Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Val Halla]

I already said I don't want to get into this argument. I was trying to dissuade the other guy from coming here and stirring shit up, because it's pointless.

But it's fun to debunk gender theory and watch people try to defend it.

I don't think you debunked anything

[Vassenor]

I already said I don't want to get into this argument. I was trying to dissuade the other guy from coming here and stirring shit up, because it's pointless.

But it's fun to debunk gender theory and watch people try to defend it.

You haven't really debunked anything though. Saying you don't believe in something isn't a debunk.

[Mechanisburg]

I already said I don't want to get into this argument. I was trying to dissuade the other guy from coming here and stirring shit up, because it's pointless.

But it's fun to debunk gender theory and watch people try to defend it.

Blink blink.

You... think you... "debunked" gender theory?

KEK

[Walrusvylon]

Utter lunacy. Nothing you do can do will ever change your chromosomes, which determine one's sex. Saying "I'm a walrus!" doesn't make me a walrus, no matter how much I want to be a walrus.

Go ahead, refute my argument.

Refute your argument from ignorance, stemming from the Dunning-Kruger effect plus an elementary school-level knowledge of biology?

Nah, I don't have the time to waste to teach you everything from middle school onwards, nor you are paying me to do so.

That's called misdirection, and an ad hominem.

[Walrusvylon]

But it's fun to debunk gender theory and watch people try to defend it.

Blink blink.

You... think you... "debunked" gender theory?

KEK

I never said I had finished disproving it.

I wrote debunk, not debunked. Get your tenses correct.

[Vassenor]

Refute your argument from ignorance, stemming from the Dunning-Kruger effect plus an elementary school-level knowledge of biology?

Nah, I don't have the time to waste to teach you everything from middle school onwards, nor you are paying me to do so.

That's called misdirection, and an ad hominem.

...Explaining how the argument does not make sense is an attack on the person making it?

[Mechanisburg]

Refute your argument from ignorance, stemming from the Dunning-Kruger effect plus an elementary school-level knowledge of biology?

Nah, I don't have the time to waste to teach you everything from middle school onwards, nor you are paying me to do so.

That's called misdirection, and an ad hominem.

Nah, you are literally making an argument from a deep, deep well of ignorance. That argument requires either an elementary school-level knowledge of biology (and it's lies-to-children up to and including high school in most countries) or for one to misrepresent reality.

[Mechanisburg]

Blink blink.

You... think you... "debunked" gender theory?

KEK

I never said I had finished disproving it.

I wrote debunk, not debunked. Get your tenses correct.

So you think you are in the process of "debunking" it?

KEK.

An argument from ignorance does not a debunk make.

[Walrusvylon]

That's called misdirection, and an ad hominem.

...Explaining how the argument does not make sense is an attack on the person making it?

Saying I don't know anything about biology does not explain how my argument somehow doesn't make sense. References to the Dunning-Kruger effect is a personal attack, as well.

[Walrusvylon]

That's called misdirection, and an ad hominem.

Nah, you are literally making an argument from a deep, deep well of ignorance. That argument requires either an elementary school-level knowledge of biology (and it's lies-to-children up to and including high school in most countries) or for one to misrepresent reality.

What is this well of ignorance? I can say that you are ignorant, too. My nation has very low levels of ignorance, for what it's worth. I took biology in 8th grade, which I am currently in, so I don't have elementary level knowledge of biology. You're really talking about reality when gender theory is completely imaginative?

[Vassenor]

I never said I had finished disproving it.

I wrote debunk, not debunked. Get your tenses correct.

So you think you are in the process of "debunking" it?

KEK.

An argument from ignorance does not a debunk make.

I mean to be fair we knew this was going topkek given that it started with the usual "I think this now prove me wrong" dismissal of the burden of proof.

[Walrusvylon]

So you think you are in the process of "debunking" it?

KEK.

An argument from ignorance does not a debunk make.

I mean to be fair we knew this was going topkek given that it started with the usual "I think this now prove me wrong" dismissal of the burden of proof.

I actually had sources, and I explained why I was right, so the burden of proof is on nobody.

[Walrusvylon]

So you think you are in the process of "debunking" it?

KEK.

An argument from ignorance does not a debunk make.

I mean to be fair we knew this was going topkek given that it started with the usual "I think this now prove me wrong" dismissal of the burden of proof.

It's really already been debunked by many other people.

[Vassenor]

I mean to be fair we knew this was going topkek given that it started with the usual "I think this now prove me wrong" dismissal of the burden of proof.

I actually had sources, and I explained why I was right, so the burden of proof is on nobody.

One source intentionally misrepresenting its evidence and one source with known and obvious bias.

Try again.

[Mechanisburg]

...Explaining how the argument does not make sense is an attack on the person making it?

Saying I don't know anything about biology does not explain how my argument make sense. References to the Dunning-Kruger effect is a personal attack, as well.

Your argument makes no sense because you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. That's why your argument makes no sense, and the Dunning-Kruger effect explains why you would try to make it.

The chromosome argument is worthless - because when people make it, they - like you - think not only chromosomes are a perfect indicator of sex, ignoring completely the fact it's not even chromosomes per se that determine sex, and ignoring the existence of intersex people, but they also ignore the basic fact that sex and gender are two different things (just start from Zhou, 1995 onwards - PubMed is your friend).

The argument hinges on the fact you "cannot change chromosomes therefore gender is invalid" or some such drivel: the argument is irrelevant, as chromosomes - X and Y, for a regular non-intersex hypothetical person - basically do nothing after the SRY gene triggers the differentiation of the gonads in testicles, and the genes for the androgen and/or estrogen receptors are coded elsewhere, and it's those receptors that afterwards allow the genitals to differentiate - the testicles, for example, secerne DHT, Testosterone and anti-Mullerian hormone, and it's those that differentiate the genitals in penis and scrotum in the male embryo.

