Bureaucracy-Em-Up

[Rosiv]

Your getting too into the analogy, its a fault of them in general, so my bad for starting it. But if the wood = human flesh, then there arent different types of human fleshes, unless you wanna talk about skin color, and then ya, but there are stains to change that, so color is moot too, for wood and humans. To say that they cant change, is something i just see as ignoring the fact that they change in general.

Well yeah, but to change a tree into something else it involves a lot of sawing, burning, treating, grinding and many other sorts of physical forced change.

But the analogy fails in its entirety because people aren't plants... and also because sex can't be changed like one would turn a tree into a chair. In fact the comparison is simply absurd.

Is the term "chick with a dick" for a pre-op MtF offensive? I mean, you're still calling them a woman and it's not as though the truth should ever be considered offensive.

Yea the term chick with a dick is offensive, cause it uses the word dick, thats a crude word to use, and even if you used penis, by calling a MtF women a chick with a penis publicly, you would be outing them as trans essentially. And i dont have to explain how humiliating, or simply dangerous it is to be outed as any LGBT minority in a public space. I mean for a discussion i guess it would be ok, but just unnecessary, since we have the term "trans" already to denote the shift/states. And to say its the truth, when you are just assuming isnt too nice either, its not like you can see their dicks, unless you actually could. There is a reason they are called private parts.

And ya analogies dont compare EVERYTHING, just commonalities. If a analogy matched 100%, it wouldnt really be a analogy, it would be a equivalence. People arent plants yes, but if we talk about Trees and people, the flesh of people relating to the wood of trees, and the color of skin relating to the color of wood, then if a...Chair can be represented as the male sex, and a pencil be represented as a female sex, so we can set a binary. Then the type of wood shouldn't matter on what to make which with. Nor should taking a bunch of pencils to turn into a chair, or vice versa.

And the sex change is a bit comparable, for there is a process to make a chair, just like there is a process to make a boy grow into a man, ie: the chromosomes telling the body to produce testosterone. So if we want the chair(man) to turn into a pencil(women), we would need a different mechanism, since the boy had already grown into a man, and since the wood had already been cut into a chair. Therefore if we did Sexual reassignment surgery to a man to make him into a women, and did some procedure to make a chair into a pencil(more cutting i guess?) . The comparison would fit.

 

[Rosiv]

Is your comment serious? Cause then no, unless you could facilitate the change from human to lion well enough to convince some people. And at the moment that's out of surgeries realms. For transgender people, they CAN pass as women/men, it just bears on when they can transition, which is often halted by public pressures, and money.

People always seem to do the human to animal, male to female comparison, but it isnt apt. A lion is vastly different from a person, they have different brains completely, completely different body structures, and lions dont have our advanced brains. As for the differences between men and women, there are notable ones, but those are more of averages. Like on average, a man is stronger than a women, ect... So if a male were to transition to female, they would just be a unusual women, a tall, husky, or big women, but still a women, since the differences become to that of a non fertile female, who might be not too attractive. As for a lion, there arent any lions that can think on our level. I mean i guess you could argue gorillas, but they cant use speech as we do, so the human - animal comparison doesnt work well.

So it's all about the looks, is it? What happened to "I DON'T FOLLOW YOUR FACIST BEAUTY STANDARDS"? I thought that was part of the ultra liberal agenda as well? I find it hilarious how being able to deceive people into believing you're a woman makes you a woman. Wasn't it about you feeling like a woman? How's that any different from me feeling like a lion, and if it is about the looks, most of the trannies I've seen look like men with makeup and cheap wigs, so you'd have to be either wasted or blind to mistake them for women. Also, the penis kind of ruins the illusion as well.

I find the remark about us lions not having an advanced brain highly offensive. Check your privilege human, I expect you to edit out all the offensive parts of your post. Us lions have long been oppressed, I thought you leftards would be the first ones to symphatize.

Well, maybe after I get the tumblr hipsters to turn it into the next flavor of the month you will.

And a man in women's clothing is still not a woman. It's a man in women's clothing. Until you post scientific evidence to support the existence of "transgender", both it and my translion conditions are figments of our imagination.


Btw, homosexuality is for men to be attracted to masculine traits in people, and for women to be attracted to feminine traits in people. Heterosexuality is for men to be attracted to feminine traits as nature intented. Sexual orientation is a completely different issue from gender, of which there are two: male and female, as defined by a) XY or XX, and b) reproductive organs.

And its not about the personal perception as much as it is about the general passing, which men / women can do without trying.
To say that alot of MtF women look like men is fine, but so do alot of women, so as i said before, they would just be ugly women.

And lions dont have our advanced brains, so im not sure really what to tell you, or well i should say, lions can not do the things we can do, or havent demonstrated the capacity to, so i assume they dont. If they could speak our language/understand the same concepts we could then yea, i would say that the shift might be more likely.

And as for your request of scientific evidence to prove existence, it depends on what term we want to define "transgender" as. If you wanna give me your definition, i could try and give you one, but as per the standard definition, its a male transition to a female, so all i need to do is fine a man, who turns themselves into a women.

Spoiler

http://topnews.in/files/images/Bailey-Jay1.jpg

There is one example of one, so i guess they "exist" now, since ill i need is one example to denotate the existence of something.

Unless you mean that they arent genuinely women, and then thats hitting the "no true Scotsman fallacy" territory, since laws and customs in alot of areas in the world already recognize the shift from Male to Female as legitimate.

 

[Abomination]

Your getting too into the analogy, its a fault of them in general, so my bad for starting it. But if the wood = human flesh, then there arent different types of human fleshes, unless you wanna talk about skin color, and then ya, but there are stains to change that, so color is moot too, for wood and humans. To say that they cant change, is something i just see as ignoring the fact that they change in general.

Well yeah, but to change a tree into something else it involves a lot of sawing, burning, treating, grinding and many other sorts of physical forced change.

