Zero Punctuation: Papers, Please and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons

[The Last Parade]

I wish Yahtzee would play some Greenlight games

Any suggestions?

I want to see him try the Pinball Arcade. Yeah it'll basically just be Yahtzee reviewing pinball but that could be entertaining.

I'd say Gone Home and Dream. Both very pretty and cool games, I particularly like Gone Home... also Outlast, creepy as all fuck haha

 

[Neferius]

A genuinely engaging paperwork simulator is far worthier of your time than the 70-thausandth slightly engaging gunfight.

The reason i HATE "Papers Please" is the same as to why i loathe the novel "1984" by George Orwell.
The premise i laudable, expose the dreary wickedness born of a communist totalitarian regime...
But they both do so by slowly dehumanizing the protagonist, systematically reducing him to a creature of sub-human morals before completely pulling the rug from underneath him, ultimately condemning him to a fate worse than death.
A slow and agonizing endeavor on the part of the audience that is ultimately rewarded with bitterness and disgust.
It is the most despicable sort of drama, one without any meaningful conclusion or moral lesson. Only bile.

That being said, there are roumoured to be some gunfights later-on in the game, so i shall plow through it like i did with Orwell's "magnum opus"

 

[JonB]

Hi Everyone,

Please start behaving yourselves. Discuss civilly. Stay on topic.

If anyone posts anything further in this thread that's worth a warning, then they're going to earn a probation or suspension instead of a warning.

Some of you seem confused about the code of conduct, well, it's right here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct

 

[paulbnet]

I have [edit] redacted most of this post incase it caused any offence. This has turned into a shit storm I want nothing to do with [end edit]

As for Papers Please, it`s bloody awesome. Does anyone know the unlock code for the endless mode yet?

PS [redacted]

 

[solidstatemind]

A few observations from the token old dude:
1) Even if you find them racist, homophobic, speciest, misogynistic, ignorant, rude, tasteless, or just simply uncouth, jokes are in fact included under 'free speech.'

2) If you don't want to risk being offended by what you read or see on the Internet, you should just unplug your connection now. The Internet is a wild and wooly place: that's exactly what simultaneously elevates it and degrades it. Remember, for every mind-expanding essay you find, there will be thousands of scatalogically-focused pornography pages.

3) Life is short. You can't personally right every wrong, so choose your crusades carefully, else you'll wake up one day to find that you've spent so much time fighting for others that you've done nothing at all for yourself. My advice? Wait for causes that are personally relevant, you believe to be earth-shatteringly, end-of-society-level critical, or are heinously underexposed. While I can't speak to the first, I can promise you that transsexualism, gender reassignment, and gender identity have been being thought about by some very intelligent people since as early as the '60s.

4) (possibly most importantly) If you truly take issue with something, throwing unsupported opinions combined with belittling accusations out there has to be one of the least effective methods of supporting your beliefs. Find some references to back up your point of view and use them. Not only does it keep you from looking like all the other braying jackasses out there spouting their knee-jerk opinions, it also can serve to educate you further about what you are evangelizing for. Believe me, there has been many times in my life when doing further research showed me that I did not properly understand the point of view I was supporting.

I'll climb down off the soapbox now. (In a Robocop voice I appreciate your cooperation.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The sequel should be called Papers Please: Wolfram Edition.

-new person
-detained
-new person
-detained
-new person
-detained
-new person
-detained
-new person
-detained

You are the only person, other than me, who I know to have mentioned Wolfsmund on this forum.
God speed you sir.

 

[Evonisia]

papers please is soooo feindishly addictive.

Jokes against transsexuals were completely unnecessary and completely offensive.

You didn't mention the "As useful as a wi-fi connection in Auschwitz's prison showers" joke.

Grow a sense of humor. There's no genuine hate behind any of the jokes he does.

3 separate jokes bashing transsexuals in a single episode isn't humorous at all.

3?

And it is humorous, just because you were offended doesn't mean somebody else didn't laugh or rather, just because you were offended doesn't mean that it wasn't done for comedic effect.

 

[Mikejames]

Poor Yahtzee, I really enjoyed his videos, now the legions of tumblr are descending on him, he wont survive this.

Tumblr getting unnecessarily offended by something is hardly noteworthy. I've seen a series of social justice bloggers characterize weeding as racist because of the sentiment of depicting some plants as being lesser...

 

[Warachia]

Well, homosexuality, as I see it, is to do with sex, and not gender.

That may have sounded like a compromise in your mind, but I think this is an issue for which compromise is impossible. Either you accept that the person belongs to the sex he says he does, or you don't, and saying, "I'll treat you socially as being your gender but your body is still the only thing that defines your sex, so I'll attach asterisks to my descriptions of you," is on the you don't side of the equation.

You misunderstood them, they meant as in the act of having sex, not sex as in male or female, you were saying what they were already doing, but I don't know what you mean by "is on the you don't side of the equation".

Of course it's hypocritical. Why should trans people be immune to jokes, but not other groups of people.

Why is it people on the internet seem to assume that being okay with one instance of a thing occurring confers upon a person the responsibility to be okay with all instances of that thing occurring, regardless of context? It's like saying that if I support killing an armed intruder in your home, I must therefore be okay with sniping random strangers on the street because killing is killing and I have to support it all. That's simplistic crap. There is nothing hypocritical about saying, "That joke about me hurt my feelings," but not saying, "That joke about someone else hurt my feelings." Indeed, I'd argue that latter statement is likely complete nonsense.

I'm sorry, but your argument here is bullshit, sniping random strangers on the street is in no way similar to killing an intruder in your home, jokes about or at two different groups of people are similar, because they do the same thing (antagonizing) to both groups, whereas in your example your sniping people who did nothing wrong, as opposed to criminals who possible want to kill you.

A little while ago I watched am old Jimquisition episode where he was addressing a gay Sheppard in ME3 (the episode's called "a case for a gay Sheppard."), people were saying that if you want to include gay people, you needed to include pedophiles since otherwise it would be discriminatory, despite the two being entirely different.

Basically what that person is saying is that he doesn't care about the Jews, he only cares about him/herself.

Why should he? Honestly, why should he care about the Jews? Has even one Jewish person raised his voice to declare that he is offended by the Holocaust joke in this video? I certainly haven't noticed anyone doing so, so why should he be offended on behalf of people who are not offended on their own behalf?

He's saying that the person in question is selfish and only cares about what offends them as opposed to caring about what others thought of the episode. I don't really have anything more to add, just thought I'd clarify that.

Okay, so, cite them. Let's hear what these books you mention have to say about gender dysmorphia and the involved neurochemistry of their brains.

They don't have anything to say about gender disphoria (as far as I remember), because they aren't psychology textbooks, having gender dysphoria does not change your XX chromosomes to XY (and vice versa).

 

[Boris Guyon-Pelfrene]

The problem is that in society, trans people are not part of the "group"

They are ridiculed and ostracised by a huge majority of people, long before any of the cheap internet or tv show jokes.

Forget it, there's no reasoning with people. Some people here really need to check their privilige and understand that making jokes between friends isn't the same as being ridiculed in almost every depiction. Being ridiculed as the most socially accepted group of people in your country is not the same as being ridiculed as the least socially accepted group of people in a country.

Think of it like school, there's that kind of nerdy kid that everyone makes fun of all the time because he's overweight and rubbish at sport. Life isn't going to improve for him just by laughing it off. Life is going to improve for him if he, and a bunch of his classmates who arn't in his position start to take a stand against it.

There's a difference between playful jokes and ridicule, and when it comes to denying trans people are the gender the identify as in a very popular web show, then it's not a playful joke. Maybe for you it seems like that, but that's because you're in a ridiculously priviliged position in comparison to trans people.

As far as I know know there's never been a case in my group of friends rejecting a minority. I'm in fact good friends with a transgendered man. And while I know that I don't represent all scenarios, I can say that the way you present yourself, saying that you are not part of the group before people even have a chance to accept you is part of the problem.

Furthermore, you shouldn't be offended if people rebut your accusations, especially when you claim things as fact with little to no evidence backing it up. Most things written on Wikipedia crumble if there are no citations for them. If people think you are exaggerating or making stuff up, they're going to challenge you on it; believe it or not they're more than happy to accept your claims if you just give them evidence.

Finally, thank you for telling us to check our privilege before you left, as if a nail to the coffin that is your argument.

 

[Warachia]

A genuinely engaging paperwork simulator is far worthier of your time than the 70-thausandth slightly engaging gunfight.

The reason i HATE "Papers Please" is the same as to why i loathe the novel "1984" by George Orwell.
The premise i laudable, expose the dreary wickedness born of a communist totalitarian regime...
But they both do so by slowly dehumanizing the protagonist, systematically reducing him to a creature of sub-human morals before completely pulling the rug from underneath him, ultimately condemning him to a fate worse than death.
A slow and agonizing endeavor on the part of the audience that is ultimately rewarded with bitterness and disgust.
It is the most despicable sort of drama, one without any meaningful conclusion or moral lesson. Only bile.

That being said, there are roumoured to be some gunfights later-on in the game, so i shall plow through it like i did with Orwell's "magnum opus"

I didn't like 1984 either, but you don't have to be broken by papers please:

Spoiler

If you want you can save up enough money (most likely at the expense of your family) for a short period, and take passports in order to get you and your family safely away to a different (far better) country where you can start over, and I like that ending a lot, the people you take the passports from will get new ones when they call the number you give them, and your family is safe from the terrorist attacks and oppressive government of Arstotzka.

 

[JimB]

You misunderstood him. He meant as in the act of having sex, not sex as in male or female.

If that's the case, then he's still saying someone born male who identifies as female is male, since having sex with her is gay.

I don't know what you mean by "is on the you don't side of the equation."

I said something to the effect of, "Either you support them, or you don't." I believe razer17 doesn't: therefore, he comes down on the "you don't" side of that binary question.

Sniping random strangers on the street is in no way similar to killing an intruder in your home.

And I don't think that jokes about a group of people who are offended by the jokes are similar to jokes about a group of people who, to all current evidence, are not offended by them.

A little while ago I watched an old Jimquisition episode where he was addressing a gay Sheppard in Mass Effect 3 (the episode's called "a Case for a Gay Sheppard"). People were saying that if you want to include gay people, you needed to include pedophiles since otherwise it would be discriminatory, despite the two being entirely different.

If I remember that conversation correctly, the people saying so want to argue that consensual sex between two adults of the same gender is equivalent to an adult preying upon a child, so I don't much care what those people think "inclusion" means.

He's saying that the person in question is selfish and only cares about what offends them as opposed to caring about what others thought of the episode.

He's also saying that the selfishness is inherently hypocritical. I don't object to describing the guy as selfish, but the hypocrisy part gets me, and my text that you are responding to is why.

They don't have anything to say about gender dysphoria (as far as I remember), because they aren't psychology textbooks.

Then I'm not much interested in his cherry-picked evidence.

Having gender dysphoria does not change your XX chromosomes to XY (and vice versa).

I never said it does. I asked him to explain in detail what sex is, citing people who have more authority to make those judgments than he does. I personally do not believe chromosomal pairings are enough, because they ignore the complexity of the brain and its interactions with the body. If he wants to convince me otherwise, then he's going to have to do more work than some flip "Every biology book ever, none of which I will reference by name or quote because that's how right I am" crap.

 

[TallanKhan]

I thought in terms of a review of the games this was a fairly comprehensive episode, and I have to admit I never thought i would want to play a paperwork simulator, but...

On the subject of the joke that has consumed a large portion of this thread, my thoughts can best be summed up by quoting a line from Yahtzee's 50 Cent, Blood on the Sand review: "A society where anyone can make jokes about anyone else and everyone laughs is a truly tolerant society"

 

[Joel Bridge]

Personally I sleep with couple pre-op transgender women, and never question my sexuality it all I saying.

 

[Warachia]

I don't know what you mean by "is on the you don't side of the equation."

If that's the case, then he's still saying someone born male who identifies as female is male, since having sex with her is gay.

I said something to the effect of, "Either you support them, or you don't." I believe razer17 doesn't: therefore, he comes down on the "you don't" side of that binary question.

Yes, that's what they're saying, that physically that person is the gender they were born, any sexual actions taken with another person of the same physical gender would be considered gay (there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS), you can have your opinion that they wouldn't or shouldn't be, that's fine, but that's how they see it, and that's how the rest of the world sees it too, and I doubt that's going to change any time soon.

