My thoughts on transgenderism, gender fluidity. See what you think.

[Hutch Starskey]

Not sure you are capable of an adult based explanation.

Well seeing as how this started with a childish notion that would be a little over ambitious.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Social contagion that requires isolation.

It's all deranged lunacy

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Excuse me Starskey.

Are we on the same page?

It's not clear.

Cheers
Rumpole

Apparently not concerning lgbtq folks.
You seem to believe they somehow have to choose who they are attracted to while hetero folks do not. You see that perceived “choice” as some sort of deviation while I see it as nature.

 

[Delldude]

You have every right to your opinion and to speak your opinion.

The real question is your intent.

Congressional Integrity Project?

 

[miketx]

I don’t accept fallacies.

You scum lie 24/7

 

[miketx]

Excuse me Starskey.

Are we on the same page?

It's not clear.

Cheers
Rumpole

Well, both of you are leftist scum so...

 

[Dadoalex]

Congressional Integrity Project?

The reference is unrelated to the topic. Explain.

 

[miketx]

The reference is unrelated to the topic. Explain.

You filth refuse the truth.

 

[Delldude]

The reference is unrelated to the topic. Explain.

Congressional Integrity Project

Exposing the reality behind Republicans’ politically motivated oversight and investigations targeting President Biden and Democrats.

congressionalintegrity.org

 

[Dadoalex]

Congressional Integrity Project

Exposing the reality behind Republicans’ politically motivated oversight and investigations targeting President Biden and Democrats.

congressionalintegrity.org

Again, unrelated to the thread.

 

[HeyNorm]

Well seeing as how this started with a childish notion that would be a little over ambitious.

Yes, thinking a man can become a woman is childish indeed. But then again, only a cultist would believe such nonsenses

 

[Delldude]

Again, unrelated to the thread.

You sure?

 

[Ace Nova]

In my humble opinion, its become a major issue simply because both sides have made it political. The following post was in reference to the DeSantis vs Disney feud and the legislation that was passed in Florida but actually belongs in this thread...

It's an example of how party politics can take a relatively "non issue" and turn it into something it never should have become. Less than 3%-4% of children may have some form of "gender dysphoria" before the age of 18. After the age of 18, that number drops to less than 2% - and less than 0.5% eventually become "transgender".

The main reason proponents of teaching sexual education at an early age want it taught early is because of the risk of other mental health issues, depression and even suicidal thoughts among a high % of children that have gender dysphoria. If that is the case, why would politicians and the media (on both sides) put these marginalized groups under a spotlight, making them the center of attention and making them feel even more isolated and confused by the 98% of the country that knows little about their specific issues? And yet, use it as a way to advance their political ideologies?

If you are a child dealing with these issues, how would you feel if your personal health issues are the subject of constant news/media attention? - which results in heated debates among various political/ideological groups - to the extent of turning it into a rallying cry on one side and a subject of ridicule on the other?

How would you feel growing up dealing with these issues but feeling the need to walk on eggshells because it's become such a divisive and "controversial" issue? Not only are they dealing with their issues internally, psychologically etc. but now they need to worry about saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, to the wrong group of people.

Historically, there were groups of people that would ridicule, offend, etc some of these marginalized groups. But prior to the past 5 or so years, those groups were becoming less and less prevalent because almost every person living in the US likely has a loved one or a friend or an acquaintance, etc that are among these marginalized groups. They were no longer "just a part of society" but a part of most of our families or friends or extended groups of friends. Most people (even if some did not agree or understand it) would (at the very least) treat others with respect.

After the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando in 2016, the entire city, state, country and world rallied around the victims and their families. The 98% joined the 2% and became unified against a common enemy of hate and violence. God forbid, if something similar were to happen again today, would we be as unified as we were in 2016? I would hope so but for some reason, I have my doubts.

Why is that? Because this issue has become heavily politicized, turning it into a Right Vs Left issue, veiled as a "Family values vs liberalism" issue. Some went from mostly accepting these groups/people as part of "our family/friends" to it becoming "families and our values don't include these groups because they are now on the opposite side of a political debate."

How did this happen?

Both sides of the debate share blame, imo. Far left progressives took it from being a personal, physical, physiological, psychological, mental health and human rights issue among less than 2% of society and turned it into one of their major political and ideological platforms. They went on to teach and mandate that only one scientific/psychological theory is correct and that there are over 100 "gender identities.". Well to most people, that sounded crazy.

Most people living in the United States don't have advanced psychological training, experience, etc. And the word "gender" historically is used when referencing someone's sex. "Gender Identity" on the other hand, is a psychological construct, which can become physiological for some.

Is it possible for someone to have a different psychological construct than someone else? Of course. All human beings have various psychological constructs within themselves and most of these constructs have nothing to do with "gender identity" Gender Identity is simply ONE of potentially limitless psychological constructs within the human mind.

Unfortunately, this was rarely, if ever, explained, to most people. Why? Because the people "preaching it" likely didn't understand the differences themselves. To them, it was a way of showing "the other side" that these marginalized groups had scientific/psychological theories that explained and validated the way they felt and behaved. And they wanted the rest of the world to accept, validate and conform to these theories - without ever understanding or explaining it themselves. To the rest of the world, "Gender Identity" became a bunch of words, syllables, nouns, pronouns etc - that were associated with "extreme liberal ideas".

I have a degree in psychology and even I thought it was bizarre and in my own ignorance, even light heartedly ridiculed the idea at times. Then it became an afterthought, associated with far left, liberal ideas. Eventually, after doing some reading, I came to the understanding that "Gender Identity" is not the same thing as a person's physical sex. Why did it take me so long? Because 99% of the time it is mentioned, it is referred to as "gender" instead of "gender identity". And gender can be a synonym for a person's sex and has been used that way historically. Attention to detail matters!

Physically, the vast majority of humans are one of two sexes: male or female. Other species also have hermaphrodites (both sexes) but in humans, it's called "intersex" and in most cases, one sex prevails by adulthood.

That said, far right conservatives also threw fuel on the fire by immediately blasting, ridiculing and mocking the idea. They adopted it on their major political platforms as a way to ridicule liberals and to a lesser extent, even to mock the marginalized groups. They use it as a way to bolster their version of "family values" and to validate their supporters' views on the subject.

"Mob mentality/group think" (on both sides) is what has turned this issue into what it is today.

Sorry about the long winded post. To finish, I've been using the phrase "marginalized groups" to refer to the LBTGQ groups because I am unfamiliar with the most "up to date" wording to use.

Initially, I was going to use LBTGQ but when I looked it up, some sources had added an additional 2-3 letters. I understand that these groups want to include everyone when they are being referenced - and apparently they do so by adding more and more letters. For someone trying to gain a better grasp of these terms, it can become confusing. Then add another 100+ ways to describe specific gender identities - it's not the easiest concept to learn to begin with - why not make it a little "simpler" for us common folks?

In my humble opinion, if the LBTGQ communities want people to truly understand who they are, why they seem "different" to some and why this is so important to them, why not give most folks a "Cliff's Notes" version and leave the textbook version up to doctors, psychologists and close friends, family, relatives, etc?

 

[HeyNorm]

In my humble opinion, its become a major issue simply because both sides have made it political. The following post was in reference to the DeSantis vs Disney feud and the legislation that was passed in Florida but actually belongs in this thread...

It's an example of how party politics can take a relatively "non issue" and turn it into something it never should have become. Less than 3%-4% of children may have some form of "gender dysphoria" before the age of 18. After the age of 18, that number drops to less than 2% - and less than 0.5% eventually become "transgender".

The main reason proponents of teaching sexual education at an early age want it taught early is because of the risk of other mental health issues, depression and even suicidal thoughts among a high % of children that have gender dysphoria. If that is the case, why would politicians and the media (on both sides) put these marginalized groups under a spotlight, making them the center of attention and making them feel even more isolated and confused by the 98% of the country that knows little about their specific issues? And yet, use it as a way to advance their political ideologies?

If you are a child dealing with these issues, how would you feel if your personal health issues are the subject of constant news/media attention? - which results in heated debates among various political/ideological groups - to the extent of turning it into a rallying cry on one side and a subject of ridicule on the other?

How would you feel growing up dealing with these issues but feeling the need to walk on eggshells because it's become such a divisive and "controversial" issue? Not only are they dealing with their issues internally, psychologically etc. but now they need to worry about saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, to the wrong group of people.

Historically, there were groups of people that would ridicule, offend, etc some of these marginalized groups. But prior to the past 5 or so years, those groups were becoming less and less prevalent because almost every person living in the US likely has a loved one or a friend or an acquaintance, etc that are among these marginalized groups. They were no longer "just a part of society" but a part of most of our families or friends or extended groups of friends. Most people (even if some did not agree or understand it) would (at the very least) treat others with respect.

After the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando in 2016, the entire city, state, country and world rallied around the victims and their families. The 98% joined the 2% and became unified against a common enemy of hate and violence. God forbid, if something similar were to happen again today, would we be as unified as we were in 2016? I would hope so but for some reason, I have my doubts.

Why is that? Because this issue has become heavily politicized, turning it into a Right Vs Left issue, veiled as a "Family values vs liberalism" issue. Some went from mostly accepting these groups/people as part of "our family/friends" to it becoming "families and our values don't include these groups because they are now on the opposite side of a political debate."

How did this happen?

Both sides of the debate share blame, imo. Far left progressives took it from being a personal, physical, physiological, psychological, mental health and human rights issue among less than 2% of society and turned it into one of their major political and ideological platforms. They went on to teach and mandate that only one scientific/psychological theory is correct and that there are over 100 "gender identities.". Well to most people, that sounded crazy.

Most people living in the United States don't have advanced psychological training, experience, etc. And the word "gender" historically is used when referencing someone's sex. "Gender Identity" on the other hand, is a psychological construct, which can become physiological for some.

Is it possible for someone to have a different psychological construct than someone else? Of course. All human beings have various psychological constructs within themselves and most of these constructs have nothing to do with "gender identity" Gender Identity is simply ONE of potentially limitless psychological constructs within the human mind.

Unfortunately, this was rarely, if ever, explained, to most people. Why? Because the people "preaching it" likely didn't understand the differences themselves. To them, it was a way of showing "the other side" that these marginalized groups had scientific/psychological theories that explained and validated the way they felt and behaved. And they wanted the rest of the world to accept, validate and conform to these theories - without ever understanding or explaining it themselves. To the rest of the world, "Gender Identity" became a bunch of words, syllables, nouns, pronouns etc - that were associated with "extreme liberal ideas".

I have a degree in psychology and even I thought it was bizarre and in my own ignorance, even light heartedly ridiculed the idea at times. Then it became an afterthought, associated with far left, liberal ideas. Eventually, after doing some reading, I came to the understanding that "Gender Identity" is not the same thing as a person's physical sex. Why did it take me so long? Because 99% of the time it is mentioned, it is referred to as "gender" instead of "gender identity". And gender can be a synonym for a person's sex and has been used that way historically. Attention to detail matters!

Physically, the vast majority of humans are one of two sexes: male or female. Other species also have hermaphrodites (both sexes) but in humans, it's called "intersex" and in most cases, one sex prevails by adulthood.

That said, far right conservatives also threw fuel on the fire by immediately blasting, ridiculing and mocking the idea. They adopted it on their major political platforms as a way to ridicule liberals and to a lesser extent, even to mock the marginalized groups. They use it as a way to bolster their version of "family values" and to validate their supporters' views on the subject.

"Mob mentality/group think" (on both sides) is what has turned this issue into what it is today.

Sorry about the long winded post. To finish, I've been using the phrase "marginalized groups" to refer to the LBTGQ groups because I am unfamiliar with the most "up to date" wording to use.

Initially, I was going to use LBTGQ but when I looked it up, some sources had added an additional 2-3 letters. I understand that these groups want to include everyone when they are being referenced - and apparently they do so by adding more and more letters. For someone trying to gain a better grasp of these terms, it can become confusing. Then add another 100+ ways to describe specific gender identities - it's not the easiest concept to learn to begin with - why not make it a little "simpler" for us common folks?

In my humble opinion, if the LBTGQ communities want people to truly understand who they are, why they seem "different" to some and why this is so important to them, why not give most folks a "Cliff's Notes" version and leave the textbook version up to doctors, psychologists and close friends, family, relatives, etc?

Nothing you wrote justifies allowing trans women to use womens restrooms, locker rooms or participate in womens sports.


Curious.

We can make some exceptions for trans. But the left takes this way to far.

Especially when we know a large number of trans women, although disguised as women, still desire sexual relations with women.

And keep this crap away from kids!

 

[Dadoalex]

You sure?

 

[Lesh]

Of note...a Florida teacher is being investigated and may be fired because she played a Disney movie for her class that included a gay character.

But I thought there was no "don't say gay" law....

 

[Ace Nova]

Of note...a Florida teacher is being investigated and may be fired because she played a Disney movie for her class that included a gay character.

But I thought there was no "don't say gay" law....

Politics. SMH.

If she is fired for showing the movie, she may have a decent chance at a winning a lawsuit against the state.

- She sent out permission slips prior to showing the movie. The slips stated what movie it was and it was rated PG. (Giving parents 'the right" to choose whether or not their child watched it - which happens to be the title of the bill)

- Nothing in the bill states that you cannot show a movie with a gay character in it.

- There was nothing sexual in the movie

- She stated that if a student asked a question about the gay character, she would simply tell them, "Go ask your parents" Which is exactly what she is supposed to do.

- The bill specifically allows students to talk about gay family members or friends among each other and the teachers can permit them to discuss it - but the teacher cannot contribute to the conversation.


Pretty clear cut case for any decent, level headed attorney to handle.


-

 

[Lesh]

Politics. SMH.

If she is fired for showing the movie, she may have a decent chance at a winning a lawsuit against the state.

- She sent out permission slips prior to showing the movie. The slips stated what movie it was and it was rated PG. (Giving parents 'the right" to choose whether or not their child watched it - which happens to be the title of the bill)

- Nothing in the bill states that you cannot show a movie with a gay character in it.

- There was nothing sexual in the movie

- She stated that if a student asked a question about the gay character, she would simply tell them, "Go ask your parents" Which is exactly what she is supposed to do.

- The bill specifically allows students to talk about gay family members or friends among each other and the teachers can permit them to discuss it - but the teacher cannot contribute to the conversation.


Pretty clear cut case for any decent, level headed attorney to handle.


-

So given all that… why is she being investigated?

 

[Ace Nova]

So given all that… why is she being investigated?

Apparently a parent complained after the fact.

 

[Blaster]

For the TLDR crowd, not asking you to read the entire thing, just take a point, or two, if that's all you want. No problem.

I realize modern psychology has shifted its view to accept that if someone believes one is of the opposite gender, then that person is that gender, and now the term 'gender' and 'sex', are not necessarily the same thing. However, I disagree, and for millenia this was not the case. In terms of history, this is a recent development. Now, many recent developments are now fact. but psychology is a soft science, it's not like physics when results are either there, or they are not, and physicists an reproduce the results you claim on a published paper. There is considerable more subjectivity in psychology, than the hard sciences.

Psychology is sometimes considered a soft science, but this can be a matter of debate and interpretation.

The term "soft science" is often used to refer to fields of study that rely heavily on subjective interpretation and do not typically involve precise quantitative measurement. Fields like sociology, anthropology, and psychology are sometimes considered soft sciences because they rely on observations, case studies, and interviews to gather data and often deal with complex, difficult-to-measure variables such as emotions, beliefs, and attitudes.

However, it's important to note that psychology is a broad field that encompasses many different subfields, some of which involve more precise, quantitative measurements. For example, cognitive psychology and neuropsychology use neuroimaging techniques to measure brain activity, and experimental psychology uses carefully controlled experiments to test hypotheses and measure outcomes.

In addition, psychology has made significant contributions to other fields, such as medicine, education, and business, which suggests that it is a rigorous and valuable scientific discipline.

Overall, while some aspects of psychology may involve subjective interpretation, the field as a whole is a complex and multifaceted science that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods. So, my point is, psychology is a kind of hybrid science, part subjective, part objective. It is on the subject of gender fluidity, in my personal opinion, there is considerable subjectivity going on. I personally don't like the word 'woke' it's a weasel word, so it won't be used here.

I am critical with my liberal brethren in some key respects on this subject, and in agreement on others.

Now then, on 'pronouns' let's get that out of the way, first.

If I use a pronoun referring to an effeminate male, and I happen to be aware that that person transfemale who dresses as a female, wears make up, etc, I would assume that that persons prefers the feminine pronoun and I have no issue obliging them on that point. I do it because it's not that big of a deal with me, and I don't want to fight, if I can avoid it. But, that I would do that is out of courtesy, not obligation.

However, if that same effeminate male approached me as asked me my opinion as to that person's sex, I would answer as follows:

I am one who believes gender and sex are the same thing, as this was the norm for millenia and I see no reason to believe otherwise. Does that answer your question? My point is, if you don't want an honest answer to the question, don't ask it. Some might agree with your point of view, some might not, be prepared for it and respect their sensitivities, and we will respect yours, where we can. On that point, my position is as follows:

1. I do understand there is a real phenomenon called 'transgender/gender fluidity' and it shouldn't be trivialized or ridiculed or shamed.

2. On the matter of children, It is my view that adults, given that children have vivid imaginations, tend to be influenced by adults and what is on television, subject to peer pressure, get ideas with which they easily change their mind, or lose interest, as time passes, that they often pursue fads and things trendy, that we, as adults, should try and convince a child, who might be gender confused, given that it might be merely an outside influence, a temporal thing, we should try first to have the child acknowledge their biological sex is their true sex, and if they (boys) exhibit effeminate characteristics, explain to the child that it is perfectly okay for a boy to be effeminate, perfectly okay for a girl to be masculine (as in a 'tomboy'), that these conditions often fade as they grow up, and that I believe, sincerely, it is actually better for one's mental and spiritual health to be honest and acknowledge what one truly is, and that, for children, over time, their truer selves emerge from the fog of life's barrage of confusing influences.

