Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
You see someone engaging in a behaviour that's stereotypically associated with one gender. You yourself want to tell me that such stereotypes are literally all there is to gender. But you're not actually putting that into practice, because you also don't assume the gender of that person based on those behaviours.

In clearly follows that in practice, you're acknowledging there's more to gender than stereotypes.
I'm 100% putting my ideas into practice, because I assume that the average person doesn't care about gender identity (which they don't). The average person identifies as "who cares." I don't assume the gender of that person because they almost certainly don't have any fixed conceptualization of gender for themselves, pigeonholing is what people do to each other, not themselves.

There isn't more to gender than stereotypes. But you're making a mistake thinking gender is a law of nature that applies to people universally.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,827
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm 100% putting my ideas into practice, because I assume that the average person doesn't care about gender identity (which they don't). The average person identifies as "who cares."
Sure thing, that's why hardly anybody uses him or her to refer to others, and why boys wear dresses just as much as girls, and why toy shops and clothes stores have zero distinction between men's stuff and women's stuff.


I don't assume the gender of that person because they almost certainly don't have any fixed conceptualization of gender for themselves, pigeonholing is what people do to each other, not themselves.
This is cloud cuckooland shit. Almost everybody on the planet has a concept of their gender. Like 99.5+%.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
You've assumed that I am opposed to sex assignment at birth.
I did not do that. I asked you the question if you are, and suggested you might be. That's not assuming. You could have just answered the question.
Again, considering your post history, that is grossly hypocritical coming from you, Mr. "Oh but my side must be the real Progressives [because progress is by definition good, so of course my side and any positions associated with it qualifies]".
A) I don't talk of "my side" as progressives, I talk only of myself.
B) I would never say anyone is "the real" progressives or conservatives, my whole shtick is that you have to be both or neither makes sense.
C) It has nothing to do with being right or wrong. The early 20th century was marred by progressive thinkers attempting eugenics. That's progressive and bad.
Really? Then what's post 242 then?
Because that sure looks like you said exactly what I attributed to you!
No, no it doesn't. I factually did not say "bullied" in that post. Which is pedantic, I know, but you seem to have reread that post without noticing that you messed up the meaning of my sentence. You took " bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough " and translated it into "bullying children into transitioning", which is not what I said. It's not specifically trans-children being bullied into gender stereotypes, it's all children being bullied into gender stereotypes. Are you seeing yet how badly you are twisting my words around?
Sure thing, that's why hardly anybody uses him or her to refer to others, and why boys wear dresses just as much as girls, and why toy shops and clothes stores have zero distinction between men's stuff and women's stuff.

This is cloud cuckooland shit. Almost everybody on the planet has a concept of their gender. Like 99.5+%.
99.5% of the time, girls and women wear pants (in America).
Toy shops have a small percentage of space you read as coded to girls but that's on you, and clothes stores distinguish based on sex because the sizes and proportions are made differently. I've never met a woman who would refuse an article of clothing they otherwise like because it came from the men's section. I have met men who would do the opposite, there definitely are men who tie themselves up in the pursuit of masculinity, but that's not a fixed rule or even a description of the majority of men.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,827
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
99.5% of the time, girls and women wear pants (in America).
Toy shops have a small percentage of space you read as coded to girls but that's on you, and clothes stores distinguish based on sex because the sizes and proportions are made differently. I've never met a woman who would refuse an article of clothing they otherwise like because it came from the men's section. I have met men who would do the opposite, there definitely are men who tie themselves up in the pursuit of masculinity, but that's not a fixed rule or even a description of the majority of men.
I don't really know what world you're living in, sometimes.

It's not even seriously in dispute that most people have a concept of their gender. Its so incredibly obvious from any tertiary look around, I may as well be trying to convince you that most people have arms.

The way you conceptualise gender and sex is so fringe, I've genuinely never met a single person who shares it, or ever seen or heard it expressed anywhere else.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,497
3,488
118
I don't really know what world you're living in, sometimes.