But the analogy fails in its entirety because people aren't plants... and also because sex can't be changed like one would turn a tree into a chair. In fact the comparison is simply absurd.

Is the term "chick with a dick" for a pre-op MtF offensive? I mean, you're still calling them a woman and it's not as though the truth should ever be considered offensive.

Yea the term chick with a dick is offensive, cause it uses the word dick, thats a crude word to use, and even if you used penis, by calling a MtF women a chick with a penis publicly, you would be outing them as trans essentially. And i dont have to explain how humiliating, or simply dangerous it is to be outed as any LGBT minority in a public space. I mean for a discussion i guess it would be ok, but just unnecessary, since we have the term "trans" already to denote the shift/states. And to say its the truth, when you are just assuming isnt too nice either, its not like you can see their dicks, unless you actually could. There is a reason they are called private parts.

So it's not offensive in itself, only when in a society where being identified as a trans is dangerous?

Because then it isn't offensive if it relies on an external situation being present.

And the sex change is a bit comparable, for there is a process to make a chair, just like there is a process to make a boy grow into a man, ie: the chromosomes telling the body to produce testosterone. So if we want the chair(man) to turn into a pencil(women), we would need a different mechanism, since the boy had already grown into a man, and since the wood had already been cut into a chair. Therefore if we did Sexual reassignment surgery to a man to make him into a women, and did some procedure to make a chair into a pencil(more cutting i guess?) . The comparison would fit.

It's not comparable at all. The process of gender reassignment surgery is nothing like making a chair. It requires constant upkeep and no matter what it'll never be able to fulfill the entire function of the "object" it is being turned into.

Essentially it'd be a chair that breaks when you sit on it, as though you were sitting on a pencil. Or a pencil that has as much lead in it as a chair. Sure, it looks and feels like a chair or a pencil, but it can't do what a chair or a pencil does. You'll even call them chairs or pencils... but they would be in name only. A chair you can't sit on and a pencil you can't write with.

Trust me, I can do analogies all day.

 

[Warachia]

I'm not sure how that comment about transsexuals could be offensive, because a person with the sex of male sucking the dick of another person whose sex is male is considered a homosexual because you only look at the sex of the people when deciding that, not their gender.

Transexual: a person whose sexual identification is entirely with the opposite sex

Nothing to do with gender, thats the issue. Most people who do not think about the issue find it very hard to comprehend why things are offensive.

Sorry, but you've got this entirely backwards, gender is what you identify as, sex is defined by you reproductive organs.
Sources:
Sex definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex
Gender definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender?s=t (see relevant questions for far better claraification)
And the difference: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html and http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

Hope I've cleared that up.

Sorry, going purely from scientific definitions is utterly bullshit. I am a sociologist, firstly, who believes that gender and sexual identity are fluid, because they are. So... Fuck that.

I will go with the definition of Gender as outlined by Judith Butler, one of the key theorists required by my course, go from a defintion of Transexual that my Trans friends are most comfortable with and run with it from there. "Science" proved blacks were inferior to whites, dumber, more servile and the like. "Science" still calls being Trans a mental illness.

Consider this, If you are transexual when post op, what the fuck were you whilst pre op or whilst on Hormone treatment? Nothing?

This is just another part of othering a group of people that you do not understand. That is a universal "You", directed at pretty much everyone in this thread. Its fine to not understand.

Not all of you are trying to becoming academics within the field, nor do all of you have a brother who is queer and an expert within the field.

If you refuse to look at the scientific definitions then we have nothing more to talk about, I'm not going to present any more evidence if you choose to flat out ignore it, still, you never told me why the scientific definitions are bullshit aside from the fact that you don't like them, the world is not and will never be how you want it to be, saying "I am a sociologist, firstly, who believes that gender and sexual identity are fluid, because they are. So... Fuck that." Is unacceptable, if you want to be taken seriously.

Here's another question, why do you care that it's called a homosexual action? There's nothing wrong with that, and if that's how the world defines it, then so what?

Something you need to understand about me, I don't have a problem with transsexuals, they can be whatever they want to be, but they can't ignore certain things, for example, they can't ignore how they are defined, as in their sex, this is important in official documents (like passports) and medical records, saying that you are not the sex that you are will cause a lot of future problems.

To answer your question though, a transsexual pre-op is whatever sex that their reproductive organs are. That's the definition of sex. Until you can prove that they are fluid and change depending on how the person wants them to change, that's how it is.

 

[Speksi]

And its not about the personal perception as much as it is about the general passing, which men / women can do without trying.
To say that alot of MtF women look like men is fine, but so do alot of women, so as i said before, they would just be ugly women.

Yeah, but they are still women. They have female reproductive organs, plus the female pair of chromosomes. That's a scientific definition for a gender. Prove me that a gender besides male & female exists.

And lions dont have our advanced brains, so im not sure really what to tell you, or well i should say, lions can not do the things we can do, or havent demonstrated the capacity to, so i assume they dont. If they could speak our language/understand the same concepts we could then yea, i would say that the shift might be more likely.

Who are you to define what an advanced brain is? What if lions are actually more intelligent than us, and because of that, keeping their lifes simple, whereas humans try to make everything as complicated as possible, even turning a law of nature on it's head, creating new genders and whatnot because they are bored of their meaningless, joyless, pointless existence.

Unless you mean that they arent genuinely women, and then thats hitting the "no true Scotsman fallacy" territory, since laws and customs in alot of areas in the world already recognize the shift from Male to Female as legitimate.

Since we're throwing ill-fitting fallacies around now, would you like me pour you some of those from Russell's teapot? Burden of proof, mate. Until you provide scientific proof (your perception of the world is not scientific or proof, especially not since science very clearly points in the opposite direction) that a third gender exists, it doesn't. As for what qualifies as scientific, I've already mentioned at least two things about a hundred times in this thread alone. Even on this post. So it's up to you now.

