..and not a drag queen among them.

[SkepticThinker]

As long as there are criminal background checks and drug tests, I have little difficulty with this incredibly bad idea.

I'll have to remember this the next time someone wants to educate me on the proper usage of neopronouns.


And thanks for making me dispise rainbows. I get that you folks are well-meaning and have the best of intentions or believe you do. Again, when talking to people that believe that a man can literally become a woman, stated with a conviction that approaches religous fanaticsm, it is hard to make any serious headway.

Who has said that or believes that "a man can literally become a woman?"

My fear is that you folks have unwittingly hatched a mental health crisis of epic proportions in your misguided efforts to help a tiny fraction of the population.

Umm, this isn't new. Transgender people have always existed. The attack on transgender people from the right-wing is the part that's new. They've moved on from gay people, I guess, now that people have mostly accepted that group.

I'm curious though, how have "folks unwittingly hatched a mental health crisis of epic proportions?"

 

[YmirGF]

Who has said that or believes that "a man can literally become a woman?"

Wait. What? I have been told, flat out, that a transgender woman is a woman. Period. My guess is that folks are working from the assumption that such an individual was never a male to begin with and therefore does not "become" a woman. Where these discussions get confusing is where overlapping terms with different meanings are in use.

Umm, this isn't new. Transgender people have always existed. The attack on transgender people from the right-wing is the part that's new. They've moved on from gay people, I guess, now that people have mostly accepted that group.

Interestingly, I began to hear this "have always existed" suggestion only recently. Given that transgenderism only became possible via surgical and medical intervention it is unlikely that there have been any historical "trans" figures unless one is being extremely flexible in their descriptions. Inserting trasgenderism into the past is not helpful and certainly does not help your arguement to anyone but the already indoctrinated. Historian, in the past, at least, cautioned readers to not look at the past through the lens of their current thinking and project modes of behavior onto the past as that only results in a distorted mess. It is handy if one has a narrative to peddle as not too many will check the facts.

As far as the evil 'right-wing' goes, they have indeed only just woken up. That is true, but like me, they are slow to understand how deeply entrenched this lunacy already is. Like with me initially, they think that a bit of discussion can patch things over. The way I see it is that the pro-trans side of this discussion is only interested in lecturing and correcting, and is very much indoctrination. If it isn't indoctrination, you could sure fool me.

You see the thing is that the "right wing" folks have suddenly realized that Gender Ideology being taught in schools is ****ing with THEIR kids. In the past, no one really cared what kids got taught in school. I remember when SOGI was introduced into BC schools 6 to 8 years ago, I rolled my eyes are how ludicrous it sounded back then. You could almost see the folks on the news rolling their eyes too as they read the story out. I didn't even take a program that was tailor-made for children seriously, but now years later and a bit too late - we've woken up to this insantiy.

I'm curious though, how have "folks unwittingly hatched a mental health crisis of epic proportions?"

Stay tuned.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wait. What? I have been told, flat out, that a transgender woman is a woman. Period. My guess is that folks are working from the assumption that such an individual was never a male to begin with and therefore does not "become" a woman. Where these discussions get confusing is where overlapping terms with different meanings are in use.

"Someone" told you that a transgender woman is a woman and you took that to mean, ""a man can literally become a woman," Is that it?
Isn't this the reason we have the labels we do - transman, transwoman, cisman, ciswoman, etc. ,,, to distinguish between them?

Interestingly, I began to hear this "have always existed" suggestion only recently.

You should have listened better then. I don't know. Just because you recently heard about a thing doesn't make it a new thing. I was studying this in school over two decades ago. The terms we use now may be modern, but the phenomena is not.

Given that transgenderism only became possible via surgical and medical intervention it is unlikely that there have been any historical "trans" figures unless one is being extremely flexible in their descriptions. Inserting trasgenderism into the past is not helpful and certainly does not help your arguement to anyone but the already indoctrinated. Historian, in the past, at least, cautioned readers to not look at the past through the lens of their current thinking and project modes of behavior onto the past as that only results in a distorted mess. It is handy if one has a narrative to peddle as not too many will check the facts.

The first American to undergo gender confirmation surgery was Christine Jorgenson in 1952. The first known person to do so was Dora Richter in 1931.

But of course, one can be trans without ever having any surgery whatsoever, you know.
Here are some examples from history:

How historians are documenting the lives of transgender people

The term “transgender” wasn’t coined until the 1960s—but people have always challenged the gender binary. Here’s a look at their history, from ancient civilizations to the modern rights movement.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Ancient civilization in Iran recognized transgender people 3,000 years ago, study suggests

***

www.haaretz.com

Bones without Flesh and (Trans)Gender without Bodies: Querying Desires for Trans Historicity | Hypatia | Cambridge Core

Bones without Flesh and (Trans)Gender without Bodies: Querying Desires for Trans Historicity - Volume 37 Issue 4

www.cambridge.org

I don't know why you're talking about indoctrination here. It just seems like some kind of buzz word you felt like throwing in.

As far as the evil 'right-wing' goes, they have indeed only just woken up. That is true, but like me, they are slow to understand how deeply entrenched this lunacy already is. Like with me initially, they think that a bit of discussion can patch things over. The way I see it is that the pro-trans side of this discussion is only interested in lecturing and correcting, and is very much indoctrination. If it isn't indoctrination, you could sure fool me.

Maybe if you didn't just dismiss it as "lunacy" people may be more interested in engaging with you on the topic.
I'd venture to say that transpeople don't enjoy being referred to as lunatics.

And here we have another reference to "indoctrination." It's sounds like what you mean by that is "learning about things I am unfamiliar with." I'd love to know what you mean though.

You see the thing is that the "right wing" folks have suddenly realized that Gender Ideology being taught in schools is ****ing with THEIR kids. In the past, no one really cared what kids got taught in school. I remember when SOGI was introduced into BC schools 6 to 8 years ago, I rolled my eyes are how ludicrous it sounded back then. You could almost see the folks on the news rolling their eyes too as they read the story out. I didn't even take a program that was tailor-made for children seriously, but now years later and a bit too late - we've woken up to this insantiy.


Stay tuned.

And again a reference to insanity.
You don't wonder why your opinions on this are met with hostility and "correction", do you?

People have always cared about "what kids got taught in school." It used to be a lot of whining about prayer and god supposedly being removed from the schools that is corrupting the kids and such. Then it was whining about how comprehensive sex ed is teaching kids how to have sex and corrupting them. Then it became a bunch of whining about books people think their kids shouldn't be reading. Then it became a whinefest about how teachers are teaching the kids that gay people exist and "oh the children!" and on and on and on.
People have always freaked out and overreacted about what is being taught to kids in schools. Now we hear the word "indoctrination" like, every five seconds it seems.

 

[YmirGF]

"Someone" told you that a transgender woman is a woman and you took that to mean, ""a man can literally become a woman," Is that it?
Isn't this the reason we have the labels we do - transman, transwoman, cisman, ciswoman, etc. ,,, to distinguish between them?

You should have listened better then. I don't know. Just because you recently heard about a thing doesn't make it a new thing. I was studying this in school over two decades ago. The terms we use now may be modern, but the phenomena is not.


The first American to undergo gender confirmation surgery was Christine Jorgenson in 1952. The first known person to do so was Dora Richter in 1931.

But of course, one can be trans without ever having any surgery whatsoever, you know.
Here are some examples from history:

How historians are documenting the lives of transgender people

The term “transgender” wasn’t coined until the 1960s—but people have always challenged the gender binary. Here’s a look at their history, from ancient civilizations to the modern rights movement.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Ancient civilization in Iran recognized transgender people 3,000 years ago, study suggests

***

www.haaretz.com

Bones without Flesh and (Trans)Gender without Bodies: Querying Desires for Trans Historicity | Hypatia | Cambridge Core

Bones without Flesh and (Trans)Gender without Bodies: Querying Desires for Trans Historicity - Volume 37 Issue 4

www.cambridge.org

I don't know why you're talking about indoctrination here. It just seems like some kind of buzz word you felt like throwing in.


