What is the gender of nationstates

[Olthar]

There's an exclusionary category of "things that aren't fetishes."

And saying that furries are a personal identity on the level of transgenderism is offensive to transgenders unless you're going to agree with the troll argument that it's possible to identify as a different species.

I've been told by furries that they have a personal identity and fursona.
I'm not going to doubt them, and you are being prejudiced to say that.
I could just as well say
"It's a troll argument to say you can identify as a different gender."

I said it was a troll argument because it literally is a troll argument. I've seen it used in transgender debates that transgenderism makes as much sense as believing you're a different species.

As far as this "fursona," thing, it's just that: a furry persona. Having a persona is like acting. You're taking up the mantle of a different person playing a different role. It's not an intrinsic, permanent identity. I don't pretend I'm a woman because it gets me off. I am a woman.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've been told by furries that they have a personal identity and fursona.
I'm not going to doubt them, and you are being prejudiced to say that.
I could just as well say
"It's a troll argument to say you can identify as a different gender."

I said it was a troll argument because it literally is a troll argument. I've seen it used in transgender debates that transgenderism makes as much sense as believing you're a different species.

As far as this "fursona," thing, it's just that: a furry persona. Having a persona is like acting. You're taking up the mantle of a different person playing a different role. It's not an intrinsic, permanent identity. I don't pretend I'm a woman because it gets me off. I am a woman.

Some of them claim it. I'm not going to doubt them. It's fairly barmy, but then I think most sexualities and identities are fairly barmy.
When someone says they are straight, I simply don't understand how they couldn't like both, etc.

[Esternial]

I've been told by furries that they have a personal identity and fursona.
I'm not going to doubt them, and you are being prejudiced to say that.
I could just as well say
"It's a troll argument to say you can identify as a different gender."

I said it was a troll argument because it literally is a troll argument. I've seen it used in transgender debates that transgenderism makes as much sense as believing you're a different species.

As far as this "fursona," thing, it's just that: a furry persona. Having a persona is like acting. You're taking up the mantle of a different person playing a different role. It's not an intrinsic, permanent identity. I don't pretend I'm a woman because it gets me off. I am a woman.

It's likely some people would believe they are a wolf.

But so far I haven't met a literate wolf, so they're probably not on the internet.

[Veceria]

I said it was a troll argument because it literally is a troll argument. I've seen it used in transgender debates that transgenderism makes as much sense as believing you're a different species.

As far as this "fursona," thing, it's just that: a furry persona. Having a persona is like acting. You're taking up the mantle of a different person playing a different role. It's not an intrinsic, permanent identity. I don't pretend I'm a woman because it gets me off. I am a woman.

It's likely some people would believe they are a wolf.

But so far I haven't met a literate wolf, so they're probably not on the internet.

Woof woof!

[Linux and the X]

Both challenge the idea that people born with a penis exclusively have sex with people born with a vagina.

Ok.
Now, is that a particularly important thing to be fighting for?

Um, yes.

The problem isn't discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered individuals, it's with sexual prudism and the notion that somebody has the right to tell others what to do with their sex life if all involved are consenting.

Come back to me when furries and BDSM people are regularly beaten or killed, half can't even get a job offer and more, though they can get a job, are still discriminated against, laws are specifically written against them, and, oh, right, it's a core part of one's identity instead of a fun activity. While prudism is a problem, it's not the same problem.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ok.
Now, is that a particularly important thing to be fighting for?

Um, yes.

The problem isn't discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered individuals, it's with sexual prudism and the notion that somebody has the right to tell others what to do with their sex life if all involved are consenting.

Come back to me when furries and BDSM people are regularly beaten or killed, half can't even get a job offer and more, though they can get a job, are still discriminated against, laws are specifically written against them, and, oh, right, it's a core part of one's identity instead of a fun activity. While prudism is a problem, it's not the same problem.

See, thats the problem. Right there.
You seem to think being LGBT is somehow special. It isn't.

There is nothing morally or ethically different between two women fucking, and a man and a woman fucking, or two men fucking, or two people fucking in fursuits.

You seem to think that because the two women fucking decide to make the fact that they fuck women a major part of their identity that they deserve special protection, when that simply cannot be justified.