It's not even seriously in dispute that most people have a concept of their gender. Its so incredibly obvious from any tertiary look around, I may as well be trying to convince you that most people have arms.
Ok, getting off topic, but a person wakes up and discovers that nobody in the world has arms, and can't convince people this isn't normal. Sounds like a low budget sci-fi film.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
The way you conceptualise gender and sex is so fringe, I've genuinely never met a single person who shares it, or ever seen or heard it expressed anywhere else.
Personally, I think most of what I'm saying is obvious enough that it hardly need be expressed.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,827
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Personally, I think most of what I'm saying is obvious enough that it hardly need be expressed.
Yeah, I think if you actually did discuss it with others, you'd find that practically nobody shares that view.

The idea that most people don't even have a gender identity is just lol. Moon-bat stuff. Like a fish-out-of-water sitcom about an alien trying to understand basic human concepts.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,603
2,828
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I don't really know what world you're living in, sometimes.

It's not even seriously in dispute that most people have a concept of their gender. Its so incredibly obvious from any tertiary look around, I may as well be trying to convince you that most people have arms.

The way you conceptualise gender and sex is so fringe, I've genuinely never met a single person who shares it, or ever seen or heard it expressed anywhere else.
I think Tstrom is right that about parts of toy store has been coded as girls. It's not small but not half. The other part is coded for boys exactly in the same way movies characters are coded for boys. I.e. exactly the same way Smurfette is everything female for Surmfs but other male characters can actually have character traits. I.e. the other part of the toy store is 'not made for females.'

I would agree on Tstorms take on clothing. It's the reverse of what's happening in the toy store, clothing ha been deliberately segregated based on made up mumbo-jumbo but only women can cross the line. Men are shamed for wearing anything remotely like a dress because segregation must be upheld. Thank God for tradtions and never questioning them because questions are bad

The toy store example wouldn't be notable if this exact same thing didnt happen to women. "You cant be my video games/ be in my movie/ write my comics.'

Gender segregation hurts both sexes but in different ways
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,717
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
In other words, you're not gullible, you just fancy yourself clever.
What teachers are getting fired for saying they're doing something with their spouse and kids on the weekend to their students...? Still waiting on that evidence.


Lmao, if you're a square maybe. Meanwhile pirates streaming sites have never been more popular

Continue to deflect away from the fact you thought somebody got fired for not meowing back at a student.

Meanwhile: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dont-say-gay-firing-pansexual

Because linear time exists. I dunno man, you're the one who wants to ban it, *you* figure out the logistics

Nope. Least, not in such a way that it can be banned without denying critical care to dying pregnant people or sending cops out to jail somebody who had a miscarriage under suspicion of getting an abortion. The ends of stopping that one theoretical person doesn't justify the means

'Course, I don't think it's objectionable to begin with, and you haven't supplied any argument as to why it should be
The teacher getting fired for not meowing back literally has the same amount of evidence that your story does but mine is inherently false and yours is inherently true? And if she did get fired for that, then she'll sue and win just like this...

I'm not for banning abortion, I've said that many times. Where is there some government tribunal for women wanting abortions?

Why can't you just answer the simple question? Is is OK for a women to get an abortion at 8 months just cuz? Why the fuck would that not allow a doctor to give proper care to a pregnant woman or jail someone over a miscarriage? Most states and countries have abortion laws and if you go past a certain week, you can't have an abortion and who's gotten arrested for having a miscarriage anywhere?

How many abortions happen in the 8 month of a pregnancy that isn't medically related across the whole US?
What does it matter? Why should it be allowed? If a city has like 1 murder every 100 years should murder just not be against the law because no one commits murder?
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,196
1,035
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
No, no it doesn't. I factually did not say "bullied" in that post. Which is pedantic, I know, but you seem to have reread that post without noticing that you messed up the meaning of my sentence. You took " bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough " and translated it into "bullying children into transitioning", which is not what I said. It's not specifically trans-children being bullied into gender stereotypes, it's all children being bullied into gender stereotypes. Are you seeing yet how badly you are twisting my words around?
...Ok, that right there is just plain pathetic. That's entirely you flailing about and reaching to try to have the last word because calling you out like that humiliated you and you're too much of an intellectual coward to acknowledge that your argument ended up being indefensible, or to even logroll it as a failure in considering the ramifications of your claims. No, it has to be that I must be somehow twisting your words around...by accounting for the context in which you made a claim and the point you were using it to support in both the discussion as a whole and the paragraph in which it was written.