And I can't believe out of all the self-diagnosed transgender people out there you chose to post a porn star. That ought to rid people of their prejudice.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Yahtzee should not have apologized for this. This only devalues every other race, group, sexuality, religion, person that Yahtzee has previously insulted. It says that none of those people are worthy of an apology, but transexuals are so bloody special that to even have something that can be in any way construed as an insult must be accompanied by a full retraction.

The joke wasn't even *about* the transexual, as evidenced by the fact that it was easily replaced by the much weaker pantomime dame joke (because how many people have even heard of a pantomime gal), the joke was about the cognitive dissonance of the homophobic man. It says nothing about the transexual apart from the fact that she has a penis, which is objectively true. It would also be very hard to make the argument that, if you are male, giving a blowjob to a pre-op transexual would *not* push you higher up on the Kinsley scale than not sucking dicks of any kind.

When you make a living insulting everything under the sun you can't afford to be exclusive in who your targets are. All this says is that transexuals can not even be *present* in any sort of joke without causing offense, this implies that transexuals by their very nature are offensive. Therefore, the apology was less appropriate than the original joke was and I for one demand an apology for this apology.

 

[Rosiv]

Your getting too into the analogy, its a fault of them in general, so my bad for starting it. But if the wood = human flesh, then there arent different types of human fleshes, unless you wanna talk about skin color, and then ya, but there are stains to change that, so color is moot too, for wood and humans. To say that they cant change, is something i just see as ignoring the fact that they change in general.

Well yeah, but to change a tree into something else it involves a lot of sawing, burning, treating, grinding and many other sorts of physical forced change.

But the analogy fails in its entirety because people aren't plants... and also because sex can't be changed like one would turn a tree into a chair. In fact the comparison is simply absurd.

Is the term "chick with a dick" for a pre-op MtF offensive? I mean, you're still calling them a woman and it's not as though the truth should ever be considered offensive.

Yea the term chick with a dick is offensive, cause it uses the word dick, thats a crude word to use, and even if you used penis, by calling a MtF women a chick with a penis publicly, you would be outing them as trans essentially. And i dont have to explain how humiliating, or simply dangerous it is to be outed as any LGBT minority in a public space. I mean for a discussion i guess it would be ok, but just unnecessary, since we have the term "trans" already to denote the shift/states. And to say its the truth, when you are just assuming isnt too nice either, its not like you can see their dicks, unless you actually could. There is a reason they are called private parts.

So it's not offensive in itself, only when in a society where being identified as a trans is dangerous?

Because then it isn't offensive if it relies on an external situation being present.

And the sex change is a bit comparable, for there is a process to make a chair, just like there is a process to make a boy grow into a man, ie: the chromosomes telling the body to produce testosterone. So if we want the chair(man) to turn into a pencil(women), we would need a different mechanism, since the boy had already grown into a man, and since the wood had already been cut into a chair. Therefore if we did Sexual reassignment surgery to a man to make him into a women, and did some procedure to make a chair into a pencil(more cutting i guess?) . The comparison would fit.

It's not comparable at all. The process of gender reassignment surgery is nothing like making a chair. It requires constant upkeep and no matter what it'll never be able to fulfill the entire function of the "object" it is being turned into.

Essentially it'd be a chair that breaks when you sit on it, as though you were sitting on a pencil. Or a pencil that has as much lead in it as a chair. Sure, it looks and feels like a chair or a pencil, but it can't do what a chair or a pencil does. You'll even call them chairs or pencils... but they would be in name only. A chair you can't sit on and a pencil you can't write with.

Trust me, I can do analogies all day.

Considering that the external situation exists in most areas of the world, yes it is offensive, unless LGBT people get to the point where they arent assaulted for being LBGT on a regular basis, or simply have a general air of acceptance, which they dont.

SRS doesnt really require that much upkeep, it depends on the surgery we are talking about those, so ill go with MtF vaginoplasty, in which all you have to do is keep it clean, and dilate once a while, that is if you arent have penetrative sex. A chair requires upkeep too, by tightening them, or getting them re-leathered, or simply cleaning them, the same goes with pencils. You have to replace the eraser, or sharpen it. Objects and people in general require upkeep.

And as for the chair that breaks, it depends of the quality, which is more of a subjective matter. Some chairs are only meant for decoration, or are made of fragile material, and as for the quality of the transwomen surgery, well all we have is story based evidence for that, since we can really objectify how nice a vagina feels without getting alot of self reporting, which isnt very trust worthy.

And if you made a chair out of pencils, the analogy assumes that the pencils make the chair, and the chair functions, just like when a man turns his penis into a vagina, it functions like a vagina, which is just a hole really, thats where the word comes from anyway, sheath. I guess you could argue that they dont have natural mucus for lubrication, but then as per the chair analogy, it would just be a stiff chair, still a chair none the less.

This isnt a contest by the way, so your "analogies all day" comment just seems childish, the only reason i used it in the first place was to make the comparison easier to understand, since both trees and human flesh have alot of comparable attributes.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

While it's pointless to try to talk reason about this oh-so offended group, I'd like to turn attention to Yahtzee himself. Honestly, I don't know I can trust him anymore. Granted, we don't often agree on which games are good, but I always trusted him to tell the truth. But follow me here, if he can be pressured or takes it upon himself to censor his speech, then where does it end? While it's only one harmless joke now, what happens when he reviews a game made by an outspoken gay person or someone who thinks they're someone else? Is he going to treat the game and the developer with kid gloves because he doesn't want to sound homophobic or whatever?

You know, I may not like Jim Sterling and disagree with him more often than not, but at the very least he makes no bones about being a hypocritical, politically correct jerk. And with Yahtzee revealing that he's willing to change his videos in an Orwellian way on a whim, The Escapist rarely (if ever) mentioning the party affiliation when democrats speak out against video games but always make sure to point out which ones are the equally uninformed republicans, and The Escapist employing a self-described communist (Josh Vanderwall, it was in one of the podcasts), I'll say it here and now. The adblock software is on now. And only for this site. Have a nice day.

 

[Speksi]

While it's pointless to try to talk reason about this oh-so offended group, I'd like to turn attention to Yahtzee himself. Honestly, I don't know I can trust him anymore. Granted, we don't often agree on which games are good, but I always trusted him to tell the truth. But follow me here, if he can be pressured or takes it upon himself to censor his speech, then where does it end? While it's only one harmless joke now, what happens when he reviews a game made by an outspoken gay person or someone who thinks they're someone else? Is he going to treat the game and the developer with kid gloves because he doesn't want to sound homophobic or whatever?

That's why I'm personally waiting for his Gone Home review eagerly. An universally acclaimed game, that is actually just a Romeo & Juliet story with lesbians, told in an overly complicated DVD menu -format. As a game critic, he should rip it a new one. Everyone should. But because of the hip, strong left wing agenda in both the game and with the people who made, is he also going to be pressured into praising it?

 

[Rosiv]

And its not about the personal perception as much as it is about the general passing, which men / women can do without trying.
To say that alot of MtF women look like men is fine, but so do alot of women, so as i said before, they would just be ugly women.

Yeah, but they are still women. They have female reproductive organs, plus the female pair of chromosomes. That's a scientific definition for a gender. Prove me that a gender besides male & female exists.

And lions dont have our advanced brains, so im not sure really what to tell you, or well i should say, lions can not do the things we can do, or havent demonstrated the capacity to, so i assume they dont. If they could speak our language/understand the same concepts we could then yea, i would say that the shift might be more likely.

Who are you to define what an advanced brain is? What if lions are actually more intelligent than us, and because of that, keeping their lifes simple, whereas humans try to make everything as complicated as possible, even turning a law of nature on it's head, creating new genders and whatnot because they are bored of their meaningless, joyless, pointless existence.

Unless you mean that they arent genuinely women, and then thats hitting the "no true Scotsman fallacy" territory, since laws and customs in alot of areas in the world already recognize the shift from Male to Female as legitimate.

Since we're throwing ill-fitting fallacies around now, would you like me pour you some of those from Russell's teapot? Burden of proof, mate. Until you provide scientific proof (your perception of the world is not scientific or proof, especially not since science very clearly points in the opposite direction) that a third gender exists, it doesn't. As for what qualifies as scientific, I've already mentioned at least two things about a hundred times in this thread alone. Even on this post. So it's up to you now.

And I can't believe out of all the self-diagnosed transgender people out there you chose to post a porn star. That ought to rid people of their prejudice.

You want proof that there is something differnt that male or female sex? There is intersexed people, which have attributes of both, so if you dont consider transgender people geniune women/men based on genetics alone, then they would fall into the intersexed catagory since they would have a mixture of 2ndary and primary sexual characteristics, as you call them. And the medical standard for intersexed people is to allow them to become the sex they best fit in, and have that sex legally recongized. So my point still stands really, either they are intersexed or women, either way both are still considered women.

If you wanna source its spoiled below.

Spoiler

https://www.google.com/search?q=Reproductive+Organs+and+Differences+of+Sex+Development%3A+The+Constitutional+Issues+Created&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The acutal page/comments i was refering too spoiled below again.

Spoiler

Both of these children have differences of sex development (DSDs).8 DSDs
are conditions that involve atypical "male" and "female" physical
characteristics,9 but that definition depends on who is doing the defining.10
Scholars estimate that one in 1500 children are born with a DSD of some kind,
the obviousness of which may range from those not evident to an untrained
observer to a completely indeterminate sex based on physical observation.11 In
fact, some intersex individuals may have conditions so subtle that they may never
know they are intersex.12 One method of determining sex-as opposed to
gender-depends on three physical characteristics: (1) the sex chromosome
configuration,13 (2) the internal reproductive organs, and (3) the external
reproductive organs.14 An inconsistency between one or more of these
characteristics is a DSD. As a practical matter, however, sex is normally
determined by a glance at the external genitalia immediately after birth. When
the birth attendant is uncertain based on that glance, doctors analyze the various
characteristics of the child to make a diagnosis, and then they assign a sex based
on the likeliest outcome of that diagnosis.15

Sex is really only determined by physical attributes, even though people say otherwise, claiming chromosomes to be the arbiter, your acutal sex, the thing people will call you is based on whether they see a penis or a vagina, which can happen even if the chromosomes dont match up correctly. And of course you might say "thats an exception", but given that intersexed people are already the exception, the exception doesnt prove the general rule, it breaks it.

You can only really assume you have a XY configuration, for actual karotyping is incredibly expensive, and we shouldnt really define things by a process we dont even put most people through.

And who i am to tell you that lions are less smarter than us? Well given that i define intelligence as "things you know" if we cant demonstrate what a lion knows, then we cant really determine its intelligence. But your right, intelligence isnt the right word. The correct word would be as civilized/socialized as us. They dont do the same things we do, like comprehension, which is a integral part of being human, i dont there there is a human alive who doesnt comprehend on some level, unless they are brain dead, and then they kind of lost what makes them human in the first place.

For your fallacy comment, just because i didnt provide the evidence yet, doesnt mean i wont, i did above in this message, but that also means that your "no true Scotsmen fallacy" is still an incorrect argument, so if anyone now has the onus, its you. And yea i provide a porn star, but you already knew transgender people existed, you were just being fickle, so why should i have to find the perfect example, when any example will do? Do you even care about the perception of trans women? Cause given that you are calling them men, me using a porn star as a example is a bit tame.

 

[wynlo]

The reason I've been following Yahtzee's videos for years is because of the entertainment value they have, and not for accurate game reviews, this is probably the case for almost everyone watching ZP. I consider Yahtzee a comedian, not a game reviewer or journalist, morality should never get in the way of comedy, because it just doesn't work, but here it did. At this point, it makes me wonder if in your future videos you will second guess yourself when writing the script in an attempt to reduce its "offensiveness" by removing lines which would be largely accepted as funny or thought provoking. That idea is worrying to me, I can only hope this apology was forced simply for PR reasons, and even then, as a content creator I don't think you should apologize to anyone regardless of what you say or do.

