Transgender Philosophy (Questions, Ideology)

**guartz** · 2019-07-18 21:02

ah okay, so it's not considered mental illness anymore, thanks for the correction. I'll rephrase my question with that's a bit less apples and oranges eh?

Spoiler: show

**Milkster** · 2019-07-18 21:03

Originally Posted by BaneTheBrawler

Philosophical discussions about Transgender issues go here. This is also where those of you who may not understand aspects about Transgender people should ask questions. However, should you have such a question, you should phrase it respectfully. No one is obligated to answer you.

Emphasis for this thread should be placed on educating and civil discourse. Arguments are fine, of course, but I will infract any sign of trolling, bigotry, and personal attacks.

Just to make a few things clear, to start with:

"Tranny" is a slur. If you use it, I will smite you.
"Shitlord" is a slur. If you use it, I will smite you. There can be only one.
"Check your privilege" is stupid and does not contribute. Explain why someone's privilege is applicable. If you don't, I will smite you.
"Cis scum" is, obviously, a slur. If you use it, I will smite you.

A few terms that are important to know:
"Cis" is short for "Cisgender" (adjective) means your gender matches the sex you were born as.
"Trans" is short for "Transgender" (adjective) which means someone identifies as something other than the sex they were born as. Usually just a simple flip from one to the other, this can also get waaaay more complicated and I don't fully understand all of it so you'll have to ask.
"Het" is short for "Heterosexual," (adjective or noun) which means you are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
I'm actually not sure what the abbreviation for "Homosexual" (adjective or noun) is. Doesn't get used as much. "Gay," I guess? Anyway, means you are sexually attracted to the same sex.

My understanding of this subject is somewhat shaky, so if I have made an error please PM me.

As always, keep it civil.

.

**Milkster** · 2019-07-18 21:05

Originally Posted by guartz

ah okay, so it's not considered mental illness anymore, thanks for the correction. I'll rephrase my question with that's a bit less apples and oranges eh?

Spoiler: show

In no way are the two situations comparable and if after reading what AG posted you're still trying it. Don't know what to say to you.

**kuronosan** · 2019-07-18 21:40

Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness nor is transgender identification. It's a term that describes the discomfort a transgender individual feels when their identity doesn't match their genetic sex.

Source: I own the DSM-V, and I'm studying psychiatry.

Also, ICD-10 is a coding system for diagnoses, not a diagnostic bible.

**Andalusian girls** · 2019-07-18 21:47

**kuronosan** · 2019-07-18 21:48

K. She sucked anyway.

**Andalusian girls** · 2019-07-18 21:56

fam you rolled in, repeated points i had already made, fluffed up your personal credentials (which are less relevant than mine but hey), and finished by quibbling with a minute point of pedantry.

**Andalusian girls** · 2019-07-18 21:58

but yes next time i'll write a printout of the ICD-10 code range F01-F99 covering mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders is an internationally utilized diagnostic tool of Biblical essence

**Gredival** · 2019-07-19 00:14

Originally Posted by guartz

ah okay, so it's not considered mental illness anymore, thanks for the correction. I'll rephrase my question with that's a bit less apples and oranges eh?

Spoiler: show

Because there is a difference between these two statements:

"You have XY chromosomes and therefore you are a man."

"You have XY chromosomes and were born biologically male."

A lot of people who refuse to acknowledge the validity of transgender self-identification take the position that "People can live however they want, but you can't change what you are."

The first statement is an example of this and tries to use a scientifically accurate statement about DNA and biology to make a sweeping claim that denies the validity of transgender self-identification.

The problem is that it denies science itself in order to make this claim. Studies have shown that there is plenty of evidence to believe that being transgender is a genetically inherited trait and that those who are transgender do, scientifically, better resemble their identified gender than their birth gender.

Transgender women tend to have brain structures that resemble cisgender women, rather than cisgender men. Two sexually dimorphic (differing between men and women) areas of the brain are often compared between men and women. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalus (BSTc) and sexually dimorphic nucleus of transgender women are more similar to those of cisgender woman than to those of cisgender men, suggesting that the general brain structure of these women is in keeping with their gender identity.

This is true even adjusting for the effect of hormone therapy

It has been conclusively shown that hormone treatment can vastly affect the structure and composition of the brain; thus, several teams sought to characterize the brains of transgender men and women who had not yet undergone hormone treatment. Several studies confirmed previous findings, showing once more that transgender people appear to be born with brains more similar to gender with which they identify, rather than the one to which they were assigned

Source: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/20...nder-identity/

The second statement is the limit of scientific accuracy if you want to try flaunt science as a way to be an asshole to a transgender person. It is true that a MtF transgender woman has XY chromosomes and was born biologically male. But that does not make her a man in any other sense (i.e. gender vs. sex). The science supports that she is significantly different than CIS males and is, psychologically, more akin to a female.

This also begs the bigger question: why does birth sex matter so much that you must insist on circumscribing a transgendered person's self-identification? Why is there a need to put an asterisk that places limitations and conditions on how much like a "real" boy/girl they are? Potential sexual/romantic partners arguably are entitled to know and exercise their choice. And maybe an argument can be made that their participation in elite athletic activity should be constrained (which should be done in the same way intersex athletes are regulated) if their biological sex gives them a competitive advantage vs. their identified sex. But why should anyone else get to treat a transgendered person like Pinocchio and dictate things they are and are not allowed to do because they aren't a "real" boy/girl?

**kuronosan** · 2019-07-19 05:05

Originally Posted by Andalusian girls

fam you rolled in, repeated points i had already made, fluffed up your personal credentials (which are less relevant than mine but hey), and finished by quibbling with a minute point of pedantry.

Dude I don't even think I've ever asked what you do.

**D44kpunk** · 2019-07-19 08:08

Originally Posted by kuronosan

I'm struggling to see how it was useless.

there are no facts linked in this article, it's an opinion piece someone wrote from someone using a dating app, and probably asking these 3 guys questions on a dating app. there is nothing educational about it. it's basically saying "hey i found out people are willing to meet trans people in private" or something of that sort. in typical milkster fashion, he is posting it as fact as "tons of guys are into trans women, they are just scared to admit it" based on an opinion piece i've already outlined. regardless if it's true, it absolutely has no place in any discussion, most opinion pieces do not. this forum would be 99% blog posts(basically what this article is) if it was allowed.

if this forum continues to allow opinion pieces to be posted in a political section it's an absolute garbage forum. i am not surprised gred would endorse it as he has a hard on for me.

the dating app isn't listed, there's nothing of substance here at all, there is not a source listed, there is not a study being done, it's not news. the fact i got timed out for calling it out is absolutely absurd and the fact that it's being defended as educational is even more absurd but i guess that's BG, fishing for a reason ever since posters started telling me to kill myself lmao

**kuronosan** · 2019-07-19 08:23

Nah, I see your logic. I just don't agree. I think if anything the article is one-sided but at least offers insight as to what people think of dating a transgendered person. It's a potential boon of neuroscience that I find fascinating.

Hardly useless, but in some ways misleading.

**D44kpunk** · 2019-07-19 08:28

Originally Posted by kuronosan

Nah, I see your logic. I just don't agree. I think if anything the article is one-sided but at least offers insight as to what people think of dating a transgendered person. It's a potential boon of neuroscience that I find fascinating.

Hardly useless, but in some ways misleading.

i guess, there is no context here though. were these conversations being had on tinder? match? some sort of trans hook up app? there's really no context. i don't have a problem with what the author is trying to say, that some people are into trans people, or perfectly fine with trans people, the way they are saying it though has absolutely no place in a discussion and is not "educational", since that's what milkster is claiming he is doing. we already know some people are into trans people, i said it a bit brashly sure but no more brash than most people approach shit on this website

**Eurell** · 2019-07-19 08:30

Its an interview lol. It doesn't represent all men, obviously. It's not teaching us something scientific. Its just giving us insight into how some people approach the topic. Holy shit. Thats not a bad thing to post, and no one here is pretending its some end all be all study lol. It's just an interview

**D44kpunk** · 2019-07-19 08:35

Originally Posted by Eurell

Its an interview lol. It doesn't represent all men, obviously. It's not teaching us something scientific. Its just giving us insight into how some people approach the topic. Holy shit. Thats not a bad thing to post, and no one here is pretending its some end all be all study lol. It's just an interview

??

an interview with no context as to the setting. you know like how everyone was bitching about AOCs approval ratings when it was a study of white college aged potential voters? we have no context here. it's an opinion piece. not to mention it ends in:

"Cis men are not in danger because we are attracted to or date trans women. Our fear however, is killing trans women"

it doesn't even lie about being an opinion piece. but sure alright

**Milkster** · 2019-07-19 08:35

Originally Posted by Eurell

Its an interview lol. It doesn't represent all men, obviously. It's not teaching us something scientific. Its just giving us insight into how some people approach the topic. Holy shit. Thats not a bad thing to post, and no one here is pretending its some end all be all study lol. It's just an interview

I posted it so automatically I'm saying it's an end all be all regarding transgender people and sexual attraction.

It's pretty funny he's in this "philosophy" thread and upset about the content being posted when even in the title it's an open discussion.

**Milkster** · 2019-07-19 08:40

Originally Posted by D44kpunk

there are no facts linked in this article, it's an opinion piece someone wrote from someone using a dating app, and probably asking these 3 guys questions on a dating app. there is nothing educational about it. it's basically saying "hey i found out people are willing to meet trans people in private" or something of that sort. in typical milkster fashion, he is posting it as fact as "tons of guys are into trans women, they are just scared to admit it" based on an opinion piece i've already outlined. regardless if it's true, it absolutely has no place in any discussion, most opinion pieces do not. this forum would be 99% blog posts(basically what this article is) if it was allowed.

if this forum continues to allow opinion pieces to be posted in a political section it's an absolute garbage forum. i am not surprised gred would endorse it as he has a hard on for me.

the dating app isn't listed, there's nothing of substance here at all, there is not a source listed, there is not a study being done, it's not news. the fact i got timed out for calling it out is absolutely absurd and the fact that it's being defended as educational is even more absurd but i guess that's BG, fishing for a reason ever since posters started telling me to kill myself lmao

How does Gred responding to Guartz mean he has a hard on for you? What kind of self important delusions are you living in?

**Milkster** · 2019-07-19 08:47

When transwomen are simply treated as a sexual object and relationships with them are not normalized, straight men will keep them secretive and will do anything to keep that secret from outing the transwoman to threats of violence to even murder to protect themselves and their reputations. When the author says Cis men's fear is killing trans woman it's speaking to the number of trans women who have been and will be assaulted, harrassed and even murdered for existing or attempting to "trick" straight men into relationships or making men gay.

**D44kpunk** · 2019-07-19 08:48

gred replied to me 3 posts after i posted, just stop dude

**Milkster** · 2019-07-19 08:49

5 posts and he didn't respond to you at all. He talked about your obsessive need to post nonsense and how you get shit on for that nonsense. Which is why you got CLOCKED.

Thread: Transgender Philosophy (Questions, Ideology)

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads