Why is gender-nonconformity bad? Alternatively, why must one's gender align with their sex?

[frigidweirdo]

The video answers your question better than I could have.

I couldn't care less whether you choose to watch or not. You weren't looking for an answer anyway, you just thought you were being clever with the question. You were not.

Am I having a conversation with the video?

You don't know me, don't presume to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I thought that I explained this...there is XX, and XY people--these people are FEMALE XX or XY MALE. But there is rarely also X, XXXX and XXY people and other chromosome people out there....X is always female, and Y always mean male. I have never heard of anyone having more than one Y male chromosome but the Female X's have all sorts of variations.

Default sex is FEMALE. When the sperm meets the egg----it donates either a X chromosome or a Y chromosome. If the EGG which already has an X Chromosome from its mother (X or an X is all it can donate from a female XX), the male sperm then decides the chromosomal sex of the offspring---X female or Y male. All start off as female---only after the Y is added does this change.

Yes, a hermaphrodite can be XX or XY, but therein lies what sex they clearly really are....XX female or XY male with some sort of birth defect that should be corrected much like having a third leg. Once puberty starts, their chromosomal hormones should kick in making this distinction clearer. They may still be able to reproduce.

For the others, there is a bit more grey area but really is not that complicated---Y chromosomes mean male....ergo those with XXX, X, XXXX are female---while those with XXY are a different category but likely still female but none should be able to reproduce.

So you're not going to try and understand what I'm saying and you'll just bang on about your little bit of "science" as if it's the be all and end all of the conversation?

 

[DukeU]

Am I having a conversation with the video?

You don't know me, don't presume to.

Don't know, are you?

 

[justinacolmena]

Only two.....1 and 2.....

Male and female.

Obviously you have your own boyfriend or husband, and I'm sure things are very simple between you two. It is rather unusual, but there are other couples who are actually gay or of the same sex, and some straight couples don't do or say the same things or act or dress the same way you think males and females respectively, should.

In other words, many of us don't dig in with the knife as hard as you do in your district.

 

[skye]

Obviously you have your own boyfriend or husband, and I'm sure things are very simple between you two. It is rather unusual, but there are other couples who are actually gay or of the same sex, and some straight couples don't do or say the same things or act or dress the same way you think males and females respectively, should.

In other words, many of us don't dig in with the knife as hard as you do in your district.

You can keep your opinion....of course I will never agree with that.

And I keep mine.

 

[justinacolmena]

So you're not going to try and understand what I'm saying and you'll just bang on about your little bit of "science" as if it's the be all and end all of the conversation?

Look. The "carnal knowledge" of Adam and Eve from Sunday school is all the science these vice-christians have ever studied. You have to be patient with people who can only think below the belt.

 

[justinacolmena]

You can keep your opinion....of course I will never agree with that.

And I keep mine.

That's why you have your own partner or spouse and you're not dating other people who disagree. Not everyone is like that. People don't even have all the same organs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?

As already correctly noted: there have always been transgender people – nothing has been ‘concocted’ by ‘the left.’

Authoritarian conservatives fear positive, beneficial change, diversity, and dissent.

The tyranny of the right seeks to compel conformity and punish dissent by subjecting gay and transgender Americans to hostile, repressive laws and measures.

Gay and transgender Americans are just as decent and moral as any other American – respecting the freedom and liberty of gay and transgender Americans is not ‘anything goes,’ it’s recognizing the right of self-determination and freedom of expression every American is entitled to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Don't know, are you?

Ignore list for this waste of time

 

[justinacolmena]

The tyranny of the right seeks to compel conformity and punish dissent by subjecting gay and transgender Americans to hostile, repressive laws and measures.

Bathroom bill initiative petitions are pushed pushed by RINOs and extreme Feminists. Red communists. Conservatives are going to preach what they will, but not that we need extra laws to arrest people by the seat of the pants on the toilet seat. Those are measures of liberal big-government lovers, not Conservatives.

Gay and transgender Americans are just as decent and moral as any other American – respecting the freedom and liberty of gay and transgender Americans is not ‘anything goes,’ it’s recognizing the right of self-determination and freedom of expression every American is entitled to.

A lot of gay people in fact are extremely conservative and strict about keeping men and women separate from each other in all possible situations and then charging money for any possible social interaction between men and women.

Gays have no interest in associating with transgender whatsoever except to enforce conformity with "birth sex" as they term it, not always the same as "conception sex."

 

[frigidweirdo]

One thing i feel is a double standard is that women can wear jeans, but as soon as a man wears a skirt or a dress it is frowned upon.

Yes, there are norms that have changed, but those conservatives who are too conservative can't cope with anything outside of their present view of what is "normal".

 

[SweetSue92]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

Individuals in our nation should be free to live as they please within the law. And certainly I have seen my share of young students with gender nonconformity such as girls who like trucks and boys who like to dress up dolls. It's unusual but it happens. It's fine.

However

Please do not tell me that men can get pregnant and women can ejaculate. Really, do not gaslight me. That is all.

 

[sakinago]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

A big ole problem comes into play when social cred is handed out for for being a “gender-nonconformist”. You’re going to get hop ons. A lot of them. That’s exactly what we’re seeing. To the detriment of many teenage girls with anxiety issues and social awkwardness. 1 girl in the group decides she’s a boy in a girls body, makes a Facebook post, gets high praise in school/public. Next week all her friends are now non-conformist, same thing happens. Next they get out on puberty blockers, replacement hormones, mastectomy’s, and now they’ve permanently changed their bodies. When they’re 14. And still developing. Then they grow up. Maybe they’re just a lesbian and completely mutilated their body and now have facial hair. Maybe they’re straight and want children but now can’t. These are permanent decisions, and by declaring righteous, and removing all the safeguards the medical community should have to even slow down a 14 year old from removing her still developing breasts is causing a lot of problems for their 20 year old selves. It’s incredibly stupid and damaging, and no one is reporting to anyone what happens to these poor girls when they grow up.

There’s also the societal problem. Pretty much every empire in history right before it’s fall becomes obsessed with hermaphroditism in one form or another. It’s basically the most basic law in nature, and the last boundary there is to push. Once it’s out of the way, and you get into the realm of “men have periods too” it’s hard to make an argument for any absolute truth. Much to the chagrin of progressives, absolute truth is very much necessary for societies. Progressives love absolute truth, which is way they argue things on the basis of morality, they just hate the absolute truth on the other side. Absolute truth allows us to collectively say that what the Nazis did was wrong.

 

[22lcidw]

A big ole problem comes into play when social cred is handed out for for being a “gender-nonconformist”. You’re going to get hop ons. A lot of them. That’s exactly what we’re seeing. To the detriment of many teenage girls with anxiety issues and social awkwardness. 1 girl in the group decides she’s a boy in a girls body, makes a Facebook post, gets high praise in school/public. Next week all her friends are now non-conformist, same thing happens. Next they get out on puberty blockers, replacement hormones, mastectomy’s, and now they’ve permanently changed their bodies. When they’re 14. And still developing. Then they grow up. Maybe they’re just a lesbian and completely mutilated their body and now have facial hair. Maybe they’re straight and want children but now can’t. These are permanent decisions, and by declaring righteous, and removing all the safeguards the medical community should have to even slow down a 14 year old from removing her still developing breasts is causing a lot of problems for their 20 year old selves. It’s incredibly stupid and damaging, and no one is reporting to anyone what happens to these poor girls when they grow up.

There’s also the societal problem. Pretty much every empire in history right before it’s fall becomes obsessed with hermaphroditism in one form or another. It’s basically the most basic law in nature, and the last boundary there is to push. Once it’s out of the way, and you get into the realm of “men have periods too” it’s hard to make an argument for any absolute truth. Much to the chagrin of progressives, absolute truth is very much necessary for societies. Progressives love absolute truth, which is way they argue things on the basis of morality, they just hate the absolute truth on the other side. Absolute truth allows us to collectively say that what the Nazis did was wrong.

No matter what social justice brings, it has to ensure there is plenty for all citizens tp survive and live with comforts. That does not exist in our current world. So nations and civilizations rise and fall.

 

[YoursTruly]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

Why does it have to be confusing? This ain't rocket science.

The amount of child abuse that goes along with grown parents allowing their children, like under 15yrs old, to get chemically treated to stop puberty. That's insane. The child doesn't have a clue as to what it wants to be. It could be a phase. He could just be a fem boy, but still like sex with his own penis. There's a lot of things that kid will have to work out before he/she becomes old enough to know what it wants to be.

 

[Stann]

Validating ‘transgenderism’ should be a very simple process that shouldn’t require big fancy words or loose theories.
Just tell us where all these trans people were before the Left made ‘fucked in the head’ cool. The bearded woman at the circus doesn’t count.

Well since it occurs in all cultures, it is quite normal. In India and Southeast Asia " the third sex " as they are called are considered holy people and very desirable. They're invited to weddings, funerals, births, etc. because they are thought bring good luck. The point is our society is in his accepting, and that is sad.

 

[Stann]

Why does it have to be confusing? This ain't rocket science.

The amount of child abuse that goes along with grown parents allowing their children, like under 15yrs old, to get chemically treated to stop puberty. That's insane. The child doesn't have a clue as to what it wants to be. It could be a phase. He could just be a fem boy, but still like sex with his own penis. There's a lot of things that kid will have to work out before he/she becomes old enough to know what it wants to be.

Or figure out who they are.

 

[YoursTruly]

Well since it occurs in all cultures, it is quite normal. In India and Southeast Asia " the third sex " as they are called are considered holy people and very desirable. They're invited to weddings, funerals, births, etc. because they are thought bring good luck. The point is our society is in his accepting, and that is sad.

Those two places in the world, with a different idea on this part of their culture doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to conform to their culture.
In the USA, we don't have that culture. And be dayumed if we're going to conform to it, just for the sake of a fraction of the citizens here being transgender.
The left needs to stop trying to normalize things that aren't normal.
And no, it's NOT normal for boys to compete in womens sports. Regardless of what they identify as.
What is normal? It's what the vast majority of people do. If 80% of the human race cut off their pinky toe at age 18, that would be normal. A few million people calling themselves transgender is not normal, because BILLIONS of people don't.

For the record. The ONLY part of the trans thing that I'm against, is when it actually adversely affects others. I could care less if they want to dress and go out in public. I could care less if they go to work dressed as the opposite sex.
But there's a line that doesn't need to be crossed.
Like allowing them to compete against biological females.
Flashing their junk to strangers
and things along those lines.

 

[YoursTruly]

Or figure out who they are.

Figure out who they are?
MTF......
1. Look between your legs, and figure it out.
2. Does the boy like dresses? Ok, then the BOY is more feminine than the other boys. But still a boy. Next year, he may see a nice set of nice tits on a woman and stop being feminine.

 

[Stann]

Those two places in the world, with a different idea on this part of their culture doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to conform to their culture.
In the USA, we don't have that culture. And be dayumed if we're going to conform to it, just for the sake of a fraction of the citizens here being transgender.
The left needs to stop trying to normalize things that aren't normal.
And no, it's NOT normal for boys to compete in womens sports. Regardless of what they identify as.
What is normal? It's what the vast majority of people do. If 80% of the human race cut off their pinky toe at age 18, that would be normal. A few million people calling themselves transgender is not normal, because BILLIONS of people don't.

I'm not saying that we can should consider these people " holy " like they do. I'm saying our society would be much better off if we stop judging people we don't know or even care about, we are supposed to be the land of the free and the brave. Where everyone has equality.