Trans shows hate towards Christian preacher

[DeletedUser]

I have a lovely friend who is as gay as Christmas; been out for decades - campaigner for legalization of homosexuality and subsequently gay marriage.

He was openly called a bigot by a work colleague for saying he would not be attracted to someone with boobs and a lady garden. This very well meaning but nuts woman berated him saying “if those body parts belong to a man then you are bigoted for declining to date them”.

It’s a hundred times worse for lesbians - they are told they must have straight, penetrative sex if the person claims to be a woman and a lesbian also.

We are never getting out of this rabbit hole.

[Leroy42]

Why do trans advocates always try hijack the terms man and woman to now mean trans man and trans woman, you then have a real man, one born and reared with a penis being called cis man or some shyte.
Likewise with women born with vaginas and ovaries now being termed cis women.

So it seems the real reason you dislike it is that you feel you own these terms and how dare anybody look that change anything. That you are comfortable the way it is and don't see the need to change.

Ever hear the term majority rules.

So should we never go against the majority? Doesn't matter about right or wrong, facts or not, once the majority of people think it it makes it reality?

And failing that why not accept nature and how we have lived for the last 5,0000 odd years.

Well it depends on what you consider to be nature. Is it wrong for us to correct abnormalities in babies? Should all medicine be cancelled since cancer would appear to be naturual? The difficulty is what is nature, and what are we ethically allowed to do to fix issues as we see them?

I don't care if someone wants to have a sex change, wants to dress however they want, want to have sex with whoever they want but stop trying to hijack everything to suit your cause.

The problem is you do care. You care that after the sex change they want to be treated as a man/woman when you want them to stay as they were.

Big difference and you know fooking well know it.

Well yes, there is of course a big difference but the initial outcome is the same. People are being made feel small, wrong, somehow damaged because someone else doesn't think they are right.

You do know that some trans advocates have labelled straight men that won't date trans-women or lesbians that don't want to be with trans-women as being bigots and discriminatory ?

Well of course in any group you will have a variety of views and a variety of how people act. That is true across every aspect of humanity. But just because there are some acting badly on one side doesn't give the other side a right to act the same. Two wrongs etc.

The big difference, as previously pointed out, is that the weight of the majority of firmly on the side of those that don't accept it. Society as a whole, religion, state bureaucracy not to mention individual feelings, are heavily weighted against the acceptance of trans people. So it is not surprising that some take their anger out on those that they feel are oppressing them. But straight men are not being surpressed by trans

[Leroy42]

Transwoman, not woman.

But biologically they are a woman. Every bit the same as any other woman.

It goes back to the definition of a woman.

Medical Definition of Female
Medical Editor: Charles Patrick Davis, MD, PhD
Reviewed on 3/29/2021

Female: The traditional definition of female was "an individual of the sex that bears young" or "that produces ova or eggs". However, things are not so simple today. Female can be defined by physical appearance, by chromosome constitution (see Female chromosome complement), or by gender identification. Female chromosome complement: The large majority of females have a 46, XX chromosome complement (46 chromosomes including two X chromosomes). A minority of females have other chromosome constitutions such as 45,X (45 chromosomes including only one X chromosome) and 47,XXX (47 chromosomes including three X chromosomes).

https://www.medicinenet.com/female/definition.htm

So do you believe that should they have the aparatus to bear children that makes them a woman? Does a woman no longer be a woman if the uterus is removed? What about after the menopause, when they stop producing eggs? Do they change then?

[Memento Mori]

Once you go down the rabbit hole of accepting "I think I am x, I claim I am x, therefore I am x", and elevate this level of subjectivity above the objective and scientific to the degree that any disagreement is phobic, or bigoted, you just can't win and all bets are off. Catering to and humoring the use of pronouns and all that may be kind or indeed beneficial to people suffering from gender dysmorphia (although surgeries and "treatment" on children are questionable at the least, the jury is very much still out). I am happy to go along with it to help them get through the day, but I draw the line at the attempt to police and dictate thinking, with the demand to unambiguously accept as unchallengeable fact the idea that someone identifying as something means that they objectively are that thing in reality.

[Wibbs]

But biologically they are a woman. Every bit the same as any other woman.

Nope, they're not and it's a scientific, biological and medical nonsense to claim that. And anyone claiming they're "every bit the same as any other woman" is doing so from a currently in vogue political/social frankly deluded position rather than actual facts.

It goes back to the definition of a woman.

https://www.medicinenet.com/female/definition.htm

The large majority of females have a 46, XX chromosome complement (46 chromosomes including two X chromosomes). A minority of females have other chromosome constitutions such as 45,X

That guy is being a tad disingenuous to say the least. It's an absolutely tiny minority of women presenting with anything but XX. And such conditions are genetic "faults", outside the vast majority of the norm. I don't point to Stevie Wonder and suggest he's falling within the definition of a sighted person.

So do you believe that should they have the aparatus to bear children that makes them a woman? Does a woman no longer be a woman if the uterus is removed? What about after the menopause, when they stop producing eggs? Do they change then?

I can take the wheels off my car, it doesn't stop being a car and it certainly doesn't make it a boat. In neither case do they magically grow balls and a willie, increased bone densities, increased lean tissue mass, fewer connections between the hemispheres of the brain, produce sperm and gain an XY chromosome in every cell of their bodies.

[Leroy42]

Nope, they're not and it's a scientific, biological and medical nonsense to claim that. And anyone claiming they're "every bit the same as any other woman" is doing so from a currently in vogue political/social frankly deluded position rather than actual facts.

[Leroy42]

Nope, they're not and it's a scientific, biological and medical nonsense to claim that. And anyone claiming they're "every bit the same as any other woman" is doing so from a currently in vogue political/social frankly deluded position rather than actual facts.

So what are the defining features? That is the issue I am having. So far the most anyone can say is that they were born a male, so therefore they are male, regardless of any surgeries etc. If you are so sure of them not being a woman, then it should be easy enough to define what a woman actually is.

For years, that has been easy. But science and medical advances has made the whole notion more difficult.

The large majority of females have a 46, XX chromosome complement (46 chromosomes including two X chromosomes). A minority of females have other chromosome constitutions such as 45,X

That guy is being a tad disingenuous to say the least. It's an absolutely tiny minority of women presenting with anything but XX. And such conditions are genetic "faults", outside the vast majority of the norm.

But in that case, are those time minority not women? According to your argument they are not.

I can take the wheels off my car, it doesn't stop being a car and it certainly doesn't make it a boat. In neither case do they magically grow balls and a willie, increased bone densities, increased lean tissue mass, fewer connections between the hemispheres of the brain, produce sperm and gain an XY chromosome in every cell of their bodies.

In the case of your car, if you took off the wheels, fixed an outboard motor and rudder, made the base waterproof, then yes I would say it then was a boat. In terms of bone density and the rest, that is a very tricky area. Some women are very butch, some men are very feminine. If a man suffers from a lack of testosterone are they no longer a man? What about a woman without a uterus? Some men clearly thing differently than other men, the same with women.

[Wibbs]

So what are the defining features? That is the issue I am having. So far the most anyone can say is that they were born a male, so therefore they are male, regardless of any surgeries etc. If you are so sure of them not being a woman, then it should be easy enough to define what a woman actually is.

For years, that has been easy. But science and medical advances has made the whole notion more difficult.

Until the day when medical science can change all the genetics of the cells in the body from XY to XX or vice versa, transplant a functioning womb, and all the rest of the biology of a woman and same for men, then we're dealing with a simulacra of the desired gender and not a particularly good one.

[Wibbs]

But in that case, are those time minority not women? According to your argument they are not.

They're intersex.

In the case of your car, if you took off the wheels, fixed an outboard motor and rudder, made the base waterproof, then yes I would say it then was a boat.

A pretty crappy "boat".

In terms of bone density and the rest, that is a very tricky area. Some women are very butch, some men are very feminine. If a man suffers from a lack of testosterone are they no longer a man? What about a woman without a uterus? Some men clearly thing differently than other men, the same with women.

You keep pointing to conditions and faults as examples that should be used for the majority. That's not how it works. The exception proves the rule though a blunt instrument holds more of a basis in reality.

[knownunknown]

"Biologically a transwoman is a woman - every bit the same as any woman."

I just don't understand how people can agree to making themselves think this is actually the truth. It's bizarre.

It was a slippery slope with the pronoun thing. To me it seems like the next logical step. How can anyone call someone a she and not refer to them as a woman?(or a he and not refer to them as a man)

If 'mis-gendering' someone was to be banned and seen as an offence and you were a good subservient peon, what effect would this have on your psyche?

[JayRoc]

I don't know any trans people. But I have a strong suspicion that most of them are mortified that they are being "represented" in the public sphere (ie Twitter) by a shouty few whose extreme views don't reflect the majority.


Just like a lot of groups actually.

[GubuOriginal]

But biologically they are a woman. Every bit the same as any other woman.

It goes back to the definition of a woman.

https://www.medicinenet.com/female/definition.htm

So do you believe that should they have the aparatus to bear children that makes them a woman? Does a woman no longer be a woman if the uterus is removed? What about after the menopause, when they stop producing eggs? Do they change then?

You have quoted from a person with a PhD in microbiology and from a website that 'does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment'. The site seems quite dodgy too (at least on the phone). Not exactly a good source, regardless. The definition of woman has not changed, and the attempts to do are being done primarily by activists, not scientists. I ask you again, can you formilulate a definition as to what a man, or a woman is that isn't a) self referential or b) an appeal to stereotype?

With respect, asking the questions you have to me shows you've never really thought much about this at all, and are thus posting from a position of ignorance. You have already suggested one can change their sex, for example, and are now asking if a person has their uterus removed do they cease to be female (and thus a woman, presumably.). It's akin to a flat earther asking if the earth is (approximately) round why don't planes flying to Australia end upside down?

[Will I Amn’t]

So what are the defining features? That is the issue I am having. So far the most anyone can say is that they were born a male, so therefore they are male, regardless of any surgeries etc. If you are so sure of them not being a woman, then it should be easy enough to define what a woman actually is.

For years, that has been easy. But science and medical advances has made the whole notion more difficult.

So is this a lizard or a human? If not a lizard, why not?

2AFD664B-11D9-47F2-8001-0BE6C915B884.jpeg (49.73 KiB) Viewed 4143 times

[DeletedUser]

Why does no one ever raise the point that all these people are doing is conforming to 50s stereotypes ???

Every time you hear a story it’s always “I knew I was a girl because I loved make up, and dresses and hated football”. So ?

I love sports, hate dresses, never wear make up. I’m a straight woman.

There’s people now who want to re-edit history to make the New Romantics as “trans”. Bullocks - they were men who wear flouncy clothes and make up.

They are killing individuality and expression and it’s really sad to see.

[schmittel]

Either way though, only a woman can have a hysterectomy, only a woman can experience menopause. What a woman does not have is male sex organs (can't believe it has come to actually saying that!)

Totally this. I get involved in more of these discussions than I should and invariably I end up saying something similar, like “A man cannot get pregnant.”

And before I can even process how insane it is to have point that out, somebody will jump in to tell me i’m wrong.

Having always been of the belief that you’ll learn more by trying to see things from the opposite point of view and understand their argument, even if you don’t agree with it, I’m left scratching my head thinking, “where do I start with this one?”

[schmittel]

In the case of your car, if you took off the wheels, fixed an outboard motor and rudder, made the base waterproof, then yes I would say it then was a boat.

I would see it as a car dressed up as a boat. And to call it a boAt would be an insult to real boats.

Dare say most marinas would agree. Trying to claim berthing rights for your car because it identifies as a boat would not get you very far I suspect.

[peasant]

These are the type of discussions that make me want to identify as my dog.
I could lick my balls all day and not give a shit about anything else.

Problem is ...even if I could identify as my dog ...still couldn't reach my balls

[knownunknown]

I don't think we are "living 1984" as some folk claim (if we were, we wouldn't be able to complain) but seeing something objectively real and saying it is something else, actually convincing oneself that it is = to something else... totally Orwellian. 2+2=5 doublethink.

I was actually referring to the old hangout where misgendering someone was actually an offence and got many people banned. Nothing from 1984 required at all.

I'm not convinced its something else entirely. I think its a natural progression of refering to people by the pronoun's that they choose(and not the pronoun you choose).

I've been against this compelled pronoun thing from the beginning. I would(and have ) used preferred pronouns in everyday life, but I will not accept compelled pronouns. I believe we as a society already have though, and this is the slippery slope we're currently sliding down.

First it was preferred pronouns, then compelled pronouns, now compelled gendering. Do you not see this as the natural progression?

[316670]

Being a flaming homosexual didnt get these narcists the level of attention they where looking for, "What can i do to get more eyes on me, i'll dress and look like a woman, (i wont pass any scrutiny) and demand straight men find me attractive and date me".
45% commit suicide after transitioning, they need mental health help but will not get it as the Transexual business is worth Billions of dollars and is growing, the fix is simple and cost pennies and that is why its not handed out, look into Pimozide and then make up your mind.
Its a sad that all their pain and suffering could end with one little tablet but greed has corrupted the psychologists, too much money to be made out of these poor souls.

[weldoninhio]

Are they wrong? You know that how? Do you accept that people are born with abnormalities? That some babies are born missing limbs, organs, unformed brains, deaf, dumb, unable to walk etc. That some people are born with both sets of genitalia? Yet it is not possible that the development of the foetus could not have produced the genitalia with different mentality?

Again, you seem very concerned that trans people give plenty of rights to others but don't seem to bothered about their rights. Show me an instance of a trans person claiming that all men must become women or vice versa. Show me where a trans person has claimed that 'normal' people are sick and wrong and should simply accept what they are told.

Does the preacher not accept other women as women? No, it that he doesn't believe that a person born male can ever be classed as a woman. She is trying to explain that that really isn't his decision to make. What basis he is making this determination?

This preacher, who if we are not beating around the bush believes in a magical sky fairly that randomly kills nearly everything on the planet, and is perfectly happy to condemn people to eternity in hell for the heinous crime of not telling him how awesome he is, is trying to force trans people to accept his view. She is only trying to get him to accept that there can be different views. She is happy to let him have his views, once they do not negatively impact her.

And this preacher is apparently in awe of the creator, the being that created this trans woman but has decided that he is unwilling to accept her and he doesn't like it?

That is the massive difference. He can keep his belief in sky fairies, in people rising form the dead, in world wide floods, in people living 900+ years, in talking snakes, but he cannot accept that the incredibly complex biological process of creating a person could go wrong?

Maybe the preacher is talking about sex, and not gender. The sex of the person is male. The person has XY chromosomes, and is therefore scientifically a male. Gender needs to be scrapped. It's a fairytale now. Lets stick to cold hard facts.

[Cyclepath]

I was actually referring to the old hangout where misgendering someone was actually an offence and got many people banned. Nothing from 1984 required at all.

I'm not convinced its something else entirely. I think its a natural progression of refering to people by the pronoun's that they choose(and not the pronoun you choose).

I've been against this compelled pronoun thing from the beginning. I would(and have ) used preferred pronouns in everyday life, but I will not accept compelled pronouns. I believe we as a society already have though, and this is the slippery slope we're currently sliding down.

First it was preferred pronouns, then compelled pronouns, now compelled gendering. Do you not see this as the natural progression?

Two friends and my son, all in the IT sector, have been encouraged by their employers to state their pronouns on their internal and LinkedIn bios. All have refused. My own son responded to his employer saying

"I won't actually hear my pronouns because they're used to refer to me in my absence and therefore I don't give a shit which one they use..."

[jmayo]

So it seems the real reason you dislike it is that you feel you own these terms and how dare anybody look that change anything. That you are comfortable the way it is and don't see the need to change.

No almost 99% of the population own those definitions.
Why should we change anything for less than 1% of the population, that is going on rough estimates for transgender identifying people in the US.

So should we never go against the majority? Doesn't matter about right or wrong, facts or not, once the majority of people think it it makes it reality?

Ah FFS the majority in this case is not some arbitary makey up definition, but based on actual science.
You know biology, anatomy and physiology.
The things you are actually throwing out the window in this debate.

Well it depends on what you consider to be nature. Is it wron
g for us to correct abnormalities in babies? Should all medicine be cancelled since cancer would appear to be naturual? The difficulty is what is nature, and what are we ethically allowed to do to fix issues as we see them?

I never said any of that shyte and stop trying to imply otherwise.

The problem is you do care. You care that after the sex change they want to be treated as a man/woman when you want them to stay as they were.

Again I never said that .
Why do you people always try and twist things.
I don't care if someone has a sex change or as most now seem to do - a partial one.
A lot of these so called women (i.e. trans women) are still walking around with mickies.
And then you have demands that lesbians should have to sleep with them.
It just beggars belief.

I will call someone their new name and refer to them as he or she.
But i will not ever pretend that they are a true woman or true man.
And yes I care when you see morons claim that a transwoman is just as much a woman as my mother and that I would be bigoted for not wanting to date them because they are "a woman".

[jmayo]

Two friends and my son, all in the IT sector, have been encouraged by their employers to state their pronouns on their internal and LinkedIn bios. All have refused. My own son responded to his employer saying

"I won't actually hear my pronouns because they're used to refer to me in my absence and therefore I don't give a shit which one they use..."

This is why we have to fight this shyology.
Is a linkedin account not personal or is it case where the employees are expected to have linkedin account as part of their employment?

I would say the employer is actually treating on shakey ground.

Then again imagine if the employer said something to a transgender employee about their pronouns there would be ructions.

[BadaBing]

I would not call that hate, regular people don't want to know about the weird sexual kinks of these degenerates, go do whatever you want but don't expect the whole world to be interested, live your life and don't try to push it on everyone else.

[BadaBing]

This is what happens when you pander to the mentally unstable.