That’s rich. So you get to tell college athletes they have to compete against former men, women have to use bathrooms with men in transition. **** you and your circus acts
Is being Trans a choice?
- Thread starter Morrison71
- Start date
Holy shit now you’re adopting my point to try to justify your ignorance? Do you realize that there’s a whole world of folks of all stripes and colors who don’t social media for attention?
Good god, man. Stop being so freaking stubbornly dumb.
I have yet to see a animal that self identifies as another gender than it's biological sex.
Transphobia is literally fear of their own ignorance. And don’t talk about nuance while admitting to base your general opinions of a group of people based on social media, especially the outlet that might be the most “look-at-me” by its format.
Why are we not talking about this usage of bold lettering?
You're not wrong on some of this - but the reality is a perfect world where all of these maladies are addressed will never, ever exist. That said, it's good that norms are challenged. It's how we'll evolve to be better. However, as those norms are challenged, they shouldn't just be universally accepted just because one side screams "bigot!" and beats people over their head with the diversity and inclusion drum all day long.
Edit to add: While this thread is talking about trans - IMHO my comments above apply to any societal norm being challenged.
This is a friggin weird post. You are swapping sex and gender as if they are interchangeable, and making statements that are simply wrong. It is a convoluted mess.
Sex is a biological description, based on reproductive organs. A woman IS a woman based on those reproductive organs, from a biological aspect. Caitlyn Jenner is not going to a gynecologist, after all.
Gender is the social construct that is based on behaviors typically associated with one sex or the other. So it does not have nearly as objective of a definition.
Just because our definition of gender is fluid doesn’t mean biology “evolves.”
Ha! How much more self absorbed can you be than to force people to accept your version of reality or else you're a bigot?
Whether you believe it is choice or not a choice.....Who gives a F. Everyone deserves to be treated respectfully.
I have gay friends who identified in public as straight for 40 years, were married for decades, and fathered kids with their wives. Are you claiming that they aren't really gay simply because society at the time frowned on them coming out?
Hahaha. So do I. It's biological female cat we named Gary thinking it was a boy. "They" has since announced to the world that it is actually non binary, which is ****ing hilarious when you hear it coming from me a 6'2, 235 pound, bald, republican, white, alpha, heterosexual man.
We also have a gray cat named blue.
We have gay animals. You really think we don't have animals with brains conflicting with their bodies when it comes to gender?
Yeah, I had a client that was gay, but felt like he had to hide it until his last child graduated and then he divorced his wife.
Folks, we have come a long ways, but we have a way to go. Be kind.
Yeah it’s messy and I’m not always going to perfectly explain a massively complex thing in a HROT post. But, generally, yeah duh, Art.
Biology most certainly evolves. And we are most certainly evolving. Again, do some looking into how we’re basically experimenting with our endocrine systems. And how that’s related to all this, among other things.
How many times do we have to go down this path, though? It’s the same process, wether with interracial marriage or homosexuality or whatever. We’re so damn slow, and it doesn’t have to be. It’s slow, in large part, because of bigotry. And I don’t necessarily mean intentional bigotry.
One could argue it’s slow in no small part to political wedging, which basically means psychological manipulation for power-grabbing. It’s insidious. And hurtful, harmful, and dangerous.
Religion does it, too.
Uh oh.
Last edited:
No I don't because I don't think animals ever think about anything other than what they are or what they can be.
Love the fact this is thread is a "YES" or "NO" only. It's basically what's wrong with so many of our discussions it seems. No nuance. No shades of gray.
Yes
or
No
Here is a good analysis of a recent book on the subject. Maybe it will help people on both sides understand where each other are coming from. Probably not though, because we can't seem to ever get over our own binary correct vs incorrect views.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/202101/review-irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier
Among the multitude of minor internet blowups in 2020 (minor in comparison to the unwinding of the Trump presidency and COVID-19, at least) was the controversy over the new book by journalist Abigail Shrier, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.
The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities.
Some parents see their own families and daughters in this book and believe it speaks to real issues their daughters are facing. (Note: I will use the term “daughter” here as it reflects Shrier’s view and is intended to reflect only biological sex; it is not intended by me to erase their self-identified male gender.) However, many trans activists have decried the book as transphobic, hostile, and harmful to trans individuals more broadly. Adding to the conflagration, the book was also subject to efforts to limit its sale, arguably endorsing a form of non-governmental censorship.
