So What About The Trans Folks

[ladsin]

@roaring20sman recently asked a question about gender identity and the same day I had seen quite a few questions about transgender people so I figured I'd write this myTake to cover most of the frequently asked questions I've seen about this topic.

What Is Gender?

Gender is the social and cultural norms associated with a particular sex. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and as such we have certain biological differences (what we refer to as sex differences) but as social creatures we also have societal influences (what we refer to as gender differences). One common example I use is that of a dress. In America where I live it is highly strange for a man to wear a dress, but in different cultures and times it wasn't that odd. The Scottish Kilt and Japanese Kimono being two good examples. Another that comes to mind is that the high heel was originally made for men (for horse riding as well as height), but now it's socially strange for men to wear them.

What is a transgender person?

A transgender person is a person who, for whatever reasons, identifies or wishes to associate with the gendered norms opposite their sex. A male wanting to wear a dress, makeup, and things of that nature may desire to be perceived as a woman; whereas a woman may desire to associate with the stereotypically masculine norms.

What about the plethora of gender identities?

This is where it starts to get weird and this is a relatively new phenomena. Every person has a mix of masculine and feminine traits. As such some people use this information to declare that their are as many genders as there are people. This is silly as the two genders are simply impersonal categories. Every person already has their own proper noun (their name) and making an infinite number of personal pronouns (zhe/ zher, ze, hi/ hir etc) is clunky and ineffective. I once heard a trans activist saying that we should just put someone's preferred personal pronoun next to their name in our contact list on the phone. Bollocks.

Why may someone associate as a gender other than their sex?

There's a few possible reasons for this. The socialization theory is perhaps the greatest cause to the seeming rise of transgender identities where more and more people want to associate as a different gender because they were raised a certain way, or for social acclaim. We know, however, that trans people have always existed in different societies. We know some ancient Romans were, the native American Two-Spirit people were, the Insangoma of the Zulu, and the Asian Hijras for some examples. Thus it seems highly likely that there's at least some biological component. This hypothesis seems to be validated with some of the psychological research particularly with male to female trans persons. The research seems to demonstrate a rank order birthing effect on the instances of trans identity along with homosexuality. With each successive male birth a woman produces stronger antibodies against a male Y chromosomal protein. This means that her body will fight against that protein, the child will not receive it, and thus grow up with more effeminate qualities which subsequently increases the odds that he'll be gay or trans.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9614-3

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0425-9

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-011-9777-6

I think that went alright. Let me know if you've got any questions.

[smølf]

You are confusing gender with gender roles, it's not the same. Gender is synonymous with sex, this is why it's called genitals, why we say "a condition that affects people of both genders" and "someone of the opposite gender".
The social and cultural norms associated with particular sex is called gender roles.

A transgender person, it a person undergoing sex-transformation. A person who identifies her/him-self with the opposite sex is defined as gender dysphoria - a clinical expression and a scientific non-political fact.

The infinite number of pronouns is political and not a fact.

[ladsin]

Well let's start here... Did you read myTake? Because most people seem to see me define my terms and then stop reading after that.
I'll also copy-paste my response that I gave to multiple people making similar responses regarding the terminology. "I think you're really missing my entire argument, so I'll try to be clearer.
I have never and would never say that the differences between the sexes are purely cultural as that's the most asinine thing that someone could say. What I'm doing is using two words to refer to two types of differences. Sex differences being biologically based, and gendered differences which are dependent on culture."

[smølf]

The problem is this, you are revealing your political ideology with the words you are using, and this is the reaction you will get.

Those who believe in feminism, gender is a social construct and in more than two pronouns, are saying what you are saying. It's a political statement, not a factual or scientific one, that is my point.

Unless in some other languages than English, there are only two pronouns. There are two genders, two sets of gender roles and you can't change your sex in any scientific or biological way. Only politically can you change your sex.

The more than 6000 DNA difference will still be there, the sex chromosome will be unchanged etc..

And the clinical expression in most countries (not yet subjugated to your ideology, is gender dysphoria).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

If you wish a conversation based on facts and not on ideology, I am game, otherwise, don't bother. I am not susceptible to political agitation.

[ladsin]

I'm not a democrat, I'm not a feminist, I'm not a trans rights activist, so what ideology particularly do you think I'm espousing?
I know what gender dysphoria is and I don't think that term exists in other cultures as it was a change only made in the DSM-V which I've worked with. The APA explicitly states that gender nonconformity is not a mental illness and the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases) does not have gender dysphoria listed in it so I think you're just confusing terms.

Whether or not you can change your sex is irrelevant to me (obviously you can't) and I never stated nor implied that you could. Hence my entire point about using two different words to reference two different things. I'll reiterate it again in case my point still didn't come across appropriately. FOR THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION I am saying that sex differences is a reference to biological differences between the sexes (which for some reason you seem to insist I don't believe in), and gendered differences are the cultural differences expected of each sex.
You don't have to agree with the definition if you don't want, but we can't have any productive conversation if you're solely stuck on a particular word you don't like. I run into this problem when talking about religion and myth a lot as neither term has any good definition and anthropologists have been debating both for decades at the very least. Thus when I'm talking about it I have to either define it myself or go with the definition someone else has presented. This is just how we flesh out ideas.

[ladsin]

Hell, you can even see my political bias in my profile picture, centrist-right libertarian.

[smølf]

"gender dysphoria... don't... exists in other cultures as it was a change only made in the DSM-V"
Wrong, it's a scientific diagnosis widely recognized for many decades by now. I am a medical doctor (not a psychiatrist) from Denmark (Europe) and I know the diagnose. So no, it's not culturally based. It's a mental illness although lobbyists are trying to change it by political pressure, based on ideology. The premises for the ideology is gender it is a social construct, and there is such a thing as being born in the wrong body.

"I run into this problem when talking about religion and myth a lot as neither term has any good definition" You do realize when debating a highly political issue, inflammatory even, then words do matter. They defined your political stance and those who agree, loves it, but does who oppose, hates it.
Nevertheless, I can look pass your choice of words in this context.

So explain your point, what you are getting at, then I will address it?

[ladsin]

Do y'all really use the term gender dysphoria? What manual do y'all use because the ICD doesn't make any reference to Gender Dysphoria, they have a few different gender identity disorders outlined in F-64, but I haven't seen gender dysphoria in there. Do y'all use something other than the DSM or ICD? (Side note, but I work in psychology so that's interesting)

We can do away with the word gender if it's too troubling. Ok, we know that there are biological differences between the sexes and we'll call this sex differences. We also know that there are cultural norms and expectations associated with each sex (ie manner of dress, behavioral norms) . We'll call these cultural differences perflifaskump. There are some trans-perflifaskump people who, for whatever reason, seek to adhere to the perflifaskump of the opposite sex. There seems to be some sociological factors contributing to the rise in various trans-perflifaskump persons, but since we know that trans-perflifaskump people have existed across time and cultures there's likely to be some biological factor that also contributes to this. The hypothesis that there is in fact a biological factor seems to be vindicated by the strong correlation of latter birth order and a rise in trans-perflifaskump identity. The science also appears to show a causal factor in that women's bodies begin producing antibodies which fight against Y chromosomal proteins in utero.

I essentially just changed out gender for some nonsense word to try and take away any political issues which may be getting in the way of a discussion,

[smølf]

We use the term "kønsdysfori" meaning gender dysphoria, yes. It's no longer defined as the psychiatric diagnose of personality disorder, so you won't find an ICD-10 code in the Danish version. since it was removed from the international statistical classification of diseases.

This doesn't mean we don't have it as a diagnose, it merely means it can't use officially based on political digestion, but a parliamentary majority can't change scientific facts, only the code used can be changed - not the content or reality. Reality is not a matter of vote in parliament.

Today the code DZ768E1 say "Contact due to transgenderism", but the political majority doesn't change the content, treatment or how we address the diagnose. It's just politics.

Most countries use the ICD or a nationalised version of it, as we do.

We don't know the causes of transgenderism or homosexuality for that matter, both properly have both a biological and social element. Identicaltweens studies about homosexuality showed a higher likelihood of homosexuality than normal when one tween was gay, however, the number was low enough to say it's not biological. Theories of epigenetics could explain the results. Just like it is with cancer you can be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, meaning you are more like to become homosexual than others, but outside factors still need to trigger it.

It may be the same as transgenderism, but we don't know yet. Don't have enough studies to say anything yet.

None of this is about morals, of course, it's all about science. No matter what diagnostic label we use, they are still humans, but in need of help, not persecution nor normalisation.

Let's not pretend it's not a diagnose, simply becasues the contemporary political majority say so.

[ladsin]

Hmm. I'm guessing you're looking at something other than I am. www.icd10data.com/.../F64- is the ICD-10 and has gender identity disorder in it. I know Denmark is very left leaning so maybe y'all have changed it somehow? That doesn't make sense though as the ICD is as it's name implies international, but perhaps it's just a translation difference as I'm sure Danish doesn't have an exact equivalent to the English terms.

Well you essentially just reiterated much of what I said. There's certainly some social factors contributing to the rise in transgender identity throughout the West. I said however there are good reasons to think there's a strong biological component as well. The same can surely be said about homosexuality. Actually I even made that reference in this myTake showing that the birthing order (via femenization of later male children) is also highly linked with homosexuality.

I also never made a moral judgement about transgender issues here. I actually never even made a case for how we as a society at all should treat them. This was just information that you can do with as you please.

[smølf]

Then I agree, your choice of words set aside :)

It's always hard to no feel provoked when a certain word or terminality is used. By American standards, all western countries are left-leaning, except the USA, we, however, see the USA as a mix.
Extreme military spendings, while its parts of its own population living in poverty. Incomprehensible to us, and poor judgment in my opinion.

You are restricting personal freedom based on religious morals like sexual activities, the age of consent, prostitution, no public drinking etc etc.

Then you are extremely liberal when to comes to think that can actually endanger other people, like early driving age, extremely loose gun law etc..

I don't know who is really left-leaning or if left-leaning is positive or not, in a European context I am a liberal-conservative.

[ladsin]

Mm. Well I can certainly agree that many people are attempting to abuse the issue to make others kowtow to their political ideology via a supposed kindness for the "other". That's not my issue or prerogative though.

Of course every country has it's own unique mix of liberal/ conservative and authoritarian/ libertarian policies. Y'all for example have really stringent immigration policies as opposed to the US. The US takes in the most immigrants yearly in the world, but somehow people think we're all anti-immigrant which is strange.

I think I agree with most of your arguments regarding the legalization of religious morality via encroachment of liberty on things like prostitution, and drugs. I don't know about the age of consent laws though... I think those are pretty important. I don't want adults fucking kids... That's abuse and despicable in my estimation. Denmark's age of consent is 15 if I understand correctly and my state was 16. How old do y'all have to be in order to drive? I received my restricted license (meaning I could drive during the day but not at night) when I was 15. We do have the loosest regulations regarding guns. That's pretty good in my estimation. After all the whole idea behind our second amendment is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government.

[ladsin]

Denmark also is rated as having higher economic freedom than the US. Y'all just have a massive welfare state and tax the crap out of everyone.

[smølf]

The USA receives relatively fewer immigrants compared to most other western countries when you incl. refugees and see the numbers in relation to size and the nations native population.

To compare the USA's 370 million to Denmarks shy of 6 million, are misleading. If anything you should compare the USA to the EU (370 vs 440 million, when Brexit is full effectuated). But even then it doesn't fully compare because most of eastern Europe doesn't receive any immigrant at all.

So it's misleading to talk absolute number, otherwise, the USA will win almost anything based on size alone :)
Yes, the age of consent is 15, however, you do have to be 18 to be in porn or work as a prostitute.
I agree it's important, and I don't want adults fucking kids, but I don't say those kids are too young to fuck and old enough to shoot. If you can carry a gun, you are old enough to fuck and drink in public. Why do you need to hide a bottle of alcohol, but not your machine gun?
In Denmark, the age for driving is 18.

If the idea is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government, then who makes the decision to overthrow the government, and why is Trump then still in power?

Would it not be more important to get a working democracy, a parliamentary system, and a democracy where the majority actually elects the president and not an undemocratic electoral college?

[ladsin]

Eh, the topic has changed a bit, but it's interesting so what the hell.
I'm not sure what statistics you're citing, but even if you want to compare immigration as a proportion of the population America still comes out as one of the most accepting. The last statistic I found was from 2013 and 14.3% of the US population were immigrants. Compare this to Germany's 14.9, the UK's 13.2, France's 11.1, Spain's 12.8, Netherland's 11.1, and Denmark's 9. The US alone takes in ~20% of all the world's immigrants just as a reference point.

By the time you're old enough to buy a gun you're already able to legally have sex throughout the US. The age required to purchase a gun is at lowest 18 and highest 21 (depending on state regulations). The age of consent by contrast is between 16 and 18.

As for overthrowing government tyranny... That's going to depend on the will of the people. Most people are fine with some government overreach and don't find it something worth dying for. Other things people will be willing to fight and die for. I'm sure the bit about President Trump was a joke, but still the Trumpster isn't a dictator. I do find the idea that he's particularly dislike by the American people is rather funny. Trump's ratings are slightly lower than the other US presidents, but is higher than a lot of Europeans. Merkel's, Macron's, May's, poll ratings for example are significantly lower.
As for the democracy bit... No. The US is a democratic republic, and as such we try to offset the tyranny of the majority that is prevalent in democratic societies. I don't think that California, for example, should be able to dictate the laws that effect all of the US just because they have a massive population. If a few big states decided to pass some legislation that would only help them and harm smaller states how do we protect the smaller states? Hence the electoral college and house of representatives.

[smølf]

Sure, if we are talking immigrants only then yes, but not when we incl. refugees. The USA get virtually no refugees. If they are no profitable, the US says no, sp immigrant only, virtually no refugees.

The problem by saying the will of the people is, there are no people. The people will never agree about anything, even when you have 100 people, you will also have 100 different opinions.
So how can you ever tell if "the will of the people" actually is the "will of the people", how is it defined?
I say, it can't be, so it's academic, in reality it's an excuse to have weapons. I understand it's in the constitution, and it was needed to kill Indian when you conquered the west and massacred the native population. The settlers neede to be able to defend themselves and to steal the property of the native owners, so they needed to have guns.
This is the real reason you have the guns laws, it has no real meaning in regards to overthrowing a semi-democratically elected government.

What if 50.000 Americans are willing to fight and die over abortion, is it then ok to start a civil war?

What if 500.000 are willing to fight and die over the affordable care act, is it then ok to start a civil war?

What's the point of democracy if anyone can decide to use force to remove any government not doing what they think is right, even if elected?

I am not joking about President Trump, he is however a joke, and more disliked in Europa than any other president in the US history.

Trump act as a dictator, dismissing anyone trying to carry out an investigation about him or poses a threat somehow, that is obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

If he is in collusion with the Russians, then it is treason. Now, we don't know yet, true, but then let the FBI do the investigation and find out.

[smølf]

Trump is particularly disliked by peoples in European, and honestly, he is really laughable. His blatant lies are funny but unworthy of the USA.
Clearly, a majority of Americans don't like him or want him as president, else he would have won the election, but he didn't (popular votes).

Europeans leader have issues for sure, but for very different reasons. Merkel's have let Germany be overrun by Muslim immigrants, Macron haven't done the reforms with sufficient care for ordinary Frenchmen.
May's have failed to deliver an appropriate Brexit deal in time, and now it's too late for a good Brexit deal. But the UK and the EU, will suffer for this, she did have 2 years to do this and did very little for almost 1.5 years. She did far too little for far too long, and now it too late.
All genuine issues, but for very different reasons.

The US has by offset real democracy, in reality created tyranny. Where the majority is controlled by the minority. California should be able to pull the power of its population because there are all Americans.
If you are one nation, then states don't matter, only party policy does, and Republicans only win elections due to a non-majority rule system.

You protect the smaller states, by the house of representatives, NOT with the electoral college. The electoral college was intended to prevent foreign to take power or someone disloyal like Trump to come into power, they have clearly failed.

The house of representatives is however designed to compensate smaller states so they're are not being steamrolled over by stats like California. The Senate is also an equalizer for between smaller and larger stats.

The presidency has never been intended to represent a state or to function as an equalizer for smaller states influence. It was from the beginning, intended to be a representative for the entire nation, popular vote should be only factor. As it is, the swing states are all that matters.

[ladsin]

I don't think that's necessarily true... You'd have to link the stats you're specifically citing as I think refugees are counted in the statistics I gave. Also, immigrants in the US aren't normally economically beneficial. Some ~52% of immigrants (legal or not) say they've accessed welfare benefits in the past year. Of immigrants who've been in the US for at least two decades ~45% of them say that they're still receiving welfare benefits. Of course there's also the abundance of research that shows large scale immigration drives down wages, particularly of low-skilled professions. The economist Eric Weinstein has done some interesting work in this field.

Well that's rather a silly interpretation. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms was causally related to our war against Great Britain, and this is spoken about quite plainly in the federalist papers (no. 46). I also didn't say whether or not the "will of the people" was right or wrong. It was simply a pragmatic statement about when people will group together and fight. Primarily my statement was that they will do so, when they think it's worth it.

Well this is interesting. How do you think President Trump is acting more dictatorial than former President Obama? I disagree with Trump on a lot of things, but accusing him of being a dictator is relatively unfounded by my estimation. Whether or not other countries like or dislike him isn't of much concern to me as he's our president and not y'alls. If I said I hated y'alls PM would it really matter to you all that much? I presume not. Whether or not he colluded isn't yet known, although I lean more towards the side of "not" especially as he's actually been far harsher on the Russians than Obama was. Now his rhetoric is far gentler, but his policies have actually lead to a lot of dead Russians. The obstruction-

[ladsin]

case is also rather poor. As the case is still ongoing and there's been no substantive proof of obstruction. The main case against him right now is that one of the people being tried has said that Trump told him to lie to the FBI, if true that's obstruction, but evidence on that has not been submitted other than a person saying so.

[smølf]

I estimate there will be no proof against Trump until after his presidency, then all the reason will be published. So politically I won't bet on an impeachment, this doesn't make him innocent. His entire character, make the probability of the rumors and accusations to be at least partly true almost guaranteed.
His corruption, previous crimes, and immoral activities and the signs of a personality disorder (I am not a psychiatrist, but I do see evidence of some sort of narcissistic personality disorder), all give good cause for the accusations of being true.

Obama didn't do any obstruction of justice to my knowledge. And was genuinely democratically elected.

President Trump has zero tolerance for opposing opinions from anyone but a few trusted family members and friends. He is acting dictatorially in this regard, no one since "I am not a crook" has been like this. Trump's is an authoritarian, like the many dictators, and he liker Putin and Kim Jong-un etc. for this very reason.

He behaves downright offensive to several European leaders, uncivilized brute who only real quality is, he is not Hillery. He is a threatens to the stability and trustworthiness of the Nato alliance. He is the very worst from a European perspective, don't care or pay interest to domestic policies inside the US.

The great threat to global stability is climate change, he does everything wrong in this policy as well. Shortsighted and selfish, this is how I see Trump.

Obama was really passive and did a bit of damage with his passivity. However, Trump is worse by far.

To be fair, I am only focused on the policies affecting us in Europe and the rest of the world, not the domestic issues in the US. For obvious reason, I care very little about those policies, but I would prefer any other Republican candidate over Trump by far, but no one can beat him in 2020 or its more a dream than hope.

[ladsin]

Well ok, you have to be more specific on the collusion bit. Everyone knows he probably broke several tax laws, he said it all the time when he was campaigning. His essential point was that rich people do all these bad things, and he knows because he did them. I do find it rather concerning though that our judicial system is being weaponized against him on a political basis. Why did nobody investigate him before he was a candidate and then President?

As for Pres. Obama and obstruction. Pres. Obama certainly skirted the lines multiple times. As I list these note that I'm not saying whether or not I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any of them, just listing the facts. With the Trayvon Martin case he tried to sway the public on national television and the DOJ then allocated funds to help facilitate marches and rallies that were pro-Trayvon. Same with the Michael Brown case. General Walpin was investigating the criminal conduct of a non-profit and when his superiors tried to hide it he went public, and was subsequently fired by Pres. Obama. President Obama was found to have exerted "unlawful command influence" by making a statement to influence the trial of some navy sailors. Also don't forget it was his IRS that admitted to acting in a politically discriminatory fashion (going after conservative non-profits). I don't understand this fascination with "genuinely democratically elected". I have a feeling that it's because your population is so small it has a completely different culture. To put the problem in perspective though... If all of the nations in the EU were to vote on a particular leader, and this one leader said, "Denmark has too much money. We need to redistribute that out to all the other nations!" I presume you wouldn't vote for him. Let's say no one from Denmark voted for him. That would put your ~5 million votes against the remaining 507 million EU citizens. Would you think that fair or just?

CONTD

[ladsin]

Onto President Trump. He certainly doesn't like people saying negative things about them, but that doesn't make him a dictator. Hell, I don't like people saying mean things about me, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should have the right to say it. CNN says crap about him all the time, and he hasn't sent the police in to round them all up. He may want to, but he can't and hasn't. He's nice to Putin's face, but as I said he's actually been far harsher against the Russians than Obama was. So unless you're also saying Obama was a Putin lover then Trump isn't. Trump got N and S Korea to sit down and sign a peace agreement which hasn't even been attempted for decades. That's pretty significant. Whether or not it holds only time will tell. I tend to not be very trusting of dictatorships.

What's President Trump done that's been so bad for the UN? Say they should pay their fair share? Not signed a few non-binding resolutions? The US has met and exceeded it's requirements under the Paris Accord without signing it. China on the other hand signed it, but is still increasing their production of greenhouse emissions. 63% of global carbon emissions are coming from developing nations. So I see no reason to think Trump is particularly bad on this, as I pointed out carbon emissions are still falling under his leadership. First time we've done so since ~1980 in case you were wondering.

I'm not a big fan of Trump, but it's largely because of the rhetoric and deepening divide in America. He didn't start it, but he's certainly not helping it.

[smølf]

By collusion I mean secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped Donald Trump win the election. The fact is, he is not impartial to Russia based on his private business interests in Russia, that makes him disqualified to be in his position.

Well tax laws is not my concern, besides how many politicians are clean when it comes to money or sex, as long as it doesn't affect the policy and security. Trump taxes is an internal American issue, nobody cares outside the US, however as the only superpower on the world stage for the time being, you should consider the international implications of this sort of president. Although to be fair, your system only allowed two choices, so in reality, it was Trump or Hillary, not exactly a nice pool to choose from.

I don’t think the judicial system is being weaponized, it is being demised as you just did, for not being political based, in my opinion.

Nobody investigated him before he was a candidate and then President, because it didn’t matter then, most of it is only a problem because he is the President, not as a private citizen. The is no problem have business in Russia as a private person, but there is as the President since it will influence his political decisions. His private interests do conflict with the interests of the USA, as I am sure history will tell in greater details.

The European Union is a confederacy so the sovereignty is at the state level, not the federal level and this makes the difference. If the USA was to be a confederacy, then it would make sense to make the distinction, but since you are not the distinction is pointless since your stats are comparable to regions or counties in one nation.
You should compare it to if Denmark had been divided into smaller bits, where some had disproportional influence, where a vote counted as 0.56 or 1.45 dependents on where you lived.

[smølf]

I am fully convinced Trump would send the police if he could, fortunately, he can’t.

Obama was passive, but he is also irrelevant being an ex precedent. Trump being nice to Putin's face is obviously not a problem, not being nice to his European allies leaders however is a problem.
He openly chooses Russia over Nato allies, openly saying the USA may not honor it’s commitment to article 5. This is just what Putin needs to hear, to realistically consider military actions into European soil.

USA is 50% of Nato, without the US, we will most properly end up using nuclear weapons in case of conflict with Russia, since the alternative may be loosing. This policy increases the risk of war. It’s still low, but the risk was increased unnecessarily. It’s detrimental to 70 years of cooperation and being allies. It’s not just Germany and France he has alienated, but the UK and Canada as well. The fact that you want someone like that in power, is really incomprehensible.

Trump did have some success in regards to N. Korea, but honestly, he only looks good because Obama was so bad. For 8 years Obama failed to do his duty as the leader of the free world, but now you have elected an enemy of the free world who can't and won't lead. Trump is worse by far, than any previous president of the USA in this regard.

Build the wall, repeal Obamacare, get tax cuts to the super rich, I don’t care, but for the love of god, do not put a traitor and mentally unstable individual in the withe house.

President Trump is so insane, he thinks the UN have the same brainwashed mop as in his rallies. He blatantly lied and didn’t expected to be laughed at, the UN is not the Republican base where his lies go down undigested.

[smølf]

Environmental policy’s importance can’t be understated since it threatens all life on earth and in our lifetime I might add, not in a hundred years, but in the next 10-50 years.
Climate change is not about warmer weather and a bit higher oceans.

The effects are drought, floodings, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, all resulting in the destruction of crops and global food production, again resulting in global starvation, then pandemics will outbreak since so many have poor immune system due to malnutrition. Then we start seeing wars, one place after another as nations collapse and civil war break out.

Even a small contribution to make the world go in this direction is horrific, and Pentagon knows climate change will pose a threat the USA, too bad 50% of your population and the Republican party doesn't realize this.

[ladsin]

Well I must say I do find it... different that a European is upset that the US is talking about not engaging in a war 😂
That’s a rather stark difference from arguing that the US is the major human rights violator in the world to saying were necessary to save Europe from being conquered. I think we should help our allies, I also think our allies need to pay their fair share. Why are you so reliant on a foreign government to protect your nation? If this is a legitimate concern, then why are European nations refusing to pay for their defense? They like to talk about how amazing their various welfare programs are, but won’t spend any money on their own national defense because America’s got it covered.

As for the global warming stuff. Ok... so why are you upset about Trump? I already told you that the US is scaling back it’s emissions. Why aren’t y’all yelling at the Chinese or any of the developing African nations for contributing to global warming in greater and greater and greater amounts?

[smølf]

Well from a European perspective I am considered right wing as a liberal-conservative, Americans see me as a socialist, but you see almost all Europeans as socialist :)
I think the USA has been the stabilizing force since WWI, though NATO and in the UN as well.

Obama's absence policy was visible, Isis should not have been allowed to grows as it did. It’s bad of course that Bush junior lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – but we all know there have been such weapons a few years earlier. And the murder Saddam is not missed at all, the real mistake was that Bush senior didn’t remove him back in 1992.

Europe has the military power to defend ourselves from Russia, IF and only if, we can be coordinated under a single line of command. US leadership is paramount, we do not have one language, except thorough NATO (English), we need the US surveillance capabilities, prof leadership and joined command. The primary forces needed from the US is, command-structure, communication, AEW and satellite surveillance. We should, in theory, have sufficient convention forces to do our own defense if properly coordinated and lead.
Of course, US air and ground forces would be very helpful :)

You need to understand what pay their fair share means, it’s a joint NATO commitment to spend 2% of our GNP on the military, it’s not giving the US money if that is what you think!

But yes, in this regard Trump have done well. We increased our defense budget last year and raised it again this year, finally a way where his brute nature did something good, to kick our politics so they finally realized we need to have sufficient armed forces ourselves.

Europe can defend itself but only as one coherent force not fragmented as 24 nations. This is how Hitler conquered Europe, one nation at the time.

[smølf]

We are reliant on foreign government to protect our nation, because of size. 5.8 million Danes can’t hold back 120 million Russians, or any other nation for that matter.

European nations are not refusing to pay for their defense, but stupid politicians make promises about welfare by cutting defense budgets, and this is what has caused most European nations to under finance it’s military.

Until 1991 we did spend the 2%, ever since politicians have taken more and more from defense to spend on tax cuts and welfare. In 2017 it was down to 1.17%. Now it’s backup up to about 1.35% but still not nearly enough. But Trump has been positive in this regard, just too bad he makes its uses all the more likely as well.
You are right about the welfare vs defense issue, I blame the left wing for this, our real socialist (and feminists) bitch about any military speeding as if the military had no point or use. It’s inexcusable, so I agree with you on this.

I blame Trump for slowing down the USA in regard to climate change. China is one of the nations in the world doing the fastest progress, on renewable energy. It is the size of China and the fact they had such a low start point, that makes them seem so bad. Progress-wise they are doing better than almost anyone else.

Scandinavia is world leading on renewable energy, but we are about 26 millions so our combined impact is minuscule. Germany alone is over 80, France 70 and the UK 65 as I recalled the numbers.

India is the real problem not China :)

[ladsin]

Are you arguing for a United States of Europe? If so I can only say be careful what you wish for.
Also Denmark isn't socialist. They have higher economic freedom than the US does. Y'all just have a massive welfare state which requires massive taxation.

Right. Of the member nations only Greece, Estonia, UK, and Poland have met the 2% requirement and even then only barely. The US by comparison has always exceeded it by almost double (3.6%). Yet in return for this generosity what's the general attitude of the European people? Gratitude or condemnation? If your country was providing for another's defense and they responded by mocking your nation, would you think that defense should continue? Now, I'm a big fan of international cooperation, but the share has to be equitable.