Maybe if you didn't just dismiss it as "lunacy" people may be more interested in engaging with you on the topic.
I'd venture to say that transpeople don't enjoy being referred to as lunatics.

And here we have another reference to "indoctrination." It's sounds like what you mean by that is "learning about things I am unfamiliar with." I'd love to know what you mean though.

And again a reference to insanity.
You don't wonder why your opinions on this are met with hostility and "correction", do you?

People have always cared about "what kids got taught in school." It used to be a lot of whining about prayer and god supposedly being removed from the schools that is corrupting the kids and such. Then it was whining about how comprehensive sex ed is teaching kids how to have sex and corrupting them. Then it became a bunch of whining about books people think their kids shouldn't be reading. Then it became a whinefest about how teachers are teaching the kids that gay people exist and "oh the children!" and on and on and on.
People have always freaked out and overreacted about what is being taught to kids in schools. Now we hear the word "indoctrination" like, every five seconds it seems.

Thank you, so very much, for attempting to correct my misguided thinking.

Edit: Thanks for the articles, they support what I am saying, in that there is a conscious effort to insert trangernderism into the past. That is a fool's errand and will ultimately backfire.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you, so very much, for attempting to correct my misguided thinking.

Edit: Thanks for the articles, they support what I am saying, in that there is a conscious effort to insert trangernderism into the past. That is a fool's errand and will ultimately backfire.

And thank you so much for not engaging in an actual conversation, again.
Gee, I wonder why you have such a hard time interacting with trans people? Such a mystery.

I won't bother writing in-depth responses that you'll just ignore anyway, in the future. Thanks for the head's up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, hilarious. Maybe let the adults talk now.

 

[Rival]

"Someone" told you that a transgender woman is a woman and you took that to mean, ""a man can literally become a woman," Is that it?
Isn't this the reason we have the labels we do - transman, transwoman, cisman, ciswoman, etc. ,,, to distinguish between them?

Incase you're wondering, there are a large cohort of people (largely unhinged tiktokers) who believe that women don't have a monopoly on periods, and that transwomen can get periods and PMS. This is becoming somewhat mainstream.

 

[YmirGF]

Incase you're wondering, there are a large cohort of people (largely unhinged tiktokers) who believe that women don't have a monopoly on periods, and that transwomen can get periods and PMS. This is becoming somewhat mainstream.

I saw one recently where the trans woman wanted to be the first trans women to have a uterus transplant, so she could get pregnant by all the "gay sex" she could handle. (Not sure how that could get one pregnant, but this isn't about making sense.) She was not done, however. At the end, the point of her getting the transplant and lovingly nurturing the pregnancy along... so that she could then abort the baby. The truly disturbing part is that my BS meter didn't move an iota. This wasn't a troll. This person was serious. Personally, I think that person requires an intervention of some kind, as the above is bat-**** crazy thinking. This is obviously a very extreme case but is indicative that some folks have taken this thinking way, way, way, too far.

 

[Rival]

I saw one recently where the trans woman wanted to be the first trans women to have a uterus transplant, so she could get pregnant by all the "gay sex" she could handle. (Not sure how that could get one pregnant, but this isn't about making sense.) She was not done, however. At the end, the point of her getting the transplant and lovingly nurturing the pregnancy along... so that she could then abort the baby. The truly disturbing part is that my BS meter didn't move an iota. This wasn't a troll. This person was serious. Personally, I think that person requires an intervention of some kind, as the above is bat-**** crazy thinking. This is obviously a very extreme case but is indicative that some folks have taken this thinking way, way, way, too far.

Ugh, yes, I heard about that one.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The way I see it is that the pro-trans side of this discussion is only interested in lecturing and correcting, and is very much indoctrination.

Don't you think this could also come across as "lecturing and correcting"?

Interestingly, I began to hear this "have always existed" suggestion only recently. Given that transgenderism only became possible via surgical and medical intervention it is unlikely that there have been any historical "trans" figures unless one is being extremely flexible in their descriptions. Inserting trasgenderism into the past is not helpful and certainly does not help your arguement to anyone but the already indoctrinated. Historian, in the past, at least, cautioned readers to not look at the past through the lens of their current thinking and project modes of behavior onto the past as that only results in a distorted mess. It is handy if one has a narrative to peddle as not too many will check the facts.

As far as the evil 'right-wing' goes, they have indeed only just woken up. That is true, but like me, they are slow to understand how deeply entrenched this lunacy already is. Like with me initially, they think that a bit of discussion can patch things over. The way I see it is that the pro-trans side of this discussion is only interested in lecturing and correcting, and is very much indoctrination. If it isn't indoctrination, you could sure fool me.

You see the thing is that the "right wing" folks have suddenly realized that Gender Ideology being taught in schools is ****ing with THEIR kids. In the past, no one really cared what kids got taught in school. I remember when SOGI was introduced into BC schools 6 to 8 years ago, I rolled my eyes are how ludicrous it sounded back then. You could almost see the folks on the news rolling their eyes too as they read the story out. I didn't even take a program that was tailor-made for children seriously, but now years later and a bit too late - we've woken up to this insantiy.

What you're referring to as "gender ideology" is merely the current medical consensus: that sex and gender are not synonymous, even though they also overlap. Consequently, dismissing the medical consensus as "ideology" is, in itself, an ideological rather than medically evidenced position. It's not so different from dismissing evolution or climate change as "ideology" or "politics" just because it contradicts certain political or religious beliefs.

Also, about this part:

Wait. What? I have been told, flat out, that a transgender woman is a woman. Period. My guess is that folks are working from the assumption that such an individual was never a male to begin with and therefore does not "become" a woman.

What do you want people to call a trans woman, if not a woman? Yes, trans women are not biologically female, but as I said above, sex and gender aren't synonymous, per current science.

People don't have a uniform position on any issue, including this one. Many people will tell you that a trans person, for example, may or may not have always experienced gender dysphoria. Some trans people even live as the gender matching their sex and then experience dysphoria later on, which leads to transitioning. Saying that a trans woman in such a scenario—or in any other scenario, really—"was never a male" would be incorrect, and since "male" refers to sex rather than gender, a trans person's opting for medically transitioning is by itself an acknowledgement that they're biologically male. I don't know a single trans person who claims that they were "never [insert their birth sex here]." They know it, and they know it too well. That's why they want to transition in the first place.

What is true for some trans people is that they were never the gender matching their biological sex, whether due to having gender dysphoria from an early age or from not fitting into the gender binary. I'm not sure why this would be controversial either, since there are many recorded examples of people having such experiences and not being relatively comfortable in their own bodies until they have transitioned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I am so messed up!!!

 

[YmirGF]

Don't you think this could also come across as "lecturing and correcting"?



What you're referring to as "gender ideology" is merely the current medical consensus: that sex and gender are not synonymous, even though they also overlap. Consequently, dismissing the medical consensus as "ideology" is, in itself, an ideological rather than medically evidenced position. It's not so different from dismissing evolution or climate change as "ideology" or "politics" just because it contradicts certain political or religious beliefs.

Also, about this part:



What do you want people to call a trans woman, if not a woman? Yes, trans women are not biologically female, but as I said above, sex and gender aren't synonymous, per current science.

People don't have a uniform position on any issue, including this one. Many people will tell you that a trans woman, for example, may or may not have always experienced gender dysphoria. Some trans people even live as the gender matching their sex and then experience dysphoria later on, which leads to transitioning. Saying that a trans woman in such a scenario "was never a male" would be incorrect, and since "male" refers to sex rather than gender, a trans person's opting for medically transitioning is by itself an acknowledgement that they're biologically male. I don't know a single trans person who claims that they were "never [insert their birth sex here]." They know it, and they know it too well. That's why they want to transition in the first place.

