I'm confused.
What eye color do left-handed trannys have again?
Purple.
I believe the answer you're looking for is purple.
I'm confused.
What eye color do left-handed trannys have again?
I'm confused.
What eye color do left-handed trannys have again?
Heah. It’s purple and all, but reminds me that the nonsense part of today’s gender issues is what the world is becoming. There aren’t really any more real transsexuals. It looks like it’s about the same rate over a long time.The way the world is going, is it possible Trump was grabbing (apparent) women by the ***** just to make sure they actually had one?
Felon = can't vote
If they can't vote, how can a felon run?
Sex is biological. Gender and gender roles are entirely a social construct. Why don't men wear dresses? Why don't women wear suits & ties? In the European renaissance men wore a significant amount of makeup. How much do men wear today? These are all issues that are created by culture and society, not by biology.
And you may well be right. Someone who is extremely uncomfortable with their own body may well be suffering from a medical disorder. I think this may well be correct, but I am not convinced it is entirely so. I am thinking the answer may well be somewhere in the middle, where you are right about some people and I am dexter about others. But I don't think either one of us is 100% correct, or 100% wrong. Perhaps in our lifetimes further study will prove me sinister, or right.
I think some on the left go too far on pushing the descriptive words regarding people. I believe he and she, him and her, etc, should refer to at least appearing sexually male or female. Those words should be tied to sex as most people with then have a clear understanding during speech about what the discussion entails. If a transgendered person who was born male but transitions all appearances to female, like Caitlyn Jenner then I have no problem referring to that person as "her", "she" or any other feminine descriptor. However, should Hulk Hogan all of a sudden want to be referred to in the feminine without taking the steps to change his appearance, then NO, I do not agree with that. These words ARE descriptors and do have specific connotations. I wouldn't describe a 5'0" woman as tall, nor would I describe a 6'9" man as short. I don't care what they want in this case, the words tall and short are subjective, but within our society and others these words have meaning. Perhaps in 400 years if the average male height is 8'5" THEN a 6'9" man will be short, but today he is tall.
Regards,
Doug
PS - Back to your regularly scheduled hushing.
Doug,
I understand the historical context of left-handedness. I find it not applicable because the discomfort that I'm talking about is ultimately not a social construct. I agree that a lot of the stigma for transgendered people is a social construct, which both sides of the issue contribute to. But the part that isn't a social construct, and I'll get just a little graphic for emphasis, imagine being a guy, and being uncomfortable with having a dick. As far as I can tell from the literature on it that I've read, it's not for social reasons. Women's brains are different from men's brains, and I can't say I understand the scientific language about what makes them different. But I can understand enough from those studies to know what matters. There's a physical component to it.
Transgenders' brains have many of the characteristics of the other. So for a male who feels like he's a woman, there's likely a physical reason for that. And it's likely because his brain is more similar to whatever is different about a woman's brain from a man's. So this dysphoria is not a social construct. It's that, for whatever reason, a small percentage of people have developed the brain similar to the sex opposite of what they are physically. So maybe it's more like this. What if you're a woman, and as you developed, you grew a penis, and you're really uncomfortable having it now. You're supposed to have a vagina. That you're supposed to have a vagina isn't a social construct if it's wired into your brain. Of course not exactly like that growing one after birth, because these people are born with the parts they have. But in terms of how they would feel dysphoric about it, it's more like that than it is feeling dysphoric because of other people's expectations.
So the condition is not normal, but also it does not make them bad. And of course, there is a lot of social constructions that compound the physical condition. And you add in all the social stigma of being different, and social constructs of how you're supposed to be given the parts you have, and it's no wonder the suicide rate is 40%.
And that brings me to the question T.Lex asked. I've mentioned before that I have a cousin who is a transsexual. And honestly I don't know him/her very well at all. I didn't refer to his or her sex/gender here because I honestly don't know. We've talked at funerals, basically. That's the only time extended family seems to gather. I last talked to this person at my Dad's funeral years ago. All I know is that my dad told me long ago that my cousin got a sex change operation. He never told me my cousin's biological sex. And, I can't ask. I mean, it's just not something you talk about at funerals. And I can't go by my cousin's first name because it's one of those names that could go either way--no, it's not Pat.
I say this now because researching this to see if what you were saying is true, has changed my opinion on it. After researching it, I'd say I don't believe you're right, that it's mostly a social construct. If all social constructs were dissolved, the real transgendered people would still be dysphoric about their physical sex versus the sex they feel like they are. But I don't believe I was right either. And I'm starting to rethink my position on treatment. Surgery doesn't solve the problem--nothing really does--it sort of masks it and brings about a tolerable existence for some. It's still a very high suicide rate after surgery and it's not clear that that's all about the social stigma. But the clinical literature makes it seem fairly clear that it does help some of them cope.
So, now, if I did know my cousin's actual sex, and he or she wanted to be called by the other pronoun, knowing what I know now, I'd use it. It's not my cousin's fault that nature played a cruel joke. It doesn't do him or her any good to sit here and demand precision in the words I use. So I'm going to disagree with people like Ben Shapiro on this.
But something I will agree with him about, if you're a dude, but say you're a transgender woman, and you look like a dude, act like a dude in every way, in every mannerism you behave just like a dude, beard, gruffness, etcetera, but you just dress like and call yourself a woman, I'm probably going to suspect that you're not actually a transgender person. Maybe you have something else going on. And much of that may be due to social constructs, but the social constructs which has men generally behaving masculine, and women generally behaving famine, have evolved and are wired into us. So much that it's part of biology too. It works across time and across cultures. And that's not likely to change no matter how much social justice wants it to.
