There's no such thing as Transexuals

Seems fair. But you’re telling them this? Like you’re finding yourself in the situation?

The ol’ nature versus nurture.

Psychological femininity, like almost anything, is in all likelihood in part determined by neurology.
Scientific research on fauxsexuals brains is in its infancy, but what it’s suggesting so far is: fauxsexuals have brains somewhere in between masculine and feminine.
Now why would we expect faxuwomen, who’s brains are averagely somewhere in between masculine and feminine, to averagely be as psychologically feminine as real women, who’s brains are (nearly) wholly feminine?
It’s absurd.
Not only that, but body influences brain/mind, both directly, physiologically, and indirectly, in our perceptions of ourselves, and faxuwomen have (nearly) wholly masculine bodies.
So not only are they not physiologically or even neurologically women, in the main, but in all probability, they’re not even psychologically women, in the main.

They’re not women and this isn’t science.
If it was, there would at the very least be psychoneurological screening to prevent just anyone from legally changing their sexual status, as some fauxsexuals are more delusional (even less like the sex they think they are) or bigger liars than others, or perhaps neuropsychologists would determine our sex for us in adolescence by neuropsychologically examining us, irrespective of the sex we thought we were or wanted to be, because such is the nature of facts, they’re independent of our wishes.

This is progressives and the LGBT community cherry-picking science, and possibly (un)intentionally manipulating science by throwing money at it, into making it seem like there’s more legitimacy to their claims than there is, but so far, not much legitimacy has claimed to have been found by the scientific community anyway.
The progressives, which LGBT activists are a branch of, have an agenda, they’ll do whatever they can to advance what they believe to be the interests of so called ‘transsexuals’, irrespective or at the expense of the facts and wellbeing of society, just like feminists are demonstrably not really interested in equality, but in advancing women’s interests, often at the expense of men and society as a whole.

@Karpel

There’s an assumption in the progressive community, which LGBT activists are a part of, that fauxsexuals, like lesbians and so on, are born, not made, or socially and/or self-constructed, but in actuality, it’s likely a combination of the two, which’s why I don’t think children should be exposed to this, because it could condition their still forming brain/minds into developing so called gender ‘dysphoria’, which’s a mental illness, when they otherwise wouldn’t’ve.
People with gender dysphoria often develop depression, anxiety disorders and commit suicide as a result of it.
People with gender dysphoria may feel compelled to undergo expensive and irreversible surgical procedures, sterilizing, mutilating, disfiguring and disabling them for life, take drugs and steroids with numerous side, and negative effects.

This is not something you mess a child’s mind around with, in fact, if anything, it should be considered a form of child abuse, to implant these ideas into their minds.

And we shouldn’t take claims children make about themselves regarding sex, gender and so on seriously, their brains are still forming, and so is their notion of sex and gender.
Children are highly suggestible, if you suggest they are or may be something, they may unthinkingly adopt that something, until it’s deeply ingrained, they have very limited capacity for self-assessment.
And once they go through puberty, they may feel completely different about themselves, there’s no way a child’s gender dysphoria could be set in stone, so the idea of giving kids traumatic, experimental, irreversible drugs and surgery seems ludicrous to me.

I couldn’t take a fauxsexual as the sex they believe they are, as they’re fundamentally the sex they believe they’re not, for the reasons given in this thread.
However, I could take, some of them as neuropsychological androgynes, depending largely on my own independent evaluation of their psychology.

While there is evidence to suggest their population group as a whole isn’t entirely fabricating this, how do you know every individual who claims to be a fauxsexual isn’t?
People make things up, they’re mistaken about themselves, they lie about themselves.
Why would this population group be any different?

The research, as demonstrated earlier, suggests they’re neuropsychologically androgynous, not fully males or females living inside the opposite body.

Many also end up committing suicide or trying to ‘change back’ into the sex they were.
Why is embracing their delusion the only solution?
It’s not good to believe you’re something you’re not.
If you’re a man, you will never think, feel or look exactly like a woman does, and vice versa.
Being delusional impairs ones navigation through the world.
Why not instead try getting them to see that while some of them may be neuropsychological androgynes, they’re not and can never be the other sex, not physically, not even neuropsychologically.
Why not try getting them to embrace their androgyny, instead of futilely setting them on a life long quest to become something they’re not, and will never be?

I support peoples right to think and do with their lives as they please.

Fauxsexuals represent a tiny fraction of the population, I think less than 1%, but the way the media talks about them, you’d think it would be closer to 10%.

LOL yeah :confused: I’ve had dudes proposition me in the past and had to figure a way to let them down easy because, like you, there ain’t NO way I could. I don’t even like manly women with genuine XX chromosomes. So I make it seem as if the problem is me and my hangup (which may be true) and probably they can find someone else who doesn’t have my problem. It really is a sad situation. One guy said he was pre-op and wondered if I would be more attracted after the operation, so I said “not unless you’re swapping chromosomes”. As far as I know, that’s impossible and lets me off the hook.

