarios that can also reproduce, where as the XX/XY nomenclature can.
Well no, because they're essentially disabled. Should they not be disabled they wouldn't be able to produce eggs OR sperm they would only be able to produce eggs if they were born with ovaries or sperm if they were born with testes.
Being disabled means literally you are not able. So if a man loses his ability to produce sperm, he isnt able to produce sperm, he is disabled, and if intersexed people cant produce either, they are also disabled. They both cant produce any sperm /overaries, so the scenario is the same. Being born disabled doesnt stop people from becoming disabled later on in life, even if its to their choosing.
Right but the trans process occurs AFTER the womb. The womb spits out an XX or an XY and later in life they might decide they believe they should have been born the opposite... then they go about trying to change their physical form to that of the opposite (or they don't, whatever).
Whether it happens after the womb or not doesnt matter. For with the analogy i posted. We could assume that from a tree(flesh), a chair or pencil(sex) was chosen to be made. And later on in life, we changed the chair or pencil(sex) into either a pencil or chair(different sex). Since sex is really dictated by physical form, it is comparable.
I don't know how big your pencils are or how small your chairs are but no, the analogy doesn't work. The other problem is that chairs and pencils can not combine to create another chair and/or pencil. Inanimate objects and sex is just a comparison that's doomed to fail.
The size of the structure doesnt matter. Its the fact that it fits the form, means we call it what it is. And yea since wood is mutable by tools such as saws and glue we could change a pencil into a chair or a chair into a pencil. I mean if size is such a issue, i could just replace pencil with table or something bigger, it doesnt really matter. All i need is to assume a binary, like how humans have sex. And show that the transition between two things in general is marked by what they resemble at the end, regardless if they function well. I mean a shitty table/chair is still a table/chair none the less, just one that you dont personally approve of.
A woman or a man can transition into a woman or a man... gender wise. Their sex will always remain the same though. A pre-op MtF will simply be a woman with the penis she was born with and a post-op would be a woman who was born a man. To claim a MtF is 100% a woman when there are aspects they can not meet that are common in most non-abnormal women is incorrect. A MtF is never going to be 100% female, no matter how much we might wish or declare it so.
I mean, the skeletal structure of men and women are also different... I'd shudder to think what would happen to the individual who tried to remedy that about themselves.
No, since sex is defined by physical characteristics, even in intersexed cases, the sex is changable. Being 100% women is a bit irrelvent too, since intersexed women are considered women even though they have literal male parts. To achive a 100% just isnt needed to be called a man or a women. That plays into the no true Scotsman fallacy.
The skeletal structure of men and women are different, but not so different that it results in something impossible to transition. At their extremes maybe, but there are other cases besides extremes where trans women transitions and are successfully passing. I mean if you took Sylvester stalone, and transitioned him into a women, he might not pass well. But a fatter, or much skinner person, then ya. And of course vice versa. But i mean there ARE women in existence who have stalones build, they are just very rare, so being masculine /feminine in skeleton doesnt matter much.