"Because we make a HUGE fucking deal about this, we get to act as though our particular sexual desires are more special than yours mr furry."

And yes, that is partly because OTHERS decided to make a huge fucking deal about it too when discriminating, but it's still completely insane.

There is no difference between gay and furry in terms of category. Both are types of sexual desires.
Sexual identity is a word for taking ones sexual desires and making a huge deal about it.


"I like sex type X."
"I like sex type Y."
"Type X is an identity. Yours is just a fetish."
"Whats the difference?"
"I consider my type of sex to be a part of who I am."
"How does that work?"
"Uhhhhhhhh, well I think of myself as someone who likes sex type X."
"Oh...Then how isn't mine an identity? I think of myself as someone who likes sex type Y."
^
I seriously need an explanation for this.

[Olthar]

I said it was a troll argument because it literally is a troll argument. I've seen it used in transgender debates that transgenderism makes as much sense as believing you're a different species.

As far as this "fursona," thing, it's just that: a furry persona. Having a persona is like acting. You're taking up the mantle of a different person playing a different role. It's not an intrinsic, permanent identity. I don't pretend I'm a woman because it gets me off. I am a woman.

Some of them claim it. I'm not going to doubt them. It's fairly barmy, but then I think most sexualities and identities are fairly barmy.
When someone says they are straight, I simply don't understand how they couldn't like both, etc.

Then show me some psychological evidence that they are actually animals born in human bodies instead of just crazy. See, transgenderism is a real thing because we have scientifically determined that it is, not because we've accepted a handful of anecdotal statements. Furries are free to do whatever they want and shouldn't be oppressed because of it, but it's still just a fetish, not a personal identity.

[Ostroeuropa]

Some of them claim it. I'm not going to doubt them. It's fairly barmy, but then I think most sexualities and identities are fairly barmy.
When someone says they are straight, I simply don't understand how they couldn't like both, etc.

Then show me some psychological evidence that they are actually animals born in human bodies instead of just crazy. See, transgenderism is a real thing because we have scientifically determined that it is, not because we've accepted a handful of anecdotal statements. Furries are free to do whatever they want and shouldn't be oppressed because of it, but it's still just a fetish, not a personal identity.

I'd like you to explain how personal identity works when i've just elaborated up there that I can't possibly see how it can, and still exclude people like furries.

[Kaizakhstan]

So there is no category then.
I'd also argue that furry can be a sexual identity.
You've proven my point by throwing Transgender into a seperate category from Gay and Bisexual.
I do not see any category that unites these things, but that doesn't also include other sexual "deviants." I note you've previously said you don't disagree with me though, so i'll wait for someone elses answer.

There's an exclusionary category of "things that aren't fetishes."

And saying that furries are a personal identity on the level of transgenderism is offensive to transgenders unless you're going to agree with the troll argument that it's possible to identify as a different species.

Ever heard of otherkin?

[Olthar]

Then show me some psychological evidence that they are actually animals born in human bodies instead of just crazy. See, transgenderism is a real thing because we have scientifically determined that it is, not because we've accepted a handful of anecdotal statements. Furries are free to do whatever they want and shouldn't be oppressed because of it, but it's still just a fetish, not a personal identity.

I'd like you to explain how personal identity works when i've just elaborated up there that I can't possibly see how it can, and still exclude people like furries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgende ... nd_science

I'm sure you can find more sources on your own about the science behind it.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd like you to explain how personal identity works when i've just elaborated up there that I can't possibly see how it can, and still exclude people like furries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgende ... nd_science

I'm sure you can find more sources on your own about the science behind it.

I'm talking more about sexuality than transgendered individuals. (I realized a few seconds ago you may have thought I was talking about Transgendered people and not Sexualities.) I am sold on the idea that they genuinely identify as the opposite gender.
I don't see how someone can say that homosexual is a sexual identity, but furry is not.
What about homosexuality makes it an identity that furry lacks.

[Esternial]

Um, yes.


Come back to me when furries and BDSM people are regularly beaten or killed, half can't even get a job offer and more, though they can get a job, are still discriminated against, laws are specifically written against them, and, oh, right, it's a core part of one's identity instead of a fun activity. While prudism is a problem, it's not the same problem.

See, thats the problem. Right there.
You seem to think being LGBT is somehow special. It isn't.

There is nothing morally or ethically different between two women fucking, and a man and a woman fucking, or two men fucking, or two people fucking in fursuits.

You seem to think that because the two women fucking decide to make the fact that they fuck women a major part of their identity that they deserve special protection, when that simply cannot be justified.

"Because we make a HUGE fucking deal about this, we get to act as though our particular sexual desires are more special than yours mr furry."

And yes, that is partly because OTHERS decided to make a huge fucking deal about it too when discriminating, but it's still completely insane.

There is no difference between gay and furry in terms of category. Both are types of sexual desires.
Sexual identity is a word for taking ones sexual desires and making a huge deal about it.


"I like sex type X."
"I like sex type Y."
"Type X is an identity. Yours is just a fetish."
"Whats the difference?"
"I consider my type of sex to be a part of who I am."
"How does that work?"
"Uhhhhhhhh, well I think of myself as someone who likes sex type X."
"Oh...Then how isn't mine an identity? I think of myself as someone who likes sex type Y."
^
I seriously need an explanation for this.

Well here's your problem:

"I look like a man, feel like a woman and enjoy sex with women."
"I look like a man, feel like a wolf and enjoy sex with women who also feel like a wolf."
"So...you're a male wolf?"
"Yes."
"Would you fuck a female wolf?"
"Hell no! I don't condone bestiality"
"So only a wolf in a female human body, wearing a furry suit?"
"YES. How is that so hard to understand?"

If you identify as an animal, it would be logical to assume you have a sexual attraction to (primarily) your own species. Most furries do not, since otherwise it would be classified as bestiality. Furry involves the use for garments and roleplay to spice up what (between a male and female furry for this example) would amount to regular heterosexual intercourse with some more howling than one would usually expect.

The ARE not a wolf, because that would imply that they exhibit the same behavioural patterns as one. For this reason a furry can impossibly be compared to transgendered.

You can be a woman in a man's body, because in both cases you are mentality a human being. If this were the same for furries, furries wouldn't exhibit the behavioural patterns of a human being. It's impossible to BE a wolf. You can act as one and believe you're one, but not BE one.

[Ostroeuropa]

See, thats the problem. Right there.
You seem to think being LGBT is somehow special. It isn't.

There is nothing morally or ethically different between two women fucking, and a man and a woman fucking, or two men fucking, or two people fucking in fursuits.

You seem to think that because the two women fucking decide to make the fact that they fuck women a major part of their identity that they deserve special protection, when that simply cannot be justified.

"Because we make a HUGE fucking deal about this, we get to act as though our particular sexual desires are more special than yours mr furry."

And yes, that is partly because OTHERS decided to make a huge fucking deal about it too when discriminating, but it's still completely insane.

There is no difference between gay and furry in terms of category. Both are types of sexual desires.
Sexual identity is a word for taking ones sexual desires and making a huge deal about it.


"I like sex type X."
"I like sex type Y."
"Type X is an identity. Yours is just a fetish."
"Whats the difference?"
"I consider my type of sex to be a part of who I am."
"How does that work?"
"Uhhhhhhhh, well I think of myself as someone who likes sex type X."
"Oh...Then how isn't mine an identity? I think of myself as someone who likes sex type Y."
^
I seriously need an explanation for this.

Well here's your problem:

"I look like a man, feel like a woman and enjoy sex with women."
"I look like a man, feel like a wolf and enjoy sex with women who also feel like a wolf."
"So...you're a male wolf?"
"Yes."
"Would you fuck a female wolf?"
"Hell no! I don't condone bestiality"
"So only a wolf in a female human body, wearing a furry suit?"
"YES. How is that so hard to understand?"

If you identify as an animal, it would be logical to assume you have a sexual attraction to (primarily) your own species. Most furries do not, since otherwise it would be classified as bestiality. Furry involves the use for garments and roleplay to spice up what (between a male and female furry for this example) would amount to regular heterosexual intercourse with some more howling than one would usually expect.

The ARE not a wolf, because that would imply that they exhibit the same behavioural patterns as one. For this reason a furry can impossibly be compared to transgendered.

You can be a woman in a man's body, because in both cases you are mentality a human being. If this were the same for furries, furries wouldn't exhibit the behavioural patterns of a human being. It's impossible to BE a wolf. You can act as one and believe you're one, but not BE one.

I've conceded that furry cannot be rightfully compared with transgendered individuals, because it is not a gender identity.
it can fairly be compared with Lesbians, gays and bisexuals, since it (or rather the subsection we are addressing) is characterized as engaging in a particular type of sex. Same as BDSM.
It is a sexuality.
Furries enagage in a particular type of sex, have desires for that sex, and identify as people who like that kind of sex.
Homosexuals engage in a particular type of sex, have desires for that sex, and identify as people who like that kind of sex.
BDSM enthusiasts enagge in a particular type of sex, have desires for that sex, and identify as people who like that kind of sex.
Etc.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is anything that can justify LGB being "sexuality" while relegating other types of sexual activity to "fetish." because to me it just looks like special pleading.

[Rocopurr]

It's likely some people would believe they are a wolf.

But so far I haven't met a literate wolf, so they're probably not on the internet.

Woof woof!

You're a puppy, not a wolf.

[Kaizakhstan]

You can act as one and believe you're one, but not BE one.

You accidentally summed up transsexuality.

[Esternial]

Well here's your problem:

"I look like a man, feel like a woman and enjoy sex with women."
"I look like a man, feel like a wolf and enjoy sex with women who also feel like a wolf."
"So...you're a male wolf?"
"Yes."
"Would you fuck a female wolf?"
"Hell no! I don't condone bestiality"
"So only a wolf in a female human body, wearing a furry suit?"
"YES. How is that so hard to understand?"

If you identify as an animal, it would be logical to assume you have a sexual attraction to (primarily) your own species. Most furries do not, since otherwise it would be classified as bestiality. Furry involves the use for garments and roleplay to spice up what (between a male and female furry for this example) would amount to regular heterosexual intercourse with some more howling than one would usually expect.

The ARE not a wolf, because that would imply that they exhibit the same behavioural patterns as one. For this reason a furry can impossibly be compared to transgendered.

You can be a woman in a man's body, because in both cases you are mentality a human being. If this were the same for furries, furries wouldn't exhibit the behavioural patterns of a human being. It's impossible to BE a wolf. You can act as one and believe you're one, but not BE one.

I've conceded that furry cannot be rightfully compared with transgendered individuals, because it is not a gender identity.
it can fairly be compared with Lesbians, gays and bisexuals, since it (or rather the subsection we are addressing) is characterized as engaging in a particular type of sex.

It cannot.

Because one can be furry AND a homosexual/bisexual, which means both belong to different categories.

The only doubt there could be was whether or not furries belonged with transgendered, which you've admitted can't be compared.

And as I mentioned earlier, it revolves more around acting and make-believe, which puts it in the same category as BDSM.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've conceded that furry cannot be rightfully compared with transgendered individuals, because it is not a gender identity.
it can fairly be compared with Lesbians, gays and bisexuals, since it (or rather the subsection we are addressing) is characterized as engaging in a particular type of sex.

It cannot.

Because one can be furry AND a homosexual/bisexual, which means both belong to different categories.

The only doubt there could be was whether or not furries belonged with transgendered, which you've admitted can't be compared.

And as I mentioned earlier, it revolves more around acting and make-believe, which puts it in the same umbrella category as BDSM.

Then i'd make the equal argument that homosexuality cannot be a sexuality, because one can engage in homosexual activities as well as heterosexual ones.
Functionally thats the same objection. (Bisexuality would therefore be someone who has two fetishes.)

[Kvatchdom]

It cannot.

Because one can be furry AND a homosexual/bisexual, which means both belong to different categories.

The only doubt there could be was whether or not furries belonged with transgendered, which you've admitted can't be compared.

And as I mentioned earlier, it revolves more around acting and make-believe, which puts it in the same umbrella category as BDSM.

Then i'd make the equal argument that homosexuality cannot be a sexuality, because one can engage in homosexual activities as well as heterosexual ones.
Functionally thats the same objection.

Homosexual activity=/=Being homosexual.

[The Balkin States]

You accidentally summed up transsexuality.

One of my closest friends is mtf. She acts like a woman. She believes she is a woman. Mentally she is a woman.

Thus, no one summed up transsexuality.

[Olthar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgende ... nd_science

I'm sure you can find more sources on your own about the science behind it.

I'm talking more about sexuality than transgendered individuals. (I realized a few seconds ago you may have thought I was talking about Transgendered people and not Sexualities.) I am sold on the idea that they genuinely identify as the opposite gender.
I don't see how someone can say that homosexual is a sexual identity, but furry is not.
What about homosexuality makes it an identity that furry lacks.

I don't care because that's not what I'm arguing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then i'd make the equal argument that homosexuality cannot be a sexuality, because one can engage in homosexual activities as well as heterosexual ones.
Functionally thats the same objection.

Homosexual activity=/=Being homosexual.

Well your point was that someone can be a homosexual and a furry, so furry cannot possibly be a sexuality.
My point is that someone can be homosexual and heterosexual (Bisexual.), so homosexuality cannot possibly be a sexuality.

If we assume someone somewhere is a furry and only enjoys furry sex, then this comparrison completely stands up.
Homosexuals sometimes do have sex with people of the opposite gender, just as heterosexuals may have sex with the opposite. Whats important, apparently, is that they identify as enjoying a particular type of sex.

[Esternial]

It cannot.

Because one can be furry AND a homosexual/bisexual, which means both belong to different categories.

The only doubt there could be was whether or not furries belonged with transgendered, which you've admitted can't be compared.

And as I mentioned earlier, it revolves more around acting and make-believe, which puts it in the same umbrella category as BDSM.

Then i'd make the equal argument that homosexuality cannot be a sexuality, because one can engage in homosexual activities as well as heterosexual ones.
Functionally thats the same objection.

Nope, because that would make you bisexual.

The love for furries is on a different level compared to homosexuality and heterosexuality. These categories influence eachother directly. Being heterosexual and homosexual means you're bisexual. You can be a bisexual furry as well.

Furry can be considered more of an "add-on" rather than actually within the category. It can be removed or added to ANY combination of sexuality.

[Kvatchdom]

Homosexual activity=/=Being homosexual.

Well your point was that someone can be a homosexual and a furry, so furry cannot possibly be a sexuality.
My point is that someone can be homosexual and heterosexual (Bisexual.), so homosexuality cannot possibly be a sexuality.

If we assume someone somewhere is a furry and only enjoys furry sex, then this comparrison completely stands up.
Homosexuals sometimes do have sex with people of the opposite gender, just as heterosexuals may have sex with the opposite. Whats important, apparently, is that they identify as enjoying a particular type of sex.

Wat.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then i'd make the equal argument that homosexuality cannot be a sexuality, because one can engage in homosexual activities as well as heterosexual ones.
Functionally thats the same objection.

Nope, because that would make you bisexual.

The love for furries is on a different level compared to homosexuality and heterosexuality. These categories influence eachother directly. Being heterosexual and homosexual means you're bisexual. You can be a bisexual furry as well.

Furry can be considered more of an "add-on" rather than actually within the category. It can be removed or added to ANY combination of sexuality.

The same is true of homosexuality if you view it as it should be viewed, namely "enjoying sex with the same gender"
That particular "Fetish" can be added to any other combination.
My entire contention is that it's special pleading to argue that homosexuality is anything more than "Enjoying sex with the same gender."
(I'd like to explicitly note that I consider sexuality and romanticism to be seperate.)

[Phocidaea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgende ... nd_science

I'm sure you can find more sources on your own about the science behind it.

I'm talking more about sexuality than transgendered individuals. (I realized a few seconds ago you may have thought I was talking about Transgendered people and not Sexualities.) I am sold on the idea that they genuinely identify as the opposite gender.
I don't see how someone can say that homosexual is a sexual identity, but furry is not.
What about homosexuality makes it an identity that furry lacks.

1. I think pretty much 90% of us here agree that homosexuality is at least partly inborn. I have yet to hear anyone here seriously claim furriness is.
2. Homosexuality is inherently sexual (as opposed to, say "homoromantic"), while being a furry is not - unless you're hunting stereotypes here.
3. As much as I hate to invoke fallacies, you're definitely fighting an uphill battle in terms of relative population statistics...