TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Des-Bal]

And, evidently, a basic logical conclusion doesn't exist in yours.


Here's another one, since, evidently, the last one didn't fit precisely in with all your standards.

You could explain that if you like, or just keep snipping because you pick and choose what to believe on a fundamentally irrational basis and you can't escape that.

The issue wasn't that it didn't fit my standards, it was that it didn't substantiate your claims.

I mean that's interesting but not really persuasive. It essentially says that twelve people who identify as gender fluid say that their feelings about their body change and he further posits that genderfluidity should be best understood as "a constant but inconsistent change regarding how one feels about their body." What in your mind does that prove? How does his suggestion that genderfluidity is influenced by language and western ontological conceptions gel with the two sources that were just posted suggesting a biological basis for being transgender?

[Torrocca]

And, evidently, a basic logical conclusion doesn't exist in yours.


Here's another one, since, evidently, the last one didn't fit precisely in with all your standards.

You could explain that if you like, or just keep snipping because you pick and choose what to believe on a fundamentally irrational basis and you can't escape that.

It's quite simple, though I understand it's hard to figure out with all that "rational" skepticism:

1. The APA upholds the idea that genderfluidity exists.
2. The APA is a renowned organization that is well-known for studying psychological issues, including gender-related psychological issues.
3. Therefore, it can be concluded that the APA drew this idea that genderfluidity exists from past and present studies about gender.

This isn't that hard whatsoever to figure out.

The issue wasn't that it didn't fit my standards, it was that it didn't substantiate your claims.

Mmhmm.

I mean that's interesting but not really persuasive. It essentially says that twelve people who identify as gender fluid say that their feelings about their body change and he further posits that genderfluidity should be best understood as "a constant but inconsistent change regarding how one feels about their body." What in your mind does that prove?

It, again, continues to support the idea that genderfluidity exists. How many fucking times do people have to tell you that the field of psychology isn't a precise science, considering the nature of the human psyche?

[Des-Bal]

It's quite simple, though I understand it's hard to figure out with all that "rational" skepticism:

1. The APA upholds the idea that genderfluidity exists.
2. The APA is a renowned organization that is well-known for studying psychological issues, including gender-related psychological issues.
3. Therefore, it can be concluded that the APA drew this idea that genderfluidity exists from past and present studies about gender.

This isn't that hard whatsoever to figure out.



Mmhmm.


It, again, continues to support the idea that genderfluidity exists. How many fucking times do people have to tell you that the field of psychology isn't a precise science, considering the nature of the human psyche?

You just described an argument from authority. Using their belief as proof instead of using their evidence as proof- that's exactly what that is.


How does it support that? What part of it do you think supports that. Are you reading these sources?

They can say it a literally infinite number of times, that's what it means when I say I'm not persuaded by it. It means that if you repeat it it's still not persuasive. You just presented evidence for transgender people existing, so did nana. You are complaining that it's impossible to substantiate matters of gender literally moments after two people did it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's quite simple, though I understand it's hard to figure out with all that "rational" skepticism:

1. The APA upholds the idea that genderfluidity exists.
2. The APA is a renowned organization that is well-known for studying psychological issues, including gender-related psychological issues.
3. Therefore, it can be concluded that the APA drew this idea that genderfluidity exists from past and present studies about gender.

This isn't that hard whatsoever to figure out.



Mmhmm.


It, again, continues to support the idea that genderfluidity exists. How many fucking times do people have to tell you that the field of psychology isn't a precise science, considering the nature of the human psyche?

You just described an argument from authority. Using their belief as proof instead of using their evidence as proof- that's exactly what that is.


How does it support that? What part of it do you think supports that. Are you reading these sources?

They can say it a literally infinite number of times, that's what it means when I say I'm not persuaded by it. It means that if you repeat it it's still not persuasive. You just presented evidence for transgender people existing, so did nana. You are complaining that it's impossible to substantiate matters of gender literally moments after two people did it.

You’ve been shown information from doctors and psychologists that attest to the existence of gender fluidity and yet you just scream “I don't believe in what authority sources say!”. At this point, I’m not sure what is it that you want other than being deliberately obtuse.

[Torrocca]

It's quite simple, though I understand it's hard to figure out with all that "rational" skepticism:

1. The APA upholds the idea that genderfluidity exists.
2. The APA is a renowned organization that is well-known for studying psychological issues, including gender-related psychological issues.
3. Therefore, it can be concluded that the APA drew this idea that genderfluidity exists from past and present studies about gender.

This isn't that hard whatsoever to figure out.



Mmhmm.


It, again, continues to support the idea that genderfluidity exists. How many fucking times do people have to tell you that the field of psychology isn't a precise science, considering the nature of the human psyche?

You just described an argument from authority. Using their belief as proof instead of using their evidence as proof- that's exactly what that is.

Nah, I haven't just used that, I just included it in a list of multiple pieces of evidence that've been thrown your way that you keep choosing to disregard in favor of stating "no evidence! genderfluid no real!" over and over and over again.

How does it support that? What part of it do you think supports that. Are you reading these sources?

Yes:

"Science tells us that gender is certainly not binary; it may not even be a linear spectrum. [...] And it also appears that gender may not be as static as we assume."

But thanks for telling us that you don't read them when you make these vain complaints.

They can say it a literally infinite number of times, that's what it means when I say I'm not persuaded by it. It means that if you repeat it it's still not persuasive. You just presented evidence for transgender people existing, so did nana. You are complaining that it's impossible to substantiate matters of gender literally moments after two people did it.

Y'know, I really don't care anymore at this point at how much you're not persuaded by it, because you've made it abundantly clear that the only person here who doesn't care for evidence is the one who claims to be a """rational""" skeptic.

[Des-Bal]

You’ve been shown information from doctors and psychologists that attest to the existence of gender fluidity and yet you just scream “I don't believe in what authority sources say!”. At this point, I’m not sure what is it that you want other than being deliberately obtuse.

I did absolutely no such thing. What I've dismissed is "the APA believes it" as evidence, I've read and responded to every link presented. The problem is that none of them actually present evidence to attest to the existence of gender fluidity.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/heal ... ology.html
You presented this article, nothing in it suggests that non-binary is a thing you can be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society
You presented this wikipedia page. There is no reason members of the bugis society identifying as genderfluid would be more persuasive than members of any other society doing the same. It is evidence that this culture and these people believe in this concept not that it has merit.


https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-sty ... -1.2418434
Torroca presented this article, it interviews people who identify as genderfluid but doesn't really contain anything to indicate that's a thing you can be. This is evidence in the same exact way the Stefonkee article was evidence you can be transage.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/ ... -identity/
Torroca presented this article, it doesn't say a god damned thing about being genderfluid but it explains how gender is influenced by genetics and how natal conditions can effect the development of the brain which if anything discredits the idea you can switch back and forth.

https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/cgi ... =symposium
Torroca presented this study. It doesn't present the barest bit of evidence that genderfluid is a thing you can be and in the light of previous articles the focus on language undercuts the legtimacy of genderfluidity. The exact same form of study could be done on the transage or the victims of gurage possession.

[The Rich Port]

You just described an argument from authority. Using their belief as proof instead of using their evidence as proof- that's exactly what that is.


How does it support that? What part of it do you think supports that. Are you reading these sources?

They can say it a literally infinite number of times, that's what it means when I say I'm not persuaded by it. It means that if you repeat it it's still not persuasive. You just presented evidence for transgender people existing, so did nana. You are complaining that it's impossible to substantiate matters of gender literally moments after two people did it.

You’ve been shown information from doctors and psychologists that attest to the existence of gender fluidity and yet you just scream “I don't believe in what authority sources say!”. At this point, I’m not sure what is it that you want other than being deliberately obtuse.

Spoiler alert, he's deliberately obtuse quite often. Kinda his thing.

[Des-Bal]

Nah, I haven't just used that, I just included it in a list of multiple pieces of evidence that've been thrown your way that you keep choosing to disregard in favor of stating "no evidence! genderfluid no real!" over and over and over again.

Yes:

"Science tells us that gender is certainly not binary; it may not even be a linear spectrum. [...] And it also appears that gender may not be as static as we assume."

But thanks for telling us that you don't read them when you make these vain complaints.


Y'know, I really don't care anymore at this point at how much you're not persuaded by it, because you've made it abundantly clear that the only person here who doesn't care for evidence is the one who claims to be a """rational""" skeptic.

Whose disregarding them? I'm reading them and explaining to you why they don't say what you think.

When an article makes a claim without support it is exactly as persuasive as you doing the same. They say "gender may not be as static as we assume" offhandedly and they do not say what suggests this is true.

Spoiler alert, he's deliberately obtuse quite often. Kinda his thing.

There's nothing obtuse about evaluating evidence and expecting it to be coherent.

[Torrocca]

Nah, I haven't just used that, I just included it in a list of multiple pieces of evidence that've been thrown your way that you keep choosing to disregard in favor of stating "no evidence! genderfluid no real!" over and over and over again.

Yes:

"Science tells us that gender is certainly not binary; it may not even be a linear spectrum. [...] And it also appears that gender may not be as static as we assume."

But thanks for telling us that you don't read them when you make these vain complaints.


Y'know, I really don't care anymore at this point at how much you're not persuaded by it, because you've made it abundantly clear that the only person here who doesn't care for evidence is the one who claims to be a """rational""" skeptic.

Whose disregarding them? I'm reading them and explaining to you why they don't say what you think.

And I don't believe you, that you're actually bothering to read them.

When an article makes a claim without support it is exactly as persuasive as you doing the same. They say "gender may not be as static as we assume" offhandedly and they do not say what suggests this is true.[/quote]

"Offhandedly"? Jesus fucking Christ, how purposefully obtuse are you going to be? Do you not know how a concluding paragraph works in an essay or a study, or are you just pretending to not know? It's pretty fucking obvious, if you'd read the article like you're claiming, that the author is drawing from the numerous linked references in regards to these conclusions they're making, like holy shit this isn't hard at all to figure the fuck out from the context laid out in the article.

At this point, all I can fucking assume is that you're being deliberately disingenuous as all hell to try and dismiss the evidence you've been given.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I’m going to assume that the American Psychiatric Assoc.’s take on gender fluidity is also not going to be accepted: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... -dysphoria

Gender fluidity is defined further down the article.

[Des-Bal]

"Offhandedly"? Jesus fucking Christ, how purposefully obtuse are you going to be? Do you not know how a concluding paragraph works in an essay or a study, or are you just pretending to not know? It's pretty fucking obvious, if you'd read the article like you're claiming, that the author is drawing from the numerous linked references in regards to these conclusions they're making, like holy shit this isn't hard at all to figure the fuck out from the context laid out in the article.

At this point, all I can fucking assume is that you're being deliberately disingenuous as all hell to try and dismiss the evidence you've been given.

There's not a single bit of fucking evidence supporting that particular claim. There's plenty of links about sexual dimorphism, about the results of twin studies, about problems with hormonal uptake in transgender people, and there's not even a tiny bit suggesting gender fluidity exists. I'm a sleepy boy so it's possible I'm still missing something, what in that body of evidence they present are you arguing substantiates that particular claim?

I’m going to assume that the American Psychiatric Assoc.’s take on gender fluidity is also not going to be accepted: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... -dysphoria

Gender fluidity is defined further down the article.

Gender fluidity - having different gender identities at different times.

I'll accept that's their definition but what I'm asking for is evidence the phenomenon is real, not just that people identify that way or that other people have accepted them as such.

[Cekoviu]

You just described an argument from authority. Using their belief as proof instead of using their evidence as proof- that's exactly what that is.


How does it support that? What part of it do you think supports that. Are you reading these sources?

They can say it a literally infinite number of times, that's what it means when I say I'm not persuaded by it. It means that if you repeat it it's still not persuasive. You just presented evidence for transgender people existing, so did nana. You are complaining that it's impossible to substantiate matters of gender literally moments after two people did it.

You’ve been shown information from doctors and psychologists that attest to the existence of gender fluidity and yet you just scream “I don't believe in what authority sources say!”. At this point, I’m not sure what is it that you want other than being deliberately obtuse.

That was clear like 2 pages ago, but yeah.

[Torrocca]

"Offhandedly"? Jesus fucking Christ, how purposefully obtuse are you going to be? Do you not know how a concluding paragraph works in an essay or a study, or are you just pretending to not know? It's pretty fucking obvious, if you'd read the article like you're claiming, that the author is drawing from the numerous linked references in regards to these conclusions they're making, like holy shit this isn't hard at all to figure the fuck out from the context laid out in the article.

At this point, all I can fucking assume is that you're being deliberately disingenuous as all hell to try and dismiss the evidence you've been given.

There's not a single bit of fucking evidence supporting that particular claim. There's plenty of links about sexual dimorphism, about the results of twin studies, about problems with hormonal uptake in transgender people, and there's not even a tiny bit suggesting gender fluidity exists. I'm a sleepy boy so it's possible I'm still missing something, what in that body of evidence they present are you arguing substantiates that particular claim?

I’m going to assume that the American Psychiatric Assoc.’s take on gender fluidity is also not going to be accepted: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... -dysphoria

Gender fluidity is defined further down the article.

Gender fluidity - having different gender identities at different times.

I'll accept that's their definition but what I'm asking for is evidence the phenomenon is real, not just that people identify that way or that other people have accepted them as such.

It's pretty clear you didn't check the references beyond the opening bits to support your innate confirmation bias about the nonexistence of genderfluid individuals, so here's one link from within that article that talks about the biological nonbinary nature of sexes. There's also this from the "further reading" section which you pretty clearly ignored which, again, supports the nonbinary nature of sexes and thus non-binary gender identities in general, including genderfluidity.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

"Offhandedly"? Jesus fucking Christ, how purposefully obtuse are you going to be? Do you not know how a concluding paragraph works in an essay or a study, or are you just pretending to not know? It's pretty fucking obvious, if you'd read the article like you're claiming, that the author is drawing from the numerous linked references in regards to these conclusions they're making, like holy shit this isn't hard at all to figure the fuck out from the context laid out in the article.

At this point, all I can fucking assume is that you're being deliberately disingenuous as all hell to try and dismiss the evidence you've been given.

There's not a single bit of fucking evidence supporting that particular claim. There's plenty of links about sexual dimorphism, about the results of twin studies, about problems with hormonal uptake in transgender people, and there's not even a tiny bit suggesting gender fluidity exists. I'm a sleepy boy so it's possible I'm still missing something, what in that body of evidence they present are you arguing substantiates that particular claim?

I’m going to assume that the American Psychiatric Assoc.’s take on gender fluidity is also not going to be accepted: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... -dysphoria

Gender fluidity is defined further down the article.

Gender fluidity - having different gender identities at different times.

I'll accept that's their definition but what I'm asking for is evidence the phenomenon is real, not just that people identify that way or that other people have accepted them as such.

There’s gender fluid people in this thread. Talk to them. Or check the sources in the Wiki Genderqueer article. It’s clear I’m not going to convince you.

[Des-Bal]

That was clear like 2 pages ago, but yeah.

If I'm being obtuse why don't you point to a link and describe what it proves and how it proves it? If I'm just an asshole that's a pretty easy thing to do. If I was saying there's no proof you can be transgender you could just pull up a link like so and say:

"Look at the twin studies, the multiple examinations of the sexually dimorphic nucleus, and estrogen uptake of transgender men as detailed in this handy article. This suggests that transgender men are distinct from cisgender women and transgender women are distinct from cisgender men."

If I couldn't explain why that appeared to be the case well I sure would have egg on my face. But that's not going to happen. Because all anyone can really say about this subject is "this group of people say it's real." That's what the absence of evidence looks like.

[The Rich Port]

There's not a single bit of fucking evidence supporting that particular claim. There's plenty of links about sexual dimorphism, about the results of twin studies, about problems with hormonal uptake in transgender people, and there's not even a tiny bit suggesting gender fluidity exists. I'm a sleepy boy so it's possible I'm still missing something, what in that body of evidence they present are you arguing substantiates that particular claim?




I'll accept that's their definition but what I'm asking for is evidence the phenomenon is real, not just that people identify that way or that other people have accepted them as such.

There’s gender fluid people in this thread. Talk to them. Or check the sources in the Wiki Genderqueer article. It’s clear I’m not going to convince you.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's not interested in discussion, only his own confirmation bias.

He's looking for a conclusion, and it's the one that he wants, not the one that already exists.

I'm genderfluid, by the by, if anyone's interested.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There’s gender fluid people in this thread. Talk to them. Or check the sources in the Wiki Genderqueer article. It’s clear I’m not going to convince you.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's not interested in discussion, only his own confirmation bias.

He's looking for a conclusion, and it's the one that he wants, not the one that already exists.

I'm genderfluid, by the by, if anyone's interested.

It’s also a psychological issue because of the very nature of gender and of gender non-conformity. This article is worthy of a peruse: https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-sex ... der-fluid/

And if I didn’t before, here’s an interesting article from NatGeo in the subject of gender: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... -identity/

[Des-Bal]

It's pretty clear you didn't check the references beyond the opening bits to support your innate confirmation bias about the nonexistence of genderfluid individuals, so here's one link from within that article that talks about the biological nonbinary nature of sexes. There's also this from the "further reading" section which you pretty clearly ignored which, again, supports the nonbinary nature of sexes and thus non-binary gender identities in general, including genderfluidity.

I don't have a dog in this fight, you've wrapped up your identity as an open and accepting person into buying into this particular thing. You're projecting. It's why you're insistent that there must be some evidence even though you consistently can't actually find or explain it.

I am genuinely not clear about what you think either of those articles means. I have explained several of your sources to you so why don't you try to explain them to me.

If I'm being obtuse why don't you point to a link and describe what it proves and how it proves it? If I'm just an asshole that's a pretty easy thing to do.

You have linked like 5 articles that don't really say what you seem to think they do. I don't know if this is you not reading them or not understanding them but I want to hear what you actually think those say.

[Torrocca]

It's pretty clear you didn't check the references beyond the opening bits to support your innate confirmation bias about the nonexistence of genderfluid individuals, so here's one link from within that article that talks about the biological nonbinary nature of sexes. There's also this from the "further reading" section which you pretty clearly ignored which, again, supports the nonbinary nature of sexes and thus non-binary gender identities in general, including genderfluidity.

I don't have a dog in this fight,

You've been arguing with multiple trans people and non-trans people in this thread for nearly ten hours straight now about the existence of genderfluid people. I don't believe you for a second here. Your dog's your utter refusal to even remotely concede, any and all evidence be damned.

you've wrapped up your identity as an open and accepting person into buying into this particular thing.

"Buying into"? Nah, I just actually read the studies I've linked to you and completely understand that the consensus that genderfluidity exists is supported by these studies.

You're projecting. It's why you're insistent that there must be some evidence even though you consistently can't actually find or explain it.

>Found multiple studies and articles
>Nana also found multiple studies and articles
>So did Cek
>And so on
>"yOu CaN't FiNd EviDeNcEz!!1!"

I am genuinely not clear about what you think either of those articles. I have explained several of your sources to you so why don't you try to explain them to me.

I think those articles provide yet more proof of the validity of genderfluidity through the biological understanding of the imperfections of sexes.

[Des-Bal]

You've been arguing with multiple trans people and non-trans people in this thread for nearly ten hours straight now about the existence of genderfluid people. I don't believe you for a second here. Your dog's your utter refusal to even remotely concede, any and all evidence be damned.

"Buying into"? Nah, I just actually read the studies I've linked to you and completely understand that the consensus that genderfluidity exists is supported by these studies.

>Found multiple studies and articles
>Nana also found multiple studies and articles
>So did Cek
>And so on
>"yOu CaN't FiNd EviDeNcEz!!1!"




I think those articles provide yet more proof of the validity of genderfluidity through the biological understanding of the imperfections of sexes.

It would be a beautiful fucking day for me if I could concede. If you had a shred of actual evidence it would probably be the most interesting thing I've learned in a while. If your articles said "yeah genderfluid people experience the same reduced estrogen uptake as transgender men when they identify as male but not when they identify as female" I would be utterly fascinated. If you said "brain scans radically change dending on when a genderfluid person is examined" I would be floored by the ramifications about what that meant for our understanding of neuroplasticity. But you can't. The only thing you have is "this organization says it's real," "This culture says it's real," and "this person has an extra y chromosome."

[Cappuccina]

There's not a single bit of fucking evidence supporting that particular claim. There's plenty of links about sexual dimorphism, about the results of twin studies, about problems with hormonal uptake in transgender people, and there's not even a tiny bit suggesting gender fluidity exists. I'm a sleepy boy so it's possible I'm still missing something, what in that body of evidence they present are you arguing substantiates that particular claim?




I'll accept that's their definition but what I'm asking for is evidence the phenomenon is real, not just that people identify that way or that other people have accepted them as such.

It's pretty clear you didn't check the references beyond the opening bits to support your innate confirmation bias about the nonexistence of genderfluid individuals, so here's one link from within that article that talks about the biological nonbinary nature of sexes. There's also this from the "further reading" section which you pretty clearly ignored which, again, supports the nonbinary nature of sexes and thus non-binary gender identities in general, including genderfluidity.

Both of those babble on about the chromosome systems of birds and platypi, not relevant to humans really. And far from saying anything about genderfluidity. If you're gonna post supposed data shedding light on gender, at least make it about our species.

[Torrocca]

It's pretty clear you didn't check the references beyond the opening bits to support your innate confirmation bias about the nonexistence of genderfluid individuals, so here's one link from within that article that talks about the biological nonbinary nature of sexes. There's also this from the "further reading" section which you pretty clearly ignored which, again, supports the nonbinary nature of sexes and thus non-binary gender identities in general, including genderfluidity.

Both of those babble on about the chromosome systems of birds and platypi, not relevant to humans really.

Easiest fucking way to prove you didn't actually read the articles, because the second one focuses primarily on human sex chromosomes; the first is being used as a segue into the fact that sex chromosomes are on a literal spectrum of imperfection.

And far from saying anything about genderfluidity. If you're gonna post supposed data shedding light on gender, at least make it about our species.

Again, you and Des both completely miss the point of presenting these articles: they're supporting evidence (not direct evidence!) for the existence of genderfluidity from a biological viewpoint of the imperfections of sex chromosomes. Seldom few, if any human individual's XX or XY set of chromosomes are perfectly X or Y, the fact of which supports the existence of genderfluidity by showing there's no real male/female binary.

[Cappuccina]

Both of those babble on about the chromosome systems of birds and platypi, not relevant to humans really.

Easiest fucking way to prove you didn't actually read the articles, because the second one focuses primarily on human sex chromosomes; the first is being used as a segue into the fact that sex chromosomes are on a literal spectrum of imperfection.

And far from saying anything about genderfluidity. If you're gonna post supposed data shedding light on gender, at least make it about our species.

Again, you and Des both completely miss the point of presenting these articles: they're supporting evidence (not direct evidence!) for the existence of genderfluidity from a biological viewpoint of the imperfections of sex chromosomes. Seldom few, if any human individual's XX or XY set of chromosomes are perfectly X or Y, the fact of which supports the existence of genderfluidity by showing there's no real male/female binary.

Supporting evidence isn't the the same as "yeah it's definitely a thing so we should accept it". Then there's the question of how genderfluidity would even work on a biological level. For what could be referred to as "static gender" transfolk, we have the studies showing mental structures similar to the gender we have affinity with, are there any similar studies for genderfluidity? Or is all this simply speculating based on other species and chomosomal anomalies?

The studies don't really hint at genderfluidity being grounded in biology at all. Even if it ended up not being that case, that's not really the issue in the end is it? This is all about how people feel on a whim, right? The majority of the trans community would blindly hold that genderfluidity is valid anyways simply in the name precious inclusivity.

[Torrocca]

Easiest fucking way to prove you didn't actually read the articles, because the second one focuses primarily on human sex chromosomes; the first is being used as a segue into the fact that sex chromosomes are on a literal spectrum of imperfection.



Again, you and Des both completely miss the point of presenting these articles: they're supporting evidence (not direct evidence!) for the existence of genderfluidity from a biological viewpoint of the imperfections of sex chromosomes. Seldom few, if any human individual's XX or XY set of chromosomes are perfectly X or Y, the fact of which supports the existence of genderfluidity by showing there's no real male/female binary.

Supporting evidence isn't the the same as "yeah it's definitely a thing so we should accept it".

... Are you just going to ignore the metric fuckton of evidence that multiple people have provided in these past ten or so pages that's both direct and supporting evidence that upholds the validity of genderfluidity as a concept? Really now?

The rest of what's being said is irrelevant, at the moment.

[Cappuccina]

Supporting evidence isn't the the same as "yeah it's definitely a thing so we should accept it".

... Are you just going to ignore the metric fuckton of evidence that multiple people have provided in these past ten or so pages that's both direct and supporting evidence that upholds the validity of genderfluidity as a concept? Really now?

The rest of what's being said is irrelevant, at the moment.

It isn't evidence is speculation. You're jumping to conclusions hoping that it's a thing, I'll suspend my belief til it's a sure thing thank you very much.

The second half of my post is relevant to the overall theme and the state of trans culture. There's an obsession with including everything under the sun in LBGT, thanks to God the MAPs are being repulsed like the plague, at least we're that sane.