If gender is "all in the mind", as appears to be the prevailing philosophy, then why it it 99% of women (and men) believe they are who they are because they were born that way?
If gender is "all in the mind", as appears to be the prevailing philosophy, then why it it 99% of women (and men) believe they are who they are because they were born that way?
Armstronglivs wrote:
If gender is "all in the mind", as appears to be the prevailing philosophy, then why is it 99% of women (and men) believe they are who they are because they were born that way?
Armstronglivs wrote:
If gender is "all in the mind", as appears to be the prevailing philosophy, then why it it 99% of women (and men) believe they are who they are because they were born that way?
Trans-activists probably argue "cultural brainwashing".
rojo wrote:
Remember when Brown University pulled a peer-reviewed paper by one of it's professors that said peer pressure around puberty might be the casue of gender dystopia?
The term is "gender dysphoria".
Transgenderism is related to a mental disorder.
https://www.acpeds.org/gender-dysphoria-in-children-summary-points"Puberty blocking hormones gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists or GnRH agonists arrest bone growth, decrease bone density, prevent the sex-steroid dependent organization and maturation of the adolescent brain, and inhibit fertility by preventing the development of gonadal tissue and mature gametes for the duration of treatment."
An 11-year-old child cannot buy a beer or drive a car. He or she is not developed enough to make life-altering decisions that might harm his or her health.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7656213/Man-tells-underwent-gender-reassignment-surgery-woman-transitioned-back.htmlA former transgender says, "I have these seeds of doubt and confusion from the dress, from being affirmed as a girl and from being abused as a boy... I am contacted by people every single day, thousands of people over the ten years I've run the site, who have experienced failed gender reassignment surgery."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7738323/Woman-regrets-transitioning-says-considered-CUTTING-breasts-pair-scissors.htmlAnother former transgender said, "It became apparent that transitioning was a big mistake. The session where I realised this was so bad that I had a complete break down and panic attack, because I realised it was a huge mistake."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8195531/Man-transitioned-living-girl-says-woman-wrong-reasons.htmlAnother former transgender said, "I think people have this idea that transitioning is a great fix all and end up doing it for the wrong reasons."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAEmoLcoAqwA woman blinded herself on purpose because she identifies as a blind person. It's a mental illness to want to become something else unnaturally. This should not be celebrated.
Why is one person's desire a mental illness but not the other? You are hypocrites.
Give me your honest opinion. Do you believe that transgenderism is 100% always a natural feeling inside their brains because of genetics? Or are some cases because of mental illness?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8568717/Woman-believed-chicken-rare-mental-health-disorder-linked-depression.htmlIf you talk to a crazy person who believes she is a chicken, then you are going to hurt that person's feelings if you go against her belief.
No matter what evidence, logic, or facts you present, I will always be viewed as the enemy that is trying to take away the special, safe space for a human being.
You leftists act like I'm trying to steal candy from a baby or trying to cancel a child's trip to Disney Land. No, I'm showing you the truth.
I'm not trying to make you cry or trying to hurt you or bully you out of a sadistic desire. This is the truth.
You're not a psychologist. You're not a geneticist. I bet none of you are qualified to make an authoritative judgment on this. You are an armchair quarterback just like I am, so I'm giving my opinion too.
rojo wrote:
help me understand wrote:
Do whatever you want. Refuse to do the work to understand why deadnaming and misgendering hurt people. But damn dude, when someone calls you out, don't act like a dog who got hit over the nose with a roll of newspaper. You have a prefrontal cortex.
What are you talking about? We as a website do not let people misgender someone and call a trasngender woman a he.
As for deadnaming, I'm fine for avoiding that as well. There is no reason to call Caitlyn Jenner, Bru** other than to be a dick. The same is true for June Eastwood. But that's not what happened here. Here they were describing a historical fact.
I don't think it's wrong for HBO in introducing a story to say something along the lines of "Before transitioning in 2015, Caitlyn Jenner was known as Bruce Jenner and was the the 1976 men's Olympic decathlon champion." The name Bruce Jenner means a lot to most people. They know who that is.
