[ 2D / 3D / fur / mon / alt ] [ bc / ptr / rs ] [ dis / md ] [ Discord ] [ Telegram ]

/dis/ - General Discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
FilePermitted files: JPG, PNG, MP4, WebM. (Why not GIF?)
Use the following services to convert GIFs: MP4 WebM
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1551231782143.png (345 B, 318x159, index.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

 No.654[Last 50 Posts]

Can we have a trans awareness thread? I feel a lot of gays don't properly know, or even care to discuss, the dangers of trans activism, specifically problems with reassignment surgery and how it's seen as an absolute despite it being incredibly dangerous especially for males trying to be female, and how it's essentially doctor assisted genital mutilation. Then there's the issues with bathroom sharing, specifically how it allows non trans individuals to claim trans status with impure intentions. And not to mention it opens the door for many other issues like transracialism, transspeciesism, transagism and so forth. Things normally treated for a mental illness. On top of this there's the issues with the blank slate theory that's commonly used to support transgenderism. The biological differences between males and females, and the issues with born males competing and destroying women in women's focused sports.

But I'm happy to talk about things like this with other gays if you're up for it.

 No.655

You sound awfully discriminating about it. Gender reassignment surgery is a choice, just like plastic surgery in general is. If someone wants to modify their body they should be allowed to. If you think it's as easy as deciding to do it and getting it done, as if there's not tons of steps and clearances in place, you're mistaken.

If you think legitimate trans people are going to use public bathrooms to assault or prey on anyone, you're mistaken there, too. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Very unlikely, if not even less so than a cis person attacking someone in a restroom. The ones getting assaulted in public are the trans people.

You realize homosexuality was accused of connections to pedophiles and sataniswhen it was still more taboo? So just because you feel like transgender people being normalized is a gateway to other matters, doesn't mean there's any actual connection there. Though, if someone wants to identify as a baby, wolf, different race, whatever really, if they're not doing harm to anyone else, why do you actually care.

Don't be so concerned with matters that don't literally impact you. It might make you feel some way, but that's on you. In close, stay in your lane, dude.

 No.656

>>655
>Gender reassignment surgery is a choice, just like plastic surgery in general is.
Which is fine, but there's issues with it like all plastic surgery, there is massive consequences that a majority of trans activists outright ignore that prevent trans people from doing things cis people can do like serve properly in the military. There's several issues with it as well, dilation is something they have to do daily for the rest of their lives just to keep the open wound they've created from closing up, and it's often incredibly painful. Sex becomes an issue because males lose a majority of their nerves and their new hole simply isn't as versatile as either an ass or a vagina. And females have to rely on expensive prosthetic pumps to get erections and suffer from nerve problems as well since the skin of their faux penis isn't a real penis.

 No.657

>>656
PT2
>If you think legitimate trans people are going to use public bathrooms to assault or prey on anyone, you're mistaken there, too. Is it possible?
Their intentions aren't important to the point. The issue is that other people can and have used it to do that. While I do think gender neutral alternative bathrooms should exist, I imagine it would be like a wheelchair stall or something like that.
>You realize homosexuality was accused of connections to pedophiles and satanism it was still more taboo?
The difference is when gays became a normalized their suicide rates and rates of other mental issues declined significantly. the same isn't true for trans who still have a significant rate of mental health problems, even more if they actually go through the surgery. There are many parts of the US and the world where they are commonly accepted, and they're still just as unstable.
>Though, if someone wants to identify as a baby, wolf, different race, whatever really, if they're not doing harm to anyone else, why do you actually care.
The normalization of it. People live daily with PTSD, amputated limbs, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and Bodily Integrity Disorder, something incredibly similar to transexuality. The issue is when we actively encourage people to outright go and embrace becoming a burden to society and those around them rather than trying to actually help them.

 No.659

Fuck off.

 No.663

If someone wants to modify their bodies in a way that prevents them from serving in the military, and what dumbfuck would want to serve, that is their right. Ironic to bring that up considering how mistreated veterans are and how many issues they face during and post service, yet you're not freaking about that for some reason.

Dilation is not something everyone has to do on the daily for the rest of their lives. Some people, yes. Others just on a regular basis. Others hardly often. Are you a post on FtM person to even be thinking what you said is fully accurate?

And the issues with performing sex and functions of modified genitals are brought up to people exploring such surgeries. People don't go in and demand such an extreme surgery without being made aware of the potential risks. You might be concerned Caitlyn Jenner hasn't told people enough about her potential complications, but that hardly merits what you're saying to be a reason against transgenderism being normalized.

And again, transgender rights being normalized in the form of public bathroom setups and practices being used as an excuse to assault or prey on people is not what you or anyone should be concerned about. Women dressing like sluts isn't the problem with men raping them. We all know what the problem there actually is, whether you like women dressing like whores or not.

Transgender persons health and stability being measured up to another issue of any kind is apples and oranges. If you were concerned with the well beings of trans people, you wouldn't be saying all this shit against them.

 No.664


Trans people being given equal rights and the freedom of choice does not make them a burden to anything aside from people who can't accept change and the things that don't suit their narrow world views. Stick to the lakes and the rivers that you're used to.

 No.667

>>663
>If someone wants to modify their bodies in a way that prevents them from serving in the military, and what dumbfuck would want to serve, that is their right.
The military's standards are only that low in times of drafting when they take literally anyone. We haven't been that desperate in nearly 100 years. We've had a steady flow of capable men and women applying. It's also not a giant blanket ban, it mostly just stops them from serving in combat roles and training and serving tours.
>Dilation is not something everyone has to do on the daily for the rest of their lives. Some people, yes. Others just on a regular basis. Others hardly often. Are you a post on FtM person to even be thinking what you said is fully accurate?
The risk of their artificial vagina closes up if they don't do it daily. But everyone heals at their own rate. I don't see the distinction as important enough to make since the process is still painful regardless.

 No.668

>>667
PT2
>And the issues with performing sex and functions of modified genitals are brought up to people exploring such surgeries. People don't go in and demand such an extreme surgery without being made aware of the potential risks.
The issue is with the doctors here. It's pretty much widely known that Plastic surgeons are the most scuzzy group of people in the profession and will actively take advantage of mentally ill people with body dysmorphia, or insecurities when we should require extensive therapy instead. But then the few cases we do require therapy the surgeons typically recommend pro-trans psychiatrists and LGBT psychiatry is a whole shitshow based off faulty research done by a pedophile who actively ruined children's lives. We simply do not know enough about Transexuality as a mental state in order to be encouraging it like this.
>If you were concerned with the well beings of trans people, you wouldn't be saying all this shit against them.
I worry about their mental well being and self destructive behaviors. Just because someone doesn't share the doctrine of the Intersectional Trans Activist doesn't mean a person is against them.

 No.669

>>664
>Trans people being given equal rights and the freedom of choice
They have equal rights and freedom of choice already. There's no active laws against Trans individuals, in fact there should be more regulation against them in certain sports. Pretty soon every single women's record will be held by a person born male. Which is more of an insult to women and women's sports than anything.

Even the Military ban doesn't ban all trans individuals specifically. It bans people who have undergone the surgery.
>does not make them a burden to anything aside from people who can't accept change
There's a difference between a realistic change and a fantastical change. Who knows though, in 100 years we may have the technology to change a person on a biological level like that, until then it's poor imitation. Really the only valid reason I can see to even partially transition is for fetishism.

If anything transsexualism is the narrow world view. the denial of biology and the refusal to accept the life you were born with is a pretty ridiculous thing. And then because they have this feeling that we don't properly understand it's easy to get swept up in movements that actively give them proper opinions, give them world views, tell them if anyone says anything that remotely doesn't support these things, they're a transphobe. Any time an alternative view point is presented it's instantly denied for being bigotted. We're even getting to the point "biological gender" is being refused despite it being objectively, observably a reality.

 No.670

I sense you are threatened by what's going on with trans people but I do not sense you are trans. Am I right? Look, though, you've made it clear where you stand and why. Coming onto a site like this and saying you want to talk to others with similar interests as bara about the matter of transgenderism, all while speaking against them and the state of their lives and the way society is regarding the political matters surrounding it, etcetera, etcetera… You are presenting the opinions of someone who is an asshole. You are overly concerned with this. You should not be trying to involve yourself in the matter.

 No.673

File: 1551410582502.jpg (57.54 KB, 1200x630, ac0.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb

Not trying to be combattative, since I believe that just leads to counterproductiveness. With that in mind:
>problems with reassignment surgery and how it's seen as an absolute
It generally is not seen as an absolute, and is highly dependent on the individual's choice. Many Trans individuals I have had the pleasure of knowing are usually "okay enough" with overlooking the genitals as long as everything else "matches" their gender… though I do know that is not a universal, as each person is different. I have known two trans men who were content with the results of hormone therapy and top surgery. I do not know any trans women on such a personal level however.

>not to mention it opens the door for many other issues like transracialism, transspeciesism, transagism and so forth

Most people have enough sense to distinguish the difference between being trans and the trivial nonsense involved with the, what I call "transmockery" you've listed.

>issues with bathroom sharing, specifically how it allows non trans individuals to claim trans status with impure intentions

Here's the thing; the things people may be afraid of happening are illegal regardless of whether or not they enter the restroom under the guise of being trans. I mean really, pedophiles can use the bathroom designated to their sex 'under the guise of being a Cis hetero' and do illegal things too. Unfortunately bad people are going to do bad things, you will never be able to stop them with potty exclusion laws.

 No.674

> The biological differences between males and females, and the issues with born males competing and destroying women in women's focused sports.

Okay, so there's a lot of different things to address here. There are 3 different 'levels' to talk about with regards to what sport we're talking about; for fun, professional, and Olympic.

For fun; who cares? You're there to play your best and have fun not to 'be better than the next twat'

For the remaining two you need to keep something in mind; biological differences are based on averages. Professional and Olympic level women are still leagues above average men. So the thought that trans women will automatically outcompete biological women on the basis of sexual dimorphism alone is quite an absurdity. Even men of slightly above average ability still do not threaten professional female athletes. So while not entirely impossible that eventually there will be trans women competing at high level athletics… its certainly not going to be 'a typical occurrence'

Besides… a lot of Olympic-level athletics are tainted with performance enhancers… so its not like its 'may the best win' all the time anyway.

 No.675

Apollo?

 No.677

This isn't really "trans awareness" so much as just run-of-the-mill transphobia. As the person who replied first on this thread mentioned, there seems to be an awful lot of interest here in the private lives of others in a manner that will never affect the OP. Why so concerned about trans people? What have they done to you?

 No.680

>>677
Trying to be "one of the good queers" to appeal to his straight white overlords.

 No.681

>>680
>bringing whites into everything

Found the racist.

 No.682

Imagine thinking racism against white people exists.

 No.683

>>654
Op, don't bother trying to get genuine conversation about trans issues on a board primarily for porn. Save yourself the headache. The transphobia will most definitely pop out in some of these cis gays (as you can see already) and this will be trolled heavily due to anonymity.

 No.684

>>654
Talk & collab with other trans people about trans issues, (you'll find it a lot more enjoyable, trust me) This is not the lane for cis gays to be in as their commentary on trans issues is completely irrelevant.

 No.685

>>682
Imagine thinking racism against black and Asian people exists.

See I can do it too.

 No.686

>>685
this isn't /pol/ sweatie

 No.687

>>686
Thank you captain obvious.

 No.689

>>673
>Most people have enough sense to distinguish the difference between being trans and the trivial nonsense involved with the, what I call "transmockery" you've listed.
The problem is "Transracialism" is much more easily achieved and there's really no distinguishible difference in the mentality of the "trans" movements. It's not mockery. It's taking the logic, and applying it to something that can be justified with the exact same logic.

>I mean really, pedophiles can use the bathroom designated to their sex 'under the guise of being a Cis hetero' and do illegal things too. Unfortunately bad people are going to do bad things, you will never be able to stop them with potty exclusion laws.

They can, but the issue there is layers of protection. If someone merely claiming MTF status used a female designated locker room in a female designated space where there wasn't females around and sexually assaulted someone, underage or non, statistically speaking he would overpower the woman regardless of issue. On the other side of the coin an FTM would be in much more danger in a men's bathroom especially in a more intolerant place in the world.

I'd still advocate for a trans stall or a gender neutral option over "MTF" or "FTM"s using their identified bathroom any day.

 No.690

File: 1551674750352.jpg (73.92 KB, 971x788, Graph.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb

>>674
> So the thought that trans women will automatically outcompete biological women on the basis of sexual dimorphism alone is quite an absurdity
Your logic is incredibly screwey. For one, a man who is less skilled than a woman who has trained in the same subject is STILL more powerful than the woman. Men evolved to retain muscle and in general be powerhouses when it comes to fights. Men on average are taller. This matters in a lot of sports. They have a much higher upper capacity for weight training and are much faster in sprinting and running because their muscles have evolved to be capable of that. If we're talking about the "upper bar" then most skilled men will outperform the women 2 to 1 just about.

The olympics in general are a joke though. They're just toxic corporations making a toxic event that actively ruins communities. Look no further than all the controversies in the Rio Olympic games and the aftermath to completely disqualify the olympics from being a proper gauge of anything.

If you look at the top of the top athletes, men and women. Men still outperform women on the SAME margin that "your average man" outperforms "your average woman" and this is due to years upon years of biological conditioning and growth with different hormones. Here is a graph that explains it pretty well. Women's bodies just aren't built the same way mens are. They're born different and they grow differently. The only way to reach any sort of parity is to start transitioning absurdly early, and even then, it's such a ridiculous thing that actually screws up the individual being tested. Simply look up John Money's experiments on David Reimer to see how disastrous transitioning early could be.

 No.691

>>677
>transphobia
Decrying "phobia" is a weak argument meant to shut down conversations that you don't like or makes you uncomfortable. It just makes me think your opinion isn't developed but a learned opinion obtained through peer pressure and tribal groupthink.

 No.692

File: 1551675388637.png (645.69 KB, 1050x1050, 24q7mk1ooecx.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>690
Posted the wrong chart. Ignore that image.

 No.696

>>690
>If we're talking about the "upper bar" then most skilled men will outperform the women 2 to 1 just about.

Let's concede that yes, a male Olympic athlete would outcompete a female Olympic athlete in a number of particular events(though keep in mind that not all events are based on strength, but that's another subject) there is a HUGE difference between that, and what was implied previously. Which is; trans women will pervade and outcompete cis women purely on the basis that they were born male. For this to be even remotely possible that there are so many trans women that they even come close to outnumbering cis female athletes you'd need to also make the assumption that literally any average man is more capable than Olympic level cis women. (obviously an exaggeration, but one that I hope demonstrates my point)I hope you realize how incredibly misogynistic that is.

Next
> Simply look up John Money's experiments on David Reimer to see how disastrous transitioning early could be.
Okay, here's the thing; DAVID REIMER WASN'T TRANS! He had genital mutilation and was forcibly put on anti-natal medication and conditioned as a horrid experiment. David Reimer is more an example of how you CANNOT change your brain whether its towards or against a gender. If you're cis you're cis, and if you are trans, then you're trans. You cannot make a cis person trans, and you cannot make a trans person cis. THAT is what the experiment showed, not that "trans therapy doesn't work" Of course it's not going to work if you try to force a cis person to be trans.

 No.698

>>691

I certainly did not develop upon my post, and apologies for that, but it is not difficult to assess its contents. Conflating trans people with transracialism or transspeciesism itself demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how gender works and what it means to be trans, and arguing that one leads to the other in a slippery slope argument frames trans issues in a negative light, which is itself transphobic. It is ironic that you would accuse me of not having a developed opinion based on the platitudes I've been saying, when you yourself have been making nebulous statements unsupported by factual evidence, and throwing accusations of character at anyone who answered your points in a way you didn't like.

 No.700

>>696
>Which is; trans women will pervade and outcompete cis women purely on the basis that they were born male. For this to be even remotely possible that there are so many trans women
but they most definitely will. Again, a skilled woman will still be outperformed by a man who has half the experience in the given sport due to a variety of biological reasons. A majority of MTF athletes place in the top fields whenever they're competing in a sport where physical capability is more important than genuine skill. If we're talking archery or table tennis, a sport where skill is valued more than physical capability, then we ALREADY allow men and women to compete against each other and it really doesn't matter. The main issue these days is that Trans rights activists are pushing for gender segregated sports like MMA fighting, weight lifting, sprinting, and a variety of other sports to be desegregated while actively ignoring the biological differences between men and women.

>Okay, here's the thing; DAVID REIMER WASN'T TRANS!

Which was the problem. It throws the blank sleight theory out the window as well which completely invalidates the argument that MTFs should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

 No.701

>>698
>Conflating trans people with transracialism or transspeciesism itself demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how gender
Explain to me the difference.
>in a slippery slope argument
One can be justified with the other's argument. If I were to argue for freedom of religion, but then turn my back and say "Muslims don't count" that would be a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it? From my point of view you're arguing for a walled garden of acceptance. You're saying individuals who are transgendered should be accepted or tolerated or whatever it is you're advocating for but not other's based on trans status other than gender.
>It is ironic that you would accuse me of not having a developed opinion based on the platitudes I've been saying,
Because platitudes seem to be all you have.
>when you yourself have been making nebulous statements unsupported by factual evidence, and throwing accusations of character at anyone who answered your points in a way you didn't like.
Pot calling the kettle black here.

 No.702

>>700
>a skilled woman will still be outperformed by a man who has half the experience
Uh, no. You do know the whole "women have to work twice as hard to make it half as far as a man" is not an adage about sports, right?

 No.704

>>701

>Explain to me the difference.


Gender is a social construct that is largely affected by culture, as noted by the many different expressions of gender identity throughout history and locations. It is therefore entirely valid for someone to not identify as their given gender. Ethnicity, species, age, etc. are all traits based on hard facts, and so identifying differently therefore does not change from those facts. The fact that you apparently cannot establish the difference here makes you particularly ill-equipped to start a discussion on trans people.

> One can be justified with the other's argument.


The only way this makes sense is if you fail to see any difference between these different cases, which you have admitted to be the case. Again, not only are you using a slippery slope argument, you are trying to argue that slippery slope arguments in general are not fallacious.

> Because platitudes seem to be all you have.


Explaining that gender is a social construct may be a platitude to most people, but it is nonetheless apparently news to you, which is why it bears mentioning. What I have been stating are facts, that you should be easily able to verify on your own.

> Pot calling the kettle black here.


Uh, no. Not only is your attempt at a "no u" here immature, it is visibly wrong, and fails entirely to detract from the fact that my criticism of your argumentation is true.

 No.705

>>702
It's scientific fact. Womens power lifters lift less than men. Male fighters generally hit harder and are less prone to injury. Men have whole seconds ahead of women in sprinting and running. A man who is trained in a sport will always outperform a woman trained in the same sport if the sport relies entirely on their physical performance. I'm trying to think of a sport where the reverse is true, maybe gymnastics but I don't know much about that sport.

 No.706

>>704
>Gender is a social construct
No it's not. Again, blank slate theory is a sham. the idea that gender is a social construct RELIES on blank slate theory. Humans have inherent biological attitudes at birth that develop regardless of the environment they're in. Further to that fact, ethnicity is still in the same boat, as there is no significant differences between race. You're discriminating against Transracial individuals based purely on the fact that they weren't born with a specific skin color, which is no different than discriminating based on birth gender. With transgenderism the "exception to reality" is the fact that the individual is born "the wrong gender" just replace gender with race or species or differently abled.

And biologically being born with an Y or two X chromosomes isn't a fact?
>The only way this makes sense is if you fail to see any difference between these different cases
The only detail is what specific aspect of who they are they're trying to deny/refute/erase/change
>Which is why it bears mentioning. What I have been stating are facts
No, you've been stating marxist social sciences which are by no means, solid fact, which often go in the face of scientific fact, and is literally just your interpretation of actual facts.
>Uh, no. Not only is your attempt at a "no u" here immature
It wasn't an attempt. You've been making nothing but vague nebulous statements that aren't supported by any hard science, and are only true in the outdated worldview that died over a 100 years ago that's only been resurrected to be used as an excuse for people to deny reality further. I've posted almost nothing but facts, backed up by news articles and graphs that I can easily cite if you ask.

 No.708

>>706
> No it's not. Again, blank slate theory is a sham.

Yes, it is. Gender and sex are not the same, this is a fact the WHO and even the goddamn FDA recognize. Again, all of this is easily verifiable.

> Further to that fact, ethnicity is still in the same boat, as there is no significant differences between race.


Ethnicity is based on ancestry, not genetics. Again, you either do not seem to understand the subject matter you are discussing, or are deliberately twisting it out of shape to suit your own agenda here.

> The only detail is what specific aspect of who they are they're trying to deny/refute/erase/change


Or basic facts, which you seem hilariously unwilling to acknowledge, as per above.

> No, you've been stating marxist social sciences


Oooookay then. I guess the mask has finally dropped, then.

> I've posted almost nothing but facts, backed up by news articles and graphs that I can easily cite if you ask.


Then please, by all means, cite something. What I'm saying can be verified by a simple Google search. As it stands, you have been lying through your teeth in this batshit crusade to smear trans people in some random imageboard, baselesly attacking people along the way. Go back to /pol/.

 No.709

>>708

Slight correction to the above: ethnicity IS technically based on genetics, by the simple fact that ancestry is what determines the genes one has, but it is not a matter of major genetic difference. The genetic differences between people of different ethnicities are so minute as to be irrelevant in most cases, but that is a red herring in this discussion, as the notion of race is itself not based upon analyzing the genetic makeup of different people.

 No.710

>>705
You don't appear to show the slightest understanding about how science works…. so yeah, this is getting tiring on my end. First rule of science; science never 'proves' anything. As Albert Einstein put to words; --The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.-- so your 'matter of fact'-ness in these comments is annoyingly obvious that you understand very little about not only the subject matter being addressed, but also how science works period. So, while I am genuinely sorry that I cannot help broaden your worldview, I no longer have the patience to continue.

Also, curious as to your thoughts of the inclusion of people born intersex, or if you even considered how trans inclusion and trans rights has helped with intersex people's rights as well.

 No.712

>Yes, it is. Gender and sex are not the same
No its not. again, blank slate theory is commonly held as untrue and hasn't been held true by any serious scientific organization since the 50s. Which once again, I'll point to John Money's failed experiment. If gender is a social construct you invalidate the very existence of Trans individuals to just being petty trend chasers. If there is no biological explanation for their feelings then there is no reason for them to feel that way to begin with. While I'm against them cross competing in sports I do feel they deserve some recognition for their mental state.
>Ethnicity is based on ancestry, not genetics.
Ethnicity is based entirely on where one is born and raised. One has no choice in the matter. You're splitting hairs here. Again my question is why does a person want to be the opposite sex seem valid to you while another person wanting to change something equally inherent to them not? What differentiates Rachel Dolezal from Caitlin Jenner?
>Or basic facts
No matter how many times you state "gender is a social construct" doesn't make it true. It's not a fact. it was never a fact. It has no scientific grounding outside of college social studies essays.

Social Science in general changes MASSIVELY ever 50 years or so. In another 50 you'll be spouting another undoubtedly contradictory slogan that has been beaten into you by whatever social media site overtakes the last one. Gender, and gender expression, can be observed in animals, insects, and even plants. It is entirely to due with biology.
Cont-

 No.713

>>712
Pt2
>Oooookay then. I guess the mask has finally dropped, then.
What? Intersectionality and blank slate theory, two things you're advocating for here, are Marxist ideas. Do you even know what Marxism is outside of being the conservative boogeyman? The fact you just seemingly copy past progressive talking points makes me think you're just as educated as your average twitter politician. You give us liberals a bad name.
>Then please, by all means, cite something.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201609/the-blank-slate-controversy
https://crev.info/2018/12/biological-fact-men-women-different/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/30170-females-significantly-outperform-males-in-reading-and-writing-study-shows
Then there's a multitude of other issues "social construct" excuse can't account for.
>What I'm saying can be verified by a simple Google search.
I dare you to find one that isn't blatantly biased, written by an outright activist, or riddled with outdated science if it includes any at all and not just conjecture.

Again, a majority of social sciences change year to year. What's in vogue right now will change years from now. It's called a soft science for a reason.

 No.714

>>710
>science never 'proves' anything.
WTF? I'm a flat earther now.

But really. I get what you're saying. The issue is you're applying what he's saying very very wrong. Science is developed through extremely rigorous testing. It's commonly accepted that what we know now will be disproven or change when a new scientific advancement comes and our understanding changes. But that doesn't mean all science should be picked and chosen based on personal whims.

you state this line but I bet you mock climate change deniers, flat earthers, or pro-lifers for their viewpoints because you view them as factually wrong. you could even apply this argument to the alleged facts that Trans activists spout all the time.

What you're saying is that reality is chaos and science means nothing. Science is a tower, with each brick smacked, thrown, hit, and launched until it is proven to be sturdy and then we let it sit and then we watch and see if it stands the test of time.
>Also, curious as to your thoughts of the inclusion of people born intersex, or if you even considered how trans inclusion and trans rights has helped with intersex people's rights as well.
First of all, calling it Trans rights is disingenuous. Trans awareness or Trans acceptance is more apt. There's nothing illegal regarding Trans individuals at the moment as far as I know. Secondly what of it? Both have medical conditions that make it hard to fit in or function with society. same as someone born with autism or with a tail. It's what you do in life that matters, a kind person can come from any walk of life just the same as an asshole is always an asshole regardless of whether they have an 8 inch dick or a literal third leg.
>>708
Meant to quote this on this one >>712

 No.715

>>712
> No its not.

Yes, it is. I do not give two shits about "blank slate theory", it is a known fact that gender identity and biological sex are separate from each other. Once again, this is something publicly acknowledged by major institutions and reinforced by scientific studies.

> You're splitting hairs here.


No, you're just shifting the goalposts, first claiming that you're talking about genetic differences, then going on to talk about how ethnicity is about where one was raised (which isn't how ethnicity works). At the end of the day, ethnicity is based on hard facts, and we seem to agree on this.

> Again my question is why does a person want to be the opposite sex seem valid to you


If someone claims to be of a different SEX than theirs, then they would be wrong, because sex, unlike gender, is based on hard facts (which are a slight bit fuzzier due to some genetic combinatorial possibilities, but still). However, the discussion here is about gender, not sex, and your conflation of the two is at the core of your misunderstanding, it seems.

> Social Science in general changes MASSIVELY ever 50 years or so


The separation between sex and gender has been a scientifically established fact for several decades now, and is supported beyond just the domain of social sciences, as mentioned above. It's interesting how you'd insist on how your own points are supposedly backed up by science (they're not), but then when I mention the same of my own, suddenly science is a fad to you, a passing craze that will come and go with time. You are no scientist, and that you think you're smarter than every scientist working on the matter is… cute.

 No.716

>>713
> What? Intersectionality and blank slate theory, two things you're advocating for here, are Marxist ideas.

They literally aren't though. Marxism does not discuss gender identity or even the topic of intersectionality. Marxism frames modern capitalist society as a class struggle based on imbalanced power and wealth dynamics, which he proposes a solution to via a revolution by the oppressed class. There is nothing there about trans people or intersectional discussion of issues. Not only do you not understand trans issues, you do not understand Marxism either, or pretty much anything you seem to try to talk about. It's kinda silly that you'd pretend to be a "liberal" when you go around spouting transphobic bullshit here and accusing dissenters of cultural Marxism like some incel.

>Then there's a multitude of other issues "social construct" excuse can't account for.


Literally none of those are studies, and none of them even talk about gender identity. Is this really your best attempt at citation?

>Trans awareness or Trans acceptance is more apt.


Fuck off with that PC Principal bullshit. You don't get to rename shit about trans people when you visibly have no clue what the subject matter even involves. Fact of the matter is, trans people are one of the groups at the highest risk of violence, and receive little support from the police even in cases where they do get threatened or outright attacked. It is itself a statistical fact that trans people are an oppressed group in today's society, and that in many countries being out and trans can be a literal or figurative death sentence, including in some more conservative parts of the States.

 No.719

>>704
Sorry, but no. Gender is not a social construct.
The whole point of ending "gender stereotypes" is to say that a man is not less of a man if they like pink, dolls, have long hair, etc. and a woman is not less of a woman if she likes to have her hair short, like sports, etc.

Also remember that gender is nto the same as sexuality. A man can be overly muscular and behave like the stereotypical man and be gay (this entire board is dedicated to this) and a slim, long haired, pink wearing man can be straight as an arrow.

the entire point is that you cannot judge a book by its cover.

Now, how would you even claim that gender is a social construct when there isn't even a proper way of differentiating men from women? It needs to be one or the two things:
Either you can only be male if you behave in a certain manner and you can only be a woman if you behave in a completelly different manner and everything else would be their own genders
or
There is no such thing as "psychological gender" (after all, again, the whole point of the gender evolution is to end the restrictions in behavior) and there's only the biological one.

 No.720

>>654
They can be trans all they want. I will not sleep with them. Forcing people to have sex with trans just so they're not accused of transphobia is homophobic.

 No.721

>>719
> Sorry, but no. Gender is not a social construct.

But it is, though, it's an established fact that actual public institutions like the WHO and FDA have long accepted, as mentioned above. Simply arguing by repetition does not lend any credence to the contrary.

> The whole point of ending "gender stereotypes" is to say that a man is not less of a man if they like pink, dolls, have long hair, etc. and a woman is not less of a woman if she likes to have her hair short, like sports, etc.


Sure, but what does this have to do with trans people?

>Also remember that gender is nto the same as sexuality


Indeed, and I've never said the opposite, but gender is also not the same as biological sex. I don't get why you'd accept some distinctions here but not others.

>the entire point is that you cannot judge a book by its cover.


Which is the entire point to gender identity and what it means to be trans. It is bizarre that you would state this and still conflate gender identity with biological sex.

>Now, how would you even claim that gender is a social construct when there isn't even a proper way of differentiating men from women?


The typically established way of determining whether an individual of any sexually-reproducting species is male or female is to look at their anatomy and genetic makeup (both of which have more variance than just a binary, but still). Thus, biological sex is based on hard fact. Gender is not, which may be what you're trying to get to.

 No.722

>>719

To be clear on the last point, biological sex is something based on hard facts, but is distinct from gender, which is an identity concept that does not fully correspond to sex or any immutable facts. A person of female sex can identify as a man by gender, and a person of male sex a woman. Would that make sense?

 No.723

Just a protip that last guy wasn't me but I'll respond to this one anyway.

>>721
>But it is, though, it's an established fact
No it is not.
>public institutions like the WHO and FDA have long accepted
The WHO who also classify "Gaming addiction" as an actual disease due to chinese and korean lobbyiest looking to regulate their markets. As for the FDA, What does the Food and Drug Administration have to say on SOCIAL issues?
>>722
>but is distinct from gender, which is an identity concept that does not fully correspond to sex or any immutable facts.
It's not. Gender is how our sex is expressed. It is the biological fruit of what sex we are born. In fact differentiating between gender and sex is a fairly new idea that only cropped up in the last 20 years.

and then to the other post

 No.724

>>715
Massive posts incoming.
>Yes, it is. I do not give two shits about "blank slate theory"
If you don't give two shits about blank slate theory then you're basically saying "I believe species change over time but I don't believe in evolution" You literally can't have "Gender is 100% social construct unrelated to sex" and NOT have blank slate theory.
>No, you're just shifting the goalposts
Nope. You accused me of grouping in "Trans mockery" with "legitimate Trans issues" or however you want to put it, and I'm asking you for clarification on WHY it's trans mockery? I can ONLY assume it's because Transgenderism was there first and you're desensitized to it more than the other legitimate issues.
>If someone claims to be of a different SEX than theirs,
Which is literally what a Trans individual wants. They want vaginas, they want to wear make up, they want to assume the gender norms of a female. They want to be a female. They want to have a womb, they want to have the biological advantages and problems. They want to be of the female sex. Which is the issue.
>The separation between sex and gender has been a scientifically established fact for several decades now, and is supported beyond just the domain of social sciences
It's not. Cue video of the social biologist stating there is no difference between biological males and females. Cue video of social science professor stating Men and Women are biologically the same. Cue article of MTF body builder stating definitively that she is a female and there is nothing biologically different between her and any other female. Social science has deviated from accepted science for years now. Glad to see you're coming to my side of the fence though.

 No.725

>>724
> It's interesting how you'd insist on how your own points are supposedly backed up by science (they're not), but then when I mention the same of my own, suddenly science is a fad to you, a passing craze that will come and go with time.
You are literally stating nothing but flavor of the year social science stuff, which once again, changes massively from year to year. Remember Freud? Remember Marx? Remember all those other socialogists who were later proven wrong? Social science is basically philosophy with how detached it is from actual science. It's people taking guesses and asserting their own observations and applying it to civilization as a whole.

Gender and gender expression is scientifically proven to be connected to birth sex. Otherwise John Money's experiment would have worked and neither of the Reimer brothers would have committed suicide.


How about you address this:

IF Sex and Gender are WHOLLY separated, then Transsexuality wouldn't exist. You devalue their status as a literal fashion trend, an extreme fashion trend and then there is even less an excuse for society to accept or even tolerate them since they're no better than a rich white housewife who wants bigger tits.

 No.726

>>725
>Marxism does not discuss gender identity or even the topic of intersectionality.
You don't seem to be able to connect the points here so lemme help you out a bit. Marxism establishes a class system that modern intersectional identity politics use for reference regularly. The far left has been using it's own brand of marxism, regularly called "cultural marxism" or more commonly known in cultural marxist circles "intersectionality" or "intersectional feminism" or "intersection (insert typical leftist cause here). The progressive stack is an idea entirely based around marxism, (people on the right and some on the center just call it "the oppression olympics") the very idea of it is that the more marginalized you are, the more right you have to speak out, and the more "right" you are. This has led to MULTIPLE issues, as this is a completely chaotic way of handling factual information, and has led to common mistakes, like the one you keep making where you can't connect the dots between sex and gender.
Here's a pretty good opinion piece on it: https://quillette.com/2018/06/23/cultural-marxism-explained-and-re-evaluated/
Other issues this brings up is the infamous interactions such as the group of african college students discussing doing away with "white science" and one talks about in africa they have shamans call down lightning to strike their enemies. The idea of safe spaces is another issue that crops up.
>There is nothing there about trans people or intersectional discussion of issues.
And there's literally no evidence that Sex and Gender are unrelated either but that didn't stop you from repeating that fifty times.

 No.727

>>726
>Literally none of those are studies, and none of them even talk about gender identity. Is this really your best attempt at citation?
They are articles that cite their own studies on the differences between men and women. Once again, it is COMMONLY accepted in the scientific world that "gender" and "gender expression" are almost entirely reliant on the actual sex. Many people have argued that the differentiation between sex and gender are too minute to even have a difference, a VAST MAJORITY of people didn't know or care that there was a difference between sex and gender, and once again, this is an entirely new idea, based entirely on bad science. This is all a part of the nature versus nurture debate. We know that MANY of our behaviors due come from our upbringing, but we also know that a majority of our differences in male/female expression come from our biology.
https://www.the-scientist.com/reading-frames/beyond-nature-vs-nurture-41858
>Fuck off with that PC Principal bullshit.
You first.

 No.728

>>727
>You don't get to rename shit about trans people
You don't get to redefine words either.
>when you visibly have no clue what the subject matter even involves.
>Fact of the matter is, trans people are one of the groups at the highest risk of violence,
Can you give me actual statistics on that? I'm just googling statistics and just for example the first article is an ACLU one that links to CNN which in turn links NO study, links no statistic, it just says "Activists say trans violence is on the rise." and the fact that cultural marxist often equate words to violence, I have a hard time believing that. The second citation linked in the article is ANOTHER advocacy group, so their statistics are worthless. Not to mention how misleading their statistics are. (54% of trans students verbally abused for being trans! and I bet 100% of every gay, girl, boy, or any other demographic gets the same treatment. Got bad acne? Got a lisp? School is a fun place.) The research frames a lot of it as if their trans status is the reason for these statistics, the major issue is Trans individuals have never been more accepted in history, yet the statistics aren't changing regarding them.

 No.729

>>728
>and receive little support from the police even in cases where they do get threatened or outright attacked.
Where? Because in the UK it's a hate crime to misgender someone. Ironically there was a TRANS woman who got charged for a hate crime by a cis woman for insisting that MTF individuals are in fact male.
https://pluralist.com/trans-woman-hate-crime-judge/
>It is itself a statistical fact that trans people are an oppressed group in today's society, and that in many countries being out and trans can be a literal or figurative death sentence, including in some more conservative parts of the States.
No. Oppression isn't that broad. It's not oppression to be an outlier in society. Everyone is to some extent. Grouping people together like that is pretty harsh. While I do agree that many countries could and SHOULD have more human rights, cross-gender sporting events and military service aren't "rights" I want to fight for.

 No.733

>>723
> No it is not.

Yes, it is. It is hilarious that you would try to argue by assertion, after projecting that same criticism onto others, and so in spite of contrary evidence, which I invited you to view.

> The WHO who also classify "Gaming addiction" as an actual disease due to chinese and korean lobbyiest looking to regulate their markets.


And you disagree with this… why? You visibly do not seem to understand how behavioral addictions work, in addition to being visibly ignorant on the topic of gender. Again, it is utterly laughable that, when faced with the knowledge that the World Fucking Health Organization, a group of experts with far more knowledge of biology and psychology than either of us, has accepted the distinction of gender and sex, your first move is to try to discredit said organization out of hand. To do so as someone with visibly no expertise or even basic knowledge of the subject matter is blindingly arrogant, and a clear-cut example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

> As for the FDA, What does the Food and Drug Administration have to say on SOCIAL issues?


Little to nothing, which is why their acceptance of gender identity as a social construct demonstrates that the fact is well-established enough to be accepted beyond the field of social studies. At the end of the day, it is your own understanding and opinion of the issue that is wrong, not that of entire scientifically-minded organizations.

 No.734

>>723
> It's not. Gender is how our sex is expressed. It is the biological fruit of what sex we are born.

This makes no sense. Again, where is your evidence? You keep getting asked for evidence on this: where is it?

> In fact differentiating between gender and sex is a fairly new idea that only cropped up in the last 20 years.


So first off, this is factually wrong, as there was already a difference in terminology between sex and gender introduced in 1955, and awareness of the difference between sex and gender existed even farther before then. Second: why does it matter if this is a recent development? If it is generally accepted in the scientific community as fact, what does it matter if it's been established for 200 years or a month?

>>724
> If you don't give two shits about blank slate theory then you're basically saying "I believe species change over time but I don't believe in evolution" You literally can't have "Gender is 100% social construct unrelated to sex" and NOT have blank slate theory.

I'm sorry, what? Why does one imply the other? Why is blank slate theory necessary to the topic of sex and gender?

>Nope. You accused me of grouping in "Trans mockery" with "legitimate Trans issues" or however you want to put it


No, once again, you were very clearly caught shifting the goalposts by going on a tangent on ethnicity, framing it first as a question of genetics, then as one of upbringing. Now you are shifting the goalposts yet again by talking about some arbitrary grouping that never happened. You're not convincing anyone here.

 No.735

>>724
> Which is literally what a Trans individual wants. They want vaginas, they want to wear make up, they want to assume the gender norms of a female.

Makeup… isn't a part of biological sex? This is quite possibly the stupidest claim I've seen here so far. Also, sex changes are not a necessary part of trans people identifying as trans, and trans people who transition do so precisely so that their appearance conforms to the typical association between sex and gender… which itself presumes a distinction. It is not the desire of every trans person to transition.

> It's not. Cue video of the social biologist stating there is no difference between biological males and females. Cue video of social science professor stating Men and Women are biologically the same. Cue article of MTF body builder stating definitively that she is a female and there is nothing biologically different between her and any other female. Social science has deviated from accepted science for years now. Glad to see you're coming to my side of the fence though.


Literally where are those videos though? It's surreal that you would make this kind of shit up and pretend that anyone would take this as the real thing. Once again, you continue to have no evidence, and you citing videos that do not even exist comes across as equal parts desperate and delusional. Again, what I have pointed out is easily verifiable fact which even you accepted, as per the WHO and FDA accepting the difference between sex and gender. The only thing you have managed to provide in response is this kind of unhinged gibberish.

 No.736

>>725
> You are literally stating nothing but flavor of the year social science stuff, which once again, changes massively from year to year. Remember Freud? Remember Marx? Remember all those other socialogists who were later proven wrong?

Freud was proven wrong by scientists when psychology developed as an actual science and applied the scientific method to his principles. Marx's work that influenced modern-day socialism and communism is philosophy, not science. By contrast, the distinction between gender and sex is itself founded upon science, a fact even you admit even as you try to deny it. Perhaps in a hundred years I could be wrong on this due to some unforeseen development, but guess what, that development hasn't happened, and unless you know something I don't, you don't know it either. It is utterly pathetic to expect some future magic event to stop you from being factually wrong now, and both monumentally arrogant and ignorant to act like you know better than actual experts on a subject matter you visibly know nothing about.

>Gender and gender expression is scientifically proven to be connected to birth sex.


Prove it. Where is the evidence? Why do you continue to provide zero concrete evidence when this is supposedly so easy to prove?

>Otherwise John Money's experiment would have worked and neither of the Reimer brothers would have committed suicide.


… why does that disprove anything? Also, John Money himself introduced the difference in terminology between sex and gender, so you picked exactly the wrong guy to reference.

 No.737

>>725
> IF Sex and Gender are WHOLLY separated, then Transsexuality wouldn't exist. You devalue their status as a literal fashion trend, an extreme fashion trend and then there is even less an excuse for society to accept or even tolerate them since they're no better than a rich white housewife who wants bigger tits.

… what? Why? I don't have to address this, this is just more transphobic bullshit on your part that you made up on the spot. Transsexuals are trans people who want to better fit the sex corresponding to their chosen gender; if you cannot understand this or take issue with it, that's entirely your problem.

 No.738

>>726
> You don't seem to be able to connect the points here so lemme help you out a bit. Marxism establishes a class system that modern intersectional identity politics use for reference regularly. The far left has been using it's own brand of marxism, regularly called "cultural marxism" or more commonly known in cultural marxist circles "intersectionality" or "intersectional feminism" or "intersection (insert typical leftist cause here).

You may want to watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

But also, at this point you're spouting pure alt-right conspiracy nut bullshit, as itself noted by you referencing fucking Quillette, of all sites. There is no such thing as "cultural marxism"; the term is a boogeyman invented by people who do not understand the term or the incompatibility between fundamental marxism and intersectionality. It is utterly bizarre to see this kind of wacky far-right idiocy on a gay porn board.

> And there's literally no evidence that Sex and Gender are unrelated either but that didn't stop you from repeating that fifty times.


No no, you don't get to shift the goalposts, particularly as you contradict yourself here with your above acknowledgment of the distinction as established fact, at least among certain organizations. You were asked to provide evidence, and you provided strictly none. "No u" is not a valid justification here when called out on your "evidence" being anything but.

 No.739

>>727
>They are articles that cite their own studies on the differences between men and women.

Where? Also, what do the biological differences between males and females have to do with gender?

>Once again, it is COMMONLY accepted in the scientific world that "gender" and "gender expression" are almost entirely reliant on the actual sex.


Where? Where is your evidence for this?

>This is all a part of the nature versus nurture debate. We know that MANY of our behaviors due come from our upbringing, but we also know that a majority of our differences in male/female expression come from our biology.


You seem to be assuming that I believe that there is literally no association whatsoever between gender identity and sex. Where did I say this, pray tell? My position has never been that people are blank slates, or that gender is pure nurture vs. nature (particularly since, as you pointed out, the dichotomy itself is bullshit), but that gender is heavily informed by variable cultural norms, and is therefore not intrinsic to sex.

> You first.


I'm not the one asking the other to use different terms to suit my own political agenda. Again, you seem to have a habit of throwing "no u" when called out on your bullshit, despite how little relevance doing so has to anything I've said.

 No.740

>>728
> You don't get to redefine words either.

Where have I been redefining words, exactly? As mentioned immediately above, you are so far the only person guilty of this. Once again, you don't even try to defend yourself on something you clearly did wrong, you immediately just lash out. Once again, you have tried to impose terms here that you invented on the spot in some lame attempt to frame the discussion in a manner that would somehow make you look less stupid, and failed. Projecting your shortcomings onto me won't change that.

>Can you give me actual statistics on that?


Sure:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2018
https://www.glaad.org/blog/violence-against-transgender-people-and-people-color-disproportionately-high-lgbtqh-murder-rate

The above also cite sources. Simply googling "violence trans people statistics" should give you many more articles.

> and the fact that cultural marxist often equate words to violence


Verbal violence is a thing. At this point you're just making excuses to reject facts you yourself have seen. What will your next one be, I wonder? In the end, it doesn't seem like you understand how facts, research or statistics work, and more importantly, it doesn't seem like you want to, if it contradicts your incredibly warped worldview.

 No.741

>>729
>Where?

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1461&context=wmjowl
https://transequality.org/issues/police-jails-prisons

This literally took me thirty seconds to look up, so you really have no excuse.

> No. Oppression isn't that broad. It's not oppression to be an outlier in society. Everyone is to some extent. Grouping people together like that is pretty harsh. While I do agree that many countries could and SHOULD have more human rights, cross-gender sporting events and military service aren't "rights" I want to fight for.


This is utter bullshit, and it is monumentally ignorant of history to pretend that discrimination against groups doesn't exist (particularly when you are on a literal gay porn imageboard, and it wasn't that long ago that gay men themselves were an oppressed group in countries like the USA). As with the rest, your rantings here are demonstrative of how little you know of the subject matter, and how ill-equipped you are to engage in any sort of discussion when your worldview is so beside reality, and deliberately galvanized against facts.

 No.748

>>733
>Yes, it is. It is hilarious that you would try to argue by assertion, after projecting that same criticism onto others, and so in spite of contrary evidence,
You've posted no evidence and actively made fun of mine instead of posting your own.
>And you disagree with this… why? You visibly do not seem to understand how behavioral addictions work,
And you don't seem to understand that behavioral addiction is already classified as a separate issue. This is like making a brand new classification for pot addiction because some politician is on a huge tirade about pot and he has a massive investment in the WHO. The WHO's unique classifications are almost purely political >a group of experts
Oh man, I'm sorry that YOUR citations are infallible while mine are laughable. Nice double standard there. It's especially nice that when I bring up criticism it's also considered "laughable" without you ever going into detail on why my criticism is unfounded. It's almost like you're just parroting talking points you don't know anything about.

But to further discredit the WHO. They're a branch of the UN, which is NOT led by experts. They're led by politicians.
>Little to nothing, which is why their acceptance of gender identity as a social construct demonstrates that the fact is well-established enough
So if it was universal consensus that gay individuals were the product of satan you'd agree with that? You're taking the "If everyone jumped off a cliff-" approach. Popular understanding muddles factual sciences all the time.

 No.749

>>748
>This makes no sense. Again, where is your evidence?
Man, it's almost like I could cite mcdonald's website right now and you'd call it "laughably wrong" like you actually read it and it was an actual article. Explain to me why ideas of a submissive woman is almost universal regardless of culture? Even japan has similar ideas despite being incredibly isolationist. Literally the only major difference between males and females is minor details in culture.
Also, read the articles I posted. Especially the one on Nature VS Nurture which addresses exactly this.
>So first off, this is factually wrong, as there was already a difference in terminology between sex and gender introduced in 1955,
Ask someone in 1955 what the difference between sex and gender is and you'll get confused stairs. Once again, it takes several years for popular understandings to catch up with OLD science.
>If it is generally accepted in the scientific community as fact,
Because it's not. It's old science.
>Makeup… isn't a part of biological sex?
Did you know male peacocks are the only ones with tails because they use it to attract female mates? Do you know the reason behind a Songbird's song? This point is so STUPIDLY obvious that you should be able to understand it. Your understanding is just utterly and awfully stooped in ridiculous progressive understanding that you don't even understand why women wore make up to begin with, why they continue to wear make up and why the habit was never picked up by men on a large scale.

 No.750

>>749
>Freud was proven wrong by scientists when psychology developed as an actual science and applied the scientific method to his principles. Marx's work that influenced modern-day socialism and communism is philosophy, not science.
Thank you for demonstrating my point on social sciences.
>Literally where are those videos though?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI8HrZ7mnl8
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=157661055007959
https://pluralist.com/martina-navratilova-rachel-mckinnon-transgender-sports/
>Prove it. Where is the evidence?
You mean in general? Once again, male and female lions, male and female songbirds, male and female peacocks, the Black Widow spider is NAMED after it, male and female monkeys, There is even some plants with genders that develop different behaviors based entirely on which gender they are. To say that the way males and females act and present themselves is entirely separate from sex is outright ignorant.
>… why does that disprove anything? Also, John Money himself introduced the difference in terminology between sex and gender, so you picked exactly the wrong guy to reference.
You literally just said it. YOUR entire understanding of sex and gender is based around a FAILED study. If sex and gender are separated by culture Reimer would have fully bought into the "Fact" as you put it, that he was female. He was raised female, he presented as female, he thought he was female. So why didn't it work? OH THAT'S RIGHT! he wasn't a female.

 No.751

>>750
>… what? Why? I don't have to address this, this is just more transphobic bullshit on your part that you made up on the spot. Transsexuals are trans people who want to better fit the sex corresponding to their chosen gender; if you cannot understand this or take issue with it, that's entirely your problem.
You're the one that failed to understand it. Of all the points this is the most important one and you completely failed to comprehend it. You're transphobic by your own metric and ignorant by mine.

I'll further explain it to try and get you to understand. IF sex and gender are wholly separated, but trans identified people are compulsive in their feelings that they're of the opposite sex, then their compulsive feelings aren't related to their biological defect, but more to due with their position in culture. once again, you're reducing trans people on the same level of a middle aged housewife who wants to get bigger boobs and has a rich, plastic surgeon husband. You're saying transexuality is a cultural trend by removing the biological aspect of it and making it ENTIRELY about gender based culture.

To put it simply. If you remove the hard facts of birth sex from the trans movement, you have a bunch of people who literally just want to change culture. There's no biological issue, because once again, you keep saying "Gender is a social construct" which implies there's nothing to do with biology in there.

 No.752

>>751
>But also, at this point you're spouting pure alt-right conspiracy nut bullshit,
Man, all those buzzwords meant to discredit a person based entirely on opinions by the guy who thinks the trans movement is a fashion trend and can't cite for shit.
As for the video. The person gets it wrong the first sentence. Jordan Peterson critisized Canada's pronoun law because of how incredibly vague it was. Under it many people could get prosecuted for literal honest mistakes and the lack of the ability to mind read. If you completely fail to properly present your opposition fairly then you shouldn't be debating them. It's clear that the video is incredibly biased from the getgo. The law itself has been criticized by many proponents of transexuality and transgenderism in fact, including Peterson himself who DOES support the trans movement.

 No.753

>>752
I also like how the person talking takes issue with calling Proggressivism "post modern neo marxism" when even social science professors will actively admit, progressivism is just marxism with a new coat of paint. ALSO "Cultural marxism" isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a descriptor of a movement. It literally describes the SAME thing as progressivism, it's just a different word for it. More apt too. Equating it to a conspiracy theory is absolutely ridiculous. Neo Marxism takes the marxist class struggle and turns it into a struggle against oppression. Instead of classes you have minorities. And she and you both don't seem to understand WHY Peterson or anyone calls it marxism. Because in the end the goal is the same. Equality of outcome, not equality of oppertunity. Equality in that every single job market has to 1:1 reflect broad population demographics, every single campus has to have more minorities than black people. And worse of all, you want to make straight white men a minority in every single aspect in a country where they're a majority. What most people fail to realize is that a minority can be oppressive too. That you can be racist against a white person and sexist against a man, that race and sex based hiring ALWAYS leads to racism and sexism and inequality in the market.

 No.754

>>753
The main point she seems to have with Jordan Peterson is that he's leading a backlash against progressivism which would undo things like CIVIL RIGHTS. You know how ridiculous that is? She seems to miss one key point in Peterson's statements in that most people are aware of what they know. Now listen close, I'm about to blow your mind. A majority of people assume they're right, and will talk and speak as if they're right a majority of the time. If you can instill the idea in a person that the earth is flat, then they will talk as if the earth is flat. The person admits that colleges instill the "BAD CAPITALISM!" idea that Peterson is trying to dismantle, yet when it comes to the idea that these people are joining the workforce and not working to actively instate what they learned in college as laws or policy is somehow baffling? It's not a grand conspiracy, it's a fact that if you scream at a person that "Gender is a social construct" enough times then people will start to believe it and people will start acting as if this is a fact. But I digress. The REASON it's called postmodernist neo marxism is because it takes the skeleton of marxism the ideas and outcomes like the class struggle, the idea of equality of outcome, and various other things, and applies it selectively to postmodern ideas like "There is no such thing as gender" or "racism/sexism".

 No.755

>>754
And I don't get the complaint about comparing trans activism to stalin. She keeps repeating it but I don't understand it. Stalin's ideal world would completely remove the identity of the self by completely divorcing the identity from the person, Trans activism causes something similar because they're fighting for the expansion of definitions and wording to the point it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to identify a person accurately, essentially creating the same environment, attitude, and ideals, just with more color.
Then she gets into calling a guy racist. Which doesn't seem relevant at all.
The way she separates the forms modernism is apt. However she dives off the deep end when she starts talking about who "post modern neomarxists" refers to. Once again, Peterson is referring to the ideas brought on by this way of thinking and not specific people.
Then she asserts identity politics is "advocacy for rights, equlity, justice, visibility for particular groups, etc etc" which is outright wrong, by everyone's definition of it. Identity politics is entirely based on the idea that your right to speak is tied to who you are as a person. She COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the "alt right!" boogeyman you just used up there ALSO use and advocate for identity politics. White nationalist ideas are purely identity politics. The idea of identity politics is that the value of your words, and can be taken to an extreme such as your very right to free speech, is WHOLLY dependant on your minority status as an oppressed class.

 No.756

>>755
If we were following identity politics I could just say I'm a gay black-mexican-pakistanny transgendered female presenting person of color and our entire argument would be over the second I claimed this status because under identity politics you as a gay man don't have any right to talk to me in such a way about transgender issues, regardless of whatever PHD you hold, regardless of what peer reviewed studies you present, regardless of what you're actually saying.

She sums it up perfectly I think. "It's a bunch of bumbling baffoons who can't stop squabbling with each other over every single issue." Which is a perfect summation of any "minority rights" group. And then she states "peterson's politics are hard to pin down." which is outright a lie. He's a very early 2000s liberal. He's pro gay rights, pro trans, he's just not a bullshitter. He doesn't believe that you should force people to do things they want don't want to do, like call a person that identifies with the pronouns "Fli/florp" a "he/him" and get arrested for it which IS actually criminalized under the canadian law he so famously criticized. Then she defends Kathy Newman, which is hilarious considering that Kathy Newman is an intelligent and strong reporter who had an extremely bad interview because she took the lazy way out of preparing for an interview.

Then she makes a strawman. She misinterprets one question in the interview about patriarchy to construe it into making Peterson look like a sexist when he's saying that "women and men find different professions interesting and if a profession is seen as too masculine there will not be many women present." And then applies it to "hierarchies in gender, race, and economics" which is…?

 No.757

>>756
At least she seemed to do her research and put effort into it.

>No no, you don't get to shift the goalposts

That's not goalpost shifting. That's me restating a fact that you keep insisting is not a fact.
>You were asked to provide evidence,
I did, and you ignored it. Called it "laughable" probably because you didn't read it. And you continually spout "gender is a social construct" while denying blank slate theory which are entirely related ideas as the idea that gender as a social construct STEMS from blank slate.
> Also, what do the biological differences between males and females have to do with gender?
You don't understand anything about the brain do you? Do you think all our wants and whims are completely divorced from out biology? You do know that things like wants and cravings are born from biological needs that we evolved to survive as a species. Everything we do can be reduced to a biological urge. This is common, accepted, science. We can observe differences even in males and female behavior, wants, interests, ideas, in all cultures. Gender is entirely tied to biology and sex. The more common counter to this, or I guess I should say the more sane counter, is HOW MUCH of these behaviors, wants, interests and ideas are biological, and how much is our culture playing off that biology. But you're asserting that all things gender are social constructs, which is outright false.

 No.758

>>757
> Where did I say this, pray tell?
"Gender is a social construct"
I'd call this backtracking.
>I'm not the one asking the other to use different terms to suit my own political agenda.
I'm asking you to not call a lion a sheep because you are, by the definition of the words, wrong.
>Where have I been redefining words, exactly?
You're calling advocacy and awareness "rights movement" which it is not and was never. You know what a rights movement is? It's women's right to vote, it's black people's right to fair public representation in society. What are trans fighting for? The right to take hormones that competitions ban in literally EVERY single case because they're seen as "performance enhancing" and for unfair treatment of men and women based on their personal self identification. That's not a right. That's them arguing to be an exception to established rules meant to create a level playing field.
But why does that matter? You think transgenderism is a fashion trend with no relation to mental defects or mental problems.
>The above also cite sources. Simply googling "violence trans people statistics" should give you many more articles.
On of those articles I already addressed, keep up.
But as for the other one, it's not current. I dug up the actual one aaand it's complete bullshit. Their sample size is ridiculously small.

 No.759

File: 1552087306390.png (43.01 KB, 634x564, Stats.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>758
>NCAVP recorded 77 total hate violence related homicides of LGBTQ and HIV- affected people in 2016, including the 49 lives taken during in the shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida in June of 2016. Though NCAVP cannot confirm the multiple identities of the lives taken at Pulse, it is reported that the majority of the victims were LGBTQ and Latinx.
SEVENTY SEVEN PEOPLE IN A YEAR! WHAT AN EPIDEMIC! OH OH WAIT! 49 WERE NOT CONFIRMED!!! Albeit for full disclosure, this isn't crimes involving LGBTQHADJPFOSDJOI or whatever you subscribe to, this is crimes TARGETING them specifically.
But lets get into non homicides. Keep in mind that this "violence" is not legal. These are just cases REPORTED to the organization often by individuals, and might not mean that they were pursued by the police.
Of the 1,000 "Hate violence" they're reporting, and I'll post the chart in one of these monstrous posts, but basically 66% of the "Violence" they experience is not actual violence, it's not even criminal actions. And this isn't event he trans community as a whole, it's EVERY person under the LGBT umbrella. Online and mobile harassment are listed on this. Which is not only absurd, but also disingenuous.
You do know that what you're doing right now constitutes online or mobile harassment? By assigning negative attributes to me that are meant to make me uncomfortable and shame me, you're actively "harassing" me and not arguing in good faith?

 No.760

>>759
>Verbal violence is a thing.
It's not. Violence is, by definition, physical. Calling you a poopy butthead is not violence.
>https://scholarship.law.wm. …
cites: http://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC-AntiTransgenderViolence-0519.pdf
which further trivializes your "trans violence" issue. Is there only 100 trans people in the US that 20-30 deaths a year is considered major? Not only that but a majority of these trans individuals were not targeted because they were trans, multiple if not all were targeted by boyfriends and loved ones long after transitioning. An astonishing fact that a majority of these the "paper", if you can call it that as it's more of a memorium, constantly assumes these people were targeted because their trans status, DESPITE MULTIPLE OF THEM HAVING NO INDICATION OF SUCH.
And then further down in the initial article there's this gold nugget:

 No.761

>>760
> In a recent report on the transgender community in the United States, a survey participant reported the following anecdote, which is both shocking and horrifyingly typical: "I was arrested one day regarding something minor. Due to my gender being marked as male, I was put in with the men. Within 15 minutes, I was raped by 3 different men."
Everything I've read on sexual violence tells me this is either extreme hyperbole or entirely fake. And this quote doesn't appear at all in the actual survey they cite. Then I went back and reread it and saw that it was "a survey participant". An immediate red flag was thrown because, how did this one survey get into contact with another survey's samples? This raises so many ethical and sampling concerns that I'm tempted to just call this a biased report and be done with it. I was going to read the rest of the report but then I happened onto this:
>B. Police Profiling of Transgender Women-The Anecdotal Evidence
and just stopped. This isn't a report. This is an activist's cited blog post.
>This is utter bullshit, and it is monumentally ignorant of history to pretend that discrimination against groups doesn't exist
No it's not. I never stated anything on history or denied that discrimination based on groups doesn't exist.

 No.762

>>761
> (particularly when you are on a literal gay porn imageboard, and it wasn't that long ago that gay men themselves were an oppressed group in countries like the USA)
And we can get married now~ and get divorced, and have kids, and sue each other for alimony, and all that great stuff that Trans people can do too! Oh whats that? Gay, lesbian, and Bisexual related issues are evening out and falling in line with that of the major society while trans issues such as suicide and self harm are not? Gee, it's almost like we're creating and encouraging a destructive culture that glorifies a harmful surgery and problematic mental attitudes with people who have gender dysphoria and it's only exasperating an issue that people are trying to be solved but are being called transphobic by internet activists…
>As with the rest, your rantings here are demonstrative of how little you know of the subject matter, and how ill-equipped you are to engage in any sort of discussion when your worldview is so beside reality, and deliberately galvanized against facts.
Says the guy who hasn't read a single thing I linked or a thing you yourself linked.

WEW, I'm having some fun.

 No.763

This is actually quite fascinating. I remember being a teenager and getting into an argument about homosexuality with someone online. They used many of these exact same 'scientific' arguments and parallels to different animals… almost verbatim. To see someone use the same arguments against trans people… I don't know, probably no one else finds this as morbidly interesting as I do…. like an arrogant bigot's mad-lib…

 No.765

>>763
I'm also not creating any parallel between humans to animals. I'm trying to demonstrate a point that gender expression is based on biology and not culture. Stop misrepresenting my argument. Anecdotal evidence is the weakest evidence one could bring to the table as well.

 No.766

>>765
>I'm trying to demonstrate a point that gender expression is based on biology and not culture
The problem here is again that you are putting things under your own biased lenses. Makeup wasn't originally invented by/for women, neither was it exclusively worn by women. Only recently in history has makeup been seen as a 'feminine' activity. Egyptians, the first recorded to have used lipstick, wore it regardless of gender. It was a status symbol worn by the rich, both men and women. Face makeup was also worn by the elite in European cultures later as well. The use of makeup has changed over time and cultures. Just because the current culture denotes it as a feminine trait, does not mean that it is inherently so.

 No.767

>>765

By the by, if you can set aside your priggish attitude for a moment I might be able to explain something that you might be having trouble with.
Biological sex (determined by chromosomes…. of which there are not just two but for simplicity's sake let's say there are) is defined as your physical body's sex; your peen or vag.
Gender (societal stereotypes) is defined by whatever society decides is suitable for people of a certain biological sex. Things like 'boys like blue and machines' and 'girls like pink and flowers' Note that these are inconsistent throughout the entirety of history and throughout cultures. Thus; a social construct.
And then the last term which we will call "Neurological sex" id est; 'the sex your brain thinks you are' which can differ from your 'biological sex'. In most people the "neurological sex" and the "biological sex" are one in the same. However in Trans individuals the biological sex does not match the neurological sex. Whether you think of this as a 'disorder' or not I really couldn't care less. But you really would have to be absurdly stubborn and ignorant to not at least see that what I've just said is a possibility. People can be born with their hearts backwards for fucks sakes, I think you can at least concede that it might be possible for people to have a few neurons that differ from the masses.

 No.769

>>766
>The problem here is again that you are putting things under your own biased lenses
Says the guy speaking through a bias.
> Makeup wasn't originally invented by/for women, neither was it exclusively worn by women. Only recently in history has makeup been seen as a 'feminine' activity. Egyptians, the first recorded to have used lipstick, wore it regardless of gender. It was a status symbol worn by the rich, both men and women. Face makeup was also worn by the elite in European cultures later as well. The use of makeup has changed over time and cultures. Just because the current culture denotes it as a feminine trait, does not mean that it is inherently so.
You missed the entire point of my statement.
>>767
And let me explain something for you for a minute: "gender expression" how it's put is entire dependant on biological sex, and one gender's need to fit in. Again, details are different but the habits, ideas, and behaviors are all the same across the globe and even across the animal kingdom to some extent. Men and women act and develop completely different habits based on biological preferences. Gender is not a social construct.
>However in Trans individuals the biological sex does not match the neurological sex
Which is also debatable since progressive culture has essentially turned alternative identities into a trend.

 No.770

>>769
> Whether you think of this as a 'disorder' or not I really couldn't care less.
How is it not a disorder? You do know that many mental health issues are easily dealt with, even without therapy or medication, people with issues like this can function day to day and live full complete lives with it. Which is another thing entirely. The general attitudes towards mental health need to change more than the public's attitudes or understanding of transgenderism.

 No.771

>>770
>People can be born with their hearts backwards for fucks sakes, I think you can at least concede that it might be possible for people to have a few neurons that differ from the masses.
Firstly, you just described a disorder. Secondly the issue I have is creating public policy and exemptions for a group of people that are the tiniest minority of the population, who can't seem to advocate for anything genuinely helpful to their movement and instead want to criminalize and punish behavior they don't like, not behavior that is genuinely damaging to anyone in society, not even them. It's just inconvenient for them. "Boohoo, I have to compete in the men's league because I was born and developed as a man for 20 years before this and they don't want me pounding the ever loving shit out of women due to the massive power gap between male and female fighters" or "Boohoo, I can't pass right because I developed as a man and people keep calling me he/him even when I'm not wearing drag." Is it condescending? Yes. Is it hurtful? Most definitely. Is it a fact? YEEUP. It's damaging to real women as well. For every toilet you take out of a woman's bathroom to put in a urinal means one less for them to use, which means longer lines and so forth. It becomes easier for males to just claim trans status and enter women's sports, which is already happening. Along with a myriad of other issues.

 No.772

Hmmm.
Gender identification is a weird topic. I prefer to keep it simple, male is male - female is female.

Unless faced with a situation that requires that is in the grey area, I like to postpone my decision untill I'm somewhat informed.

There's not too many gender snowflakes out there in society so it's best to deal with each one in a case-by-case basis.

 No.776

>>748
>You've posted no evidence and actively made fun of mine instead of posting your own.

Except, as noted by my post immediately above yours, I have indeed posted evidence, on top of referencing evidence that is easy to verify. If you are incapable of using a search engine, that is your own problem. Moreover, you yourself have already implicitly admitted to facts I have stated, as noted by the discussions around the WHO and FDA. In other words, you are accusing me of not posting evidence when your argumentation already implicitly acknowledges as true evidence I have posted. You aren't a very good liar.

>And you don't seem to understand that behavioral addiction is already classified as a separate issue.


Behavioral addition is a range of issues that includes, among others, gambling and gaming disorders. You visibly have no grasp of psychology, so save yourself the embarrassment now and stop here.

>The WHO's unique classifications are almost purely political >a group of experts


Ah, so the World Health Organization is a globalist political conspiracy now whose agenda is to make you wrong on the internet. I see.

>Oh man, I'm sorry that YOUR citations are infallible while mine are laughable. Nice double standard there.


I don't think you understand what a double standard is. Just because you can say words and I can say words does not mean our words are automatically equal in meaning. My referring to authoritative organizations with more knowledge than either of us on the matter is not equal to you accusing said organizations of conspiring to personally contradict you.

 No.777

>>769
>Again, details are different but the habits, ideas, and behaviors are all the same across the globe and even across the animal kingdom to some extent. Men and women act and develop completely different habits based on biological preferences.
Wow….. it's amazing how literally every single thing in this string of words is completely incorrect. I am now 100%, without any doubts, convinced you are a troll.

 No.778

>>776
> I have indeed posted evidence
Nope. You posted statistics and opinion pieces on trans violence. That's not what I was asking for in that line.
>If you are incapable of using a search engine, that is your own problem
Take your own advice and educate yourself.
>Behavioral addition is a range of issues that includes, among others, gambling and gaming disorders.
Not according to the WHO. They are two separate classifications. You don't even know about the organizations you're defending but at this point that's expected.
>ou visibly have no grasp of psychology, so save yourself the embarrassment now and stop here.
MAN, more shitty shame tactics. No, prove me wrong asshole. You call me a right wing neo nazi and then you completely shit the bed on providing citations when I ask despite whining and bitching at me to provide some, which I did every time I was asked. Then YOU bring up a united nations branch you know nothing about.
>Ah, so the World Health Organization is a globalist political conspiracy now whose agenda is to make you wrong on the internet.
Nope. Those are your words, not mine. I'm sorry that you seem to think that your evidence is infallible and all mine are "globalist and neo nazi conspiracy theories". It seems to go about like that. I bring up valid criticism of an organization or an article and you just decry it as a conspiracy.

 No.779

>>778
Do you even know how the United Nations work? Like for example did you know the UAE and Saudi Arabia are on their board for Women's Rights? The very idea that these two countries are on a board for worldwide women's rights is fucking hilarious. Almost everything to do with the UN is ineffectual politicking, gesturing, and posturing.

They're politicians. Again.
>I don't think you understand what a double standard is.
The double standard is every time I post a citation you outright ignore it, I go through the trouble of addressing every single one of yours and I get attacked, called a conspirist for stating KNOWN FACTS, common knowledge, and counterevidence.

You're fucking sleazy.

 No.780

>>777
>Wow….. it's amazing how literally every single thing in this string of words is completely incorrect
Wow… it's amazing how this entire post you did nothing to address what I said, prove it wrong, and just insulted me. It's almost like you have no counterargument and shouldn't be making points.

 No.781

>>748
> But to further discredit the WHO. They're a branch of the UN, which is NOT led by experts. They're led by politicians.

… and? Again, this only makes sense in the mind of a conspiracy nut, so you are going to have to kindly explain to me why the WHO, an association tied to the UN that is nonetheless itself made up of health experts, is somehow not an authority on health, or at least how you are somehow more of an authority on health than the WHO.

> So if it was universal consensus that gay individuals were the product of satan you'd agree with that?


If it were a consensus founded upon empirical evidence, absolutely. That is how scientific consensus works, though visibly you do not seem to understand it.

> Man, it's almost like I could cite mcdonald's website right now and you'd call it "laughably wrong" like you actually read it and it was an actual article. Explain to me why ideas of a submissive woman is almost universal regardless of culture?


I'm sorry, what? McDonald's is somehow relevant to this discussion now? And submissive women too? How do either relate to the topic of trans issues? Where is the idea of submissive women universal? This is the point where you're starting to veer into gibbering insanity.

 No.782

>>749
> Ask someone in 1955 what the difference between sex and gender is and you'll get confused stairs.

Putting aside the hilarious imagery of "confused stairs", what you're saying is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. It does not matter what the average person on the street thought of sex or gender, 1955 was the year a scientist first proposed a distinct set of terms to differentiate sex and gender, which not only shows the notion was already present in scientific circles, but that it was already sufficiently established for this development to occur.

> Because it's not. It's old science.


Old science by whose standards? Which new developments changed this understanding? Calling something "old science" without a modicum of actual scientific evidence suggesting the concept is obsolete does nothing to discredit the scientific fact you are trying to deny, and instead comes across as you simply inventing a buzzword to try to dismiss facts you don't personally like.

>Did you know male peacocks are the only ones with tails because they use it to attract female mates? Do you know the reason behind a Songbird's song? This point is so STUPIDLY obvious that you should be able to understand it.


But a peacock's tail isn't a separate product they put on themselves? Makeup on humans is, and in fact has been popular among men in many cultures at various points in time? Again, your argument here is stultifying in how silly and ignorant it is.

 No.783

>>750
> Thank you for demonstrating my point on social sciences.

… but I didn't talk about social sciences, though? Freud was a psychoanalyst, and Marx a philospher. Neither fit the category of social sciences. Do you even know what the social sciences are?
>Links

Have… have you actually watched the videos you linked? Jordan Peterson isn't a social biologist, and has no qualifications in the field, but the professor who did speak at the beginning himself operates on relevant research, which you are free to consult at your own leisure. The second video (which you linked under the Facebook channel "Film Your Marxist Professors"… hm.) talks about how differences in gender, race, etc. do not affect intellectual ability or predisposition to crime, and the third article is McKinnon calling out the lack of foundation to criticisms made by her fellow athletes on her sex. You have visibly not read or listened to the sources you yourself have listed, and this arbitrary distinction between science and "accepted science" (in other words "my personal idea of science as a guy who thinks cultural Marxism is a thing") is bunk.

>You mean in general? Once again, male and female lions, male and female songbirds, male and female peacocks, the Black Widow spider is NAMED after it, male and female monkeys,


… but that's biological sex. Again, you continue to fail to discuss the topic of gender, as you visibly continue to not even understand the concept.

 No.784

>>750
>YOUR entire understanding of sex and gender is based around a FAILED study.

But neither my nor Money's understanding of sex or gender were based off that study. Moreover, the study didn't fail, it simply showed that Reimer did not identify with his assigned gender. Once again, you continue to utterly misunderstand the subject matter, while also demonstrating zero knowledge of the scientific method, or any ability to understand studies you yourself have cited.
> IF sex and gender are wholly separated, but trans identified people are compulsive in their feelings that they're of the opposite sex, then their compulsive feelings aren't related to their biological defect, but more to due with their position in culture. once again, you're reducing trans people on the same level of a middle aged housewife who wants to get bigger boobs and has a rich, plastic surgeon husband.

Again, literally all of this is coming from you. Absolutely no part of this word salad you produced follows from the other. This in itself is proof you are not only heavily transphobic, but do not even understand the topic you have chosen to invest yourself in emotionally. Your pathetic attempt at a "no u" does nothing to disguise the fact that you do not even seem to understand what you yourself are trying to say, let alone the topic of trans issues or what it means to be transgender.

 No.785

>>751
>To put it simply. If you remove the hard facts of birth sex from the trans movement, you have a bunch of people who literally just want to change culture. There's no biological issue, because once again, you keep saying "Gender is a social construct" which implies there's nothing to do with biology in there.

And this is wrong or bad, because… ? Indeed, trans people generally do want to change culture, because our current culture tends to want to kill trans people, or at the very least prevent them from living their own lives. There is no reason why any other person should have to care about their anatomy or genetics.

>Man, all those buzzwords meant to discredit a person based entirely on opinions by the guy who thinks the trans movement is a fashion trend and can't cite for shit.


You literally unironically cited a channel called "Film your Marxist Professors". You accused me of cultural Marxism. You dismissed the WHO for being a government conspiracy. You visibly worship Jordan Peterson, even though you don't seem to understand his positions very well. You clearly didn't even bother to read the video I showed you, or the part about cultural Marxism. Whether you like it or not, those "buzzwords" fit you to a T.

 No.786

>>753
>I also like how the person talking takes issue with calling Proggressivism "post modern neo marxism" when even social science professors will actively admit, progressivism is just marxism with a new coat of paint.

… which social science professors? Again, you cannot take offense at being being called an alt-right conspiracy nut when this is the kind of shit you say.

>What most people fail to realize is that a minority can be oppressive too.


LOL

>>754
>The main point she seems to have with Jordan Peterson is that he's leading a backlash against progressivism which would undo things like CIVIL RIGHTS

No, the issue she takes with Jordan Peterson is that he feigns expertise on subject matters on which he has no qualifications, talks out of his ass, and couches everything he says in wishy-washy rhetoric that makes it difficult to ascertain what he's exactly trying to say, all while pushing a socially retrograde agenda that is ultimately not founded upon any science or logic. Again, you didn't watch the video, and it shows.

>If you can instill the idea in a person that the earth is flat, then they will talk as if the earth is flat.


And if you instill the idea in a person that gender as a social construct is a global cultural marxist conspiracy, they post a transphobic thread in a gay porn board. :)

>The REASON it's called postmodernist neo marxism is because it takes the skeleton of marxism the ideas and outcomes like the class struggle, the idea of equality of outcome, and various other things, and applies it selectively to postmodern ideas like "There is no such thing as gender" or "racism/sexism".


Again, you visibly didn't watch the video. Go watch it.

 No.787

>>755
>And I don't get the complaint about comparing trans activism to stalin. She keeps repeating it but I don't understand it. Stalin's ideal world would completely remove the identity of the self by completely divorcing the identity from the person, Trans activism causes something similar

So you do in fact believe that trans activism is Stalinism. Okay then.

>However she dives off the deep end when she starts talking about who "post modern neomarxists" refers to.


I don't think she's the one diving off the deep end here, as you visibly did not even try to understand the bits of the video you skipped to.

>Then she asserts identity politics is "advocacy for rights, equlity, justice, visibility for particular groups, etc etc" which is outright wrong, by everyone's definition of it.


Sure, Jan. By the way, this is you, a presumably cisgender man, claiming you know better than a trans woman what the nature and goals of identity politics are.

>She COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the "alt right!" boogeyman you just used up there ALSO use and advocate for identity politics. White nationalist ideas are purely identity politics.


Both are the promotion of a particular identity as supreme above all others. Neither are identity politics. Again, you seem to be getting your arguments a little muddled, mainly because you keep talking about things you do not understand.

 No.788

>>756
>If we were following identity politics I could just say I'm a gay black-mexican-pakistanny transgendered female presenting person of color and our entire argument would be over the second I claimed this

And in doing so you would be demonstrating, yet again, that you do not have the first understanding of identity politics. You making shit up on the spot to save face in an internet argument you've badly lost is not comparable to a person's life experience, and the way this allows them to discuss their experience in a manner you cannot.

> And then she states "peterson's politics are hard to pin down." which is outright a lie. He's a very early 2000s liberal.


This is the first time I have ever seen anyone refer to Jordan Peterson as this. Just to be clear, your personal, utterly delusional worldview is not universal. The near-totality of people on this planet do not hold your views, and your opinions aren't fact.

>Then she makes a strawman. She misinterprets one question in the interview about patriarchy to construe it into making Peterson look like a sexist when he's saying that "women and men find different professions interesting and if a profession is seen as too masculine there will not be many women present." And then applies it to "hierarchies in gender, race, and economics" which is…?


And once again, you demonstrate you have not bothered to watch the video properly, as her entire point is that Peterson's rhetoric is deliberately nebulous and heavily expects on the audience to fabricate their own reasoning in his stead. You have missed the entire point.

 No.789

>>757
>That's not goalpost shifting. That's me restating a fact that you keep insisting is not a fact.

No, that was you repeating a point that already got refuted to try to draw attention away from the fact that you posted "evidence" that had literally no relevance to the subject matter. Once again, to this day, you have utterly failed to provide a single piece of evidence countering the scientific fact that is the socially constructed nature of gender identity, and your attempts to distract from this fact have all failed.

>I did, and you ignored it. Called it "laughable" probably because you didn't read it.


I explained precisely why your "evidence" was laughable, which patently showed that I did not, in fact, ignore it. In fact, it generally seems to be the case that you do not read any links cited on here, not even the ones you yourself put forth, which makes your accusations here come across as a fair bit of projection.

 No.790

>>757
>You don't understand anything about the brain do you?

I have a major in psychology and have studied cognitive science, but what do I know. Clearly you are the expert here, as you learned everything you needed to know from Film Your Marxist Professors.

> Do you think all our wants and whims are completely divorced from out biology? You do know that things like wants and cravings are born from biological needs that we evolved to survive as a species. Everything we do can be reduced to a biological urge. This is common, accepted, science.


This is not, in fact, science, and I challenge you to provide a scientific document that substantiates your claims here. For sure, our psychological processes are the product of electrochemical reactions, and our brain structure is itself shaped by our genetics, but as you yourself said when discussing nature vs. nurture, not everything is nature here. Human behavior and psychology is itself heavily influenced by interactions with the environment, particularly social interactions with other humans, which makes many of our psychological features heavily influenced by culture. It is interesting that you would say all of this stupidity, by the way, right after telling me I "don't understand anything about the brain".

 No.791

>>758
>I'd call this backtracking.

… why? I said gender is a social construct, I did not say people identify with a gender identity completely independently from their biological sex. Again, you keep accusing me of things that only demonstrate your own ignorance of the subject matter.

>I'm asking you to not call a lion a sheep because you are, by the definition of the words, wrong.


By the definition of which words? You continue to make no sense here, and I called you out on your bullshit precisely because you were making up PC expressions out of thin air and expecting me to use them, so as to reframe the discussion to suit your ends. It didn't work then, it's not working now, and it ain't gonna start working anytime soon.

>What are trans fighting for? The right to take hormones that competitions ban in literally EVERY single case because they're seen as "performance enhancing" and for unfair treatment of men and women based on their personal self identification. That's not a right.


That is also not, in fact, what trans people in general fight for, as trans people still have trouble having their gender identity recognized, or simply living their life without getting attacked or killed. Once again, you are trying to indulge in arbitrary semantic distinctions purely of your own invention, all while demonstrating a painfully ignorant and isolated worldview, itself reflective of a total misunderstanding of the group you are discussing at length, even though no aspect of their lives concerns you.

 No.792

>>758
>On of those articles I already addressed, keep up.

Addressed where? Where did you even address anything on this thread?

>But as for the other one, it's not current. I dug up the actual one aaand it's complete bullshit. Their sample size is ridiculously small.


2012 and 2018 aren't current? Also, ridiculously small by which standards? You are literally just making shit up at this point to try to dismiss every piece of evidence presented to you, in spite of the fact that all of these documents presented by all of these organizations lead to the same consensus.

>SEVENTY SEVEN PEOPLE IN A YEAR! WHAT AN EPIDEMIC! OH OH WAIT! 49 WERE NOT CONFIRMED!!


Just to be clear, in real life seventy-seven deaths is a significant number, particularly in a community of people that represents such a small part of the population. The fact that these deaths are "unconfirmed" does not magically bring these people back to life; they have disappeared and not come back, which is itself suspicious. It seems you don't understand how statistics work.

>These are just cases REPORTED to the organization often by individuals, and might not mean that they were pursued by the police.


Which simply means that the numbers for actual violence are higher, as many crimes go unreported as a general baseline, and this is particularly true when the victim is part of a disenfranchised minority. Again, you don't seem to understand how statistics, or crime reporting, work.

 No.793

>>759
> Of the 1,000 "Hate violence" they're reporting, and I'll post the chart in one of these monstrous posts, but basically 66% of the "Violence" they experience is not actual violence, it's not even criminal actions.

It is, in fact, violence, and your personal denial of it has no bearing on the matter. It is ignorant and delusional of you to act like you are the world's sole authority on what is and isn't violence, and it is utterly vile and callous on your part to dismiss violence inflicted upon a group with less power than you, even when the statistics are in front of your face. You literally produced a document proving my point that trans people are heavily subject to violence, yet used it just to dump more hate onto the group. This is what is in fact disingenuous, not to mention pointlessly stupid and hateful.

>You do know that what you're doing right now constitutes online or mobile harassment? By assigning negative attributes to me that are meant to make me uncomfortable and shame me, you're actively "harassing" me and not arguing in good faith?


You feeling personally victimized at being called out for your ignorance and bigotry, with plenty of evidence to boot, is in no way comparable to the death threats trans people receive, in some cases on a regular basis. Man up, snowflake.

 No.794

>>760
>It's not. Violence is, by definition, physical.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence

"violence
noun [ U ] UK ​ /ˈvaɪə.ləns/ US ​ /ˈvaɪə.ləns/

B2 actions or words that are intended to hurt people"

In other words, you don't even know what the definition of violence is. It is fact that violence can be verbal as well as physical, and this is also true in legal text (the legal definition of assault is to threaten harm upon someone, for example, and is a punishable offense). Yet again, you cite sources that prove you wrong.

>which further trivializes your "trans violence" issue.


I'm sorry, you provide a document by the Human Rights Commission stating that anti-trans violence is a major issue, and then claim this trivializes it? In what Looney Tunes universe? The problem here may not just be that you don't understand how trans people, psychology, science, etc. work, but that you don't seem to understand how facts or words work. If a major organization mentions, with facts to boot, that anti-trans violence is a problem, then it's pretty likely that it's a problem. The fact that you would personally prefer goodness knows how many more trans people to die violent deaths does not change this.

 No.795

>>761
>Everything I've read on sexual violence tells me this is either extreme hyperbole or entirely fake.

Or, more simply, you're utterly delusional and bigoted, to the point where when faced with a heartbreaking report of a person being raped, one of many similar reports, your instinctive reaction is to instinctively deny what that person said and call them a liar. Your "red flags" are, similarly, entirely of your own fabrication. In so doing, you continue to demonstrate sheer, unbridled insanity in the face of a subject matter you brought up, without knowing the first thing about it.

>and just stopped. This isn't a report. This is an activist's cited blog post.


It is one out of many accounts of the regular lives of trans people. Again, you do not seem to understand the very document you are talking about, or what reporting is or contributes.

>No it's not. I never stated anything on history or denied that discrimination based on groups doesn't exist.


Let's see:

>No. Oppression isn't that broad. It's not oppression to be an outlier in society. Everyone is to some extent. Grouping people together like that is pretty harsh.


I'd call this backtracking. :)

>>762
>And we can get married now~ and get divorced, and have kids, and sue each other for alimony, and all that great stuff that Trans people can do too!

No, it isn't. Trans people do not get their gender recognized. This may have escaped you, but it wasn't so long that there were states literally spending public funds just to put policemen in bathrooms, so that they would check the anatomy of the people going in there (i.e. to weed out the trans people). Your pretense that trans people somehow aren't subject to any kind of oppression is laughable.

 No.796

>>762
>Gee, it's almost like we're creating and encouraging a destructive culture that glorifies a harmful surgery and problematic mental attitudes with people who have gender dysphoria and it's only exasperating an issue that people are trying to be solved but are being called transphobic by internet activists…

Or, more simply, trans rights haven't advanced at the same rate as gay rights, mainly because of ignorant people like you, who enjoy hard-fought rights (which wouldn't have been obtained had it not been for trans people, by the way) just so that you can bash other oppressed groups based on bullshit you've invented for yourself.

>Says the guy who hasn't read a single thing I linked or a thing you yourself linked.


Again, more projection on your part. I pointed out at length what was wrong with the random shit you linked, while you embarrass yourself by talking at length about a video you clearly just skipped through, without comprehending anything that was said. I am far from the only one calling you out on this, either. It's time you accepted that it's not the literal entire universe that is wrong, it's just you.

>Stop misrepresenting my argument.


You cited a whole bunch of animals as somehow evidence that gender and sex were the same. I'd call this backtracking. :)

>Says the guy speaking through a bias.


No, you really are the only one here whose bias is overriding your grasp on reality. Again, more weaksauce "no u" on your part, with no effect.

>You missed the entire point of my statement.


No, you did. Taro clearly points out how makeup is not exclusive to women, let alone somehow intrinsically biological as you somehow expected anyone to believe.

 No.797

>>769
>And let me explain something for you for a minute: "gender expression" how it's put is entire dependant on biological sex, and one gender's need to fit in.

Repeating the same wrong thing does not make you any less wrong.

>Which is also debatable since progressive culture has essentially turned alternative identities into a trend.


[Citation needed]

>How is it not a disorder?


How IS it a disorder?

>Firstly, you just described a disorder.


That is not what a disorder is. You visibly know nothing about psychology or cognitive science.

 No.798

>>771
>Secondly the issue I have is creating public policy and exemptions for a group of people that are the tiniest minority of the population, who can't seem to advocate for anything genuinely helpful to their movement

"These people aren't doing anything for ME, therefore I will continue to treat them like second-class citizens"

> For every toilet you take out of a woman's bathroom to put in a urinal means one less for them to use, which means longer lines and so forth.


Or… just make toilets for everyone? You are inventing imaginary issues here, as if the lines at toilets were some national crisis or something.

>Nope. You posted statistics and opinion pieces on trans violence. That's not what I was asking for in that line.


Oh, so statistics somehow aren't valid evidence now? Interesting.

>Take your own advice and educate yourself.


Again, "no u" isn't going to cut it. Educate yourself first, as you've been instructed to do… unless, of course, you genuinely do not know how to Google stuff, which appears to be the case.

>Not according to the WHO. They are two separate classifications. You don't even know about the organizations you're defending but at this point that's expected.


… they're not? It's interesting that you would accuse me of ignorance, while yourself speaking from complete ignorance. You've never read anything on psychology, and it shows.

>MAN, more shitty shame tactics. No, prove me wrong asshole.


I did, son, read my answer next time. It is hilarious that you'd publicly wet yourself crying about how I called you nasty names, right before doing just that.

 No.799

>>778
> I bring up valid criticism of an organization or an article and you just decry it as a conspiracy.

Which valid criticism? You tried to dismiss the WHO based on some assumption of a political agenda without a hint of evidence. That's not criticism, that's just you being your regular delusional self.

>Do you even know how the United Nations work? Like for example did you know the UAE and Saudi Arabia are on their board for Women's Rights? The very idea that these two countries are on a board for worldwide women's rights is fucking hilarious. Almost everything to do with the UN is ineffectual politicking, gesturing, and posturing.


That does not prevent the WHO from having qualified health experts who can state facts independently of politics. Once again, you have no understanding of what you're talking about.

>The double standard is every time I post a citation you outright ignore it, I go through the trouble of addressing every single one of yours and I get attacked, called a conspirist for stating KNOWN FACTS, common knowledge, and counterevidence.

>You're fucking sleazy.

It's "conspiracist", but sure, Jan. Fact of the matter of this, most of this applies to you, as you continue to provide zero evidence substantiating your points, dismiss my own evidence out of hand, and fling the internet equivalent of poop in my direction when I point out exactly where you're wrong. "Fucking sleazy" describes your entire attitude on this thread, and towards trans people, to a T.

 No.800

>>780
>Wow… it's amazing how this entire post you did nothing to address what I said, prove it wrong, and just insulted me. It's almost like you have no counterargument and shouldn't be making points.

"I don't like what you said, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to say anything ever!"

So yeah, if there were any doubt on whether or not you were a fascist, this should confirm it. Taro and I have been answering you pretty consistently, though there's only so much that can be achieved with someone of your… capabilities.

 No.803

>>781
>is somehow not an authority on health, or at least how you are somehow more of an authority on health than the WHO.
I already explained why. And you seem to only disagree because they're allegedly agreeing with you.
> the UN that is nonetheless itself made up of health experts
Again, the WHO is primarily run by politicians. You don't seem to understand a single thing I'm saying and just assume "THEY HAVE HEALTH IN THE NAME THAT MEANS DOCOTORS!!!!!" and I hate to use an all caps strawman like that. But you're not showing any good faith. This is easily googleable. Every single person in leading roles have held or do hold major political offices, and have served a majority of their career as politicians. They're not elected either, they're appointed by the UN boards, which is again, a bunch of politicians.
>I'm sorry, what? McDonald's is somehow relevant to this discussion now? And submissive women too? How do either relate to the topic of trans issues? Where is the idea of submissive women universal?
Man you really aren't capable of following a point, are you?

 No.804

>>803
>Putting aside the hilarious imagery of "confused stairs", what you're saying is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand.
The point at hand was that the general population didn't differentiate sex and gender until recently and you missed my point by a mile and responded with "BUT THE FIRST CLASSIFICATION…" which was no where near my point.
>Old science by whose standards?
Are you a creationist now too? This is LITERALLY the same argument I heard from a creationist when I tried to explain scientific advancement and the role creationism had in developing modern science. The guy got all flabbergasted and started saying, "NO ONE CAN DISPROVE CREATIONISM!" and then he spouted almost verbatim "Old science by whose standards?"

Old science in that is observably false and been replaced by more modern understandings of science. Get fucking with it.

 No.805

>>804
>the scientific fact
The scientific fact that men and women are objectively different, that their brains objectively work differently, that this leads to them objectively behaving differently, that they objectively have entirely different hormone balances in their objectively different bodies and this causes objectively different behaviors in society. Scientifically speaking, this is common sense.
>But a peacock's tail isn't a separate product they put on themselves?
The point





Your head.
You know what else is a not decided by gender? How the animals try to attract mates. The gender differences in male and female songbirds, and a WHOLE SLEW of other differences in the animal kingdom that aren't outright just "They look different"

 No.806

>>805
>… but I didn't talk about social sciences, though? Freud was a psychoanalyst, and Marx a philospher.
They were sociologists.
Literally: Google "list of social scientists". Is that dumb enough for your standards?
>Neither fit the category of social sciences. Do you even know what the social sciences are?
They do. You're just being picky with your descriptors. EVERYONE knows Freud as a psychologist. and Marx did way more than make philosophy. His entire "philosophy" as you put it is entirely based around society and how it should function, or at least in his views.
>Have… have you actually watched the videos you linked?
Yes, the question is, did you? the first link isn't about Peterson, it's about the bald guy literally saying "It's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex" that's verbatim.

 No.807

>>806
>The second video (which you linked under the Facebook channel "Film Your Marxist Professors"… hm.) talks about how differences in gender, race, etc. do not affect intellectual ability or predisposition to crime,
Yet she's still wrong. There is fairly obvious biological differences based on race and gender. Selective breeding causes that. UNLESS you're talking on her behalf here because she doesn't clarify AT ALL, she is ONLY talking on specific kinds of behavior. But then she states that "It's used by white supremecy and hetoeropatriarchy" which is also disingenuous because differences based on race and sex are the basis of identity politics she herself believes in.
Another quote: "We might know objectively that there is no biological differences between the races and the genders-" which is another outright falsehood.
Do you fucking racists think black people only have dark skin because they stay out in the sun too long? I wonder how you explain how Inuits have dark skin despite living in the farther northern part of canada.
>and the third article is McKinnon calling out the lack of foundation to criticisms made by her fellow athletes on her sex.
By stating definitively that she's biologically a woman? Dude. You're grasping at straws here.

 No.808

>>807
>You have visibly not read or listened to the sources you yourself have listed, and this arbitrary distinction between science and "accepted science" (in other words "my personal idea of science as a guy who thinks cultural Marxism is a thing") is bunk.
As opposed to your "my personal idea of science as a guy who unironically thinks neo nazis and racists are a major issue in 2019"
No, my opinions are based on very very dry, very sterile, very factual understandings of modern science and differences in male and female biology instead of relying wholly on social sciences and pop science to form my opinions.
>… but that's biological sex
Jesus fuck, you REALLY can't follow a point. And honestly I'm fucking tired of explaining shit to you I learned from watching fucking Billy Nye and Zooboomafoo.

Did you fucking know, that male and female lions have COMPLETELY different behaviors? The females are often the ones that go hunting while the males typically stick close to home. Did you know that many male and female songbirds have COMPLETELY different songs based on gender? Man, that's a helluva weird coincidence since Gender expression is purely a social construct and birds barely have a society to construct. Not even just gender expression, butterflies and birds know which way to migrate despite never being in that place. Salmon, frogs, all of them have unusual behavior that almost seems pre programmed into them at birth and couldn't possibly be learned.

 No.809

>>808
Did you know male humans are naturally more aggressive than female humans? Did you know that female humans are naturally far more prone to neuroticism? Did you know that males and females actively try to attract mates by applying external "fashion" and that male and female ones are almost universally different regardless of era and age?
>But neither my nor Money's understanding of sex or gender were based off that study.
Man, what a non statement. Money's understanding was entirely his own. Your understanding is the SAME as Money's as far as I can tell. You've shown no difference in opinion.
>Moreover, the study didn't fail, it simply showed that Reimer did not identify with his assigned gender.
No, it failed. The goal was to prove gender as a social construct by transitioning Reimer when he was a baby. It failed because despite the hormones, the pills, the parents assuring him he was a girl, he did not get it. Reimer "not being trans" has nothing to do with the study. You ENTIRELY misunderstood the case and you COMPLETELY misunderstand Money's goals and Reimer's situation.

If Gender is a social construct Reimer SHOULD have transitioned without issue and there should have been little to no issue with how he grew up aside from the obvious pitfalls which Money planned to explain away.

The idea was to take a boy who had a botched circumcision and raise him as a girl, never tell him he's trans, and prove once and for all there's no major difference between biological sex besides the societal norms our culture forces on us.

It did not work because gender is not a social construct.

 No.810

>>809
> Once again, you continue to utterly misunderstand the subject matter
Nope.
>Again, literally all of this is coming from you
Nope.
>you are not only heavily transphobic
Says the guy that holds harmful and contradictory opinions on trans people. Harmful TO trans people.
>Your pathetic attempt at a "no u
It wasn't a "no u" I proposed a hypothetical, an interpretation of what you're saying, and you said NOTHING on it except insult me. If anything this just proves you lack understanding of what I'm saying or are just not empathetic. Crazy internet gay.
>And this is wrong or bad, because… ?
Weren't you just denying postmodern neomarxism? Now you're telling me the transexuality and transgenderism is a choice.

Fucking.

Transphobe.

(I'll stop calling names when you stop and actually address my arguments btw.)
> our current culture tends to want to kill trans people,
Nope. Demonstrably false. a vast majority of people are against needless killing.
>You literally unironically cited a channel called "Film your Marxist Professors".
And if we were talking about hitler I'd cite Mein Kampf. You don't seem to understand what cites are. Not only that but you keep using guilt by association and ad hominems. Sleazy sleazy sleazy.
>You accused me of cultural Marxism.
Which your only response is to deny the existence of.

 No.811

>>810
>You dismissed the WHO for being a government conspiracy.
Nope.
>You visibly worship Jordan Peterson,
Also nope.
>even though you don't seem to understand his positions very well.
And you understand them through a youtube channel who also clearly doesn't understand them.
>You clearly didn't even bother to read the video I showed you, or the part about cultural Marxism. Whether you like it or not, those "buzzwords" fit you to a T.
I read almost everything you cited and watched that entire video as well as the videos she cited. Try again.
>… which social science professors?
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/04/590928008/professor-harassment
http://www.creativitypost.com/education/does_marxism_rule_the_academy
https://www.visionandvalues.org/2018/05/marx-at-200-classical-marxism-vs-cultural-marxism/ This one in particular gave me a big laugh.
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/
I could go all day talking about how progressivism, "Intersectional whateverism" and "cultural marxism" are literally THE SAME THING just different names for it.
>Whether you like it or not, those "buzzwords" fit you to a T.
Except I'm not right in the least, I mean, I am right of stalin so I am right of you, but I'm definitely on the left. I'm just a liberal, unlike you. I prefer the term hippie though. Oh, that's right "Freedom" is a neo nazi alt right buzzword that means oppressing black people. This back and forth is incredibly enlightening and fascinating and totally not something I could get just reading through political tags on twitter.

 No.812

>>811
>LOL
What do you think royalty were way back when we had real monarchies? We literally have a word for a small group of people who have control of the whole, an oligarchy. Anyone can be oppressive to any group, person, or anything. I'm sorry, I'll refer to it as it's more scientific name and stop pandering to your inability to understand baser forms of conepts. an oppressive oligarchy.
>No, the issue she takes with Jordan Peterson is that he feigns expertise on subject matters on which he has no qualifications,
Nope.
> and couches everything he says in wishy-washy rhetoric that makes it difficult to ascertain what he's exactly trying to say,
I've literally never had that problem. All you need to do to understand Peterson is look up the textbook definition of the word he's using, the only other issue I can tell is being capable of understanding whenhe's being literal or when he's being metaphorical. When you look at him through a biased lens when he says "Post modern neo marxists are taking over" it does sounds like a conspiracy. The issue is he doesn't mean it literally. He doesn't literally mean post modern neo marxists are literally taking over and literally plotting to overthrow the world. He means that the ideas relating to it are. PC culture, progressivism, the extreme left. Pretty much a majority of america agree, these are bad ideas, and only a small few minorities in america actually push for these ideas, but they sure are loud.

 No.813

>>812
>And if you instill the idea in a person that gender as a social construct is a global cultural marxist conspiracy
Man, you keep tossing around "conspiracy" like it means anything. You keep putting words in my mouth. You just get sleazier by the fucking second.
>Again, you visibly didn't watch the video. Go watch it.
No I did. She clearly doesn't understand why Peterson calls it that, admits it, and then prattles on about them being "contradictory ideas" without ever actually trying to find out why he calls it that. I LITERALLY just explained to you why Peterson calls it that. I've LITERALLY explained it to you multiple times that it's just another word for progressivism. You're LITERALLY just being ignorant now.
>So you do in fact believe that trans activism is Stalinism. Okay then.
Nope.
> don't think she's the one diving off the deep end here, as you visibly did not even try to understand the bits of the video you skipped to.
Nope. She again, takes it to mean A LITERAL GROUP OF LITERAL POST MODERN NEOMARXISTS ARE LITERALLY TAKING OVER AND LITERALLY FORCING AND CONSPIRING THIS CHANGE! when in reality it's an ideology that a great many people in academia share, that a great many more people have a problem with. an ideaology that is toxic, leads to abusive behavior and extreme abuses in power, because once again, it is stooped in bad concepts and giving power to those who don't know how to wield it based on superficial identifiers.

 No.814

>>813
>By the way, this is you, a presumably cisgender man, claiming you know better than a trans woman what the nature and goals of identity politics are.
The irony here is palpable.
>Both are the promotion of a particular identity as supreme above all others. Neither are identity politics.
Uuuh, no. White nationalism is the movement that white identifying people deserve a nation and everything that entails. White nationalism LITERALLY argues on the basis of identity politics for a nation BASED on identity politics. You do understand that every single political system can be used and forced into an extreme state on either end of the spectrum? It just so happens that progressivism and White nationalism are just two sides to the same horseshoe. One arguing for the advancement and "rights" for a certain group or groups and the other arguing for the advancement and "rights" for a certain group or groups . Oh wait, that's the same thing!
>And in doing so you would be demonstrating, yet again, that you do not have the first understanding of identity politics.
The hypocrisy. I'll just leave this quote of yours here:
>By the way, this is you, a presumably cisgender man, claiming you know better than a trans woman what the nature and goals of identity politics are.
Man, totally not hypocritical at all. Hmmm…
> as her entire point is that Peterson's rhetoric
And instead of using an ACTUAL argument Peterson ACTUALLY used she used a hypothetical one?
That
Is
A
Strawman.

 No.815

>>814
>. You making shit up on the spot to save face in an internet argument you've badly lost is not comparable to a person's life experience, and the way this allows them to discuss their experience in a manner you cannot.
You sound insecure.
>This is the first time I have ever seen anyone refer to Jordan Peterson as this.
I believe there's a few terms for it. I don't want to bother to figure out what terminology you use because you got poop brain apparently and don't want to follow your own advice and look up stances and understandings that the typical liberal in the early 2000s held.
Just to name a few, near absolute freedom of speech, no racial or sexual discrimination, advocacy for "colorblindness", general generosity, and various green related positions. A very very hippy-ish era if I do say so myself. In fact I'm finding it hard to think of a solid genuinely conservative stance he has.
>No, that was you repeating a point that already got refuted to try to draw attention away from the fact that you posted "evidence" that had literally no relevance to the subject matter.
Nope. 90% sure you're just shifting goalposts here.

 No.816

>>815
>I explained precisely
No, you call me names and say everything I say is laughable. You didn't come into this argument expecting to lose so instantly acted like you won, like I could say nothing to change your mind. You didn't come with open arms, an open mind. You came with the intention of demonizing and shaming me, which you kinda can't do. I already decided that I love you, bro. I forgive you and all that, no shame between peers.
>I have a major in psychology and have studied cognitive science, but what do I know. Clearly you are the expert here, as you learned everything you needed to know from Film Your Marxist Professors.
Oh man, anecdotal evidence. I wonder which fallacy you're going to pull up next.
>This is not, in fact, science, and I challenge you to provide a scientific document that substantiates your claims here.
Well, you do get hungry don't you? Unless you're saying that "hunger" is a social construct too. did you know addictions are hereditary? did you know that your sense of taste is as well? Colorblindness? Mental issues also are hereditary. Evolution itself is based on the idea that humans breed with people they see as most likely to survive in the current climate? Wealth and power are attractive. You're demonstrating it even now. You're tribalistic attitude and desire to fit in and find acceptance leads you to constantly use peer shaming tactics to shift my view to yours. You don't even seem consciously aware of it. I doubt you are.

 No.817

>>816
>Human behavior and psychology is itself heavily influenced by interactions with the environment, particularly social interactions with other humans,
Finally, you make an actual statement that's WORTH responding to. At what point would you say it stops being nature and starts being nuture? I usually like to refer to documentary Three Identical Strangers for this point.
>… why? I said gender is a social construct, I did not say people identify with a gender identity completely independently from their biological sex.
I don't even think you understand what you're saying when you say "gender is a social construct" now. It's almost like you never even gave any thought to this and are just parroting talking points…
>By the definition of which words?
Your ability to follow an argument is about as good as your reading comprehension.
You said: "Trans rights"
I said: "I have an issue with that term because it is innacurate. Trans Activism or Trans awareness is more accurate."
You said (equivocally): "REEEEEEEEEEEEE YOU DON'T GET TO DEFINE TERMS"
I said: "Rights means a specific thing and as all the 'rights' on the trans platform right now aren't actual 'rights' but measure to ensure cross competition between males and females I wouldn't call them rights. Awareness or activism is much more apt."
You said: I can't even remember.
I said: "Don't redefine terms."
You said: the post above.

 No.818

>>817
>2012 and 2018 aren't current?
Those are YEARLY studies. I dug out the current one. It's also too early in the year to really call any study about 2018 "current". Wait until 2020 on that one.
>Also, ridiculously small by which standards?
By the standards that of the 300+ million people in the US only 70 some odd people, that are LGBT not exclusively trans, were killed due to their LGBT status. Can I call "kids stopping on ant hills" an "epidemic" by the same metric?
>Just to be clear, in real life seventy-seven deaths is a significant number, particularly in a community of people that represents such a small part of the population.
Lets assume the 6% statistic is accurate, that would be 19 million people give or take a couple hundred thousand. That is 0.00039402312966942994% of the LGBT population in the US. ALSO keep in mind that this statistic includes the Pulse nightclub victims. On a normal year this is only around 20-30 people. Once again, the exact statistic for trans individuals isn't known as the only database claiming to be for trans lists ALL recorded people who ARE trans who died of suicide, and incidents completely unrelated to their status.
>You are literally just making shit up at this point to try to dismiss every piece of evidence presented to you
I'm not. It's literally in the articles you linked. I literally posted a graph from the 2017 survey, you didn't technically link that one, you linked the 2012 one where only 22 LGBT people died due to their status.

 No.819

>>818
> The fact that these deaths are "unconfirmed" does not magically bring these people back to life
Unconfirmed to be LGBT specifically, as the study just assumes their status due to them being in the Pulse Nightclub.
>Which simply means that the numbers for actual violence are higher,
Not necessarily. Schroedinger's cat here. Also considering that the statistics for ACTUAL violence is so ridiculously low, it still doesn't meet the criteria of an epidemic. Even if we assume "online bullying" is a valid form of violence, that's less than 2,000 gays a year in a country of 19+ million LGBT individuals.
>Again, you don't seem to understand how statistics, or crime reporting, work.
No, I do. You keep making stupid assumptions though.
>It is, in fact, violence,
It's not and I'll get into that later. To help consolidate this mess.
>You feeling personally victimized at being called out for your ignorance and bigotry,
Man, Here's another pot meet kettle moment.

 No.820

>>819
>In other words, you don't even know what the definition of violence is.
In other words you had to dig through, not one, not two, not three, not four, but the FIFTH GOOGLE LINK to "prove" your point. Not to mention the Cambridge redefinition is HIGHLY controversial.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Definition of violence

1a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force the violence of the storm
b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor also : an instance of such action or feeling
c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy."

 No.821

>>820
https://www.apa.org/topics/violence


Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder.

Violence has many causes, including frustration, exposure to violent media, violence in the home or neighborhood and a tendency to see other people's actions as hostile even when they're not. Certain situations also increase the risk of aggression, such as drinking, insults and other provocations and environmental factors like heat and overcrowding.

Adapted from the Encyclopedia of Psychology

 No.822

>>821
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence
noun
mass noun

1Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
'violence erupted in protest marches'
'domestic violence against women'
'the fear of physical violence'
'screen violence'

1.1Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

2Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
'the violence of her own feelings'

OH OH OH, How about we go with the WHO's definition of it? You love them, right?
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/
The World Health Organization defines
violence (
2
) as:
The intentional use of physical force or power,
threatened or actual, against oneself, another
person, or against a group or community, that
either results in or has a high likelihood of
resulting in injury, death, psychological harm,
maldevelopment or deprivation.

 No.823

>>822

>I'm sorry, you provide a document by the Human Rights Commission stating that anti-trans violence is a major issue, and then claim this trivializes it?

Even if you define "trans violence" as "Violent incidents involving Trans" the numbers are still ludicrously small. If you define it as "violence targeting trans" you're outright wrong. I think this is a game of telephone where multiple people report on a report on a report and each time the claims get more and more exaggerated. Remember that one article you linked that stated "Trans violence is said to be growing worse every year!" and the citation of that is a LITERAL activist who doesn't cite anything? This is a more professional version of that, except they're citing something, they're just presenting it wrong. You are presenting it wrong.
>Or, more simply, you're utterly delusional and bigoted
Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm less bigoted than you. But that's why I'm here. To explain to you how to be a nicer person.
>a heartbreaking report of a person being raped,
TBH I laughed. "I was raped 3 times within FIFTEEN MINUTES of entering prison!" I'm getting Brett Kavenaugh flashbacks.
>It is one out of many accounts of the regular lives of trans people.
It's not? Most trans people don't go to prison.
>I'd call this backtracking. :)
You'd be wrong then. That is neither about history or a denial the discrimination based on groups.

 No.824

>>823
>No, it isn't. Trans people do not get their gender recognized.
There is no legal status for gender. There's legal status for sex. Oh wait, a ton of states already allow gender changes on birth certificates. Oh wait. You don't get any differential statuses or treatment for that. Oh wait, trans people shouldn't get differential sex based treatment such as profiting off women's/men's aimed programs when they're not biologically female/male by your own admission. Unless you're saying that these programs aren't aimed at men/women but at the alleged social construct of genders, and that any man who identifies as a woman can easily just join a woman's football league and dominate the field.
I don't even think you know what I'm advocating for or understand how your ridiculous muddying of the lines is harmful to everyone involved.
>Your pretense that trans people somehow aren't subject to any kind of oppression is laughable.
There's that word again.
>Or, more simply, trans rights haven't advanced at the same rate as gay rights,
And I ask again, what rights? When people think "Gay rights" they think literal anti gay laws, like putting gays to death or preventing gay marriage. What laws against trans are in place and which ones aren't justified?
> I pointed out at length what was wrong with the random shit you linked
Nope. You called it a "conspiracy", didn't address any of the problems, didn't address how it's not applicable. Didn't address anything I said, just kept accusing me of "Not understanding" and saying it was "laughable" while not explaining anything.
>You cited a whole bunch of animals as somehow evidence that gender and sex were the same.
Nope.

 No.825

>>824
>No, you really are the only one here whose bias is overriding your grasp on reality.
Google "subconscious bias". Go ahead and read a few that might help you identify your own. Protip: I used to be 100% a total supporter of the trans movement. Pretty active and vocal about it too.
> Taro clearly points out how makeup is not exclusive to women,
Thank you for missing my point even further.
>Repeating the same wrong thing does not make you any less wrong.
Maybe you should read my animal argument again. Oh right, you didn't understand that one because I dumbed it down too much and you didn't see how it was applicable.
>[Citation needed]
Genderqueer, the "more than two gender" movement, the gender pronoun issue (not the trans one, the alternative gender pronoun one with ones like Xi/Xir or LatinX instead of Latino/Latina etc etc etc), Even you admitted it here:
>And this is wrong or bad, because… ? Indeed, trans people generally do want to change culture, because our current culture tends to want to kill trans people, or at the very least prevent them from living their own lives. There is no reason why any other person should have to care about their anatomy or genetics.

 No.826

>>825
>That is not what a disorder is.
dis·or·der
/ˌdisˈôrdər/
noun
noun: disorder

1.
a state of confusion.
"tiresome days of mess and disorder"
synonyms:untidiness, disorderliness, mess, disarray, disorganization, chaos, confusion; More
clutter, jumble;
a muddle, a mess, a shambles, a mare's nest;
informala dog's dinner, a dog's breakfast, an omnishambles
"he hates disorder in his house"
antonyms:order
the disruption of peaceful and law-abiding behavior.
"recurrent food crises led to periodic outbreaks of disorder"
synonyms:unrest, disturbance, disruption, upheaval, tumult, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium; More
violence, fighting;
rioting, insurrection, rebellion, mutiny, lawlessness, anarchy;
breach of the peace, riot, fracas, rumpus, brouhaha, melee, hubbub, furor, affray;
informalhoo-ha, aggro, argy-bargy, snafu;
informalwilding
"4,000 people were arrested in incidents of public disorder"
antonyms:order, peace
Medicine
a disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition.
plural noun: disorders
"eating disorders"
synonyms:disease, infection, complaint, problem, condition, dysfunction, affliction, malady, sickness, illness, ailment, infirmity, disability; More
defect, irregularity;
informalbug, virus;
informallurgy
"she nearly died of pneumonia and a blood disorder"

 No.827

>>826
verb
verb: disorder; 3rd person present: disorders; past tense: disordered; past participle: disordered; gerund or present participle: disordering

1.
disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.
"she went to comb her disordered hair"
synonyms:untidy, unkempt, messy, in a mess, disarranged, uncombed, unbrushed, ungroomed, tousled, tangled, tangly, knotted, knotty, matted, shaggy, straggly, windswept, windblown, wild; More
disorganized, chaotic, confused, jumbled, muddled, unsystematic, out of order, out of place;
informalratty;
informalmussed (up), all over the place;
informalshambolic;
archaicdraggle-tailed
"Dorothy looked tired and her gray hair was disordered"
Medicine
disrupt the healthy or normal functioning of.
"a patient who is mentally disordered"
synonyms:dysfunctional, disturbed, unsettled, unbalanced, unstable, unsound, upset, poorly, sick, diseased; informalscrewed up
"a disordered digestive system"

Gender dysphoria is a classified disorder. They renamed it because "Gender identity disorder" was too triggering. Wait, don't you constantly accuse me of knowing nothing about science and not knowing anything about trans?

