Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Completely unaffiliated to NASA, these people are sky divers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
In response -
- This is going to be somewhat unorthodox and I'm sure some might find this very strange but I don't really mind that, I'm just warning you before I say anything lol.
That’s fine, normal is boring, I would prefer a perspective that’s strange and true to one that’s normal and flawed.
- Unfortunately your profile says you are an atheist so I can't really ask if you are into spiritual stuff. But TBH if you were open to it, it could help you understand much of the controversy surrounding the topic.
Interesting, both the concept that me being an atheist is unfortunate and that if I were open to it I would understand things. To clarify - being an atheist does not inherently mean that you don’t believe in spirits, it means you don’t believe in god(s). Full stop.
I understand the concept perfectly well, people are misinformed and don’t understand transgender people. People react to things they don’t understand very differently, some are afraid, some lash out at it, some deny it in some hopes of it going away as long as they don’t acknowledge it, whatever.
- . And not that this is particularly relevant but it also could help shed light on why individuals have homosexual tendencies.
Not really, but I’ll try not to dismiss it. “Homosexual tendencies” I find that phrase a bit more insulting than any claim you make of spirits. It might just be me, but it just gives me a feeling of the whole, “It’s just a phase!” thing ya know? I could answer why people are homosexual. Because some people like the same gender that they are romantically and/or sexually. Boom done, no souls required.
- Due to the nature of this phenomenon the physicality of it are too overly emphasized which is why there seems to be no clear cut answers. Because in reality the immediate physicality is somewhat irrelevant so it doesn't really get to the core of what people experience.
Definitely an interesting take; however, there is no other realm but the physical. Your mind is simply a connection of high-speed transmission of nerves and the like. I don’t see another realm to particulate someone’s experience in. I think there is a clear-cut answer. If someone’s gender identity is that of a female and their sex expressed phenotype is male, that person is a female.
- I'll say/ask this first, did you know the actual soul of an individual is non-gender? and only when a soul enters a physical body it takes on a male or female role?
Pursuing that spirits exist, I would assume so. It also depends on what type of soul you are talking about. This seems like an obvious extrapolation from most beliefs of reincarnation and the like. I would also argue that there are clearly individuals who do not have a clear gender or even sex, what happened to the soul there? I am genuinely curious about your opinion regarding the matter.
- Did you know the soul can have several experiences within creation once the soul leaves its Creator? I know in this culture the idea of reincarnation and past lives is shunned but follow me here. Not getting caught up in any particular fundamentalist ideas of religion, you should give this some thought.
Like I said, an interesting take, not one I buy, but I’ll grant for the sake of discussion. This is practically where I went in my last response. To elaborate on my own response. Gender is not binary, regardless of how one attains it, it is clearly a complex scale of spectrums that determine gender. How does the reincarnated soul interact with this?
- Believe this or not, but a soul can gravitate towards either or, a combination of, or a specific role or "gender" type despite the physical body it was given. Most of the time a souls perceptions are subjugated or influenced by the upbringing role it took on at birth but not always
Hmm, again, interesting, Not really debatable, many people who are brought up as their assumed gender happen to be that gender, sometimes it so happens that it's not true. As for gravitating towards one or the other, could I ask why? Why does the soul do this specifically? You have some kind of principals behind whatever souls you are using, so I’m curious about a lot.
- You might assume that a created soul was created male or female but that's actually not true because it is not possible, because the soul has no gender, male or female parts that is only relevant to physical embodiments when the soul enters creation to any given location. This is also true of the Creator as well, believe it or not God has no male or female parts and because of that no particular gender....those are only created things as God saw it useful for whatever means. Mainly for reproduction.
I wouldn’t assume that no. Gender is societally constructed, therefore any base layer or model would not have one. I agree. I agree, if there were a god, they would recognize the need to reproduce, and therefore create us with organs in order to accomplish that My question, if the creator is not bound by normal rules, why not make us capable of sexual pleasure and able to reproduce asexually? It would be less hassle in the long run.
- But as you left the Creator as a soul you too had no physical parts, and as the soul becomes intertwined within the physical body it inhabits it begins to identify primarily to that gender psychologically but not truly inwardly. Meaning the reality that the soul is genderless never dissipates, the soul just begins to think and act according to its perceptions of that body (most of the time)
So in other words, the foundation of the human is never truly changed, parts and other things are simply added as they gain physical being? A truly fascinating take, however, I would pose a different interpretation. I would say that if reincarnation is how the soul moves after their original body is gone, that they would collect kind of like an echo of all of their past lives, and slowly build up towards some maximum or unstable state, similar to atoms or molecules.
- As a matter of spiritual fact you could have had several other experiences before this one as either male or female "roles", and even though you are inhabiting a certain physical body you may not feel connected to that role or relate to that role, but more towards another or even a mixture of both as in not really accepting either or.
So in other words, perhaps my theory wasn’t as far off as according to you? That past lives might be the reason that trans individuals exist? That might explain it, but again, perhaps a different perspective? I would think that the relation between a soul and their gender is in psychological terms, so would the soul that is more separate from its host be one that is more fluid regarding the identities of its physical body? If that makes any sense, it was more of a note.
- This is true for homosexuals as well, a "man" may possess a male physique but feel attracted to males instead of women or maybe both. A person could have lived a previous life as a male or female role, then was killed in an accident and sent back into another body of a different gender and begin to feel as if it relates more to that previous role for whatever reason, or more attracted to a certain gender despite its own gender. Or as I said, may not fully embrace either or.
This kind of goes back to what I was saying before, with the echoes and all. Even with souls, I do feel the simpler answer is that the body has different preferences according to a host of genetic, psychological, and other factors. Of course, I may also just go back to what I was talking about in my last response, More separate and therefore the identities that one has is not as rigidly instructed by the body.
- This is surprisingly simplistic, since the soul itself is non-gender it doesn't have to conform to any particular role, but at the same time can gravitate to whatever role it is attracted to. Attributes of the soul is what usually pushes a soul to accept what it becomes.
So a soul does build up some kind of attributes, as it goes through bodies, it is no longer the blank canvas it started out as? I’m curious, could a serial killer be reincarnated as a good person? Or vice versa? Or would the attributes, the taint, so to speak, prevent something like that from happening?
- This is true of the Creator as well, God has attributes but not gender, no physical parts that make God either-or. Generally, it is accepted or asserted that God is male, but that's primarily because God is depicted as a provider, leader role or of strong disposition. So most revere God as a "He", ironically God has all aspects/expressions of Itself not just only a male or female expression. Again those are only roles and qualities that are derived from created forms in terms of reducing oneself to one or the other.
In all honesty, I would not care for any god regardless if there were any souls. This god does not seem to care about any of us, and I will do them a favor and revere them as much as they revere me. To say- not at all. It is a tad bit patriarchal that a god was depicted as such. I think we both agree that typically god is seen as a parent or parental, and isn’t it true that women are seen as more parently? Even if that isn’t the case? If it’s often portrayed, why isn’t god seen as female then? It would only make sense for a god to not have any sex, a gender perhaps if it were conscious, but not sex.
- You may ask then what is God if not a male or a female? well God is not a who, rather God is simply consciousness or conscious awareness. Consciousness (soul) of itself has no gender or male/female roles. God is basically a conscious Being with no embodiment, no location within creation rather all of creation is within God.
Hmm, not much to note on this, I guess if the god we are defining is by definition having no embodiment then they wouldn’t have a gender? Eh, I suppose so, basic thought was that that god would still be aware and even interact with the same concepts that inform human identity, so I would assume it would be possible for any god to develop one.
- God can incarnate, as to take on a particular role/embodiment but the Creator Itself is pure awareness, you can say intelligence without a physical body. Of course, a physical body would exempt God from being what God is and how God is defined.
I suppose it really depends on how you define god in that case. Could a god simply not control its mas of powers and consciousness in a physical body? Seems like an arbitrary limit to me. Why is this the case? Could you elaborate?
- Anyways before I write anything else I'll see if you are interested in any of that. I know atheists generally scoff at spiritual concepts and Theistic propositions lol, so I hope this is not confusing or offensive to you.
Not necessarily scoff, I at least, consider it with less weight due to the inherent assumption it forces the wearer to presume, but it at least seems like a new perspective, so I’d be interested in having the conversation.
Please note: No I do not believe a soul exists, this is simply granting a proposition for the sake of discussion. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just one real objection, when I mean proven, I don't just mean peer-reviewed papers. Even a valid and sound syllogism would work, and while fascinating your points are all claimed. They do not actually prove anything regarding the matter.
