Transgender Rights

[DarthOne]

They should have sex with each other.

Don’t encourage them.

 

[King Arts]

Don’t encourage them.

@ShieldWife
Found the comic, I don't know how to set the comic itself in here, but I'll link it.

GLINNER'S TWITTER

This is such a great story Read the whole thing. Absolutely hilarious. Bonus: Someone did a comic of it! Nervous applause, but sustained People are getting braver. Good work, Liz Truss. Stella Creasy, stupid or evil? This is what Stella is enabling. A politician this stupid is a danger to women...

grahamlinehan.substack.com

 

[LordsFire]

I mean I did earlier.

"Gender" is the social construct of the things that make things "girly" or "for boys". A dress has nothing to do with biological sex. Makeup has nothing do with biological sex.

The things we see as "for girls" are what society deems "for girls". THAT'S gender.

EDIT -

It's also largely irrelevant, just as an aside.

And also, i've agreed 1000 times, biological sex is what matters for sports. Not gender.

But I also know when it's time to be done so... there it is. Been said. It's all good.

Post-modernists play word games that confuse people. This is deliberate.

The difference between 'sex' and gender' is something that is particularly in vogue for them to manipulate and confuse people of late.

So, cutting aside attempts to deliberately play games with how the words are and are not different, let's talk actual facts.

'Gender' and 'Sex' are inextricably interlinked. Sex is biology, gender is either the same thing, or the cultural expression of sex.

Masculinity is tied to strength and object-orientation. Higher testosterone levels have a direct link to physical strength, physical durability, reaction speeds, and to object-orientation in personal psychology. Tests have shown that girls born with abnormally high levels of pre-natal testosterone tend to express typically masculine traits. Thus, things related to these are perceived as typically masculine.

Estrogen is similarly linked to things like hourglass figure, large breasts, soft skin, etc.

As sexual maturation happens in a person's second decade of life, the natural development is to be attracted to the opposite gender. There are outliers with larger and smaller appetites, and those of abnormal sexual interests due to physiological abnormalities or psychological trauma, but for now we concern ourselves with the average male or female, or to use a politically incorrect term, 'the norm.'

Sexual maturation involves the desire to attract a mate. Combined with attraction to the opposite sex, this means that the obvious, to some level even instinctive way to attract a mate, is to emphasize your secondary sexual characteristics.

A man will build his muscles up, and demonstrate feats of physical and professional prowess. He shows he is strong, of high status, and capable of protecting her.

A woman will use cosmetics and flattering clothing to seem soft, sensual, inviting. She shows she is fertile and capable of bearing him children. Notably, cosmetics that do more than just conceal generally are designed to make the woman look aroused.

Both sexes are instinctively attracted to signs of good health, and repulsed by signs of poor health. This is why acne is considered unattractive on either gender, as well as being fat, being obviously mutilated, etc. There are exceptions and outliers, but the default as determined by biology, is 'I want a healthy mate.'


So, you asked 'who wears make-up and frilly pink dresses?' The sex that wants to emphasize their fertile figure and soft, flushed skin.

Who wears the weathered jeans and workboots, and takes off their shirt to show their muscles? The sex that wants to show how strong, tough, and competent they are.


Particular cultures can develop different ideas about odd details. Some african tribes considered long necks particularly attractive in women. The Chinese had their abhorrent foot-wrapping practice. In western culture, at different times having a beard is considered more masculine, or being clean-shaven is considered a sign of a man who has the discipline to take care of his appearance.

In different social classes within the same society, different things may be emphasized more. A woman who is extremely petite and dainty is generally considered attractive in the higher classes; it shows she comes from a wealthy family. In lower classes, a more fit, even somewhat muscular woman may be considered more attractive; she's strong enough to work around the house. Wealthier social classes are more likely to consider an athletic man more attractive, because he's clearly healthy, while lower classes are more likely to consider a man so muscular he's awkwardly bulky more attractive, because personal violence is a more immediate threat.

In different time periods being somewhat fat was more attractive in the lower classes; it was a sign of wealth and success. Conversely, I can't think of a single historical example of higher classes considering being fat attractive; everyone in that class has all the food they need, instead it betrays a lack of self-control.


For all that the details may change by society and time period, the elements involved are still clearly and inextricably tied to sex. The idea that gender, or gender expression, is 'just' a social construct is nonsensical.

For example, use of cosmetics. In east asian imperial courts, in some time periods both genders would use cosmetics on their face. They absolutely used them differently though, and to emphasize different things. Similarly, male and female actors and TV personalities both use make-up, but for clearly different effect; trying to make the man fit better to a masculine idea of attractiveness, and the women to a more feminine idea of attractiveness.


In the end, people who try to insist it's all 'just' a social construct are basically saying 'I don't like reality, it should change to be the way I want it.' They're wrong, but even if they were right, they'd just be trying to replace one 'social construct' with another.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Post-modernists play word games that confuse people. This is deliberate.

The difference between 'sex' and gender' is something that is particularly in vogue for them to manipulate and confuse people of late.

So, cutting aside attempts to deliberately play games with how the words are and are not different, let's talk actual facts.

'Gender' and 'Sex' are inextricably interlinked. Sex is biology, gender is either the same thing, or the cultural expression of sex.

Masculinity is tied to strength and object-orientation. Higher testosterone levels have a direct link to physical strength, physical durability, reaction speeds, and to object-orientation in personal psychology. Tests have shown that girls born with abnormally high levels of pre-natal testosterone tend to express typically masculine traits. Thus, things related to these are perceived as typically masculine.

Estrogen is similarly linked to things like hourglass figure, large breasts, soft skin, etc.

As sexual maturation happens in a person's second decade of life, the natural development is to be attracted to the opposite gender. There are outliers with larger and smaller appetites, and those of abnormal sexual interests due to physiological abnormalities or psychological trauma, but for now we concern ourselves with the average male or female, or to use a politically incorrect term, 'the norm.'

Sexual maturation involves the desire to attract a mate. Combined with attraction to the opposite sex, this means that the obvious, to some level even instinctive way to attract a mate, is to emphasize your secondary sexual characteristics.

A man will build his muscles up, and demonstrate feats of physical and professional prowess. He shows he is strong, of high status, and capable of protecting her.

A woman will use cosmetics and flattering clothing to seem soft, sensual, inviting. She shows she is fertile and capable of bearing him children. Notably, cosmetics that do more than just conceal generally are designed to make the woman look aroused.

Both sexes are instinctively attracted to signs of good health, and repulsed by signs of poor health. This is why acne is considered unattractive on either gender, as well as being fat, being obviously mutilated, etc. There are exceptions and outliers, but the default as determined by biology, is 'I want a healthy mate.'


So, you asked 'who wears make-up and frilly pink dresses?' The sex that wants to emphasize their fertile figure and soft, flushed skin.

Who wears the weathered jeans and workboots, and takes off their shirt to show their muscles? The sex that wants to show how strong, tough, and competent they are.


Particular cultures can develop different ideas about odd details. Some african tribes considered long necks particularly attractive in women. The Chinese had their abhorrent foot-wrapping practice. In western culture, at different times having a beard is considered more masculine, or being clean-shaven is considered a sign of a man who has the discipline to take care of his appearance.

In different social classes within the same society, different things may be emphasized more. A woman who is extremely petite and dainty is generally considered attractive in the higher classes; it shows she comes from a wealthy family. In lower classes, a more fit, even somewhat muscular woman may be considered more attractive; she's strong enough to work around the house. Wealthier social classes are more likely to consider an athletic man more attractive, because he's clearly healthy, while lower classes are more likely to consider a man so muscular he's awkwardly bulky more attractive, because personal violence is a more immediate threat.

In different time periods being somewhat fat was more attractive in the lower classes; it was a sign of wealth and success. Conversely, I can't think of a single historical example of higher classes considering being fat attractive; everyone in that class has all the food they need, instead it betrays a lack of self-control.


For all that the details may change by society and time period, the elements involved are still clearly and inextricably tied to sex. The idea that gender, or gender expression, is 'just' a social construct is nonsensical.

For example, use of cosmetics. In east asian imperial courts, in some time periods both genders would use cosmetics on their face. They absolutely used them differently though, and to emphasize different things. Similarly, male and female actors and TV personalities both use make-up, but for clearly different effect; trying to make the man fit better to a masculine idea of attractiveness, and the women to a more feminine idea of attractiveness.


In the end, people who try to insist it's all 'just' a social construct are basically saying 'I don't like reality, it should change to be the way I want it.' They're wrong, but even if they were right, they'd just be trying to replace one 'social construct' with another.

so Yep by this table, I'm indubitably and undoubtedly lower class and I have 0 shame in it. Honestly though sometimes I truly believe trying to break everything down to biological code was a mistake. We are no closer to manipulating these things then we would have just let everything play itself out, and if anything we've caused confusion among ourselves. I once thought of worthless knowledge driving people mad as Lovecraft put it or driving people into foolishness as the apostle Paul put it to be borderline silly but after seeing the rabbit holes we've gone down into with Sociology, I'm starting to think they had a point. The only people to seemingly benefit from this are big businesses and big government.