 No.828

>>827
>That is not what a disorder is.
"Not being in order" is the LITERAL DEFINITION OF DISORDER. A "few neurons out of place to cause dysfunctional behavior" is almost the literal definition mental disorder. You're literally just being contrarian for the sake of it here. Not to mention very rude. I wasn't responding to you.
>I will continue to treat them like second-class citizens"
They aren't treated like second class citizens. There is literally anti discrimination laws in the US against it. We're talking about the US right? Not those shithole countries in the middle east who execute LGBT people?
Trans people have the right to:
vote
free speech
bare arms
enlist (Given they haven't transitioned yet but the military already bans most people with extensive physical disabilities from enlisting)
so on and so forth. YOU don't know the definition of second class citizen. By putting Trans in this category you devalue the civil rights and women's rights, ACTUAL movements that ACTUALLY solved legal issues against people of color and women by abolishing discriminatory LAWS about it.
>Or… just make toilets for everyone?
Ignoring the fact that that would be pretty awful, considering that women and men have different bathroom needs. Not to mention some places, like schools, NEED to be segregated. Considering that that opens up the door for more predatory practices, not to mention it would require countless millions to remodel so many buildings.

 No.829

>>828
All to appease something that's like sub 1% of the population with ACTUAL gender dysphoria, and not the trendy jackasses who are literally only in it because they want to dismember societal norms and replace it with their own brand of chaos (Gee that sure does sound like post modern neo marxism!).
>Oh, so statistics somehow aren't valid evidence now? Interesting.
It seems like every time we're getting to a conclusion you completely dodge responding to the statement.
>Again, "no u" isn't going to cut it.
Then stop using it.
>… they're not?
They.
Are.
There is classification for drug and alcohol abuse, general technology addiction, disorders related to Trauma and stress such as PTSD, Dementia, dissociative identity disorder, and then "gaming disorder" ALL in its own category. It is its OWN classification, according to the WHO "Gaming disorder" is worthy enough to be COMPLETELY separated as a category.
> It's interesting that you would accuse me of ignorance, while yourself speaking from complete ignorance. You've never read anything on psychology, and it shows.
If I had a penny for every time you spouted something ironic like this I'd be fuckin rolling in it.

 No.830

>>829
>You tried to dismiss the WHO based on some assumption of a political agenda
No, I dismissed the WHO because China and Korea have been Lobbying for this for the last decade because China outright REGULATES people playing video games for extended periods of time and South Korea regularly has issues with people playing WAY too much with multiple people outright dying in public gaming cafes due to lack of breaks.

I used this well known fact as an example of the WHO being influenced by world politics. If we extended this to the UN in general I could list dozens of more cases.

By your logic Trump is right about everything he says because he's informed by experts on the market. There's no way he's not just saying what he wants to get political clout or gather political allies or send a message. Noooooo, the WHO doesn't do thaaaaat.
>That does not prevent the WHO from having qualified
I stopped reading there. The minute you introduce politicians into anything it instantly becomes driven by politicking. Politicians being in charge of something even more so. The modern extreme authoritarian left, everyone. Trust your political allies that agree with you blindly, question nothing, and spout "Nazi" at everything, because anyone who criticizes your frie-err allied organizations is clearly a conspiracy nut! It's their motto.

 No.831

>>830
>most of this applies to you, as you continue to provide zero evidence substantiating your points, dismiss my own evidence out of hand, and fling the internet equivalent of poop in my direction when I point out exactly where you're wrong. "Fucking sleazy" describes your entire attitude on this thread, and towards trans people, to a T.
Another pot meet kettle moment. I've addressed your points more than you've done mine honestly. And constantly bitching about it like you are is bloating this reply chain up even more. Either stop getting so conspiratorial about everything and trim some fat off your rage posts or actually put some meat on them.
>"I don't like what you said, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to say anything ever!"
That's pretty much what he said, yeah.

 No.832

File: 1552198040596.jpeg (38.42 KB, 616x462, what-everyone-that's-lurk….jpeg) ImgOps Google iqdb


 No.836

>>803
>I already explained why. And you seem to only disagree because they're allegedly agreeing with you.

Explained where? You didn't explain shit, you just accused the WHO of conspiring against you. At the end of the day, you're not an authority on anything here, but the WHO is indeed an authority on health, no matter how hard you protest. Its board is made up of qualified health experts, irrespective of political orientation, and their position on health aligns with that of most health institutions in the world. I'm disagreeing with you because you're talking out of your ass; meanwhile, you seem to be disagreeing with every single health organization that presents itself simply because they don't agree with your retrograde views of trans people.

>Again, the WHO is primarily run by politicians.


… no, its board is made up of health experts. This is a fact you can easily verify on your own. Once again, you accuse others of ignorance, all while displaying stupendous amounts of the stuff. Fact is, the WHO is an authority on health, whether you like it or not. You, on the other hand, aren't.

 No.837

>>803
>Man you really aren't capable of following a point, are you?

Which point would that be, pray tell? As shown by this thread, I can follow a point just fine, but my comprehension stops at the point where you start rambling incoherently. Again, what was the point about McDonald's or submissive women? What do either have to do with this conversation? Or are those just the two things you constantly have on your mind?

>The point at hand was that the general population didn't differentiate sex and gender until recently and you missed my point by a mile


But, again, the topic wasn't awareness of the distinction between gender and sex among the general population, it was awareness of the distinction among the scientific community, which makes your random comment, once again, utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You have, effectively, missed the point, while accusing me of the same.

>Are you a creationist now too?


I'm sorry, you think creationism is science now? Oof, man.

>Old science in that is observably false and been replaced by more modern understandings of science. Get fucking with it.


By that definition, then, the distinction between sex and gender isn't old science, as it is observably true and part of our modern understanding of science. In your own words: get fucking with it.

 No.838

>>805
>The scientific fact that men and women are objectively different, that their brains objectively work differently, that this leads to them objectively behaving differently, that they objectively have entirely different hormone balances in their objectively different bodies and this causes objectively different behaviors in society. Scientifically speaking, this is common sense.

Scientifically speaking, this makes no sense whatsoever. Again, where is your evidence? You keep getting asked to provide evidence, and your conspicuous failure to do so shows you are simply talking purely out of your own delusions.

>You know what else is a not decided by gender? How the animals try to attract mates.


… but why is that relevant to gender identity? Again, you keep accusing everyone else of missing the point, but the fact remains that your argumentation is seriously confused. Makeup on humans isn't a part of biological sex, and sexual courting is not a part of gender idea. You've really lost the plot here.

 No.839

>>806
>Yet she's still wrong.

… why? You are literally trying to convince… someone here that you are more qualified to talk about gender than a professor who teaches about gender, and who has studied gender. The sheer arrogance and insanity on display is staggering.

>But then she states that "It's used by white supremecy and hetoeropatriarchy" which is also disingenuous because differences based on race and sex are the basis of identity politics she herself believes in.


This makes sense… how? What she's saying isn't very complicated: racists, sexists, transphobes, etc. like to pretend that there are differences between ethnicities, sexes, etc. that do not exist, simply because it lets them justify their bigotry. Only someone like you would fail to understand such a simple point, let alone conflate it with "identity politics".

>Another quote: "We might know objectively that there is no biological differences between the races and the genders-" which is another outright falsehood.


She actually said that there are no meaningful genetic differences between ethnicities, and that gender identity isn't biological, but by all means, please demonstrate how stupid you are, not to mention racist and transphobic to boot.

> By stating definitively that she's biologically a woman? Dude. You're grasping at straws here.


… no? She's simply saying that the distinction people are attempting to drive is an unscientific myth that has no application within the world of sports, as noted by the fact that trans athletes are nowhere near dominating the field. You're the one who has been grasping at straws here from the very beginning, all while being blithely ignorant of the subject matter you brought to the table.

 No.840

>>808
>As opposed to your "my personal idea of science as a guy who unironically thinks neo nazis and racists are a major issue in 2019"

You think they aren't? Alrighty then. But also, you are in no position to say this when I have cited actual health organizations, as well as experts in the field, to support my points. You've cited… who, exactly? Yourself?

>No, my opinions are based on very very dry, very sterile, very factual understandings of modern science and differences in male and female biology instead of relying wholly on social sciences and pop science to form my opinions.


LOL. Sure, your opinions are based on "very factual understandings"… and I'm sure you're a "very stable genius" as well. ;)

>Jesus fuck, you REALLY can't follow a point. And honestly I'm fucking tired of explaining shit to you I learned from watching fucking Billy Nye and Zooboomafoo.


It is hilarious how you keep screaming that I'm missing the point… all while missing the point. You keep describing biological sex here. Even as I point out that you patently do not understand the difference between gender and biological sex, and are describing the latter rather than the former, your answer is to repeat your exact same mistake, as noted by your following paragraph. You may be getting tired, but I'm just entertained by the amount of embarrassment you seem so keen on piling on top of yourself.

 No.841

>>809
>Did you know male humans are naturally more aggressive than female humans? Did you know that female humans are naturally far more prone to neuroticism?

And this proves… what exactly? Again, what you're describing still isn't gender, as hormones are a product of biological sex, and the neuroticism of women itself is a cultural component that is a lot more recent than you likely think.

>Did you know that males and females actively try to attract mates by applying external "fashion" and that male and female ones are almost universally different regardless of era and age?


Regardless of era and age? Are you sure about that? Because there are distinct periods in time and cultures where both men and women applied makeup, wore similar clothing, and used similar courting tactics (e.g. most of the Pre-Christian Mediterranean basin, most East Asian cultures, most Polynesian cultures, etc.). It feels like your understanding of history comes exclusively from 1950s-era advertisements.

>Man, what a non statement. Money's understanding was entirely his own. Your understanding is the SAME as Money's as far as I can tell. You've shown no difference in opinion.


Speaking of a non-statement, that is what your vacuous sentence here is. Moreover, you're backtracking here, as you first tried to assume Money's understanding of gender, only to flip and say that his understanding was "entirely his own", when I clearly pointed out that his understanding was not, in fact, based exclusively on that one study you showed (which is itself verifiable through Money's works). Again, you seem to have lost the plot here.

 No.842

>>809
>No, it failed.

No, it didn't. You insisting that it did will never make you any less wrong. As the study itself notes, Reimer did not identify with his assigned gender, despite all attempts, and what followed itself showcases precisely why suicide rates are so high among trans individuals, and especially trans youth: if you force a gender identity onto someone that they do not identify with, it will cause them severe and continuous distress.

>You ENTIRELY misunderstood the case and you COMPLETELY misunderstand Money's goals and Reimer's situation.


This is a pretty evident case of projection, as you are using a study made by a scientist who himself pioneered the distinction between sex and gender in the scientific community to somehow tell me that he himself believed in the exact opposite. Once more, your argumentation here is utterly confused and backwards, and so directly as a result of your own lack of understanding of the subject you are discussing.

>If Gender is a social construct Reimer SHOULD have transitioned without issue


… why? The very existence of trans people proves you wrong. Again, you visibly have no grasp of logic, which is why your arguments are full of non-sequiturs such as the one just quoted.

>It did not work because gender is not a social construct.


It did not work because Reimer did not identify with his given gender. His story is one of many, as there are many cases of intersex people not identifying with their assigned gender when they received "corrective surgery" near birth. If nothing else, it validates the experience of trans people, not the opposite.

 No.843

>>810
>Nope.
>Nope.

LOL. Is this really all you got? You visibly lost the point, and blurting out blanket denial like some kind of child only further proves this.

>Says the guy that holds harmful and contradictory opinions on trans people. Harmful TO trans people.


… which of my opinions are harmful to trans people or contradictory? Again, you seem to be projecting endlessly onto others throughout this thread.

>It wasn't a "no u"


… it was. You keep flinging accusations back at people irrespective of context or application, and in fact this appears to be one of your preferred argumentation tactics, in spite of how lame said tactic is.

>I proposed a hypothetical, an interpretation of what you're saying, and you said NOTHING on it except insult me.


What is there to say? You yourself are admitting here that your accusations were only your own interpretation of my opinions. The only response worth saying is that you are not only wrong, but also delusional, particularly as it's obvious you are projecting your own transphobic ideas here onto me.

>Crazy internet gay.


Oh, the irony…

 No.844

>>810
>Weren't you just denying postmodern neomarxism? Now you're telling me the transexuality and transgenderism is a choice.

… where did I say this? You seem to have a habit of making shit up on the spot in an attempt to weasel out of situations where you've made yourself look like a dunce.

>Fucking.

>Transphobe.

Lol. By all means, please keep on projecting, let's see how far you go into admitting you hate yourself here.

>(I'll stop calling names when you stop and actually address my arguments btw.)


Except you've been calling people names the entire time throughout this thread, and I've been addressing your arguments point by point. Don't blame others for your immaturity here, son.

>Nope. Demonstrably false. a vast majority of people are against needless killing.


"Demonstrably false"? Then by all means, please demonstrate? Once again, the point appears to have gone right over your head.

>And if we were talking about hitler I'd cite Mein Kampf. You don't seem to understand what cites are.


Your very example here demonstrates that it is you here who do not understand what citations (not "cites", whatever that is) are, not to mention some… interesting political orientations. Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise from the guy who unironically cites "Film Your Marxist Professors".

 No.845

>>810
>Not only that but you keep using guilt by association and ad hominems. Sleazy sleazy sleazy.

More projection coming from a guy who just admitted to flinging insults and who thinks people who cite the WHO are commie pinko globalist conspirators. The simple point here is that no sane person cites "Film Your Marxist Professors", as it belies some pretty unsavory political orientations, particularly as you went directly for that kind of channel unprompted. "Sleazy sleazy sleazy" indeed describes both your argumentation here and your sources.

>Which your only response is to deny the existence of.


Because it doesn't exist, it's a fabrication by loonie alt-right nuts who think the entire rest of the world is conspiring against them by allowing other people to exist. Again, there is no other response to be made here, as you are visibly wrong and are making utterly delusional, nonsensical accusations.

 No.846

>>811
>Nope.

Oh good, glad to hear it! So you in fact do NOT believe the WHO is a globalist conspiracy, and admit that it is in fact an organization headed by health experts who know what they're talking about, certainly more than you. Good to know you're finally coming round. :)

>Also nope.


Also good to hear! Hopefully that means you'll stop treating him as an expert in biology or gender, then. :)

>And you understand them through a youtube channel who also clearly doesn't understand them.


Except ContraPoints demonstrably understands Jordan Peterson far better than you do, and is not the only one levying that kind of criticism. Are you sure it's not just you that understands nothing here, as opposed to literally everyone else?

>https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/04/590928008/professor-harassment


And this professor talks about progressivism or Marxism… where? It's like you typed in keywords on Google and picked the first articles you found, regardless of relevance to the actual point.

>http://www.creativitypost.com/education/does_marxism_rule_the_academy


The guy doesn't talk about "postmodern neo-Marxism", but he does state that the whole idea that academia is ruled by Marxism is a myth. Congratulations, you played yourself.

 No.847

>>811
>https://www.visionandvalues.org/2018/05/marx-at-200-classical-marxism-vs-cultural-marxism/

… the article is an opinion piece that cites no sources, Paul Kengor isn't a social scientist, though, and the Center for Vision and Values is a literal conservative think tank. It's amazing how you'd try to dismiss the WHO or FDA for being somehow politically motivated (without mentioning what political motivations they may have), all while wholeheartedly embracing a literal political lobbying group. Gotta love your hypocrisy here.

>https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/


Once again, Allen Mendenhall isn't a social scientist, his article cites sources that do not support any of his claims, and the James G. Martin is also a conservative lobbying group. Your failure here is complete.

>I could go all day talking about how progressivism, "Intersectional whateverism" and "cultural marxism" are literally THE SAME THING just different names for it.


By all means, please do, because so far you have failed to cite a single social science professor claiming that cultural marxism is a thing, let alone that progressivism is "marxism with a new coat of paint". You have, however, demonstrated that you will uncritically suck on any self-avowed conservative interest group's dick, all while rejecting the expertise of actual experts, including actual social scientists.

>Except I'm not right in the least


You are indeed not right in the least. Nothing you have said so far is correct. Glad you finally admitted it yourself. ;)

 No.848

>>811
>I mean, I am right of stalin so I am right of you, but I'm definitely on the left.

Ah yes, the good old left-winger who wholeheartedly believes in conservative lobbying groups and channels such as "Film Your Marxist Professors", all while unironically proclaiming the dangers of cultural Marxism. Yes, super liberal right there.

But seriously, though, you are the most hilariously terrible liar I have ever seen. Try harder next time.

Also, nice try accusing me of being a Stalinist, but no. Next.

>I prefer the term hippie though.


Another gem right here.

>This back and forth is incredibly enlightening and fascinating and totally not something I could get just reading through political tags on twitter.


I mean, you can go home if you're not having fun. You're the one who posted this abortion of a thread, so don't come crying to me when I respond to your drivel.

 No.849

>>812
>What do you think royalty were way back when we had real monarchies?

Yes, clearly we've been talking about royalty the entire time, as opposed to actual oppressed minorities, such as trans people. /s

>I'm sorry, I'll refer to it as it's more scientific name and stop pandering to your inability to understand baser forms of conepts. an oppressive oligarchy.


Of course, how could I not have realized we're all being oppressed by trans people! I see your truth now, and your opinions aren't total unhinged bullshit. /s

>Nope.


She literally points out how he talks about subjects he has no expertise on. Blurting out "nope" like a child caught lying ain't gonna cut it, son.

>I've literally never had that problem.


That wouldn't surprise me, because your very state of mind itself appears confused beyond repair. As it stands, nobody cares what your opinion is here, as what she says is valid regardless of it. Your following diatribe in fact showcases exactly what both I and she have been saying: in the face of Peterson's vagueness, you've inserted your own, batshit insane interpretation that reinforces your narrow-minded worldview. It's like cold reading, but for bigots.

 No.850

>>813
>Man, you keep tossing around "conspiracy" like it means anything. You keep putting words in my mouth. You just get sleazier by the fucking second.

I'm not the one claiming society is being threatened by cultural Marxism, or accusing the WHO of conspiring politically to validate trans people. No matter how hard you try to deny it, you are a conspiracy nut, and the fact that you keep throwing the word "sleazy" almost each time you project implies that too appears to be one of the flaws you implicitly see in yourself, as is visible in your sleazy argumentation. Are you sure there's not just something in your life that's troubling you?

>No I did. She clearly doesn't understand why Peterson calls it that, admits it, and then prattles on about them being "contradictory ideas" without ever actually trying to find out why he calls it that.


Again, this is proof you did not in fact watch the video. Go watch the video, instead of projecting more whining about how I'm supposedly the one not paying attention to citations.

>You're LITERALLY just being ignorant now.


I don't think that word means what you think it means, by which I refer to both "literally" and "ignorant". The fact that you would throw this out in the wake of your posts here is delicious.

>Nope.


So then why do you keep accusing everyone against you of being a Stalinist? You just got done accusing me of being on the same level of political opinions as Stalin, too, so once again you're really not good at lying. I'd call this backtracking. :)

 No.851

>>813
>Nope. She again, takes it to mean A LITERAL GROUP OF LITERAL POST MODERN NEOMARXISTS ARE LITERALLY TAKING OVER AND LITERALLY FORCING AND CONSPIRING THIS CHANGE! when in reality it's an ideology that a great many people in academia share

But didn't one of your own cited source state that this was a myth? Not only have you failed to watch or understand the video I have linked to you, you have visibly failed to do so even for your own cited sources. You really are a failure.

>The irony here is palpable.


Indeed, the irony is palpable, as you really do seem to think you are better qualified to talk about trans people than, say, actual trans people, or health experts who work on sex and gender. Similarly, you seem to think you know better about identity politics than people who actually deal with them, and in general you seem to genuinely want some person on this planet to believe you are an expert on a whole range of topics you know literally nothing about.

>Uuuh, no. White nationalism is the movement that white identifying people deserve a nation and everything that entails.


Uuuh, no. White nationalism is the movement that promotes the notion that white people are a superior race, that multiculturalism and multiethnicism are a threat to this supremacy, and that the goal should therefore be to erase both to pave way for white-only nations. Your attempts to whitewash and defend white nationalism here are… well, not a good look.

 No.852

>>814
>White nationalism LITERALLY argues on the basis of identity politics for a nation BASED on identity politics.

… how, exactly?

>You do understand that every single political system can be used and forced into an extreme state on either end of the spectrum?


Sure… but how does this apply here, though? So far, the only conclusion here to be had is that you don't understand identity politics, and may also be a white nationalist.

>One arguing for the advancement and "rights" for a certain group or groups and the other arguing for the advancement and "rights" for a certain group or groups . Oh wait, that's the same thing!


So in this quote, you appear to genuinely believe that an oppressed group asking for the right to be treated as human beings is exactly the same as a privileged group asking for more privilege, and in so doing erasing the rights of everyone outside of their group. That's an oof right there.

>Man, totally not hypocritical at all. Hmmm…


And this is hypocritical… how, exactly? "Hypocritical" might just be one more to the list of words you appear to patently not understand.

 No.853

>>814
>And instead of using an ACTUAL argument Peterson ACTUALLY used she used a hypothetical one?

Except she referred to actual arguments he made? Again, literally just watch the video. Or, continue making a fool of yourself on this thread. I'm happy either way. :)

>You sound insecure.


And you're projecting, while also conspicuously failing to actually answer the point. As it stands, you have failed to respond to or even deny what's been said, which suggests that a) you yourself implicitly know you've lost this argument, and b) you are similarly aware that you've been lying just to get out of uncomfortable spots in this argument, with full knowledge that you are also dismissing the valid life experiences of others.

>I believe there's a few terms for it. I don't want to bother to figure out what terminology you use because you got poop brain apparently and don't want to follow your own advice and look up stances and understandings that the typical liberal in the early 2000s held.


LOL. I didn't think you could embarrass yourself further, but "poop brain" has got to be your most childish insult yet. As it stands, not only did the terms you chose not describe Jordan Peterson in any way, you also appear to genuinely believe the 2000s were a "hippy-ish" era (your words, not mine). Your insanity never ceases to amuse.

 No.854

>>815
>Nope. 90% sure you're just shifting goalposts here.

And I'm 100% sure you're just making shit up here. The fact that you do not even appear certain as to what your own thoughts even are here is hilarious. It's like you can't even stop yourself from admitting that you're wrong.

>No, you call me names and say everything I say is laughable.


Because everything you say IS laughable, as are you. That has not stopped me from pointing out that your "evidence" proves you wrong, which itself shows that you are incapable of reading even your own citations.

>You didn't come into this argument expecting to lose so instantly acted like you won, like I could say nothing to change your mind. You didn't come with open arms, an open mind. You came with the intention of demonizing and shaming me, which you kinda can't do. I already decided that I love you, bro. I forgive you and all that, no shame between peers.


I'm sorry, all I can see here is "wah wah wah". You got called out on your bullshit, and you clearly don't like it, so your only option here is to just grow the fuck up. You don't get to accuse me of being closed-minded when what you just accused me of describes your mentality exactly (though you seem aware that you are, in fact, entirely wrong). If you were to provide contrary evidence that proved me wrong, I'd be all ears, but as it stands you have done nothing but lie, rant, and scream like some inexplicably delusional baby. You are the only one bringing shame upon yourself here, and you'd best stop blaming others for all your personal shortcomings.

 No.855

>>816
>Oh man, anecdotal evidence. I wonder which fallacy you're going to pull up next.

Me pointing out that you are citing a lunatic far-right channel isn't anecdotal evidence, and I don't need to make up qualifications to demonstrate that I do in fact know more than you about psychology, or most things for that matter. This isn't simply because I have actual qualifications, but because you have amply demonstrated that you are negatively qualified to discuss any subject you have chosen to talk about on this thread.

>Well, you do get hungry don't you? Unless you're saying that "hunger" is a social construct too. did you know addictions are hereditary?


And this is relevant to the subject matter… how? Hunger is not a behavior, it is a sensation. The sensation of addiction is also separate from addictive behavior. The fact that you are incapable of recognizing such a basic difference itself demonstrates just how ignorant you are of psychology, and how little sense has been made by everything you've said on the matter.

>At what point would you say it stops being nature and starts being nuture?


… but as both of us had already stated, the distinction is meaningless. Your non-question here makes no sense, in addition to being utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you yourself do not know, why make this thread in the first place?

 No.856

>>817
>I don't even think you understand what you're saying when you say "gender is a social construct" now. It's almost like you never even gave any thought to this and are just parroting talking points…

Or, much more simply, you do not have the capacity to understand what I am saying here, let alone any form of nuance, yet prefer to blame others for your stupidity. Gender can be a social construct and still have people's gender identity at any point in time correlate to their biological sex; it is not that difficult to understand.

>Your ability to follow an argument is about as good as your reading comprehension.


And your ability to lie is as about as good as… well, anything you've set out to do on this thread. As it stands, your own interpretation of events that transpired on this very thread makes no sense (and so in a way that literally anyone can verify, as all the evidence is on the SAME thread). At the end of the day, you're still trying to make shit up to try to reframe the discussion under your own batshit political correctness, despite not knowing what rights are or how they apply to trans rights. Who exactly are you trying to fool here? Your entire volume of text here has utterly failed to convince even a single person.

>Those are YEARLY studies. I dug out the current one.


Then by all means, please link to it. As it stands, you're waving it in the air as if it somehow disproved anything I said, which appears doubtful at best.

>It's also too early in the year to really call any study about 2018 "current".


LOL. We are in 2019, you dolt. A yearly report of the year 2018 is the MOST current document that can be produced.

 No.857

>>818
>By the standards that of the 300+ million people in the US only 70 some odd people, that are LGBT not exclusively trans, were killed due to their LGBT status. Can I call "kids stopping on ant hills" an "epidemic" by the same metric?

… how are general population numbers relevant in a study that focuses exclusively on a small subset of said population? Also, you're wrong, the reports specifically discussed violence against trans people, as the numbers for the entire LGBT+ community are larger. You really, really do not appear to understand the first thing about statistics, let alone sample sizes (which is probably why you don't think statistics count as evidence).

>Lets assume the 6% statistic is accurate, that would be 19 million people give or take a couple hundred thousand. That is 0.00039402312966942994% of the LGBT population in the US.


So 6% is 0.0004%. Gotcha.

>I'm not. It's literally in the articles you linked.


… where? Nothing you have ever said in this thread has had any relation to actual facts.

>Unconfirmed to be LGBT specifically, as the study just assumes their status due to them being in the Pulse Nightclub.


Which study are you even referring to? Because the ones I pointed out had no such uncertainties. Again, you appear to be making shit up.

 No.858

>>819
>Not necessarily. Schroedinger's cat here

… what? How the fuck does a concept of quantum uncertainty even fit in this discussion? You are completely insane.

>Also considering that the statistics for ACTUAL violence is so ridiculously low, it still doesn't meet the criteria of an epidemic.


… the statistics are ridiculously high though? Again, it doesn't seem like you understand statistics, or basic reading for that matter.

>No, I do. You keep making stupid assumptions though.


I'm making no assumptions, though, the things you are telling me patently do not match up to the documents cited. Insisting that you aren't supremely incompetent at reading statistics will not magically rewrite reality in your favor.

>It's not and I'll get into that later. To help consolidate this mess.


You ain't consolidating shit, not with your 32 replies; you're just clearly dodging a point you know you've lost.

>Man, Here's another pot meet kettle moment.


Really? Then please, point out any point in time where I have exclaimed that I felt personally victimized by you, or expressed ignorance or bigotry. This is yet another of your weaksauce attempts at a "no u" that I don't think even you expected to convince anyone.

 No.859

>>820
>In other words you had to dig through, not one, not two, not three, not four, but the FIFTH GOOGLE LINK to "prove" your point. Not to mention the Cambridge redefinition is HIGHLY controversial.

Highly controversial… where? To you? It is absolutely amazing that even as I give you an actual, bona fide definition, you STILL try to deny reality.

>b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

>2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

Oh hey, sounds like verbal violence is in fact a thing, by your own definition.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence


The article itself cites the WHO's own definition, which has direct application to the subject of discussion: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."[3]

So by all accounts, you are categorically, factually wrong. Verbal violence is real, and no attempt on your part will ever disprove this. Once again, you played yourself.

 No.860

>>821
>https://www.apa.org/topics/violence

… did you actually read what you posted? The literal first line proves that the APA also views verbal violence as violence.

>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence

>1Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
>1.1Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

… which, once again, demonstrates the reality of verbal violence, by the Oxford Dictionary's own definition (one of the examples cited is "the fear of physical violence"). Do you even read what you post?

>OH OH OH, How about we go with the WHO's definition of it? You love them, right?


I do, yes! Let's see what they have to say:

>The intentional use of physical force or power,

threatened or actual, against oneself, another
person, or against a group or community, that
either results in or has a high likelihood of
resulting in injury, death, psychological harm,
maldevelopment or deprivation.

So they do, in fact, acknowledge the existence of verbal violence. Literally every single source either of us has listed proves me right (and, therefore, proves you wrong). It is amazing how you will cite sources and STILL manage to be utterly wrong.

 No.861

>>823
>Even if you define "trans violence" as "Violent incidents involving Trans" the numbers are still ludicrously small.

Again, says who? You are imposing a value judgment here of your own invention, and if you are using the same standards you have set above, then you are attempting to foist a standard here that is utterly disconnected from reality. Trans people are by far more vulnerable to violence than any other group, it is a fact by the very statistics shown. You can call the statistics as small as you like, that does not make you any less wrong on the matter.

> If you define it as "violence targeting trans" you're outright wrong. I think this is a game of telephone where multiple people report on a report on a report and each time the claims get more and more exaggerated.


I like you you categorically accuse me of being wrong, then immediately admit that this is only based on your own, wrong opinion. It's like you've lost faith in your own bullshit.

>Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm less bigoted than you. But that's why I'm here. To explain to you how to be a nicer person.


LOL

>TBH I laughed. "I was raped 3 times within FIFTEEN MINUTES of entering prison!" I'm getting Brett Kavenaugh flashbacks.


The fact that you specifically cite that event, and with that particular implied opinion, I think shows just how far gone you are. But yeah, laughing at the misfortune of innocent people is gross and sleazy, and the fact that you think anyone will ever believe you as you display this kind of behavior is itself delusional.

 No.862

>>823
>It's not? Most trans people don't go to prison.

… how does this relate to what I said? Also, trans people are also targeted by the police more than many other groups, as noted by the report you cited.

>You'd be wrong then. That is neither about history or a denial the discrimination based on groups.


You literally stated in the second quoted sentence that you do not believe discrimination against groups existed. That was also you were the point you were trying to make as you tried to deny the fact that trans people suffered discrimination. Not only are you backtracking, you're doing an absolutely shitty job of lying about it.

>There is no legal status for gender.


… you literally just proved my point? Thanks, I guess?

>I don't even think you know what I'm advocating for or understand how your ridiculous muddying of the lines is harmful to everyone involved.


I think it's pretty clear that you're trying to frame trans people as a bunch of mentally ill individuals all conspiring for special treatment in society, while literally laughing at their actual oppression. This isn't my opinion, this is all things you have said and done on this thread. Interestingly, it appears you yourself are aware of your harmful intentions, given the amount of naked projection you've been putting forth here.

 No.863

>>824
>There's that word again.

… yes? Do you take issue with the English language, now? Or is it simply that you have no means of denying the fact that you do are indeed trying to convince others on this thread, against all facts, that trans people aren't subject to oppression?

>And I ask again, what rights? When people think "Gay rights" they think literal anti gay laws, like putting gays to death or preventing gay marriage. What laws against trans are in place and which ones aren't justified?


I don't know, the fact that trans people are literally barred from entering the military in the USA? That's a special case. That's just one example out of many, and there's a more concrete report here:

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC-Anti-Trans-Issue-Brief-FINAL-REV2.pdf?_ga=2.255173004.502421983.1552249156-38508584.1552040191

And that's just the bills being suggested, some of which passed. Again, there are plenty of sources detailing the violence and discrimination trans people experience, which gay people still also experience, but to a much lesser degree thanks to social advances. Only a person as wilfully ignorant as you could ever believe that trans people aren't being discriminated against, particularly as you yourself are discriminating against trans people on this very thread, thereby proving yourself wrong.

 No.864

>>824
>Nope. You called it a "conspiracy", didn't address any of the problems, didn't address how it's not applicable. Didn't address anything I said, just kept accusing me of "Not understanding" and saying it was "laughable" while not explaining anything.

This is getting into bizarro territory: where have I ever accused anything of being a conspiracy? You are the one accusing entire world organizations of conspiring politically against you, all while pointing out that your own sources either did not say what you wanted them to say, or outright proved you wrong. Literally who are you trying to lie to here when anyone can see exactly what's been said? It's like you have a pathological need to deny the truth even as it is literally impossible to realistically deny.

>Nope.


Oh really? What about this:

>Gender, and gender expression, can be observed in animals, insects, and even plants.


Or this:

>Again, details are different but the habits, ideas, and behaviors are all the same across the globe and even across the animal kingdom to some extent.


Or this:

>You know what else is a not decided by gender? How the animals try to attract mates.


Or this:

> The gender differences in male and female songbirds, and a WHOLE SLEW of other differences in the animal kingdom that aren't outright just "They look different"


Or this:

> The gender differences in male and female songbirds, and a WHOLE SLEW of other differences in the animal kingdom that aren't outright just "They look different"


It's like being absolutely fucking wrong is your kink. You are by far the absolute most incompetent liar I have ever seen.

 No.865

Little oopsie on my part: I double-posted the last quote, when what I meant to post was this:

>Once again, male and female lions, male and female songbirds, male and female peacocks, the Black Widow spider is NAMED after it, male and female monkeys


So yeah, you are 100%, categorically wrong.

 No.866

>>825
>Google "subconscious bias". Go ahead and read a few that might help you identify your own. Protip: I used to be 100% a total supporter of the trans movement. Pretty active and vocal about it too.

Sure, Jan. I suggest you take your own advice, as you are not only transparently lying here (as usual), you don't even seem to understand the terms you're throwing around, as you would have seen that it would have referred to the exact thing I called you out on.

>Thank you for missing my point even further.


You are the only one missing the point here, sport. You were the one legitimately trying to argue that makeup was somehow biologically essential to female humans, along with a whole other bunch of bullshit. Literally no-one on this thread is convinced by your lies here.

>Maybe you should read my animal argument again. Oh right, you didn't understand that one because I dumbed it down too much and you didn't see how it was applicable.


Or, more simply, you were just wrong. It's comedy gold as well that you would yourself admit that you brought animals into this discussion, literally the post after you attempted to deny the fact.

>Genderqueer, the "more than two gender" movement, the gender pronoun issue (not the trans one, the alternative gender pronoun one with ones like Xi/Xir or LatinX instead of Latino/Latina etc etc etc), Even you admitted it here:


And… which part of any of this "turned alternative identities into a trend"? The only thing you're showing here is that you appear to consider any relatively new development on the topic of pronouns or gender to be an "alternative identity" or some kind of fad, which speaks exclusively to your own ignorance and bigotry, and nothing else.

 No.867

>>826
>>827
>>828
>"Not being in order" is the LITERAL DEFINITION OF DISORDER. A "few neurons out of place to cause dysfunctional behavior" is almost the literal definition mental disorder.

… where? You cited a whole bunch of definitions, which is all well and good (even if none of them are the actual definition of a psychological disorder, but hey, what are facts to you anyways?), except you also misquoted Taro, who said this:

>I think you can at least concede that it might be possible for people to have a few neurons that differ from the masses.


Which is different from:

>A "few neurons out of place to cause dysfunctional behavior" is almost the literal definition mental disorder.


You are the one inserting the notion of "dysfunctional behavior". Once again, all of this just goes to show how incompetent a liar you are.

 No.868

>>828
> You're literally just being contrarian for the sake of it here. Not to mention very rude. I wasn't responding to you.

Cry harder, child. You said something blatantly wrong on a public thread, and got called out on it. You have no business calling others "rude" when you have yourself admitted to insulting others and literally laughing at someone saying they got gang-raped. I do not give a rat's ass whether you were replying to me or not here; you're still getting called the fuck out anything you say stupid shit.

>They aren't treated like second class citizens. There is literally anti discrimination laws in the US against it.


… which ones? Once again, you're visibly talking out of your ass here.

>Trans people have the right to:


Literally every right you listed was a right gay people have too, and had throughout the entire history of the US. Guess what: gay people were still discriminated against. Your entire argument is utterly moronic, not to mention wrong: trans people currently are barred from enlisting in the US army, as were gay people until recently. You really have zero grasp on facts.

 No.869

>>828
>By putting Trans in this category you devalue the civil rights and women's rights, ACTUAL movements that ACTUALLY solved legal issues against people of color and women by abolishing discriminatory LAWS about it.

Yes, because clearly you are the authority on civil rights here. Big yikes, dude.

>Ignoring the fact that that would be pretty awful, considering that women and men have different bathroom needs.


… which are not mutually exclusive? It is not rocket science to make cubicles and also put small trash cans in them. I guess we'll just have to add bathrooms to the list of things you apparently do not understand in the slightest.

> Not to mention some places, like schools, NEED to be segregated.


… what. The fuck. Were you homeschooled or something?

>Considering that that opens up the door for more predatory practices, not to mention it would require countless millions to remodel so many buildings.


… no it wouldn't? The state of California already declared bathrooms gender-neutral and, guess what, nothing negative came of it. Everyone adapted, sex crimes did not increase, and trans people finally got to pick a bathroom without having to worry about discrimination. Everybody won there. Again, your fears are in your own head, and utterly unsupported by reality.

 No.870

>>829
>All to appease something that's like sub 1% of the population with ACTUAL gender dysphoria

So nice of you to bring up that term! Gender dysphoria has been reclassified by the APA, and the disorder now specifically pertains to the distress associated with not identifying with one's assigned gender, rather than the difference in identification itself. Moreover, the treatment prescribed is to ENABLE the person's transition towards their preferred gender, including physical transition to the sex most commonly associated with it through hormones and surgery. Once again, you prove that you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about.

>and not the trendy jackasses who are literally only in it because they want to dismember societal norms and replace it with their own brand of chaos (Gee that sure does sound like post modern neo marxism!).


Sounds more like conspiracy nut bullshit to me, but sure, by all means, keep believing the world is out to get you. :)

>It seems like every time we're getting to a conclusion you completely dodge responding to the statement.


… which conclusion? What did I dodge? I clearly pointed out you do not seem to understand, let alone believe in statistics, a fact you have conspicuously failed to deny (which itself constitutes dodging the point).

>Then stop using it.


LOL. As if on cue, yet another "no u", right as you are got called out for using it. It's like Pavlov trained a dog to type out transphobic dreck on the internet.

 No.871

>>829
>They.
>Are.

… but they're not? As noted by your subsequent rant, you seem to be confusing disorders with categories of disorders. Gambling and gaming disorders are both separate disorders, as they have separate causes, but are both types of behavioral addictive disorders. You keep embarrassing yourself here by talking about subject matters way beyond your intellectual paygrade.

>If I had a penny for every time you spouted something ironic like this I'd be fuckin rolling in it.


Which is itself a statement dripping with irony. Yet again, you attempt a "no u" here, and as with literally every single attempt you have made before, you fail, and just end up looking like a bit of an idiot.

>No, I dismissed the WHO because China and Korea have been Lobbying for this


Oh, so now China and Korea are apparently lobbying to validate trans people too. Good to know!

>China outright REGULATES people playing video games for extended periods of time and South Korea regularly has issues with people playing WAY too much with multiple people outright dying in public gaming cafes due to lack of breaks.


… because both countries have serious fucking problems with addiction in games. They're not the only ones either, as noted by the controversy surrounding lootboxes that has generated new legislation in Europe (e.g. Belgium), and pushed more and more companies to drop those out of their games. Again, you really should inform yourself more on these things, instead of automatically accusing everything you disagree with of being some commie conspiracy.

 No.872

>>830
>By your logic Trump is right about everything he says because he's informed by experts on the market.

But Trump isn't an expert on anything? This is also not even mentioning how most of the "experts" he caters to are notoriously incompetent at their jobs, and had been kicked out of them prior to being hired as part of his administration. Your attempts at dismissing actual experts, and expertise in general, continue to be ineffective. Sad!

>I stopped reading there.


As you evidently have with any text lasting more than five words understandable to a third grader. WHO has a board of health experts, that is fact. You waving around the nebulous specter of politics, without even trying to explain which politics you are referring to that are relevant to the matter at hand, does nothing to disprove this.

 No.873

>>830
>because anyone who criticizes your frie-err allied organizations is clearly a conspiracy nut!

I mean, you are literally telling me in that very same sentence that I am somehow friends or allies with the WHO, so yes, you clearly are a conspiracy nut.

>Another pot meet kettle moment.


Or rather, another "no u" moment. You really need to try a new style.

> I've addressed your points more than you've done mine honestly.


Where? Literally which point have you ever successfully addressed?

>And constantly bitching about it like you are is bloating this reply chain up even more.


Says the guy who wrote 32 replies to me. You want to reduce bloat? Start with yourself.

> Either stop getting so conspiratorial about everything and trim some fat off your rage posts or actually put some meat on them.


I see we're back at Baby's First Psychological Projection. The reason why this isn't me simply saying "no u" is because a) I have never at any point claimed there was a conspiracy against me, and b) you have, as evidenced by your own posts. Like you said: trim some fat off your rage posts or actually put some meat on them. ;)

>That's pretty much what he said, yeah.


Ooh, a second-degree "no u"! It's evolving, boys.

 No.876

Just chiming in here to say fuck transphobes. Get the fuck out of the bara fandom.

 No.877

File: 1552288640496.jpg (75.01 KB, 1000x996, periodt.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb


 No.878

>>876

Rock on. Also, if you happen to be the SoupGoblin with the stash, thank you for introducing me to bara!

 No.886

>>878
Same! Soupgoblin stash was what open my world in to Bara!

Brings back good memories :D

 No.896

Anyone find it funny that a thread full of people openly posting their bigoted transphobic views is the most active thread on this board? No? Just me?

 No.898

>>876
Get out of a male (XY) dominated hobby then.

 No.899

>>898

You get out first, parasite. SoupGoblin has contributed positively to this community: what exactly have you done, besides talk mad bullshit about trans people?

 No.901

>>899
Not bending over for a group of the mentally ill. I'm not afraid of a man in a dress and I will not pander to them.

 No.903

>>901

If you're not afraid or bothered by these people, why spend so much time talking about them or harassing others for being cool with them, then? You are clearly disturbed, in more ways than one, and your behavior isn't exactly what "not caring" looks like.

 No.912

>>878
>>886
That's me! Thanks guys! (also fuck transphobes)

 No.917

a trans woman of color started the modern pride movement in america sit tf down and get the heck out with this "tacked on" bs

 No.927

Imagine having such a shitty life that you need to start an argument about gender on a website used for sharing media involving ripped guys getting fucked.

 No.941

>>927
harsh but true

 No.944

I think that trans has become a fad and its repulsive how right now I could slap a bow on my head and claim Im a female and people will blindly defend me.

Im cool with whatever you want to do or be, its your choice, but when trans individuals start to abuse the system so they can predate on woman(Jonathan Yaniv, the Maria Mclaham case etc shits neverending) and they cry transphobia it becomes a very big problem.

>Then there's the issues with bathroom sharing, specifically how it allows non trans individuals to claim trans status with impure intentions

This.
This particular type of scum and all the bullshit you hear from the media (Did you know Miley Cyrus is a self-proclaimed queer and non-binary you guys?? How woke of her right?) hurt the actual transexual people who just want to live their lifes.

And with that said, Im gonna beat my meat. Nice thread btw

 No.945

File: 1553798267657.png (496.85 KB, 898x960, 1552402819132.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>896
Isnt it funnier that anytime someone dares to be rightfully critical about scum in the trans movement people like you will cry TrAnsPhObiA and refuse to read whats said or refute the points made?

Also, anybody that unironically defends shit like pic related is retarded at best.

 No.968

>>945
And they say the Left Wing is the champion of science. I better put on a bow and collect trans dollars from gullible and scared idiots.

 No.982

pretty much the only thing that has been brought up in this thread that isn't abjectly transphobic is the genital reassignment issue, because while there *is* a strong mainstream narrative that a trans person must "get" the genitals that "match" their gender, it's simply a fact that not everyone actually feels the need to do that, and it's a form of nonbinary erasure to suggest that a trans person [i]must[/i] do it in order to be a "True Trans" (which I have seen many people, both trans and cis, suggest).

the REAL tea is that this is also why futa is not transphobic, and the people who suggest that it is are genital purists in disguise.

 No.992

>>903
When the curent trans movement says that kids have to take hormones and annihlate their gonads, spend billions in accomodating 1% of the population on their lunatic demands and promise that if you get SRS you'll be set for life while suicide rates amongst the trans population are still at 42% with no downwards trend, people are gonna start questioning if this route towards trans acceptance is the right one. I believe there is, but it sure as hell isn't the screeching I see everyday on Twitter about trivial shit.

 No.994

>>992

Yes, because clearly, telling young trans children that they're lunatics who just want to mutilate themselves and are already somehow a burden on society is exactly what'll drive acceptance up, and their suicide rates down. Twat.

 No.995

>>994
How does one decide that a child is trans? If a girl is rowdy and likes actiion figures, wear shorts and not skirts, is she a trans now? Is the term "tomboy" dead?
Children go through many phases in life. There was a time when i was a little kid where I liked dolls and guess what? I'm a dude (a gay one, but still). I'm VERY thankful this weird train of thought wasn't around when i was a kid otherwise I would have been screwed.

 No.998

>>995

Merely liking dolls. and identifying as a different gender than what one is assigned, are not one and the same. I'm not asking to put every girl on T and every boy on E the moment they play with other-gendered toys. If, however, a kid is explicitly, continually stating that they do not identify with their assigned gender (e.g. "I don't feel like a boy, I feel like a girl"), or otherwise shows signs of dysphoria with their assigned gender, they absolutely deserve to get taken seriously, and not dismissed under some pathetic "it's just a phase" excuse. It's ridiculous how little self-awareness there seems to be in the gay community that many of the arguments we ourselves are using here to invalidate trans identities were used not that long ago (and are sometimes still used today) to invalidate gay/bi identities.

 No.999

>>998
Because irreversibly mutilating a child who shouldn't have consent in this cuz they're fucking children is totally the same as just prefering the other gender. A kid's judgement is ironclad and has to be heeded even by the doctor.

Listen to yourself; you advocate for kids to mutilate themselves beyond repair.

 No.1000

>>999
You clearly know nothing on this subject. If a child believes they are trans, the only medical treatment they would/could receive is hormone blockers, which are NOT permanent. Stop spreading misinformation and hate and reconsider your life.

Or kys idgaf

 No.1005

>>999

As >>1000 has already said, hormone treatment is not "mutilation" nor even permanent, and the fact that you would describe such a procedure as "mutilation" suggests you have no grasp of the medical processes you are fearmongering about. Of course the child's desire to transition has to be heeded by a doctor, but as it turns out, more doctors now let trans kids go on hormone blockers, and the results have been uniformly positive, with those kids suffering from significantly less dysphoria.

In the end, it's clear that, for all your bullshit of "think about the children", you patently do not care for trans kids. You act like you speak on their behalf, despite being utterly ignorant of their experiences, and on top of that you think yourself fit to talk over them, as if your judgment about how they should live their lives was somehow better than theirs, their parents', and their doctors' combined. The only one with harmful intentions towards trans kids in this most recent exchange is clearly you, so you may as well drop the act.

 No.1009

>>1000
>>1005
>trans kids

Only monsters would dare to intervene with the process of puberty. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want; it's their business. But letting kids into it is sheer lunacy. It's like talking to a screeching wall with you two. This is why TERFs exists and why countries like Belize take so long to even legalize same sex acts. All your yelling at nonexistent problems like "trans kids" demerits real and pressing matters like true trans folk getting stoned to death and gay concentration camps. This is a joke.

 No.1011

>>1009
Ah, I see we've reached the "you have actual knowledge on this subject, backed up both by medical professionals and trans people's lived experiences, and that's why people like me will always disagree with you" phase of the argument.

 No.1012

>>1009

Except hormone treatment doesn't impede puberty? Literally nothing you have been saying so far makes any sense, and it takes a pretty serious amount of projection to accuse others of being a "screeching wall" when this is the kind of idiocy you spout on here. You're right: wilful ignorance, a total lack of understanding of science and medicine, and a whole lot of bigotry against trans people, including literal children, is precisely why TERFs exist, and why transphobia is still so prevalent. Whataboutism about other problems does not excuse you from creating more problems than this world needs: put another way, if there are indeed more pressing matters, why do you care so much about denying trans kids the right to transition of their own accord?

 No.1017

>>1012
For the same reason as to why we don't allow children to consent to sex. This is something HUGE, both biologically and mentally and the mind of a child might simply be misinterpreting something and the desire to change their gender might come from other things other than from gender dysphoria. Might be because of bullying of a false perception of something.
I'm not against people transitioning. The issue lies when you start to push shit to children just to gain more acceptance. This is why conservative hate us. Because some loud and stupid individuals start making ridiculous claims and behavior and they push it to be "Normal" and the conservatives rightfully bash us for it.
Remember the drag kid that was in the midia for a while? The parents took him to a gay bar where he essencially did a PG-13 stripping for a bunch of men and they wanted to be praised for being progressive.

How about this? want to transition? Cool. Wait until you're an adult, though. This is in order to prevent any form of misunderstanding about your body and mind.

 No.1018

>>1017

I'm sorry, a child transitioning into their gender identity is the same as them having sex with an adult? What the absolute fuck? You're completely insane.

Also, for all this talk about not wanting to push shit onto children, you are the one insisting we should force children to live with a gender they do not identify with, even if this gives them dysphoria and puts them at risk of suicide, instead of paying attention and letting them transition if they so wish (and only if they want to). Your argumentation here applies to your own ridiculous points, and yours only.

> This is why conservative hate us. Because some loud and stupid individuals start making ridiculous claims and behavior and they push it to be "Normal" and the conservatives rightfully bash us for it.


Or, more simply, you hate yourself, and have bought into the conservative rhetoric that LGBT people have somehow brought their systemic discrimination upon themselves. Literally no-one here has ever bought into the pretense that you're some sort of moderate trying to explain both sides here; you're a bigot, so might as well admit that you're one of those conservatives bashing innocent people, including actual children, out of self-righteous hate.

 No.1019


 No.1020

>>1019

And this is relevant to the thread… how?

 No.1021

>>1020
It's an embarrassing video of a liberal. A liberal like you! That means you're the subject of the video. Symbolically! Maybe. Who the fuck knows.

Are we meant to defend the merits of whatever's going on in this video which has nothing to do with trans issues? Is that what he thinks is going to happen now? Maybe this is how they derail all discussions they runs out of material on. "Well I have A TOTALLY RANDOM VIDEO." I'll have to borrow that one sometime.

 No.1022

>>1021
>>1020
It's a video of the "drag kid" >>1017 mentioned in
>Remember the drag kid that was in the midia for a while? The parents took him to a gay bar where he essencially did a PG-13 stripping for a bunch of men and they wanted to be praised for being progressive.

 No.1023

>>1022

Sure, but then again, how does this relate to a conversation on trans people? Doing drag and cross-dressing are wholly distinct from being transgender, so bringing up a kid doing a drag performance at a bar doesn't really say anything about trans kids, let alone trans people in general. It's like the person making the argument got confused between transvestism and being transgender, while also expecting someone else to come to a conclusion in their stead. Is the argument that allowing trans kids to exist would lead to pubescent crossdressers invading gay bars? Is it that there's somehow an indissociable link between allowing trans kids to transition and letting children enter adult spaces? Who knows, because the anon who made that post sure as hell didn't know how to tie it into their argument either.

 No.1024

>>1018
This is the reason why I'm more of a centrist than a left wing. You can never be progressive enough for some people. As I stated here:
>>1017
I'm not against people transitioning. Far from it. They need to do it, once they are adults. Kids are filled with imagination and might not be able to interpret what they are feeling correctly and might even express it in the wrong way, which make adults jump into conclusion the kid is trans.
A boy can be girlsih without being trans. A girl can be boyish without being trans. A gay kid might be bullied (by other kids in school, because, let's be frank, kids can be cruel as fuck) into thinking he/she should be of the opposite gender.
But, no. Continue to call me a bigot for raising legitimate questions. After all, unless you blindly accept everything people say in order to be progressive, you become a "Bigot". It's no wonder that this whole crap of pedo "map"/"no-map" is gaining some traction because they do tactics like this "accept this or you are a bigot" and people don't want to be called bigots, so they are slowly bowing down to it.

 No.1028

>>1024

But you're not a centrist, you're just delusional. Centrists don't go out of their way to bash trans people, nor do they try so hard to concern troll in a thread visibly started by a transphobe to bash trans people. Your arrogance and ignorance are such that you seem to be under the legitimate impression that your personal judgment is somehow better than that of a child, their parents, and their doctor combined, even if you have no idea who the child in question is or what they're going through. You're not "raising legitimate questions" here, you're outright accusing trans allies of pedophilia for whichever nonsensical reason, and then playing the victim when people tell you that you're making no goddamn sense. You're not someone who just innocently walked in on a conversation and tried to enlighten anyone here, you came here to outright say bigoted things and push a harmful and regressive agenda onto people you don't even know, much less care about. You are, therefore, a bigot.

 No.1031

>>1028
Is it me, or is 2B starting to sound more and more like chiri ?

 No.1032

~*~*~*enlightened centrism~*~*~* the thread

 No.1033

>>1032
Hijacked by regressive lefties

 No.1035

>>1031
>>1033

As opposed to what, a productive discussion on how all trans people are mentally ill and infringing our rights by asking for special privileges? Please, this thread was a crock of shit from the very beginning. Accusing those who pointed out your stupidity that they're chiri is the absolute lamest excuse, and does nothing to counter the fact that you lost this argument badly, as noted by not just me but several other people who pointed out how silly transphobia is. Perhaps once you stop making so many excuses for yourself, you'll realize that the only regressive person still on here is you.

 No.1036

>>1035
Case in point ^

 No.1037

>>1036

That the best you have left, bud? No more innocent questions about how people who acknowledge the existence of trans kids are pedophiles or whatever? I'm disappointed.

 No.1038

>>1037
I mean, when you start strawmanning every single legit argument put on your lap and then cover your ears to yell "EVERYONE IS A BIGOT KYS" don't expect anyone else to take your bullshit "research" seriously.

 No.1039

>>1038

Strawmanning which argument? Assuming you're >>1024 , you're the one who tried to insinuate that people who accepted the identity of trans kids were pedophiles. The fact that you consider easily verifiable facts on trans statistics, history, etc. to be "bullshit" itself demonstrates you are not only tremendously ignorant of the subject, but do not even have the mental equipment to debate the topic adequately, as you are incapable of accepting facts that do not fit your agenda. You have not made a single legitimate argument on this thread, which has not stopped your shitty arguments from receiving adequate responses. Moreover, other people on this thread have in fact corroborated my opinion, e.g. SoupGoblin, whereas you remain hopelessly alone here in your quest to smear trans people, despite the fact that the political climate on these gay porn boards tends to lean more to the right. Stay mad.

 No.1040

>>1037
>>1039
Good lord, look at the amount of projecting this deluded queen is doing. Just pathetic

 No.1041

>>1039
>strawmanning which argument?
>all your sources are shit and mine are objective right and not political at all!
>you're literally retarded so you can't grasp the concept of trans kids!
>this lanky ass man obsessed with spanking that argues with normal people using his friggin unicorn sona is a verifiable source!

Because a man in a Party City wig demanding for his girldick to be considered biologically female is the paragon of sensibility lmao

 No.1042

>>1040

Uh-huh, because anyone who points out the stuff you did wrong, with evidence to boot, is clearly "deluded" and "projecting". Pathetic does indeed describe your sad attempts at arguing to a T.

 No.1043

>>1042
Geez, aren't you obsessed? You're watching this thread like a hawk. No one's falling for your rage induced walls of text.

 No.1044

>>1041
>all your sources are shit and mine are objective right and not political at all!

Actual statistics with supporting sources do indeed tend to be objective, yes. Which sources have you linked to, pray tell?

>you're literally retarded so you can't grasp the concept of trans kids!


I mean, you really are if you think your own judgment on a kid you don't know is somehow better than a) the kid's, b) their parents', and c) their doctor's, all combined.

>this lanky ass man obsessed with spanking that argues with normal people using his friggin unicorn sona is a verifiable source!


I didn't claim SoupGoblin was a verifiable source on trans people, nor does he. He is, however, one of the few named users on here, and one of the several people on here who've dropped in just to point out your bigotry. You, by contrast, are hopelessly alone.

>Because a man in a Party City wig demanding for his girldick to be considered biologically female is the paragon of sensibility lmao


Or, alternatively, that person's arguments can be cogent regardless of your pathetic attempts at putting them down as a person. What even are you attempting here?

 No.1045

>>1043

Now this is an interesting case of projection, because I popped in after about an hour, and the literal minute I replied, you were immediately here to respond. It's all in the timestamps. You really are sad.

 No.1046

>>1044
>Actual statistics with supporting sources do indeed tend to be objective, yes.

Yeah, sources that fit YOUR agenda. All other links and info that have been shared to you here have fallen on deaf ears. I'm not doing your homework for you

>I mean, you really are


Uh huh. Because this totally happened at the same scale decades ago. You fail to see the big picture of "woke" parents thirsty for virtue signaling points pressuring their kids for a trans lifestyle and the doctors stay mum else they get called bigots by screeching fanatics like you.

>I didn't claim SoupGoblin was a verifiable source on trans people, nor does he. He is, however, one of the few named users on here.


You still namedropped him, and he's got a known crave of attention. Which you gave him in droves. And you seem to be the only one arguing with your wall texts of nonsense instead of listening to the other party without labeling them as monsters from the get go.

>Or, alternatively, that person's arguments can be cogent regardless of your pathetic attempts at putting them down as a person. What even are you attempting here?


Because they're not dysphoric. True trans folk have never been this abrasive and hostile towards differing opinions. They just want to lead a normal life like everyone else. The trenders though, think they can slap a bow on themselves and demand be allowed into women's sports or labeling their dicks as female without some eyebrows rising. That you want to take what trans folk have fought for so long for your selfish ends is fucking despicable.

>>1045
I was just here by chance. More than half of this thread has been your screeching. Says more about you.

 No.1047

>>1046
> Yeah, sources that fit YOUR agenda.

Have you considered the possibility that if the facts fit a certain agenda, then it may be the agenda that's correct, not the facts that are biased?

>All other links and info that have been shared to you here have fallen on deaf ears.


Which ones? How so?

>I'm not doing your homework for you


So… did you or did you not provide facts? Because you can't really argue that you provided facts that got somehow ignored, then immediately tell me that you don't need to provide facts when requested. So far, you have provided zero facts, which makes your point rather unconvincing when you are trying to argue something that goes against established science. I don't have to do your homework for you either, yet here we are, with you dismissing actual statistical data as somehow politically biased, and therefore invalid.

> Uh huh. Because this totally happened at the same scale decades ago.


You mean back when it was illegal to be gay in most Western countries still? Where being gay could have your family try to kill you? Because by your logic, that was apparently the right thing to do as well.

 No.1048

>1046
>You fail to see the big picture of "woke" parents thirsty for virtue signaling points pressuring their kids for a trans lifestyle and the doctors stay mum else they get called bigots by screeching fanatics like you.

Ah, I see, so now it's apparently all a big conspiracy by parents and doctors to force kids into taking hormones because… reasons. And your evidence for all this is… where? It's rather interesting that you'd try to call me a "screeching fanatic" and hope this somehow convinces anyone while you're also spouting all this bullshit.

>You still namedropped him, and he's got a known crave of attention. Which you gave him in droves.


… who cares? He's one of the few named users on here, so yeah, I'm going to namedrop a named user if I want to point to someone on my side of the argument (plus there's Taro and some other anons). What exactly are you even attempting to argue here?

>And you seem to be the only one arguing with your wall texts of nonsense instead of listening to the other party without labeling them as monsters from the get go.


Because clearly, those literal dozens of hysterical transphobic nonsense posts at the start of the thread apparently don't exist. Nor, apparently, does posts like >>982 immediately attacking trans allies from the get-go, or even your own wall of text that I am presently replying to. Who exactly are you trying to fool here? Your accusations here describe you far more accurately than they do me, so this really does come across as projection.

>Because they're not dysphoric. True trans folk have never been this abrasive and hostile towards differing opinions.


Ah, so now you're an expert and gatekeeper on what counts as TRUE trans people. You do realize you have no argument here, right?

 No.1049

>>1046
>The trenders though, think they can slap a bow on themselves and demand be allowed into women's sports or labeling their dicks as female without some eyebrows rising.

Ah, so now there's a conspiracy by people to pretend to be trans… because apparently that gives them privilege? What? Do you know even a single trans person?

> That you want to take what trans folk have fought for so long for your selfish ends is fucking despicable.


Despicable indeed describes perfectly your attempt to shield yourself behind trans people who have fought for trans rights (and gay rights too), just so that you can undermine them and try to destroy what they've fought for. You are not a friend to trans people, and I don't think most trans people would want to be friends with you if they knew what you posted on here.

>I was just here by chance. More than half of this thread has been your screeching. Says more about you.


Ah, so you just happen to be in the area to repeatedly reply to me the literal minute I post something on this thread. Right.

It's also ridiculous that you'd accuse me of clogging up this thread when you have already bloated it significantly with a whole bunch of replies that aren't even on-topic, but instead purely aim to attack certain people who disagreed with your retrograde views. Again, who are you trying to fool here? Who here do you think is ever going to believe your childish excuses? Your attempts at justifying yourself are utterly pathetic, and only make you look even more foolish.

 No.1050

Here for the ratio and to say fuck transphobes.

 No.1051

>>1039
People love to jump to conclusions.My point wasn't that all trans are pedophiles. The Desmond point was simply to point out how sexualizing a child to be progressive is a bad thing.
My point was that it can ruin a child's life when said child is simply misunderstanding their own condition. Maybe the child is straightbut likes stuff usually associated with the opposite gender. Maybe the child is homossexual. Asking to wait until yo'ure an adult to avoid making a decision you might regret later on is now a bigoted thing? LOL
It's almost like those people bashing nintendo saying that nintendo is "erasing trans", when the TOS clearly says "no political stages".
banning a stage is now "erasing trans". This si why I need to go the extra mile to not turn myself away completelly from the left. People fucking love to jump to conclusions and assume the worst.

 No.1052

>>1051
>The Desmond point was simply to point out how sexualizing a child to be progressive is a bad thing.

Okay, but literally no-one opposed or even questioned that, so why bring it up? The very fact that you brought such an irrelevant point to this discussion suggests you in fact were trying to create an association that had no logical grounding.

 No.1053

>>1052
>My point was that it can ruin a child's life when said child is simply misunderstanding their own condition. Maybe the child is straightbut likes stuff usually associated with the opposite gender. Maybe the child is homossexual. Asking to wait until yo'ure an adult to avoid making a decision you might regret later on is now a bigoted thing? LOL

See, here's the problem with your argument: I fully agree with you that children have a lot to figure out, which is why they shouldn't make life-changing decisions on a whim. However, when children do transition, it is generally the result of a process of months or even years where the child, the parents, and their doctor all thoroughly make sure that this is in fact what they want. The child is given all the time and opportunity to determine that they do not, in fact, identify with their assigned gender, and would be much happier if they transitioned, if only on a social/pronoun level. There is a difference between giving children the time and information they need to make an informed decision for themselves, and simply rejecting anything that child ever has to say, even when that child is severely unhappy as a result of it. This is why your position is ultimately harmful, because rejecting a child's decision to transition over their entire childhood is one of the reasons why so many trans children and teens currently commit suicide. The fact that you also seem to have complete disregard not only for the child's opinion, but also that of their parents and doctors, suggests a monumental amount of arrogance, plus intentions that may altogether not be so pure.

 No.1054

>>1052
>It's almost like those people bashing nintendo saying that nintendo is "erasing trans", when the TOS clearly says "no political stages".

Okay, but the very fact that being trans or even gay is still considered political is itself an issue, because simply existing should not be political. There was a famous case where a Nintendo game, Tomodachi Life, simply happened to let people have relationships with people of any gender, and the developers went back, and DELIBERATELY DISABLED all gay relationships. That is a political statement, yet that is the political statement Nintendo felt comfortable making. It is therefore understandable that people would be irritated at purveyors of modern media to in fact deliberately erase queerness from their games, even though it costs them more to do so.

>This si why I need to go the extra mile to not turn myself away completelly from the left. People fucking love to jump to conclusions and assume the worst.


I think you can stop trying to convince people on here that you're a leftie, as there is nothing about anything you've said that has been anything but critical of the left or of socially progressive politics. Nobody cares about your political orientation anyway, as it is purely the content of your opinions that have driven this argument.

 No.1055

>>1041

>this lanky ass man obsessed with

spanking that argues with normal people using his friggin unicorn sona

rofl, oh no, this guy has found time to do ~~research~~ on me xD

 No.1056

>>1054
The tomodachi life one was a glitch. It wasn't intended to be this way from the very start. So they they didn't "went back".
Also, rights, of any caliber, shape or form IS political. What about a stage saying "gun control now". same thing.
Nintendo is a company which aims to make profit. Nintendo wnats to sell for EVERYONE. Why do you think Mario is a bland character? The moment mario says something like "I love peanuts", Nintendo will be a afraid that it'll alienate their fans who have peanut alergy. This sounds like a joke, but Nintendo wants to be "safe" and throw every single political stance out of the window.

 No.1057

>>1056
>The tomodachi life one was a glitch. It wasn't intended to be this way from the very start. So they they didn't "went back".

But they did, as the "glitch" was nonetheless part of the product, and had no other effect than the enabling of gay relationships. The choice was Nintendo's to let this glitch stay, but they didn't. Nintendo in America in fact even apologized for this, so you are currently bending over backwards harder even than Nintendo to justify excluding gay relationships from games.

 No.1058

>>1056
>Also, rights, of any caliber, shape or form IS political. What about a stage saying "gun control now". same thing.

But if you stretch the definition of "rights" to include, say, the Second Amendment, which is an almost purely American political issue, then literally everything is political, and if Nintendo really did not want any politics in their games, they would not be making games at all, because the mere right for humans to live is itself political. Again, as mentioned above, even Nintendo is starting to express itself more progressively than you on this.

>Nintendo is a company which aims to make profit. Nintendo wnats to sell for EVERYONE. Why do you think Mario is a bland character? The moment mario says something like "I love peanuts", Nintendo will be a afraid that it'll alienate their fans who have peanut alergy. This sounds like a joke, but Nintendo wants to be "safe" and throw every single political stance out of the window.



… which is why they apologized in America when they got backlash for excluding gay relationships in their game. Because to the majority of the general public, it is no longer controversial to be gay or have same-sex relationships. This is part of a long process of acceptance that was preceded by years of controversy and invalidation of gay identities. Trans people are going through this same process, only they've got longer to go, because there are still people like you who believe that it their very existence is abnormal and controversial.

 No.1059

>>1058
In CHILDREN'S games, yes it's controversial. Besides, videogames making political statements is cringeworth at best. You're not going to convince homophobes to love gays because you added a gay relationship in a game.

Videogames are escapism fantasy. To get away form the world and its mess. I don't want game characters to say "Trump is bad." I want my game to be fun and let me ESCAPE from the shitshow our world is. If I wanted to see the world burn, I would just look outside of my window.
Having political statements in games convince NO ONE and simply alienate half of their fans.

 No.1060

>>1059
>In CHILDREN'S games, yes it's controversial. Besides, videogames making political statements is cringeworth at best. You're not going to convince homophobes to love gays because you added a gay relationship in a game.

Except Nintendo got backlash for it, and apologized, so even in children's games, gay relationships don't seem to be all that political anymore. Why should they be any more political than straight relationships anyway? Again, you keep hiding behind others to express your bigotry here, and yet even then you are more retrograde than the people you are shielding yourself with.

>Videogames are escapism fantasy. To get away form the world and its mess. I don't want game characters to say "Trump is bad." I want my game to be fun and let me ESCAPE from the shitshow our world is. If I wanted to see the world burn, I would just look outside of my window.

>Having political statements in games convince NO ONE and simply alienate half of their fans.

Wait, so why should escapist fantasy exclude gay or trans people? Sounds more like you want a safe space where queer people don't exist, rather than proper escapism.

 No.1061

>>1060
Again, I love how people jump to conclusions.
>ounds more like you want a safe space where queer people don't exist
If I want to play a gay dude like me, I would play the visual novels out there. I fucking love nekoshiji and morenatsu.
Adding a gay character is walking on thin ice in many medias.
For example, a good example of a homossexual (well, technically bi, but she never dated another guy past season 4) character I can give is Willow from Buffy the vampire slayer. She was my favorite character. Why? because she was cool, funny and interesting. The fact she was dating another woman made no difference in her character. she wasn't a "lesbian rights for everyone!!!!" kind of character. She was just a witch, who happened to like girls. And that's how it should be.
Now a bad example of homosexual characters is the gay guy form the Batman killing joke movie. Hell, I don't even remember his fucking name. All I know was that he was a gay character.
If the most memorable thing about a gay character is that he/she is homosexual, or even if it's on the top 3 of the list, then you're writting the character wrong and you just want brownie points for being "virtuous".

 No.1062

>>1061
>If I want to play a gay dude like me, I would play the visual novels out there.

So we can only go to a specific place to be able to see a certain kind of people getting represented, as opposed to having those people just get included in more general media without any additional effort, is what you're saying?

>For example, a good example of a homossexual (well, technically bi, but she never dated another guy past season 4) character I can give is Willow from Buffy the vampire slayer.


You mean the character who became the arch-villain of Season 6 after going on a lesbian rage bender, because her lesbian relationship was at the forefront of her character arc then? Sounds like your inoffensive queer character was a lot more in-your-face than you'd like to remember, particularly as her relationship was very controversial at the time.

At the end of the day, nobody here is asking for gay people to be shoehorned into media, because we all know it's bad when characters are written with "gay" as their sole defining trait. However, that is not in any way what was discussed, as the example of Tomodachi life was specifically one where being able to have a gay relationship was purely incidental. In the end, for all your pivoting and tangents far away from the topic of trans people, the reality of the situation is that you've been opposing the mere option of queer people and relationships in media, and believe it is somehow a political thing to do at a time when even mass media companies have moved the fuck on. Nobody's jumping to conclusions, you're just making a ton of shit up to deflect clear evidence of your bigotry.

 No.1063

>>1062
The thing about willow's relationship with tara was that it was written the same as any relationship, which was nice. It wasn't a "in your face!!!!" kind of thing. At leats, it felt this way for me. It was treated like a normal relationship. PLus, Buffy wasn't exactly a children's cartoon.
Also, why is it a problem she became the villain? It made sense given how she was addicted to magic and was screwing her life over.

 No.1064

>>1063
>At leats, it felt this way for me.

This is the operative sentence in your argument, because there were in fact numerous gay jokes, character perspectives, and even entire episodes dedicated to the fact that their relationship was gay. This, plus the fact that the relationship itself created its own discourse, because on-screen lesbian relationships in mainstream TV were unheard of at the time. Including that gay relationship was very political, and it is one of the things that influence popular culture enough to move towards normalization. Were we to have this conversation eighteen years ago, you would likely be opposing that bit of queer representation too.

>PLus, Buffy wasn't exactly a children's cartoon.


So was it a perfectly normal relationship like with any straight couple, or was it only fit for more adult audiences? Which one is it? Because you seem to be under the belief that gay relationships are somehow not okay to show to children, unlike straight relationships.

>Also, why is it a problem she became the villain? It made sense given how she was addicted to magic and was screwing her life over.


Except her turning villainous was directly due to her lesbian lover dying, in a long series of gay couples in media disproportionately suffering unhappy endings. It's a trope.

 No.1065

>>1063

At the end of the day, though, none of these really detract from your original problem, which seems to be that you consider queerness to be inherently adult in nature, and so distinctly from heterosexuality, which is likely why you made the association with pedophilia above: you seem to be under the genuine belief that it is somehow morally wrong, even inherently sexual to present trans identities or gay relationships to children, even though you apparently have no such qualms with cis or straight representation in those same media (and I can promise you that a lot of children's media features straight couples doing much more than holding hands). Your belief that you are protecting children from content they're too young to access is therefore inconsistent, and so due to lingering bigotry surrounding queerness.

 No.1066

>>1063

Willow's coming out was extremely important to every single one of my queer highschool friends at the time, and controversial enough that at least one set of local parents banned their child from watching after it happened. I did not grow up in a particularly conservative area. The fact that you see it as "no big deal" now, almost twenty years later, means progress has been made in a lot of areas of queer acceptance, but clearly we still have a long way to go. I hope you view trans issues in the same light you view Willow someday.

 No.1067

Gay = Homosexual
Homosexual = Same sex attracted, not gender.
Sex is not an identity. Sexual orientation is not an identity.
Drop the T.

 No.1068

File: 1555921579852.jpg (19.89 KB, 250x143, Buffy4x19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb

If i may: Willow's coming out is one of the most successfull/beautifull/realistic/honest depiction of love's acceptance as a natural evidence i've seen on TV yet. And her words to Tara were simply - simply ! - perfect.

 No.1069

>>1066
>>1068

Exactly! It feels so natural now, but at the time it was a huge risk, and a major groundbreaking moment in television history, even for a show like Buffy that was already pushing the envelope on social attitudes at the time. The only reason it's no longer controversial is because enough people had taken the risk to normalize that kind of moment, to the point where it's now become acceptable to show in kids' cartoons (e.g. Steven Universe), and otherwise pretty much just as normal as any straight relationship. In however many years, the same may happen with trans people and relationships with them, once more and more people include them in media and normalize them too.

>>1067

That's… not how sexuality works. Most gay men and straight women tend to find trans men attractive, but not trans women, and the same with straight men/gay women and trans women, but not trans men. Holding to some arbitrary and wrong definition of "homosexual" in spite of more general real-life evidence comes across as not only ignorant, but a tad sheltered.

 No.1070

If I order chicken and lift up the lid to find I got fish, I'm sending it back.

 No.1071

>>1070

If your one interest in meeting other people is to get fucked… consider investing in a dildo? Or get pegged, though it doesn't sound like the other guy would much enjoy your company if you literally only cared about their genitals.

 No.1072

>>1071
Well, casual sex is growing a lot and, for many people (straight, gay and bi), sex is also part of a relationship (I can disagree with it to some extent, because, while sex is nice, it should be a bonus, not the founding stone of the relationship).
besides, people have their preferences for sex genitals. Wasn't the whole basis of the gay movement that you can't force a homosexual to be straight? If a woman likes boobs and vagina you can't exactly force her to like sex with a transwoman with a penis

 No.1073

>>1072
>Well, casual sex is growing a lot and, for many people (straight, gay and bi), sex is also part of a relationship (I can disagree with it to some extent, because, while sex is nice, it should be a bonus, not the founding stone of the relationship).

So… why not have sex, then? If you're topping, the trans man will still have a butthole, and if you're bottoming, there are plenty of toys for that purpose. What exactly is stopping you from having sex with a trans man?

>besides, people have their preferences for sex genitals. Wasn't the whole basis of the gay movement that you can't force a homosexual to be straight? If a woman likes boobs and vagina you can't exactly force her to like sex with a transwoman with a penis


You certainly can't force anyone to have sex with anyone they wouldn't want, but again, attraction for the majority of people does not boil down to genitals, it's a whole combination of factors. If genitals were the defining factor, then gay men/straight women would be attracted to trans women, and straight men/gay women would be attracted to trans men. It's not about forcing anyone to have sex with anyone here, it's about accepting the simple fact that if you throw out a trans person mid-date/hookup on the pure basis that they're trans, then you're a shitty person.

 No.1074

>>1073
I can only speak for myself a gay man, but I like my men to be…manly (we're in a bara board, after all) and I'm a bottom mostly. A straight man may like ass vaginas only. A lesbian may like rubbing her vagina against another woman's.
It depends from person to person, really. each person has their preferences.
I can see your point, though. You want people to be more open minded when it came down to sex, but while I agree the prejudice needs to end, but you still can't complain if it's just a matter of preference and not of prejudice.

 No.1075

>>1074
>I can only speak for myself a gay man, but I like my men to be…manly (we're in a bara board, after all) and I'm a bottom mostly. A straight man may like ass vaginas only. A lesbian may like rubbing her vagina against another woman's.

But again, many trans men in fact present very masculine, and dildos/strapons are a thing. If your literal only interest in another human being is in their genitals, perhaps you may have some maturing to do before hooking up with other people.

>It depends from person to person, really. each person has their preferences.

>I can see your point, though. You want people to be more open minded when it came down to sex, but while I agree the prejudice needs to end, but you still can't complain if it's just a matter of preference and not of prejudice.

If your "preference" excludes an entire, diverse group of people (including post-op trans people), then your preference is indeed prejudiced. This is the same kind of bullshit excuse as people automatically rejecting guys who are of some particular ethnicity and calling it a "preference": in the end, you are perfectly allowed to only want to have sex with white, muscular, masc4masc cis dudes, and reject everyone else who doesn't fit those narrow criteria, but then don't kid yourself about your exclusionary "preferences" being rooted in various forms of internalized bigotry.

 No.1076

>>1075
You're aware that this train of thought gives birth to a can of worms that would allow people to say things like "why are you gay only? You shouldn't exclude women from your sexual partners!"

 No.1077

>>1076
>You're aware that this train of thought gives birth to a can of worms that would allow people to say things like "why are you gay only? You shouldn't exclude women from your sexual partners!"

… no? Sexual orientation based on gender is a thing that exists, not just for humans but for any sexually reproducing species. Sexual orientation based on arbitrary definitions of ethnicity, mannerisms, etc., on the other hand, isn't. Your prejudiced aversion to trans people has no justification or grounding, and the attempts at justifying yourself belie some rather unhealthy attitudes towards sex and interpersonal interactions.

 No.1078

>>1077
So simply saying "I'm not into that, sorry." is now the same as "Fuck you and your kind!"? I ws under the impression that, as long as you didn't stop people form living their lives and were respectful, it was enough, you know.
Also, if a transman is muscular and has a working dick, I think I would sleep with him if we click personality wise.
But, here's the thing: Effeminate men simply does not turn me on. No matter how much ou call me a bigot for it, my dick won't get hard if I see a female looking dude, trans or not.

 No.1079

File: 1556004507102.jpg (93.08 KB, 599x640, tumblr_pmkcsdfTuH1v5d925_6….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb

>>1069
That's literally how sexual orientation definitions work coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny. HomoSEXUAL, same-sex attraction. HeteroSEXual, different sex attraction. BiSEXual, attracted to both sexes, all of them based on sex. This is the real evidence, because these words are descriptive, not how someone identifies.

When homosexuals and bisexuals are persecuted in law, they are when they have sex with people of their SAME SEX, this is how the real world works. This isn't the made up shit you learn in your gender studies coined by that pedophile of John Money.

It doesn't matter if X find someone attractive, that's not the same as being sexuality attracted. A human female will always be a woman, a vagina will always be a vagina, a human male will always be a man, a penis will always be male. Secondary sex characteristics are a preference on dating, not what defines sexual orientation or sex. If you think these definitions are arbitrary and wrong you're the problem, not reality.

 No.1080


>>1078
>So simply saying "I'm not into that, sorry." is now the same as "Fuck you and your kind!"? I ws under the impression that, as long as you didn't stop people form living their lives and were respectful, it was enough, you know.

"Sorry, I'm not into X entire group of people" is in fact just that. It is prejudice in the most literal sense of the term, as you are pre-emptively excluding people you don't even know based on some criteria that has nothing to do with how you'd interact with them as a person.

>Also, if a transman is muscular and has a working dick, I think I would sleep with him if we click personality wise.


Okay, but that is the entire point of what I'm telling you: attraction is about more than just genitals, and healthy people tend to be attracted to others because they click on a number of different factors. There are trans men out there who indeed tick your boxes, so it makes no sense to reject all trans men out of hand.

>But, here's the thing: Effeminate men simply does not turn me on. No matter how much ou call me a bigot for it, my dick won't get hard if I see a female looking dude, trans or not.


And that's an entirely separate issue entirely, but again, fem dudes and trans dudes are not the same. Pre-emptively rejecting trans dudes simply because you're afraid that they'd be fem, or that they wouldn't be able to fuck you, makes strictly no sense.

 No.1081

>>1079
>That's literally how sexual orientation definitions work coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny. HomoSEXUAL, same-sex attraction. HeteroSEXual, different sex attraction. BiSEXual, attracted to both sexes, all of them based on sex. This is the real evidence, because these words are descriptive, not how someone identifies.

Except the works of Karl-Maria Kertbeny date from the 19th century, before trans identities became more widely known. Our understanding of sexuality has advanced a little since the 19th century, and it is scientific fact that "same-sex attraction" is in fact more accurately-framed as same-gender attraction. Again, the fact that gay men aren't typically attracted to trans women, or gay women to trans men, is proof of this. Trying to argue off of some silly literalist definition as if this were a Bible studies class just makes you come across as wilfully ignorant, and your mention of "the real evidence" ring all the more hollow.

>When homosexuals and bisexuals are persecuted in law, they are when they have sex with people of their SAME SEX, this is how the real world works. This isn't the made up shit you learn in your gender studies coined by that pedophile of John Money.


I'm sorry, so men who have sex with trans men aren't persecuted now? Trans people are somehow exempt from persecution because of their genitals? What? Again, it is hilarious that you'd yell so hysterically about how "this is how the real world works" when you demonstrably have no grasp upon reality.

>It doesn't matter if X find someone attractive, that's not the same as being sexuality attracted.


Uh…

 No.1082

>>1079
>A human female will always be a woman, a vagina will always be a vagina, a human male will always be a man, a penis will always be male.

So then why do we have feminine penises?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbBzhqJK3bg

> Secondary sex characteristics are a preference on dating, not what defines sexual orientation or sex. If you think these definitions are arbitrary and wrong you're the problem, not reality.


So first off, genitals themselves are *primary*, not *secondary* sexual characteristics, and second, secondary sexual characteristics are themselves affected during transition, such that trans people who transition often end up presenting like any other person of the gender they identify with. As noted by these very imageboards, these secondary sexual characteristics also very much have an impact on sexual attraction, so at this stage you are simply making no sense. Not only that, but you seem to be under the impression that romantic attraction revolves entirely around a person's physical attributes, which is… well, a bit sad.

 No.1083

>>1079

so when a STRAIGHT man is experiencing sexual attraction to a trans WOMAN on the basis of her WOMANHOOD, he is having a HOMOSEXUAL response?

mmmmmmmmm looks like someone has been skipping their mandatory ContraPoints lessons~~~~

 No.1089

But why would I settle for a transman with a fake plastic dick strapped on and chock full of chemicals to prevent them from reverting back to what they were born as?

I can just get a real man.

 No.1090

>>1089
You should look up how they make dicks for transmen if you haven't already. Shit's fucked. Why not just keep the pussy?

 No.1091

>>1080
Writing a book, hippie?

 No.1092

>>1089
>I can just get a real man.

Sure, Jan. Which is why you have to insist upon the fact to randos on the internet who do not give a shit, all while seemingly taking pride in degrading people who would likely not sleep with you even if you tried.

>>1091
>Writing a book, hippie?

I am, actually! It's called "how to present yourself as aged both 12 and 75 by using the word 'hippie' as a serious insult". It's a pretty short book, actually, as you appear to be the only person on this planet willing to embarrass themselves enough to feature in it.

 No.1093

>>1092
Time to take your blood pressure medication.

 No.1094

>>1092
Sounds like someone's PISSED they can't get a real man.

 No.1095

>>1093
>>1094
>Sounds like someone's PISSED they can't get a real man.

Indeed! I guess that's why you keep whining about how trans men are ugly, gross women, and you wouldn't date them even if they did say yes next time. I'd direct you to r/incels, but as it turns out, the internet doesn't seem to like bigots anymore, not even the ones who can't get laid.

 No.1096

>>1095
Ooh spicy

 No.1097

>>1095
People who go on tirades about stuff that doesn't matter on the internet (like you) give me the impression that they're super unhappy with life. I hope you can find peace one day, friend.

 No.1098

>>1097

Sure, which is why you too spend who knows how much time constantly replying to this thread. Are you intentionally trying to self-burn?

 No.1099

File: 1556123220218.jpg (43.87 KB, 309x459, cock-21.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb

The T stands for 'Tacked On' just like how the phalloplasties are tacked on.

 No.1100

>>1098
That was my first post. ("Sure it was") I'm going to call a spade a spade. Best of luck, even if you're being nasty to me for no reason.

 No.1101

>>1098
>>1045
>>1049
>Calls others out with "taking up the entire thread"
>Is literally here every waking hour writing walls of text, taking up 4/5 of the thread

Pottery

 No.1102

>>1100

Even if that were true, that would still mean you'd hop onto this thread for the sole purpose of being nasty towards some rando. In effect, you are the one who chose to be nasty towards me first, so playing the victim here isn't exactly a good look for you.

>>1101

But I'm not the one who called out anyone else on that first, though, I merely pointed out that it's kind of silly to try to attack someone for posting on a thread when you're also doing the same thing. If you have a cogent argument to make, by all means go ahead, but as it stands it doesn't seem like you have anything worthwhile to say.

 No.1103

File: 1556138495219.png (1.61 KB, 345x54, 2B.PNG) ImgOps Google iqdb

lol @ 2B

 No.1104

>>1102
> I can shitpost as much as I want and spam a thread cuz you posted once!

This is brainlet tier arguing

 No.1105

>>1103
>>1104

Except a) I in fact can post as much as I like in distinct replies, particularly on this abortion of a thread, and b) you are literally trying to convince… someone that you somehow have the moral high ground here in contributing to discussion, when the only thing you're doing here is picking pointless fights. You are thus indeed correct in labeling your silly strawman "brainlet tier".

 No.1106

>>1105
Dude, you try way too hard. Go back to reddit. They miss you.

>>1099
Yikes. It gets way worse than that too. They create them using grafts from the thigh or the forearm, so the skin acts exactly the same. It can even have broken remnants of tattoos. Most dudes would probably prefer the vagina, but the dysphoria probably makes it harder to accept the better option of the two.

There's pictures online of the body rejecting it too. It's really messed up.

 No.1107

2B why do you bother replying to this idiot;

 No.1108

2B you're too smart for these trolls. You should make a youtube channel.

 No.1109

>>1106

Sure thing, right after you go back to /pol/.

>>1107

Honestly? It's kinda fun, even if it's not the most intellectually engaging activity out there. This thread has accrued so many posts that it's sinking anyway, so bitch fighting won't give it any more visibility, and ultimately the point's been made on it that transphobia is kind of shit. In this respect, when butthurt channers come here to throw out some of the most weaksauce insults I've seen on here, it's kind of an opportunity to gloat. Nobody seems able to make any kind of cogent argument against trans people, nobody at this stage seems even willing to try, and given the caliber of this thread it's probably better that conversation has moved away from trans people anyway.

>>1108

D'aw, thanks <3

 No.1110

>>1109
>even if it's not the most intellectually engaging activity out there

So you spent 2 whole months screeching at people you wouldn't change their opinions of just for fun? Wow, that Trans activism.

 No.1111

>>1110
>So you spent 2 whole months screeching at people you wouldn't change their opinions of just for fun? Wow, that Trans activism.

… yes? It's not my fault if you are so hateful and wilfully ignorant that you refuse to change your opinions on trans people in the face of facts. Might as well have a bit of fun. Moreover, even with you boiling this thread down to a shouting match, I have proven that I can shout louder and for longer than any transphobe who tried it on here: you have lost by every conceivable metric, rational or otherwise, and just seeing assholes cry salty tears on here out of impotent frustration is reward enough in itself. From what I've been told, it also makes some people happy to see someone clapping back at the bigots on this side, so everybody wins… or, at least, everybody who matters.

 No.1112

>>1111
Yessss!!!! Why aren't you a mod yet?

 No.1113

>>1112
Oh god no. We don't need another disaster like chiri

 No.1114

>>1112
>>1113

Honestly, I considered it, but as someone who mods on some wikis, it's a lot of responsibility, and I'd say I'm overall more of a lurker than a major contributor on here. Beyond that, unless I'm wrong, it's not against the rules to be a jerk, not even one as openly bigoted as some of the transphobic users on here, so even as a mod, the way to go would still be to just continue mocking them until they cry.

 No.1115

>>1113
>>1114
With how toxic the bara community is (visited the discord a while ago and… no, just no), it'd be good to have more level-headed people around. But that's just me.

 No.1116

>>1115
ergo 2B should not be a mod

 No.1117

>>1115

I can agree that the Discord could probably use an extra mod, because everyone's on different schedules and it sometimes takes a little while for an admin to come and see who's made a mess. Thankfully, though, the toxic users seem to be getting kicked out for good now: if the issue continues, I'll probably volunteer on there, but before then I'll probably stay and see how things go.

>>1116
> ergo 2B should not be a mod

Is that fear I smell? Like I said, it would clearly not be in my jurisdiction to ban people for being shitlords, so I'm perfectly happy to just keep triggering you. :)

 No.1118

>>1117
>Is that fear I smell? Like I said, it would clearly not be in my jurisdiction to ban people for being shitlords, so I'm perfectly happy to just keep triggering you. :)

I'm just worried that you'll ban anyone who slightly disagree with you, and kill the entire board. Like chiri did

 No.1119

>>1118

If you remember, I was one of the people who was opposing chiri, because I respect the right for people to be wrong on these boards. On his end, chiri was banning people for the crime of criticizing his insane actions, including people who threatened to report him to Rexxar (and I was in fact the one to message him about chiri). To be honest, there's probably an argument to be made for deleting threads that deliberately intend to spread hate or start pointless shitstorms, such as this one, but even then, clearly the outcome wasn't what the OP wanted, and all for the better.

 No.1120

>>1111
By all means, if you want to keep sperging at transphobe windmills, go right ahead. All this thread's proven is that you're the easiest "ally" to bait in the bara fandom, SoupGoblin craves asspats literal or figurative, and you didn't change anyone's opinions on Trans rights. If anything, you pushed people further away from your ideals. How many apologists came to your aid before the thread croaked? 2? You were the only freakolli mashing away at the keyboard for two months straight scaring anyone who might've been at the fence of Trans rights away with your deranged ramblings

>Those weren't worth converting!


And your ilk will wonder why shit like Trump 2020 will keep happening. If it's gonna trigger you folk some more, I welcome the "fire and brinstone"

 No.1121

>>1117
Wait, people are getting kicked? What for?
Is Rexxar suddenly active again?

 No.1123

>>1120

It's cute how you keep on whining. No, the transphobes here weren't worth converting, because you were demonstrably incapable of listening to reason, and went here with the express intent of saying transphobic bullshit. It tickles me how you seem to think you're entitled to kindness and empathy, even as you behave like an utter fucking troglodyte, then cry salty baby tears when you didn't get the sweet, understanding reply you wanted. At the end of the day, the shitty people got unhappy, and those who cared even a little about trans people were ostensibly happy to see resistance to the usual reactionary bullshit, as noted by the posts here. Even as you continue to cry here, you will only embarrass yourself further, and make your opponents laugh even harder.

>And your ilk will wonder why shit like Trump 2020 will keep happening. If it's gonna trigger you folk some more, I welcome the "fire and brinstone"


Just say you're a privileged bigot and go. It's not anyone else's responsibility if you're a dipshit who votes for a race-baiting wannabe dictator.

>>1121

People were being assholes and picking on individuals and newcomers on the Discord, while also posting some psychopath shit, so they got kicked pretty quickly, yeah.

 No.1124

>>1123
What a deluded faggot

 No.1125

So is this thread over now. Did 2B win.

 No.1126


 No.1127

>>1124
>>1126

D'awwww. You really do care!

>>1125

Technically people are still posting, but the convo's long moved away from bashing trans people and we've reached the point where new posts no longer bump the thread, so I'm happy. :)

 No.1128

>>1127
tfw the board is so dead that it's still on the first page

 No.1131

I did some thinking, and I realize that I may have been incorrect. I am sorry for being so rude to everyone.

 No.1132

>>1131

Uh, no. Fuck off, you fraud.

 No.1133

>>1131
Idk if it's actually 2B or not but thanks for the apology anyway.

 No.1134

>>1131
>>1133

An IP check should be able to resolve this quickly, don't you think? Because it sounds like an anon got so butthurt they felt like they needed to impersonate me to fake an apology…

 No.1135

>>1134
I'll just take your word for it. Kudos to you man for standing up to the hate.

 No.1136

File: 1556477105665.jpg (110.59 KB, 960x1280, 92de3ugmvbx11.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb

>>1132
Easiest troon to bait lmao

 No.1137

>>1136

Except I ain't the one who lost so hard I had to pretend to be someone else to feel better. Try harder.

 No.1138

>>1136
*gets caught doing something really obvious and easily disproven*

"LOL!! You got BAITED!!!"

 No.1139

while this thread shouldn't have existed in the first place, I'm glad it's over and that 2B pretty much wiped the floor (inb4 this reignites the argument)

 No.1140

>>1138
you sound very calm and not mad

 No.1141

>>1139

Thank you <3

>>1140

? He was just imitating another anon though?

 No.1142

…Ladycock

 No.1144

File: 1556737484951.png (23.59 KB, 546x114, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>1117
It looks like they missed one of those "toxic" users.

 No.1145

File: 1556737778483.png (27.8 KB, 511x128, 20190501_150837.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

It all makes sense now.

 No.1146

>>1144
>>1145

I'm guessing you're either ichigatsu or thatguy. Glad to know you're still mad from getting booted off the Discord! Do you really think pulling out-of-context lines from the chat feed there will give you a more convincing argument about… whichever point it is you are trying to make?

 No.1147

>>1146
>casually uses racial and homophobic slurs
>"It's out of context!"

Dude, I don't care what your story is. It's toxic and the fact you're making excuses about it is sad. If you're gonna act like that too, then you can get off your high horse.

 No.1148

>>1147

Sure it is. Again, who are you trying to fool here? Anyone here who hasn't been banned for being a piece of shit can go to the Discord, and see the chat feed for themselves. For someone trying to knock me off my "high horse", you seem to be trying awfully hard to pretend like you have the moral high ground, when in the end you're just a sad edgelord who can't even successfully be transphobic on a chan imageboard anymore.

 No.1149

>>1148
Nice, now you're gaslighting. And you still haven't owned up to anything.

 No.1150

>>1149

… do you even know what gaslighting means?

 No.1151

>>1150
Here we go, more derailing. Let's spend the next half hour on this instead of you owning up to what you said.

 No.1154

>>1151

I'm sorry, you're the one trying to use this shitty thread on trans people for an attempted character assassination, and I'm the one derailing? What are you even asking me to "own up" to? Why are you asking me here? If all you wanted me was to "own up" to whichever wrong you are trying to say I committed, why not just do so on Discord, or a separate thread?

 No.1155

>>1154
>Blah blah blah

So that's a no. Have fun being an ally, while saying problematic shit when everyone's backs are turned.

 No.1156

>>1155

… sure? Again, you're talking pure nonsense here, and I'm not quite sure who the target audience is at this point. Anyone who looks at this thread can see some dude being transphobic, said dude getting shut down, then one or more anons deploying efforts over prolonged periods of time to mildly annoy me in some form or another. You do realize how pathetic you're coming across, right?

 No.1157

>>1146
i get that you're absolutely seething and really conflicted after i called out your casual racism and homophobia over discord yesterday, but i'm not behind every post and person you're mad at, sweetie.
this is my first post in this thread. an ip check should be able to resolve this quickly, don't you think?

 No.1158

>>1157

Oh hi! So I was indeed correct (and notice how I indeed pointed to the only two people who started the shitstorm on Discord). I get that you're really intent on trying to spin this nonsense into "casual racism and homophobia", despite the fact that literally anyone can go to the Discord to see what happened for themselves (though perhaps not thatguy, he seems banned for good), but at the end of the day, everyone who participated knows you have been the one to spew bigoted shit around, defend other bigots, and got kicked out for being an asshat. It is hilarious in this respect that you'd try to call me "absolutely seething and conflicted" when it is clearly you who are still holding a grudge from getting demolished, and when it's you and similarly shitty people who got booted from the Discord who keep trying it with me on here, e.g. by impersonating me, framing me for… whatever it is you're trying to spin here, and so on. Literally who are you trying to lie to here?

 No.1159

>>1158
>t. mad racist

 No.1160

>>1159

I love how literally seconds after losing yet another argument on Discord, you go here to cry and call me names, ichigatsu. Do you really think you're making yourself look better? Do you really think you're making me look bad here? Because right now, it just looks like you're having a tantrum, like the couple other kiddos on here that this thread seems to have attracted.

 No.1161

>>1144
I didn't expect that. What a plot twist!
What's the context?

 No.1162

>>1161
I wanna know to. I can't be fucked to join the discord and mine it up.

 No.1163

>>1161

The whole exchange should still be on the Discord, but the context is as follows:

* People were recounting their sexual experiences, namely with being called slurs or being asked to call another guy slurs, specifically the two slurs mentioned in the screengrab.
* Someone else mentioned having their platonic friend call them "master", to which another poster called them a virgin.
* This prompted me to post the above meme format using the stuff mentioned immediately above, the joke being that the "virgin" side is typically meant to be pejorative and the "chad" side meliorative, in contrast to the meliorative "master" and pejorative slurs. It was definitely a little risqué, and likely not all that funny, but made perfect sense in context.

Basically, it was a bad joke that made sense in context, but that a couple leftovers from the bigot purge last week decided to jump on because they were still butthurt about losing their friends, and wanted to lash out at one of the people who spoke out against them, as has happened so often already on this thread. Would that make sense?

 No.1164

>>1163
Wait. So you actually did say that? The fuck?

 No.1165

>>1164

I'm sorry, who are you again? I did indeed say that, with appropriate censoring, context, and acknowledgment that the terms used were in fact slurs, and thus loaded with prejudice and violence. These were terms others had mentioned first as part of their own experiences, hence why they were brought back

 No.1166

meme format

 No.1167

>>1165
I'm surprised you'd even repeat it though. I'm not like mad or anything, I just didn't expect it from you.

 No.1168

>>1163
Anyone can look and see the context of the conversation and that you had no right to use the slurs you did. Someone recounting their sexual experiences with systemically oppressed peoples that have internalized-racism ingrained in them does NOT give you the right to throw the n word or f word around like you did.

 No.1169

>>1167

I mean, I would definitely say I'm more on the SJW side, as you can probably tell by this thread, and I could agree that in this particular case juggling around slurs, even with proper context and acknowledgment, is really risky territory that's probably not worth poking at, but then I also do believe that it is in fact possible to be socially progressive and still enjoy shock humor, so long as the punchline doesn't reinforce some bigoted worldview. In this particular case, the implicit joke was merely that, in the context of the conversation above the line, the people getting jokingly put down for being virgins were the ones being called "master", in contrast to those with sexual experiences involving the usage some pretty harsh slurs. Definitely not the most sanitary territory (and I have to say the shock was part of the joke), but in the end, I was clearly not reaffirming those slurs, or intending to perpetuate the violence carried within them.

TL;DR: context matters.

>>1168

Oh hey, thatguy! I see you're still trying it.

 No.1170

>>1169
You're so convinced of who I am but you couldn't be further from the truth. I checked my (You)'s and I've only made three posts in this entire thread, and most of them were from days ago.

 No.1171

>>1170

… Okay, but then which posts? That's the double-edged sword of anonymity on an imageboard: you get plausible deniability when someone calls you out for having made X previous post, but then in a thread full of anonymous responses, you're expecting others to rely on blind faith when you're trying to convince them that you're specifically someone else. You can't have it both ways, chief.

 No.1172

>>1169

lmfao this cunt spouting "context matters" you started posting in the discord 2 days ago and you were calling for bans like you knew who was being funny and who wasnt get fucked

 No.1173

>>1171
this dude's convinced everyone he talks to on here is ichigatsu or thatguy lmao

 No.1174

>>1172
dude I'm getting flashbacks to chiri now

 No.1175

>>1174
fucking oath

 No.1176

>>1172
>>1174

I mean, I've been on the Discord for a fair while longer, and was not the only one to point out who was being a shit on there. From the rather pointed tone of your replies I'm guessing you were among the people who thought you could pass off your shitty attitude under the pretense of being funny, and failed. In which case, good riddance!

>>1173

I mean, considering it was specifically you two who jumped on that occasion, used the exact same turns of phrase, and so on, it would indeed be plausible that you two would be among the most likely people to try to pick a fight with me on here. There's always the possibility that it could be some other disgruntled asshat that got banned previously, as was likely the case with some replies further above this thread, but honestly I don't really care that much, you all have the same shitty opinions and personality.

 No.1177

>>1176
dude why would I join the discord if you're just gonna post a ton of bullshit there too. this thread is cancer so the discord gotta be too.

 No.1178

>>1174
>>1172
That's getting really old. The stuff with chiri was 100% different and 2B already talked about it.

You might think he's a "cunt" but with how he's handling all these trolls for the past week, he's showing a lot more class than all of you.

I wish he was a mod so he could get rid of even more of you. lol stay mad!

 No.1179

>>1171
Not that you'll even believe me since your conviction that everyone who has a different opinion from you is the same person is so deeply rooted, here's the three posts prior to my last:
>>1103
>>1168
>>1099

 No.1180

>>1178
dude class doesnt exist fuck the patriarchy take hormones to tubularize your titties

 No.1181

>>1180
… I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

 No.1182

>>1177

Assuming you're telling the truth, then, that would simply mean you have in fact no desire to check the actual facts, and are instead desperate to find any reason to make me look bad after I took on the transphobes on this thread, because that's apparently the side you chose to take. It is, in this respect, rather strange that your angle for attacking me would be trying to call me a bigot, when it is your own bigotry motivating you here.

>>1178

Ty <3

Though tbh it's fun to watch the worms writhe specifically on here. Active as this particular thread might be, it's slowly sinking, and thankfully trans people seem to be completely out of the picture now, so no-one seems to be getting hurt, aside from the odd reactionary.

>>1179

But I did express cautious skepticism, which I'd say is justified given that someone has literally tried to impersonate me on this thread. As it stands, the posts you have made do indeed point you out to be one of the transphobes on here, which makes your intentions in this most recent discussion rather transparent: you clearly don't care about ending bigotry or whatever, because you seem perfectly happy with perpetuating it. You're just looking for an excuse to undermine the character of someone whose arguments invalidated your shitty opinions on a group of people you chose to hate for whichever reason.

 No.1183

>>1182
It's cute how you'll so quickly interpret my posts as transphobic, my only post even regarding trans peoples is about phalloplasties. And yes, phalloplasties are awful, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise. So much more research needs to be done into genital construction / reconstruction surgery for both those who've lost their genitals or are undergoing sexual reassignment surgery because they're such a life changing set of surgeries, especially in the fields of stem cell research.

You shouldn't be so quick to assume peoples intentions, and frankly speaking your behavior and the assumptions you make (including the things you say) are disgusting.

 No.1184

>>1182

No worries <3

I just get really sick of everyone trying to tear down people with actual good arguments in this thread literally because they're mad their bigotry is being called out and they're showing their asses now.

It is kind of funny but I still get annoyed by it. Every day it's like there's literally 20 new posts with people just being blatant shit heads. They just wanna make a new "SJW lulzcow" and they don't even care about who they're hurting in the process.

 No.1185

>>1183

Hold on there, sweetheart, let's get a little reality check before you go on this little tirade of yours: your reply in >>1099 not only mentions phalloplasties, but explicitly agrees with the title of this thread. Not only that, but the phalloplasty picture is itself visibly chosen to look awful and degrading, and even your own post here, in its attempt to sound morally righteous, itself frames phalloplasties as inherently "awful". I'm not assuming your intentions here, son, you're laying them out for everyone to see, which makes your self-righteous mini-rant here fall all the more flat on its face. Better luck next time!

>>1184

I feel what we're dealing with on here are mostly the relics of chan culture still left on here. Barachan throughout its many iterations has always been more on the conservative side relative to other gay spaces, but whereas the kind of transphobic attitude seen in this thread's OP was once perfectly normal, times have changed, and some people don't seem to want to adjust. Ultimately, I don't think that many people are getting hurt from this thread, thankfully, as I don't think there are that many trans men reading through /dis/, but I do have to agree that it's kind of embarrassing that there are still open transphobes and whatnot on these boards. Thankfully, there's at least some mild entertainment in seeing these people keep trying to say anything of value after having lost every argument on every discussion space relating to this topic.

 No.1186

>>1185
If you'd like to find good looking phalloplasties I implore you to post it here in this thread, go ahead. If you can find one that looks like a real dick I'll eat my words. But as it stands GRS just isn't up to par with what it should be, and more research needs to be done on the fronts of stem cell research so functional genitalia can be grown and transplanted.

On terms of aesthetics and functionality FTM post-op transgender peoples have it much worse than MTF post-op with depth.

 No.1187

>>1186

There are some perfectly fine examples that can easily Googled, but you know what? That's not my problem, nor is it yours. It is none of your business if trans men choose to get a phalloplasty, let alone what their penises look like, and your personal appreciation of their phalloplasty does not give you the right to invalidate or demean them. You are simply looking for the absolute lamest excuses here to shit on trans people.

 No.1188

>>1187
The burden of proof is on you, provide to us pictures of good looking and functional phalloplasties.

 No.1189

>>1185

I've avoided so many of these boards for such a long time because they only seem to thrive on berating others with disgusting slurs or posting horrible, degrading content.

If it's true that the "chan culture" is dying, then I am more than glad to see it finally go. Personally I think their big orange mascot is showing people how truly despicable they really are. The real world is changing and it's time to bring that change to spaces like this.

Like could you imagine the visceral reaction a trans person might have if they saw this garbage thread? It's absolutely revolting to think about. These trolls have literally no conscious.

Thank you again for fighting the good fight. I would probably give up or crumble if I were in your shoes.

 No.1190

>>1177
I joined out of curiosity and everyone there keeps kissing each others asses

 No.1191

>>1188

The burden of proof is on me to provide… what exactly? As said in my response to you, it does not matter whether or not you personally approve of phalloplasties, because whether trans men get those or not is none of your business. Moreover, I pointed you to the right resource that can be easily verified, so the "burden of proof", by whichever standard, has been satisfied. The fact that you have to slip in completely subjective terms like "good looking" is a transparent attempt on your part to insert a defense mechanism, so that whichever picture I ever were to provide you could easily dismiss for not being "good looking" enough for you. Your entire line of argumentation here is hollow, and makes no sense.

>>1189

If you're still interested, I definitely recommend giving it a try! A whole bunch of channer trolls got purged last week, so while there are one or two kinda iffy people on there still, they're likely on their way out soon too, and in the meantime the most present posters right now tend to be really cool people.

And thank you! For all the people mentioning chiri here, those people seem to have forgotten that I had been the one to fight him as well in one of the previous versions of the board, namely in this thread that turned into an insanely long row on BDSM. This thread is peanuts compared to that. I do agree with you that this thread had no reason to exist in the first place, though, but if it's causing shitty people to get banned off of the discussion spaces or no longer feel like this is a safe space to be openly bigoted, there'll at least be some positive outcome to it.

 No.1192

>>1190

Depending on the people you're referring to, that may no longer be the case: there was up until recently a pretty strong clique of edgelords who kept backing each other up and getting into stupid schemes together, but most of them are gone now, even if some of them have decided to vent their frustration in more or less the same way on this thread for now, like my dear friend ichigatsu. The remaining people I've seen like each other, but we also poke fun at each other relentlessly, so that should ideally give less of a creepy care bear vibe if you're on here now.

 No.1193

>>1191
is your name 2B because you're 2 Beta to function

 No.1194

>>1193

How did you guess?

 No.1195

more like 2Banal kind of cunt to that has to laugh at his own jokes

 No.1196

It's different when I post nigger

 No.1197

>>1195

… but I didn't make that joke? Are you sure you're okay?

 No.1198


 No.1199

>>1191
Thank you for fighting these trolls on the behalf of us PoC and trans people. You're a hero!

 No.1200

>>1198

… but I didn't make post >>1196 , nor did I ever try to claim my own jokes were funny? It feels like you had this narrative in your head before you actually had any proof to back yourself up, and now it kind of looks like you're somewhat beside reality.

 No.1201

>>1191

I don't know… If these trolls really are coming from the discord then I don't think I would feel very safe being there. Should I wait until everyone calms down? These kinds of "people" tend to stalk anyone that upsets them.

That's a very good point. Airing their ignorance will only show everyone how awful they are. I still worry about the people that might be negatively impacted by these kinds of discussions, but at least we can show them that there's more people that don't stand for that. I just wish they would understand that people literally hurt themselves over this kind of content. It's horrible.

>>1196

If you're gonna throw the N word around, you can leave. Like I get that he said it and I do think he should apologize because it's the right thing to do, but you're no better if you're gonna keep saying it.

 No.1203

>>1144
>>1198
>>1200
u have memory problems

 No.1204

>>1203
More like, he's living in his own little world of denial and projecting.

 No.1205

>>1201

To be clear, the trolls got banned from the Discord, so if you were to go there, you wouldn't find them unless they made another account just to sign back in (which can easily be banned again). For sure, these people are obsessed, though I haven't seen any one of them stalk anyone else recently.

>>1203

But as explained above, the context, format and presentation are wholly different, and even then, I made no attempt to claim that my joke was funny, let alone "laugh at (my) own jokes". Are you sure I'm the one with "memory problems" here? Because you seem to be contradicting yourself with your own links.

>>1204

Yes, which is why I got banned from the Discord and decided to vent my impotent rage at the guy challenging people on their transphobia… oh, wait, that's you. So nice to bring up projection completely out of the blue, as you illustrate the term so perfectly.

 No.1206


 No.1207

>>1206

You ok there bud? It looks like you short-circuited.

 No.1208

>>1205

Okay… I'm still kind of skeptical but I might join soon. I'll make sure to give a "hi" if I see you there.

>>1206

Can you go away or something? Do you think you're doing anything besides annoying us? Like…

 No.1209

>>1189
>p-pweeze like me 2B ur my hero
lmfao

 No.1210

>>1205
>Contextualizing, Formatting, and Presenting Nigger so that it is Indeed Hilarious

 No.1211

>>1209
>>1210

I mean, you're the one saying it here, not me. It's like you're trying to use me as an excuse for your own deranged behavior.

 No.1212

>>1209

… Is that supposed to mean something? At least he has people that like him.

Just look at all the support he's gotten. Get a life "sweetie".

 No.1213

>>1211
i think it's hilarious you think saying nigger isnt just always outright funny LOL. have some balls and admit you were being funny

 No.1214

>>1213

… it seems you've lost the plot. Throwing out slurs isn't funny, at best it's the same kind of immature humor as a kid repeating the first bad word they've learned, just because of the reaction it causes to the people around them. My joke linked back to stuff said immediately before in the Discord, and the punchline wasn't the perpetuation or erasure of violence against oppressed groups, and even then, it clearly backfired, simply because many people, including actual sensible people, didn't feel comfortable at all with the presentation, even with the censoring, context and all. Again, I'm not your excuse to be racist.

 No.1215

File: 1556799276592.jpg (57.29 KB, 600x651, Raff_ruse.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google iqdb


 No.1216

I think i can speak for everyone here when I say that all we want in regards to trans people is for them to feel unsafe always

 No.1217

>>1205
>Yes, which is why I got banned from the Discord and decided to vent my impotent rage at the guy challenging people on their transphobia… oh, wait, that's you. So nice to bring up projection completely out of the blue, as you illustrate the term so perfectly.

Lol. I've never posted on the Barachan discord. But sure, keep believing i'm the same guy, you're only fooling yourself anyway

Like i said >>1204

 No.1218

>>1216

I think you may only speak for yourself here, Heather. What happened to you being a bullybuster?

 No.1219

>>1217

I see, so you just decided to develop this inordinate obsession for me, because…?

 No.1221


 No.1222

>>1221

Darling, you have yourself linked to your own posts on here, and you've committed to this far more than for innocent fun. Who are you trying to fool?

 No.1224


Locking this thread because it has devolved into a pointless shitposting brawl.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 2D / 3D / fur / mon / alt ] [ bc / ptr / rs ] [ dis / md ] [ Discord ] [ Telegram ]