I’ve recently read the book and, below, I offer my thoughts on it. I’ll say upfront: I find this to be a complex and nuanced issue. However, modern discourse seldom allows for nuance or complexity on either side of emotional debates.
This is regrettable as, fundamentally, this appears to be a situation where two things can be simultaneously true, namely that, a) most individuals including youth who identify as trans are indeed trans and would benefit from a medical transition, and b) there may be some subset of individuals who, as a youth, identify as trans, but have other mental health conditions such as borderline or other personality disorders or autism spectrum disorder which cause identity confusion, and these individuals may benefit less from medical transition.
I do also want to note two other things: First, I feel the evidence is pretty clear to me that, contrary to the slogan “gender is a social construct” (endorsed by Shrier in large part), neurobiological evidence has found that gender identity resides in the hypothalamus and, as such, is largely immutable. Put rather simply, it is literally true that trans individuals have the body of one sex, yet the brain of another. Such individuals deserve respect and compassion, should be free of harassment and bullying, deserve to have their preferred pronouns and name respected, and should be free to find love, marry, and have or adopt children as they see fit.
At the same time, evidence also suggests that borderline personality disorder often either occurs with or is misdiagnosed as other high-profile mental illnesses such as multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) or bipolar disorder. Thus, it is also possible that some (though certainly not all or the majority of) individuals who identify as trans may have wider issues of identity confusion.
Reading Irreversible Damage, I found myself with several serious critiques. In the main, I had concerns that Shrier’s attention to science was, at times, superficial. This is, of course, hardly unique to this book, but on such an explosive topic, I would have liked to have seen more nuanced coverage of some of the scientific debates. Shrier does include data and opinions of some scholars in this field and covers some important (but disputed) work such as Lisa Littman’s controversial study of what she calls “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (which itself was subject to censorship efforts which, whatever the merits of the study, were scientifically deplorable).
However, I found myself dismayed by Shrier’s pat dismissals of the idea that gender identity is biological despite a wealth of evidence to suggest just that. At one point, Shrier writes, “It is biologically nonsensical to suggest that a girl’s brain — every cell of it stamped with XX chromosomes — might inhabit a boy’s body.” I all but face-palmed at this lack of understanding of how androgen exposure in utero, irrespective of chromosomes, can influence hypothalamic development and influence gender identity in turn.
Of course, this view is hardly a creation of Shrier’s but is reflective of “gender critical” feminists (typically the opposing “side” to trans activists in this highly contentious debate), with roots traced back at least to second-wave feminism. Indeed one of the interesting things about this dispute is the degree to which it often reflects the emotional disdain between two groups of left-wing advocates rather than the traditional right/left divide.
Shrier is also weirdly obsessed with the internet and the notion that too much time on the internet is causing girls to identify as trans. She cites the work of Jean Twenge on how social media can influence mental health, failing to inform the reader that many of Twenge’s claims have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Her return to this kind of moral panic was distracting and made me wonder to what extent the whole concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria might also be moral panic.
All that having been said, I’m not willing to dismiss her thesis entirely. The truth is, we don’t really seem to have good data on whether there really is or is not an increased proportion of girls identifying as trans. Anecdotally, even in my own social circle, I’m hearing a bit more about this, but anecdotes aren’t evidence, and we need more solid data.
There is evidence that, in addition to borderline personality disorder, gender dysphoria is also more common among autism spectrum adolescent girls. In this sense, the affirmative approach, wherein a youth’s professed gender identity is accepted as a move toward medical transition without any further diagnostic evaluation, has obvious risks. This appears to be the reasoning behind a recent UK court decision skeptical of this approach for medical transition.
We need better data on which youth would most benefit from a swift move toward medical transition and which might benefit more from different interventions. None of this need impinge upon the rights and welfare of trans individuals and the respect that is owed to them. Scholars need room to research whether rapid-onset gender dysphoria is real or not. I am confident that peer review and scientific replication and correction will elucidate this matter, whereas scientific censorship in response to Twitter anger will only confuse matters.
In conclusion, I think that there are some valid ideas here to consider. But particularly in an age of inflamed identity politics, we need more data-based pieces willing to consider the complexities of data and the nuances of difficult situations, and intellectual humility to acknowledge where more information is needed.
I would encourage people to read Irreversible Damage if only to understand the arguments it makes, as well as to oppose the loathsome efforts to censor it. However, if we were hoping for a book that carefully hews to science, this is certainly not it and, in that respect, the negative reaction it has garnered in the trans community is entirely understandable. I hope the future will see high-quality, preregistered, open science, scientific efforts free from internet censorship efforts that may help us understand these complicated issues more clearly.
Yes
or
No
Here is a good analysis of a recent book on the subject. Maybe it will help people on both sides understand where each other are coming from. Probably not though, because we can't seem to ever get over our own binary correct vs incorrect views.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/202101/review-irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier
Among the multitude of minor internet blowups in 2020 (minor in comparison to the unwinding of the Trump presidency and COVID-19, at least) was the controversy over the new book by journalist Abigail Shrier, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.
The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities.
Some parents see their own families and daughters in this book and believe it speaks to real issues their daughters are facing. (Note: I will use the term “daughter” here as it reflects Shrier’s view and is intended to reflect only biological sex; it is not intended by me to erase their self-identified male gender.) However, many trans activists have decried the book as transphobic, hostile, and harmful to trans individuals more broadly. Adding to the conflagration, the book was also subject to efforts to limit its sale, arguably endorsing a form of non-governmental censorship.
I’ve recently read the book and, below, I offer my thoughts on it. I’ll say upfront: I find this to be a complex and nuanced issue. However, modern discourse seldom allows for nuance or complexity on either side of emotional debates.
This is regrettable as, fundamentally, this appears to be a situation where two things can be simultaneously true, namely that, a) most individuals including youth who identify as trans are indeed trans and would benefit from a medical transition, and b) there may be some subset of individuals who, as a youth, identify as trans, but have other mental health conditions such as borderline or other personality disorders or autism spectrum disorder which cause identity confusion, and these individuals may benefit less from medical transition.
I do also want to note two other things: First, I feel the evidence is pretty clear to me that, contrary to the slogan “gender is a social construct” (endorsed by Shrier in large part), neurobiological evidence has found that gender identity resides in the hypothalamus and, as such, is largely immutable. Put rather simply, it is literally true that trans individuals have the body of one sex, yet the brain of another. Such individuals deserve respect and compassion, should be free of harassment and bullying, deserve to have their preferred pronouns and name respected, and should be free to find love, marry, and have or adopt children as they see fit.
At the same time, evidence also suggests that borderline personality disorder often either occurs with or is misdiagnosed as other high-profile mental illnesses such as multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) or bipolar disorder. Thus, it is also possible that some (though certainly not all or the majority of) individuals who identify as trans may have wider issues of identity confusion.
Reading Irreversible Damage, I found myself with several serious critiques. In the main, I had concerns that Shrier’s attention to science was, at times, superficial. This is, of course, hardly unique to this book, but on such an explosive topic, I would have liked to have seen more nuanced coverage of some of the scientific debates. Shrier does include data and opinions of some scholars in this field and covers some important (but disputed) work such as Lisa Littman’s controversial study of what she calls “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (which itself was subject to censorship efforts which, whatever the merits of the study, were scientifically deplorable).
However, I found myself dismayed by Shrier’s pat dismissals of the idea that gender identity is biological despite a wealth of evidence to suggest just that. At one point, Shrier writes, “It is biologically nonsensical to suggest that a girl’s brain — every cell of it stamped with XX chromosomes — might inhabit a boy’s body.” I all but face-palmed at this lack of understanding of how androgen exposure in utero, irrespective of chromosomes, can influence hypothalamic development and influence gender identity in turn.
Of course, this view is hardly a creation of Shrier’s but is reflective of “gender critical” feminists (typically the opposing “side” to trans activists in this highly contentious debate), with roots traced back at least to second-wave feminism. Indeed one of the interesting things about this dispute is the degree to which it often reflects the emotional disdain between two groups of left-wing advocates rather than the traditional right/left divide.
Shrier is also weirdly obsessed with the internet and the notion that too much time on the internet is causing girls to identify as trans. She cites the work of Jean Twenge on how social media can influence mental health, failing to inform the reader that many of Twenge’s claims have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Her return to this kind of moral panic was distracting and made me wonder to what extent the whole concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria might also be moral panic.
All that having been said, I’m not willing to dismiss her thesis entirely. The truth is, we don’t really seem to have good data on whether there really is or is not an increased proportion of girls identifying as trans. Anecdotally, even in my own social circle, I’m hearing a bit more about this, but anecdotes aren’t evidence, and we need more solid data.
There is evidence that, in addition to borderline personality disorder, gender dysphoria is also more common among autism spectrum adolescent girls. In this sense, the affirmative approach, wherein a youth’s professed gender identity is accepted as a move toward medical transition without any further diagnostic evaluation, has obvious risks. This appears to be the reasoning behind a recent UK court decision skeptical of this approach for medical transition.
We need better data on which youth would most benefit from a swift move toward medical transition and which might benefit more from different interventions. None of this need impinge upon the rights and welfare of trans individuals and the respect that is owed to them. Scholars need room to research whether rapid-onset gender dysphoria is real or not. I am confident that peer review and scientific replication and correction will elucidate this matter, whereas scientific censorship in response to Twitter anger will only confuse matters.
In conclusion, I think that there are some valid ideas here to consider. But particularly in an age of inflamed identity politics, we need more data-based pieces willing to consider the complexities of data and the nuances of difficult situations, and intellectual humility to acknowledge where more information is needed.
I would encourage people to read Irreversible Damage if only to understand the arguments it makes, as well as to oppose the loathsome efforts to censor it. However, if we were hoping for a book that carefully hews to science, this is certainly not it and, in that respect, the negative reaction it has garnered in the trans community is entirely understandable. I hope the future will see high-quality, preregistered, open science, scientific efforts free from internet censorship efforts that may help us understand these complicated issues more clearly.
No. I'm claiming that a man who could never have a period or get pregnant for 50 years, suddenly needs tampons and feminine hygiene products, soon after he declares himself a woman. The fact you misconstrued that into your little story, shows you have ZERO interest in being truthful or discussing this in an honest manner. As always.
Acceptance and inclusion, Bruno. Maybe he was born bold.
Clown Fish
This brightly colored blob is one of the most popular transsexual animals. According to Marinebio.org, a website devoted to sharing the wonders of sea life with the world, clown fish have hierarchical communities, where a female dominates and has sex with a big man fish. "If the female dies, then the dominant male will sex-change into a female, and a non-dominant male will change into a dominant male," the author explains. This is a species of "sequential hermaphrodites," which means they're all born male and later turn into females.
This Slipper Limpet
The Crepidula cf. marginalis aka slipper limpet sea snail is unique in it's ability to change sex. According to researchers, the change occurs as the result of being touched by other male slipper limpets. A study was conducted to understand how these little snails change sex. And, as reported in IFLScience, it was found that "physical contact between snails plays a vital role in activating the switch from male to female." Now that is one of the most beautiful and natural things that I can imagine.
Bearded Dragons
They are really cool. One study found that male bearded dragons can change their sex while they're in their eggs. A 2016 study found that, if bearded dragon eggs are exposed to warmer temperatures, male dragons eggs will alter the course of their development and become female, despite remaining genetically male. Researchers found that the change isn't merely social—they resemble the other sex in various ways and can actually reproduce and lay viable eggs.
Spotted Hyenas
Hyenas are the best because girl hyenas have penises, making them the official trans girls of the Animal Kingdom. The "pseudopenis" of female hyenas is actually just a huge clitoris with a ballsack-looking-thing made out of fused-together labia. As PBS reported, they are the "only mammalian females to copulate, urinate, and give birth through the penile-like canal. It's even possible for females to achieve erections." Hyenas have to "retract" these appendages into their body in order for a male to have sex with them.
Yes, There Are Trans Animals
Many people think that there's an absolute biological distinction between males and females. These animals prove them wrong.
www.vice.com
I really doubt animals have the ability to imagine themselves as something they could never be.
Again, who cares if she technically needs tampons. If it makes her feel better then it's her business and not your to use them.
Also what's this ridiculous dishonesty argument you're trying to make? You're the one trying to shoehorn in tampons as proof that trans people somehow aren't real. That argument makes zero sense.
I would guess he's saying "gender" is a pretty human-specific concept. Outside of humans, we really only discuss biology. Mammals with male reproductive organs are males, mammals with female reproductive organs are females. They don't have an opportunity to tell us they "feel" like they are different.
Clown Fish
This brightly colored blob is one of the most popular transsexual animals. According to Marinebio.org, a website devoted to sharing the wonders of sea life with the world, clown fish have hierarchical communities, where a female dominates and has sex with a big man fish. "If the female dies, then the dominant male will sex-change into a female, and a non-dominant male will change into a dominant male," the author explains. This is a species of "sequential hermaphrodites," which means they're all born male and later turn into females.
This Slipper Limpet
The Crepidula cf. marginalis aka slipper limpet sea snail is unique in it's ability to change sex. According to researchers, the change occurs as the result of being touched by other male slipper limpets. A study was conducted to understand how these little snails change sex. And, as reported in IFLScience, it was found that "physical contact between snails plays a vital role in activating the switch from male to female." Now that is one of the most beautiful and natural things that I can imagine.
Bearded Dragons
They are really cool. One study found that male bearded dragons can change their sex while they're in their eggs. A 2016 study found that, if bearded dragon eggs are exposed to warmer temperatures, male dragons eggs will alter the course of their development and become female, despite remaining genetically male. Researchers found that the change isn't merely social—they resemble the other sex in various ways and can actually reproduce and lay viable eggs.
Spotted Hyenas
Hyenas are the best because girl hyenas have penises, making them the official trans girls of the Animal Kingdom. The "pseudopenis" of female hyenas is actually just a huge clitoris with a ballsack-looking-thing made out of fused-together labia. As PBS reported, they are the "only mammalian females to copulate, urinate, and give birth through the penile-like canal. It's even possible for females to achieve erections." Hyenas have to "retract" these appendages into their body in order for a male to have sex with them.
Yes, There Are Trans Animals
Many people think that there's an absolute biological distinction between males and females. These animals prove them wrong.
All of that is ridiculous. The fact that some animals can change sex or have interesting features does not make them comparable to trans humans.
Trans humans for the record can't change their sex. They just change how they identify to the world.
It does prove that gender is not black and white in the animal kingdom of which humans are a part.
btw, the OP is absolutely turrible.
"Feeling" as if you are a women when you are biologically male (gender dysphoria) is not a choice. But clearly undergoing hormone treatments, wearing a dress, etc. is a choice.
Then you bring mental illness into the conversation, which has zero to do with the poll question.
I think a lot of people are very, very confused about what they are trying to talk about on this subject.
"Feeling" as if you are a women when you are biologically male (gender dysphoria) is not a choice. But clearly undergoing hormone treatments, wearing a dress, etc. is a choice.
Then you bring mental illness into the conversation, which has zero to do with the poll question.
I think a lot of people are very, very confused about what they are trying to talk about on this subject.
So, as Huey stated and many in the trans movement say "there is no strictly binary biology."
Yet, transitioning is all about becoming one of the traditionally recognized binary biologies, male or female.
How does that make sense?
Yet, transitioning is all about becoming one of the traditionally recognized binary biologies, male or female.
How does that make sense?
I've posted studies in other threads that say there are gray areas in humans as well.
Some very few areas on the fringes in very rare cases usually involving birth defects.
I've covered this in other threads. I have a friend who looks like a woman. Wears dresses, has long hair, wears makeup. By all outside appearances he is a woman to a casual observer. He has no desire for hormone therapy. Wants to keep his breasts. And loves all things girly. Yet he is a he.
There are no hard and fast rules for presentation even for trans people. And that is the point. It is a personal thing. Which is why I think we should respect that and let them live their lives.
We’re all humans - with predisposed perceptions, differing views on politics, differing views on religion, differing views on culture, differing views on morality, differing views on well…just about everything except the really obvious (e.g. pedophilia is bad but even that I guess would be argued by NAMBLA!). Norm crashing is massively complex given that reality. So how many times do we have to go down the path? Over and over again. There’s no easy button or fast forward when you push any boundary…especially one that is rooted deeply in the fabric of society.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