 

[Ixian]

That's gender EXPRESSION.

That's how people display their gender.

It's cultural, it may be different in different cultures. Maybe in a different culture the men wear pink frilly dresses to display their masculinity?

Or a man right now might decide he wants to wear a pink frilly dress because he wants to express femininity. But he's still a man.

None of this means you can actually change your gender.

They are called the Scottish, but their dresses lack frills and typically aren't pink.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

They are called the Scottish, but their dresses lack frills and typically aren't pink.

"It'S cAlLeD a KiLt!!!"

in seriousness though never question a male scotts manliness.

 

[Ixian]

"It'S cAlLeD a KiLt!!!"

in seriousness though never question a male scotts manliness.

I think it's a great example for why secondary, cultural artifacts aren't useful in determining someone's "gender".

Biology determines Sex, which determines Gender.

 

[ParadiseLost]

They should have sex with each other.

That's a thing. Transbians.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think it's a great example for why secondary, cultural artifacts aren't useful in determining someone's "gender".

Biology determines Sex, which determines Gender.

Amen sometimes that's all there is to it and that's all there needs to be to it.

 

[Scooby Doo]

That's a thing. Transbians.

Me to Transbians:

 

[Grimalkin]

I mean I did earlier.

"Gender" is the social construct of the things that make things "girly" or "for boys". A dress has nothing to do with biological sex. Makeup has nothing do with biological sex.

If gender is a social construct then it would logically follow that people can be socialized out of gender dysphoria, the argument against homosexual conversion therapy was largely that people were born this way and couldn't be socialized into being heterosexual.

Conversely the claim that gender is a social construct is the same as tacitly admitting that trans-gender conversion therapy would work, and that gender dysphoria can be corrected by socializing it out of them.

 

[Jormungandr]

A lot of trans people, I think and from what I've read from their own posts/comments, look to be gays or lesbians "in denial". They seem to think that if they "change" their gender, then they're not gay/lesbian by being attracted to their own gender since they'd then be the opposite gender (MtF, FtM) after transitioning.

If anything, these people should be given counselling to help them accept that they're gay/lesbian and attracted to their own gender, and that they don't need to go through chemical and hormonal injections, physical mutilations to try to "correct" this issue.

Also, I've been watching more detransition stories on YouTube. They're honestly heartbreaking, especially since the Groomers United community immediately turns their back on them at best, harasses them at worst.

 

[mrttao]

If gender is a social construct then it would logically follow that people can be socialized out of gender dysphoria, the argument against homosexual conversion therapy was largely that people were born this way and couldn't be socialized into being heterosexual.

Conversely the claim that gender is a social construct is the same as tacitly admitting that trans-gender conversion therapy would work, and that gender dysphoria can be corrected by socializing it out of them.

Yes, this is called doublethink.
There are multiple such doublethink instances in the woke cult idealogy.

 

[Grimalkin]

Yes, this is called doublethink.
There are multiple such doublethink instances in the woke cult idealogy.

I mean the very fact that they can indoctrinate vulnerable young children into being trans-gender proves that they're right on some level, it's just that they're going in the complete opposite direction from what they should be, they're subverting the 'social construct' when they should be reinforcing it.

Morality is a 'social construct' too, but that doesn't make it a good idea to socialize your kid into being amoral. The thing that these fucking idiots don't understand is that 'social constructs' exist for a fucking reason, i.e mostly so that people can live together in a fucking society.

You socialize a kid into morality so that he doesn't hurt others, you socialize him into the correct gender so he doesn't hurt himself.

 

[mrttao]

I mean the very fact that they can indoctrinate vulnerable young children into being trans-gender proves that they're right on some level, it's just that they're going in the complete opposite direction from what they should be, they're subverting the 'social construct' when they should be reinforcing it.

By now, 40% of westerner highschoolers self identify as pride people.

 

[Rocinante]

By now, 40% of westerner highschoolers self identify as pride people.

Which is further proof that people aren't born that way. Because if 40% of our species was some form of gay/trans/whatever, it would have been noticed way sooner than modern America in the last decade.

