Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Vassenor]

So, no right-wing LGBT here, eh?

I'm economic left, but on social and cultural issues I'm a little to the right of NSG's mean point, probably. Depends what you're comparing to.

And that is why the lack of any sort of actual objective centre point makes the terms pretty meaningless.

[Auzkhia]

Ok let me expand I am writing this because of science. More specifically, anatomy and biology even agree: you're a boy, or you are a girl. You have a penis, or you have a vagina.

What I am getting at here is that a person cannot identify as something that does not exist. I attempted to wrap my head around the idea that there are people out there half a bubble off plumb enough to think that they are something other than male or female.


The things that I stumbled upon was stupid I read these so-called genders and their definitions, and I think my IQ dropped. These are not "genders" because "genders" are physical.

These are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions. Oh yes, I'm aware that those are hurtful words, and this is a "mean" post. I'm sure I will be told more than once that I am 'wrong' and that gender is 'fluid' but it will have no effect on me, because I know I am correct.

Gender is not a matter of opinion; it's a scientific fact. Penis or vagina, vagina or penis? Pink or blue, not green, not purple.

Why is penis male, and vulva female? Biological sex isn't just genitalia, see intersex.

Because some people decided it were. Some nations had a tradition of more than two genders, such as two spirit in many Native American and First Nation communities and Hijras in India. In those communities, they will disagree with you, because their cultures do not follow the western binary.

[Luna Amore]

Ok let me expand I am writing this because of science. More specifically, anatomy and biology even agree: you're a boy, or you are a girl. You have a penis, or you have a vagina.

What I am getting at here is that a person cannot identify as something that does not exist. I attempted to wrap my head around the idea that there are people out there half a bubble off plumb enough to think that they are something other than male or female.


The things that I stumbled upon was stupid I read these so-called genders and their definitions, and I think my IQ dropped. These are not "genders" because "genders" are physical.

These are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions. Oh yes, I'm aware that those are hurtful words, and this is a "mean" post. I'm sure I will be told more than once that I am 'wrong' and that gender is 'fluid' but it will have no effect on me, because I know I am correct.

Gender is not a matter of opinion; it's a scientific fact. Penis or vagina, vagina or penis? Pink or blue, not green, not purple.

Why is penis male, and vulva female? Biological sex isn't just genitalia, see intersex.

Because some people decided it were. Some nations had a tradition of more than two genders, such as two spirit in many Native American and First Nation communities and Hijras in India. In those communities, they will disagree with you, because their cultures do not follow the western binary.

Because it's biology. Just because exceptions exist doesn't suddenly make the distinctions between male and female a fabrication of mankind.

Transgender implies you are the opposite of the biological sex you were born under. You can only be opposite something if both genders involved have set definitions. So it is contradictory to claim that 'hey, what makes penis = male; vaginas = female?'. Because those are very basically included in the definitions of those words. If they weren't, you wouldn't be trans anything. The words trans and cis would be meaningless because you wouldn't have a reference point for either term. We'd basically have to create our own individual genders.

[New Greater Netherlands]

THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS...

Yeah, the bible says that yes, but a Transgender is someone who is a man but feels as a woman and wants to undergo a surgery and take hormone pills to become more feminine, and the other way round. It's not like a non-binary, genderfluid and stuff like that, that's a complete different thing

[New Greater Netherlands]

So, no right-wing LGBT here, eh?

Yes, I am Right-Wing

[Jelmatt]

THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS...

Yeah, the bible says that yes, but a Transgender is someone who is a man but feels as a woman and wants to undergo a surgery and take hormone pills to become more feminine, and the other way round. It's not like a non-binary, genderfluid and stuff like that, that's a complete different thing

You have some weird definitions there, tbh.

Transgender is traditionally defined as "a umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth." (e.g., APA, NTDS (see appendix A, the glossary), DSM-5 (again, see glossary, particularly the difference between "transgender" and "transsexual"), etc.--I can provide more sources for this if need be).

I think the term you're thinking of is transsexual, outdated as that may be, which is usually defined as "a person with an aversion towards their birth sex and a persistent desire to be a member of the opposite sex," or "a person who wishes to undergo a transition from male to female or female to male."

[The Blaatschapen]

So, no right-wing LGBT here, eh?

Yes, I am Right-Wing

Which flavor of right wing are you? VVD? Cda? Pvv? Cu?

[New Greater Netherlands]

Yes, I am Right-Wing

Which flavor of right wing are you? VVD? Cda? Pvv? Cu?

Mainly PVV but I like FvD too (and that's mainly because Thierry Baudet is beautiful )

[The Serbian Empire]

So, no right-wing LGBT here, eh?

I could be viewed as right wing in some regards in my past as a former anarcho-capitalist. I am no longer such as I have moved left fiscally.

[The Serbian Empire]

I'm economic left, but on social and cultural issues I'm a little to the right of NSG's mean point, probably. Depends what you're comparing to.

And that is why the lack of any sort of actual objective centre point makes the terms pretty meaningless.

Exactly, without a reference point people would have viewed my past as hard left or hard right dependent on which aspect is viewed. An authoritarian like a Stalinist or Trump would view me even in my past as hard left for anti-authoritarian views.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

*ahem* Well, according to my politcal compass results, I’m a right-Libertarian...

So it's complicated. Now I know political views are not always cultural/sexual views.
I asked because of the "two genders" thing.

See, the most recent European political leader that closest matches my views is Thatcher, and the most recent American political leader that closet matches my views is Calvin Coolidge. But the modern right-wing have come to the consensus that anything other than right-wing populism is “left-wing”, because you know, “MY CUTLURE!!!” And of course, “DEGENERACY!!”

[Hediacrana]

THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS...

Yeah, the bible says that yes

I'll leave the other claims from your post for others to dissect (some of that has already been done) but I would like to note that the Bible makes no such claim that I am aware of. There are many places where it talks about women and men, but nowhere does it say that those are the only possibilities.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Yeah, the bible says that yes

I'll leave the other claims from your post for others to dissect (some of that has already been done) but I would like to note that the Bible makes no such claim that I am aware of. There are many places where it talks about women and men, but nowhere does it say that those are the only possibilities.

Many believe that since God created only man and woman in the Bible, those are the only two genders. Plus, the idea that having a different gender then the one that was assigned at birth is saying “God does make mistakes” to some people.

[Hediacrana]

I'll leave the other claims from your post for others to dissect (some of that has already been done) but I would like to note that the Bible makes no such claim that I am aware of. There are many places where it talks about women and men, but nowhere does it say that those are the only possibilities.

Many believe that since God created only man and woman in the Bible, those are the only two genders. Plus, the idea that having a different gender then the one that was assigned at birth is saying “God does make mistakes” to some people.

I do not argue the point that many people have those opinions, but saying that that's simply what the Bible says is a different thing.

Edit: I mean, heck, Adam has been interpreted as originally androgynous as well. Whether such interpretations are particularly convincing to you or to me is a different matter; but to pretend that a more dominant interpretation is not an interpretation but just the Bible 'as is' is simply not true.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Many believe that since God created only man and woman in the Bible, those are the only two genders. Plus, the idea that having a different gender then the one that was assigned at birth is saying “God does make mistakes” to some people.

I do not argue the point that many people have those opinions, but saying that that's simply what the Bible says is a different thing.

I do believe that if one is to consider a Bible a Holy Book, the that person would have to come to the conclusion that there are only two genders and that the gender that is assigned at birth is the work of an infallible God.

[Hediacrana]

I do not argue the point that many people have those opinions, but saying that that's simply what the Bible says is a different thing.

I do believe that if one is to consider a Bible a Holy Book, the that person would have to come to the conclusion that there are only two genders and that the gender that is assigned at birth is the work of an infallible God.

There is no reason why one would have to reach that conclusion by necessity. I don't. And many other Christians, especially queer Christians, don't.

1. Considering the Bible as Holy does not imply the view that all of it is to be taken literally (and this point has been recognized since the early days of the church). 2. Even if one takes the Bible to be read only literally, it simply says no-where explicitly that there are *only* two genders. You have to make some interpretative moves before you arrive there.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I do believe that if one is to consider a Bible a Holy Book, the that person would have to come to the conclusion that there are only two genders and that the gender that is assigned at birth is the work of an infallible God.

There is no reason why one would have to reach that conclusion by necessity. I don't. And many other Christians, especially queer Christians, don't.

1. Considering the Bible as Holy does not imply the view that all of it is to be taken literally (and this point has been recognized since the early days of the church). 2. Even if one takes the Bible to be read only literally, it simply says no-where explicitly that there are *only* two genders. You have to make some interpretative moves before you arrive there.

See, holding or looking to a book as holy, but at the same time not holding the view that it should NOT be taken literally is an oxymoron. I’m stating this based on my time in conservative and far-right Christianity(I also spend some time in progressive Christianity). Many Christians view the “fact” that God made Adam, a cisgender man, and Eve, a cisgender woman that is the only possible and vaild genders there are.

[Dumb Ideologies]

*ahem* Well, according to my politcal compass results, I’m a right-Libertarian...

So it's complicated. Now I know political views are not always cultural/sexual views.
I asked because of the "two genders" thing.

On one hand someone's gender identity doesn't exactly determine their general political leanings, but the general experience of a degree of ostracism puts a particular spin on how people's political instincts end up being expressed.

My politics have always been more focused around the idea of a community and stability than on the maximising of negatively-defined freedoms. It doesn't take much effort for me to find a few points of departure in how my formative years went to find a "cisest timeline" in which I would be a hyper-reactionary traditionalist monarchist type, rather than our timeline where I went round the roundabout of identity politics and what I thought was a compulsory liberalism, and then picked up some elements of right-wing identity politics on the way back around to end up a slightly authoritarian socialist with nationalist influences.

Both share the focus on community, on stability, and the importance of values, but the fact that I turned out trans in this timeline has led me on a journey to a different part of the political map. It's a major antidote to the self-assured arrogance that comes from obsessively defending our positions on NSG to take a reflexive look occasionally and wonder "where would I be if..."

Well, I find it interesting, at least

[Hediacrana]

See, holding or looking to a book as holy, but don’t hold the view that it should NOT be taken literally is an oxymoron. I’m stating, based on my time in conservative and far-right Christianity(I also spend some time in progressive Christianity). Many Christians view the “fact” that God made Adam, a cisgender man, and Eve, a cisgender woman that is the only possible and vaild genders there are.

Sure, if you take 'holy' to be synonymous to 'to be taken literally in its entirety'. But there is no reason why one would have to see those two as synonymous. How many Bible-readers do you think believe that Jesus literally was a lamb?

And I'm not arguing that many Christians don't think the way you say they do; I'm merely arguing that theirs is not the only existant position, and that it proceeds from a specific set of interpretative moves, just as more welcoming theologies do. And that the simple claim that 'the Bible says there are only two genders' is simply not true.

[The New California Republic]

See, holding or looking to a book as holy, but don’t hold the view that it should NOT be taken literally is an oxymoron. I’m stating, based on my time in conservative and far-right Christianity(I also spend some time in progressive Christianity). Many Christians view the “fact” that God made Adam, a cisgender man, and Eve, a cisgender woman that is the only possible and vaild genders there are.

Sure, if you take 'holy' to be synonymous to 'to be taken literally in its entirety'. But there is no reason why one would have to see those two as synonymous. How many Bible-readers do you think believe that Jesus literally was a lamb?

To be honest the non-literal metaphorical interpretation of the Bible as an excuse for the many strange things in it can only carry so far. I mean, what the hell does the "metaphor" about God creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs mean? Come to think of it, it means that Eve is actually a man in that case, as it implies that she is a clone of Adam, or at the very least used to be male. The metaphorical interpretation of the Bible just opens even more doors to absurdity.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Sure, if you take 'holy' to be synonymous to 'to be taken literally in its entirety'. But there is no reason why one would have to see those two as synonymous. How many Bible-readers do you think believe that Jesus literally was a lamb?

To be honest the non-literal metaphorical interpretation of the Bible as an excuse for the many strange things in it can only carry so far. I mean, what the hell does the "metaphor" about God creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs mean? Come to think of it, it means that Eve is actually a man in that case, as it implies that she is a clone of Adam, or at the very least used to be male. The metaphorical interpretation of the Bible just opens even more doors to absurdity.

This is my case, exactly. Plus, when I read the Bible and the Koran for that matter, it does not paint LGBT people in a positive light. I know there are Christian denominations that are LGBT supporting, but they are in the minority. In fact, Anglican Churches in Africa separated from the Anglican Communion due to the Episcopal Church supporting LGBT people.

[Vassenor]

Seriously wishing I could just start hormone therapy like right now.

[Hediacrana]

To be honest the non-literal metaphorical interpretation of the Bible as an excuse for the many strange things in it can only carry so far. I mean, what the hell does the "metaphor" about God creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs mean? Come to think of it, it means that Eve is actually a man in that case, as it implies that she is a clone of Adam, or at the very least used to be male. The metaphorical interpretation of the Bible just opens even more doors to absurdity.

The fact that one can take something too far does not mean that one should not ever do it at all; and similarly, the fact that one can adduce an absurd meaning to a metaphorically read passage does not invalidate other adduced meanings to said, metaphorically read passage. There are criteria for evaluating interpretations beyond a literal/metaphorical distinction. (Otherwise theology would be far more boring. )

This is my case, exactly. Plus, when I read the Bible and the Koran for that matter, it does not paint LGBT people in a positive light. I know there are Christian denominations that are LGBT supporting, but they are in the minority. In fact, Anglican Churches in Africa separated from the Anglican Communion due to the Episcopal Church supporting LGBT people.

Once again, one can read those texts in different ways. Pretending that they offer only an exclusive reading is both false and a disservice to trans people of faith. Moreover, your point (which you keep repeating in a variety of forms) that LGBTQ supporting denominations and congregations form a minority in relation to non-supportive ones has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their claims and use of the Bible.

[New Greater Netherlands]

Yeah, the bible says that yes

I'll leave the other claims from your post for others to dissect (some of that has already been done) but I would like to note that the Bible makes no such claim that I am aware of. There are many places where it talks about women and men, but nowhere does it say that those are the only possibilities.

Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

[Hediacrana]

I'll leave the other claims from your post for others to dissect (some of that has already been done) but I would like to note that the Bible makes no such claim that I am aware of. There are many places where it talks about women and men, but nowhere does it say that those are the only possibilities.

Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

The part that you missed reads: "And those who are neither, both or something else altogether never were, never can and never shall be." Oh wait, it does not say that...