Thanks for clearing that up, but you did assume quite a bit from very little, they said what they thought about the definition of a single act, and you assumed you knew their entire stance on the matter from that.

I want to ask one more question, WHY DOES IT MATTER? If a transsexual person who is physically male has sex with another person who is physically male, why do you care so much that it's called a gay action? I genuinely want to know, does it really have that much impact? Because it seems like we're debating over a really trivial issue.

The rest of this reply is long, so as to not take up a very large section of the page it will be put into a spoiler:

Spoiler

A little while ago I watched an old Jimquisition episode where he was addressing a gay Sheppard in Mass Effect 3 (the episode's called "a Case for a Gay Sheppard"). People were saying that if you want to include gay people, you needed to include pedophiles since otherwise it would be discriminatory, despite the two being entirely different.

If I remember that conversation correctly, the people saying so want to argue that consensual sex between two adults of the same gender is equivalent to an adult preying upon a child, so I don't much care what those people think "inclusion" means.

And I don't think that jokes about a group of people who are offended by the jokes are similar to jokes about a group of people who, to all current evidence, are not offended by them.

You don't remember it correctly then, people were against the possibility of a gay Sheppard, they weren't against the scene itself, that's why they were making a poor argument, trying to connect gays to pedophiles, like you were doing with civilians to criminals.

Making a joke insulting a group, then making a joke where you insult another group is similar, if you shot an intruder in your home for no reason (as in you did it for the sake of doing it, you weren't even concerned about self defence), and then shot a random civilian, that would be similar, the reason your earlier example didn't work is because the person could be doing the shootings for two entirely separate reasons.

What I'm saying is intent is what's important, if there was a joke aimed at one group, and meant to infuriate that group, then the person who made the joke made another one, but this supported a different group of people, these people wouldn't be in the same camp so to speak, it doesn't usually depend on how the group reacts.

They don't have anything to say about gender dysphoria (as far as I remember), because they aren't psychology textbooks.

He's also saying that the selfishness is inherently hypocritical. I don't object to describing the guy as selfish, but the hypocrisy part gets me, and my text that you are responding to is why.

Then I'm not much interested in his cherry-picked evidence.

I never said it does. I asked him to explain in detail what sex is, citing people who have more authority to make those judgments than he does. I personally do not believe chromosomal pairings are enough, because they ignore the complexity of the brain and its interactions with the body. If he wants to convince me otherwise, then he's going to have to do more work than some flip "Every biology book ever, none of which I will reference by name or quote because that's how right I am" crap.

That's why I said I had nothing more to add, I was simply their position, if you want to talk further about it, you would want to talk to them because I don't have anything else on that matter.

That's not cherry picked evidence, biologically if you have one X chromosome, and one Y chromosome, you are male, end of story, how you see yourself is certainly up to you, but you can't ignore your physical characteristics, if you do, then you are the one doing the cherry picking, not to mention, you are getting mad that a textbook includes nothing from an entirely different field of study, that's like getting angry that Math teaches you nothing about English and believing it should because of algebra.

Unfortunately your personal beliefs don't change reality, but since you wanted those citations, here you go:

gender

1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.
2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
Source: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender

There, you can have it both ways depending on how you look at it, everybody's right! Unfortunately I bet you want a definite answer, so let's look some more:

Definition of GENDER

1: sex 1
2: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/gender

In this way, it can have the same 2 meanings as the previous one, I guess gender is subjective, so let's look at sex then:

Definition of SEX

1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as male or female
2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
3a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior
b: sexual intercourse
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sex

All right, so sex isn't subjective, but since this might still be a little vague, how do they define "Male and Females"?

Definition of MALE

1a: a male person : a man or a boy
b: an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female
2: a staminate plant
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

Definition of FEMALE

1a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs (2) : pistillate
b (1) : composed of members of the female sex (2) : characteristic of girls or women
2: having some quality (as gentleness) associated with the female sex
3: designed with a hollow or groove into which a corresponding male part fits
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

All right, so now we know, sex isn't subjective, as shown through Sex 1 and 2, Male 1b, and female 1a, though gender is.

Here's a page that could have saved me time with those other pages, though I'm sure you would have asked for it anyway:

"What Is The Difference Between Sex And Gender?"

"The words sex and gender are commonly used interchangeably, but many linguists would argue that their usage is quite distinct. Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, while gender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society."

"Sex refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine."

"The differences in the sexes do not vary throughout the world, but differences in gender do."
Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

And there we have it, now let's ask, what is considered gay/homosexual?

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL

1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Huh, it's based on sex, not gender, so a transsexual man having sex with another man would be gay/homosexual.

I hope that we can now finally leave all of this behind us, unless you have any sources disproving what I said.

 

[JimB]

I want to ask one more question, why does it matter?

I cannot imagine what it feels like to be transsexual; to feel like my body is not right on the most fundamental level and that society is some relentless weight pressing down on me, telling me I have to be and behave as someone and something I'm not all because of the cruel cosmic joke played on me at birth. I have to guess it feels like losing your mind, though. Imagine waking up every day and every internal instinct telling you you're female, while the evidence of your senses insists you're not. At some point, you have to make a choice which of the two conflicting voices to believe, and this choice has to be hard as hell to make for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that it is still considered okay to hate transsexual people.

So all that is going on, and the transsexual person still has to fight everyone who comes along, none of whom have any fucking stake in the argument at all--seriously, why on Earth should you or I care about whether Person A wants us to use male or female pronouns to describe him?--telling him that he's crazy, he's a deviant, he's a liar. The people attacking the transsexual person gain nothing from it but the cheap thrill of self-righteousness and hatred co-mingling, and as far as I'm concerned, hurting someone for no personal gain other than the pleasure of the act is the best possible definition for evil. I don't intend to leave it unchallenged when I see it, and telling transsexual people that they are not the sex they think they are is exactly that.

You don't remember it correctly, then; people were against the possibility of a gay Sheppard; they weren't against the scene itself.

Scene? What scene? I didn't mention a scene.

Making a joke insulting a group, then making a joke where you insult another group is similar.

If one of the groups gives a toss and the other doesn't, then the similarities end there.

That's not cherry-picked evidence.

How not, if the guy doing it is defining the question according to his own terms and refusing to address or acknowledge current questions in the field about the role the brain plays in determining sexual characteristics?

 

[Warachia]

I want to ask one more question, why does it matter?

I cannot imagine what it feels like to be transsexual; to feel like my body is not right on the most fundamental level and that society is some relentless weight pressing down on me, telling me I have to be and behave as someone and something I'm not all because of the cruel cosmic joke played on me at birth. I have to guess it feels like losing your mind, though. Imagine waking up every day and every internal instinct telling you you're female, while the evidence of your senses insists you're not. At some point, you have to make a choice which of the two conflicting voices to believe, and this choice has to be hard as hell to make for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that it is still considered okay to hate transsexual people.

So all that is going on, and the transsexual person still has to fight everyone who comes along, none of whom have any fucking stake in the argument at all--seriously, why on Earth should you or I care about whether Person A wants us to use male or female pronouns to describe him?--telling him that he's crazy, he's a deviant, he's a liar. The people attacking the transsexual person gain nothing from it but the cheap thrill of self-righteousness and hatred co-mingling, and as far as I'm concerned, hurting someone for no personal gain other than the pleasure of the act is the best possible definition for evil. I don't intend to leave it unchallenged when I see it, and telling transsexual people that they are not the sex they think they are is exactly that.

You misunderstood me completely, Most likely due to the fact that you didn't read what I wrote, none of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked, so here's the section you took out of context: "I want to ask one more question, WHY DOES IT MATTER? If a transsexual person who is physically male has sex with another person who is physically male, why do you care so much that it's called a gay action?" Please read the entire question this time, the part that is bolded is the important bit..

I don't really have anything to add to what you did write, since I am not a transsexual I also have no idea what it feels like, which is why I asked why it the name of their preferred sexuality matters so much. I get that they do have those other issues, and I'm not going to debate that.

You don't remember it correctly, then; people were against the possibility of a gay Sheppard; they weren't against the scene itself.

Scene? What scene? I didn't mention a scene.

You were talking about consensual sex between two adult men, that was the scene, it happens once in the game, and like I said, they weren't against consensual sex between two adult men, they were against Sheppard possibly wanting to have intercourse with the same sex, that's it.

Making a joke insulting a group, then making a joke where you insult another group is similar.

If one of the groups gives a toss and the other doesn't, then the similarities end there.