You do not seem to understand me, @Debater Slayer

Thank you for making the effort though. It's not that I am against one or two things in the transgender discussion. I flat out reject the entire "Affirmative Care Model" and think it needs to be abolished -- the sooner, the better. I personally think it is akin to "junk science", but that is just me, obviously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incase you're wondering, there are a large cohort of people (largely unhinged tiktokers) who believe that women don't have a monopoly on periods, and that transwomen can get periods and PMS. This is becoming somewhat mainstream.

"Unhinged tiktokers" and "mainstream" appear to be self contradictory.

 

[Father Heathen]

I saw one recently where the trans woman wanted to be the first trans women to have a uterus transplant, so she could get pregnant by all the "gay sex" she could handle. (Not sure how that could get one pregnant, but this isn't about making sense.) She was not done, however. At the end, the point of her getting the transplant and lovingly nurturing the pregnancy along... so that she could then abort the baby. The truly disturbing part is that my BS meter didn't move an iota. This wasn't a troll. This person was serious. Personally, I think that person requires an intervention of some kind, as the above is bat-**** crazy thinking. This is obviously a very extreme case but is indicative that some folks have taken this thinking way, way, way, too far.

I don't think that would be medically viable, and to got though all of that just to abort? It screams either troll or mental illness. Calling it "gay sex" is also suspect. I doubt such a thing would receive a lot of support from the trans community.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

"Unhinged tiktokers" and "mainstream" appear to be self contradictory.

True, but I think the whole trans woman PMS / periods things is a bit of a Straw Man the way it's presented anyway.... what actually seems to be going on is that trans women who are on estrogen hormones are noticing a seemingly natural cycle in which their moods change, almost like a cis woman's. So while in a comfortable group, they might use terms like "PMS or periods" to describe what they are experiencing.... but then people observing from afar, not part of the group, see what they're saying, mischaracterize it and call it ridiculous.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You do not seem to understand me, @Debater Slayer

Thank you for making the effort though. It's not that I am against one or two things in the transgender discussion. I flat out reject the entire "Affirmative Care Model" and think it needs to be abolished -- the sooner, the better. I personally think it is akin to "junk science", but that is just me, obviously.

If anyone could supply peer-reviewed evidence from multiple reputable medical organizations demonstrating that the current model of care for gender dysphoria is ineffective or harmful, I would see a reason to object to it too. So far, I have only seen objections based on personal opinion and ideological or religious beliefs, not medical consensus or significant peer-reviewed evidence. I can't, in good conscience, reject something when current evidence indicates that rejection and banning thereof contributes to immense suffering and even loss of life among a certain group of people.

That's all there is to it for me. I don't listen to activists, whether ones for or against gender-affirming care, and I can't name a single activist or ideological book concerned with the issue, whether for or against. My position is merely based on current medical evidence, and unless or until reliable, peer-reviewed evidence from reputable sources contradicts current findings and established positions, I see no solid basis to change my position.

 

[Father Heathen]

Incase you're wondering, there are a large cohort of people (largely unhinged tiktokers) who believe that women don't have a monopoly on periods, and that transwomen can get periods and PMS. This is becoming somewhat mainstream.

Are you sure they didn't men transmen?

 

[Rival]

Are you sure they didn't men transmen?

No, transwomen.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, transwomen.

Then where do they think menstrual blood comes from?

 

[Rival]

True, but I think the whole trans woman PMS / periods things is a bit of a Straw Man the way it's presented anyway.... what actually seems to be going on is that trans women who are on estrogen hormones are noticing a seemingly natural cycle in which their moods change, almost like a cis woman's. So while in a comfortable group, they might use terms like "PMS or periods" to describe what they are experiencing.... but then people observing from afar, not part of the group, see what they're saying, mischaracterize it and call it ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because they are using a term with a defined meaning that they can't experience. PMS happens due to hormone fluctuations and a boatload of other factors that the same dose of œstrogen every time won't produce, because that's not a cycle it's a constant. What they're noticing is that œstrogen in general makes one more susceptible to moodiness, teariness and other anxious emotions. I imagine this is very bizarre to them and quite distressing. I don't doubt that occurs, but to call it PMS is wrong and depreciates what PMS truly is.