Genetic similarity is a valid reason for rejection:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVi_B8IuJeM[/youtube]

Here is the first part of the video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DONT6xjXlq4[/youtube]

Same here. As a general rule I like women who are feminine, and small, and who have small hands and feet, and who I can pick up. If I can’t pick them up then that’s pretty much a deal breaker. I also don’t think I could grow old with a woman who refused to get fake tits at some point. She can have regular tits as long as she’s young and the gravity hasn’t set in, but once they start looking like old lady tits she’s gonna have to get them fixed or I won’t be able to like her as much.

This is the slave-instinct at work. Many, or even most humans, are so compelled to seek-out a master, an Alpha, and praise as a god, that they will do whatever it takes to appeal and please Him. For many homosexuals and transexuals, this means wanting to suck dick and be the receiving bottom-end. Again, they will do anything to submit to a higher power, a higher male.

It’s about seeking leadership, in all the wrong ways. People here should at least recognize this is Slave-Dialectic. When the masses have nobody to obsess and fawn over, then they’ll seek out anybody and anything to achieve that end.

Fauxsexuals, like homosexuals, are in all likelihood a product of both genetics, and environment, some individuals might be more a product of the former, others may be more a product of the latter.
So what kinds of environments are more likely to produce fauxsexuals?
Don’t expect scientists to delve too deeply into that one anytime soon, it’s too unpleasant.

Does being a passive, submissive male, or an aggressive, domineering female incline some individuals to become fauxsexuals?
And how does one become a passive-submissive male, or aggressive-domineering female?
Again it’s a, combination of genes/environment.

Why can’t (how we perceive) our masculinity/femininity, affect both the sex we identify as, and the sex we’re attracted to?
The reason why it can’t, is not because, science, but because if (self-perception of) our masculinity/femininity can affect sexual identification and attraction, than altering (self-perception of) our masculinity/femininity, can also alter sexual identification and attraction, and of course progressives don’t want to go there, because that would mean some of them, at least in part, are responsible for their sexuality.

It’s an interesting hypothesis, but again, don’t expect scientists to test it, because science is political, and politics in the 21st century, is very much about being, ‘progressive’.
Science doesn’t exist all by itself in a void, it is nourished, and poisoned alike by the funding it receives from politics, and big business.

I know you identified yourself as “Gloominary” when you signed up here, but I’m going to call you Poopyface. You are entitled to think of yourself as “Gloominary”, but, by your reasoning, you aren’t entitled to have me perceive you as anything other than Poopyface if that’s how I perceive you, and, apparently, you aren’t entitled to complain that I have chosen to call you Poopyface, despite that any reasonable observer would guess that you would prefer not to be called Poopyface.

This is an admittedly and intentionally juvenile spin on what it seems like you’re doing. There is no law, nor should there be, that says that when you tell me your name is John, I am prohibited from responding, “No, I think I’ll call you Mike instead, Mike’s a much better name for you than John.” There should be no such law. But we need no such law, people grant to others the dignity of the name they offer. If someone says they are John, then we take them at their word and call them John. I’ve met many people who go by a name that isn’t their given name and isn’t their legal name, and yet it is still obvious to me, and seems obvious to everyone I’ve seen them interact with, that the name they indicate as the name they’d prefer to be called is the name that it is polite to call them.

The parallel with sex is not exact, but it is importantly similar. Men and women occupy different social roles, not just different sexual roles, and we can think of these differences separately. We know that a transwoman will not menstruate or get pregnant, but insofar as these sorts of considerations are irrelevant, where sex serves only the social purpose of signaling how we treat someone and how we expect them to behave in non-sexual and non-reproductive settings, to self-identify and present as a certain sex should be accorded the same courtesy as we accord the decision to introduce oneself by a particular name or to, through style of dress or grooming, to identify oneself as a member of some subculture.

This includes the use of gendered bathrooms (though they be a relic of a much more prudish past). To the extent there is a harm presented, police the harm, not the poor proxy for an expectation of harm. If someone is actually attacking or harassing people in a bathroom, the sex of the people involved is roughly irrelevant. There is no epidemic of abuse of these policies, and the places where self-selection is most respected, and where transsexuals are most prevalent, there is no attendant increase in the sorts of negative behaviors that critics claim as motivation. This charge is bullshit, and clearly ad hoc.

So recognize people as a matter of basic manners. You aren’t making a biological claim when you treat someone as the gender with which they identify, and you most likely won’t have an opportunity to test whether they have the genitals or genetic basis to backup their claimed identity. But in the same way you won’t ask someone for their license or birth certificate, and would likely respect their proffered named even if you did find that it didn’t match their birth or legal name, you should respect peoples other choices of self-identity.

I know I have seen you on here shilling for Fleshlight, so I feel like the fakeness of the vagina can’t have much to do with it.

Carleas, if I may, perhaps it is not so much the fakeness as the fact that it is made of scrotum.

To me personally, that’s a very compelling case.

Also a fleshlight is just fancy masturbation, while a manufactured dent on a man means you put your johnson in a dude. Maybe that’s cool with you. Not judging. But it is not on the face of it altogether so crazy that a man may feel disinclined. Or maybe you don’t distinguish sex and masturbation?

I say this all as a proud friend of a transsexual. I love the guy. But it’s fucking creepy to think of the sex he has (he somehow does get pussy).

More power to em. But to pretend it’s not fucking weird…

I might add, I knew him before and after hormone treatment. Before he was a sweet girl still who was fun as a guy. We talked for long whiles as he still had thr multitrack mind of a girl. But I can’t say we’re very close anymore. Testosterone for a girl… they take it a little more to heart than men.

I think of him as a he as a politeness, those little lies we accept for the sake of the friendship. But before hormones, I would often get him to explicitly side with girl mentality. He is of above average intelligence and sensitivity (down the drain tho after the hormones) so maybe he is just a more human example than most.

In general I am for all and any forms of pretend. As long as you don’t impose or expose your creepy to me.

I can see an old lady with new implants… you cant do that to the Van Buren.
Just get a chick half your age and die before she gets old.

So Carleas, it’s polite to enable the delusions of the mentally ill trans? Encourage all delusions to be PC since it’s their call. If the adult identifies as a infant and enjoys wearing just a diaper…encourage that with baby talk.

So if I prefer to be called, and thought of as Native Canadian, even tho I’m not, because it’s my ‘social role’, presumably that’s okay with you?
And if I get a race change, and legally update my status to Native Canadian, so I can collect benefits and join the reservation, that’s okay with you too?

At no time is a persons physiology completely irrelevant.
We interact with women differently, not just because of their minds, but because of their bodies, we’re less inclined to be rough with them, we’re more inclined to get things for them and so on.

A persons psychology is shaped by their physiology and neurology. Try as he may, a man with a fundamentally male body and brain will never know what it’s like to feel and think like a woman, nor will he be able to behave as such. You think like somehow we can just magically separate psychology from physiology and neurology.

Reality doesn’t work like that, but even if it could, again, just because you say, you have a fully female psychology, doesn’t mean you do.
Names like Joe, Jack, Patrick, Peter and Poopyface don’t actually refer to anything, and so they’re meaningless, in these contexts what’s important is consistency and civility, but man and woman refer to something a person is supposed to have, in a strict, biological sense, or perhaps in a looser, psychological sense, just like openminded, closeminded, extroversion, introversion, agreeableness and disagreeableness and so on are supposed to refer to qualities a person has, and so just because you claim to possess such qualities, doesn’t mean you actually posses them, and you shouldn’t be called by things you don’t posses, because it’s confusing, and misleading.

And now faxuwomen are joining women’s sports, endangering women’s lives, and placing them at a disadvantage.

I haven’t seen any data on faxuwomen and crime, so I can’t comment.
But it seems to me, because faxuwomen are essentially, men, women are more likely to be sexually harassed and assaulted if we allow men to be with them when they’re at their most vulnerable.

Faxuwomen represent a tiny portion of the population (less than 1%, and of those many may still choose to use the men’s restrooms, reducing the figure even further), so permitting them to use the women’s restrooms mightn’t, visibly increase sexual harassment and assaults, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t increasing them, it might just mean it’s falling under the radar.
In all likelihood, putting people who’re essentially men, many of whom are heterosexuals with masculine libidos and physiques, with women when they’re at their most vulnerable, will increase the likelihood of spying, sexual harassment, assault and so on, however slightly, on account of their slight population.

LOLOLOLOL fleshlights aren’t made of old scrotums.

Of course this is the better option, but hey you can paint an old car and make it better. Maybe not as good as a new car, but better at least.

I’ve suggested no such thing. Rather, I think there is a fully consistent and reality-based understanding of sex as a social fact distinct from its biological facts, and that it is not delusional to prefer to have a social sex different from ones biological sex, and to modify ones body to better present their preferred social sex.

To your first question, yes. To your second, in which you ask the same question but wrap it in the questionable practice of extant race-based discrimination, I think the issue comes in through the race-based discrimination, and not through granting someone’s sincere conviction that they are best understood socially as whatever they present themselves to be.

We seem to have no problem with hair dye, colored contacts, fake tans, shaving or waxing, plastic surgery, etc., despite those body modifications being undertaken for their social effects and denying the physiological reality of genetic traits and aging in the same sense that a sex change denies a physiological reality of biological sex.

I take this as a retraction of your prior claim: