Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Grenartia]

That’s an entirely fair point. Science is always evolving. And I can’t say I was very good at biology, though I do enjoy it as a science.

I would add that given the nature and relation of sex and gender as concepts, the reason it was likely not touched was:
1. it's a controversial topic, and
2. gender is more in the realm of sociology, sex the realm of biology. To talk of one would take more interdisciplinary insight, something that high school science tends to want to avoid.

Honestly, the primary reason I can think it wasn't touched was the fact that its controversial. Same reason why many kids in the South wouldn't be taught evolution in biology class.

[Luminesa]

NONE of my biology classes, actually, college or high school, mentioned gender and sex being two different things. I mean, you can tell me I’ve been poorly-educated

Because you arguably have been.

all you want, I guess, does that help you sleep at night?

Does asking me that help you sleep at night?

Parroting a response back? Okay then.

[Grenartia]

Really, the only one that requires a source is that Corinthians 6:9-10 is mistranslated, and that's based on the fact that the word that has been commonly been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind", arsenokoitai, appears nowhere in the Greek records prior to Paul's writings. In essence, he made it up. Modern translations like to say it means "homosexuals", but this hasn't always been the preferred interpretation. In Martin Luther's day, it was thought to mean "masturbators". The translation of the word "effeminate" is similarly flawed, albeit to a lesser degree, and is probably a reflection of Paul's sexist biases (he was, after all, a Roman citizen).

Thanks for the source. I always thought Corinthians 6:9-10 applied towards all homosexual activity, but I guess its not so 'clear-cut' as that. The website seems pretty interesting as well.

You're welcome.

[Luminesa]

Soooo have cops arrest people for child abuse. Got it. Make sure the “no-fun” police take away the little baby booties and the pink dresses or even the unisex jumpers because GOD FORBID THERE’S ANY POSSIBILITY YOU’RE PUSHING YOURSELF ONTO YOUR KIDS.

You're devolving into unreasonable hyperbole again, Lumi. This seems to be a recurring trait with you. You take something anyone says in disagreement towards you, and turn it into the worst possible thing against you you can think of and then argue against that like you have the moral highground.

“Tsk tsk I’m so disappointed in you.” Okay? Whatever? Absurd statements get absurd answers, that’s all I’m saying. If this offends you well...oh well?

[Grenartia]

Why would they (everyone who isn't the doctor or the parents) like to know what genitals the baby has? That sounds pretty damn creepy to me.



You do realize I've already said the parents will know, right?



Yeah, if I was the parent of a baby-to-be, I'd be pretty disgusted by some rando coming up and asking me what my kid's genitals look like.

Hate speech is hyperbolic, but its still creepy as fuck.



You say that as if I am. I'm not. I'm saying its creepy to ask what a kid's genitals look like (which is literally all that asking that question before the kid can figure out which gender they are accomplishes).



You're acting like I'm trying to have you arrested for wondering whether a kid has a penis or a vagina.

I mean, if you find it creepy, when you have kids you can say, “That’s none of your business.” Personal preference I suppose? But telling others they need to step off for asking an innocent question is really invasive and self-righteous.

Someone's gotta stick up for the voiceless kid.

Aaaaand you’re treating it like it’s hate speech, sooooo.

I'm not. You're pretending like I am.

*Shrugs.* I mean we’re basically just discussing your opinion on gender-reveal parties.

With heavy doses of you strawmanning the fuck out of my statements.

Absurd talking points get absurd answers. “WE MUST DEFEND BABIES FROM BEING ASKED ABOUT THEIR BIOLOGICAL SEX.”

"WE MUST ALLOW TOTAL STRANGERS TO ASK A PARENT WHETHER OR NOT THE KID HAS A PENIS OR A VAGINA!"

See? I can make your argument sound ridiculous, too.

The fact that it’s viewed as a positive thing to ask about a baby’s sex isn’t something that needs to change.

