DescentBB

JFTR…I was not referring to perverts.

I was referring to people with gender dysphoria, who have chosen not to change their appearance. So lets please keep who is arguing what straight…ok.

FTM's have the most problem. Right now, the best of our medical system still can't fully reconstruct the male anatomy on an anatomically female person. They can get rid of the female parts just fine, but they're still missing those male critical bottom parts. FTM's can look like a male on outward appearance, but they're typically stuck with their original hardware down below. Naked from the waist down, they'll never pass as male. In a stall, they're fine. At the urinal, no way.

Jeff250 wrote:

ST wrote:If you're going to go around saying that men are born with the brains of women, or vise-versa, it leaves you to prove both that the brain is actually completely physically unique to the opposite gender, and then that the seat of their gender resides within the brain.

Brains of course aren't completely unique to different genders, but men and women for instance are known to have differences in brain structure that can be easily measured. Where else would gender reside than in the brain? Gender is probably something more subtle than simply brain structure though. For instance, maybe gender is a configuration of neural connections?

I certainly don't know brain science... but if you're going to appeal to a "male" brain vs a "female" brain, then I would think you need some solid scientific basis upon which to delineate the two. If the extent of the argument is a conclusion of the gaps (Where else would gender reside?) or an unfounded hypothesis (maybe gender is...) then you don't have much to stand on. I'm not particularly opposed to using self-identity as a means to define gender (more on this later), but I'd also like to posit that it's not the only choice.

As I see it, we have three primary ways that we could define identity: 1. By genetics. This one is pretty easy... if you have XX you're one, if you have XY, you're the other. 2. By physiology. This one a a bit more difficult, but generally your genitalia and physiology traits make the definition. You end up with gray areas because of hormones and surgeries. 3. By self-identity. In this case you are the gender that you say you are at the moment. Today's "progressive" society says that it's obviously by self-identity. Today's "conservative" society says that it's obviously by genetics. People in the "middle" may go somewhere between the two, maybe even to physiology. From a purely objective "measurability" definition, self-identity is the weakest of the three.

Here's where I'll defend, at least to some degree, NS's opening point: progressive society sees things that discourage transgenderism as bigoted only because they've accepted transgender behavior into their circle of acceptable behavior. There are plenty of behaviors that we all as a society view as unacceptable - and we all as a society take action to oppress. Examples just in the sexual realm: poligamy, beastiality, incest, etc. In broader realms, you get to behaviors which we would consider disorders - NS's cat example, manic depression, bipolar behaviors, etc. The question is: where's the line between acceptable or normal behavior (which must be respected) and unacceptable or abnormal behavior (which must be mitigated or repressed)? It seems, to this day's society, the line is wherever society as a whole wishes it to be... and if you stray too far from the line on either side you are wrong... but at the end of the day, the line is arbitrary. This is why I struggle with today's narrative of "North Carolina is bigoted" - because maybe they are... but only so if you accept that self-identity is the ruling definition of gender - and not everyone agrees that it is.

That being said, I'm not particularly invested in jumping into a long debate over the the merits of our options for gender definition because ultimately I think the problem is that we as a society wrap too much of our identity as humans around our sexuality. If our sexuality were a smaller part of who are are, and a smaller part of what we perceive as our source of value as humans, we wouldn't see other people's way of doing things as quite so much of a threat to our core human value.

Maybe, just to keep everyone happy, we should mandate bathrooms to cover all combinations of gender definition: one for genetically male, physiologically male, and self-identity male, one for genetically male, physiologically male, and self-identity female, etc, etc.

Yea right, and businesses will just stop offering bathrooms for their patrons, and the public as well.

Then you will just need more laws to force restaurants and such to provide them.

And employees will just have to do with the porta-potty.

snoopy wrote:I certainly don't know brain science... but if you're going to appeal to a "male" brain vs a "female" brain, then I would think you need some solid scientific basis upon which to delineate the two. If the extent of the argument is a conclusion of the gaps (Where else would gender reside?) or an unfounded hypothesis (maybe gender is...) then you don't have much to stand on. I'm not particularly opposed to using self-identity as a means to define gender (more on this later), but I'd also like to posit that it's not the only choice.

I didn't spend much time arguing the position because if you scroll down to the rest of the post you see that my argument applies equally well to gender that resides in the soul (or kidneys, liver, or spleen for that matter). If human development is a biologically fallible process, then it doesn't matter whether you think gender is a brain thing or a soul thing or a gallbladder thing.

snoopy wrote:From a purely objective "measurability" definition, self-identity is the weakest of the three.

Chromosomes are actually the weakest of the three even from a measurability standpoint because they are the most invisible of the three. The average person has never measured anyone's chromosomes nor had their own chromosomes measured. In any case, I don't think that you should pick your concept of gender based on convenience of its measurement. Chromosomes are also the weakest in that they are so far removed from any intuitive concept of gender. Try explaining to Spock why we segregate bathrooms based on gender using chromosomes and not mentioning physiology or self-identity. You couldn't, and in fact you probably wouldn't even mention chromosomes in your explanation because they would seem so irrelevant to your case.

snoopy wrote:NS's opening point: progressive society sees things that discourage transgenderism as bigoted only because they've accepted transgender behavior into their circle of acceptable behavior.

That's revisionist. NS's actual opening post where he flippantly equivocates transgendered people to furries perfectly demonstrates why those who are against transgenderism are often painted as bigoted. I'm not saying that it's fair to paint everyone who is against transgenderism as a bigot, but if you're wondering why your side is being painted that way, then it doesn't require very complicated explanations.

snoopy wrote:It seems, to this day's society, the line is wherever society as a whole wishes it to be... and if you stray too far from the line on either side you are wrong... but at the end of the day, the line is arbitrary.

I see society moving more toward a philosophy of "live and let live" where you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others against their will. For instance, I predict among your examples of sexual behavior society finds unacceptable--polygamy, bestiality, and incest--that polygamy will some day be acceptable too (in some sense, it already is modulo marriage), whereas bestiality and incest never will be because they strongly violate the rule against harming others against their will. The proper course can be unclear when, for example, different people's rights are in conflict, but I do see it as the direction that society is moving toward.

Actually Jeff…when I use chromosomes as the metric, it’s not meant to be used literally, like get out your cheek swabs, it means if you were born a male, all of the hormone treatments and operations can’t change that.

That is why we can no longer use sex and gender interchangeably, and the term transsexual has become obsolete, replaced with trans-gender.

And no, you can’t use chromosomes to check someone’s gender.

snoopy wrote:I certainly don't know brain science... but if you're going to appeal to a "male" brain vs a "female" brain, then I would think you need some solid scientific basis upon which to delineate the two. If the extent of the argument is a conclusion of the gaps (Where else would gender reside?) or an unfounded hypothesis (maybe gender is...) then you don't have much to stand on. I'm not particularly opposed to using self-identity as a means to define gender (more on this later), but I'd also like to posit that it's not the only choice.

There's already been a significant amount of experimental evidence pointing to fundamental differences between the archetypical male and female brains, everything from physical structure to neurotransmitter activity. This is pretty much settled science. More recent studies have strongly suggested that the brains of transgender individuals have certain structural properties and stimuli responses that much more closely match their identified gender than the gender they were assigned at birth. It's still a huge misnomer to say that a female-to-male transgender individual is "a man's brain trapped in a woman's body," but there are certainly some fundamental differences in that person's brain.

Spidey wrote:And no, you can’t use chromosomes to check someone’s gender.

Exactly. Even putting everything else aside, there are a number of genetic disorders that show not even our sex chromosomes are a binary proposition. What do you call someone with only a single X chromosome (Turner syndrome), or with two X's and one Y? In the latter case, the majority of those afflicted fully present as male and are diagnosed with Klinefelter syndrome, but for others the situation is more complicated.

Jeff250 wrote:Chromosomes are actually the weakest of the three even from a measurability standpoint because they are the most invisible of the three. The average person has never measured anyone's chromosomes nor had their own chromosomes measured.

Least accessible, yes. Most objectively measurable: yes.

Jeff250 wrote:That's revisionist.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to put words in NS's mouth. My intention was to point out how there could be valid argument behind the flawed delivery.

Jeff250 wrote:whereas bestiality and incest never will be because they strongly violate the rule against harming others against their will. The proper course can be unclear when, for example, different people's rights are in conflict, but I do see it as the direction that society is moving toward.

How exactly must both hurt others against their will? For example, if two adult siblings wish to marry, who's being harmed? My guess is that you're going to go with the offspring, genetic issues and all (I agree...) - but that gets us back to your second point.

When you said incest, I had parent and child in mind, where there is a huge power imbalance and the impossibility of consent, and so the case of harm is clear. The case between two consenting adults is admittedly less clear to me. Looking at the numbers, the risk of birth defects is twice as high between cousins (4%) versus non-incestuous relationships (2%), which is something to be concerned about. The increase is in part because of the higher likelihood of each cousin sharing harmful recessive genes. However, there are undoubtedly non-incestuous couples with recessive genes that have an even higher, even 50%, chance of giving birth to a child with defects. If we want to have laws preventing cousins from having sexual relationships because their genes increase the risk of birth defects, then it seems like we would be opening the door to similar laws for non-incestuous couples where sharing recessive genes isn't just a chance but a known certainty. That might not be a bad thing, but I just don't know. Interestingly, it seems only 25 states prohibit marriage between cousins.

Note though that if the couple could medically guarantee that they couldn't have children, then I wouldn't feel any reason not to just mind my own business.

there are already laws against incestual couples.

and what's that have to do with transgendered individuals?

Ferno wrote:and what's that have to do with transgendered individuals?

He's confusing gender orientation with socially unacceptable sexual deviancy. Doesn't quite have a grasp of it yet.

I wonder... how many times are we as a society going to go through this? and by that I mean trying to tie something new and unknown to deviancy? History has shown that we've gone through that so many times... and yet we have to go through it again?

Because, either we never learn, or we don't WANT to learn, because some new things offend some people's old preconceived notions.

I half-wonder if we keep doing it just to give our grandkids something to say "Man, what the hell were they thinking?" about 50 years later.

I dunno Topgun, but this might factor into their line of reasoning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-governmen ... 24529.html

north carolina just got punted through the uprights with a kick that would win a championship.

Top Gun wrote:Check your fly TB, your ignorance is showing.

can it, top gun

Is Nightshade ThunderBunny?

Burlyman wrote:Is Nightshade ThunderBunny?

Yes.

My question would be, "What Next". What deviancy will be the next target of the left. I predict it will be adults having sex with consenting underage kids. The attack will will be a making of more films like Lolita and Pretty Baby, followed by interviews with adults marrying their child lover and how they have a wonderful and loving marriage. Demonstrations of these people with gays and transgenders participating with them are used to force the issue. Think I'm wrong?

gawd, you have some very serious mental issues, Woody.

So you don't see a progression from gay marriage to transgenders using what ever public bathroom they want to underage/adult marriages? No wonder you missed Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee.

woodchip wrote:So you don't see a progression from gay marriage to transgenders using what ever public bathroom they want to underage/adult marriages? No wonder you missed Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee.

Nope. Like I told Snoopy:

I see society moving more toward a philosophy of "live and let live" where you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others against their will. For instance, I predict among your examples of sexual behavior society finds unacceptable--polygamy, bestiality, and incest--that polygamy will some day be acceptable too (in some sense, it already is modulo marriage), whereas bestiality and incest never will be because they strongly violate the rule against harming others against their will.

woodchip wrote:My question would be, "What Next". What deviancy will be the next target of the left. I predict it will be adults having sex with consenting underage kids. The attack will will be a making of more films like Lolita and Pretty Baby, followed by interviews with adults marrying their child lover and how they have a wonderful and loving marriage. Demonstrations of these people with gays and transgenders participating with them are used to force the issue. Think I'm wrong?

The LGBT movement has never supported that. They even literally spell out what they support in their movement's acronym, and it's not one of those letters.

This isn't a slippery slope because the slope isn't "things Woodchip doesn't like are slowly becoming socially acceptable." If that were the slope, then I can see how you would have this concern, and I can certainly see why the slope would appear this way from your perspective. However, the real slope is "you shouldn't tell people how to live their lives as long as they're not harming you or anyone else without their consent." And that path would never lead to what you're suggesting.

woodchip wrote:So you don't see a progression from gay marriage to transgenders using what ever public bathroom they want to underage/adult marriages? No wonder you missed Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee.

the common link being abject stupidity? Seriously, I see utterly ZERO link with underage sex with adults, nor bestiality nor anything. The gay marriage thing is an acknowledgement of the legal recognition of relationships which have occured forever, in significant numbers, with utterly no harm to society. The transgender thing just seems like common sense, and once again, no one can show one case of a threat to anyone. Adults having sex with kids has proven to be predatory, whether hetero or gay relationships. Bestiality is simply animal abuse, under a pretty weird guise. There are victims, in other words. Who is the demonstrable victim of gay marriage? Likewise, of a transgendered individual using their bathroom of choice. Dennis Hastert chose the mens room, as NC would mandate. So did Jerod Fogel. Feel better now?

Need I remind you, woody, that Canada has had gay marriage for a little over a decade, and transgender rights are also protected. Yet, there has been ZERO incidents anywhere near what you describe.

you could remind him, but that won't affect the fantasies and fetishes.

not to mention the underage/adult marriages he mentioned would also, not happen. because it violates the protection from harm laws; both spoken and unspoken.

It's fun to see a living breathing example of the "phobia" portion of homophobia.

akin to a little boy worrying about 'girl cooties'

And why does it take the DOJ to sue the anti-LGBT state to tell them they're wrong?

North carolina will now forever be known as the state that tried to discriminate against LGBT because... bigotry.

Please. I would absolutely LOVE to hear why a state suddenly found it SO IMPORTANT to treat a group of people LIKE A GROUP OF SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS.

describing the recent state of North Carolina politics would take a while, and include stuff like Tea Party obsession, gerrymandering, voter supression, and a whole lot of paranoia about gays, young people, people of color, along with an utter disregard for the well-being of the state.

callmeslick wrote:describing the recent state of North Carolina politics would take a while, and include stuff like Tea Party obsession, gerrymandering, voter supression, and a whole lot of paranoia about gays, young people, people of color, along with an utter disregard for the well-being of the state.

So it's in essence, it's a gated community populated by no one but old white men

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So you don't see a progression from gay marriage to transgenders using what ever public bathroom they want to underage/adult marriages? No wonder you missed Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee.

the common link being abject stupidity? Seriously, I see utterly ZERO link with underage sex with adults, nor bestiality nor anything. The gay marriage thing is an acknowledgement of the legal recognition of relationships which have occured forever, in significant numbers, with utterly no harm to society. The transgender thing just seems like common sense, and once again, no one can show one case of a threat to anyone. Adults having sex with kids has proven to be predatory, whether hetero or gay relationships. Bestiality is simply animal abuse, under a pretty weird guise. There are victims, in other words. Who is the demonstrable victim of gay marriage? Likewise, of a transgendered individual using their bathroom of choice. Dennis Hastert chose the mens room, as NC would mandate. So did Jerod Fogel. Feel better now?

Still think child porn and all it manifests is not already creeping into the mainstream. Or is this Calvin Klein ad just harmless advertising?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... model.html

woodchip wrote:Still think child porn and all it manifests is not already creeping into the mainstream. Or is this Calvin Klein ad just harmless advertising?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... model.html

you think what calvin klein did was new?? Just look back at 1981, when they did the brooke shields ads.

What...no camel toe.

Spidey wrote:What...no camel toe.

okay that's just creepy.

Whatever. Team ThunderBunny. XD