Your argument can be paraphrased thusly: "Oh I didn't specifically say the word trans in that sentence [despite 'drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough' explicitly being a reference to SRS in the context of the paragraph, the post I was responding to, and as a repeated snide retort in my surrounding posts in this and other threads responding to people saying that SRS shouldn't be obstructed (see also post 271, in which I further clarified my position as saying the logic of SRS was the same as transphobes)]. Therefore you clearly must be twisting my words by calling out the very point I was trying to make about how society was to blame for the trans, not the trans themselves! How dare you say that such a statement in such a context has any application to those transfolk that our conversation was centered on!"

Grow up already. You have not demonstrated that I've twisted anything, and I think even you can't be ignorant of how transparently desperate and embarrassingly weak that attempt was, as much as you might try and pretend otherwise as salve for your wounded pride. Hell, your argument here is almost the exact same flailing that we saw from Houseman when he was trying to claim that the phrase "Black Lives Matter" was championing the idea that black lives were the only ones with any value (ie, that there was an implicit "only" preceding the phrase rather than an implicit "too" following it).

In this case you're trying to claim that by not sugarcoating the topical point you were trying to make with "bullying children into gender stereoypes and drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough" (see also "chopping off penises" and your posts in the other threads describing even the use of hormone blockers as "just drugging children to make them conform to social expectations"), I therefore must be pretending that you're saying only trans people suffer from gender stereotypes. Those are some truly olympian mental gymnastics on your part, and there is no reasonable way to read my posts as suggesting that. Your accusation is not rooted in any semblance of logic, it's just a transparent kneejerk emotional response of you just wanting me to be wrong as a matter of principle.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
...Ok, that right there is just plain pathetic. That's entirely you flailing about and reaching to try to have the last word because calling you out like that humiliated you and you're too much of an intellectual coward to acknowledge that your argument ended up being indefensible, or to even logroll it as a failure in considering the ramifications of your claims. No, it has to be that I must be somehow twisting your words around...by accounting for the context in which you made a claim and the point you were using it to support in both the discussion as a whole and the paragraph in which it was written.

Your argument can be paraphrased thusly: "Oh I didn't specifically say the word trans in that sentence [despite 'drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough' explicitly being a reference to SRS in the context of the paragraph, the post I was responding to, and as a repeated snide retort in my surrounding posts in this and other threads responding to people saying that SRS shouldn't be obstructed (see also post 271, in which I further clarified my position as saying the logic of SRS was the same as transphobes)]. Therefore you clearly must be twisting my words by calling out the very point I was trying to make about how society was to blame for the trans, not the trans themselves! How dare you say that such a statement in such a context has any application to those transfolk that our conversation was centered on!"

Grow up already. You have not demonstrated that I've twisted anything, and I think even you can't be ignorant of how transparently desperate and embarrassingly weak that attempt was, as much as you might try and pretend otherwise as salve for your wounded pride. Hell, your argument here is almost the exact same flailing that we saw from Houseman when he was trying to claim that the phrase "Black Lives Matter" was championing the idea that black lives were the only ones with any value (ie, that there was an implicit "only" preceding the phrase rather than an implicit "too" following it).

In this case you're trying to claim that by not sugarcoating the topical point you were trying to make with "bullying children into gender stereoypes and drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough" (see also "chopping off penises" and your posts in the other threads describing even the use of hormone blockers as "just drugging children to make them conform to social expectations"), I therefore must be pretending that you're saying only trans people suffer from gender stereotypes. Those are some truly olympian mental gymnastics on your part, and there is no reasonable way to read my posts as suggesting that. Your accusation is not rooted in any semblance of logic, it's just a transparent kneejerk emotional response of you just wanting me to be wrong as a matter of principle.
To get the aside out of the way here, the implicit addition to "black lives matter" isn't "only-", it's "you don't think that-".

To get to the rest of this, you still haven't gotten that one sentence, and I'm not giving up on you understanding yet. "bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough." Who is the target of the bullying? Children, all of them. What part of this references trans individuals? The part about drugging. Who is being drugged? The people who were not successfully bullied into gender stereotypes. That is not saying bullied into transitioning. The medical transition is the alternative method for getting gender and sex characteristics to match in individuals who would not have their behavior changed to match existing sex characteristics. You consider that alternative a good thing, you think that's the opposite of bullying. I think those options are both equally stupid. If an adult sees a little girl doing stereotypical boy things and tries to make her stop because she's a girl, that's stupid. If the same adult sees the same girl and thinks she might need puberty blockers, that is also stupid. These are both products of a society that considers gender norms to be social obligations, thus I described both in one sentence. And then you combined the two alternatives into one phrase. And then yada yada yada ranted about how pathetic I am, because that's all you really want, you want anyone who disagrees with you to be pathetic. But I have not given up on you understanding.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,603
2,828
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
What does it matter? Why should it be allowed? If a city has like 1 murder every 100 years should murder just not be against the law because no one commits murder?
I am asking if it exists. In any shape or form, outside of the pregnancy would cause the death of the mother

Think of it this way. If you need an abortion to keep the mother alive, that's like self defense murder in your analogy

What has happened is that these states are taking away the power to let women live if their pregnancy is life threatening because you have decided that they are just killing babies without thought

You been pretending that there is a bunch of murders without applying any context... Which does not suprise me. That's been the whole point

Edit: Because it's you, I'll clarify my first sentence. I don't mean abortions don't exist past 8 mths. I'm asking how many happen that aren't medically related

So, give me numbers on pregnancy that are aborted past 8 mths. Doesn't have to be the US. How many are aborted due to medical reasons?
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
The teacher getting fired for not meowing back literally has the same amount of evidence that your story does but mine is inherently false and yours is inherently true?
...the story about the meowing was literally made up. The TikTok account said so. So, yes?
And if she did get fired for that, then she'll sue and win just like this...
It's not like laws are different between states or anything
I'm not for banning abortion, I've said that many times. Where is there some government tribunal for women wanting abortions?
Everywhere that restricts abortion access due to circumstances
Why can't you just answer the simple question? Is is OK for a women to get an abortion at 8 months just cuz?
I've answered this question a lot and the answer is yes
Why the fuck would that not allow a doctor to give proper care to a pregnant woman or jail someone over a miscarriage? Most states and countries have abortion laws and if you go past a certain week, you can't have an abortion and who's gotten arrested for having a miscarriage anywhere?
There's actually a *lot* of writing on this subject
"Other places ban abortions" is not an argument for banning it. Why should it not be allowed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,196
1,035
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
To get to the rest of this, you still haven't gotten that one sentence, and I'm not giving up on you understanding yet. "bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough." Who is the target of the bullying? Children, all of them. What part of this references trans individuals? The part about drugging. Who is being drugged? The people who were not successfully bullied into gender stereotypes. That is not saying bullied into transitioning. The medical transition is the alternative method for getting gender and sex characteristics to match in individuals who would not have their behavior changed to match existing sex characteristics.
We've been through this. You're making a distinction without difference, akin to saying that the kid whose family moved to escape the bullying he was receiving was therefore not bullied, unlike the kids the bully is still taking the lunch money of. The difference is not whether or not the decision is the result of bullying, just how the bullying was coped with.

You are quibbling over the semantics of what I said without actually disputing the meaning of it, and your surrounding posts only confirm that meaning. Let's review:

"Ok, but you understand that in this context, in order to point to the contradiction, you are appealing to the sensibilities of transphobes. The logic of sex reassignment is identical to the logic of transphobes, that specific elements of physical presentation preclude people from societal roles."

"I'm saying the outside circumstances of a society fixated on gender roles puts people into the situation where it is logical to try to present as the opposite sex because of a real dissonance between their self-image and their experience of gender in society. Prescribing transitions further reinforces the societal obsession with gender roles that causes the dissonance in the first place."

"I'm telling you that the state of society at present has made transitioning a game-theory optimal decision, and you're making that into calling people "confused". I would prefer a world where that isn't the case, where honest self-expression didn't require chopping off penises."

"Medical transitions, specifically in youth, are the only things I've said to limit, because prescribing such a thing is telling a child that their sex should match their gender. My "approach" does not match a dictate that sex must match gender, it specifically challenges that dictate."

Or how about this one from a few months ago? "But the suffering does not stem from a medical problem, it stems from a societal problem, a society that has latched gender markers onto things needlessly and tied them conceptually to sex such that people who do not often match up with those markers are constantly being signaled to that their existence is wrong. That's where the inability to accept oneself comes from. That's where the suicidality comes from...I think it's a horrible thing that people are conditioned to not be able to live as they are, based on arbitrary standards, and so often choose suicide to escape it. But transitions are themselves a parallel to suicide. Obviously preferable out of the two, but it's still killing the person they are in a certain sense. "

You balk at the use of the phrase "bullied into transitioning" but that is exactly what you have been arguing: that transitioning is the function of society refusing to accept these people as they are and thus applying continuous pressure to conform, thereby artificially creating a scenario wherein the individual is conditioned to believe that transitioning is their only viable option - one you imply they would not have otherwise chosen - to alleviate that pressure. That is to say: bullied into the decision.

You consider that alternative a good thing, you think that's the opposite of bullying. I think those options are both equally stupid. If an adult sees a little girl doing stereotypical boy things and tries to make her stop because she's a girl, that's stupid. If the same adult sees the same girl and thinks she might need puberty blockers, that is also stupid. These are both products of a society that considers gender norms to be social obligations, thus I described both in one sentence. And then you combined the two alternatives into one phrase.
And that's a strawman, a fiction that you fixate on because - once again - you confuse your preconceptions about what must be happening with reality. Puberty blockers aren't prescribed simply because someone is seen doing things stereotypically associated with the opposite sex. The benchmark for it even to be considered is much higher than that. In order for them to be prescribed, a kid must, and there's a list:

1) Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria
2) Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty
3) Address any psychological, medical or social problems that could interfere with treatment
4) Have entered the early stage of puberty
5) Provide informed consent
And before you start, that is not an "any or some of the above", mind you, that's an "all of the above".

Moreover...considering how you're invoking them, I'm not convinced that you understand the purpose of puberty blockers. Your invocation implies that you're thinking of them like the first step of Hormone Replacement Therapy. In actuality, it's a 'pause button' that temporarily inhibits the production of testosterone or estrogen so as to delay the development of secondary sexual characteristics. This is done for the sake of making transitioning easier if and when the kid decides to go through with it after coming of age. If they decide otherwise? They stop taking the blockers, production goes back to the body's default, and they develop those characteristics then, no worse for the wear. It's like pausing a download to your computer. It doesn't change the files, just when they're delivered and allows you to completely stop the download later if so inclined rather than having to uninstall it.



And then yada yada yada ranted about how pathetic I am, because that's all you really want, you want anyone who disagrees with you to be pathetic. But I have not given up on you understanding.
No. I don't want that. Point of fact, it was your deflection I called pathetic, not you. You want me to want that because that would make me misguided and irrational rather than simply being fed up with you specifically after literal years of mostly turning a blind eye to your holier-than-thou attitude and trying not to directly engage with you in the hopes that you'd eventually grow out of it. I've argued with many people on these boards - sometimes quite vigorously - and most of them can attest that I'm usually reasonably pleasant about it, spend a lot of time during a disagreement clarifying my own intended position under the presumption that I expressed myself poorly, and almost never make allegations about the opposing party, instead focusing on the arguments.

Houseman was a major exception to that rule because - like yourself - he managed to finally wear out my patience with his argumentation tactics (the rod that finally shattered the camel's back in his case being him trying - a mere day after Congress was stormed on Jan 6, 2021 - to handwave said storming and characterize the negative reaction to it as political theater and much ado about nothing). But users across the board and political spectrum can attest that - while I'm perhaps an opinionated bastard - I'm almost always civil, impersonal, and focused on the argument, and it takes a long buildup to make me blow my top.

Me losing my temper with you is similarly the exception, not the rule, and directly attributable to both the tactics you've been employing to argue your points - not the least of which is the consistent heavy use of spin and self-serving supposition - and your stubborn refusal to even so much as do your due diligence during an exchange. Never mind the consistent assumptions of malice that you bring out when you fail to convince people of your point; to hear you tell it, failure to agree with you can only stem from hatred!

Now, I will admit that my lashing out was poor form. While it doesn't excuse it, it's been a stressful few weeks and I vented a bit on you. That said I have also been frustrated with you for some time now. In all frankness, you come off as openly contemptuous of the people on these boards and - while you're obviously not unintelligent - you have an annoying tendency to mistake your preconceptions about a subject with expertise or wisdom - especially on sociopolitical matters - concluding that, since you believe it, it must be an obvious truth. This gets quite grating when you're championing...bizarrely unsupported ideas like saying that the average person's gender identity is "who cares", or defining your own position as contrasting your misrepresentative presumptions of the other side. Never mind your repeated condescension of assuring everyone else that they're deluded and you're the real good guy and they don't realize that by your logic they're really the bad guys - before hypocritically claiming that they're the ones holding that same self-righteous attitude and are only disagreeing with you because of it - or the sheer arrogance in declaring that anyone who gets tired of dealing with your antics really means they're "tired of getting embarrassed" by you.

Listen, this is going nowhere and it will only end up getting one or both of us banned. If you want to try and bury the hatchet, I'm willing to give it another shot, but I say all the above because unless you can understand your own contribution to this and start at least making an effort to account for the above faults, we're going to end up right back here again.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,827
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
If an adult sees a little girl doing stereotypical boy things and tries to make her stop because she's a girl, that's stupid. If the same adult sees the same girl and thinks she might need puberty blockers, that is also stupid. These are both products of a society that considers gender norms to be social obligations, thus I described both in one sentence.
Still continuing to ignore the essential fact that the child is the one requesting the change, and you want to make it as difficult as possible for the child to attain it.

In what cuckoo world is it "bullying" to allow the child to decide (or at least to provide them a reversible route to permanently decide later), but it's not "bullying" to force them to follow your choice? Your approach is literally the one that involves overriding what the individual in question actually wants and imposing a choice upon them that they didn't make.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
Still continuing to ignore the essential fact that the child is the one requesting the change, and you want to make it as difficult as possible for the child to attain it.

In what cuckoo world is it "bullying" to allow the child to decide (or at least to provide them a reversible route to permanently decide later), but it's not "bullying" to force them to follow your choice? Your approach is literally the one that involves overriding what the individual in question actually wants and imposing a choice upon them that they didn't make.
Would you dummies stop scare quoting "bullying" at me. I did not say people are bullied into transitioning. I didn't say that. Stop putting those words in my mouth.
You balk at the use of the phrase "bullied into transitioning" but that is exactly what you have been arguing: that transitioning is the function of society refusing to accept these people as they are and thus applying continuous pressure to conform, thereby artificially creating a scenario wherein the individual is conditioned to believe that transitioning is their only viable option - one you imply they would not have otherwise chosen - to alleviate that pressure. That is to say: bullied into the decision.
Your argument here would turn literally any societal norm into "bullying". People tend to conform to their peers, independent of mistreatment. People doing anything creates the scenario where other people do those same things but which they would not have done otherwise.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,603
2,828
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Your argument here would turn literally any societal norm into "bullying". People tend to conform to their peers, independent of mistreatment. People doing anything creates the scenario where other people do those same things but which they would not have done otherwise.
Well this is the exact reason why I don't like traditions

Here's the difference. You can have a transperson want to be a transperson and it doesn't hurt anyone else. You aren't forcing anything onto anyone. There isn't any conforming necessary from you. You just have to let it happen.

Traditions, on the other hand, is exactly how you describe them here. Bullying. Forcing conformity.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
Well this is the exact reason why I don't like traditions

Here's the difference. You can have a transperson want to be a transperson and it doesn't hurt anyone else. You aren't forcing anything onto anyone. There isn't any conforming necessary from you. You just have to let it happen.

Traditions, on the other hand, is exactly how you describe them here. Bullying. Forcing conformity.
Trans is a position that only exists relative to conformity. Without gender norms, the concept of trans does not exist.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,827
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Would you dummies stop scare quoting "bullying" at me. I did not say people are bullied into transitioning. I didn't say that. Stop putting those words in my mouth.
"Bullied into fitting gender stereotypes and drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough" is the sentence.

It's not directly stating that they're bullied into transitioning. But it's quite obviously insinuating that the ones doing the "drugging" are those same bullies. It's still obviously linking transitioning to bullying behaviour.

Your approach is still the one that would force a decision about transitioning on the child.

Without gender norms, the concept of trans does not exist.
Without gender the concept of trans would not exist.

But pretty much everybody on the planet, both cis and trans, recognises the existence of gender, and your bizarre belief that it doesn't exist as anything except stereotype is a massive outlier that cannot be used to approach policy.
 
Last edited: