Your gender identity and sexual orientation?

[Condunum]

Because we have a grasp on the concept known as liberty.

Liberty can go too far just to appease some people.

That's why we can't just kill anyone we want. You have to prove when liberty has gone too far, and you cannot do that with GRS without resorting to some stupid fallacy.

So basically you hate freedom.

[Ifreann]

They're also divided by genetics. You're arguing you can change biological facts whenever you feel like it.

One of the first things transgender people have to accept is that their sex is not what they want it to be and that they cannot change that yet. However, we live in the information age, an age where life-altering medical procedures are enhancing our lives every day. "You cannot change biological fact (yet)" is not a valid argument.

No, it's natural genetics. You're either male of female, I don't care what some medical 'scientists' are trying to create, it just isn't natural to think you're supposed to be the opposite sex.

It's entirely natural, and it happens. The simplest and least damaging way to fix it is gender reassignment, which is the closes we can get to a full biological chromosome swap. Yet again, this is a reality transgender people are entirely aware of.

I wonder, idly, if many trans people would actually be that pushed about changing their chromosomes, assuming they were otherwise happy with the degree to which they had transitioned.

[Fjormark]

Fjormark...

Gender and sex are two totally different things.

Stop ignoring that.

Sex is what you are classified as biologically.

Gender is what you identify as.

Kthx.

Oh, did you also know that there are rare cases where people are born with a chromosome composure other than the standard XX/XY?

https://warosu.org/data/ck/img/0055/01/1402327855212.png

[Immoren]

Because we have a grasp on the concept known as liberty.

Liberty can go too far just to appease some people.

You make it sound that they want Moon from the top of the spruce and Big Dipper from its branches.

[Fjormark]

Liberty can go too far just to appease some people.

That's why we can't just kill anyone we want. You have to prove when liberty has gone too far, and you cannot do that with GRS without resorting to some stupid fallacy.

No, that's not the reason we can't kill anyone we want, how the hell did you get to that conclusion? Liberty goes too far when we create social constructs for the mentally ill to feel normal and call it 'freedom of choice to be whatever you special snowflakes want to be'.

So basically you hate freedom.

>IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU HATE FREEDOMS!!
I'm done here, feel free to insert smug comments about how much of a normative over-privileged cis-scum bigot I am in a circlejerk after I'm gone, though.
Stay classy, NSG.

[Condunum]

That's why we can't just kill anyone we want. You have to prove when liberty has gone too far, and you cannot do that with GRS without resorting to some stupid fallacy.

No, that's not the reason we can't kill anyone we want, how the hell did you get to that conclusion? Liberty goes too far when we create social constructs for the mentally ill to feel normal and call it 'freedom of choice to be whatever you special snowflakes want to be'.

So basically you hate freedom.

>IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU HATE FREEDOMS!!
I'm done here, feel free to insert smug comments about how much of a normative over-privileged cis-scum bigot I am in a circlejerk after I'm gone, though.
Stay classy, NSG.

Buhbye now, try not to let reality clog up your mind

[Ifreann]

That's why we can't just kill anyone we want. You have to prove when liberty has gone too far, and you cannot do that with GRS without resorting to some stupid fallacy.

No, that's not the reason we can't kill anyone we want, how the hell did you get to that conclusion? Liberty goes too far when we create social constructs for the mentally ill to feel normal and call it 'freedom of choice to be whatever you special snowflakes want to be'.

So basically you hate freedom.

>IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU HATE FREEDOMS!!
I'm done here, feel free to insert smug comments about how much of a normative over-privileged cis-scum bigot I am in a circlejerk after I'm gone, though.
Stay classy, NSG.

You are literally saying that people have too much freedom and then when someone says that you hate freedom, you throw your toys out of the pram. I don't get it. At all.

[Condunum]

No, that's not the reason we can't kill anyone we want, how the hell did you get to that conclusion? Liberty goes too far when we create social constructs for the mentally ill to feel normal and call it 'freedom of choice to be whatever you special snowflakes want to be'.

>IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU HATE FREEDOMS!!
I'm done here, feel free to insert smug comments about how much of a normative over-privileged cis-scum bigot I am in a circlejerk after I'm gone, though.
Stay classy, NSG.

You are literally saying that people have too much freedom and then when someone says that you hate freedom, you throw your toys out of the pram. I don't get it. At all.

You are free to live exactly as I do and fuck all your unique choices that make you a different person.

[Fjormark]

Buhbye now, try not to let reality clog up your mind

Poor guy, I almost feel sorry for you.

You are literally saying that people have too much freedom and then when someone says that you hate freedom, you throw your toys out of the pram. I don't get it. At all.

Because thinking people have too much freedom is the same as hating it. If you don't get it, that's your problem.

[Ifreann]

You are literally saying that people have too much freedom and then when someone says that you hate freedom, you throw your toys out of the pram. I don't get it. At all.

You are free to live exactly as I do and fuck all your unique choices that make you a different person.

Eh, I could do worse than live like you. I hear you have worshippers.

[Farnhamia]

That's why we can't just kill anyone we want. You have to prove when liberty has gone too far, and you cannot do that with GRS without resorting to some stupid fallacy.

No, that's not the reason we can't kill anyone we want, how the hell did you get to that conclusion? Liberty goes too far when we create social constructs for the mentally ill to feel normal and call it 'freedom of choice to be whatever you special snowflakes want to be'.

So basically you hate freedom.

>IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU HATE FREEDOMS!!
I'm done here, feel free to insert smug comments about how much of a normative over-privileged cis-scum bigot I am in a circlejerk after I'm gone, though.
Stay classy, NSG.

*** 1 day ban for trolling after being warned not 15 minutes ago for flaming. *** Calling trans people mentally ill, that is.

[Ifreann]

Buhbye now, try not to let reality clog up your mind

Poor guy, I almost feel sorry for you.

You are literally saying that people have too much freedom and then when someone says that you hate freedom, you throw your toys out of the pram. I don't get it. At all.

Because thinking people have too much freedom is the same as hating it. If you don't get it, that's your problem.

It's a reasonable response, and if it's not true then feel free to explain your position. Or don't, whatever. Your prerogative.

ETA: Well, not any more it isn't.

[Condunum]

You are free to live exactly as I do and fuck all your unique choices that make you a different person.

Eh, I could do worse than live like you. I hear you have worshippers.

Oh yeah, those guys. It's a nice life, being a god.

[Rexero]

That's where you're wrong, why should we give them their freedom to be whatever they want to be whenever they feel like it and call it 'gender' just because they don't feel like it's normal to be whatever sex you're born with?

Sentient beings have a self. Self-having beings own themselves. Self-ownership includes ownership of one's mind and body.

Therefore, as other beings act as owners of themselves, we recognise and unreservedly permit their capability 'to be whatever they want they be whenever they feel like it'.

But that makes no sense, how could you possibly want to be a female if you're born male?

It is a logically conceivable idea. Nevertheless, I believe most transgender people do not choose the feelings that prompt their identity.

They're insane.

I don't appreciate being dismissed as 'insane' because of my self-concept when I display no clinical symptoms of psychosis. Your dismissal of ideas alternative to your own is ignorant.

There we have it, my conclusion is that there's no such thing as gender; it's just a social construct which seemed to pick up a few decades ago for the deluded liberal masses. Just stick with sex and stop being mentally ill or incapable of comprehending what you are.

It's an irrational process in the sense that it's emotional, independent of strictly rational and logical thought and prompted by an involuntary introspective and/or extrospective experience. It is not irrational in the sense of it is 'stupid'.

You contradict yourself in dismissing the existence of gender and then describing it as a 'social construct'. Also, all ideas are socially constructed because of their development through language. Therefore, dismissing a socially constructed idea as non-existent is impossible without irrationally dismissing the existence of ideas.

[Sun Wukong]

You can't change biological facts because your brain thinks so, you're either naturally male or female and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sure you can. It's a biological fact that males have foreskin. Lots of people's brains (well... okay, their parent's brains) changed that one. Tattoos, piercings, tanning, hair dye, people do all sorts of things to bring their external appearance in line with their brain's self-image. And, justified or no, we let them.

And that's the way it should be. People don't have brains, they are their brains. You can loose an arm, and still be yourself; playing around with the brain is different. If there's a brain-body discrepancy, it makes sense to side with the brain.

[Grenartia]

Lol, nope.
Male
Female
Fa'afafine
Hijra
Xanith

Sure looks like more than two on that (incomplete) list to me.

....Neutral/Neutrois
Genderless
Bigender
Androgyne
Genderfluid
Agender
Two Spirit
Pangender
Trigender
....

To be fair, many of those are probably simply different labels for the same few things.

I come prepared with my sources.

Biased source-- unacceptable.

Would you accept the APA? If so, I'll definitely link it, but if not, I'm not going to bother.

Explain Alexander the Great, the greatest bisexual who ever lived?

Explain the "Two-Spirit" of native American tribes?

No. I'm done being part of this unnecessary thread jack you all started.

Not a threadjack, because its related to the topic. Also, you were the one who started it in the first place. That's a demonstrable fact.

While I agree that there is a full spectrum of genders and sexual orientation, I do have to wonder why we need so many words. They're like colors. It's more accurate to call a color that is 89% red, 14.9% green and 21.2% blue "Alizarin crimson" (or better yet, #e32636), but I wonder what's wrong with just calling it "red."

Because some people are more familiar with certain labels than others.

For instance, in New Orleans, they have a sandwich called a Po Boy. In New York, however, they call it a sub.

that edge GOD DAMN

Edginess doesn't prove someone wrong. Tell me that Israel wasn't fucked up. The entire world was pretty socially liberal (barring China) until their imaginary friend got pissy and decided non-hetero non-cisgender people were ebul debuls.

I'd say it was more like the Israelites themselves fucked shit up, and Jehovah knew He/She/They wouldn't really be able to convince them otherwise.

1. Not necessarily. If there is a biological basis for gender, then its most likely something to do with the structure of the brain. From what I've read, in the womb, a fetus experiences several hormone "baths". The most important one to this conversation being the second one, which doesn't seem to be influenced by the sex of the fetus, but rather, various environmental conditions outside the control of either the fetus or the person with the womb.

1A. Trans people in the US make up about 700'000 people, with a portion of that being people who do not suffer from gender dysphoria or some of the other factors that mentally transgendered people have. 1B. Basically what I'm saying with the last bit is that not all trans people were born trans, 1C. and furthermore not all of them even decided upon changing their gender because of feeling that they were "another gender". That isn't to say no trans people feel they are another gender, or that gender dysphoria doesn't exist, don't misunderstand me. The point I'm making is that there are trans people who change because they genuinely do feel they are another gender, and 1D. trans people who change for much different reasons (1E. one fellow I know who became a woman very likely did so due to issues surrounding child abuse. He said he had felt like a woman his whole life, 1F. but let's just say there is a very compelling case to say that that isn't true). 1G. The point I'm trying to make here is transgenderism is extremely rare compared to many things you could try and compare. 1H. From what I can gather from that and from what I have heard are some causes for transgenderism, I feel compelled to believe that transgenderism isn't just some run of the mill "some people are born like that" occurrence, but that it is the result of an abnormality, perhaps a chemical imbalance or something. I am NOT trying to demean or abuse trans persons, but I simply cannot believe that being trans is something that is a biologically normal occurrence. Again, I am not trying to demean anyone and I mean no offense in any way by this, I simply feel like this is more of a disorder of some kind than just "the natural way of things", and 1I. it seems that some people are trying to almost justify transgenderism (I don't know why as it seems totally unnecessary) by designing a sort of pseudo-science around it that may be tenuous at best.

2. You say "being sexual" like that's happened often enough for it to actually be a valid concern. Unless you're also referring to kissing and the like (a lot of people do mean kissing and holding hands and the like, when they say "don't be in my face about it"). At which point, I have to wonder if you hold the same standards for heterosexual couples.

2A. This is what I'm referring too. http://the-travel-guru.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1098160_10151556821202078_1944655525_n.jpg I would just like to say, as a self-defense warning, there is "nudity" in this picture (fake, but still might be offense to some of you), so I just wanted to warn people on this. This is one of the first things googling "gay pride parade" in google images came up with. Now, there are parades that go more like this http://runameliarun.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/dsc06855.jpg or this http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/sandbox/news/140714/gay-pride/ian-mckellen-600x450.jpg which I can totally respect. To me, it's a lot like this one black rights parade I think I saw in the news a few months ago, can't find it unfortunately as I'm not sure what it was called or what to google, but for me it's important that people celebrate the rights they have achieved. That said, I do think there is an appropriate way of doing it, and an inappropriate way of doing it. As for kissing and holding hands, that depends. Is the couple grinding up against each other like they're trying to make a baby, or are the just kissing and holding hands? 2B. Kissing and holding hands can't really be seen as offensive, but that's more romantic than sexual. But, that's my perception, maybe people have other perceptions, but I don't know if I'd particularly see those perceptions as reasonable ones.

3. You kind of are, by saying we need some sort of "T" marker on our identification.

3A. So adding an "M" or an "F" to identification is now us "kind of being Nazis"? Because that's "kind of" what you seem to be implying. 3B. India just allowed people to choose a "third gender", which I assume means that they may be addressed as "T" in the gender section. 3C. People there also seemed thrilled, so I'm a little unsure how something they asked for makes them (by extension of me asking for it) like "Nazis". 3D. Unless you're going to come up with some more credible reasoning behind that, I would avoid reductio ad Hitlerum. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-27031180 Of course, India itself isn't exactly the prime example when speaking of human rights as they also banned homosexual sex recently (which is ironic given that it goes against their legalization of it years before). 3E. I don't know if Trans people will also be allowed to consider themselves either male or female, but the mere fact that they can have a third gender option used to address them is indicative that using "T" or something like that on identification is a method of addressing them 3F. that may be mutually acceptable while also addressing the fact that some people consider themselves genderless.

4. Considering how rampant transphobia is even in the first world, yeah, it kind of is too much to ask. It kind of says a lot about how the rest of society, at large, views and treats trans people when our only real holiday is one to remember those of us who've been murdered for being trans, or were driven to suicide by transphobia. And I'm pretty damn sure that despite that classic Canadian politeness, the Great White North isn't immune to transphobia.

No place is immune to transophobia, but likewise no place is immune to racism. 4A. Should black people tint their skin white to avoid the KKK murdering them or driving them to suicide? Should homosexuals stop looking for other men online to love them because Russian Neo-Nazis might trap them and beat them horribly? 4B. And the thing with trans people is not all of them are looking for the full physical change either, 4C. so what happens when a guy they're with undoes someone's dress before getting into bed with them, only to discover their sexual organs happen to be outside their body? 4D. There is a myriad of problems affecting the world, even the "Great White North", and forgive me for being somewhat blunt, but here is a news flash; there always will be. 4E. The solution isn't to hide who or what people may be, the solution is to attack the problem head on and deal with it. Plus, because I know everyone reading this is thinking "typical white, heterosexual male mentality", no, this concern of being in a relationship with trans people isn't just something we white straight males fear, but women as well, and homosexuals, and bisexuals. 4F. The point here is that some people are just not sexually attracted to trans people, and they shouldn't have to be put into a situation like that, especially when you consider that there are other people out there who are actually attracted to trans people that they could pursue relationships with. Anyways, back to the original point you were making, 4G. there will always be forms of hate, the best solution for this is to try and deal with the situation instead of trying to hide away the group that is being abused. It might also be worth noting that though there is still transophobia (as well as homophobia, racism, etc.), it has become less prominent as time has gone on. Racist groups have lost their influence, religious groups are becoming more tolerant, and young people are starting to become more accepting of abused groups. Then again, maybe this is because "The Great White North" got off lucky and doesn't suffer as much from "Sensationalistus Mediacus" that America has become so in love with.

5. Then why not just issue one passport without an infamous "T" marker on it? Saves all involved time, money, hassles, and confusion.

5A. Or maybe trans people could just not visit Russia? Saves all the potential life threatening danger they might be put into. 5B. I mean, if you're going to go to West Africa with the Ebola outbreak going on, you kind of have to expect that catching it is a potential danger that exists, 5C. likewise if you're going to a nation that you know has issues with violence against trans people, you'll have to know that being attacked in that nation is a potential danger that exists as well. 5D. I don't want trans people to be put in danger, but 5E. I think there should be some kind of paper trail to allow legal authorities to recognize that a person is indeed trans, and 5F. also I think it's important so that people who do not have attraction to trans people don't have to be put into a relationship with a trans person unknowingly. 5G. And of course, lest we forget, what about people who don't view themselves as male or female? 5H. The only option then is to take gender off of passports and such, which then may remove one more layer to border security. I don't think trans people would abuse this to commit crimes, rather I think criminals may abuse this to commit crimes. Maybe I'm assuming too much with that, but so far nobody has spoken of it in a hot or cold way, except trans people. Of course, even if we did remove gender from passports and such at all, countries that are transophobic may just not except people from countries with passports like that, so one way or another someone is going to end up getting the metaphorical short end of the stick. You want to know my solution? 5I. Add the T to passports and ID for anyone who is trans and start fighting transophobia on the intellectual front, the spiritual front, and the physical front (ie. punishing hate crimes). These things need to be done ANYWAYS, so frankly I'm not even sure if bringing up violence changes the facts of the issue anyways.

6. Why? And if it really is necessary, then why not just make some sort of sealed record (like a plain manilla folder with a letter stapled to it saying "X person underwent legal transition, effective as of Y date, verified by Z medical and bureaucratic professionals") accessible only upon some sort of court order or something, indicating changes to the documentation, without actually indicating changes to said documentation on said documentation?

6. Well, that too may be a potential option, and I'm not against that either. So long as some sort of evidence exists that can be accessed for the purposes of legal and marital verification. I don't like the idea of imposing on people's privacy in that degree, but I view the situation of someone hiding their gender change from a partner (at least a marital one) as grounds for a misconducted marriage, something like a case of mistake identity I suppose.

7. And I'm saying its almost never a "potential case".

7. And I'm to take you as the ultimate authority on this matter? And regardless, I don't think you understand how easy it is for this to become a common case, even if it hasn't happened once yet. The fact is that this is frankly a rather easy thing to occur, not something remotely out of the realm of the possible, meaning it either HAS happened or WILL happen, as (depending on laws) nothing exists to prevent this from happening.

8. What's being forced? If you want to have romantic/sexual relations with a woman, and you get involved with a transwoman, you STILL have only had romantic/sexual relations with a woman, regardless of which sex chromosomes she happened to have been born with.

I'm sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. 8A. What gives your perception of what makes someone a female more legitimacy than anyone else's, please do tell. Me and millions of men and women, straight, gay, bisexual, and possibly even a few transgendered, are not attracted to trans people for the sole purpose that, regardless of how you or anyone else feels, 8B. they were born as another gender and we are not attracted to them for that. So no, from my perspective if this was the case I would not have had a relationship with a woman, and 8C. since all you have to counter me with is your own opinion, I'd really appreciate if you'd stop acting like you have some moral and/or intellectual high ground. You don't.

She should have every right to refuse to reveal that information, because the "right" of her partner(s) to know whether or not they kissed/had sex with somebody who possesses the same sex chromosomes DOES NOT supercede her right to privacy and safety. When faced with an either/or choice between one person's safety and another's comfort, any and every reasonable person would and should choose safety.

If he or she (8D. please don't act as if this is only a "straight white male" issue) decides to refuse to reveal this information, then that's fine, 8E. but the other partner most definitely doesn't have any kind of obligation to continue a relationship with that person either. 8F. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, if a situation like this puts a trans person in danger, what possible force on this Earth could have possessed them to put themselves into that position? 8G. There are options available to find potential partners who might be attracted to them, believe me, I could name you some easy finds, and the chances of them putting themselves in danger are probably the same as anyone getting into trouble through these methods. 8H. For the record, I am talking about the internet, in case you didn't know.

9. You obviously haven't seen the statistics, then.

9. No, and so far no one seems to have provided any either. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably mirror abuse towards homosexuals though.

10. None of them are equivalent to being transgender, either.

10A. And your point is? 10B. What, does being transgendered suddenly make them more important than other races or homosexuals? 10C. Might I also add, you are right, they aren't equivalent to these other groups as there are millions more homosexuals and millions more more in ethnic minorities. 10D. I'm not trying to minimize the suffering of trans people, but do not try and act like they have the monopoly on it.

11. On a personal level, anybody who gets offended that I'm trans, and says that I'm not the gender I am. As for the larger picture, you are, by advocating for policies that would require trans people to out themselves, even in situations that they might be at risk of life and limb for doing so.

11A. Please, explain to me who I'm advocating they "out" themselves to? 11B. You're crafting a strawman here based on the assumption that I think there gender should be public knowledge. 11C. No, I am not advocating that. 11D. They only people who should have access to this knowledge are legal and medical professionals and potential spouses. 11E. If this somehow puts them in danger, then there is a problem with the nation they are in, in which case I'm in favor of massive political and social changes in said country.

12. I never recalled saying that they shouldn't be able to. I'm all for being able to divorce anybody for any reason. But based on your other statements, you're either asking for status quo (which I consider highly unlikely, because why would anybody be asking for something that they already have?), or are asking for some legal basis to ensure that trans people out themselves.

12A. Strawman. No, I'm saying that there should be a way of legal and medical professionals having ease of access to that information, provided it is relevant to doing their jobs of course. 12B. Furthermore, potential spouses should be able to have access to documentation that can confirm their potential spouses gender, so long as the spouse being inquired about actually consents to this. If they don't consent, then the other party can go through with marriage or cancel it. I do not think trans people should out themselves and I in fact think that should this information ever be revealed to legal or medical professionals, or to a potential spouse or actual spouse, that it should stay there and go no further, as it is personal information and no one else obviously needs to know it. Should anyone reveal this personal information it should be grounds for a lawsuit, as is typical if professionals reveal certain points of personal information about people.

13. That's pretty much literally status quo.

13A. Easy statement to make when you take it out of the context of how I said it. So, allow me to make this clear to you; I'm not asking for trans people to reveal any information about them to anyone other than legal and medical professionals. As for marriage partners, a partner should be allowed to ask and there should be some method of verify whether the other person is trans or not, so long as the partner actually consents to releasing this information. So, before you try to build up another 13B. strawman, please take the time to read what I say and not read into it what you want me to have said.

14. Except, those ways are pretty hard to use. Having any sort of indicator on a birth certificate/drivers' license/etc., is actually an easier way to get outed than whatever other methods. Its the difference between having the "infamous "T"" branded/tattooed on your forehead, and having a microscopic "T" shaped birthmark.

14A. Yeah, if a trans person is showing their identification to any Tom, Dick, or Jane that asks them for it. 14B. And if legal professionals are going around releasing personal information about people that they are (by law) prohibited from revealing, then we seriously need to revamp our judicial system. 14C. That in mind though, in a country like Canada at least, most people probably wouldn't care who is or isn't transgendered (so long as they aren't someone they're going to marry) so even if a legal or medical professional did reveal that kind of information, I highly doubt many (if any) people would care.

15. No shit, Sherlock. And its not just the US that needs to get better on it (though thank God/the FSM/Atheismo/whatever that the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Hate Crime Law includes actual/perceived gender identity), its the ENTIRE WORLD (including Canada).

15A. Well then Watson, perhaps you might take a moment to realize that not using the "T" in passports or birth certificates isn't going to stop people from figuring out that a woman that looks pretty manly just might not be a woman. 15B. And before you attack me as "stereotyping" (essentially the only argument you seem capable of coming up with in half of this), yes, I get not all trans people look masculine, I get some end up looking very feminine, and that's just grand, but that isn't all trans people, 15C. and that means that not using the "T" is not going to act as some sure fire way of protecting trans people. 15D. If you want to protect trans people, then you need to simply protect them, simple as that. And as I said, hate crimes are (at least in the first world) are becoming less frequent still as more people are becoming more educated and more tolerant. 15E. And yeah, Canada does still have problems, however at least we can brag that we're ahead of the US, particularly our religious groups. 15F. Also, because I'm sure you think I'm some uber-proud Canadian, I actually don't like Canada all that much. Funny thing, we care more about trans people and what mark they get on their passport than we care about child abuse (a considerably more prominent problem up here).

16. Rare exception that sets an example more places should follow.

Couldn't agree more. I'm sure you might have some trouble believing it, I'm actually a very staunchly against hate crimes and hate speech, including when it comes to crimes committed against trans people.

17. You seem to think its so easy to tell if a person's a violent transphobe. Like all violent transphobes wear T-shirts advertizing that fact, or have swastika tattoos or something. Not the case at all. Transphobia is not that obvious to spot. Nobody walks around wearing a trucker hat that says "I kill trannies".

16A. Did I imply that? 16B. No, I did however imply that it should be somewhat easier to tell if someone is a violent person or not, and 16C. if someone is not generally violent, I'm skeptical as to if they would be violent against just trans people, bit too oddly specific. 16D. But, even should that be the case in some way, I would recommend a trans person try pursuing relationships with people they actually know are interested in trans people (since it respects those who aren't interested in trans people and since it also removes the danger factor considerably).

18. Yes, but even if you're lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction where gender identity is covered under that, they could probably find ways around it. Just because the law exists, doesn't mean people always follow it.

17A. If they don't follow laws like that then they're at risk of losing their job, so I'm rather confused why a doctor would risk that. 17B. Now, if that law doesn't exist in certain places, shouldn't you be lobbying for a law like that (encompassing privacy I mean) to be applied as a national law? I realize that laws in the US change between places because the system is (to put it nicely) broken because people are more focused on maintaining the "sanctity" of states keeping their own laws separate of the federal laws, but then (as I said) 17C. you should lobby for a law like that to be made a federal law. But, you're still in the US, which isn't particularly known in the political world for being reasonable, but maybe I'll get proven wrong.

19. Moving elsewhere is easier said than done. Besides, its not like there's many places that are good enough on this issue anyhow.

18A. Believe me, I know that, but why would you stay in a nation or an area of a nation where your life is in such severe danger? 18B. And as for safe places, move to British Columbia? There are always dangers everywhere, but there isn't any considerably prominent hate group against trans people here, the worst you'd have to deal with frankly is 12 year olds. 18C. At any rate, though I can feel for trans people, I have to frankly question how bad the situation is. 18D. I do not deny that trans people suffer, but I can assure you there are other groups that suffer as much, and possibly some that suffer more. 18E. I'm not going to minimize their suffering, but I also won't simply accept this idea that they suffer more when I see the opposite so often.

1A. Implying you need to have dysphoria to be trans*

1B. Prove it.

1C. Then please, by all means, tell me, in your professional opinion, causes "non-trans" people to "think" they're trans?

1D. Reasons such as...?

1E. Anecdotal evidence.

1F. Short of the person saying they aren't actually a woman, I doubt it.

1G. And...?

1H. And do you have any logic that explains how "born that way" and "chemical/whatever abnormality" are mutually exclusive?

1I. Do you have any proof that its a "pseudo science"? And if its such "pseudo-science", then why are major scientific organizations agreeing with us?

2A. Methinks you need to grow a thicker skin. Yeah, they're showing off highly exaggerated facsimilies of body parts, but its not explicitly sexual. I mean, its not like the people wearing the costumes are fucking or anything. Naked=/=sexual.

2B. There's several thousand homophobes out there who will utterly disagree with that assertion.

3A. That's a strawman if I ever heard one. I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth like that.

3B. And that's good. For the people who are of a third gender. But forcing ALL trans* people to get it, even if they're binary, is NOT FUCKING COOL.

3C. Again, you're putting words in my mouth, and attacking a point I did not make. Also, see above.

3D. You just love attacking that strawman, don't you?

3E. As I recall, its for those outside the binary, and binary trans* people just get an M or an F, depending.

3F. Its only mutally acceptable if the person is outside the gender binary.

4A. No, but by the same token, they shouldn't have to constantly be putting themselves in harms way. What you're proposing, whether you realize it or not, is that we constantly put ourselves in real, physical danger (more than we often already are). And that is not acceptable.

4B. You say that like I'm not already aware of it. You also say that as if it means anything to this discussion.

4C. You do realize most trans* people (regardless of whether or not they have already, are planning to, or do not wish to get SRS) do full disclosure before sex, for that exact reason, right?

4D. I never claimed or implied otherwise, so I fail to see what the fuck your point is.

4E. The solution isn't hiding. But hiding is the safest option, and for those who don't feel comfortable attacking the problem head on, they should have EVERY FUCKING RIGHT to hide. And even for those of us who DO feel like attacking the problem head on, there are times when we should hide as well. Walk a few miles in our shoes, and you'd get that.

4F. You do realize how weary most of the trans* community is regarding "chasers", right? As in, fetishists who are attracted to us purely because of our junk, instead of who we are as people? And how often times, those fetishists are bad people to be in relationships with?

4G. And you do not seem to realize that many times, it is better to "hide" than to fight, nor do you seem to get that some people don't WANT to fight, because fighting leaves them open to attack. Being openly trans* in public is like having a giant, glowing neon sign on your forehead saying "Insult/Abuse/Beat/Rape/Kill Me!". Nobody should have to wear that sign unless they want to. And those who want to should be able to take it down when they feel they need to.

5A. What if they have to go on business, and their job depends on it? And what if their job is not aware of their trans* status? Also, its not just Russia, you know. Its anywhere and everywhere.

5B. False equivalence.

5C. Again, anywhere and everywhere.

5D. You don't realize how everything you're saying works against that statement, do you?

5E. Why does it need to be publicly visible?

5F. When it comes down to a mutually exclusive choic between one person's safety and another's comfort, which one has priority? A trans* person's right to life, safety, and bodily integrity, or your right to not be inconvenienced. And yes, those are the only two options.

5G. *points to sig* You do realize I'm one of the people you're referring to, right?

5H. Or just add a "prefer not to respond" option for those who don't feel safe, in addition to adding a "non-binary" option for those who do.

5I. We're already fighting on all those fronts, and have been doing so for decades. Forcing ALL trans* people to get the "infamous T" on their identifications will ONLY result in more acts of discrimination, beatings, rapings, and killings of trans* people.

6. You know, I'm pretty damn sure most trans* people won't marry somebody without coming out to them first. For the same reasons they won't have sex without coming out to them.

7. Not the ultimate authority, but considering how I'm trans* myself, and regularly discuss these issues with other trans* people, I'd argue I'm fairly damn qualified to talk about this issue.

8A. Because "my perception" is based on how the person in question self-identifies, which is the most legitimate source on that person than ANYBODY else. What more legitimacy can you or any other person claim that a person isn't the gender they say they are?

8B. Nope. They were always that gender.

8C. Keep on attacking that strawman. I'm over here sipping on some iced tea.

9. Educate yourself: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/r ... s_full.pdf

10A. That they don't face the same types of shit trans* people do.

10B. Strawman. I never said we were more important than them.

10C. What does there being more of them than us have to do with anything?

10D. I never said or implied we did have a monopoly on it. I don't play Oppression Olympics. Though I'm more than capable of doing so if you want to throw down.

11A. Everybody, by pretty much saying that we have to have an "infamous T" on our IDs, and that we have to tell all our potential partners (with the implication that it should be immediate).

11B. Its not a strawman when you've either directly said it, directly implied it, or its the logical implication of the things you've said. Whether or not you realize those implications, or the consequences of the things you've directly called for.

11C. Just because you don't think you are, or don't realize you are, doesn't mean you aren't.

11D. Not what you've been implying. And most certainly not what the consequences and implications of the things you're advocating are.

11E. So, you're calling for a violent, bloody, global revolution (because its in ALL countries, and violent, bloody revolution is the only way to effect all the necessary changes), all so that trans* people don't get put in more danger? Yeah, that'll go over well.

12A. Please, tell me how its a strawman.

12B. Really a moot point, due to what I said above.

13A. By all means, show where and how I took your statement(s) out of context.

13B. By all means, please, show me how what anything I've said is a strawman.

14A. Except, you know, there's a lot of times "any Tom, Dick, and Jane" needs to see your ID. Four instances: going into a bar, buying any kind of alcohol, buying cigarettes, buying porn (I don't know why people buy porn mags any more, but still. And yes, buying porn is less of a risk than being outed as trans*.)

14B. Except, you know, being against the law doesn't stop the damage from being done once it's done, and to many transphobes, being against the law probably isn't that much of a deterrent.

14C. I call bullshit. I could probably get a bunch of trans* people from Canada to weigh in if I wanted to. And they'd probably say shit in Canada's just as bad as it is in the US, as far as social attitudes go.

15A. Strawman. Besides, without that "infamous T" there, she could stand a chance of playing her looks down. That might be obvious if you took a few seconds to think it out, Sherlock.

15B. Oh, look mom! Another strawman!

15C. Not surefire, but definitely sure as fuck better than with the "infamous T".

15D. Pretty damn hard to protect people when they're being outed against their will, which the shit you're calling for will do.

15E. On this issue? Only barely.

15F. Not really sure what the hell this has to do with the discussion at hand.

16A. Yes, you did, even if you didn't realize you did. And I find the attitude that one can always tell if somebody's a violent and/or abusive fuckwad (towards transwomen, ciswomen, or anybody) to be absolutely fucking absurd and quite offensive to all victims and relatives of domestic violence.

16B. No, its fucking not.

16C. Transphobia's fucking insane like that.

16D. See 4F.

17A. The point isn't that its against the law for them to. The point is that when they break that law, and get convicted of doing so, the damage is already done, and is almost totally irreparable. To say nothing of the fact that they could probably find loopholes to exploit to still do damage and not be legally liable.

17B. Implying we aren't already.

17C. We already have a federal hate crime law that encompasses actual and perceived gender identity (thank God it got passed before the Tealiban took over the House).

18A. Maybe because: (1), there's no where else to go that's much better; (2), moving elsewhere takes too much money; (3), our friends and family are here; (4) despite the rampant transphobia, where we currently live has qualities about it that we enjoy.

18B. If I'm going to move anywhere, its back to New Orleans, where my ass won't freeze off in the non-summer months. Also, I shouldn't have to fucking move. To say nothing of the fact that there doesn't have to be "significant anti-trans groups" for there to be rampant transphobia.

18C. Read that study I linked to above. Then realize that there's a significant possibility of underreporting.

18D. Again, I'm not one to play Oppression Olympics.

18E. Just because you only see the positive experiences, does not at all mean they aren't rare occurrences that stand out from the background of misery and subjugation.

[Spoder]

That is a big wall of text.

[Grenartia]

Anyone else notice that cis-het is the most common in this pole, but the most common posters are of some other orientation?
If I were on the outside looking in, I'd think that NS was full of pansexual otherkin, but it seems that's not the case.

Just something strange I noticed.

I've literally not seen any otherkin around here.

You can't change biological facts because your brain thinks so, you're either naturally male or female and there's nothing wrong with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

>b-but muh special snowflake gender identity!!

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Sex =/= gender.

>bu-but muh XY/XX chromosomes!!!elev3n1

Don't mean a damn thing in regards to gender.

>liebrul revisionism!

Whatever conspiracy theories you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, honey.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Anyone else notice that cis-het is the most common in this pole, but the most common posters are of some other orientation?
If I were on the outside looking in, I'd think that NS was full of pansexual otherkin, but it seems that's not the case.

Just something strange I noticed.

I've literally not seen any otherkin around here.

You can't change biological facts because your brain thinks so, you're either naturally male or female and there's nothing wrong with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

>b-but muh special snowflake gender identity!!

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Sex =/= gender.

>bu-but muh XY/XX chromosomes!!!elev3n1

Don't mean a damn thing in regards to gender.

>liebrul revisionism!

Whatever conspiracy theories you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, honey.

How's otherkin defined, exactly?

[Farnhamia]

I've literally not seen any otherkin around here.



Sex =/= gender.

>bu-but muh XY/XX chromosomes!!!elev3n1

Don't mean a damn thing in regards to gender.

>liebrul revisionism!

Whatever conspiracy theories you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, honey.

How's otherkin defined, exactly?

People who believe themselves to be non-human, in spirit if not in body. Wiki has an article.

[Grenartia]

I dunno man, after you were so wrong about chromosomes I don't know if I can trust your hateful proclamations any more.

What? Explain to me how I was wrong. If you honestly believe that there isn't a gender outside your sex you have some problems you have to sort out.

If you honestly think that two itty bitty sex chromosomes honestly have all of what gender is encoded into them, then you have bigger problems to sort out than you claim I have. Or you're just a circle.

I am a gender attracted to other genders.

Am I an oppressed snowflake yet?

Snowflakes are usually less circular.

Indeed.

Nobody in here was screaming about oppression until you came in, chief.
Some people talked about how coming out was hard, which I'm sure it is.

If you don't think trans-people or non-hetero people aren't commonly discriminated against, then you must have your head up your ass.

Now you're intruding into my safe space!

Stahp it.

If you don't think half of the so-called "identities" are a bunch of rubbish made up by pre-teens, then you must have your head up your ass, otherwise you're like fat-shaming me, or something.

What a circle.

Your sex is always male, or female, never something else. Your *sex* is the genetics portion, but gender is what you identify as.

You honestly think the circle with the pseudo-Nazi flag is willing or able to make that distinction?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

How's otherkin defined, exactly?

People who believe themselves to be non-human, in spirit if not in body. Wiki has an article.

I'll read it then. I don't think I've ever met one.

[Libertarian California]

How's otherkin defined, exactly?

People who believe themselves to be non-human, in spirit if not in body. Wiki has an article.

Like me. I'm a trans*beanstalk giantkin.

[Libertarian California]

They're generally mentioned on Tumblr, and they are a good source of material for humor. The cultural left of NSG need to lighten up every once in a while before returning to their lives of self-loathing and hormone-driven rage.



No, I just enjoy their reactions when they realize that no one cares about what they've made up. Their little temper tantrums are so cute.

Did you even read my response about rejecting the BS identities?

This wasn't directed at you.

[Farnhamia]

People who believe themselves to be non-human, in spirit if not in body. Wiki has an article.

Like me. I'm a trans*beanstalk giantkin.

Yes, you're certainly cute. That kind of dress went out of style around 1912, I believe.