When the androgen receptors of the foetus are not quite up to standards - like when, say, the foetus presents 5-alpha-reductase deficency, or partial/complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - this differentiation does not happen. For example, at least a 46,XY woman with CAIS has been recorded in medical literature to have underwent pregnancy (Selvaraj, 2002) - despite her chromosomes, she had a functioning uterus.

This without even going into things like mosaicism and chimerism and whatnot - multiple different genomes, even 46,XY and 46,XX can and do cohexist in individuals. At least a woman with 96% 46,XY mosaic has been reported to be fertile (Schoenhaus, 2008).

And I won't even bother with addressing your "I'm a walrus", which is a complete misrepresentation of the experience of basically every trans person, ever.

TL;DR: you are making an argument from ignorance.

[Neutraligon]

Surprise Surprise trump has removed those protections Obama put in place
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstory

[Vassenor]

Surprise Surprise trump has removed those protections Obama put in place
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstory

The "President for All Americans", allowing some Americans to discriminate against others.

[Val Halla]

Surprise Surprise trump has removed those protections Obama put in place
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstory

the people who kept saying "lol trump supports lgbt stfu" will ignore this and keep claiming it

[Vassenor]

Anyway, just gonna repost this because it kinda got buried under the shouting.

Anyway, first test with the new setup. It seemed to work fine under my jeans, but under the suit it seems a little bit too bulgy still. And yes, I am trying to work on the balloon belly.

But this was with a slightly problematic taping.

I guess I'm wondering what everyone else thinks, since I may be negatively biased.

[Khalisako]

Anyway, first test with the new setup. It seemed to work fine under my jeans, but under the suit it seems a little bit too bulgy still. And yes, I am trying to work on the balloon belly.

But this was with a slightly problematic taping.

I guess I'm wondering what everyone else thinks, since I may be negatively biased.

Sorry... that one's not working. v.v Too sheer and too... tight. Plus, that spider man pattern is something I think people'll only asociate with masculinity.

What kinds of normal outfits do you have? I remember one of your picturs of you wearing normal clothes and you looked just fine, really.

[Hashirajima]

I mean to be fair we knew this was going topkek given that it started with the usual "I think this now prove me wrong" dismissal of the burden of proof.

I actually had sources, and I explained why I was right, so the burden of proof is on nobody.

Let's take a look a the sources cited, shall we?

1) American College of Paediatricians:
"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples. The group's membership as of 2016 is estimated at 500 members, in contrast to the AAP's over 60,000 members." ~ Wikipedia (do excuse me, but it IS 0034H where I am and I do need my sleep)
Interesting... so you cite a splinter group with known sociopolitical leanings.

2)Sex Change Regret:
Annnnnnd a blog, essentially, which tackles a clearly stated angle. And clearly misinterpreting scientific papers.

No, seriously.

"Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism." ~ That Swedish study

"There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow."~ Society, Guardian
Hmmm.... a study done for a newspaper. That in itself is fishy already. NOT to discredit ... which institution was that? Right, University of Birmingham.

Taking THAT aside, in scientific papers "no conclusive evidence" generally just means "our numbers can't prove it". Note that this is different from "our numbers disprove it". In THIS case, if it was DISPROVED, it would be phrased like this: "There is conclusive evidence that sex change operations does not improve the lives of transsexuals..."

So... ignoring everything else since it's WAY too late for me to even consider joining this debate proper... please look through your sources carefully. These ones aren't particularly persuasive.

Just saying...

~ A random medical student passing by who's way past her 9am-anatomy-lab-later bedtime

[Anarcha Feminist Gynarchy]

Surprise Surprise trump has removed those protections Obama put in place
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstory

the people who kept saying "lol trump supports lgbt stfu" will ignore this and keep claiming it

Yes but the thing is women, with a vagina, dont want men in the women's restroom. If you look like a man, act, express like a man. Do you think that he should be allowed into the women's restroom, just because he says that he is a woman? No I dont think so.

[Ormata]

the people who kept saying "lol trump supports lgbt stfu" will ignore this and keep claiming it

Yes but the thing is women, with a vagina, dont want men in the women's restroom. If you look like a man, act, express like a man. Do you think that he should be allowed into the women's restroom, just because he says that he is a woman? No I dont think so.

So you think that being a woman solely involves a vagina, nothing more, nothing less? Mhm.

Personally I don't think this issue really should be an issue. Gender neutral bathrooms would seem to solve it, for the most part.

[Neutraligon]

the people who kept saying "lol trump supports lgbt stfu" will ignore this and keep claiming it

Yes but the thing is women, with a vagina, dont want men in the women's restroom. If you look like a man, act, express like a man. Do you think that he should be allowed into the women's restroom, just because he says that he is a woman? No I dont think so.

Funny, I wasn't aware any men where going into the restroom. Also, I wasn't aware I who have a vagina have a problem with mtf being in the same restroom as me. Finally there was a time when whites where uncomfortable having blacks in the same restroom, we no longer cater to those people, why should we cater to those who are uncomfortable with mtf.

[Ormata]

Yes but the thing is women, with a vagina, dont want men in the women's restroom. If you look like a man, act, express like a man. Do you think that he should be allowed into the women's restroom, just because he says that he is a woman? No I dont think so.

Funny, I wasn't aware any men where going into the restroom. Also, I wasn't aware I who have a vagina have a problem with mtf being in the same restroom as me. Finally there was a time when whites where uncomfortable having blacks in the same restroom, we no longer cater to those people, why should we cater to those who are uncomfortable with mtf.

Permit me to observe that the individual Anarcha Feminist Gynarchy does state they are mtf according to this factbook.