After the age of 18, if they still are determined to be transgender, that is their right and we should respect it. If I were to counsel a young man, or young woman, I would still act in accordance to the above, given the chance they are still young, and still might change. I tell a young man or woman, it's perfectly okay to be gay, and watch out for the tendency some gay boys and girls to envy being straight, the solution of which would be to change one sex. In my view, envy would be the wrong reason to change one's sex. But doing that, is a radical change for one's biology, and can lead to serious health consequences. Proceed with the utmost caution.

But, for children, I adamantly don't believe in sex change surgery, puberty blockers, for children, no matter how apparently 'urgent a child may make it seem . As I understand it, there is no surgery going on? (is there? I hope not), but some kids are given puberty blockers, and I think this is wrong (but I'm not an expert, or a Doctor, so it comes with a caveat).

Children are children, they have powerful and fanciful imaginations (I remember vividly my own childhood--I remember in the 6th grade, I envied left handed kids. I thought being left-handed was 'cool', and since I was practically ambidextrous, it was easy for me to pretend being left handed. After awhile, the fad faded and I returned to being my normal self, predominantly right handed) and much is urgent in the life of a child. To make such an assumption for a child, leading to life altering drugs and surgery, in my view, is a mistake, and could be a tragic one, if harm comes to the child, that the child changes his/her mind, later on.

3. I believe transgenders, gays, lesbians, etc., should be treated with respect and they should not be discriminated against and have all the rights that all citizens possess and that anti discrimination laws pertain to them, as they do to race, creed, etc.

4. I am more than happy to treat a transgender with their preferred pronouns, and treat them as their gender to which they identify. However, there are limits, and those are commented on, herein.

5. I simply do not accept the concept of 'non binary'. To me, these persons are androgenous/A-sexual. Unless you are born in with a rare case of being intersex, you are either or female. This idea of not indicating sex on birth certificates is insane. This was the conventional wisdom for such persons, when I grew up and over decades. I will use he or she or him or her as they prefer, but NOT 'they'. No one has the right to change what centuries have decided meanings of words mean.True, meanings of words evolve, but it happens always organically, NEVER by 'decree'. However, if anyone obliges on that point, it is out of courtesy, not obligation. I choose not to, on the subject of A-sexual persons. Why? Because 'they/their/them' normally means plural. I understand that 'they' has been used, though rarely, when describing singular when the sex of the person being spoken of is not known, that is the only grammatical exception, i.e, 'Someone-they left their jacket on the park bench').

However, that being said.

1. I believe that heterosexuals have the right to date only other heterosexuals. If they date transgender, that is their willful choice, but for a heterosexual who claims he or is only willing to date, marry, fall in love with, only other heterosexuals that this does NOT constitute discrimination against transgendered persons. One cannot help who one is attracted to. I warn transfemales who might be considering surgery but only in order that they perceive they might be able to attract straight males. I say, hold on! While there might be some straight males who see you as a woman, myself, being a straight male, I must say, no, they will probably see you as a gay man, and you will have a tough time finding a straight man. In fact, transfemales would be much better off not getting surgery, and I strongly suspect there are far more gay men (for some I've talked to about it, anyway) that prefer well endowed transfemales, than there will be straight males who are so liberated they will accept you as they would any woman, and I advise them strongly not to go through it it. It would be an irreversible decision and I don't see how it could improve one's libido, it seems logical that it would kill it, but I just don't know. That's my position, anyway. If there is research on this, then point me to it.

2. I believe that heterosexuals (or anyone, for that matter) have the right to use whatever pronouns they prefer with regard to transexuals, non binary persons, and any heterosexual who uses a transgendered or non binary person's prefered pronoun is an act of courtesy but such cannot be forced or legislated.

3. Sports, this is a problem. I understand that women are complaining, and they have a valid point. I'm not a sports enthusiast so I will let the professionals duke it out on this subject. I'm with the ladies, though, that's my leaning, unless someone can convince me of otherwise.

4. Restrooms. No one with a penis should be allowed to use a woman's facility, and vice versa. End of argument. Post op, I haven't figured that one out. Help me out.

I invite challenges, comments, discussions, affirmations, etc., as long as it is civil. If it is otherwise, such comments will be ignored.

I'm not asking anyone to read this post in it's entirety, feel free to discuss portions, those which you care to address, or add to the discussion.

Nonsense.