However, for most of my response, I presumed the existence of a soul for the sake of conversation. I will not throw your views away because they are unjustified, I will simply consider them with less weight than I would otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I apologize, they weren't aimed at you specifically, but in general. People are drastically misinformed. And yes, I understand the process of learning, however, I am not open to things that are not justified or at all demonstrated. Every tested claim had a basis or hypothesis that proceeded it.
What's yours?
Regardless I assure you I am working on a detailed response, if you would just be patient with me I will have it posted here soon. I apologize for the delay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Perhaps you don't understand. The claims you make are an important part of the discussion. Whenever people fundamentally misunderstand an issue, I'd like at least some kind of justification behind a claim. I don't dismiss what you are saying as bunk out of hasty work, but out of an unproven and unjustified axiom. Why should I care what a spirit has to do with it if I don't believe in spirits?
I mean no disrespect towards you or your beliefs, but before one can extrapolate these beliefs justifiably, one must have some reason that is justified validly that they believe in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately for you, that is all it is. An opinion. I see no reason to believe that a soul exists, and you have provided no evidence for such. As a pansexual male (Someone who is cis-male for their gender identity and attracted to people regardless of gender), all I can tell you is that people are sexually and romantically attracted to different things. This is for psychologists, neurosurgeons, and biologists to study, not theologians.
The entire axiom of your argument has not been justified, the soul thing, and therefore the rest of it is bunk anyway. I will, out of respect for the time you presumably took out of your day to address me specifically on this topic, give you my opinions on each of your claims and conclusions regarding all topics involved. Before I do I must ask, would you like them privately addressed in PM, or discussed here in the forum?
I disagree with you heavily, but I hope you have a nice evening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You would be very correct, most people tend to use old science or interrupt science incorrectly in order to make some kind claim about it, making basic fallacies that they wouldn't make without the bias of being transphobic.
Yes gender is definitionally not a binary, and sex is very likely a spectrum as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
A man is a completely different sex to women.
Except no. The difference between a male and a female is xx chromosome pairing to xy chromosome pairing, this is not comparable to the different amount of chromosomes different species would have. Also, let's talk about the development of the brain. Their brains do not develop like human's do, as pnas.org notes:
"Marsupial and placental brain size partial correlations differ in that marsupials lack a partial correlation of BMR with brain size. "
Not to mention, there is no evidence, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary, that Kangaroos are capable of the intelligence humans are. From everything we know, it would not at all be comparable.
This is another false equivalence.
So the only thing stopping me from being a kangaroo is technology?
This is more of a red herring, but I'll answer it anyway. First of all, probably, but second of all, why would people want to regress into Kangaroos? People wouldn't want to do that? They would lose functionality in using tools, intelligence, and a complete sense of self. This is not a good argument.
You cannot use the minority to justify the majority. This is like saying "you shouldn't teach children that people have arms because some people are amputees". In fact, using your logic, there is NO way to define a male, female or even a human being as there are no constant characteristics that every single human being has. So I ask, how do you define a human being?
Incorrect, I was not using them to prove anything about the majority, I was proving, as a principle, that men and women are not the only biological sexes a human is capable of being. As intersex individuals prove that there is a spectrum from man to woman, as in, an in-between. You made a blanket claim, there is are men and women for sexes no others (not exactly that, just in general), intersex individuals disproves that claim.
we can use surgery to change the body from male to female, and as Kbub530 pointed out above, men who show all of the physical features of a male can have xx chromosomes, does that make him a woman?
You don't cite anything from my argument, so I'll respond in general. According to your argument, yes, according to me not inherently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
First of all, all I was saying, and I even clarified that this was not your claim but if it were it would be an appeal to ignorance. You completely ignore my caveats like they aren't there.
Then it is you who does not understand me, because I claim that sex is determined by the result of the union of a makle and female gametes, and that gametes have only those designations but by mutation. That is not a function of society, or behavior choice, both of which you define as gender. I understand your distinction, but then you confuse societal choice with what is sex.
The first problem here, is that you're incorrect about how people determine female and male-ness, as Kbub530 used in her example: A person who has XX chromosomes but exhibits all of the phenotypes of male? Would they be a woman according to you, or a man? The difference is nearly arbitrary, not to mention you seem to be confused, gender and sex are separate.
Sex is how one is biologically determined, so to speak, Gender is what I've explained, multiple times, and you continue to say: "Yes, but sex" essentially, and that does. not. correlate. You are making a non-sequitur, your conclusion does not follow from the information you've provided.
Wrong, again. Sex is not a mater of arbitrary choice. It is two gametes, male and female, or one or both as mutations. Either way, it is pure, genetic combination, not arbitrary choice. It does not help that you confuse sex and gender.
See Kbub530's post, marked 35, for the best explanation.
till wrong, again, for the same reason as immediately above. Nothing is assumed by sex, but it is of gender. Your own source, [1] in your post #40 says as much: "...many who identify as transgender do not feel they are exclusively masculine or feminine. [An emotional choice, not bases on sex [cis], but on behavioral preferernce].
This is just blatant fallacies at this point - my source points out what the person feels this is not assumed by nature of what a feeling is. I would say it is typical for them to want their body to match what gender they are as to avoid stress, discrimination, etc, and that feeling isn't the choice, its to go through with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Of course, I'm all up to honest discourse and changing my mind when proper and valid evidence is proposed. Take all the time you need, it wasn't thorough so much as I've heard the argument you've used over and over and over again. So I'm pretty familiar with the rhetoric in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Again, this falls in line with your usual fallacy making, this is a false equivalence.
I've pointed it out a lot, but you seem to ignore them, do you know what false equivalences are?
"An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.
A kangaroo is a completely different species, and as of now, it is impossible to perform that surgery. Whereas intersex people exist, proving that male and female are NOT the only standards sex is applied too, we can use surgery to change the body from male to female, and as Kbub530 pointed out above, men who show all of the physical features of a male can have xx chromosomes, does that make him a woman?
Again, I credit the last argument to Kbub530, and ask you to look at her post in the second page here, it explains exactly what I'm talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Except your entire reply is a huge non-sequitur - claiming that gender was not a word typically used does not at all mean that gender isn't an apt word to use. Have you at all demonstrated that there isn't a massive arbitrary assignment of roles based on gender? Not to mention do you not at all know what Gender Dysphoria is? It's existence as a serious and psychological condition literally proves you wrong. Your not wrong sex is based on chromosomes, no one cares about claims for 700 genders, I would argue saying any definitive number is a fallacy, considering the dimensions upon how you measure gender.
Also, you used one source that says this the entire psychological community disagrees with that one bud, and not to mention a huge part of gender is the identity of the person. As we can not yet talk or communicate complex thoughts between us and other species, it would be nearly impossible if not impossible to get the same headway into the actual gender of an animal that isn't human. This is from the AMA Journal of ethics:
"First though, it is necessary to point out that the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. Sex refers to the biological differences between males and females. Gender refers to the continuum of complex psychosocial self-perceptions, attitudes, and expectations people have about members of both sexes. Even the terms male and female, man and woman are not interchangeable. What it means to be male or female originates from physical characteristics derived from sex chromosomes and genes that lead to certain gonads, internal and external genitalia, and physiological hormones. Being a man or a woman holds broader meaning, with cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity coming into play. This issue of Virtual Mentor will not focus so much on why sex and gender should not be used interchangeably, but instead on how sex and gender together and to varying degrees influence today's practice of medicine [1]."
Last note, no, I do no think you radical or extremist (in fact I think you actually constitute a large percentage of the American people's), misinformed and incorrect perhaps, but not extremist or radical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The differentiation is the rationale. What you constitute as sex, is actually known as gender. Are you asking why the distinction exists? Because there is a distinction. If you simply don't understand how someone could feel this way, not saying you are, that is an appeal to ignorance.
The distinction itself, the first post by me, explained the rationale. Literally. It also linked to several websites and resources for people to educate themselves, I will explain it again and link the sources once more.
Society has distinct views on how people of each sex should behave, for example; a traditional expectation of a woman is to have her be a take care of the children and let the stereotypical "man of the house" do the labour, this would be a gender role or a role assigned to a gender arbitrarily. This is one aspect of why gender is different from sex, which is debatable as arbitrary in its own right, the second would be the actual identity of the person involved. Do they feel their body is actually descriptive of how they feel with regards to gender? With transgender, they do not conform to the arbitrary sex that was assigned based on assumed genitalia at birth. The last big one would probably be your body itself. Does the person fit within this body? Etc.. Essentially this describes the last feature but in more terms more to the people. Gender Dysphoria is commonly the reasons for the unfamiliarity as much as my previously explained position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kbub530
That was fascinating! Definitely, I'll have to look more into, but essentially:
The lines between what sex is expressed by which characteristics are blurry, contradictory, and sometimes even arbitrary? That the standard we do use is one that is constructed by society, and not fundamental to sex itself?
That's my understanding, again, a very interesting subject and an aspiring psychology major, hopefully, something I can research more in-depth later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Ah, that was confrontational, I updated the comment afterwards.
I wasn't trying to be arrogant or anything, I made a joke and I realized people here would take it seriously. Are you interested in debating anyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
No comment wars necessary, just explain your position, and I'll explain why it's wrong
JK, I'll engage it though. I'm trying not to be confrontational here, just explaining a lot of misconceptions. I kind of doubt people actually read the beginning text, as it actually refutes the two people's arguments already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
I'll debate you. Yes a trans male is a male, thank you for the concession
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kbub530
Of course! Anything I can do to help the community as an activist is something I'll do, I consider this place a community, and thus- here I am.
Ooh, sex as a social construct? That sounds intriguing, any introductory sources you would recommend me to check out on the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Everything you've said is.... frankly... ridiculous. You see - when there is an actual place that is suited for a conversation, that place should be used instead of another place. Sure it possible and even easy to teach a math class in a computer lab, but the lab is best used for a class using computers such as graphic arts, computer science, etc.. I don't care about getting offended, and anything you would say to me would be something I've heard from genuinely malicious people. Not to say I'm a big tough bad boy, I'm very much not, I'm just used to being insulted
My point - is that we already disagree with the topic at hand, and you haven't addressed my points from earlier. So why not just- address them? Something? It's like you get bored of talking about a subject randomly and move on to something else that is completely off-topic. I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just asking you not to. Is that so bad? Politely asking you to stop talking about a thing in a forum for something completely separate and when there is already a topic made specifically about the off topic thing that you brought up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I will not report or anything like that, but I would please ask you to keep the forum on subject. I think there are entire other topics on Joe Biden, and you can discuss him there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When I say "BoP" i don't mean anything referring to a debate, I mean this as something you have to do in general whenever you make a claim. Whenever you make a positive assertion, you have the "burden" so to speak to provide evidence of said assertion. Not doing so means one can dismiss your claim as unsupported. Again, I don't care what the mods say here, as they can be incorrect
Whatever the case, there has been no refutation to my earlier argument, or that sex and gender referred to different things, gender not even being a binary, and sex not what we were discussing. There's a reason the term, "Transexual" is regarded as not usable, and that's because it was not accurate to what was happening. Transgender is. Do you see the distinction? I don't use opinions to justify arguments. I use arguments and facts to justify my opinions.
Created:
"I bet the essential education only students would blow the doors off the sports and arts students"
Hitchen's razor can be applied here, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed similarly without it.
I already agreed, the current education system is terrible, I would bet we think so for different reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
MisterChris, Fauxlaw, TheUnderdog, etc, etc
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
We are talking about gender here, and not about changing that gender, but changing your body to match that predisposed gender. The problem is, people will always assume the gender of a person matches their sex as expressed as their genitalia. You are confused about the difference between sex and gender, which I explained above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Exactly! Thank you, that's such a good analogy, would you mind if I use a couple of them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
My point - was that the idea of being transgender is the gender of the person changing, not the sex, they are two separate terms. My point was that an argument using expressions of sex is not correlative with gender. Besides that - you have made a claim, one claiming the impossibility of something as well, thus sources are required to fulfill your BoP. The mods can be wrong. They are only people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Gender and Sex are two separate things. Get your facts correct. You are basing your evidence on expressions of sex, which still isn't as clear cut as you make it considering intersex individuals. Not to mention, no sources mentioned, here is how you can come to more than male or female sexes. Which is a different thing than gender anyway.
And it matters how you define gender, because it is psychologically defined as a societal construct.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's see what we have; just give your opinion, let's start with some facts, hm?
Transgender - "An adjective that isan umbrella term used to describethe full range of people whosegender identity and/or genderrole do not conform to what istypically associated with their sexassigned at birth. While the term“transgender” is commonlyaccepted, not all TGNC peopleself‐identify as transgender."
Gender - "refers to the attitudes,feelings, and behaviors that a givenculture associates with a person’sbiological sex. Behavior that iscompatible with cultural expectationsis referred to as gender-normative;behaviors that are viewed asincompatible with these expectationsconstitute gender non-conformity."
Sex - "refers to a person’s biologicalstatus and is typically categorized asmale, female, or intersex (i.e., atypicalcombinations of features that usuallydistinguish male from female). Thereare a number of indicators ofbiological sex, including sexchromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia"
This should clear up a common misconception, no, sex and gender do not refer to the same thing. As such any arguments using or referring to the definition of sex as a stand-in for gender is inherently a strawman and fallacious.
Here's a little introductory information for those new to the concept, explained in better words than I could write:
"People who defy gender norms have existed in every culture throughout time. However, the term “transgender” is relatively new, dating to the mid-1990s. Often, transgender people are not well understood by the general population. It is useful to think of the word “transgender” as an umbrella term that encompasses a number of people who live substantial portions of their lives expressing an innate sense of gender other than their sex assigned at birth. This includes transsexuals, cross-dressers and people who feel like their biological sex fails to reflect their true gender. People who do not identify as transgender can be called “cisgender,” meaning that they identify with the sex assigned at birth.Some transgender people report feeling that they were born in the wrong body. For this reason, some transgender people choose to have surgery to take the physical form of their desired sex. This person is sometimes called a post-operative transsexual. Someone can also be pre-operative, or can choose never to have surgery (in this case, she or he might be known as “non-op”). Hormones are used to promote secondary sex characteristics, such as breast tissue or facial hair. Often, the word “transitioning” is used to describe the period of moving away from one’s assigned sex. Physical transitioning may describe surgical, hormonal, or other changes to one’s body. Socially transitioning may describe legally changing one’s name, asking friends to use a chosen pronoun, and other acts of disclosure.If specifying that someone is trans is necessary (although it usually isn’t), the following terminology should be used: someone who formerly identified as a woman and who now identifies as a man is known as a FTM (female-to-male) transsexual, a trans man, or a transgender man. Likewise, someone who formerly identified as a man and who now identifies as a woman may be labeled a MTF (male-to-female) transsexual, a trans woman, or a transgender woman. It is extremely important to remember that MTF people are women, just as FTM people are men.Addressing transgender people the way they prefer to be addressed (including chosen name and preferred pronouns) demonstrates respect. Some transgender individuals may choose to use gender-neutral pronouns, such as “ze/hir/hirs,” as in the sentence “That book is hirs. Ze brought hir favorite book.” Other pronouns are in use; the best way to find out someone’s preferred pronoun is to simply ask.
Transgender people may identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay, heterosexual, or some other sexual orientation. Having experienced discrimination, prejudice, oppression, fear and shame, they share commonalties with LGB people. Like LGB people, transgender individuals should not have to hide who they are in order to have safe and satisfying lives."
For those of you who want a first-hand explanation of being transgender:
Keith Reynolds, 18, student, SurreyA lot of people have it in their head that we wake up and decide to be trans. I want people to know that it’s not a choice. Nothing has happened in my life to make me trans. I was born trans. I told my mum when I was about 13. She was shocked and didn’t really understand. Then six months later she told my dad and he was so angry. I love my dad but he was a very traditional person. There was a lot of tension. I couldn’t wear men’s clothing, or I couldn’t wear men’s deodorant – it would cause an argument.It started to get better, but then Dad got cancer. He died a week before I turned 16. When he got sick we didn’t talk about it any more. I thought that once he had recovered we’d go back to talking about it, but he didn’t recover. After my dad died I found a book about transgender young people and I gave it to my mum. She read it and it was a complete change. She says her main thing and also my dad’s main thing is they were worried about how it will affect me in life – will I be able to find a job, will I be able to find a partner. Well, those things have happened: I’ve found a partner, I have no trouble finding jobs.My mum is fantastic, she’s really proud of me. She comes to Transgender Pride with me, if anybody says anything bad about me being trans she’s ready to hammer them. She makes me the envy of many trans people, I think. I was referred to Tavistock [the clinic for children and adolescents] in May 2014. You’re not allowed testosterone until you’ve been on hormone blockers for a year at Tavistock. But I was 16 at my first appointment and had already gone through puberty, and knew that by the time I had done a year on blockers I’d be picked up by the adult clinics. I decided not to go on hormone blockers, because it wouldn’t really do much for me. I was referred to an adult clinic in May 2015.I still haven’t had an appointment, which means I haven’t had any medical intervention in three years. I’m desperate for hormones and surgery. My dysphoria makes me feel like I’m embarrassed for people to look at me. In my head I’m this weird thing that is ugly. I have to wear baggy clothes to hide my hips, I have to think about how many layers I have to wear to hide my chest. I really understand that the NHS is overstretched because there’s a sudden influx of people being referred. I completely understand why, but that doesn’t stop the frustration.