It's a mind virus and a trend now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all gay people chose to be gay. But 40% of people were not born this way.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Wrong. Biological sex is gender. You cannot separate the two by saying someone is one when they are biologically the other.

Gender is a real thing, but it is inherently based in biological sex.

No Sex = No Gender

You can't change your Gender, because you can't change your sex. You can be more masculine, or more feminine, but it doesn't change if you are male or female.

Sex and gender are synonymous in many cases, but never have been exactly the same thing. "Gender" was initially used as grammar terminology, and had a few cases of synonymy with sexual dimorphism as early as the 18th century in the context of criticisms of macaroni fashion (specifically, referring to the upper-class twits as "neither male nor female, a thing of the neuter gender"). Sociologists adopted it for distinguishing between sexual dimorphism itself and the cultural expectations of the sexes around the 1970s partly owing to a surge in prudishness.

It was only in the 1980s that the "gender is a social construct" formulation properly took shape to have an internally consistent academic framework (consistency with external reality quite debatable) for the current nonces, especially the non-binary lot, though several waves of popular distortion on sites like Tumblr were required to bring it to today's state instead of being maligned by many progressives as "secondary transsexuals" poorly distinguished from mere transvestites (or more colloquially crossdressers).

The sex/gender distinction is important when discussing weird outlier cases like the surprisingly-recurrent case of male actors being treated as their own thing instead of "properly" men or women, or the remarkable variety of odd little tribal customs like outright applying the "masculine" social roles to females and vice-versa then pairing those inversions of the norm together. You really can't break down how that works without separating gender from sex such that "male woman" is a valid theoretical.

 

[Jormungandr]

Which is further proof that people aren't born that way. Because if 40% of our species was some form of gay/trans/whatever, it would have been noticed way sooner than modern America in the last decade.

It's a mind virus and a trend now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all gay people chose to be gay. But 40% of people were not born this way.

Thing is, a lot of teens seem to think being part of Groomers United is a trend or subculture, like how being a goth, or an emo, or a punk, or a sk8er, or a metal head is/was.

Except that Groomers United isn't something you can laugh about in embarrassment when people see your old high-school and college photos of you with long, black hair and makeup, or crappy clothes, or anything like that. I fucking cringe at the shit I did when I was in high-school, back in the early 00's.

It's harmful. It's dangerous. It's life-destroying.

 

[Grimalkin]

By now, 40% of westerner highschoolers self identify as pride people.

You have to socialize your child early, really hammer in both its gender identity and its moral system too, preferably before the age of four. If you want to reinforce something you should provide, if you want to discourage something you should deprive both the child and yourself.

Punishing only the child will simply create resentment, punishing yourself along with the child will create a camaraderie and will add a psychological dimension to the negative reinforcement.

Which is further proof that people aren't born that way. Because if 40% of our species was some form of gay/trans/whatever, it would have been noticed way sooner than modern America in the last decade.

It's a mind virus and a trend now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all gay people chose to be gay. But 40% of people were not born this way.

Most of these people weren't born this way, they just weren't socialized properly at a young enough age. If your child shows warning signs, you should correct it with behavioural therapy and operant conditioning.

When it comes to negative reinforcement or punishment, you should always share in the punishment, i.e if you punish your child you should simultaneously punish yourself. Humans are empathic creatures and sharing in suffering is better, if only one party is suffering it'll only create bitterness and resentment.

Positive reinforcement is simpler, just reinforce the desired behaviour by rewarding it quickly.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

You have to socialize your child early, really hammer in both its gender identity and its moral system too, preferably before the age of four. If you want to reinforce something you should provide, if you want to discourage something you should deprive both the child and yourself.

Punishing only the child will simply create resentment, punishing yourself along with the child will create a camaraderie and will add a psychological dimension to the negative reinforcement.

Most of these people weren't born this way, they just weren't socialized properly at a young enough age. If your child shows warning signs, you should correct it with behavioural therapy and operant conditioning.

When it comes to negative reinforcement or punishment, you should always share in the punishment, i.e if you punish your child you should simultaneously punish yourself. Humans are empathic creatures and sharing in suffering is better, if only one party is suffering it'll only create bitterness and resentment.

Positive reinforcement is simpler, just reinforce the desired behaviour by rewarding it quickly.

How much of this do you think is the result of participation trophies and kids being coddled? Edit: Cause I'm noticing a trend between wimpiness (Amongst both sexes) and having lived very sheltered lives in sterile environments.