Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Philjia]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Degenerate is a Nazi word.

[Ifreann]

did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?

Yes.

[The New California Republic]

So...wait...what? Why the fuck did you say it then?

to assert my stance, its an argument tactic.

Spouting irrelevant nonsense =/= an argument tactic.

---

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.

Ha. No.

---

You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.

"Our heroes" died in WW2 to crush fascism, not prevent transgender people from existing. Fucking hell.

---

our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.

The Great Flood didn't happen. If it did happen, the ecosystems of the world would have been irreparably damaged. The Earth would have been rendered uninhabitable for millennia or more. We are talking about extinction-level event here.

---

But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Oh really?

[Kyrinasaj]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Well, LGBT happened at all times, everywhere and also in nature so that argument is pretty moot.

[Kyrinasaj]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Degenerate is a Nazi word.

Depends on the context, the state of a building can also ''degenerate''

[Auzkhia]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

1: There's no God, and probably no Lucifer either.

2: Sex isn't binary. The concept of Male and Female are but social constructs.

3: My ancestors were not Nazis, and a 90 year old WWII vet came out as trans, trans people fought in the war.

4: There are gay and bisexual animals, yet only homophobia exists in humans.

[Vassenor]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Oh, looks like we're doing that dance again.

[Auzkhia]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Oh, looks like we're doing that dance again.

I think I got bingo. What do I win?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh, looks like we're doing that dance again.

I think I got bingo. What do I win?

The crushing certainty that there will never, ever be true victory. Stupidity is eternal.

[Cekoviu]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Oh, looks like we're doing that dance again.

Why is there a nyan cat in the background?

[Reikoku]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.

That's silly. I'm a yōkai not a Luciferian.

You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us,

Which ancestors? We trans people come from wildly different places from each other.

did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?,

https://nypost.com/2017/03/29/transgend ... man-at-90/

But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

Desire is natural, ergo no desire can be against nature.

[Dark Socialism]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

[Khasinkonia]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

How so?

[Ifreann]

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

How so?

In that "degenerate" is a popular insult among the fash and our dark boi here has put, I would wager, approximately zero thought into his word choice beyond that.

But even though the word is being used as a thoughtless synonym for "bad", here is the Degenerate Queen of the Left explaining the history of the term and drinking absinthe.

[United Muscovite Nations]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

If something's not against nature or God, then it's not degenerating from anything, so it can't be degenerate by definition.

[Khasinkonia]

How so?

In that "degenerate" is a popular insult among the fash and our dark boi here has put, I would wager, approximately zero thought into his word choice beyond that.

But even though the word is being used as a thoughtless synonym for "bad", here is the Degenerate Queen of the Left explaining the history of the term and drinking absinthe.

I fancy hearing an explanation of a seemingly intensely subjective comment that cannot reasonably be supported by factual evidence.

[Grenartia]

Except for the psychological, medical, philosophical, and sociological communities.

None of the above, actually. Psychology, Medicine (bit redundant there I think) and even sociology will attest that while Gender may have become a much more fluid concept it modern thinking, it is still inherently tied to biological sex.

Having spoken with psychology, biology, and sociology professors, I can tell you that is false.

maybe a subset of post modernists in the philosophers would argue otherwise, but that's not even close to indicative of the philosophy "community" as a whole.

Not as far as I can tell.

Not really.

Yes really. Outside of the dumpster fire that is tumblr, nobody takes the 700+ gender list seriously.

What, you mean "MOGAI Archive"? Nobody except trolls and the super gullible even pay serious attention to that place.

Gender, even in the variations people try to make, are still distinctly tied within the sex dichotomy. All the "genders" are just mix between the two of varying degrees.

Explain Agender, then.

"Reality totally fits my model, except for these things over here, but they're not worth considering."

This is fundamentally bad science.

Even using the the most liberal estimation of frequency of intersex individuals, the intersex community accounts for 1 out of every 100 persons.

And...?

Using more standard definitions and accounting, 1 out of every 2000. By definition intersex is not the norm.

Neither is having red hair, but you don't see science not accounting for its existence.

Further, we know that the conditions that cause the various forms of "intersex" are a result of improper gene sequencing. Intersex is the result of genetic defect, not "alternative genes combinations."

Anyone with more than a high-school level of biology education can tell you that the line between "genetic defect" and "alternative gene combinations" is less of a line, and more of a blurry gradient.

Appealing to intersex to claim there's more than two sexes, is both attempting to appeal to exceptions to prove the rule, and doesn't actually square with what biological sex actually is.

Define "biological sex" then.

Sigh. I really don't have time to explain the birds and the bees to you.

Then why did you even come into this thread?

Lets go with the standard definition from a medical dictionary:
" the fundamental distinction, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual; also the category to which the individual fits on the basis of that criterion."

Which doesn't at all rule out intersex being a sex.

Not good enough for you? How about a biology textbook?

(1) The assemblage of characters or qualities of being a male or a female in animals and plants.

(2) The genitals; the physical distinction between male and female.

Or If you want the most basic determinate definition for sex:

Chromosomal sex: Sex by the determination of the presence of the kind of chromosome present in the somatic cell without regard to the phenotypic manifestation.

Oh, so your definition is "something something reproduction".

Me and well all of biology and science. I mean, that's why its called biological sex. Because the distinction between male and female is inherently related to their roles in sexual reproduction, as opposed to a-sexual reproduction. There's a reason we don't classify male and female paramecium.

I mean really, you must be lying with that pasta in your sig.

No more than you're lying with that "Yale Graduate" bit in your sig.

What sex are worker ants, then? They're not at all involved in the reproductive process of the colony, yet all the scientific literature classifies them as female.

Because they are female. Sterile Females. They have virtually the same genetic make up as the breeding females. Were they not sterile they would produce eggs, not sperm, due to their genetic makeup. In humans, sterile females are still female. If you'd like, as it says above they're chromosomal female, regardless of the phenotypical manifestation, i.e being sterile. You're not helping your case here.

inb4 you try some "I specified 'sexual reproduction in mammalian vertebrates'" copout.

Well 1. there's nothing to cop out from because whatever point you tried to make was a complete nonstarter. 2. It's not a cop out to point out that humans and ants aren't the same thing. We're not even in the same phylum. So the flawed argument here would inherently be yours, for trying to make such a ridiculous comparison.

Really, that came about because the conversation was talking about biological sex in general, not specificially mammals. And ants were the only example I could think of at the time of posting that violated your claims.

Also hilarious that you admit that I was referring to a specific situation and you knowingly tried to incorporate situation that isn't similar. You admit to moving the goalposts, while acting like you had the superior position. Well done.

Don't act like you haven't done the same with regards to the cosmological argument. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Tar.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

"LGBT is against God and nature" is, my friends, what we call a "big funny" in my exotic vocabulary.

God doesn't care and it's been widely observed in nature in many species, so yeah, moot point.

[Page]

This is wrong and against the divine Will, degeneracy and the doctrine of Lucifer.
You born male or a female, our ancestors would be ashamed of us, did our heroes died in ww2 for such degeneracy to exist?, disgusting, I will not tolerate this.
our world walks on the wrong path just like the generation of the flood did, our next generation will be far worse.
But that is the true: LGBT is wrong and against nature, but we humans always trying to fit nature for our evil desires.

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

The throwing around of the word "degenerate" really needs to die. In my view, people who unironically use this word reveal themselves to be boring - because everything that gets called degenerate is something that makes the world a more fun and interesting place. Really, it's like that. It's like if I wanted to have a killer party, I would just google all the things that get called degenerate and then include all those things for a guaranteed good time.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

The throwing around of the word "degenerate" really needs to die. In my view, people who unironically use this word reveal themselves to be boring - because everything that gets called degenerate is something that makes the world a more fun and interesting place. Really, it's like that. It's like if I wanted to have a killer party, I would just google all the things that get called degenerate and then include all those things for a guaranteed good time.

Degenerate is a lovely word when it comes to the pronounciation, yet means so little nowadays.

A buzzword, really.

[Grenartia]

It's not against nature or "god" it's just degenerate

The throwing around of the word "degenerate" really needs to die. In my view, people who unironically use this word reveal themselves to be boring - because everything that gets called degenerate is something that makes the world a more fun and interesting place. Really, it's like that. It's like if I wanted to have a killer party, I would just google all the things that get called degenerate and then include all those things for a guaranteed good time.

Well, except for kiddie diddling.

Though, that's probably the only thing anyone's ever called degeneracy that a lot of fascists would actually be ok with.

[Tarsonis]

None of the above, actually. Psychology, Medicine (bit redundant there I think) and even sociology will attest that while Gender may have become a much more fluid concept it modern thinking, it is still inherently tied to biological sex.

Having spoken with psychology, biology, and sociology professors, I can tell you that is false.

So have I. I can find a single professor to claim the Roswell incident was a plot by Stalin to scare Americans, doesn't make it true. Those "communities" you speak of, by and large do not accept your claim.

maybe a subset of post modernists in the philosophers would argue otherwise, but that's not even close to indicative of the philosophy "community" as a whole.

Not as far as I can tell.

That's not saying much.

Yes really. Outside of the dumpster fire that is tumblr, nobody takes the 700+ gender list seriously.

What, you mean "MOGAI Archive"? Nobody except trolls and the super gullible even pay serious attention to that place.

Good.

Gender, even in the variations people try to make, are still distinctly tied within the sex dichotomy. All the "genders" are just mix between the two of varying degrees.

Explain Agender, then.

A self created "other" gender expressed as a mix of traits from both genders.

Even using the the most liberal estimation of frequency of intersex individuals, the intersex community accounts for 1 out of every 100 persons.

And...?

By definition, not norm.

Using more standard definitions and accounting, 1 out of every 2000. By definition intersex is not the norm.

Neither is having red hair, but you don't see science not accounting for its existence.

Science does account for its existence, and for the existence of intersex.

One is the result of a recessive gene pairing, the other through improper gene sequencing.

True, by definition Red hair wouldn't be considered "normal" either. It's a deviation form the statistical norm, and reaching for them as "proof" is as faulty as reaching for intersex.

Further, we know that the conditions that cause the various forms of "intersex" are a result of improper gene sequencing. Intersex is the result of genetic defect, not "alternative genes combinations."

Anyone with more than a high-school level of biology education can tell you that the line between "genetic defect" and "alternative gene combinations" is less of a line, and more of a blurry gradient.

Only if they all skipped the classes on Punnett Squares, and Sexual Reproduction.

Appealing to intersex to claim there's more than two sexes, is both attempting to appeal to exceptions to prove the rule, and doesn't actually square with what biological sex actually is.



Sigh. I really don't have time to explain the birds and the bees to you.

Then why did you even come into this thread?

I never shy from an argument

Lets go with the standard definition from a medical dictionary:
" the fundamental distinction, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual; also the category to which the individual fits on the basis of that criterion."

Which doesn't at all rule out intersex being a sex.

Not good enough for you? How about a biology textbook?

(1) The assemblage of characters or qualities of being a male or a female in animals and plants.

(2) The genitals; the physical distinction between male and female.

Or If you want the most basic determinate definition for sex:

Chromosomal sex: Sex by the determination of the presence of the kind of chromosome present in the somatic cell without regard to the phenotypic manifestation.




Me and well all of biology and science. I mean, that's why its called biological sex. Because the distinction between male and female is inherently related to their roles in sexual reproduction, as opposed to a-sexual reproduction. There's a reason we don't classify male and female paramecium.

I mean really, you must be lying with that pasta in your sig.

No more than you're lying with that "Yale Graduate" bit in your sig.

Haha, sidestepping all the information that proves you wrong and only responding to the cheeky dig. Politics might be a good field for you.

Because they are female. Sterile Females. They have virtually the same genetic make up as the breeding females. Were they not sterile they would produce eggs, not sperm, due to their genetic makeup. In humans, sterile females are still female. If you'd like, as it says above they're chromosomal female, regardless of the phenotypical manifestation, i.e being sterile. You're not helping your case here.


Well 1. there's nothing to cop out from because whatever point you tried to make was a complete nonstarter. 2. It's not a cop out to point out that humans and ants aren't the same thing. We're not even in the same phylum. So the flawed argument here would inherently be yours, for trying to make such a ridiculous comparison.

Really, that came about because the conversation was talking about biological sex in general, not specificially mammals. And ants were the only example I could think of at the time of posting that violated your claims.

Except it doesn't violate my claims, not if you understand how biological sex works.

Also hilarious that you admit that I was referring to a specific situation and you knowingly tried to incorporate situation that isn't similar. You admit to moving the goalposts, while acting like you had the superior position. Well done.

Don't act like you haven't done the same with regards to the cosmological argument. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Tar.

Okay. See you in a week when you can muster another half assed response.

[Grenartia]

Having spoken with psychology, biology, and sociology professors, I can tell you that is false.

So have I. I can find a single professor to claim the Roswell incident was a plot by Stalin to scare Americans, doesn't make it true. Those "communities" you speak of, by and large do not accept your claim.

Prove it.

Not as far as I can tell.

That's not saying much.

What, you mean "MOGAI Archive"? Nobody except trolls and the super gullible even pay serious attention to that place.

Good.

Explain Agender, then.

A self created "other" gender expressed as a mix of traits from both genders.

I imagine several of the agender posters here will have several things to say about that.

And...?

By definition, not norm.

Neither is having red hair, but you don't see science not accounting for its existence.

Science does account for its existence, and for the existence of intersex.

One is the result of a recessive gene pairing, the other through improper gene sequencing.

True, by definition Red hair wouldn't be considered "normal" either. It's a deviation form the statistical norm, and reaching for them as "proof" is as faulty as reaching for intersex.

God, that's a lazy and stupid argument. That last sentence alone arguably implies that "red" shouldn't be a valid description of somebody's natural hair color, simply because it deviates from the statistical norm.

By this same logic, nobody who isn't a 20-something Han Chinese guy named Mohammed is valid.

Anyone with more than a high-school level of biology education can tell you that the line between "genetic defect" and "alternative gene combinations" is less of a line, and more of a blurry gradient.

Only if they all skipped the classes on Punnett Squares, and Sexual Reproduction.

Then why did you even come into this thread?

I never shy from an argument

Then you have the time to "explain the birds and the bees".

Which doesn't at all rule out intersex being a sex.



No more than you're lying with that "Yale Graduate" bit in your sig.

Haha, sidestepping all the information that proves you wrong and only responding to the cheeky dig. Politics might be a good field for you.

No, more like simply not arguing with points that I don't disagree with.

Really, that came about because the conversation was talking about biological sex in general, not specificially mammals. And ants were the only example I could think of at the time of posting that violated your claims.

Except it doesn't violate my claims, not if you understand how biological sex works.

If you say so.

Don't act like you haven't done the same with regards to the cosmological argument. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Tar.

Okay. See you in a week when you can muster another half assed response.

I'm sorry that my personal life doesn't allow me to respond to your blatant trolling on your time.

[Tarsonis]

So have I. I can find a single professor to claim the Roswell incident was a plot by Stalin to scare Americans, doesn't make it true. Those "communities" you speak of, by and large do not accept your claim.

Prove it.

You first. But maybe you're not understanding what I mean. Gender is not completely unmoored from biological sex. The concept is inherently tied to the expression of biological sex in both the Id and the societal conception. While strict dichotomous gender roles and expression has been challenged in modern thinking, gender is still rooted in how biological sex is expressed. A transgender person is someone whose self expressed gender, does not match their biological sex. An "Agender" person is someone who doesn't claim to be of either gender (male/female) and usually expresses an androgenous gender, that is ultimately a compilation of gender traits to a varying degree, or in some a complete rejection of gender identifying traits (though usually still results in a compilation of gender traits).

While our expression of gender is understood to be much less determined by biological sex, the concept of gender is inherently rooted in the biological sexes.

That's not saying much.





Good.




A self created "other" gender expressed as a mix of traits from both genders.

I imagine several of the agender posters here will have several things to say about that.

That they may. I expect disagreement, this is a debate forum after all.

By definition, not norm.



Science does account for its existence, and for the existence of intersex.

One is the result of a recessive gene pairing, the other through improper gene sequencing.

True, by definition Red hair wouldn't be considered "normal" either. It's a deviation form the statistical norm, and reaching for them as "proof" is as faulty as reaching for intersex.

God, that's a lazy and stupid argument. That last sentence alone arguably implies that "red" shouldn't be a valid description of somebody's natural hair color, simply because it deviates from the statistical norm.

By this same logic, nobody who isn't a 20-something Han Chinese guy named Mohammed is valid.

I see the problem, you're conflating normal with valid. Just because something isn't "normal" doesn't make it invalid. Case in point with Red hair. Red hair isn't a normal phenotype, in the wholesale population. It's the result of a recessive gene pairing, thus making it rare. Granted due to the nature of breeding communities, Red hair is quite common in the anglo-community, but as a whole of the species it is quite rare. Same with blue eyes. However, this differs with intersex, because red hair is not the result of genetic defect. And I'm not appealing to some vague post modern idea of "defect is subjective." Red Hair is the result of successful gene paring, but of recessive traits. The genes correctly separated during meiosis, and correctly paired during conception.

What is typically referred to as intersex, is the result of several genetic or congenital defects that cause intersex.
such as:

"Congenital adrenal hyperplasia"
"Aromatase deficiency"
"turner syndrom"
"true hermaphroditism"

And these are just a few.

These do not constitute "alternative gene sequences" they are medically defined intersex disorders. The intersex community is an attempt to normalize the expression of said defects in public perception, the same way being deaf has been normalized. Like intersex, being deaf is objectively a deviation from the norm, it is a disability, a defect, a loss of normal human ability. A normalized culture of being deaf has developed due to a lack of ability to treat said disability, and because the defect does not invalidate the humanity of the individual. However, now that there is implants that effectually cure deafness, I suspect, and rather hope really that community will ultimately disappear. Not because they're evil or should be persecuted or are subhuman or anything, because they aren't but because we can effectually cure the ailment.

Hopefully deafness will go the way of polio.

Hopefully, we'll eventually be able to treat intersex disorders and eliminate it as well.

Only if they all skipped the classes on Punnett Squares, and Sexual Reproduction.


I never shy from an argument

Then you have the time to "explain the birds and the bees".

Alright, see when a mommy and a daddy love each other, or make bad decisions....

Haha, sidestepping all the information that proves you wrong and only responding to the cheeky dig. Politics might be a good field for you.

No, more like simply not arguing with points that I don't disagree with.

If you don't disagree with them, then you have to admit your position is wrong. Biological sex classification is inherently related to their role in reproduction. Sterility, though preventing sexual reproduction, does not invalidate the biological sex of the individual, because biological sex is classified in relation to the species as a whole, not the individual. An individual or even most females being sterile would not make them not female.

Except it doesn't violate my claims, not if you understand how biological sex works.

If you say so.

It's not me, it's biology. And you just said above that you don't disagree with the points presented, therefor it's reasonable to deduce that you agree with me on this point. So where exactly do we disagree.

Okay. See you in a week when you can muster another half assed response.

I'm sorry that my personal life doesn't allow me to respond to your blatant trolling on your time.

I'm not trolling, I'm engaging in a reasoned argument. You being offended by the argument does not make it trolling.

[Binary Rhodesia]

Tarsonis makes a good point, while gender and sex are not the same thing, saying the two are independent of eachother removes a lot of context from many issues.