Surat-Shaan Knan, 40s, project manager for Liberal Judaism, LondonI didn’t really know anything about gender identity until quite late, when I was in my mid-20s. I also come from a secular Jewish family, so I didn’t know much about what it means to be Jewish either. I identify as non-binary, trans-masculine. Being trans and Jewish seemed a complete oxymoron. I thought, it can’t be, I have to decide between them. But I had this wonderful community here to give me all that space and time to come out.I feel very blessed that everyone, including family and friends, have been extremely supportive throughout. I haven’t had to go through what many trans people have to go through.Years ago when I came out I went to the wall [Western Wall in Jerusalem]. There are three sections – the male section, the female section and an ungendered section. Now I would probably go to the ungendered section, but it was my first time presenting as male in such a holy place and I went to the male section of the wall. It made me so happy to do that, to go to the part of the wall I wanted to. I was transitioning medically and spiritually and it was one of the most important moments of my life.A Jewish online magazine reported on that and it sparked off online, I got really abusive messages. I thought, these people don’t know me, I don’t think anyone should be able to tell you who you are and how to live your life. Yourself is yourself, even in the religious community. A lot of people from mainstream trans communities ask me, how can you be a person of faith, because even your own religion has been so horrible to LGBT people in general and trans people specifically? That’s true. But it’s about what faith means and leaving out what some leaders and institutions do with it.In the media, the focus is often on the pathology and medical transitioning and that’s a big part of it, but there are so many layers of what it means to be trans. It’s almost like trans people are one-dimensional, they are just these people who need medical help. I do hope we will change our view on what trans looks like. It’s not just something on the outside, it’s something that’s very deep and spiritual. We are created in the image of God. I am part of that as a trans Jew.
Thank you all for your time and attention, I'm not here to argue (though I will if needed) I'm here to present information and resources to learn more. If any trans individual has anything to correct, or one simply more informed on the subject overall, I'd be glad to have the correction. Please be kind to one another in this thread, there is no need for ad hominem and such here.
Additional Resources:
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Then that's faulty reasoning, a non-sequitur if you will. I never said art and reading improve education. I argued they improved the teens in general, and the society they grew into. Arts and sports aren't the cause of the incompetency, that's most likely the faulty teaching style. Which is all your sources prove.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
DId you.... not read anything but what you wanted to me to say? "Gosh! By jolly this man is WRONG!! And it's all because he doesn't list his sources! I suppose he is WRONG." No, that's not what I said, I said I agreed, and that next time, just list your sources. Let's not even mention that you dropped half of my argumentation. Do you not have a proper rebuttal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't know, and before I accept any assertions from you I'm going to need to see you demonstrate them with evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Its all good, it was a bit much, just pointing out that the paragraph is really logically inconsistent, and I thought that was RMM's whole thing,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
First of all, hyperbole, second of all, that's fair. He's being needlessly aggressive, but yes fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also please cite your claim, when did I say anything about your mental health? I'm starting to question your seriousness here...
Created:
Posted in:
No, I don't struggle to understand it, the writing is axiomatically fallacious. And ironically you've insulted me far more than I ever have insulted you! I was pointing out the characteristic of an argument that is a logical fallacy. Get over yourself.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Oh no I agree that the education system is F**king terrible! I just also disagree with your assertion that they shouldn't teach more. I want a total upheaval of the current system, but that new system should have arts and sports. Also, while I agree, it's also a good idea to actually... CITE your research. Not doing so makes you look really trolly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have never seen a worse case of a word salad.
Created:
Posted in:
Considering all of the problems of America, we need someone as "radical" as Bernie, who, in any Europe wouldn't be radical at all. He'd be a pretty typical guy on the left.
Created:
Posted in:
The entire premise is false, the only thing atheism speaks on, is one's belief of a god(s):
Merriam Webster defines Atheism as such:
"a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsb: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
In other words, by definition, Atheism can not be a world view. The same way not believing in Santa Claus is not a world view, or not being apart of boy/girl scouts isn't a community.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Love how you rate yourself
Created:
Posted in:
So, I'm super new to debating anything purely economically related. If you guys could give advice on general rules for debating it, resources to get started (Or visit my forum topic: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4966-resources-materials and leave it there) learning economics more in depth, some good debates to get a framework, stuff like that.
I'm here to learn, hit me with your best shot.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
@Vader
@Intelligence_06
Okay, this confused me greatly, actually IN high school here. We have several shop classes and home ec classes, as well as a separate culinary course. It' s not like its a super high funded high school either. We have some grants but that's pretty much it for extra funding, it's a big school, that's pretty much it.
While it is true that sports CAN develop life skills such as discipline and all of that over time
It is also true that arts can develop hand-eye coordination, discipline, etc, same as sports.
As for the argument for that school's extra curriculars/ arts, sports, shouldn't be funded at all? That really depends on what goal of school you want. But if you just cross-apply all of the benetfits that both arts and sports contribute to society, easy.
For sports:
In general:
My point being, there is an overly abundant preponderance of evidence that having sports and arts will benefit the kid and the society they influence. Not to mention - that the bare minimum of an education's system is to provide you the teaching, to read, to write, to do math, and science. This is the bare minimum not the actual goal.
Created:
Posted in:
Eh, Nah, I'd argue that, that is ultimately contradictory. If we could reach the level of Jesus, than Jesus wouldn't be very special would he? Nope. He is literally God, if we reached that level, wouldn't that mean he wasn't really a special god?
Not to mention you completely dropped my second point and ignored my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your going to have to cite that claim
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," [Romans 3:23]
"As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;" [Romans 3:10]
That's some pretty essential reading, you sure you've read it in "four different languages"? Your verse is simply contradictory to mine, that's a problem with the book, or you are incorrect, because I could provide a couple more verses proving my point. You know what? I think I will.
"And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." [Mark 10:18] (Of course Jesus is being cheeky here, considering that he is god.)
"Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." [Ecclesiastes 7:20]
But I wonder why your goal is so low when there is truly no ceiling for the money supply. All you require is ambition, planning, and execution, none of which are entitlements. But the first is usually the piece most difficult to acquire if not had. Get that, and a lot of problems are solved.
As for the 15 dollars an hour, 1/9 workers are being payed wages which leave them beneath the poverty line., this is simply a start, my hard claim isn't 15 dollars an hour.
The wealth distribution in america, where the top 1% get 40% of the wealth and the bottom 25% don't see a quarter, this makes it hard for those with "ambition" to rise to the top. Not to mention, this is on a small scale individual basis for success, not an overall success for a nation of people
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for the sincere question.
To answer - I would say both are my goal. The fact that they may be democratically unviable does not deter me from trying. Similar is the Christian trying to live up to their interpretation of jesus, even though they admit that their own holy book says it's impossible. Not only that, but assuming to guarantee something is also a deterrence from what I feel the right thing is. Whenever I want "equality of outcome" I feel that doesn't accurately describe what I want, I want a base starting line that means everyone has what they need to survive. A minimum wage that's above the poverty line, free healthcare like most of the civilized world has or is adopting, stuff like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, you misunderstand your own axiom. A Christian is typically defined as someone who believes in the Christian faith.
Created:
The answer to that depends on how you define authority. Like previously stated: Is reason or a standard an authority? Or is an authority only such things like agents, gods, governments, etc?
If the former is true, then yes, you would need some kind of authority for your ethical framework to be taken into consideration.
If the latter is true, then no, you would not need some kind of authority for your ethical framework to be taken into consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
This entire thing is a long no true Scotsman fallacy.
Created: