Transgender [Serious]

[Dad]

Basically, "it's your right, but I don't have to accept it"? Cuz that sounds like a load of sheet.

 

 

Though I could be grossly misinterpreting your statement, Cuz you made quit a few good points. These types of decisions are literal life changes, and rushing into it only to regret it would seriously screw you over.

 

But why is that particular sexuality suddenly being scrutinized when compared to gauss LGB? Seems like a scapegoat.

[Lunar Origins]

because being transgender isn't a sexuality, it isn't even related to the other facets of the lgb community beyond being mildly strange compared to the 'norm'

[Dad]

So the transition is considered a farce? Because it's outside of the norm? For

years, being gay was considered outside of the norm.

 

Why is this so different?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So the transition is considered a farce? Because it's outside of the norm? For

years, being gay was considered outside of the norm.

 

Why is this so different?

Because animals engage in homoerotic activity in nature. Animals don't engage in transition. That's why the latter is a mental illness and the former isn't

[ihop]

Comparing humans to animals in this case is bizarre because animals wouldn't have the ability to transition if they wanted to and there's no way to know if they wanted to. Hell, for all we know a hedgehog that runs in front of a car is not confused by the headlights and is in fact depressed to the point of suicide as a result of their gender dysphoria. There are so many things humans do that animals don't and a lot of them wouldn't be described as a mental illness so idk what makes this one a mental illness.

[Aerion Brightflame]

If we are being technical there animals that can shift gender as part of there regular biological functions. Not strict gender transition for the sake of a mental illness, but for the sake of a single sex environment or after sexual acts it is something we can witness in nature. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Hell, for all we know a hedgehog that runs in front of a car is not confused by the headlights and is in fact depressed to the point of suicide as a result of their gender dysphoria.

This is my favorite post literally ever.

 

And Dad, what I believe vla1ne is saying is that, though many people will not accept you as such, that should not impede your right to live how you feel you are meant to.

 

Also, I never fully understood the whole nature argument. Animals can very much suffer from mental illness. Arguably, the presence of transsexualism among humans and not other species would indicate against it being mental illness, instead being a construct of human perception and societal norms.

 

It is an incredibly human concept at the end of day, as it requires critical thought in regards to the concept of self, and brings with it philosophical concepts that aren't observed in animals. Using "do animals transition" as a baseline for legitimacy is a flawed reasoning that is just setting it up to fail.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If we are being technical there animals that can shift gender as part of there regular biological functions. Not strict gender transition for the sake of a mental illness, but for the sake of a single sex environment or after sexual acts it is something we can witness in nature. 

Well yes, I was just paraphrasing the idea from the other thread. If you put animals under enough stress in a same sex environment they can sometime switch. But that's not for same reason as Humans seem to do it

This is my favorite post literally ever.

 

And Dad, what I believe vla1ne is saying is that, though many people will not accept you as such, that should not impede your right to live how you feel you are meant to.

 

Also, I never fully understood the whole nature argument. Animals can very much suffer from mental illness. Arguably, the presence of transsexualism among humans and not other species would indicate against it being mental illness, instead being a construct of human perception and societal norms.

 

It is an incredibly human concept at the end of day, as it requires critical thought in regards to the concept of self, and brings with it philosophical concepts that aren't observed in animals. Using "do animals transition" as a baseline for legitimacy is a flawed reasoning that is just setting it up to fail.

But the animals rationale is fine when justifying homosexuality right?

[ihop]

Whose sole justification for homosexuality being OK is that animals do it? Homosexuality is ok people people want to do it and it's not harming anyone.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Whose sole justification for homosexuality being OK is that animals do it? Homosexuality is ok people people want to do it and it's not harming anyone.

One of the major justification for Homosexuality is that primates and dolphins and other high order mammals engage in homoerotic activity, so it's not "unnatural" at all

 

Never said whole, so don't put words in my

 

This is just typical Leftist behavior, facts are only facts when they support the left viewpt

[ihop]

If the sole reason you accept homosexuality is because animals do it you're really not much less of a bigot than people who don't accept it at all. Homosexuality shouldn't be something you need to convince yourself to accept.

[Aerion Brightflame]

If the sole reason you accept homosexuality is because animals do it you're really not much less of a bigot than people who don't accept it at all. Homosexuality shouldn't be something you need to convince yourself to accept.

 

Winter isn't arguing that it's the sole reason. He's arguing that some were opposed to homosexuality (Ignoring any bigotry these people may have within them anyway) due to it being 'unnatural'. It occuring in nature means that is not a valid argument in objective terms instead of having to go 'Why would it be unnatural? Very little of our lives is actually natural'.

 

It is a viewpoint I have heard as a justification for people finding the idea of homosexuality to be vile. It's not however an particularly valid argument here because as I said - It's a justification rather than an actual reason. 

[~~~~]

But the animals rationale is fine when justifying homosexuality right?

The justification is that it does no harm and gay sex brings happiness to all who willingly engage in it.

 

The animals thing is simply a rebuttal of "but it's unnatural" which is a appeal to nature fallacy anyway, but faced with such an argument, it's easier to make the point that it is natural. However, that is technically the wrong point to make as it is actually irrelevant whether it is natural or not.

 

I've had people defend appeal to nature even when faced with extremely good counterexamples. For example, this is based on a real conversation I had with my teacher.

Robert is arguing that ingredient X is likely healthier than ingredient Y because X is "natural" and Y is not. I bring up asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral that is extremely dangerous to be exposed to. I bring up cyanide, a naturally occurring poison found in the stones of some of the fruit of the genus Prunus and also in nonlethal amounts in apple seeds. Robert says that neither of these two examples "count", but cannot explain why.

 

This shows that breaking apart someone's fallacies can be an incredibly difficult, thus when we were trying to get gayness accepted, we used [spoiler=this example]

to debunk the "but it's not natural" argument, rather than doing the monumental task of getting everyone to think rationally.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If the sole reason you accept homosexuality is because animals do it you're really not much less of a bigot than people who don't accept it at all. Homosexuality shouldn't be something you need to convince yourself to accept.

 

I don't think you know the definition of bigot/bigotry from this post

 

I'd also question your reading comprehension because I've quite literally said it's not the sole reason in the post above and politely requested you stop insinuating I said that

 

You should blindly accept x without being convinced of it's validity by y is a poor belief system to subscribe to. That's the exact same sheet that gave us a thousand years of Religion dictating our life over science 

 

The justification is that it does no harm and gay sex brings happiness to all who willingly engage in it.

 

The animals thing is simply a rebuttal of "but it's unnatural" which is a appeal to nature fallacy anyway, but faced with such an argument, it's easier to make the point that it is natural. However, that is technically the wrong point to make as it is actually irrelevant whether it is natural or not.

 

I've had people defend appeal to nature even when faced with extremely good counterexamples. For example, this is based on a real conversation I had with my teacher.

Robert is arguing that ingredient X is likely healthier than ingredient Y because X is "natural" and Y is not. I bring up asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral that is extremely dangerous to be exposed to. I bring up cyanide, a naturally occurring poison found in the stones of some of the fruit of the genus Prunus and also in nonlethal amounts in apple seeds. Robert says that neither of these two examples "count", but cannot explain why.

 

This shows that breaking apart someone's fallacies can be an incredibly difficult, thus when we were trying to get gayness accepted, we used [spoiler=this example]

to debunk the "but it's not natural" argument, rather than doing the monumental task of getting everyone to think rationally.

The natural example for apples is kinda shitty. It's natural to die of bloodloss, doesn't mean it's good. I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to make from the cyanide example. The atoms in w/e artificial thing you make is also natural, so in the end everything is natural >_>

 

The natural case for homosexuality is that kids need a mother and a father figure to be raiser properly as well as that the biological prerogative of all humans is to procreate. 

 

The example of the higher order mammals affirms that pleasure can be a motive for sexual. The nature counterpoint is needed for the following reason.

 

Typical Argument:

 

Anti-LGB: Ability to have kids is a standard of a functional family

 

LGB: What about people who are infertile

 

Anti: Genetic Extraction of cells can allow kids to be produced

 

LGB: Doesn't matter, higher order mammals regularly funk same sex for pleasure, pleasure can be an alternative motivation 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

But the animals rationale is fine when justifying homosexuality right?

If you read a bit closer, you would notice me pointing out that justification of transexualism and homosexuality would work upon completely different things, since they are completely different concepts.

 

Though, for the record, it isn't fine. It is a stupid argument that really sells short the concept of homosexuality. Of course, the only person I regularly see use this defense as a scientific fact (and thus being able to be used to invalidate other behaviors) is you, so I am not sure who you are trying to make a fool of.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The natural example for apples is kinda shitty. It's natural to die of bloodloss, doesn't mean it's good. I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to make from the cyanide example. The atoms in w/e artificial thing you make is also natural, so in the end everything is natural >_>

Ironically I need to question your reading comprehension here. They didn't say that natural implies good. In fact they later, with the cyanide thing, said that natural doesn't mean good.

This has been explained multiple times now. It's literally just to dispute the one argument that anit-gay people say of it being "unnatural" and thus bad (in their eyes). Nothing more; nothing less.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ironically I need to question your reading comprehension here. They didn't say that natural implies good. In fact they later, with the cyanide thing, said that natural doesn't mean good.

This has been explained multiple times now. It's literally just to dispute the one argument that anit-gay people say of it being "unnatural" nothing more, nothing less.

Yes....and Trans can't even hit that layup point can it now?

 

The apple example is kinda bullshit because you can genetically engineer an apple to have bigger seeds and contain more cyanide if you wanted to. Cyanide in apples is brilliant actually because it protects the seeds form being eaten.

 

It's called biology and evolution cowcow. Why speedy's teacher is inept enough to not be able to explain that is beyond me

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Yes....and Trans can't even hit that layup point can it now?

What does that have to do with it? You are the only one who claimed that trans not being able to say that it's "natural" is any deciding factor. We're disputing that it's a dumb factor to begin with and the "gay is natural" thing is only used because it happens to shut down one of the many not so bright arguments made against LGB people

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you read a bit closer, you would notice me pointing out that justification of transexualism and homosexuality would work upon completely different things, since they are completely different concepts.

 

Though, for the record, it isn't fine. It is a stupid argument that really sells short the concept of homosexuality. Of course, the only person I regularly see use this defense as a scientific fact (and thus being able to be used to invalidate other behaviors) is you, so I am not sure who you are trying to make a fool of.

Giga, the point to be made is that since homosexuality is naturally occurring there's no need to "treat" it. Because the fall back on wanting treatment for Trans is the slippery slope argument that converting gays is the next step.

 

All the natural pt says is, Trans is a mental illness, Homosexuality is not. They need to be handled differently, but both with compassion and care

What does that have to do with it? You are the only one who claimed that trans not being able to say that it's "natural" is any deciding factor. We're disputing that it's a dumb factor to begin with and the "gay is natural" thing is only used because it happens to shut down one of the many not so bright arguments made against LGB people

One of them is a mental illness, the other is not. They need to be treated differently. If it was really such a dumb factor you wouldn't bother to deny it lol

[Sunshine Jesse]

i'm just gonna put this out there: kids, don't be trans.  try everything you can to be comfortable with who you are before before making rash, retarded decisions.  only, and ONLY as a last resort should you ever consider transitioning

 

there is a reason i internally shake my head in disappointment when someone comes to me admitting that they're transgender.  it f***ing sucks and no one should have to deal with this.

 

Do you mean kids as in literal kids? Because it doesn't have to be a last resort for adults who can do the process at their own pace, nor should it be.

 

Mind, it's indeed different in every case. But for me? I wasn't on the brink, but starting hormones offered me a level of emotional stability that none of my other medications managed to. It was a great decision on all fronts.

 

Hormones are the least committal part of transitioning and a great litmus test to prove to oneself that it's the right decision to make. You don't even have to come out to anyone but your therapist to start them. Until breast growth starts, everything they do is reversible, unlike actually coming out to your friends and family.

[ihop]

Comparing humans to animals in this case is bizarre because animals wouldn't have the ability to transition if they wanted to and there's no way to know if they wanted to. Hell, for all we know a hedgehog that runs in front of a car is not confused by the headlights and is in fact depressed to the point of suicide as a result of their gender dysphoria. There are so many things humans do that animals don't and a lot of them wouldn't be described as a mental illness so idk what makes this one a mental illness.

 

No, the "natural" thing does not prove that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Giga, the point to be made is that since homosexuality is naturally occurring there's no need to "treat" it.

Yes. And that reasoning is horse sheet. Cancer is naturally occurring for funk's sake. Whether or not something is natural is completely unrelated to whether it can or should be treated.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes. And that reasoning is horse sheet. Cancer is naturally occurring for funk's sake. Whether or not something is natural is completely unrelated to whether it can or should be treated.

You couldn't have picked a worse example, cancer is quite literally the definition of cells not doing what they were supposed to and then resulting in your body funking it self up.

 

Kinda similar to your mind not syncing up with the body you were born with and mentally screwing with you. Jesse has a point that the reason people try to change the body is because we don't know how to fix the mind yet, but the problem is complacency. You shouldn't be happy with messing with your body and calling it a day, you should try to fix the problem at hand.

 

That's why the whole tampon thing is stupid. It's just reinforcing the "this is fine" bullshit

No, the "natural" thing does not prove that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. 

Well it's been shown that headlights confuse animals, and attract others...so try again?

 

For all we know it could run in front of a car because it doesn't wanna live in a world where people make bullshit excuses that are scientifically inaccurate 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I mean, from a biological standpoint, males funking males isn't exactly the way it is supposed to work.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean, from a biological standpoint, males funking males isn't exactly the way it is supposed to work.

Sure it is, it depends on if you consider procreation the motive or pleasure the motive

 

and actually, we're relatively close to making children based on the genetic make up of the parents without sexual intercourse, so homosexuality is 100% vindicated at this point

 

So yeh, in the next 10 to 15 years, we can take the genetic info of two males, blend characteristics and create an offspring that resembles both.