all 16 comments

[–]hfxB0oyA 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What do you think is wrong with that sort of statement?

It's a logical fallacy, relying on the arguer to convincingly refute the concept of the longstanding agreement on the meaning of language. Even though the world has agreed on the meaning of a man as chiefly being the contributor of sperm to create a child and of a woman being the contributor of the egg and the incubator of a child, Critical Theory types twist logic and language in their attempts at a challenge. They rely on weasel arguments of extreme edge cases (intersex people) and bad faith sophistry of their own made-up meanings applied to words whose common meaning have been gospel for aeons.

In reality, sure - you can call a person whatever you want to call them. You can make up your own new meanings for anything. That doesn't make it true to anyone else, given that the common meaning is backed up by all of the people in the world using it essentially forever. There's a reason why, as we grow up, the nonsense words that we made up as toddlers get left at the wayside.

To illustrate, let's try this little experiment; the next time you're facing an emergency - maybe there's a person who broke into your house with a gun - make sure you dial 472, and only 472. I say that 472 is the only number that will bring the police to your assistance. If it doesn't work, keep dialling 472 until the police eventually respond. I assure you that this is true and that you will not have to worry about the armed and dangerous home invader as soon as he hears those sirens. Godspeed!

[–]Spotted_Lady 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And if you don't dial 472, then you must be a hateful, 472-phobe, right?

[–]grixit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Man" and "woman" are defined by their natal physiological structures.

[–]Spotted_Lady 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That is what the terms male and female are for.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, man and woman refer to the two and only two types of humans involved in the sexual reproduction of the human species. Women have vaginas, by definition. Your first sentence about what people might be into is already a non sequitur from your topic. Pull your head out of your ass, take you hand off your dick, and stop being an idiot. You'll thank me later.

[–]Spotted_Lady 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I've said the same for a long time, but from a conservative angle. That a person can be a male woman or a female man.

I used to say regularly that there are 4 unrelated things at work here.

  • Sex -- Physical characteristics, chromosomes, reproductive role

  • Gender Identity -- Based on an innate difference separate from social influence where someone "just knows" what they are. And it may gravitate to having specific socially-defined interests but it is distinct from that. So someone born with a male body might have the social needs, interests, social strategies of girls because their brain physically differs from their body.

  • Gender Role/Presentation -- This is where stereotypes and society play a role. This gives context to the above. You could feel feminine and think/function as feminine without wearing lipstick, hose, dresses, etc. So this aspect steers the direction that one's gender identity takes. If women stretched their necks here, transwomen would do that too.

  • Sexual orientation -- This is only added for completion. It does not directly tie to the above, though the above give this context. A lot of people confuse gender role with sexual orientation. "If a man puts on lipstick, he's got to be gay, right?" While that might be conceivable, that wouldn't be the only possibility. Maybe he's an actor or a professional drag performer. Maybe he got kissed in the mouth by presumably a woman wearing lipstick. Maybe he picked up lipstick by mistake when trying to apply balm. There is nothing about wearing a dress that means that any person, male or female, has to be compelled to perform fellatio.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Of the 4, there is sex, and three examples of mental illness and/or malfunction. That list will undoubtedly expand as degeneracy levels increase.

I feel a slight bit of sympathy for kids who weren't smart enough to detect or see through the malice fueling that indoctrination, but their minds are ruined. Hopefully they've been vaxxed too.

[–]Spotted_Lady 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Thanks. That's not quite what I said.

Gender identity is not a mental illness. It just matches the sex in cis individuals. And gender role is not inherently an illness, since any person will naturally follow the gender role that matches their gender identity when given an opportunity. So it is not an illness to dress as a woman if your body and inner being say you are a woman. And orientation itself is not an illness, only when you have the wrong one for who you were meant to be.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's more the belief in 'gender identity' that's a mental illness or malfunction. It's an induced phenomenon, to be sure, but the destructive effects on the mind are real.

In large part, Hitler was elected to cure that problem when they began corrupting German kids.

[–]Spotted_Lady 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well, most in their right mind realize that gender identity exists and is distinct from sex. There are genuine transsexuals who truly felt trapped in the wrong body all their life before transition. They are not the same as the mentally ill men in drag who dress up as women while keeping and using a fully functioning penis. They are the reason why actual transsexuals have lost rights that they've had in America since the '50s.

Really, I think transgenders were created to erase transsexuals and their influences, since genuine transsexuals are more likely to be hyper-religious, conservative, and even homophobic or White nationalists.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

felt trapped in the wrong body

This is an example of the malfunction. It's blatant mental illness, where their software isn't working correctly. It has nothing to do with 'their body'. It's their mind going off the rails, just as paranoid schizophrenics are labeled for their own particular malfunction.

We have a couple here on saidit, although only one has 'come out' as a religious conservative.

Whether 'transgender' or 'transsexual', it's nothing more than malfunction or mental illness. To be fair, many were working just fine before their teachers, parents, or others began warping their minds to the point they finally broke.

[–]Spotted_Lady 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No mental malfunction at all. It is possible to be born with a female brain and a male body. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or not telling the truth.

Transsexualism is a variation that occurs in the womb. True transsexuals are more likely to be Conservative and all since they see their body as the problem and seek to fix it and conform. And they are quite rare overall, since many who claim to be that are mere garden-variety transgender instead, and they have been known to lie, either to validate themselves or as part of a political ploy, much like crisis actors. It was simpler to sort out in the '80s since one was only transsexual (needing to go all the way with surgery) or a crossdresser/transvestite. At least the crossdressers knew they were men, but they made it harder on transsexuals. But then there were the less than savory folks in-between who were like, "Not only am I am woman, I am a woman with a penis that I will keep and use as a man would forever." Then by 2000, this group hijacked the entire thing.

So transsexualism is more organic while transgender follows the pattern you mention. And oftentimes, things were never "just fine." They just lied, hid, and covered it. As for why authentic transsexualism is rare these days may relate to the cause. Before 1970, there was a drug called DES that was given to pregnant women. It is a long-lasting synthetic estrogen chemical. We've all heard about DES causing breast cancer in daughters and granddaughters of women who took it. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It also caused penile deformities in men and possibly transsexualism, as the brain becomes more feminized in the womb.

Transgender isn't usually organic in nature. As with homosexuality, I see it as possibly having many etiologies that differ. For instance, most "gay genes" tend to be only partial explanations. One promising lead to scientists turned out to be something else entirely. They realized it was not a gay gene when all gay folks in their sample didn't have it, and some of the heterosexual control subjects did. So much for that, though someone might try to argue that some folks think they are gay when they are not and that some "heterosexual" folks are lying. But in this case, researchers found something interesting that all with the gene did share. They seemed to be more likely to dye their hair, get tattoos, or take on an IDGAF attitude. So while that was not a gay gene, it did make it easier to be gay and survive well into adulthood. Since if you don't care what others think, you'd be less likely to become suicidally depressed. And of course, there is rape trauma during early development, and the trauma of parents divorcing, and sometimes just being different and desperately looking for an explanation, and everyone tells you that you must be gay. Then one proceeds in that direction and becomes addicted to the associated behaviors. They were just looking for a place to belong that understood them, and others took advantage of that.

Happy Thanksgiving

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is possible to be born with a female brain and a male body.

If I were say it seems plausible that your claim is not entirely impossible, physically transsexualizing still should not be accepted or tolerated in human society. This is not the only 'cleanup on aisle earth' that needs attention, but it's in the upper part of the list.

then there were the less than savory folks in-between

Definitely close to the top. I'm sad to see our species being destroyed, but that it's been so easy to do so is even more disheartening.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to you also. We can be thankful that we've at least existed, even if the situation is not ideal. o/

[–]Spotted_Lady 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Actually, for your first point, I see no real need for intervention to stop it beyond maybe some prenatal prevention. I think that is more due to chemical exposure in the womb due to the use of certain drugs. I suspect DES, and that was banned in 1970, with probably some use extending past that. I also wonder if drugs like finasteride could cause some mishaps such as intersex. So that could be why there may have been an uptick in CAIS cases. I don't know what taking Tamoxifen while pregnant could cause. And I don't know what increased cortisol levels during pregnancy could cause (whether from stress or cortico-adrenal steroids). Those represent 4 possible effects on sex hormones. Increasing estrogen (synthetic estrogen), decreasing estrogen (Tamoxifen), increasing androgens (steroids) or blocking androgens (Finasteride/Dutasteride).

Speaking of biochemistry, I wondered for a long time how estrogen can increase during pregnancy with no ill effects, but taking estrogens could result in miscarriage or harm to the fetus. Well, there are many estrogen-class hormones. So what is available to take as a drug includes horse-derived estrogen (such as in Premarin -- and is stronger than estradiol), estradiol (strongest human estrogen), estrone (estrogen created in the human bloodstream that can convert to estradiol or estriol), and rarely estriol (one of the weaker human estrogens). During pregnancy, the placenta creates large amounts of estriol. That would prevent hot flashes and may cause some breast changes to help prepare for lactation, but would likely not affect a fetus.

Something that shocked me to learn is that the ovaries don't actually produce estrogen as we may have learned in primary school. It seems that what they produce are the precursors such as DHEA and the aromatase enzyme. So estrogen is actually assembled in the blood. That approach prevents the "first pass problem" which I might as well explain.

I've also wondered why those taking oral estrogen supplements might be more likely to have strokes, pulmonary embolism, heart attacks, or liver problems, while women in their childbearing years face these conditions less. Now, there are estrogen receptors in the liver on the portal side (yes, male and female) that increase the stickiness of the blood. So women not taking estrogen and maybe those using estrogen patches or injections would be bypassing those receptors. That begs the question as to why most mammals have them. Non-human female mammals eat the placenta after giving birth. There are several reasons for this. They are likely physically drained and hungry after giving birth, so this helps protein levels. Plus, some mammals such as dogs will eat anything in the vicinity of their young that gives off an odor. That way, they're less likely to attract predators that may eat their young. That's also partly why dogs eat feces. (Some may also have eating disorders such as pica, they acquired a taste for it, or it could be because their sense of smell is so strong with very good discrimination/filtering that they can detect whatever that whoever had eaten previously.) Now, the health benefit of eating afterbirth would be that it could help stop hemorrhaging. Other mammals may not always have access to a doctor, paramedic, or midwife, so survival could be a challenge. So nature provided a way to get temporary relief of excessive bleeding from childbirth. They eat the placenta and the liver produces more clotting factors. That mechanism is not intended to be used regularly. It's more for emergency use. So those who take oral estrogen would need to avoid smoking, preferably avoid alcohol (while it could reduce clots, it could also harm the liver), and monitor their blood pressure. Low-dose aspirin is an option, but that carries its own risks.

Plus (back on topic), genetically speaking, transsexuals would be "suicide cases." Anyone who has their gonads removed will not be adding to the gene pool. Many transgender and gender-fluid folks keep their gonads. So they could pass on their genes.

I also see that much smaller crowd as less subversive. What would you rather a child see? What looks like a man and what looks like a woman kissing? Or what looks like two men or two women kissing? Or even what looks like a crossdressed man and another man kissing? (I imagine that is the order that things would extend down the "public level of disgust pyramid" if such a chart existed.) "Classic transsexuals" tend to want to conform to the gender binary and are not creating new genders.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Non-human female mammals eat the placenta after giving birth.

We buried ours and planted a tree over it, but the claim was that around 3% were consumed by their human mothers at the time.

What would you rather a child see? What looks like a man and what looks like a woman kissing? Or what looks like two men or two women kissing?

This is too close to our political election reality for comfort, but my choice in both cases is neither.

"Speaking of biochemistry," I'm out of my league on this topic, and aren't knowledgeable enough to play one on the internet, but the info in your comment is fascinating. Okay, maybe just really interesting, but would read and research again.

That link is a rich source of bio-sciency words, and a moderately detailed description of the conversion of progesterone to the main estrogens, estradiol, and estrone. I'm not seeing a reference to the DHEA precursor.

DHEA is synthesized from pregnenolone and is further metabolized to androstenedione, testosterone, and estrogens.

My eyes are beginning to glaze over a bit. Is DHEA not directly produced in the ovaries, but also assembled in the blood?

Anyway, thanks loads for the info dump. Out of curiosity, is your username a reference to 'there she is!', or to actual spots? Also, do you write in some capacity about this?