Now, there probably was no need to say June's old first name in this case - they could have said "was a member of the men's track team" as she wasn't famous, but even if they did that I'm assuming the trans community is also mad because they showed a picture, am I correct?
I'm all for trying to avoid deadnaming when you are talking to a person or referring to them in the present tense, I say let's try to do that but having to do it when describing a historical fact or to avoid pictures reminds me of Soviet Union where people were removed from old photos. For most sports (although probably not distance running) height /bigger bones is important. And I'm not for cancel culture not allowing this stuff to be discussed. Scientific studies are being pulled simply because we don't like the results.
So let's focus on avoiding deadnaming when it is done to "aggressively dismiss and reject" one's new identity as that's just needlessly mean but that's not what happened here (the "" came from wikipedia).
There would be no reason for HBO or anyone to do a feature on any trans athletes unless it dealt with their point of difference, which was because they had changed their gender. But to make this clear in the report by referring to their previous identity appears to be unacceptable. Further, it avoids addressing the question of whether they gain an advantage by virtue of their biological difference.
Personally, I would have no issue with someone defining their gender as they choose but for the issue of likely unfair advantage in a protected sports category.
labels for all wrote:
Yes, yes hurtful and offensive. Meanwhile the trans community uses the term cis as a derogatory term to label others not like them. It is almost baffling to watch.
+1
NotPC wrote:
The fact that this is even a thing at all is enough to make your head spin.
So we set up women's sports so they can have equal access, then we even pass a Federal Law to ensure that they are indeed given equal access, then we we let grown men pretend to be women, and compete vs actual women.
I dont care how much estrogen and test blockers they take, that is still a dude competing against women.
That is freakin crazy town.
+1
rojo wrote:
And I'm not for cancel culture not allowing this stuff to be discussed. Scientific studies are being pulled simply because we don't like the results.
So let's focus on avoiding deadnaming when it is done to "aggressively dismiss and reject" one's new identity as that's just needlessly mean but that's not what happened here (the "" came from wikipedia).
you're not for cancel culture UNLESS it's canceling someone who disagrees with you.
Also, no, YOU do not get to define what deadnaming is.
rojo wrote:
Rojo is a He wrote:
[quote]Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
Sounds like Rojo was hoping for a front page article this morning and a half dozen threads about the show for clicks.
Accurate
No. THe reason I'm making a big deal about this is I'm assuming they pulled the piece out of fear of a backlash from the trans community. The reality is you can't talk about the issue honestly without getting some sort of protest.
Remember when Brown University pulled a peer-reviewed paper by one of it's professors that said peer pressure around puberty might be the casue of gender dystopia?
Well that was a few years ago. Most recently Spotify employees are demanding the right to edit Joe Rogan podcasts as they view him as transphobic.
In the video clip for this piece that was removed from the Internet, a reporter (Armen Keteyian?) asked June Eastwood somethign along the lines of, "You do know some people htink i'ts unfair you get to compete.?" And she responded something like, "I do but I think they are wrong."
Not a big deal.
What scares me is censorship and mandated group think. We are experiencing McCarthyism all over again in the year 2020 but this time the group think is coming from the left.
Well, I didn't want Marxist/Communist thinking near my government then, and I don't want Marxist/Communist thinking near my government now.
I'm just saying, you seem to feel like someone is coming in and telling you what to do.
That's not true.
My take on reality: you want to say and discuss things as you always have, but you are afraid of the backlash in a new social context that has re-evaluated some things. You claim to understand the reasons for the backlash, but you simultaneously seem to think people are out to get you. All I'm saying is, do your best to respect people, and listen when people get upset with you (hint: they are not usually doing it as a performance), and you won't have anything to worry about.
Most of the words you write on this site fall into one of two categories:
- Responding to some current event and lecturing us about how you see it
- Responding to some backlash and lecturing us about how you're not in the wrong
Neither of those really addresses the root of the problem, when people are hurt. You pay lip service to the whole concept of personal respect, and people can clearly see it and get upset.
rojo wrote:
help me understand wrote:
Do whatever you want. Refuse to do the work to understand why deadnaming and misgendering hurt people. But damn dude, when someone calls you out, don't act like a dog who got hit over the nose with a roll of newspaper. You have a prefrontal cortex.
What are you talking about? We as a website do not let people misgender someone and call a trasngender woman a he.
As for deadnaming, I'm fine for avoiding that as well. There is no reason to call Caitlyn Jenner, Bru** other than to be a dick. The same is true for June Eastwood. But that's not what happened here. Here they were describing a historical fact.
I don't think it's wrong for HBO in introducing a story to say something along the lines of "Before transitioning in 2015, Caitlyn Jenner was known as Bruce Jenner and was the the 1976 men's Olympic decathlon champion." The name Bruce Jenner means a lot to most people. They know who that is.
Now, there probably was no need to say June's old first name in this case - they could have said "was a member of the men's track team" as she wasn't famous, but even if they did that I'm assuming the trans community is also mad because they showed a picture, am I correct?
I'm all for trying to avoid deadnaming when you are talking to a person or referring to them in the present tense, I say let's try to do that but having to do it when describing a historical fact or to avoid pictures reminds me of Soviet Union where people were removed from old photos. For most sports (although probably not distance running) height /bigger bones is important. And I'm not for cancel culture not allowing this stuff to be discussed. Scientific studies are being pulled simply because we don't like the results.
So let's focus on avoiding deadnaming when it is done to "aggressively dismiss and reject" one's new identity as that's just needlessly mean but that's not what happened here (the "" came from wikipedia).
YOU DON'T GET IT. STOP
HBO probably realized there’s a pro woman movement that is making sense and traction on this issue.
For example this organization:
Save Women’s Sports
A one-sided pro trans in women’s sports piece on HBO would be one-sided and dated.
States are passing legislation to protect women’s sports.
Trans rights should not encroach upon women’s rights!
Honestly, I had no idea that "Real Sports" still existed.
If they want be accepted as women why do they still refer to themselves as trans.
By definition a trans woman is not a woman. They are a trans woman.
Using pro trans logic on deadnaming etc. referring to being trans should also be offensive. It refers to the existence of a previous gender, just like their former name.
If trans want acceptance as woman, they need to support women’s rights, not trans rights.
pro women movement wrote:
If trans want acceptance as woman, they need to support women’s rights, not trans rights.
Who appointed you judge? I'm just assuming you're a male. In which case, you are a male commenting anonymously online, telling trans women how to behave so they can be treated with your respect.
Consider this, your opinion in this context is so weakly and cowardly articulated, that not a single trans woman will ever be influenced by it. That's not intentionally an insult, it's just the truth. Your expression of opinion is pointless, and the way you chose to express it points to an extreme cowardice.
Now go ahead and say something along the lines of "no, YOU" or "you're a hypocrite". I got my shot in, and unlike yours, there's a chance you'll actually see it and be affected.
pro women movement wrote:
If they want be accepted as women why do they still refer to themselves as trans.
By definition a trans woman is not a woman. They are a trans woman.
Using pro trans logic on deadnaming etc. referring to being trans should also be offensive. It refers to the existence of a previous gender, just like their former name.
If trans want acceptance as woman, they need to support women’s rights, not trans rights.
This makes no sense. It's a bit like saying a black woman can't refer to herself as black, she must refer to herself as a woman and not be pro rights for black people. You can support both.
LMW9 wrote:
labels for all wrote:
Yes, yes hurtful and offensive. Meanwhile the trans community uses the term cis as a derogatory term to label others not like them. It is almost baffling to watch.
+1
No, they use it for a specific reason to refer to a specific subsection, nothing derogatory about it. It's not complicated :/.
Well..... wrote:
LMW9 wrote:
+1
No, they use it for a specific reason to refer to a specific subsection, nothing derogatory about it. It's not complicated :/.
agreed
You gotta love how trans people have chosen sports as their battleground.
Basically this means they already have acceptance in all other walks of life, but they gotta chose the very one thing that requires a strict definition of gender. Kind of like eating the apple in the garden of Eden. So why are they doing it?
BECAUSE THE HAVE A MASSIVE PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE AND $$$.
Remember when bladerunner wanted to compete against able bodied athletes? It's the same thing.