You simply cannot target a product towards and attempt to appease everyone, a chunk of people will always be cut off for various reasons. However you have full control over what groups of people you cut off and which ones you don't. While I'll still be watching future ZP videos, I really hope your highly entertaining style of writing and presentation doesn't change after this.

 

[Abomination]

Considering that the external situation exists in most areas of the world, yes it is offensive, unless LGBT people get to the point where they arent assaulted for being LBGT on a regular basis, or simply have a general air of acceptance, which they dont.

The only requirement of this being offensive is that there is potential physical hostility in areas. This does not make something offensive as it depends on the actions of ANOTHER party, not the immediate two. Something can not be offensive and not offensive depending only upon the geographic location of where it is said.

SRS doesnt really require that much upkeep, it depends on the surgery we are talking about those, so ill go with MtF vaginoplasty, in which all you have to do is keep it clean, and dilate once a while, that is if you arent have penetrative sex. A chair requires upkeep too, by tightening them, or getting them re-leathered, or simply cleaning them, the same goes with pencils. You have to replace the eraser, or sharpen it. Objects and people in general require upkeep.

A chair will not slowly start to resemble a pencil should it not recieve upkeep. There is also more to it than changing the genitals.

And as for the chair that breaks, it depends of the quality, which is more of a subjective matter. Some chairs are only meant for decoration, or are made of fragile material, and as for the quality of the transwomen surgery, well all we have is story based evidence for that, since we can really objectify how nice a vagina feels without getting alot of self reporting, which isnt very trust worthy.

And if you made a chair out of pencils, the analogy assumes that the pencils make the chair, and the chair functions, just like when a man turns his penis into a vagina, it functions like a vagina, which is just a hole really, thats where the word comes from anyway, sheath. I guess you could argue that they dont have natural mucus for lubrication, but then as per the chair analogy, it would just be a stiff chair, still a chair none the less.

A pencil that doesn't have lead is the same as a FtM with a penis (well, the technology doesn't even exist for this to work with any reliability as only a sexual pleasure organ) and testes that don't produce sperm. From a sex perspective it does everything but the primary function of the sexal organs.

This isnt a contest by the way, so your "analogies all day" comment just seems childish, the only reason i used it in the first place was to make the comparison easier to understand, since both trees and human flesh have alot of comparable attributes.

The idea that we're comparing turning a tree into a chair or a pencil to represent how supposedly transitionary an individual's sex is deserves a childish response. The analogy from the get-go was absurd.

 

[mike1921]

Your getting too into the analogy, its a fault of them in general, so my bad for starting it. But if the wood = human flesh, then there arent different types of human fleshes, unless you wanna talk about skin color, and then ya, but there are stains to change that, so color is moot too, for wood and humans. To say that they cant change, is something i just see as ignoring the fact that they change in general.

Well yeah, but to change a tree into something else it involves a lot of sawing, burning, treating, grinding and many other sorts of physical forced change.

But the analogy fails in its entirety because people aren't plants... and also because sex can't be changed like one would turn a tree into a chair. In fact the comparison is simply absurd.

Is the term "chick with a dick" for a pre-op MtF offensive? I mean, you're still calling them a woman and it's not as though the truth should ever be considered offensive.

I've called a MtF girl I know a futanari once and I don't think she was offended. I mean it's a very person by person thing but....I imagine if they're the kind of person who's open about their sex life (or if they have sex with you) they'd be fine with it in certain contexts. As long as it doesn't seem like that's what you define them as, like they generally want to be seen as girls not girls*, with an asterisk next to it

 

[Speksi]

Okay, I can live with having been wrong about two genders. I knew of the existence of intersex, but had never really looked into it. Still, I was wrong about that. Whether it has any bearing on the topic at hand today is another question entirely. In my opinion, no. Medical or genetical irregularities, as opposed to mental or psychological ones. I'd go as far as to call all the intersex-conditions genetic mutations, but I don't know if that is medically accurate; if it is, it kind of flushes the entire point you were trying to make down the drains. Mutations do crazy things sometimes, but just because there once was a dog with two heads it doesn't mean two-headed dogs are a new species of dog.

The term transgender describes the condition in which one's gender identity does not match one's assigned sex. Some individuals may be both intersex and transgender but the two terms are not equivalent.

And no, you did not provide any evidence that "transgender" exists scientifically. The fact that some men like to mutilate their genitalia and wear women's clothing is not exactly evidence.

You did provide proof of a third gender, but considering how it really has very little to do with men who *feel* like women (as opposed to actually possessing some of the physical traits, such as reproductive organs), I'm not sure it's in any way related. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a transgender person is, for example, a man, with male reproductive organs and male chromosomes, who thinks he is actually a woman. If so, then he is a man who thinks hes a woman due to a mental disorder of some sort. But for the sake of the argument, let's say he also suffers from 5-alpha-reductase deficiency.

Even with all that, the person is a male. Everything before the medical condition is psychological (and thus, more or less worthless, as feelings/subjective things generally are when discussing facts). Despite the disease, they have XY chromosomes, and are capable of producing sperm, despite often having external female sexual organs. This breaks the gender definitions I originally posted, but then again it kind of doesn't:

..fertility depending on female characteristics is impossible; although the external genitalia may be female, the vagina consists of only the lower two-thirds of a normal vagina, creating a blind-ending vaginal pouch.

We're still not talking about a man turned into an actual female, even with the genetic disorder almost pulling a fast one. We're talking about a man, capable of producing sperm, with something that looks like a vagina, but one that really doesn't work like one. I hate to do this, but I now feel like the only truly objective way to describe genders is fully working male/female reproductive characteristics & the chromosomes to match. Everything else I'd group under genetic mutations.

And no, I don't care about the perception of "transgender" "women". My note was fueled by someone claiming earlier than "tranny" is an offensive term, because it fortifies the image that trannies exist only within the porn industry. That's why I thought it was funny you chose to post a porn star as your example.


[Edit:]

Wow, just got a warning for "insulting" in a post that had nothing close to an insult an it. The Escapist's bias and censorship all in one neat little package. How relevant. Also notice how the mod carpet bomb strategically misses anyone on the other side of the argument even when they're outright calling people idiots. Amazing.

I also got one for my first post in this thread. Apparently I was insulting someone or flamebaiting, whatever that is. Couldn't find that in my post, but then again I'm not in a hurry to censor opinions differentiating from the currently hip ultra-liberal all-flowers-are-equally-pretty view Escapist also seems to force on people.

This also ironically being the thing that originally got me annoyed and posting here. Yahtzee made quite a few Nazi-related jokes in the Pikmin 3 video posted yesterday. Where's the apology for that, or are we really seeing a double-standard in action?

 

[Rosiv]

Considering that the external situation exists in most areas of the world, yes it is offensive, unless LGBT people get to the point where they arent assaulted for being LBGT on a regular basis, or simply have a general air of acceptance, which they dont.

The only requirement of this being offensive is that there is potential physical hostility in areas. This does not make something offensive as it depends on the actions of ANOTHER party, not the immediate two. Something can not be offensive and not offensive depending only upon the geographic location of where it is said.

SRS doesnt really require that much upkeep, it depends on the surgery we are talking about those, so ill go with MtF vaginoplasty, in which all you have to do is keep it clean, and dilate once a while, that is if you arent have penetrative sex. A chair requires upkeep too, by tightening them, or getting them re-leathered, or simply cleaning them, the same goes with pencils. You have to replace the eraser, or sharpen it. Objects and people in general require upkeep.

A chair will not slowly start to resemble a pencil should it not recieve upkeep. There is also more to it than changing the genitals.

And as for the chair that breaks, it depends of the quality, which is more of a subjective matter. Some chairs are only meant for decoration, or are made of fragile material, and as for the quality of the transwomen surgery, well all we have is story based evidence for that, since we can really objectify how nice a vagina feels without getting alot of self reporting, which isnt very trust worthy.

And if you made a chair out of pencils, the analogy assumes that the pencils make the chair, and the chair functions, just like when a man turns his penis into a vagina, it functions like a vagina, which is just a hole really, thats where the word comes from anyway, sheath. I guess you could argue that they dont have natural mucus for lubrication, but then as per the chair analogy, it would just be a stiff chair, still a chair none the less.

A pencil that doesn't have lead is the same as a FtM with a penis (well, the technology doesn't even exist for this to work with any reliability as only a sexual pleasure organ) and testes that don't produce sperm. From a sex perspective it does everything but the primary function of the sexal organs.

This isnt a contest by the way, so your "analogies all day" comment just seems childish, the only reason i used it in the first place was to make the comparison easier to understand, since both trees and human flesh have alot of comparable attributes.

The idea that we're comparing turning a tree into a chair or a pencil to represent how supposedly transitionary an individual's sex is deserves a childish response. The analogy from the get-go was absurd.

Yea it can? What are you talking about? In some cultures shaking hands is considered offensive, rude, for they are used to wipe asses and touch dirty things, that would be offensive in that context, but outside the culture, not offensive. So in a transwomens case, if IN PERSON, you referred to them as a chick with a dick, it would offensive on the grounds that you a) cursed, b) talked about their privates, which is not appropriate, thats why they are called "privates", and c) because its a pornographic term, akin to calling a mother a MILF, accurate maybe, but crude nonetheless.

And a Mtf vaginoplasty wont start to resemble a penis, nor a women off Hrt will start to resemble a man, although thats dependent ultimately on what they get, as in hair removal, ect..ect.. If they go off the HRT, they will just enter the menopausal state older women go through, ie, saggy features, wrinkles, hot flashes. It also depends on whether they have had the vaginoplasty in general, for they remove some tissue that produces testosterone in general when it is done. And chairs do start to break down if they dont get upkeep, so i mean thats kind of wrong too.

The sexual organs are the ones that produce sperm really, you can have a child without a vagina, in fact, vaginoplasties were made for intersexed women born without vaginas, so they could have a chance at the penis entering, and inseminating their eggs.

The penis and vagina are just the vessels that the actual important sex based stuff flows though, sperm through the penis, eggs from the ovaries.

So to say that the pencil doesn't have lead might be accurate, but that doesn't stop it from being a pencil? Just a pencil that isnt very useful for writing, although that correlates to people only being useful for sex, which really isn't the case, but analogies fall apart when you go too far i guess.

If the analogy from the get go was absurd, then stop using it? I could if i wanted to, but you keep on responding with it, so i try and remain in context. And the analogy does work so far, it being silly doesn't mean its not accurate.

 

[Ickorus]

It is that which hurts and upsets me personally the most, I have found more and more recently that my being born who I am (straight, white, and male) has made my opinions worth nothing and automatically earns me the disdain and sometimes hatred of supposed equal rights activists; it has gotten to the point that I've written and rewritten this post several times and am still debating whether it is worth me posting it.

[small]* This isn't to say when someone says something with genuine hateful intent behind it they shouldn't be called out.[/small]

I wasn't going to comment until I read this and the first thing that came to mind was, you have got to be fucking kidding.

Straight, white, men run this country. They are the vast majority of politicians writing the laws, running the corporations, and controlling the media. You're not being oppressed in any way.

The reason equal rights people, like myself, "disdain" straight, white men, is because straight white men were the reason non-whites had separate drinking fountains and had to sit in the back of the bus. They're the reason women couldn't vote until 1920. They're the reason gay people still can't get married in most states today. And just recently it's straight white men who passed a law to force doctors into lying to women and giving them vaginal ultrasounds(a medically unnecessary procedure)before they can get a legal abortion. Those actions and many others are what piss people off, not just because you were born a straight, white male.

Btw, I'm a straight, white man.

Yeah because I'm totally the one that enslaved and later segregated black people, prevented women from voting and gay people from marrying and forced unnecessary procedures on women.

Bra-fucking-vo you just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about.

I did none of those things, acting like the actions of some assholes in the past or in the present I'll never meet (and whom I despise) somehow becomes partially my responsibility purely because they happen to share the same skin pigmentation, gender and sexual preference as me is damned stupid.

 

[Abomination]

Yea it can? What are you talking about? In some cultures shaking hands is considered offensive, rude, for they are used to wipe asses and touch dirty things, that would be offensive in that context, but outside the culture, not offensive.

So the action is only offensive in certain scenarios but the action, in the default scenario, is not offensive. The action isn't inherently offensive, just there are situations where it is offensive.

So in a transwomens case, if IN PERSON, you referred to them as a chick with a dick, it would offensive on the grounds that you a) cursed, b) talked about their privates, which is not appropriate, thats why they are called "privates", and c) because its a pornographic term, akin to calling a mother a MILF, accurate maybe, but crude nonetheless.

Cursing isn't offensive, some people are offended by it. Just because something isn't appropriate doesn't mean it is offensive. Just because something is crude doesn't mean it is offensive.

And a Mtf vaginoplasty wont start to resemble a penis, nor a women off Hrt will start to resemble a man, although thats dependent ultimately on what they get, as in hair removal, ect..ect.. If they go off the HRT, they will just enter the menopausal state older women go through, ie, saggy features, wrinkles, hot flashes. It also depends on whether they have had the vaginoplasty in general, for they remove some tissue that produces testosterone in general when it is done. And chairs do start to break down if they dont get upkeep, so i mean thats kind of wrong too.

Well, it is impossible for mutilated flesh to grow back in any case, I was talking about the other cosmetic treatments - especially the hormonal ones. There is far more to gender realignment than just (if you bare with me being crude) a ?nip & tuck?.

The sexual organs are the ones that produce sperm really, you can have a child without a vagina, in fact, vaginoplasties were made for intersexed women born without vaginas, so they could have a chance at the penis entering, and inseminating their eggs.

The penis and vagina are just the vessels that the actual important sex based stuff flows though, sperm through the penis, eggs from the ovaries.

Intersexed women are an anomaly and do not pertain to the subject of trans individuals as they do not meet the same scenario as being born 100% physically male/female and attempting to transition into the opposite gender. They are an anomaly and despite not having a vagina they do produce eggs which is something a MtF will never do.

So to say that the pencil doesn't have lead might be accurate, but that doesn't stop it from being a pencil? Just a pencil that isnt very useful for writing, although that correlates to people only being useful for sex, which really isn't the case, but analogies fall apart when you go too far i guess.

Never said it wasn't a pencil, it's just a pencil without lead. So its a pencil that can do everything a pencil usually does apart from the primary function of its design. When talking about the sexes the primary function of a male is to produce sperm for a female eggs and a female's primary sexual function is to produce eggs for the male's sperm. How it gets these from A to B is irrelevant if A and B are not present. It doesn?t matter how great your pluming is if there?s no water to go in the pipes. It doesn?t matter how good your agricultural system is if there?s no crops to hydrate.

If the analogy from the get go was absurd, then stop using it? I could if i wanted to, but you keep on responding with it, so i try and remain in context. And the analogy does work so far, it being silly doesn't mean its not accurate.

It's not my analogy, it's yours. Either you have to admit it was a false analogy and doesn't accurately depict how supposedly "simple" the transition between sexes is or I continue to dispute it should you continue to insist it is a reflection of such.

 

[Rosiv]

Yea it can? What are you talking about? In some cultures shaking hands is considered offensive, rude, for they are used to wipe asses and touch dirty things, that would be offensive in that context, but outside the culture, not offensive.

So the action is only offensive in certain scenarios but the action, in the default scenario, is not offensive. The action isn't inherently offensive, just there are situations where it is offensive.

So in a transwomens case, if IN PERSON, you referred to them as a chick with a dick, it would offensive on the grounds that you a) cursed, b) talked about their privates, which is not appropriate, thats why they are called "privates", and c) because its a pornographic term, akin to calling a mother a MILF, accurate maybe, but crude nonetheless.

Cursing isn't offensive, some people are offended by it. Just because something isn't appropriate doesn't mean it is offensive. Just because something is crude doesn't mean it is offensive.

And a Mtf vaginoplasty wont start to resemble a penis, nor a women off Hrt will start to resemble a man, although thats dependent ultimately on what they get, as in hair removal, ect..ect.. If they go off the HRT, they will just enter the menopausal state older women go through, ie, saggy features, wrinkles, hot flashes. It also depends on whether they have had the vaginoplasty in general, for they remove some tissue that produces testosterone in general when it is done. And chairs do start to break down if they dont get upkeep, so i mean thats kind of wrong too.

Well, it is impossible for mutilated flesh to grow back in any case, I was talking about the other cosmetic treatments - especially the hormonal ones. There is far more to gender realignment than just (if you bare with me being crude) a ?nip & tuck?.

The sexual organs are the ones that produce sperm really, you can have a child without a vagina, in fact, vaginoplasties were made for intersexed women born without vaginas, so they could have a chance at the penis entering, and inseminating their eggs.

The penis and vagina are just the vessels that the actual important sex based stuff flows though, sperm through the penis, eggs from the ovaries.

Intersexed women are an anomaly and do not pertain to the subject of trans individuals as they do not meet the same scenario as being born 100% physically male/female and attempting to transition into the opposite gender. They are an anomaly and despite not having a vagina they do produce eggs which is something a MtF will never do.

So to say that the pencil doesn't have lead might be accurate, but that doesn't stop it from being a pencil? Just a pencil that isnt very useful for writing, although that correlates to people only being useful for sex, which really isn't the case, but analogies fall apart when you go too far i guess.

Never said it wasn't a pencil, it's just a pencil without lead. So its a pencil that can do everything a pencil usually does apart from the primary function of its design. When talking about the sexes the primary function of a male is to produce sperm for a female eggs and a female's primary sexual function is to produce eggs for the male's sperm. How it gets these from A to B is irrelevant if A and B are not present. It doesn?t matter how great your pluming is if there?s no water to go in the pipes. It doesn?t matter how good your agricultural system is if there?s no crops to hydrate.

If the analogy from the get go was absurd, then stop using it? I could if i wanted to, but you keep on responding with it, so i try and remain in context. And the analogy does work so far, it being silly doesn't mean its not accurate.

It's not my analogy, it's yours. Either you have to admit it was a false analogy and doesn't accurately depict how supposedly "simple" the transition between sexes is or I continue to dispute it should you continue to insist it is a reflection of such.

Any action can be offensive in any scenario? Offensive things are contextual/subjective by their nature. There is probably some black people who dont mind white people calling them ******, but we dont call them that either way in general, a kin to homosexuals and the word fag or queer even. It kind of has to be taken on a case to case basis, no action is inherently offensive, for it depends on the party involved, and how they interpret it.

Cursing is offensive if someone takes offensive, sadly thats all that needs to take place for it to be offensive. By their very definition they are profane words, profane being something unpleasent, offensive? I know that it opens a large realm of things that can be offensive, but thats cause almost anything can be, it just depends on context. Id give an example, but i dont think you like mines.

What other cosmetic treatments? Lets assume we are talking about a MtF transition, to limit the scope of the discussion. They can get , hair removal, tracheal surgery, vaginoplasty, breast implants or HRT. Those are all of the treatments i am aware of that helps them pass, and most of then are pretty permanent, once off HRT, your breasts dont go away, they sag, for you loose your female form ala menopause, the only thing that isnt permanent is hair removal, but by lacking testosterone in general, they shouldnt get alot. I mean women get beards too when on menopause for the same reason, so its comparable.

As for your anomaly comment. Just because something doesnt occur alot doesnt mean it doesnt count, transgender people whether naturally occurring or not still fit the same circumstances that intersexed do physically, so comparing them in that venue is ok.And not all intersex women produce eggs, it was just one example of a type of condition where the intersexed women would have a deformed set of overaies, id have to look it up specifically, but it be kind of hard. There are multiple cases of intersexness, where women have testicles and no overaries, or men with really small penises and internal overaries that are underdeveloped.

Never said it wasn't a pencil, it's just a pencil without lead. So its a pencil that can do everything a pencil usually does apart from the primary function of its design.

I dont disagree, they are a pencil without lead, a women without eggs, but still a pencil and still a women. Just one that cant fulfill the reproductive process, which i dare say isnt primary in humans, since we dont need to consider reproductive capabilities for every single one of us, just the majority, and since transwomen/intersexed women only cover around 1% or less of the worlds population, whether they can reproduce or not is kind of negligible.

It's not my analogy, it's yours. Either you have to admit it was a false analogy and doesn't accurately depict how supposedly "simple" the transition between sexes is or I continue to dispute it should you continue to insist it is a reflection of such.

You havent disproven my analogy at all. So stop saying you did, unless you can show exactly where i made a misstep?. You just thought it was silly. Doesnt mean its wrong. My analogy still stuck, and i never said the transition was simple either? Unless you got a quote saying i did. All i said it was comparable to trees, ie similar, not exactly the same. That is how analogies work? They arent suppose to be 100% equal, or else they would be a equivalence. I dont even think transitoning is simple in general, its a very complicated process, which can result in loss of friends, family, loved ones. Not to mention your job, or god forbid your life if you die in surgery. There is also the public perception of trans people being "fake" and "mutulated people" that they are somehow suppose to take on the chin i guess, cause they choose to be women, rather than living miserably as man. It isn't simple at all.

 

[AkaDad]

It is that which hurts and upsets me personally the most, I have found more and more recently that my being born who I am (straight, white, and male) has made my opinions worth nothing and automatically earns me the disdain and sometimes hatred of supposed equal rights activists; it has gotten to the point that I've written and rewritten this post several times and am still debating whether it is worth me posting it.

[small]* This isn't to say when someone says something with genuine hateful intent behind it they shouldn't be called out.[/small]

I wasn't going to comment until I read this and the first thing that came to mind was, you have got to be fucking kidding.

Straight, white, men run this country. They are the vast majority of politicians writing the laws, running the corporations, and controlling the media. You're not being oppressed in any way.

The reason equal rights people, like myself, "disdain" straight, white men, is because straight white men were the reason non-whites had separate drinking fountains and had to sit in the back of the bus. They're the reason women couldn't vote until 1920. They're the reason gay people still can't get married in most states today. And just recently it's straight white men who passed a law to force doctors into lying to women and giving them vaginal ultrasounds(a medically unnecessary procedure)before they can get a legal abortion. Those actions and many others are what piss people off, not just because you were born a straight, white male.

Btw, I'm a straight, white man.

Yeah because I'm totally the one that enslaved and later segregated black people, prevented women from voting and gay people from marrying and forced unnecessary procedures on women.

Bra-fucking-vo you just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about.

I did none of those things, acting like the actions of some assholes in the past or in the present I'll never meet (and whom I despise) somehow becomes partially my responsibility purely because they happen to share the same skin pigmentation, gender and sexual preference as me is damned stupid.

I didn't accuse you of anything and you completely missed my point, which was nobody is persecuting straight, white men.

If people have "disdain" for you, it's not because of who you are, but what you're saying or doing. I specifically stated that. I've never had anyone hate me just for being a straight, white man. If someone hates you for that then they're stupid and wrong.