I really liked Judge Jackson's answer on the definition of a "woman."

[Leo123]

Not common is probably a more accurate term. Morons like you think not normal means wrong.

No it isn’t it means the same thing as aberrant

 

[Curried Goats]

No it isn’t it means the same thing as aberrant

And that medical term does not mean wrong. As I said, left handedness isn't the norm either but it also isn't a moral aberration, it's physical one and so what? Why should it be any more a big deal than left handedness? Are you going around and shouting at left handed people that they are faking because they aren't the norm?

 

[Leo123]

And that medical term does not mean wrong. As I said, left handedness isn't the norm either but it also isn't a moral aberration, it's physical one and so what? Why should it be any more a big deal than left handedness? Are you going around and shouting at left handed people that they are faking because they aren't the norm?

And again, I never said it's wrong. You don't comprehend very well. I never said homosexuality was a moral aberration that's all you. A human has 2 hands and can choose to use either. A human has only 1 biological gender and cannot choose to use another. Changing the definition of gender to suit your particular sexual aberration does not change biological gender. You guys have to look at reality instead making up lies.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Abnormal in sciencetific [sic] terms doesn't mean wrong you moron, it just means it doesn't occur in the majority of people.

Nobody said homosexuality was wrong, it's aberrant. You seem to want to make aberrant 'normal' which is a ludicrous position. It is not normal in any way shape or form. There is a reason why it doesn't occur in the majority of people. Can you tell us why?

Is blindness “wrong”?

It's certainly abnormal, wouldn't you say? Normal humans have functional eyes, which allow us to see. Those who lack this normality are at a decided disadvantage compared top those who are normal.

Homosexuality and transsexuality are also abnormal. Like blindness, they put those who have these abnormalities at an revolutionary disadvantage.

The function of sex is to pass one's DNA along to future generations. It takes normal sex, between a fertile man and a fertile woman for this to happen.

“Sex” between two men, between two women, or where one participant has intentionally mutilated and disabled h'or'sh/it's reproductive system cannot fulfill this purpose.

 

[Leo123]

Is blindness “wrong”?

It's certainly abnormal, wouldn't you say? Normal humans have functional eyes, which allow us to see. Those who lack this normality are at a decided disadvantage compared top those who are normal.

Homosexuality and transsexuality are also abnormal. Like blindness, they put those who have these abnormalities at an revolutionary disadvantage.

The function of sex is to pass one's DNA along to future generations. It takes normal sex, between a fertile man and a fertile woman for this to happen.

“Sex” between two men, between two women, or where one participant has intentionally mutilated and disabled h'or'sh/it's reproductive system cannot fulfill this purpose.

Isn't it amazing that we have to actually explain that to these dweebs?

 

[scruffy]

No, I'm the majority, Shit Bird. There is science and then there is how we apply science. Biologists and scientists are concerned with DNA and chromosomes, genes and alleles, their work happens on a different plain of existence. Who gets to be considered a man or woman is a consideration that largely happens on the social plain of existence, not the cellular one. Science can inform us but biology and nature aren't perfect and sometimes people with XY chromosomes get to be considered women even though they are genetically men and may have testicles. Why? Because that is how they see themselves even though genetically the truth is more complicated. You also see this thinking exhibited on the Right (though usually as a lack of empathy) when they suggest liberal men aren't real men. There they are also acknowledging the social aspect of gender rather than the biological one just from the standpoint of a complete asshole.

Gender is not a social construct.

Neither is race.

Please stop abusing science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What's not brilliant are your arguments. Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness and is not classified by the medical community as a mental illness nor is gender dysphoria like crime. It's not something that needs to be combated. The existence of trans individuals is not an assault on you.

I'm not pretending to be anything, it's you clowns pretending to hide behind science so you can give voice to your bigotry. My argument isn't that rare conditions invalidate biology it's that they expand our ideas of what biology is capable of and that we should recognize we as humans are not bound by strict biological absolutes in how we view one another. We can make room for recognizing people with XY chromosomes as women why not people who's brain patterns match those of a woman?

One study group and objective results from brain scans is more evidence then you've produced.

Not just "someone" you clown the professionals actually studying the science behind transgenderism.

General consensus.

Gender dysphoria isn't a mental illness? Then why does it appear in the DSM-5? Even you leftists mistakenly try to tug at our heart strings and gin up sympathy for transgenders by gabbling on about how they HAVE to have hormone treatments and surgeries because of all the distress they feel over being born one sex while "feeling" like the other. If that distress isn't a mental illness, what is it?

No one said that the existence of "transgenders" was an attack on me, but I know you'd rather answer the statement you wish I had made, so that you can avoid acknowledging what I actually said. I will take this straw man as an admission that you know their activism is an attack on women, and you don't care because you hate women. Glad we settled that.

Who said YOU were pretending anything? It never ceases to amaze me how a bunch of lightweight nobodies like you leftists can be so incredibly narcissistic and conceited. I said you're demanding everyone ELSE pretend that they're confused. I have no problem whatsoever believing you are genuinely confused about incredibly basic facts.

Your argument very much IS that the existence of rare genetic defects invalidate the basic biological facts, because you keep SAYING exactly that. Maybe YOU can't remember posts from various threads all at once, but your hope that I can't is in vain. I'm assuming this "I never said what you heard me say repeatedly" is an admission on your part that you made a fool of yourself and lost the argument, and are too cowardly to apologize.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Shall we do brain studies on everyone who has gender dysphoria so we know who is faking and who isn't, or do we just take their word and it doesn't really matter?

I'm just curious to find out if he can tell us how his hero "scientists" knew which people to compare the "transgender" brain scans to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My mind? I'm not the one referencing movies, I reference actual science, clown.

