Advocate: "You won't date trans people because you are ignorant, biased, and Transphobic"

[Darth Robbhi]

On choice, doubt many of these people are truly hurt.

They do seem to be very bitter, though, and it shows as a massive chip on their shoulder. Very few people find it pleasant to be around people with chips on their shoulder.

Ultimately, baggage like that, for whatever reason, undermines your ability to be fun to be around, which makes dating a lot harder.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Increasingly not, as the definition of "bigot" moves into the bizarro land of "you didn't do what I want." The power of the words have been squandered, especially as society sees being a jackass as a virtue, not a vice.

You think so? I don't in this very thread it's happened. Any form of "I'm not a bigot but" is inhrently a form of submission. Because your even if unintentionally giving the reeing legitimacy. Hell I'm likley guilty of it without thinking.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

You think so? I don't in this very thread it's happened. Any form of "I'm not a bigot but" is inhrently a form of submission. Because your even if unintentionally giving the reeing legitimacy. Hell I'm likley guilty of it without thinking.

I would say "is happening" rather than "has happened."

But the environment is changing, and a lot of the power of "that's xist!" has been squandered by overuse and abuse.

 

[Lanmandragon]

I would say "is happening" rather than "has happened."

But the environment is changing, and a lot of the power of "that's xist!" has been squandered by overuse and abuse.

Running with the assumption that's true. Them losing power means we should hit harder and more often. Not apologise and bow to what they want. I take your meaning though. For the record I don't buy the trans thing at all. I'll use your pronoun if I personally know you.(He or she no xir crap). Politically though I oppose normalizing thier delusion. I also understand they're gojng to be offended. Hell it's possible captian will be offended but I've decided. That I can't and won't support something I believe to be false. I'd also argue that even if we accept the delusion as legit. There's no reason whatsoever to adjust laws to favour less than 1% of the population over the other 99.56%{or whatever the numbers are}.

 

[Deleted member]

@Lanmandragon the laws were fine a decade and a half ago. Are you fine with going back to the way the world was on this issue in 2004? I certainly am. The old standard which made sense was if someone looked like they belonged, they belonged, and if they didn’t, you called the cops on them. Simple. No papers, no special laws. And the world worked fine that way for fifty years after surgeries started happening and nobody cared.

 

[Lanmandragon]

@Lanmandragon the laws were fine a decade and a half ago. Are you fine with going back to the way the world was on this issue in 2004? I certainly am. The old standard which made sense was if someone looked like they belonged, they belonged, and if they didn’t, you called the cops on them. Simple. No papers, no special laws. And the world worked fine that way for fifty years after surgeries started happening and nobody cared.

Certainly but the imposed laws and (attempts here) to compel speech. The transitioning of babies, theattempts to indoctrinate babie , and the 72 gender garbage. (likely more I'm forgetting) Is both unacceptable and ludicrous. It's also in my opinion one if the many heads of a Hydra. Unleashed to destroy our civilization not you or say blaire white. The movement is a toxic expression of marxism though. I can sympathize somewhat as they come out me and mine the same way. So I'm in a corner where my personal sense of honor demands I take a hard stance. Which I despise as "for us or against us" is a terrible (yet currently necessary) position to hold.

 

[Deleted member]

@Lanmandragon thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. I started an AMA in the NSFW forums and if we want to have a specific conversation maybe it should be moved there. But don’t feel imposed. I am also fine with seeing this as the last word, too. Regardless, I appreciate your honesty as well as the fact you are willing to always judge an individual as an individual. That is a virtue that would make our society a better place if it were more widely practiced.

 

[Doomsought]

The perspective of transactivsts can be proven wrong from first principles. Unless you reject "Reality is that which remains true when you cease to believe in it" transsexualism must be a delusion of some sort. You can argue about the cuase of the delusion all day long, but it is ultimately a belief in something that is not real.

 

[Deleted member]

The perspective of transactivsts can be proven wrong from first principles. Unless you reject "Reality is that which remains true when you cease to believe in it" transsexualism must be a delusion of some sort. You can argue about the cuase of the delusion all day long, but it is ultimately a belief in something that is not real.

This thread has already contained a demonstration of how there is no axiomatic classification of a postoperative individual (either MTF or FTM) as male or female in biological terms. Since transsexuals are therefore asexual in biological terms, the assumption of social role, the classification of appearance (secondary sexual characteristics), and normative psychological behaviours is the only way to (as should be done) categorise a transsexual as male or female.

 

[Doomsought]

This thread has already contained a demonstration of how there is no axiomatic classification of a postoperative individual (either MTF or FTM) as male or female in biological terms.

Post op, they are mutilated men and women, eunuch if you are being polite.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Post op, they are mutilated men and women, eunuch if you are being polite.

Does the so-called “vagina” really have wound and rot problems?

 

[Deleted member]

Post op, they are mutilated men and women, eunuch if you are being polite.

There is nothing male or female about them biologically; chromosomes do not axiomatically define sex (since even a single example of an extrema--noting that transsexuals themselves are extrema comprising only 0.3% of the population--is adequate to demonstrate that a classification is not axiomatic) , so the absence of primary sexual characteristics means that postoperative transsexuals are neutral and it is therefore perfectly appropriate and legitimate to define them based on secondary sexual characteristics and social role.

 

[Deleted member]

Does the so-called “vagina” really have wound and rot problems?

That depends completely on the quality of the surgery. There are also at least three different types. But, you know, you get what you pay for in some unlicensed surgical theatre behind a restaurant in Tijuana. Conversely at the high end gynecologists sometimes can't tell the difference during a gynecological exam.

 

[Fleiur]

There is nothing male or female about them biologically; chromosomes do not axiomatically define sex (since even a single example of an extrema--noting that transsexuals themselves are extrema comprising only 0.3% of the population--is adequate to demonstrate that a classification is not axiomatic) , so the absence of primary sexual characteristics means that postoperative transsexuals are neutral and it is therefore perfectly appropriate and legitimate to define them based on secondary sexual characteristics and social role.

Aren't the people in the link article are outliers. But the basic biology is still male and female. XX and XY?

 

[Deleted member]

Aren't the people in the link article are outliers. But the basic biology is still male and female. XX and XY?

Yes, but "axiomatic" in philosophical terms means that it's impossible to derive a denial of the statement from the statement itself. So in this case what I am arguing is that you can say that "in the overwhelming majority, XY chromosomes correlate with maleness and XX chromosomes correlate with femaleness". But you can't say that's axiomatic, that XY chromosomes prove maleness and that XX chromosomes prove femaleness, because examples to the contrary exist, so those are not axiomatic statements.

Thus, someone who has had sex reassignment surgery from male to female does not possess any traits which are exclusively male because the primary sexual characteristics have been removed. You can't say they're biologically female either, but nor can you say they are male. Thus it's necessary to use secondary characteristics to define such people.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Look. It is indisputable that primary trans persons exist. I know a number of them (for some reason I seem to have a gravity field about me that primary trans folks wind up in my orbit for some reason...)

I spoke with my pastor, as a Roman Catholic (and I'd like to think a relatively strong one now that I've returned to the church) the church teaches that all people are, to greater or lesser extent, disordered. We are all sinners, we have all failed to fully live up to the ordered life of the ideal Christian. Even the saints have failed at some point or another, for they too were human. The only human to have ever been completely without disorder was Mary.

And he pointed something out. As the church simply calls trans individuals to prayerfully follow the call to live virtuous lives, rather than ipso facto condemns them as inherently greater sinners than any of the rest of us, that a MTF trans who fully transitions is called to precisely the same standard of holiness as a female born as such from the womb. The church, by the catechism, regards the trans issue in precisely the same way that they'd view any correctable medical issue. The church does not condemn somebody who requires surgery to correct any other condition for having said condition, so why would the church make an exception in this case?

I will note that this was specifically in regards to primary trans, and I agree with Tyanna that the loss of distinction between primary trans and secondary has been a great disservice to those who truly benefit from transitioning.

I will also note that there are many Catholics who take a hard line on the issue and conflate fundamental disorder with irreconcilable sin, but those are actually discrete doctrines. There are Catholics who misread the Church's teachings on homosexuality (no, the Church does not damn homosexuals, the Church instead calls homosexuals to remember the virtue of chastity, and that it is a violation of chastity to engage in sexual relations outside the sacramental relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. A practicing homosexual is no greater a sinner than a heterosexual philanderer or adulturur)

And for those who would bring up 'well transwomen in general cannot have children, so they can't be married', while infertility or impotence is a recognized factor for annulment of a marriage, it is not a blanket one. It is perfectly in line with doctrine and practice for, say, a widow and a widower, both well past the age of being able to beget children, to marry within the church.

It's fun sometimes talking about these sorts of things with a priest who happens to also be a trained canon lawyer *grins*

 

[Fleiur]

Yes, but "axiomatic" in philosophical terms means that it's impossible to derive a denial of the statement from the statement itself. So in this case what I am arguing is that you can say that "in the overwhelming majority, XY chromosomes correlate with maleness and XX chromosomes correlate with femaleness". But you can't say that's axiomatic, that XY chromosomes prove maleness and that XX chromosomes prove femaleness, because examples to the contrary exist, so those are not axiomatic statements.

Thus, someone who has had sex reassignment surgery from male to female does not possess any traits which are exclusively male because the primary sexual characteristics have been removed. You can't say they're biologically female either, but nor can you say they are male. Thus it's necessary to use secondary characteristics to define such people.

I see. So it's in Philosophical aspect only. But yeah, basic biology is still male and female /XY and XX.

 

[Fleiur]

Look. It is indisputable that primary trans persons exist. I know a number of them (for some reason I seem to have a gravity field about me that primary trans folks wind up in my orbit for some reason...)

I spoke with my pastor, as a Roman Catholic (and I'd like to think a relatively strong one now that I've returned to the church) the church teaches that all people are, to greater or lesser extent, disordered. We are all sinners, we have all failed to fully live up to the ordered life of the ideal Christian. Even the saints have failed at some point or another, for they too were human. The only human to have ever been completely without disorder was Mary.

And he pointed something out. As the church simply calls trans individuals to prayerfully follow the call to live virtuous lives, rather than ipso facto condemns them as inherently greater sinners than any of the rest of us, that a MTF trans who fully transitions is called to precisely the same standard of holiness as a female born as such from the womb. The church, by the catechism, regards the trans issue in precisely the same way that they'd view any correctable medical issue. The church does not condemn somebody who requires surgery to correct any other condition for having said condition, so why would the church make an exception in this case?

I will note that this was specifically in regards to primary trans, and I agree with Tyanna that the loss of distinction between primary trans and secondary has been a great disservice to those who truly benefit from transitioning.

I will also note that there are many Catholics who take a hard line on the issue and conflate fundamental disorder with irreconcilable sin, but those are actually discrete doctrines. There are Catholics who misread the Church's teachings on homosexuality (no, the Church does not damn homosexuals, the Church instead calls homosexuals to remember the virtue of chastity, and that it is a violation of chastity to engage in sexual relations outside the sacramental relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. A practicing homosexual is no greater a sinner than a heterosexual philanderer or adulturur)

And for those who would bring up 'well transwomen in general cannot have children, so they can't be married', while infertility or impotence is a recognized factor for annulment of a marriage, it is not a blanket one. It is perfectly in line with doctrine and practice for, say, a widow and a widower, both well past the age of being able to beget children, to marry within the church.

It's fun sometimes talking about these sorts of things with a priest who happens to also be a trained canon lawyer *grins*

Yeah. Sure. But we are talking about basic biology here and some rare cases of those outliers.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Basic biology is far more complex than simple XX/XY dichotomy. For example, XXY, or some of the work done on epigenetics. Things are far more complex.

 

[Deleted member]

I see. So it's in Philosophical aspect only. But yeah, basic biology is still male and female /XY and XX.

Yes, for basic biology that’s correct. It’s a strong statistical correlation. But you can’t use chromosomes alone to assert that a person is male or female absent other evidence.