There's no such thing as Transexuals

Liberal liars due tend to get riled up easily.

Is that why you’re so riled up?

How many times do I have to repeat that it is their agenda that rejects objective reality, so their works would follow that agenda. It’s not difficult to identify a liberal just as it’s not difficult to identify a conservative. Liberals want to hijack names and ideas and reinvent them to mean something different, thus lying about the nature of reality as it has been for a coon’s age, maybe longer. The definition of insanity is trying to reason with a liberal. Bye.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAjPOpws0eE[/youtube]

coon’s age. proof of trolling. run along now.

For Mr R

youtu.be/UQjKGJZu4mg

I’d be willing to have a ball lift if it made that special lady happy.

Unfortunately, once you start you can’t stop… :mrgreen:

youtu.be/ViBdy1y-Gkk

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Repetition isn’t an argument. Where your position is that you will reject the evidence provided by anyone who believes X, you are closing yourself off to compelling evidence that X is true (since we should expect anyone with compelling evidence that X is true to also believe X). That is a rejection of any objective measure of reality.

It wasn’t a lie to call nephrite and jadeite, “jade”, and it wasn’t a lie to determine that they are in fact two different substances. So too was it not a lie to treat social and physiological sex as the same, and it’s not a lie to point out that they aren’t. Words meanings reflect the world, and as we gain a better understanding of the world, we need to change our language to suit. There is an important sense in which a man who sincerely feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body is a woman. Your objection so far has been to point out that there are important senses in which that man is not a woman, and I’ve acknowledged that (e.g., we don’t need to give her birth control to prevent pregnancy). But those claims aren’t in conflict.

This thread is full of bad arguments.

The Modern world is defined by delusions. Pretend to be something, and you are that something. That’s the bottom-line. Is it true, realistic, accurate, objective? No, it’s subjective. It’s “I say so”. It is not factual. It is not scientific. It is pseudo-intellectual. A guy pretends to be a woman, Careleass says it is a woman. We all disagree. But the liberals are caught in a cross-road between participating in delusions, and common sense.

The more absurd they become, the less they are taken seriously, and will continue to lose political power.

Western Civilization is approaching a crossroad.

How far is the liberal-left willing to go, to not tread on “MUH FREEDOMS”? At what point, does common sense step-in and say, “No, you have/had a pair of hairy balls. You have/had a dong hanging down from your crotch. Therefore you will always be male no matter how much you pretend to be female?” Never? Well, the distinction matters.

It’s a problem of all-inclusivity. The liberal-left want to include everybody, the homosexuals, the queers, the fags, the transexuals, all races, illegal immigrants, murderers, basically “all those oppressed by the white male patriarchy”. The liberal-left dooms itself by this goal, this ideal, this “value”. The liberal-left claim to care for the poor and homeless, but do they? No, not when push comes to shove. Not when reality appears. Not when the liberal-left must actually pay (their own) money. The liberal-left is content to raise taxes on the conservative-right (those who work the most, and hardest). But the liberal-left don’t want their own pocket books going to what they claim to care about.

It’s a lot of lying, contradictions, and sensationalism.

Most of it is virtue-signaling. The liberal-left are driven, compelled by, feelings of Guilt. So the liberal-left want to appease to those they feel guilty with and by. So the liberal-left panders to all “the oppressed”, without understanding the very nature of oppression. In reality, the liberal-left are the ones most responsible for continuing “the oppression”.

Personally, I don’t think the Liberal-Left is inclusive at all. It’s actually the exact-opposite. Conservatives are more ‘tolerant’ of others, than Liberals. Instead Liberals only claim to be inclusive, until the ‘merge’ occurs. Then the truth comes out. Liberals are Elitists in waiting. They promote “One-Humanity”, living behind gated communities, or high up in skyscrapers, away from the riff-raff.

“One-Humanity” (with walls everywhere)

To reiterate, if you’re a man, to refer to and think of yourself as a woman, is not similar to referring to and thinking of yourself as a Liam, Willian or Benjamin, that’s a poor analogy, because names like Liam, Willian or Benjamin are arbitrary, nondescript.

What it’s really similar to, is referring to and thinking of yourself as an extrovert, when you’re an introvert, or an empath, when you’re a sociopath, or as having Asperger’s or Down’s, when you don’t have Asperger’s or Down’s, or as a doctor, lawyer, child or African American, when you’re none of these things.

Not only are you not actually one of these things, try as you may, you will never be able to behave like them, because behaving like them would require you to have the same biology as them, or it would require you to have a degree if you want to be a doctor or lawyer.

And while some people are better, actors than others, imitation pales in comparison to the genuine article, and while the scientific jury is still kind of out, as the study of brain and gender is still “in its infancy”, the evidence available to us so far suggests generally speaking, so called ‘transsexuals’ have sort of androgynous brains, not a wholly female brain in a wholly male body, like the progressive media would have us believe, and again, that’s generally speaking, some fauxsexuals mightn’t have brains like the sex they believe they are at all.

Masculinity and femininity aren’t meaningless categories, they refer to thousands of physiological, neurological and psychological traits, and men always in some cases, and generally in others have masculine traits, and women feminine traits, because masculinity and femininity are, in the main, biologically determined, which’s not to say socialization doesn’t play a role, it does.

But even here, fauxsexuals are never going to be socialized like the opposite sex is, because people are never going to think of and treat them exactly like they treat the opposite sex, and also physiology, your body, determines how you experience the world, and so your experiences are never going to be the same as the experiences of the opposite sex, and so neither is your psychology, because experience also partly determines psychology, it’s the other side of the coin.

And disguising, referring to and thinking of yourself as something you’re not, when that something is of profound importance, like your sex is, is wrong, it’s mentally ill, deceptive, and we’re all mentally ill, or deceived if we play along with this, masquerade.
If you pretend to yourself and others you’re a cop, doctor, lawyer or the opposite sex, it’s wrong, because if you’re good at it, some people mightn’t realize you’re pretending, they’re going to have certain expectations of you, and through no fault of their own, at some point these expectations are going to be thwarted when reality intervenes.

I think there’s been a comparison of fauxsexuals to subcultures like punk or goth and cosplay.
The difference here is subcultures have nothing to do with biology, one, and two, cosplay is make believe, and the people who do it know it’s make believe, they don’t do it 24/7, but if they actually believed they were video game or anime characters, we would tell them to, cut that shit out, and rightfully so, because it’s mentally ill.

Fauxsexuals, knowingly or unknowingly, are, charlatans, frauds, hucksters, imposters, most of them are mentally ill, but some of them are probably downright liars, trying to pull one over the world.

Punks and goths are also referred to as poseurs, when other members of their subculture feel they’re being disingenuous, or even when they earnestly try, and fail to live up to the part, so the comparison is doubly fallacious.

This is not the claim. We’re talking about sincere beliefs about ones own relation to a specific and complex concept. The concept is both biological and social, necessary and contingent. And to the extent it’s social and contingent, there’s no contradiction in applying it differently where it makes sense to do so.

I agree with this. Where someone is mentally a woman, it doesn’t make sense to demand that they think of themselves as a man. Exactly my point.

I challenge you to identify a mental trait that men always have.

So this line of argument seems to be that we shouldn’t think of and treat transsexuals as members of their chosen sex because people are never going to think of and treat them as members of their chosen sex?

This isn’t what transsexuals are going. When you say that they’re acting as “something [they]'re not”, you are interpreting it as them acting as someone with a specific chromosomal mix or genital shape. But that’s not a necessary implication from how they’re acting. They’re acting like someone who thinks of themself as a member of a particular sex and who wants to be treated as a member of that sex, and that’s exactly what they are. You acknowledge that sex is partly social and contingent, but you still treat it as fully biological for the purpose of evaluating this question. It isn’t, you acknowledge it isn’t, and to the extent that it isn’t, it makes sense to treat it as social and contingent, and let people adopt the social role with which they identify.

To your point on doctors and lawyers, I would liken that to the birth control point I’ve made a few times. I don’t have a problem with someone wanting me to treat them as a doctor, as long as that doesn’t include letting them operate on me. Similarly, we shouldn’t have a problem with treating someone as a woman who was born a man, but that doesn’t entail that we should consider them when looking for a pregnancy surrogate.

Fact: females have, and do, question the intent of big hulking transsexual he-she males. Why? because of a safety and security dictat.

Can that be argued against?

Does it need to be? I once had a friend who was afraid of balloons, but that doesn’t tell us very much about balloons.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-angry-safe-sex-guide-calls-vagina-front-hole-012527170.html

No end in sight for the craziness. :laughing: Why not all be sincerely multi-gendered like hermaphrodites with a front hole and a penis or a vagina and a strapless, say your non-binary queer, and have the best of all worlds possible?

Carleas wrote:

This is a very typical error in thinking, confusing feelings with realities.

The truth is that reality is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

@Carleas

The words man and woman don’t belong to the state, they belong to us, as native English speakers.
Since time immemorial, man and woman referred to ones biology, which’s the hard, essential difference between man and woman, not ones psychology, or what one wished they were, just as the words adult, child, white, black and so on, refer to ones biology.

If you present yourself as, and claim to be a doctor, lawyer, employed, unemployed, healthy, sick, able, disabled and so on, no one will suppose you’re claiming to be the aforementioned in a soft, psychological sense, so you have to clarify what you mean, by saying: well I’m not actually an X, I just believe I have the psychology of an X, or I just wished I was an X.

It’s linguistically and socially unprecedented, confusing and deceitful.

Look, I, and other native English speakers who won’t be bullied by the state and progressive ideologues, are not going to change the way we do language and socialize to appease less than 1% of the population, a group of largely mentally ill people that has somehow, gotten inordinately powerful, and needs to be put in its place.
You, will accommodate our linguistic and social norms, not the other way round.

If you present yourself as, and claim to be the sex you’re not, you’re a liar, and if we’re planning on sleeping together, I’m going to be angry with you when I find out you’re lying, and rightfully so.

I am a tolerant man, dress however you please, conduct YOUR affairs as you see fit, but don’t lie to me, especially if we’re doing business or pleasure together.

You’re entitled to define yourself, for you, but you’re not entitled to define yourself, for me.

Not all science is equal, some science is soft, social, some science is speculative, theoretical, some science is esoteric (meaning, no laymen can verify it, and very few scientists can verify it), some science is funded by special interest groups (big business, government, ideologues…), some scientists hold beliefs that may jeopardize the integrity of their work, some science is new, experimental, some scientific fields are in the habit of changing their minds, some science is shoddy, and sometimes some laymen themselves can uncover how shoddy it is by examining it, some science contradicts our individual or collective experience, some scientific consensuses are contested by a minority of scientists within mainstream academia, and we can examine the work of these dissidents to see if it has merit, some science is contested by fringe academia…

And todays fringe, can become tomorrows mainstream.

There are no absolute authorities, reality is the ultimate arbiter.

I don’t have anymore respect for scientists than I do for politicians and media.

While some sources of info, might be more trustworthy than others, nothing is completely beyond public scrutiny.