You must have done it in some thread I haven't seen, then, because God knows you've never done it in my presence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't have to. That isn't my argument its yours.

Okay, then answer my question and scientifically tell me how the study you've decided is THE settled word on the subject knew who to compare the transgender brain scans to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

LOL

love the sarcastic, sardonic tone...



and of course agree 100%

but here is something not so LOL worthy

our children... the poor things must be very confused...


+


+

Mine aren't.

 

[Leo123]

You must have done it in some thread I haven't seen, then, because God knows you've never done it in my presence.

You're right CC never has really referenced actual science. He/she referenced 'professionals' who make sexual determinations. I asked who those 'professionals' were....never got a response and, I asked CC if he/she was trans which would go to explain the suspension of reality but so far.....crickets.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm just curious to find out if he can tell us how his hero "scientists" knew which people to compare the "transgender" brain scans to.

That would require some common sense and discernment. Not gonna happen.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Laws are written against discrimination based on sex which is why describing a woman is unnecessary since there is no direct definition by the law on discrimination, it is no discrimination period. I know the right wants to discriminate based on sex but unfortunately, the law doesn't signify sex as either a man or a woman.

When does a girl become a woman?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When does a girl become a woman?

When she becomes an adult. Why do you ask?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When she becomes an adult. Why do you ask?

I am asking Moonglow since he doesn’t think it’s a relevant question. But legally it’s most relevant. He is just a drunk from SW Missouri.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am asking Moonglow since he doesn’t think it’s a relevant question. But legally it’s most relevant. He is just a drunk from SW Missouri.

Ah. That explains it. I haven't been able to see Moonglow in so long, I forgot he existed (not that I really noticed to begin with).

 

[Curried Goats]

Gender dysphoria isn't a mental illness? Then why does it appear in the DSM-5? Even you leftists mistakenly try to tug at our heart strings and gin up sympathy for transgenders by gabbling on about how they HAVE to have hormone treatments and surgeries because of all the distress they feel over being born one sex while "feeling" like the other. If that distress isn't a mental illness, what is it?

You folks tell on yourselves all the time. No one should have to tug on your heart strings Grinch, for you to have empathy for others. But I'm the last the one to try and do so. I don't care at all who you personally do or don't have sympathy for. In fact I advocate for your lack of empathy to be returned in kind and that for racists and bigots to be shunned and ridiculed and pushed to the fringes of society where we can all watch you and culture go extinct.

Also your questions aren't arguments. I know they want to pretend to be but they aren't. The DSM has evolved its thinking on trans individuals and will probably go under more revision as our understanding of gender dysphoria grows. It used to be classified as GID (gender identity disorder) and was revised to gender dysphoria specifically to destigmatize it and move away from the thinking that it itself is a mental health problem rather than a condition that can lead to many mental health problems.

Also I don't think anyone has to have hormone treatments, this is your own strawman. What people want to do with their bodies should be up to them.

No one said that the existence of "transgenders" was an attack on me, but I know you'd rather answer the statement you wish I had made, so that you can avoid acknowledging what I actually said. I will take this straw man as an admission that you know their activism is an attack on women, and you don't care because you hate women. Glad we settled that.

It not settled. My reference to an attack on you was in response to your reference of minimizing crime by pretending it doesn't exist. Crimes are unwanted acts perpetuated against others and we as a society should try and prevent them from happening. My point was you can't try and prevent trans individuals from happening.

Your argument very much IS that the existence of rare genetic defects invalidate the basic biological facts, because you keep SAYING exactly that. Maybe YOU can't remember posts from various threads all at once, but your hope that I can't is in vain. I'm assuming this "I never said what you heard me say repeatedly" is an admission on your part that you made a fool of yourself and lost the argument, and are too cowardly to apologize.

If I actually said that you would be able to provide the quote. What I did say and what I continue to say is that rare doesn't mean non existent. It's you clowns that want to ignore certain facts just because they only occur in a small number of people. The fact that they do occur at all however means that there are no strict biological lines for what is a man or woman. A person with XY chromosomes can be a woman. A person with testicles can be a woman. So what not someone who's brain patterns are that of a woman?

 

[Curried Goats]

Gender is not a social construct.

Neither is race.

Please stop abusing science.

Did your teacher, who I'm assuming was one of your ignorant parents teach you that?

 

[Curried Goats]

Is blindness “wrong”?

In a moral sense? No. Neither is being trans.

It's certainly abnormal, wouldn't you say? Normal humans have functional eyes, which allow us to see. Those who lack this normality are at a decided disadvantage compared top those who are normal.

Not necessarily. Abnormalities can be advantageous. The aforementioned Michael Phelps who's body produces half the lactic acid as normal is a significant advantage for him in swimming competitions.

Homosexuality and transsexuality are also abnormal. Like blindness, they put those who have these abnormalities at an revolutionary disadvantage.

Do you mean evolutionary? In what way? Homosexuals still have working sex organs. They are physically capable of passing on there genes if they had sex with people of the opposite sex or through in vitro. This reminds me I was re-reading Sapiens again the other day and I was on the passage where the author was talking about humanity's ability to over come biology but in regards to catholic priests and their vows of celibacy and how they traded passing on their genes to passing on their beliefs.

The function of sex is to pass one's DNA along to future generations. It takes normal sex, between a fertile man and a fertile woman for this to happen.

Not these days.

“Sex” between two men, between two women, or where one participant has intentionally mutilated and disabled h'or'sh/it's reproductive system cannot fulfill this purpose.

And the point to all this was what other than you coming here to declare that you were ignorant of commonly known medical advances?