Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[Esalia]

Never have I seen an alleged Christian so filled with un-Christian hate, but it's something about LGBTQI+'s that brings the heresy out of them.

OK, you actually piss me off. I'm gonna say it, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE BE HAPPY WITH THEIR BODIES? You should be proud of who you are.

Why can't people transition and be happy with their bodies that way?

Forcing people to stick with a body they have genuine issues with on the basis of "just be happy" sounds not only evil, but hypocritical. I can get my teeth straightened if I'm not happy with them being wonky. I can get numerous cosmetic surgeries if I'm not happy with my body.

Why can't I correct my body if I'm trans?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Never have I seen an alleged Christian so filled with un-Christian hate, but it's something about LGBTQI+'s that brings the heresy out of them.

OK, you actually piss me off. I'm gonna say it, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE BE HAPPY WITH THEIR BODIES? You should be proud of who you are.

It proves quite stubbornly difficult to be proud of something that is making you very unhappy. I suppose one could contextualise suffering and give it value in terms of the pursuit of some grander goal. Indeed, many people throughout history have done so.

But "just be happy" and "just start believing what I do and submit to my interpretation of what divine forces want you to do" is not going to have many takers. People who do not feel a calling to your particular religion and sect of it are not going to spontaneously shift their base ontological assumptions because somebody on the internet wrote in capitals.

[Ifreann]

What does this quote even have to do with trans people though?

I mean, if God had intended for people to be trans, why wouldn't he have done it in the beginning?

If God intended for people to be Christian, why weren't Adam and Eve Christians?

[Lady Victory]

I don't mean to be rude, but then they are not a true Christian.

Stop.

You do not have the authority to be making that claim. No living mortal on this Earth has the authority to decide who is and who is not a true Christian, not even clergy. God and God alone reserves the power to differentiate between true and false believers. Are you God? No? Then you are blaspheming by trying to speak in God's name when He has not spoken to you.

Also, don't you dare call me transphobic for just saying what my religion says.

Our religion doesn't say anything about being transgender, no matter how much transphobes like you try to pretend it does. You would know this if you actually understood the religion you claim to follow instead of traipsing around with this faux righteousness and getting mad when people call you out on your bullshit.

I never said you shouldn't, I just said, if you want to be trans go ahead, but you can't be Christian.

Everyone can be a Christian. This isn't up for debate. Christ died for everyone's sins so that everyone could have a chance at Heaven. This is basic Christian doctrine; NO ONE is beyond salvation. You're preaching heresy now. Knock it off.

Genesis 5:2
He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” a when they were created.

This has nothing to do with being transgender. Stop quoting pages from the Bible you don't understand and using them out-of-context to justify positions that don't make sense.

Did God make them transgender or add a third one that is trans?

Did God make them Asian? Did God make them albino? Did God make them blind?

Adam and Eve were not real people; they are an allegory for the human race. This has been understood since the time of the Apostles and is reinforced by the fact that scientific analysis of procreation and the effects of inbreeding prove that two people can't physically produce a whole species.

OK, you actually piss me off. I'm gonna say it, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE BE HAPPY WITH THEIR BODIES? You should be proud of who you are.

Should someone born without legs be happy with their body? Should they refuse a wheelchair and just crawl everywhere? No?

So why should someone have to live with a body that does not represent who they are? Why should I have to live as a man when I would be happier as a woman?

Sin of anger, like you have neeever been angry in your life before. Did you assume Christians are perfect?

You certainly seem to. Why else would you be blaspheming by claiming trans Christians aren't "true Christians"? This seems to imply we are imperfect, doesn't it? And yet Christ accepted the imperfect who tried to live righteously, didn't He? Your hypocrisy and impiety is astounding.

I mean, if God had intended for people to be trans, why wouldn't he have done it in the beginning?

Trans people have always existed regardless of whether the Bible mentions us, and if God did not want us to exist He would not have created us this way. He knows we exist. We are just as much His creation as you are. Your failure to understand God is disappointing for someone who is supposedly a "Christian" and who has allegedly read the Bible.

Ah yes, why should I be in a religion if I breach its rules?

Everyone breaches the rules. We are all sinners, yet Christ and His Church welcome us all as we struggle in our search for salvation. You have so far displayed a lack of understanding of even basic Christianity and yet continue to speak as if you are an authority on the matter.

This is hubris; the sin of pride.

Why do you think I am against this?

Because you fail to understand the religion you claim to follow. Please spare us your false piety.

Have you properly read the Bible before?

Maybe you should stop reading the Bible and start trying to understand it instead. The Bible is full of truth, but not all of it's truths are presented plainly. It is the obligation of the reader to study and contemplate those passages that seem less clear in order to understand what truth they are revealing by accounting for time, language, context, and what other passages say. There are no contradictions or falsehoods in the Bible; any misgivings are the result of the misunderstanding of the interpreter.

[Forhillia]

OK, you actually piss me off. I'm gonna say it, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE BE HAPPY WITH THEIR BODIES? You should be proud of who you are.

Why can't people transition and be happy with their bodies that way?

Forcing people to stick with a body they have genuine issues with on the basis of "just be happy" sounds not only evil, but hypocritical. I can get my teeth straightened if I'm not happy with them being wonky. I can get numerous cosmetic surgeries if I'm not happy with my body.

Why can't I correct my body if I'm trans?

Yes! Thank you for saying that! I (and most other trans/non binary people) just want most people (and ourselves) to be happy, okay? Also, being trans/non binary is being who you are, is that good?

[Auzkhia]

There's no good argument against transitioning that isn't rooted in "tran bad"

Safety concerns are a matter between a patient and doctor especially with medically transitioning. We know what we are getting into and also no one trans person has the same transition.

If you really want to understand, remember these few things, every person's transition is different, bodily autonomy is a paramount right, and that good faith self-identification is how gender works.

[Ifreann]

Standing outside the gym in January to yell at people to just be happy with their bodies.

[Alcala-Cordel]

By your personal limited definition of Christian.

Tell me, were you ever Christian? Fun fact, every Atheist I have debated with has told me this immediately, that they were once Christian. Suree

I was never a christian

Never have I seen an alleged Christian so filled with un-Christian hate, but it's something about LGBTQI+'s that brings the heresy out of them.

OK, you actually piss me off. I'm gonna say it, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE BE HAPPY WITH THEIR BODIES? You should be proud of who you are.

Probably because self-righteous douchebags force some people into a gender identity that they don't have because of their genitals

What does this quote even have to do with trans people though?

I mean, if God had intended for people to be trans, why wouldn't he have done it in the beginning?

Canonically he did

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I am very sorry guys and gals (and...everyone else), I have read the Bible, and seen this verse. "And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." 2 Corinthians 5:15. I am ashamed and very sorry for acting like a transphobe. I will try not to speak like that again. Sorry.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Hello?

[Kowani]

Texas trans sports ban finally to get full house vote


(note: it's passed the state senate two times before this and the only reason it failed to become law was because it kept dying in house committee-a protection it no longer has)

[The New California Republic]

Hello?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Hello?

Ok go easy on the guy smh, esp when he appears to be trying to learn.

[Lady Victory]

Hello?

Don't mistake our silence for apathy.

I for one accept your apology and forgive you.

[The New California Republic]

(Image)

Ok go easy on the guy smh, esp when he appears to be trying to learn.

It was aimed squarely at the quote in isolation rather than the preceding.

[Estonland]

You know, there are risks to transition, yes. I'm very much aware of that as a trans woman.

But there are risks to any medical or psychiatric procedure. Or cosmetic, for that matter. If you oppose a trans man getting breast reduction but not a cis woman getting a breast reduction, then your problem is with transgender people, not "being happy with your body" or "surgical risks".

[Page]

You know, there are risks to transition, yes. I'm very much aware of that as a trans woman.

But there are risks to any medical or psychiatric procedure. Or cosmetic, for that matter. If you oppose a trans man getting breast reduction but not a cis woman getting a breast reduction, then your problem is with transgender people, not "being happy with your body" or "surgical risks".

I don't even think "risk" is a valid reason to be against other people consensually doing things to their own bodies anyway. It's not your risk, it's mine, the merits of which are mine alone to assess.

[Neu California]

Hello?

Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone at home?

(I regret nothing)

[Lady Victory]

You know, there are risks to transition, yes. I'm very much aware of that as a trans woman.

But there are risks to any medical or psychiatric procedure. Or cosmetic, for that matter. If you oppose a trans man getting breast reduction but not a cis woman getting a breast reduction, then your problem is with transgender people, not "being happy with your body" or "surgical risks".

What risks are there?

[Auzkhia]

You know, there are risks to transition, yes. I'm very much aware of that as a trans woman.

But there are risks to any medical or psychiatric procedure. Or cosmetic, for that matter. If you oppose a trans man getting breast reduction but not a cis woman getting a breast reduction, then your problem is with transgender people, not "being happy with your body" or "surgical risks".

What risks are there?

I know with feminizing HRT, they tell you about risks for blood clots, weight gain, infertility, hyperkalemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease. But I haven't had any issues like that myself, my health isn't any different than a comparable cis woman, barring reproductive anatomy of course, but that can be changed. Like you will have to get screened for breast cancer as you get older, because you have breasts.

With surgeries, hemotoma is always a risk, and so is infection but they give you pain killers and antibiotics.

Masculinizing HRT I know less about myself, but anyone can read through this.

[Forsher]

New Zealand: Trans and Non-Binary Children Continue to be Discriminated Against by School Zones after Government Caves to Rich White Folk

The article's paywalled and I can't remember if it mentioned the subject so I'll try and explain it myself. (Article headline: School zones: Family links keep priority status on ballot after thousands of submissions) We'll be working with the Policy approvals for the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) Report directly.

Just some brief background, in NZ most schools have enrolment zones. If you live in zone, you get to go to the school, pretty much regardless (iirc, there's some ableism involved but I'm not sure). If you don't live in zone, you might be lucky and the school isn't pop capped by its in zone applicants... but equally, the school zone may shift due to population growth before you start school.

This kind of school zone policy is associated with, as you might expect, white flight¹ and huge mark ups on the property values of certain well regarded popular schools. The most notorious example of this is the "double grammar zone" (being on the right side of which will add hundreds of thousands, millions probably for a big enough section, to the value of the land). For probably not unrelated reasons, "rich" schools in Auckland have vastly bigger rolls than "poor" schools, which the latter try to recover by having large (or non-existent) enrolment zones.

Due to an ongoing reform programme, all schools will soon have zones... which basically means schools in poor neighbourhoods will gain zones. I think they decided that they might as well review how to handle the enrolment of out of zone pupils because of this. I'm iffy on the exact way they do this myself, but the point is that if there's enrolment space, schools can enrol pupils according to a priority system and then they have a ballot for the rest. The options for consultation were thus:

Three proposals relating to the priority categories for out of zone enrolment were presented
to the public:

• Option 1 status quo – retain the current priority categories;
• Option 2 - increase the priority of children of board employees (teachers and other staff)
  and board members to priority three; lower the priority of siblings of former students, and
  remove the children of former students as a priority group; and
• Option 3 - retain current priority groups one and two, increase the priority of children of
  board members and employees to priority three, and establish an “all other applicants”
  category as priority four

These priority groups are an ordered list (so, presumably, every applicant in category 1 gets admitted, and then if there's room everyone in category 2 is eligible and so on):

1. students accepted into a special programme run by the school;
2. siblings of current students;
3. siblings of former students;
4. children of former students;
5. children of board employees and board members; [school boards are unique to a single school, not a collection of schools]
6. all other students.

If you don't see why this is relevant to the Transgender thread, you're not alone. I submitted on this change and didn't think of it at all, but it's actually fairly obvious. The key thing to note is that there are a lot of single sex state schools in NZ... including both of the "double grammar zone" schools (these being Epsom Girls Grammar School, EGGS, and Auckland Grammar School, AGS).

InsideOUT supported option 3 as they believed it would progress the best interests of
transgender and gender diverse students. Current enrolment schemes unintentionally force
some trans students to enrol at a single sex school or a school that is not aware or supportive
of gender diverse learners' needs. Accordingly, they believe that reducing priorities based
on family legacy, and increasing the number of applicants through an open ballot, would
increase trans and gender diverse learners’ access to affirming and co-educational schools

There was also an "additional considerations" section:

Several submitters stated that there were other interests that should be recognised in the
priority categories. Murray Bays Intermediate submitted that students from within a Kahui
Ako should be recognised as a priority category and could be prioritised over children of
former students

Other submitters (9) said that gender diverse and non-binary students should be explicitly
recognised in enrolment scheme policy, so that they have the option of attending a coeducational school if they are not in-zone for one.

It's actually fairly remarkable that they've reported additional considerations. It's a standard practice to just ignore anything off script (a la a cross examination in a movie where the lawyers don't let the witness say everything the witness wants to say). Mind you, I'm not sure this is the exact list of questions.

Anyway, we can now return to the article:

Auckland Grammar was among several schools that encouraged their alumni networks to make submissions on the latest proposal - and they came out in force.

Of a total 2869 submissions, 82 per cent wanted to keep the status quo, Ministry deputy secretary Andy Jackson said.

Most submissions (2362) were from Auckland, followed by Canterbury (209). Pākehā ["white folk"] made 2112 submissions followed by 260 from Māori. The analysis did not capture how many submissions were pro-forma.

Here's a general hitpiece on consultations since this is far from the only consultation process that's hijacked by elite interests. I have to say that I've noticed a lot more consultations that are being run as if they're surveys... I think I've done some literally run by Survey Monkey but I may be imagining that... which is presumably meant to help save time. However, I suspect the real outcome will be making people think that a submission process (that should be about, imo, receiving open ended ideas) is, in fact, an estimation process (where the output is learning what the public thinks). These are self-selected surveys, in other words, more than consultations.

¹Case in point, myself. When I turned five, we lived opposite a "poor" school but moved to opposite a "rich" school. For whatever reason, this wasn't a concern for secondary, so I went to a "middle income" school.

[Estonland]

You know, there are risks to transition, yes. I'm very much aware of that as a trans woman.

But there are risks to any medical or psychiatric procedure. Or cosmetic, for that matter. If you oppose a trans man getting breast reduction but not a cis woman getting a breast reduction, then your problem is with transgender people, not "being happy with your body" or "surgical risks".

What risks are there?

Misdiagnosis(rare, but it still happens), blood clotting, surgery going awry to name some.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Hello?

Oof

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Hello?

Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone at home?

(I regret nothing)

*nods

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Hello?

Don't mistake our silence for apathy.

I for one accept your apology and forgive you.

Thank you.