Why?

In India you can get pushed down the stairs if your family finds the mom is having twin girls.

Yes, that's a problem. But where's the relevance?

I think the focus should be on pushing for the idea of “boy” and “girl” as positive concepts,

They already are viewed like that, here in the West.

not things to be feared because of societal roles.

We're not pushing for them to be "things to be feared".

In places like India, boys are the breadwinners and girls are the wives. That societal role can change, or wives and mothers can be pushed to also be seen as beautiful, good people full of dignity. THESE are positive changes we can make, either in places like India and China or here!

Ok, and...? Again, how is any of this related to telling people not to push their kids into one gender identity or another because they have one set of reproductive organs or another?

[Grenartia]

You're devolving into unreasonable hyperbole again, Lumi. This seems to be a recurring trait with you. You take something anyone says in disagreement towards you, and turn it into the worst possible thing against you you can think of and then argue against that like you have the moral highground.

“Tsk tsk I’m so disappointed in you.” Okay? Whatever? Absurd statements get absurd answers, that’s all I’m saying. If this offends you well...oh well?

I'm not saying anything absurd. You're intentionally making absurd misrepresentations of my arguments. That's what I'm disappointed in and being offended by.

[Twilight Imperium]

Well, considering most of it was directed either against me, or on the same tangent as I was previously discussing, by the unwritten rules of debate, I was obligated.

No, you're really not, especially when you end up with an unreadable ten thousand word post that takes up more page space than Z-day did. Just respond to whoever posted last and assume people read the thread, it's not hard.

[Luminesa]

I mean, if you find it creepy, when you have kids you can say, “That’s none of your business.” Personal preference I suppose? But telling others they need to step off for asking an innocent question is really invasive and self-righteous.

Someone's gotta stick up for the voiceless kid.

Aaaaand you’re treating it like it’s hate speech, sooooo.

I'm not. You're pretending like I am.

*Shrugs.* I mean we’re basically just discussing your opinion on gender-reveal parties.

With heavy doses of you strawmanning the fuck out of my statements.

Absurd talking points get absurd answers. “WE MUST DEFEND BABIES FROM BEING ASKED ABOUT THEIR BIOLOGICAL SEX.”

"WE MUST ALLOW TOTAL STRANGERS TO ASK A PARENT WHETHER OR NOT THE KID HAS A PENIS OR A VAGINA!"

See? I can make your argument sound ridiculous, too.

The fact that it’s viewed as a positive thing to ask about a baby’s sex isn’t something that needs to change.

Why?

In India you can get pushed down the stairs if your family finds the mom is having twin girls.

Yes, that's a problem. But where's the relevance?

I think the focus should be on pushing for the idea of “boy” and “girl” as positive concepts,

They already are viewed like that, here in the West.

not things to be feared because of societal roles.

We're not pushing for them to be "things to be feared".

In places like India, boys are the breadwinners and girls are the wives. That societal role can change, or wives and mothers can be pushed to also be seen as beautiful, good people full of dignity. THESE are positive changes we can make, either in places like India and China or here!

Ok, and...? Again, how is any of this related to telling people not to push their kids into one gender identity or another because they have one set of reproductive organs or another?

Because you’re pushing for this to be a negative not based on any scientific evidence that this is bad, but rather because your own personal preference is that you wouldn’t tell anyone the child’s sex. And actually, sex-selective abortions do happen in the US, though not on the scale of places like India and China. And sex-selective abortions USUALLY happen against girls. Why? Girls are still viewed by some people as “bad”, or “not as useful as boys”.

The whole idea of, “Hide the gender of the baby until they can form their own gender identity” ignores the fact that if we argue gender and sex are different, people are still going to see the sex, regardless of whether or not they have a set gender identity (cause parents will see the baby’s sex on an ultrasound, unless you also want those banned). And some people will find the sex of the child to be enough that they will think the baby should be aborted. So people should instead be taught to take pride in their kids’ sex. “Yes, I have a baby girl!” “Yes, I have a baby boy!”

You’re not offended for the sakes of any babies, you’re offended for your own sake because you identify as androgynous, and you want to say you know better about raising kids than doctors, parents, and basically most people. It’s a very silly argument and I couldn’t strawman it if I tried. This argument is not about you.

[Luminesa]

“Tsk tsk I’m so disappointed in you.” Okay? Whatever? Absurd statements get absurd answers, that’s all I’m saying. If this offends you well...oh well?

I'm not saying anything absurd. You're intentionally making absurd misrepresentations of my arguments. That's what I'm disappointed in and being offended by.

I mean as long as I disagree at all you’re going to say I’m misrepresenting your argument and being offensive, sooo...oh well?

[Luminesa]

Well, considering most of it was directed either against me, or on the same tangent as I was previously discussing, by the unwritten rules of debate, I was obligated.

No, you're really not, especially when you end up with an unreadable ten thousand word post that takes up more page space than Z-day did. Just respond to whoever posted last and assume people read the thread, it's not hard.

^ I specifically started a new post chain because I didn’t want to have to carry a massive post load to the other page. And as one can clearly see, I’ve made several small replies and it’s not considered spamming. Plus it makes it easier for people to read.

[Luminesa]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... ca1f61f05d

Interesting little article I found about this family who kinda eased their baby into the idea of gender. While I don’t agree with the whole article, I do like that they gave Naya toys from both sides of the aisle and let her play with them both. I relate to this a bit, that’s how I grew-up for the most part. My mom got me these awesome collector’s Barbies from around the world, and I would spend hours online looking-up other beautiful Barbies in their beautiful dresses from around the globe. I also have a room full of stuffed animals, and I sleep with quite a few. No shame in it. I also grew-up with Yu-Gi-Oh cards (I still have my deck), Pokémon games, LEGOs, and I eventually became a rabid football fan. All things which are considered either “boyish” or “girly”.

Kids should be allowed to play with a large variety of toys to find their interests. I’m grateful to my parents for mostly letting my sisters and I play with things that would be considered “either/or”, and I think this at least will help Naya to become hopefully a well-rounded, intelligent young lady. I also like how they introduced gender by saying things like, “Grandma is a woman, she likes to be called ‘she’.” Kids learn by labeling things from a very early age, so they are helping Naya to label her world, and it’s interesting to watch. I don’t know what may come in the future when she has questions about her biological sex, and obviously we will probably never know. But other than that, I found a fair bit I liked in it.

Anyone else? What do you guys think?

[Grenartia]

Well, considering most of it was directed either against me, or on the same tangent as I was previously discussing, by the unwritten rules of debate, I was obligated.

No, you're really not, especially when you end up with an unreadable ten thousand word post that takes up more page space than Z-day did. Just respond to whoever posted last and assume people read the thread, it's not hard.

Except, there were actually several posts directed at me right after I last checked. I was obligated to respond.

If you don't like the size of my post, feel free to not read it. There's no rule against big posts, as much as you'd like there to be one.

Someone's gotta stick up for the voiceless kid.



I'm not. You're pretending like I am.



With heavy doses of you strawmanning the fuck out of my statements.



"WE MUST ALLOW TOTAL STRANGERS TO ASK A PARENT WHETHER OR NOT THE KID HAS A PENIS OR A VAGINA!"

See? I can make your argument sound ridiculous, too.



Why?



Yes, that's a problem. But where's the relevance?



They already are viewed like that, here in the West.



We're not pushing for them to be "things to be feared".



Ok, and...? Again, how is any of this related to telling people not to push their kids into one gender identity or another because they have one set of reproductive organs or another?

Because you’re pushing for this to be a negative not based on any scientific evidence that this is bad, but rather because your own personal preference is that you wouldn’t tell anyone the child’s sex.

The evidence says that forcing a gender identity on a child is bad for the child. "Gender reveal" parties help to contribute to forced gender identities.

And actually, sex-selective abortions do happen in the US, though not on the scale of places like India and China. And sex-selective abortions USUALLY happen against girls. Why? Girls are still viewed by some people as “bad”, or “not as useful as boys”.

Sure, that's bad, and shouldn't happen, but it still has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The whole idea of, “Hide the gender of the baby until they can form their own gender identity” ignores the fact that if we argue gender and sex are different, people are still going to see the sex, regardless of whether or not they have a set gender identity (cause parents will see the baby’s sex on an ultrasound, unless you also want those banned).

The idea, is to stop encouraging people to conflate sex and gender, and to not reinforce any particular gender identity on children. Making a taboo against talking about the kid's sex is the only effective way I can think of to get people to stop conflating the two and stop enforcing a gender identity based on the kid's sex.

And some people will find the sex of the child to be enough that they will think the baby should be aborted. So people should instead be taught to take pride in their kids’ sex. “Yes, I have a baby girl!” “Yes, I have a baby boy!”

Or, alternatively, we could continue with gender equality, and let the fact that women and men and people outside the binary are capable of doing the same things ruin any and all incentive for sex-selective abortions.

You’re not offended for the sakes of any babies, you’re offended for your own sake because you identify as androgynous, and you want to say you know better about raising kids than doctors, parents, and basically most people. It’s a very silly argument and I couldn’t strawman it if I tried. This argument is not about you.

Hardly. You're right when you connect my outrage to my gender identity, but for the wrong reasons. I'm speaking up for the babies that will grow up and be trans, whose parents will beat the shit out of them for trying to express their gender identity. I'm speaking up for the cis babies that will grow into gender non-conforming kids, and get bullied on the playground for wanting to play with toys "belonging" to the "other gender". I'm speaking up for them, because nobody else will (presumably because when we do, you make silly and absurd strawmen about us).

My gender identity informs these perspectives, yes. But that is hardly a bad thing, and it gives me a unique perspective that should be listened to by anyone who cares about the wellbeing of their children.

I'm not saying anything absurd. You're intentionally making absurd misrepresentations of my arguments. That's what I'm disappointed in and being offended by.

I mean as long as I disagree at all you’re going to say I’m misrepresenting your argument and being offensive, sooo...oh well?

Nope. I can actually distinguish between a legitimate counterargument, and one based on a misrepresentation.

No, you're really not, especially when you end up with an unreadable ten thousand word post that takes up more page space than Z-day did. Just respond to whoever posted last and assume people read the thread, it's not hard.

^ I specifically started a new post chain because I didn’t want to have to carry a massive post load to the other page. And as one can clearly see, I’ve made several small replies and it’s not considered spamming. Plus it makes it easier for people to read.

Just wait until a mod tut-tuts at you for doing it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-boy-or-a-girl-the-parents-of-one-young-child-let-the-child-decide/2018/09/18/18c0ec68-b6a4-11e8-a7b5-adaaa5b2a57f_story.html?utm_term=.4aca1f61f05d

Interesting little article I found about this family who kinda eased their baby into the idea of gender. While I don’t agree with the whole article, I do like that they gave Naya toys from both sides of the aisle and let her play with them both. I relate to this a bit, that’s how I grew-up for the most part. My mom got me these awesome collector’s Barbies from around the world, and I would spend hours online looking-up other beautiful Barbies in their beautiful dresses from around the globe. I also have a room full of stuffed animals, and I sleep with quite a few. No shame in it. I also grew-up with Yu-Gi-Oh cards (I still have my deck), Pokémon games, LEGOs, and I eventually became a rabid football fan. All things which are considered either “boyish” or “girly”.

Kids should be allowed to play with a large variety of toys to find their interests. I’m grateful to my parents for mostly letting my sisters and I play with things that would be considered “either/or”, and I think this at least will help Naya to become hopefully a well-rounded, intelligent young lady. I also like how they introduced gender by saying things like, “Grandma is a woman, she likes to be called ‘she’.” Kids learn by labeling things from a very early age, so they are helping Naya to label her world, and it’s interesting to watch. I don’t know what may come in the future when she has questions about her biological sex, and obviously we will probably never know. But other than that, I found a fair bit I liked in it.

Anyone else? What do you guys think?

As can probably be surmised from my previous statement, I wholeheartedly agree with this.

[Mattopilos II]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-boy-or-a-girl-the-parents-of-one-young-child-let-the-child-decide/2018/09/18/18c0ec68-b6a4-11e8-a7b5-adaaa5b2a57f_story.html?utm_term=.4aca1f61f05d

Interesting little article I found about this family who kinda eased their baby into the idea of gender. While I don’t agree with the whole article, I do like that they gave Naya toys from both sides of the aisle and let her play with them both. I relate to this a bit, that’s how I grew-up for the most part. My mom got me these awesome collector’s Barbies from around the world, and I would spend hours online looking-up other beautiful Barbies in their beautiful dresses from around the globe. I also have a room full of stuffed animals, and I sleep with quite a few. No shame in it. I also grew-up with Yu-Gi-Oh cards (I still have my deck), Pokémon games, LEGOs, and I eventually became a rabid football fan. All things which are considered either “boyish” or “girly”.

Kids should be allowed to play with a large variety of toys to find their interests. I’m grateful to my parents for mostly letting my sisters and I play with things that would be considered “either/or”, and I think this at least will help Naya to become hopefully a well-rounded, intelligent young lady. I also like how they introduced gender by saying things like, “Grandma is a woman, she likes to be called ‘she’.” Kids learn by labeling things from a very early age, so they are helping Naya to label her world, and it’s interesting to watch. I don’t know what may come in the future when she has questions about her biological sex, and obviously we will probably never know. But other than that, I found a fair bit I liked in it.

Anyone else? What do you guys think?

I think this is a very sensible way to look at the individuality of Naya. They have the power to shape themselves and are not pushed to what they "ought" to be or identify as. It is a sad thought such a thing would likely lead to backlash by a lot of people who think this is political correctness gone mad or degenerate or a rejection of biological fact: it's all a bunch of bullshit people throw up to protect their ignorance to gender as the social construct it is and their unwillingness to ever step outside the convictions they have to their "side" of society, their "team" for how they view society. I know I certainly couldn't attempt this with my family and the people I have met - I would most definitely be treated like a freak, a liberal nutter. It's a damn shame people can't leave their opinions to themselves and let individuals be individuals.

Funny story though: my grandmother thought I was a girl when I was in the hospital when I was born, because I was dressed in a pink set of clothes; the hospital had run out of blue clothes, so they just threw on what they had available.

[Vassenor]

Can you provide some sources please? As a Christian I think it's pretty important if something I thought was a given was interpreted incorrectly.

Really, the only one that requires a source is that Corinthians 6:9-10 is mistranslated, and that's based on the fact that the word that has been commonly been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind", arsenokoitai, appears nowhere in the Greek records prior to Paul's writings. In essence, he made it up. Modern translations like to say it means "homosexuals", but this hasn't always been the preferred interpretation. In Martin Luther's day, it was thought to mean "masturbators". The translation of the word "effeminate" is similarly flawed, albeit to a lesser degree, and is probably a reflection of Paul's sexist biases (he was, after all, a Roman citizen).

Everything else is based on logic.

But I thought we weren't allowed to say that because something something historical revisionism.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Really, the only one that requires a source is that Corinthians 6:9-10 is mistranslated, and that's based on the fact that the word that has been commonly been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind", arsenokoitai, appears nowhere in the Greek records prior to Paul's writings. In essence, he made it up. Modern translations like to say it means "homosexuals", but this hasn't always been the preferred interpretation. In Martin Luther's day, it was thought to mean "masturbators". The translation of the word "effeminate" is similarly flawed, albeit to a lesser degree, and is probably a reflection of Paul's sexist biases (he was, after all, a Roman citizen).

Everything else is based on logic.

But I thought we weren't allowed to say that because something something historical revisionism.

Literally nobody said that?

[Dumb Ideologies]

But I thought we weren't allowed to say that because something something historical revisionism.

Literally nobody said that?

Vass has a lot of invasive thoughts based on visions of what people might have said in alternative universes. I was hoping Gren's giant wall of text might block them out, but alas not. This superpower wouldn't be top of anyone's list to be sure, but who are we to question the gifts and curses of the gods?

[The New California Republic]

Get some magic mushrooms, go to a safe place where you can be alone, fast, eat them, and ask God to please explain to you why you are alive and what you are supposed to do with your life.

Wait...are you seriously suggesting that taking illegal drugs is a legitimate way to commune with God, ergo acting as a cure for being trans? Fucking hell. Sorry buddy, but from this point onwards I cannot take you seriously anymore. And I mean forever. Anything you subsequently say in this or any other thread will be tainted by the shadow of this cataclysmically stupid comment, such is the magnitude of it. I don't think you fully grasp how seriously you have permanently damaged your credibility.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Literally nobody said that?

Vass has a lot of invasive thoughts based on visions of what people might have said in alternative universes. I was hoping Gren's giant wall of text might block them out, but alas not. This superpower wouldn't be top of anyone's list to be sure, but who are we to question the gifts and curses of the gods?

Seriously though, Vass desperately trying to invent outrageous statements out of thin fucking air is annoying.

It's basically "Somebody somewhere might've said something sometime, so this means I can use it as a defense!".

[Grenartia]

Vass has a lot of invasive thoughts based on visions of what people might have said in alternative universes. I was hoping Gren's giant wall of text might block them out, but alas not. This superpower wouldn't be top of anyone's list to be sure, but who are we to question the gifts and curses of the gods?

Seriously though, Vass desperately trying to invent outrageous statements out of thin fucking air is annoying.

It's basically "Somebody somewhere might've said something sometime, so this means I can use it as a defense!".

Actually, I do recall being told that was "historical revisionism" or some such garbage like that when I have made that same point in the past.

So, WVC, DI, lay the fuck off of her.

[The New California Republic]

Seriously though, Vass desperately trying to invent outrageous statements out of thin fucking air is annoying.

It's basically "Somebody somewhere might've said something sometime, so this means I can use it as a defense!".

Actually, I do recall being told that was "historical revisionism" or some such garbage like that when I have made that same point in the past.

So, WVC, DI, lay the fuck off of her.

Yup, there are a few references to it.

search.php?keywords=Historical+revisionism&t=396284&sf=msgonly

[Mallorea and Riva]

First thing:

Get some magic mushrooms, go to a safe place where you can be alone, fast, eat them, and ask God to please explain to you why you are alive and what you are supposed to do with your life.

Let's refrain from offering advice of dubious legal validity.

[Greater Westralia]

Actually, I do recall being told that was "historical revisionism" or some such garbage like that when I have made that same point in the past.

So, WVC, DI, lay the fuck off of her.

But no one engaging in the current discussion actually said that. It seems like a spiteful attempt at getting back well after the fact.

[Vassenor]

Actually, I do recall being told that was "historical revisionism" or some such garbage like that when I have made that same point in the past.

So, WVC, DI, lay the fuck off of her.

But no one engaging in the current discussion actually said that. It seems like a spiteful attempt at getting back well after the fact.

Put those goalposts back, would you kindly.

[Greater Westralia]

Put those goalposts back, would you kindly.

I haven't put down goalposts to begin with.

[Tungustan]

Have a nice day.