Climate change. Again you have to tell me how Trump is bad on this. As I pointed out we're still exceeding the Paris Accord agreements. Let's put China's "success" into consideration though. China's emissions have been rising ~8-10% for the past decade or two. The success that you're lauding is that in the past year or so they've only increased their current emission production by 4%. The US on the other hand has been increasing production of emissions ~1-3% yearly and this past year brought it down to -0.5%.

[smølf]

No, we have the EU don’t need a federation, I like our confederacy.

No European countries are socialist, we are capitalist free market economies, with socialist policies (the massive welfare). The US spending of 3.6%, is your choice, don’t blame us, we would be fine with you only spending 2%. In my opinion, it would be wise policy to only spend 2%, then perhaps you could get universal health care instead – far better packet if you ask me.

I don’t get the condemnation of the USA. Saved us in WWII, protected us during the cold war, and ever since been a stabilizing force in the world, you won’t hear condemnation from me. There is no equal share of expenses without sharing of political influences as well, this is what the USA has brought. You take the better part of the bill, in return you are in total control.
Whoever pays makes the decisions, and it’s has been US policy to be the most influential power in the world. We don’t want any power, we just want our freedom.

You have to put things into perspective, China has had massive increases in production while maintaining smaller rising emissions. No one builds more renewable energy than China, it’s just they are so big it makes the USA look like a toddler :)

Regarding US reduction read this:

www.politifact.com/.../

[ladsin]

Mm we fought a war over it.

Socialism is about the ownership of the means of production. If private entities own the production lines and you just take 90% of their earnings it still doesn't mean the state owns the production. XD Venezuela's government ownership of the oil is a good example.

Sure you don't, but do you think you're the majority in that recognition of America as a stabilizing force? That's actually a solid point many here in the US make for continuing to expand our military (or at least keep current rates) as it buys us a lot of political power. Do you think Germany would give a single damn about what America thought if we didn't provide for their national defense? At least now they give half a damn XD

Meh. The universal healthcare issue is a complex one. When the government takes control it stifles medical innovation. The only reason that so many European countries can "afford it" is because the US does the vast majority of the medical innovation on the planet. If you take a pill it was more than likely invented here. If we go the way of the other countries who's going to find that cure for cancer? Who's going to continue to develop treatment methods for alzheimer's patients?

Eh... So let me get this right. You're mad at the US, and Trump in particular, because the rate at which we reduce our emission rates is slightly less than a year or two ago. Yet, you're not mad at China for continuing to increase their emissions, albeit at a slower rate. I picture that rationale like this... You're driving us towards a cliff at 10mph or kph whichever and you reduce it to 5. I'm still pissed that you're driving me towards a cliff. Someone else throws the car in reverse at 10 mph, but then continues going in reverse but at 5mph. I can tell you which car I'd rather be in!

[smølf]

Yes, your choice, but I’ll take a confederacy any day, your loss, you chose a federation :)

Still a federation is stronger than a confederacy, but a confederacy guarantees certain freedoms and liberties. For instance, no EU government can dictate free abortion nor prohibit it.
Personally, I am strongly opposed to abortion but with an over 80% approval rating, it’s unrealistic to ever change here. So, we will keep killing baby’s for no reason other and bad planing :/

We have as low tax on companies as the US does, so hardly a problem for private enterprises. We tax income, use VAT and have the highest tax on cars in the world (as high as 150% + 25% in VAT of the total sum – use to be 180% but we got a tax cut on cars a few years ago).

So no, she was very wrong about Venezuela and Denmark :)

No, the majority don’t recognition America as a stabilizing force, but the majority is ignorant but it is factually so. If you care about world history in the 20th century, go study it proves me right about the US. The government is different, the politicians know it, but not the average John Doe. This is why they lied about not having nuclear weapons on Danish territory for over 40 years – while having a secret protocol allowing the USA to have nuclear weapons on Greenland. No matter how to put, in the end, the USA is the good guy, the one worth getting behind and support.

Germany properly doesn't give a damn about what America thought if you didn't provide for their national defence, but Germany has since WWII only cared about Europe, not the rest of the world.

[smølf]

Universal healthcare is simply about providing healthcare to all, no matter what, and it’s cheaper without private companies making a profit with insurances. The government do not control or stifles medical innovation, these are done by private companies with profit in mind. It’s true, not spending the 2% frees funds for healthcare or other kinds of welfare. But by 2020 we should be back at 2%, provide the next government (we have an election in 2019) doesn't change that. But if Trump is reelected (and I do not think it realistic that he isn't) he will make sure we keep the promise. So at least we should be back in line by then, can’t say about the rest of NATO though. But with Putin looking at us all the time, like a hungry cat looking at mice, we do need to increase NATO in Europe and do it now.

Europe provides more medical research than the US does.

www.quora.com/What-countries-have-lead-the-world-in-medical-research-and-innovation-during-the-time-period-between-1995-and-2014

Just add all of Europe and see, we do more pr. capita as well. Of course it easier to do so with low defence spendings XD

[smølf]

Allow me to explain myself about the US vs China. It’s about signalling and affords. China is doing a lot, as in as much as the rest of the world combined, they are building damn’s, solar panels and windmills like creasy.

www.forbes.com/.../#72fe3ffb745a

Meanwhile, the US is slowing down, for no reason at all. Trump's plan does not provide more jobs in the coal industry. It a stupid scam, costing the world for no reason at all but his personal pride.

www.bloomberg.com/.../trump-s-coal-comeback-will-keep-falling-short

Create job by all means, but not it the dirty industries, created the good jobs that don't hurt mother earth and threatens our very existence. Give those poor bastards something permanent and good to do. Besides the coal and oil industry keeps reducing jobs due to automation anyway.

[ladsin]

Well I didn't choose a federation XD there was something of a Civil War over it. Which is it's own basket of worms.

I'm not sure I understand you position on the tax/ socialism regards, and I'm not sure what woman you're referencing. I said that socialism is social or governmental control of the means of production. You and I both agree that in Denmark private business owners are in control of the means of production, not the government. In Venezuela the oil reserves and production were owned by the government. That's a completely different model from Denmark.

Of course as an American who hates the EU I was violently offended when you said that the EU did more research than the US. Did you read the second response to that Quora question you cited? I'm more in line with that fellows thinking. Here www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=1100 you can see all the rankings and compare. Just because you said the EU did more I checked a few of the sections and did some math to prove you wrong. I was only able to do 3 sections though because it was taking up too much time.
Health Profession: EU: 234.491 -- US: 227,390
As a proportion of their respective populations, EU: 0.000457 -- US: 0.000698. 'Merica wins

Agriculture and Biological Science: EU: 1,221,894 -- US: 763,996
As a proportion of their respective populations, EU: 0.00238 -- US: 0.00235. No Comment

Biochemical, Genetic, Molecular Biology: EU: 2.103,996 -- US: 1,646,100
As a proportion of their respective populations, EU: 0.0041 -- US: 0.005. US Wins Again

[smølf]

I was referring to Trish Regan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Bqx3iXFdM

The EU is not a nation, so we don't have joint EU vs US. The top 6 leading nations in the world in regards to medical reserver are EU countries. The is only leading by size, the EU figures are lower than I expected base on many EU countries does so poorly.
So yes, combined the EU loses to the US, but many EU countries outperform the US pr. capita (including Denmark by the way).

Why do YOU hate the EU, I understand why many Erupeosens does, but why do you?

[ladsin]

I don't know her, and I don't feel like watching her talk so I can't comment on it.

You said the EU outperforms the US, so that was what all my math was centered at. It's certainly true that some communities outperform others in certain fields. I don't know if it's the case that Denmark outperforms the US on every field, and I already did my math for the night. You can do the next round if you'd like. My guess is that we'd find that Denmark outperforms on a certain field like biomedical research, but wouldn't outperform on others like Nursing or Agriculture.

The EU think was mostly a joke, but I have a lot of problems with it as it is constantly referenced when I'm talking to people here about politics. As an example, if someone wants to ban free speech and I tell them that's radical they point to the EU saying "the EU's done it, so it's not radical!"

[smølf]

I was only thinking of biomedical research, not anything else. But I am sure, Denmark is outperformed by the US in other fields. For instance, the USA is no one in the military and arms development.

The EU parliament is elected representatives, so they can be any bit as radical as politicians anywhere else, and right now there is a feminist /socialist majority so yes, radical policies like the stupid parental leave crap they just pulled off.

You know garbage in, garbage out. But this is really not about the EU, it's about democracy. Remember the Nazis came into power in Germany by rules of democracy, so yes, racialism is defiantly possible in the EU.

We have free speech granted in our constitution, so it won't apply in Denmark anyway if they did make such a stupidity. Without free speech, there is no democracy its an essential human right to frank. I can't stand the limitations on free speech in Germany, Sweden, and Canda, it's horrific to even contemplate to have limits.

Free speech with limits are not free speech at all.

[ladsin]

I mean... The European Council for Human Rights just deemed criticism of Mohammed isn't protected under freedom of expression. The Austrians, who's two great achievements were convincing the world that Hitler was Germany, and Beethoven Viennese, outlawed calling Mohammed a paedophile and the ECHR upheld their decision.

[smølf]

Mohammed was a paedophile, married a girl age 6, then brags about not having sex with her before she turned 10, that's paedophilia.

All branches of power are somewhat political, incl. the united states supreme court.

Thankfully we have it guaranteed in our constitution just like the USA, and thankfully we are a confederacy and not a federation :)

[ladsin]

The Austrian government and the ECHR said that Mohammed was not a paedophile because he didn't solely sleep with kids (he also had adult wives), and because at the time people used to marry and sleep with young girls. I think it's a silly argument, but they say it's not legally allowed. It's a criminal offense in Austria, and the ECHR says that it's not protected. The UK similarly said that it's "islamophobic" and that "islamophobia" is racism, and therefor can be a violation of their hate speech laws.

[smølf]

Scientifically paedophile is not about, only getting turned on by underage let's say girls, it more about to do get turned on by prepubescent girls sometimes. Postpubescent girls let's say age 15 or 16 is not paedophilia, even when still legally so.

It is true many did at the time get married to children, I remember a Danish king married a 12 yo girls (was supposed to marry her mother but chose her child instead), who's love letters to the then dead husband still exists. I am not saying, it can't be a happy marriage or it wasn't common for high born or that Muhammed was the only one, but by our standards, he was a paedophile.

So saying otherwise is political, more than factual.

[Wowgirl30q]

@smølf
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[FakeName123]

Transgenders are one of the demographic groups with the highest suicide rates. Those rates remain the same even after "transition".

To me there seems only one valid conclusion: It is a serious mental illness that requires actual treatment rather than enabling their insanity as normality.

[DakotaNorth]

You have no proof. It's just what you want to believe.

[InTimoreDei]

@DakotaNorth There's plenty of scientific proof. You just want to live in your delusion. I'm an individual with schizophrenia who is called crazy" for seeing things that aren't there and am told to go to a mental institution. Yet you, someone who believes they are a girl when they aren't a girl, get to live that delusion and are catered to. It's just the topic of the day and is popular right now. It's a huge double standard.

[ladsin]

Well, there's a few things I guess that should be addressed here. I'll start with copy-pasting what I wrote to a few others on this issue. "I don't think it's a mental illness per the DSM-V. I think their rationale is rather sound on this question. The association with a different sexes cultural norms isn't itself sufficient to be classified as a mental illness although significant depression and anxiety that may stem from this would be a mental illness (gender dysphoria). The analogy I always try to give to explain this is as follows: Being an amputee can frequently cause depression and lead to severe anxiety (not knowing how to navigate life without your limbs). Being an amputee isn't a mental illness, rather it's the depression and anxiety that are. Does that help clarify?"

@InTimoreDei Schizophrenics and schizotypals aren't locked up in facilities because they have delusions, they are if there's sufficient cause to believe they'd be a threat to themselves or others. One of my closest friends, also my roommate, is schizotypal and has never been to a facility. When I worked at a psychiatric facility the only schizophrenics we had were there as a result of threatening to harm someone else (ie my other friend who was trying to sacrifice his girlfriend to god) or themselves (ie a woman who had severe command auditory hallucinations and wouldn't eat for weeks at a time).

[FakeName123]

Being an amputee is a physical reality. Being "in the wrong body" is not.

I consider it a Body Integrity Identity Disorder and potentially a form of schizophrenia. And thus it needs to be treated as such.

[ladsin]

Well then you most certainly have no idea what schizophrenia is. You also are talking about someone else as I never once mentioned anything about being born in the wrong body... Did you read myTake? I thought it was relatively clear, but a lot of you folks seem to be talking about something far different than I am.

[FakeName123]

Transgenderism and Schizophrenia symptoms overlap quite strongly. Not to mention being "in the wrong body" can very well be considered a hallucination. Thus I said "POTENTIALLY" a form of schizophrenia.

And you don't need to mention "born in the wrong body". That's essentially the common theme among transgenderism. A lack of connection between the reality of their sex and their perception. You may or may not try to justify it as partially biological. And it may be. There are predispositions for all sorts of things - including mental illnesses. Doesn't make it any less a mental illness.

[ladsin]

I suppose in the broadest possible sense of negative schizophrenic symptoms you could notice some correlation although I would think that rather silly. If you're going to say everyone who suffers from poor motivation, social withdrawal, attention problems etc are similar to schizophrenics then you'd be throwing most everyone into that box. Transgendered persons (without a comorbid mental illness like schizophrenia or some sort of psychosis) will not have auditory. visual, or olfactory hallucinations,

If you're going to argue against people that aren't here then I don't think there's any point to this conversation. I can't/ won't defend claims I don't make.

[FakeName123]

Believing you are supposed to be the opposite gender isn't much difference than some nutcases believing they are Jesus and whatnot.

That beliefsystem in itself can cross the line to hallucination. That's why I said "POTENTIALLY"

[ladsin]

Mm well alrighty then. Seems like we simply can’t have a productive conversation on this topic. Have a good day 👍

[Anonymous]

I can understand transgenderism in people who were born hermaphrodites. Or deal with serious hormonal imbalances due to other medical conditions. Everything else is either a cry for attention or mental illness.

[ladsin]

Did you read the Take?

[The_Dean]

I agree with the opinion owner.

[Wowgirl30q]

Your right

[Celtero]

Hmm... I dunno. Transgenderism just doesn't make sense. Even that definition of gender renders the world worthless in language, because cultures have different roles for males and females, you can't say something like "men are men because they can't wear dresses." ... Right? Otherwise a transgender person would have to say "I identify as the gender of a Japanese man, because I am masculine yet wear dresses."

And even then, there's normal dudes who have long hair, wear makeup, and they're just punk.
There's women too who wear short hair and masculine clothes, yet they don't perceive themselves as men.

So I think that makes it clear you can't define your gender based on how you present yourself.

And if then gender is based on how you choose to identify, then that's completely useless too, and doesn't actually mean anything. It's like choosing to identify as a doctor. I can't actually do any medical work, but I can get people to call me Dr. Celtero, which is nice.

So all this transgenderism stuff does is muddle up our language. You cannot convey any useful information with that definition of gender. Gender should always be synonymous with sex, because when it comes to man vs woman, the only thing we need to know is what kind of junk you have, and that tells as much more about yourself based on the cultural context than how you choose to identify.

And unless we fight back against transgenderism, we're just gonna have more instances of females getting beaten by males in competitive sports, more laws and restrictions against our language, and more people outraged because people classify them as a victim group.

Also, the reason why men shouldn't wear dresses... is because they look like shit on men! Identifying as a woman won't change that.

[ladsin]

I did find that “ma’am!“ meme and video rather funny, but I think you’re slightly confused on some things. Defining gender as the cultural norms associated with a particular sex doesn’t make it superfluous, on the contrary since it clarifies exactly what we’re talking about it makes the term more specific and I think it’s therefor better.

Yes, a trans person in Africa where there are different cultural norms will look and act in somewhat different ways than say in the US where we have different norms.
(I hope this link works)
https://goo.gl/images/xqwZpb
Let’s take this person as an example. Do they look like a man or a woman to you and why? If your answer is that they look like a man despite being a biological female then you have to agree that certain norms about males and females have affected your perception of males and females beyond the biological. That’s what I, and others, are calling gender.

As for the question about whether or not MtF trans persons should be allowed to compete against biological females... I don’t see that as being a fundamental issue, we know and can demonstrate that biological males have a competitive advantage over females and whether or not they can be allowed to compete I think depends on the person in question. If a woman wants to fight against a trans woman then that’s their prerogative. If they don’t, I don’t think they should be forced. Same goes for weightlifting competitions. The idea that you can be on female hormones for a few months and then compete against women who’ve been under those hormones for their whole life is ludicrous.

[ladsin]

Does this link work?

[Celtero]

Isn't there a difference between changing gender and getting surgeries to look like a male?

There's norms set by biology... and then culture. There are no naturally occuring women with that muscle mass. Men... some, but a lot of them probably roid it up too.

You couldn't put that same outfit and hairstyle on any woman and convince people it was a male. And this is the key part, because if gender was defined by a dynamic appearance then anyone could use the same style to become that gender, even if they looked ridiculously out of place. And that's the issue with the way transgenders operate. They go out with long hair, a dress, painted nails and lipstick, and it looks so awful, because they're a male and that style does not fit their body. It's like if I went out in a wetsuit with flippers and a face painted like a seal, proclaiming that I am one. Nobody is gonna feed me a fish, and no one's gonna genuinely think the transgendered cashier is a pretty girl.

I think it's important to look at the average transgender person rather than outliers that are actually successful in convincing people they are the gender they claim to be. Never have I ever met someone, who turned out to be the opposite sex that was suggested by their gender. It's always just some dude wearing a dress with socks stuffed in a bra.

That photo is manipulated to make Logan look more masculine.

Here's another one with Logan and their partner, so tiny!



And there's a difference between transexuals and transgenders... I just don't think transgender theory is valid. Because when it comes to language, 'sex' communicates clear and useful information. 'Gender...' well, what does it mean when someone tells you their gender?

[ladsin]

I think your missing a big part of it. There's certainly some radicals that will attempt to tell you that all of the differences between the sexes are culturally based. I have never and would never say that because it's moronic. Rather I delineate between those biological and cultural differences by using specific words, sex and gendered differences. Does that help clarify? A transgendered person for example is a person who's sexually a male, but for whatever reasons wishes to associate with the female gendered norms. Then I talked about why someone may wish to do so, and I gave sociological as well as biological rationales.

[Celtero]

You say they wish to "associate with the gendered norms opposite their sex," but it seems to me they'd like OTHER people to associate them with their opposite sex.

This simply cannot be done, we can't control our social perception. That kid in the corner murmuring to himself eating boogers... he'll never be popular. And we'll never think you're a dude because you cut your hair short and wear a baseball cap.

And we wouldn't have a problem if they'd keep to themselves, perceiving themselves as feminine or masculine as they want... But they want other people to join in on their delusions, as highlighted with Mr Ma'am, along with transgenders in sports, some hiding the fact they're a biologic male until after they've won. Oh, and lets not forget bathrooms too. I dunno about you, but my university seems to reserve half the bathrooms for trans people. They've got special keycard locks, so normal people can't use them. I really appreciate it when I'm late to class due to traffic, I gotta take a piss, yet the bathroom down the hall from my class is trans only, and the next closest one is on the other side of the building or on another floor... all because some people don't wanna use the men's restroom even though they've got a cock.

I also forgot to mention something earlier regarding sports. Women do have a choice to compete against a man, the alternative being attack by the social justice mob. Remember when a pornstar killed herself after harassment for not wanting to do a scene with a gay guy because they're more likely to have AIDS?

[ladsin]

Oh, well perhaps my statement was slightly slapdash. Yes, they wish to conduct themselves in accordance with the opposite sex's norms, and they wish to be perceived that way. I disagree with them taking any legal action to force this as it makes the issue unnecessarily political. You a lady who tells me your name is Jim? Ok, whatever you're Jim. You ask me to refer to you as he? Sure why not, I'll try. Now if somebody intends to legally enforce that we have a far bigger problem as we admittedly do, but I didn't reference any of that stuff here. This Take was just meant to be informative about the issue and I wasn't recommending any policy proposals or making any moral judgments about it although it seems that that's how most took it.

"And we'll never think you're a dude because you cut your hair short and wear a baseball cap." I thought we already agreed on the military Trans person that I showed above? Looks like a dude to me and I'd call 'em a dude.

The bathroom issue is a weird one. I understand the... qualms that many people have with allowing bio males into women's bathrooms, but I actually don't even think you are legally required to go to the bathroom of your sex. I think a restaurant may throw you out or something, but I don't think there are legal ramifications. I know NC passed a bill requiring it, but that was one of the only states that did. My main concern here is over practicality. How are we to determine whether or not someone should go to the boy or ladies room? Is it based on their manner of dress? You may remember I showed that video of the dike-y lesbian getting kicked out of a McDonalds bathroom because they thought she was trans. Do you have officer's stationed at every public restroom to check genitals or ID? We're not legally required to carry ID in the US, but you'd make it de facto required if that was the case and I'd have big concerns with that.

[Celtero]

Well, the easy solution to the bathroom issue is to have a single lockable bathroom with one toilet and one sink in addition to the gendered ones... It just peeves me that they get their own private bathroom which takes up space and public resources that nobody else can use. While we're at it, can I have my own private bathroom too? I've got a shy bladder, which should obviously count as a disability.

I've no problem associating someone like Logan as a man, because they actually resemble one... as far as I know, (maybe in person Logan has a high voice and feminine mannerisms.) The problem is most transgenders are so damn lazy about it. The reason why I've used language like "put on a dress" or "wear their hair short" is because that's the amount of effort usually put into being the opposite gender.

And that's the issue I have with transgenderism... is being able to change your gender at a whim. If gender is a social construct, then other people determine your gender by how they perceive you. You can influence how they perceive you by changing behavior and appearance, but ultimately your gender depends on other people. You can't just go "Alakazam, now I'm a man!" It's just nonsensical. Like... race is basically a social construct too by these standards, and I can't just paint my skin black, start sagging my pants and listening to rap and demand people identify me as a black person.

So that's my reasoning for not recognizing transgenderism as a valid theory.

Transexuals make sense as a thing, but transgenders? meh. You're just a crossdresser at that point.

[littleghosts]

You got a pretty good definition of gender though humans don’t really have two sexes. While typical male and female are the majority, there are people with many different sexes known as intersex. As for there are only two genders, that’s a very Eurocentric view of gender and very wrong. Many cultures have more than just male and female. In the Torah, there are 6 defined genders and man nonbinary/trans jewish folk are beginning to use these again. In Hawaiian culture there is a third gender Māhū. Easy google search to find that a binary gender is not the norm. A quick google search on non-european cultures on gender should pull up some more examples. And as for why, it’s not something we should be asking until we are more accepting and understand of trans and nonbinary identities because the next question after “Why does this happen?” Is “How do we stop it?”. You did pretty well in doing your research and understanding. Also don’t be afraid to ask trans folks about these things because some are more than happy to answer so long as they’re not easy questions you can google or are really rude.

[ladsin]

There are two sexes, that's just biology. There are people with ambiguous genitalia that we call intersex. That's not the same as transgender. If we agree that gender is the stereotypical norms for each sex then there's only going to be two. There are plenty of cultures that have a separate class for what we'd consider transgender. As I pointed to Hijras, Insangoma etc.

I know a few trans folks, I've been close friends with two. We didn't talk a whole lot about it. because it didn't really have any relevance to our friendship.

[Ellie-V]

It’s not like theirs a million and one genders. The lgbt+ stick with dude, lady, and non-binary (or gender fluid, whatever you choose to call it). It’s not some difficult concept to grasp. Transgender people either identify as a dude or a lady. This isn’t rocket science. I understand when people get confused about sexual identity because there’s terms like demi sexual and all that stuff. But gender identity is very simple.

Anyways, I enjoyed your take. I’m so glad someone talked about transgenderism without the hateful/ignorant context.

[ladsin]

I’d agree with you, but there’s been a marked rise of other gender identities hence the whole 20+ new pronouns being suggested or requested by various persons. That’s why I say some rising portion of it is sociological.

[SketchForger]

One of the things where I stand on the fence of is the difference between gender norms and gender expression, because I do not like the implications gender norms have in general. I refer to myself as my sex, and I believe gender as a concept is a little outdated in terms of needing to associate it with any pronouns.

Simply because I (my own personal perspective mind you) do not believe gender norms can affect who I am and what sex I am. Meaning I do not assign anything society expects of me to a gender, or even a gender norm.

But that is only my personal perspective, and overall I do not care what other people do.

[ladsin]

Sure, the move for a while now has been to move away from stereotyping gender norms. A highly effeminate man who has long hair, wears some makeup and dresses somewhat girly may still say they’re a man and that those gendered norms are silly and outdated. The problem of course is that as a society we still have expectations or norms for each sex. So a trans person who does the exact same thing as a cis person (say a trans vs a drag queen) can have differ on how they want to be perceived.

[roaring20sman]

Wow I can't beleive how late I am to this myTake. Anyways I'm not sure why there is so much criticism on your post. I think that this subject overall isn't black and white. Homosexuality is certainly the key behind most transgender people. Not to mention the person's life experiences that played a role in who that person is today. Seems like you can link life experiences/homsexual tendencies to be the biggest key factors in shaping the trans community. As for mental disorder? I'm not sure but I have an easy time believing it. Simply because if you've been around or seen trans people. They can get weird... Not trying to paint them all like that but there's a lot of them out there.

[ladsin]

All good. I posted this reply to someone else you may find it interesting
“Do you think that it's such a ludicrous notion that a male dog would exhibit female dog stereotypical behavior. I find it a rather silly notion as sex differences in behavior is very nominal among dog populations. Males may be slightly more emotionally stable when compared to females, but the research on the subject is relatively lacking. We do know that several other species will have individuals with characteristics similar to our transgenders. Certain species of snakes, lizards, beetles, fish, and birds, all have some portion of the male population that imitates the behaviors and appearance of the females of their species. It's actually quite well documented if you'd like I can link to some research.”

[TonyBologna25]

I refuse to enable delusion. There are two genders/sexes and those have always been considered synonymous until recently. If somebody is schizophrenic and believes that there are ghosts talking to him, are we going to tell him those ghosts are real and his friends and act like nothing is going on when he establishes relationships with these 'ghosts'? No, we're going to give him lithium, so he can live a somewhat normal life. You can believe whatever you want to, but the actuality of the situation is not that you can choose your sex/gender. People who are trans are suffering from a mental disorder classified as gender dysphoria by the DSM-5. Suicide rates are very high within these individuals and post surgery, they are even more prone to suicide. I rather give them the actual help they need rather than enabling their delusion and having the mutilate their genitalia.

[ladsin]

Well you got a bit wrong there, but let's talk about it. First I'll just copy-paste what I wrote to some other similar statements and we can go from there.
Well, there's a few things I guess that should be addressed here. I'll start with copy-pasting what I wrote to a few others on this issue. "I don't think it's a mental illness per the DSM-V. I think their rationale is rather sound on this question. The association with a different sexes cultural norms isn't itself sufficient to be classified as a mental illness although significant depression and anxiety that may stem from this would be a mental illness (gender dysphoria). The analogy I always try to give to explain this is as follows: Being an amputee can frequently cause depression and lead to severe anxiety (not knowing how to navigate life without your limbs). Being an amputee isn't a mental illness, rather it's the depression and anxiety that are. Does that help clarify?
Schizophrenics and schizotypals aren't locked up in facilities because they have delusions, they are if there's sufficient cause to believe they'd be a threat to themselves or others. One of my closest friends, also my roommate, is schizotypal and has never been to a facility. When I worked at a psychiatric facility the only schizophrenics we had were there as a result of threatening to harm someone else (ie my other friend who was trying to sacrifice his girlfriend to god) or themselves (ie a woman who had severe command auditory hallucinations and wouldn't eat for weeks at a time)."

[Sixgun77]

Tony, that's the best response.

[Sixgun77]

While the DSM and definitions may have been changed recently, that doesn't mean they're CORRECT. Within the last year I've seen dictionary definitions changed to go along with the masses misusing the terms. I have strong suspicions that the DSM is changed due to pressure from special interest groups.
The are 2 genders, 2 sexes. Everything else is a rare birth defect or mental illness. Transgenderism is an illness that needs treatment. Society needs to stop reinforcing these people's delusions and stop trying to use laws and regulations to force people to pretend it's normal. In fact, I'd argue that since calling a man a woman is incorrect (or an outright lie) it's actually harmful to go along with it.

[RachelleDraws]

I agree with this. I don't get why people make transgenderism to be this big scary thing. It really isn't.

[Tilin29]

Because instead of dealing with it as a mental illness, which by the criteria of general classifications for a mental illness is one, we take it as if it is normal and that gender is a variable.

Almost all transgender people suffer from depression and have the highest recorded suicide rate of any recorded group.

We're supporting a mental illness instead of finding a solution to it. We are modifying the terms man and woman, which in the end is not benificial to transgender people even if it may seem so.

[ladsin]

@Tilin29 well it’s not a mental disorder according to the DSM as transgender identity needn’t necessarily be linked to depression. The way I’ve tried to explain it is like this: being an amputee often results in depression and anxiety. That being the case being an amputee is not a mental disorder, rather the depression and anxiety are. I do suppose depending on what the person exactly is saying it could be construed as a delusion, but that’s only if they’re talking about their sex and not their gender as I defined it above.

[Tilin29]

@ladsin
Yes, it's been declassified as a mental disorder after the pressure of the LGBT community.

While an amputation might not be a mental disorder, it's still a disability and could be seen as a bodily disorder. It's not as it's supposed to be and people that have this shouldn't be ignored and normalized, rather helped.

Gender dysphoria or transgenderism as referred to by some, fits all the criteria for a mental disorder. It actually shares an origin of depression, which is an unbalance of chemicals inside your brain.

No scientific evidence so far has proven that gender is a variable. Gender and sex by definition meant the same until the year 2011. There was no scientific reasoning behind this, it was just a feminist theory (it is still only described as a theory) from the 1980s.

For the whole history man meant biologically man and woman meant biologically a woman. It's hurtful to people like me, who would never date a transgender person. It's not because I am discriminatory, it's because I don't want to date someone that has a penis or bits of a penis left.

The only "sciences", if we can call them that, currently approving that gender and sex are two separate things are sociology, gender studies and neuroscience.

If people can choose to identify as whatever they want to, then I also want my own personal gender because Male doesn't sounds good enough and I think MEGATRON would fit me a lot better.

[ladsin]

@Tilin29 I never stated nor implied that gender and sex were completely separate. In fact I said that gender is the cultural norms associated with a particular sex specifically referencing articles of dress. Most everyone’s “gender” matches their sex. As such there’s no doubt that there’s a strong biological component. The question is specifically about those who don’t and what the causes are which I addressed here. I must admit I’ve always found the definitional battle to be a rather silly one. Definitions change over time, that’s how language works. In regards to this particular discussion we’re distinguishing the biological differences (sex) and the cultural differences (gender). If you want to use a different word you can, but you’re just not addressing the issue by saying the word is wrong. It’d be like if I was to argue with you about whether or not the sky was blue or red but I refused to work with the same language you were getting nowhere. Gender dysphoria is exactly as I described it where the mental illness being treated is the resulting depression. You may say that a transgender person isn’t the sex to which they describe, but again we’re talking about sex vs gender. If a trans man (MTF) actually thinks they are biologically female then yes they’re under a delusion. If they simply rather associate with the gendered norms of the sex they weren’t born then they’re not under a delusion. They recognize that there’s an incongruity with their sexual organs and how they want to be perceived in the world.

[Tilin29]

@ladsin
And I am saying that gender and sex meant the same for a long time and they changed it to feel comfortable. Some countries use gender instead of sex on their ID cards, because of what it meant before.

Why gender even started to get used as a word is because sex already has two meanings. A transgender person should still be legally referred to as a male if they've been born a male.

I am not arguing about the fact that the definition changed, I am not saying it's correct. The definition states that gender is a social construct, which it is not. It is a biological construct. Masculinity and femininity have all started out due to biological reasons and if we were to restart humanity all over again, the same would happen.

[ladsin]

@Tilin29 are you unwilling to write your own response? I won’t continue talking on other people’s comments

[Tilin29]

@ladsin
Hey I don't have a response except to these people. You can PM me, even though I doubt I can change anyone's mind when that's all the media tells you is right. I am not one of those tinfoil-hat people that goes around telling people "the government controls the weather reee", but I know that media has significant impact upon our lives and how we perceive things.

As I said, you can PM me.

[RachelleDraws]

The reason why depression and anxiety are so high for transgender youth is that it isn't accepted by the general public and often they don't have access to what they need to be able to transition. There are statistics showing that this is what it is

[Tilin29]

@RachelleDraws
Okay, right. Let's say that could be a factor. The suicide rate does not change after a sex organ transition.
It still does not explain the high suicide rate. Especially judging by the fact that kids that get physically abused by bullies have lower suicide rates than transgenders. Transgenders are at 32% to 50% (depending on country) when it comes to suicide rates. Please tell me how this suicide rate can be due to social non-acceptance even though the closest suicide rate to it was during ww2 by jews under nazi occupation.

Apparently being a man is also much better than a woman, even though that male suicides are 3.54x more likely than female suicides.

[RachelleDraws]

@Tilin29 This is in addition to things like bullying. Forcing yourself to hide or suppress something of yourself isn't good for your mental health. They face gender-based, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends. I know transgender people that have been completely rejected by their family and feel awful about it.
Men have higher suicide rates due to the societal expectation of them to suppress their emotion and appear stoic. The whole "Men don't cry" and "Man up". Men find it much harder than women to express their emotion.

[Tilin29]

Partially correct. Men's suicide rates are higher because we're more prone to clinical depression etc.

Clinical depression is worse than depression. Clinical depression is what makes majority of people suicide. It makes you unhappy even if there's no real reason behind it.

[MackToday]

It's likely a birth defect obviously they are very mentally ill people who are often a threat to themselves and others. They have walked in front of semi trucks to commit suicide, attacked people , there was an ax attack in Australia not that long ago. The only reason research isn't being done is because the far left finds them easy to exploit.

[Lliam]

A while back I read an article that said gender transition is one of the biggest (most lucrative) growth industries. Pharmaceutical companies and some doctors are getting rich. So they are helping to push the idea that sexual dimorphism is normal and society should embrace it.

[MackToday]

@Lliam No surprise there.

[Rogzi]

Gender is not a social construct. That idea is laughable.

[ladsin]

Did you bother to read it?

[Jager66]

OP posts: "Gender is the social and cultural norms associated with a particular sex. "

Gets called out on that shit... Proceeds to claim that people who say: "Gender is not a social construct. "

Did not read the post...

OP is dumb.

[ladsin]

@Jager66 lol guessing you didn’t read it either 😂

Truly a wise and learned man

[Jager66]

Nah I read it.

[ladsin]

@Jager66 ok. So what do you think biologically indicates that a woman should wear a dress and a man shouldn’t? If you don’t think there’s any biological reason for it (presumably you wouldn’t) then you’d say it’s part of a cultural construct, or expectation, for women to wear a dress and a man not. That’s why we call it a gender difference and not a sex difference.

[Jager66]

It's not the dress specifically that is the issue, that's a red herring.

The issue is sexual attraction that is biologically rooted in the sexual dimorphism between male and female humans. This manifests in many ways in human culture. One of those ways is social standards of behavior and among those standards is how Men and Women dress.

[ladsin]

@Jager66 it’s not a red herring because I’m specifically talking about those gendered differences in a particular society. Sexual attraction is a different issue. It’s quite similar though in that there’s a strong biological influence on sexual attraction (over 95% of males are primarily attracted to the other sex) but there’s still some 3-5% which are almost exclusively attracted to the same sex. This also has a strong biological component as is indicated by the rank order and twin studies, but we even have a good idea that a specific coding region Xq28 is highly linked with same sex attraction.

[Rogzi]

You're missing his point. You asked for a biological reason.
Sex is certainly biological. Attraction and appeal stem from this and effect culture.
Girls wear dresses because it's sexy. Being sexually attractive is a biological imperative.

[ladsin]

I asked for a biological reason that it’d have to be a dress. There are plenty of cultures where women don’t wear dresses or where men wear what appears to be a dress per my earlier examples. If we can agree that wearing a dress isn’t a result of biological sex, but rather the cultures were a part of then we could agree with all the same points, but you seem to just not want to call that gender. Fine, call it perflifaskump the points are still the same that there appears to be a strong biological component, and that they’ve existed across most all cultures across most all times.

[Jager66]

[ladsin]

@Jager66 I guess so. Either you were incompetent at explaining your point, I was incapable of understanding it, or these two points aren’t mutually exclusive.

[CrisisActorFromIdaho]

Exactly, so what about them? Why is the media shoving them in your face at every turn?

[ladsin]

Well I agree that it's being abused by the media and society as a whole as I pointed out twice about the socialization issues.

[UI_Vegeta01]

What is a transgender person? A mentally unstable person.

[ImFromReddit]

Mentally ill would be more correct. It's a major issue that needs to be dealt with. Instead of supporting their illusions, we should help them. By current logic if a child were to claim that they were a dinosaur, instead of telling the child no they aren't a dinosaur and explaining why they aren't one you're supposed to agree with the child and anyone that doesn't is being inconsiderate.

[ladsin]

I don't think it's a mental illness per the DSM-V. I think their rationale is rather sound on this question. The association with a different sexes cultural norms isn't itself sufficient to be classified as a mental illness although significant depression and anxiety that may stem from this would be a mental illness (gender dysphoria). The analogy I always try to give to explain this is as follows: Being an amputee can frequently cause depression and lead to severe anxiety (not knowing how to navigate life without your limbs). Being an amputee isn't a mental illness, rather it's the depression and anxiety that are. Does that help clarify?

[ImFromReddit]

Gender Identity Disorder is a mental illness. A biological male is not woman no matter how much he wishes to be. You can't change your biology. Instead of supporting their illusions and telling them biology doesn't matter, we need to help them realize the truth. So are you saying that if a people started believing they weren't human, they were a dog, you wouldn't see that as a mental illness? You think that society should just accept their delusions as true?

[ladsin]

@ImFromReddit I’m not advocating any of that so clearly you’re not talking to me but someone in the ether 😂

[ImFromReddit]

Gender Dysphoria is just a renaming of Gender Identity Disorder.

[ladsin]

@ImFromReddit well not exactly if you actually read the DSM guidelines, but I never talked about changing biology or any of that silliness.

[ImFromReddit]

I never said you brought that up. I was clearly giving examples and giving you my opinions on the matter. I could same the same about you and the amputee statement. I never said anything about amputees so why bring them up?

[ladsin]

@ImFromReddit that’s an analogy to explain what gender dysphoria is. If you think that’s at all equitable to me talking about cultural norms and your insistence on biological differences I’d have to say you don’t have a great grasp on analogies 😂

[ImFromReddit]

I didn't say I used analogy. I made a statement and gave reasons why I made said statement. You did the same as well and that's what I was pointing out.

[ladsin]

@ImFromReddit I’m lost 😂
I guess were just talking past each other. Have a good day 👍

[ImFromReddit]

Alright, great way to avoid my questions.

[lofii]

The government put gay liquids in the water system making people gay

[ladsin]

I thought it was only the frogs?

[lofii]

No

they put them in the foods fed to people, possibly even baby food as well.

Anything to do with hormones

[ladsin]

Probably the vaccines as well don’t you think?

[lofii]

Yeah that's why they're "mandatory"

[ladsin]

Oh! Just like the fluoride. Dirty bastards.

[Darklydarkened]

Transgender people usually understand that even though they identify themselves as the opposite, physically they're men/women.

But people who're wrapped in gender studies classes usually yammer more about it.

[ladsin]

Did you read the myTake?

[WhoDatGuy]

People can to what they want, its their lives.
Just don't expect me to support you.
And this subject affects a small % but gets way more attention then it deserves

[Anonymous]

We live in a world where truth no longer matters. Only opinion.

Scientific truth, objective truth, none of that matters as much as "feelings" and if that isn't enough reason for the euthanisation of humanity, I don't know what is.

[ladsin]

Eh? Lol when do you think scientific truth mattered more than in the past few decades?

[Opinion Owner]

Even in the 90's it mattered more. The beginning of the end was post 9-11. When TPTB started deconstructing reality. The hijackers are virtually all Saudi's? Let's invade Iraq. We know where the WMD's are. They are north, south, east and west somewhat of Baghdad.
Move on eventually to the Birther movement, the Tea Party movement, and the wilful denial of facts became more mainstream. You'd think things had peaked with the fringe bunch of fucking numbskulls in the early 2000's who thought we never went to the moon. Today we have mainstream Flat Earthers who are not committed in mental asylums and electroshocked back into fucking reality.

I'm not talking about truth no longer matters in the past few decades. It's been a race to the bottom since about 2002, and there's no way we're pulling out of the nosedive we're in now.

So yeah, Men and Womyn and Attack helicopters are just 3 of the 517 Facebook genders that Tumblr worships, Anyone can self diagnose themselves as transexual, morons think gluten is added to everything to kill them, anti-vaxxers have brought back fucking MEASLES epidemics, and fucking Trump is elected.

Nuke it all. Give the cockroaches a chance.

[Anonymous]

"Trans" is not a real thing, it's just a form of mental illness. Gender is not a social construct.

[ladsin]

Did you read myTake?

[RachelleDraws]

I'd assume not.

[Opinion Owner]

No, I stopped reading at "Gender is the social and cultural norms associated with a particular sex.", because that's the new, bullshit definition. Gender has always been a synonym for sex, and there is no difference between the two. Only biology can determine what you actually are, and if you feel like you are something else than what evidence says, well that's called mental illness

[ladsin]

You should keep reading I specifically explain the differences between biological sex differences and social gender differences. Yes there are biological differences between the sexes, there are also gendered differences which are determined by the society in question. There's nothing about biology that indicates a woman should wear a dress as opposed to a man.

[Opinion Owner]

That is called gender roles. And there is a big difference between gender roles and gender. As you said yourself in the take, there have been cultures where men wore skirts or dresses or whatever, yet they haven't been perceived as women. A person does not have to fulfill their gender role, that doesn't say anything about what they are. And even fulfilling the opposite gender's role, while weird for many people, still doesn't make you the opposite gender any more than laying in a parking lot makes you a car. I think that is a very important distinction, since many people confuse gender roles (which for the most part are socially constructed) with gender (which is something that determines what you are, just like skin color, hair color or any other factor).

[ladsin]

Oh, well your argument then is solely that you don’t agree with the terminology and with that being the case I’d say you’re just not taking part in the discussion. Just as an example let’s take Jordan Peterson’s beliefs about god. His definition of god is completely unrecognizable to me as a person who believed in the traditional notion of the Christian god, but if we were having a debate or discussion about his god then I’d have to deal with him on his terms or I would just be poo-pooing the conversation. “God is the process by which men are selected amongst the hierarchy of men which is something like competence and forthrightness and the ability to speak truth.” “That’s not god.” “That’s what I believe god is” “that’s not god.” You see how that’s unproductive? While I agree definitions are important, definitions change over time. That’s how language works, and having two words that mean the exact same thing is rather superfluous. It makes sense to me to have one word reference the biology and one word reference the societal constructs around that biology.

[Opinion Owner]

Well ok, terminology aside, if we ignore the fact that they were synonyms until recently and we adopt the new way of looking at it for the time being, are you saying (or are they saying) that gender is almost the same thing as gender roles? Because if that's the case, that also has a huge hole in it, as both you and I pointed out, about certain things being acceptable/unacceptable depending on the culture and the environment.

My main point is that a man/woman can't be anything other than what they biologically are, that any difference between biology (a. k. a. facts) and what they believe is just textbook mental illness.

[ladsin]

Gender as I was using it is the cultural norms associated with a particular sex. A transgender person just associates with the opposite sex's cultural norms. That is highly dependent on culture. The Insangoma of the Zulu, and the Asian Hijras for example share the association of the opposite sex's cultural norms, but those norms differed. You can google them for more information, but just as an example let's say the Zulu males stereotypically wear a loincloth and get certain tribal tattoos whereas women wear something akin to a dress and get different tattoos. A transgender MtF in that culture would do the female cultural norms. On the other hand the Asian Hijras would obviously have some different norms and thus the trans people in their culture would do different things.

[Tilin29]

@ladsin
No, you're speaking of gender norms. Gender is not a social construct and saying you're a woman won't decrease your testosterone levels and increase estrogen.

The reasons behind why men don't wear dresses is technically social, but it's mostly historical and biological. It was very impractical in the past for men to wear dresses. I mean men were warriors and hunters, while women were gatherers and the ones who raised children, which biologically is how it's supposed to be (I do not support that anyone should be forced into raising a kid because of their gender). For example though, when it comes to Lions the males are the ones which defend the family, but females hunt. Animals aren't able to form societies or form social behaviors but they do these things out of instinct.

If gender is a social construct, please explain how and why animals have gender roles, which they do not get taught.

[ladsin]

@Tilin29 nobody argues that associating as a sex other than what you were born with makes you that sex. I certainly never stated nor implied that so you’re simply arguing against someone else. The old Scott’s and Japanese and Indians would seem to disagree with you on the point about flowing clothes being detrimental to the hunt.

That said I see I’m talking to you on several different responses which aren’t yours. Make your own response so we can stop blowing up other people’s feed.

[Tilin29]

@ladsin
They would not disagree really. A dress and a kilt are not the same, neither is a male kimono (there's a difference between the female one). Neither is a skirt.

A kimono was not worn by every day men and it was a sign of financial prosperity. A male kimono also is not the same as a female kimono. The male kimono was made from tougher materials and allowed for greater mobility (this also applies to the kilt).

[Opinion Owner]

@ladsin ok, yeah, that might be the way you used it, but unfortunately that is not the way most people use it nowadays. because "trans" people don't just want to fulfill a different role. they are convinced that they in fact fully are the opposite gender. and that's what I have a problem with, because it's clearly insane. if they were looking at it the way you do, and if it was only about roles, there would be no problem. this way, it's a very serious problem.

[ladsin]

I can agree that there's a societal problem with people weaponizing the transgender issue as an issue to make others kowtow to their political whims. This is particularly done around the concept of kindness or justice and banning free speech. I'm most certainly against that. I'm even more baffled by the rise of everybody having their individual pronouns for use which is nonsensical as I pointed out here.

That said, I can still have a nuanced opinion about the subject without agreeing with all of the societal baggage around it. I can say that I think it inappropriate to call a black person a "n" word (not sure if the site would ban), but I don't think it should be illegal. When you're talking to me you should talk to me and try to drop the baggage from all the nonsense surrounding the topic XD
For example my section on why a person would wish to identify as or act in concordance with the cultural norms for the opposite sex is really pretty interesting and informative.

[Lliam]

Iadsin. You keep asking people that as if your take proved your point.

[Anonymous]

There's a reason 20 years ago trannies we driven to alleyways where they live off of heroin paid for by blowing guys for $10s.

Now they are treated liked their mental disorder is something honorable.

Disgusting.

[ladsin]

Lol did I imply they're honorable anywhere in here? XD You sound a little hyper-sensitive to the issue.

[JenSCDC]

You missed all the brain structure stuff.

[ladsin]

You're talking about how biological males can be born with "female" brains? If so that's part of the maternal antibodies affecting Y chromosomal changes due to increased antibodies that I was mentioning.

[emmily2396]

what brain structure stuff? femaleand males may be prone to have certain types of the brain more developed, but it is not always the case... so just because someone has some traits that are not as common for their gender it doesn't mean they are a different sex... or that they should identify themselves like that... some people also act brainless but that doesn't mean they should identify as plants

[sp33d]

'With each successive male birth a woman produces stronger antibodies against a male Y chromosomal protein. This means that her body will fight against that protein..' Well, Blanchard and Klassen sure have some explaining to do.

[ladsin]

Who?

[sp33d]

As far as I can tell, the ones who started the 'maternal immunisation theory', which is far-fetched to say the least. Relevant info in your 3rd link.

[ladsin]

Ah thanks, I didn't check all of each article's references. What's your contention with their findings?

[CaptainLegal]

My dog is also is transgender. She felt like she was a boy and decided that she wants to be a girl. Lmao

[ladsin]

I'm not exactly sure if you think that's funny, or if you think that it's such a ludicrous notion that a male dog would exhibit female dog stereotypical behavior. If the former, eh, our sense of humor isn't that similar. If the latter I find it a rather silly notion as sex differences in behavior is very nominal among dog populations. Males may be slightly more emotionally stable when compared to females, but the research on the subject is relatively lacking. We do know that several other species will have individuals with characteristics similar to our transgenders. Certain species of snakes, lizards, beetles, fish, and birds, all have some portion of the male population that imitates the behaviors and appearance of the females of their species. It's actually quite well documented if you'd like I can link to some research.