Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[Forhillia]

Hey, found this thread on accident, I'm not gonna try to pretend like I'm an expert on trans issues (I'm cishet, so yeah) but all I can say is trans rights!

Thank you!

[Kowani]

Texas trans sports ban passes state Senate (19-12)

[Kharao]

Was it any surprise? This is Texas we're talkin about here.

[Lady Victory]

I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".

Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".

Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.

I grew up in Texas until I was I, and I loved it but in hindsight I did see a lot of questionable things that I was just used to.

I also visited family in Texas a few months ago, and the promotion of consumerism and anti-intellectualism was extremely blatant. At one point my cousin and I even saw a protest against the "trans agenda" in the middle of the city. There were also weird right-wing billboards everywhere and just about no one wore masks

[Necroghastia]

I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".

Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.

I grew up in Texas until I was I, and I loved it but in hindsight I did see a lot of questionable things that I was just used to.

I also visited family in Texas a few months ago, and the promotion of consumerism and anti-intellectualism was extremely blatant. At one point my cousin and I even saw a protest against the "trans agenda" in the middle of the city. There were also weird right-wing billboards everywhere and just about no one wore masks

The Texas GOP is explicitly against teaching critical thinking skills, if I'm not mistaken. I wish I knew why having that in the party platform doesn't immediately set off red flags in the heads of... well, everyone.

[HISPIDA]

I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".

Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.

"You know, when I was a kid, I used to think you were cool." *walks off shaking head*

[The Serbian Empire]

Texas trans sports ban passes state Senate (19-12)

Of course, it's Texas... it's full of theocratic transphobic people.

[North Washington Republic]

I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".

Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.

Texas has always been socially conservative and bigoted. First against BIPOCs, and now against LGBT. Hell, look up Lawrence V. Texas.

Texas was never really “cool”, unless you were white and Protestant.

[Ifreann]

Importing an argument from the UK politics thread.

Again, you are asserting something to be true not based on evidence or logical reasoning, but based on having learned it during your primary education. As if the fact of having learned it first makes it true, as if children are never taught simplified or incomplete versions of the truth, as if children are never taught outright lies. I was taught in biology that a species is defined as a group of animals that can produce viable offspring. But that's not true. Interspecies hybrids exist. The best known are the infertile hybrids of horses and donkeys, but fertile hybrids are also possible. Panthera hybrids can be fertile, ligers have successfully mated with lions to produce liligers. Ultimately, species is just a made up category. There isn't always a clear line where one species ends and its nearest relative begins. And sex, likewise, is not the simple binary you were taught when you were 12 and trying to stifle giggles as your teacher said "scrotum".

"Not based on evidence or logical reasoning"
"Only women have women's sex organs".
Again, we're not talking about atoms or La Place transformation nor even breeding random animals to make new ones here. We're talking about the biology equivalent to 1+1 in maths.

Principia Mathematica is a work on foundational mathematics that first establishes that 1 + 1 = 2 on page 379 of the first volume, and completes the proof on page 86 of the second volume. The maths we teach to children first is the easiest to understand, not the foundation of the field.

Not even that, it's actually a disservice to compare it to 1+1 because that requires basic logic that I'm not even asking you to display. Literally, the only thing you need is to be able to read some letters and see to what drawing they correspond to on an anatomic chart to see and once you've learn it once, it's never going to change in your whole life because those are organs! It's taught in middle school because it's literally just that seasy to get the basic concept that "Men and women have different sex organs, men have a penis and balls, women have a vagina and a womb."

But that's not always true. Men don't always have a penis and testes, women don't always have a vagina and uterus, for various reasons, including the reason that some people are transgender.

Just do yourself a favor and stop trying to evoke some great esotericism of the sexual organs that take ten thousands years of university researchs to be able to pierce the complexity of. Not only is it not working, but it's making your argument (and what you're trying to defend with it) look even dumber the harder you try to pretend that there is some hidden truth behind knowing what sex has what organs and where they are in the body. Randomly dropping unrelated bits of knowledge you got from reading some wikipedia articles only makes it clearer that not even you believe in the shitty point you're trying to argue.

That I'm using examples to help explain to you what I'm saying proves that I don't believe it? That's just bollocks.

The only thing you're displaying here is that you don't actually understand science but that you're very eager to pretend that you do and love it because you feel that it makes the political ideology you espouse look the tiniest bit legitimate... Even if it takes you lying about anything and everything to try and achieve that goal.

I like science as much as any internet weirdo, but all I'm demonstrating is a slightly wider understanding of the world that you were given when you were in primary school.

[Kowani]

Germany gets its first transgender members of Parliament, Tessa Ganserer (G) and Nyke Slawik (G)

[Serrus]

Importing an argument from the UK politics thread.
[mucho texto]

Why do these people not understand that if the evidence of what is occurring contradicts the theory you are using, then the THEORY is wrong, not to reject the evidence?

[Michel Meilleur]

Principia Mathematica is a work on foundational mathematics that first establishes that 1 + 1 = 2 on page 379 of the first volume, and completes the proof on page 86 of the second volume. The maths we teach to children first is the easiest to understand, not the foundation of the field.

A book, I'm sure, you've actually read rather than are just name-dropping in a rather shallow attempt at appeal to authority, losing in the process rather pathetically the point that children do not need the 200 pages proofs needed to verify the truth that 1+1=2, just like they do not need to go through hundreds of pages long of anatomic books to verify the fact that men have male sexual organs and women have female sexual organs.

But that's not always true. Men don't always have a penis and testes, women don't always have a vagina and uterus, for various reasons, including the reason that some people are transgender.

Errors in the reproductive process that leads one to be born with none or both remains just errors that are inherent to the very nature of sexual reproduction. "Accidents of life" that lead one to lose their sexual organs after their birth remains just accidents. Those are simply "exceptions" that do not change the rule that is that men and women are born with the sexual organs that are pertaining to their sex.
That's literally a biological imperative for the continuation of the specie.

That I'm using examples to help explain to you what I'm saying proves that I don't believe it? That's just bollocks.

Wallah, that you're delving into mysticism when it comes to basic anatomic facts does, tho.

I like science as much as any internet weirdo, but all I'm demonstrating is a slightly wider understanding of the world that you were given when you were in primary school.

Rather a much wronger one, lmao.

[Vassenor]

Importing an argument from the UK politics thread.
[mucho texto]

Why do these people not understand that if the evidence of what is occurring contradicts the theory you are using, then the THEORY is wrong, not to reject the evidence?

Because it's hard to OWN THE LIBS if you accept they might be right.

[Ifreann]

Principia Mathematica is a work on foundational mathematics that first establishes that 1 + 1 = 2 on page 379 of the first volume, and completes the proof on page 86 of the second volume. The maths we teach to children first is the easiest to understand, not the foundation of the field.

A book, I'm sure, you've actually read rather than are just name-dropping in a rather shallow attempt at appeal to authority, losing in the process rather pathetically the point that children do not need the 200 pages proofs needed to verify the truth that 1+1=2, just like they do not need to go through hundreds of pages long of anatomic books to verify the fact that men have male sexual organs and women have female sexual organs.

Children don't need hundreds of pages of proving that 1+1=2, but mathematicians do, because the foundations of mathematics are much more complicated than the arithmetic operations we learn first as children. It's much easier to teach people addition and subtraction and so on, and then go back later and teach them the more complicated logical underpinnings of those things.

But that's not always true. Men don't always have a penis and testes, women don't always have a vagina and uterus, for various reasons, including the reason that some people are transgender.

Errors in the reproductive process that leads one to be born with none or both remains just errors that are inherent to the very nature of sexual reproduction. "Accidents of life" that lead one to lose their sexual organs after their birth remains just accidents. Those are simply "exceptions" that do not change the rule that is that men and women are born with the sexual organs that are pertaining to their sex.
That's literally a biological imperative for the continuation of the specie.

You can't accurately describe the nature of humans by excluding certain humans from your consideration. I can't just exclude redheads and claim that humans are only ever blonde or brunette. Calling redheads an error doesn't mean they aren't real and don't count as human.

That I'm using examples to help explain to you what I'm saying proves that I don't believe it? That's just bollocks.

Wallah, that you're delving into mysticism when it comes to basic anatomic facts does, tho.

Using examples isn't mysticism.

I like science as much as any internet weirdo, but all I'm demonstrating is a slightly wider understanding of the world that you were given when you were in primary school.

Rather a much wronger one, lmao.

Maybe get out in the world more.

[Vassenor]

So yeah had a bad time last night.

Had the opportunity to have the big transition talk with my parents after being advised by my therapist to get it done sooner rather than later. When the time came I bottled it.

And ended up equal parts upset and angry at myself for bottling it.

[Michel Meilleur]

Children don't need hundreds of pages of proving that 1+1=2, but mathematicians do, because the foundations of mathematics are much more complicated than the arithmetic operations we learn first as children. It's much easier to teach people addition and subtraction and so on, and then go back later and teach them the more complicated logical underpinnings of those things.

Nice and all but 1+1 is still equal to two and each of the two sexes has its own specific reproductive organs and those two facts that children learn still remain true even if you can spend fifteen more years studying the "why" as to they exist.

You can't accurately describe the nature of humans by excluding certain humans from your consideration. I can't just exclude redheads and claim that humans are only ever blonde or brunette. Calling redheads an error doesn't mean they aren't real and don't count as human.

You can accurately describe the nature of sexual reproduction of humans, and the organs involved in them, by removing errors and accidents.
Just like you can describe that humans have naturally hair without "excluding bald peoples from humanity" (which would be a closer comparison than whatever you tried to do with that shit, smh my head).

In fact, that's what everyone is doing already, much to your chagrin apparently.

Using examples isn't mysticism.

Pretending it takes decades to understand the intricacies of male and female sexual organs belonging respectively to men and to women is tho, lmao.

Maybe get out in the world more.

It's really hard not to pick up on the absolute irony that you're trying to use a version of "touch grass".
But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.

[Ifreann]

Children don't need hundreds of pages of proving that 1+1=2, but mathematicians do, because the foundations of mathematics are much more complicated than the arithmetic operations we learn first as children. It's much easier to teach people addition and subtraction and so on, and then go back later and teach them the more complicated logical underpinnings of those things.

Nice and all but 1+1 is still equal to two and each of the two sexes has its own specific reproductive organs and those two facts that children learn still remain true even if you can spend fifteen more years studying the "why" as to they exist.

1+1=2, provided we make certain assumptions about the meaning of those digits and operators. If we made other assumptions it would be the case that 1+1=1, or possibly 1+1=10. People don't tend to learn about those kinds of things until later in their education, if at all. Similarly, there is more to the human sexes than the first things you were taught about them.

You can't accurately describe the nature of humans by excluding certain humans from your consideration. I can't just exclude redheads and claim that humans are only ever blonde or brunette. Calling redheads an error doesn't mean they aren't real and don't count as human.

You can accurately describe the nature of sexual reproduction of humans, and the organs involved in them, by removing errors and accidents.
Just like you can describe that humans have naturally hair without "excluding bald peoples from humanity" (which would be a closer comparison than whatever you tried to do with that shit, smh my head).

In fact, that's what everyone is doing already, much to your chagrin apparently.

But it's not true that humans naturally have hair on their heads. Many humans are born with little if any head hair, some never grow any head hair, some lose their head hair partially or entirely as they age. Leaving those facts out makes the description "Humans have head hair" inaccurate.

Using examples isn't mysticism.

Pretending it takes decades to understand the intricacies of male and female sexual organs belonging respectively to men and to women is tho, lmao.

It doesn't take very long at all to understand that biological sex isn't the simple binary that one might have learned about in school, but a spectrum. Decades might pass between one being taught that sex is binary and learning that it isn't, but it doesn't take decades to learn.

Maybe get out in the world more.

It's really hard not to pick up on the absolute irony that you're trying to use a version of "touch grass".

What?

But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.

I'm sure they'll catch on to the reality of the situation sooner or later. It's not terribly complicated.

[Vassenor]

But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.

That's not what the polling says.

[Kowani]

But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.

That's not what the polling says.

to be fair MM said in the world and this poll is just about britain

[Vassenor]

That's not what the polling says.

to be fair MM said in the world and this poll is just about britain

And according to MM a study of one area of Michigan is representative of crime statistics in the entire US.

[New Astri]

pokes head in. it doesn't matter what the rule of the majority is when it comes to humans rights issues--your proof that your support for minorities is justified should be that it's the Right Thing To Do, not that other people believe the same thing as you

[Michel Meilleur]

1+1=2, provided we make certain assumptions about the meaning of those digits and operators. If we made other assumptions it would be the case that 1+1=1, or possibly 1+1=10. People don't tend to learn about those kinds of things until later in their education, if at all. Similarly, there is more to the human sexes than the first things you were taught about them.

Wallah, what the hell are you even spouting.

But it's not true that humans naturally have hair on their heads. Many humans are born with little if any head hair, some never grow any head hair, some lose their head hair partially or entirely as they age. Leaving those facts out makes the description "Humans have head hair" inaccurate.

Oh no, you're going full Descartes but unlike him you don't know where nor when to stop. I'm too sober to follow you down that rabbit hole mate, sorry.

I'm sure they'll catch on to the reality of the situation sooner or later. It's not terribly complicated.

Can't do anything but hope for you not to be crushed under the black-hole forming weigh of the irony of your words and wish you the same. It's indeed not complicated at all so hopefully you won't take too long, kids don't need too much time so you shouldn't either.

[Necroghastia]

Can't do anything but hope for you not to be crushed under the black-hole forming weigh of the irony of your words and wish you the same. It's indeed not complicated at all so hopefully you won't take too long, kids don't need too much time so you shouldn't either.

Indeed! Kids tend to grasp LGBT concepts pretty easily, it's such a shame the same can't be said of many adults for whatever reason.

[Michel Meilleur]

Indeed! Kids tend to grasp LGBT concepts pretty easily, it's such a shame the same can't be said of many adults for whatever reason.

LGBT concepts like "someone's sexual organs depending on their sex" ?