They don't, because this isn't how the groups feel, this is about the intent of the person who made the alleged attack on the two groups.

That's not cherry-picked evidence.

How not, if the guy doing it is defining the question according to his own terms and refusing to address or acknowledge current questions in the field about the role the brain plays in determining sexual characteristics?

God dammit, I know that you didn't read what I wrote, even though I literally gave you everything you asked for.
You flat out ignored what you didn't like, I gave you all of the sources you wanted, I looked up everything for you because you refused to listen unless you saw sources, but then you ignored those sources when I found them for you, but here's the cliff notes anyway.

HE ISN'T USING HIS OWN TERMS. HE IS GOING BY THE MEDICAL DEFINITION OF MALE AND FEMALE (see the parts in my previous post that you ignored).

SEX ISN'T DETERMINED BY THE BRAIN (for why, see the parts in my previous post that you ignored).

GENDER IS DETERMINED BY HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF (for clarification see the parts in my previous post that you ignored).

razer17 WAS RIGHT! INTERCOURSE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX IS A HOMOSEXUAL ACTION (for how see the parts in my previous post that you ignored).

I'm just frustrated with you, I am not going to copy and paste the previous post, I am not going to personally attack you. If you feel that I am being insulting in this part then I am sorry, but if you want to continue this please read my entire previous post, it contains everything that you had asked for, if you don't, I can see that you clearly don't care for this, and as such I'll ignore whatever reply you send.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

I was slowly losing interest in ZP, but this was one of the funniest episodes in a long time, specially since I've already played the game in question for a change (Papers, Please). And people are offended again, imagine that.

 

[JimB]

You misunderstood me completely, most likely due to the fact that you didn't read what I wrote; none of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked.

Yes, it does. For the sex to be gay, the transsexual woman has to be a man and not a woman. In order for that to be the case, the transsexual woman has to be either lying or delusional in claiming to be female. I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

You were talking about consensual sex between two adult men; that was the scene.

And I'm not talking about that scene. I am talking about the defining characteristic of homosexuality (the desire to engage in romantic and/or sexual relationships with members of one's own sex) having nothing to do with the defining characteristic of pedophilia (the desire to have sexual and/or romantic relationships with children who by definition cannot consent to such), and why anyone attempting to tell me I have to support both if I support either is being disingenuous at best.

This is about the intent of the person who made the alleged attack on the two groups.

No, it isn't. It is about outcome, not intent. If no one objects to the Holocaust joke, then claiming a person who objects to the transsexual joke is intellectually or morally obligated to also object to the Holocaust joke is petty nonsense that refuses to address the objections actually being tendered in favor of changing the subject to objections no one is offering.

God dammit, I know that you didn't read what I wrote, even though I literally gave you everything you asked for.

Yeah, yeah. I read it. I just discarded it as irrelevant because none of it answered my questions. There are studies, and have been for twenty years, indicating that the brains of transsexual people are more typical of brains belonging to members of their identified sex rather than their biological ones. I want to know what evidence the original guy--and you, I guess, since you have apparently taken it upon yourself to act as his official mouthpiece--has to present about this controversy and whether sex can solely be determined as the result of chromosomes in light of this ongoing question within the medical community, particularly since the DSM 5 refuses to categorize transsexuality as a mental disorder while the ICD-10 CM does.

If you don't, I can see that you clearly don't care for this, and as such I'll ignore whatever reply you send.

Answer my post or don't as seems best to you, but please spare me the hostage negotiations ("Either you do what I tell you or I'll put a bullet in the conversation's head!"). It raises my hackles.

 

[Warachia]

You misunderstood me completely, most likely due to the fact that you didn't read what I wrote; none of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked.

Yes, it does. For the sex to be gay, the transsexual woman has to be a man and not a woman. In order for that to be the case, the transsexual woman has to be either lying or delusional in claiming to be female. I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

The transsexual IS PHYSICALLY A MAN. They are not physically a woman. When I said "a transsexual who is physically a man", I meant a person who is physically a man, and they are a transsexual, they were born a man, they have never had a sex change, they have a penis and testicles, so does the other man they have sex with, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

None of what you wrote answered my question "why do you care so much that it's called a gay action?" If I missed it while you went on about how tough it was for transsexuals, please point it out to me.

You were talking about consensual sex between two adult men; that was the scene.

And I'm not talking about that scene. I am talking about the defining characteristic of homosexuality (the desire to engage in romantic and/or sexual relationships with members of one's own sex) having nothing to do with the defining characteristic of pedophilia (the desire to have sexual and/or romantic relationships with children who by definition cannot consent to such), and why anyone attempting to tell me I have to support both if I support either is being disingenuous at best.

Exactly, that's what I was saying, if you read the rest of my post you would have seen that, the people who were arguing against a gay Sheppard didn't care that at all about consensual sex between two adult men, they were concerned that THEIR Sheppard MIGHT have WANTED to have sex with a man. It's a terrible argument made by closed minded people who were against the inclusion of a Sheppard who could possibly be gay, who didn't think that they could just ignore the choice altogether and therefore have a straight Sheppard who doesn't want to have sex with a man. That's it.

This is about the intent of the person who made the alleged attack on the two groups.

No, it isn't. It is about outcome, not intent. If no one objects to the Holocaust joke, then claiming a person who objects to the transsexual joke is intellectually or morally obligated to also object to the Holocaust joke is petty nonsense that refuses to address the objections actually being tendered in favor of changing the subject to objections no one is offering.

I feel that you are looking at it from the wrong angle, so let's try to find some middle ground with this one, let's assume I tell a terrible holocaust joke and say the Jews deserved it, then let's say I tell a terrible joke against transsexuals and say they deserve the treatment they get, Jews and Transsexuals would be grouped together as people I would have wronged, that's how they saw it, which is why they were a little surprised when the people only objected to the transsexual joke, and not to the holocaust one, which was as bad, if not worse.

God dammit, I know that you didn't read what I wrote, even though I literally gave you everything you asked for.

Yeah, yeah. I read it. I just discarded it as irrelevant because none of it answered my questions. There are studies, and have been for twenty years, indicating that the brains of transsexual people are more typical of brains belonging to members of their identified sex rather than their biological ones. I want to know what evidence the original guy--and you, I guess, since you have apparently taken it upon yourself to act as his official mouthpiece--has to present about this controversy and whether sex can solely be determined as the result of chromosomes in light of this ongoing question within the medical community, particularly since the DSM 5 refuses to categorize transsexuality as a mental disorder while the ICD-10 CM does.

You didn't read it, Just like you didn't fully read the post that I made before this one, if you did you would have seen the part where I pointed out that sexual characteristics are not determined by the brain, you could have read my second post where I said that sexual characteristics are not determined by the brain (only gender ones are), If you read my post you'd have the answer to "I want to know what evidence the original guy--and you, I guess, since you have apparently taken it upon yourself to act as his official mouthpiece--has to present about this controversy and whether sex can solely be determined as the result of chromosomes in light of this ongoing question within the medical community", but don't worry, I'll spell it out, SEX AND GENDER ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS (for sources read the post with the spoiler, the part you ignored). Sex is determined by reproductive organs, which are determined by chromosomes when the egg is fertilized, gender is a completely different matter, razer17, and I have never argued against gender in this long list of conversations you keep ignoring, we've argued about the sex of the person, and that if two same sex people have intercourse, it is a homosexual action regardless of gender.

I do not know why some medical communities classify it as a mental disorder and others do not, I don't have any opinion on that.

Here's the tldr version, if you have male parts, you're sex is a man, if you think of yourself as a woman, then your gender is woman.
If you have female parts, you're sex is a woman, if you think of yourself as a man, then your gender is a man.
That's all there is to it. This is the third time I've said this, the sources are in the post with the spoiler, and I'll bet this will be the third time you'll ignore it.

If you don't, I can see that you clearly don't care for this, and as such I'll ignore whatever reply you send.

Answer my post or don't as seems best to you, but please spare me the hostage negotiations ("Either you do what I tell you or I'll put a bullet in the conversation's head!"). It raises my hackles.

What raises my hackles is when somebody asks a question, I give them the answer, they ignore it, so I give it again, and they ignore it again, I do not want to keep doing this. Very soon, I will need to sleep, then I will need to go to work, if you keep ignoring what I write and cherry picking (hypocritical since you whined that other people were cherry picking) then I will "put a bullet in the conversations head".