I'll have to disagree, that the majority if not all of the discomfort is based in social constructs. Yes it is quite possible/probable that their brains are wired differently. But the discomfort comes from social "norms", if you have x parts, you should act in x way. And there is social pressure to do so.
You even say that you believe in it, when you say that if you're physically male and act/dress/etc like a male you should call yourself a man, no matter what they believe they should be. And you say that it is evolved and wired into us, but you also argue that they are wired differently. I know a woman, biological born that way woman, that has her hair cut like a man, dresses like a man, and has quite a few male mannerisms. It's not uncommon for people that don't know her to refer to her in the male pronouns, I was out for dinner with her and the waitress referred to her as sir, at my wife's bridal shower several of the Aunt's asked "who's that man"? Should I refer to her as a him even though she identifies as a woman? If not why shouldn't a man who acts/dresses/etc as a man, but identifies as a female be referred to as such?
I'm not sure we're talking about the same things because what you say I said isn't really what I said.
So, I'll try to isolate the thing I'm saying more, because it's actually a very narrow portion of the spectrum. The thing I think now, is that there are a very small subset of people who have a biological condition that I'll just refer to as "transsexual". They feel dysphoric about their sex--not entirely because "normal" people identify with their own sex and they don't. But because there is apparently a biological component.
The studies which suggest that transsexuals have the brain of the other has caused me to rethink some things. If there is a biological component that causes the underlying dysphoria, that goes beyond just a social construct and even "identity". The part that I'm talking about is a person's biological sex versus what is biological about the difference between a male's brain and a female's. I would say that gender roles are mostly a social construct, even though there is a biological component even to that. Sex is biological. And if your brain is such that you feel out of sync with your sex, that dysphoria isn't purely because of social stigmas of what is societally "normal" for people. The basis of the dysphoria is biological, and the stigma of being different from other people who identify with the sex they are, that exacerbates the problem, but is not the root of the problem.
In other words, if you were to isolate these people such that their condition is "normal", and they'd still be dysphoric about their sex. I would not include everyone who says they're transgender in that statement. To narrow down the subset to what I'm talking about, I would exclude the following: cross-dressers, females with masculine preferences, males with feminine preferences, gays, lesbians.
Some of those categories may be biological too. There's some evidence that when and how much testosterone is present during prenatal development determines how closely you might behave feminine or masculine. Most boys tend to like to play the way boys play, and girls tend to like to play the way girls play. That transcends cultures and time. So it's apparent that the social constructs that have formed have a basis that is biological. Researchers are finding some predictability when studying testosterone during development. Tomboys are at least a little predictable. So are effeminate males. Most people fall in the normal range of testosterone levels for their sex during development. The ones who aren't, to the extent that they aren't, become at least a little socially outcast.
Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. I did not say that people should change their appearance if they want to be called the other. And I only applied it to a narrow set of people. I will restate what I’m saying more succinctly:
Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. [snip]
I think some on the left go too far on pushing the descriptive words regarding people. I believe he and she, him and her, etc, should refer to at least appearing sexually male or female. Those words should be tied to sex as most people with then have a clear understanding during speech about what the discussion entails. If a transgendered person who was born male but transitions all appearances to female, like Caitlyn Jenner then I have no problem referring to that person as "her", "she" or any other feminine descriptor. However, should Hulk Hogan all of a sudden want to be referred to in the feminine without taking the steps to change his appearance, then NO, I do not agree with that.
Regards,
Doug
PS - Back to your regularly scheduled hushing.
Doug,
But something I will agree with him about, if you're a dude, but say you're a transgender woman, and you look like a dude, act like a dude in every way, in every mannerism you behave just like a dude, beard, gruffness, etcetera, but you just dress like and call yourself a woman, I'm probably going to suspect that you're not actually a transgender person. Maybe you have something else going on. And much of that may be due to social constructs, but the social constructs which has men generally behaving masculine, and women generally behaving famine, have evolved and are wired into us. So much that it's part of biology too. It works across time and across cultures. And that's not likely to change no matter how much social justice wants it to.
Okay. I’ll try this again. But first. Read my posts on the subject again. I did not say that people should change their appearance if they want to be called the other. And I only applied it to a narrow set of people. I will restate what I’m saying more succinctly:
If a male is unhappy with having a dick and really wants to have a *****, because he is dysphoric about having a dick, surgery may—MAY—be the treatment that helps that person—not all—cope best. And so with dysphoric females. There are no implications intended beyond that. It doesn’t apply to other people.
So lets stick to saying what I’m actually saying and not what you’re saying I’m saying.
Maybe if there’s interest the general discussion on transgender could be carried on in another thread, and those posts here could be moved. The discussion on Manning, the traitor, seems to have ended.Can't we just agree that any one of the Heinz57 genders can be a traitor, so the primary criticism of this things legislative branch ambitions still hold true? [Perhaps this would be a good time to review the thread title. Just sayin']
Maybe if there’s interest the general discussion on transgender could be carried on in another thread, and those posts here could be moved. The discussion on Manning, the traitor, seems to have ended.
Does buying the right tool instantly make you a mechanic?
Does repeating something over and over make it true?
Does pardoning a person make them less of a traitor?
Call it what you will but praising a mentally ill person and calling them a hero, is INSANE.
People said running Roy Moore should be the death of that party. And it’s not like Roy Moore’s sin is even in the same magnitude as treason. But that’s not the point. The point is, both sides are so on their own side they’ll accept the sins of people on their own side while condemning the other’s.Yes, it's a mentally unstable traitor. That any party would consider running such a thing for public office should spell the death knell of that party. If it does not then it probably is the death knell of the republic.