QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

has your lurid scenario, where a transgender women starts strangeling women in the women's shelter ever actually happend?

Why do assaults on women have to happen exclusively in women's shelters for these assaults to count in your opinion?

A "transgender woman" in the US state of Illinois incarcerated in a male prison strangled their male cellmate to death with "her" bare hands. After being transferred to a female prison, this inmate reportedly raped at least one female prisoner the first day he was allowed to interact with the general population.

A "transgender woman" who'd set records in fell running in the UK committed a murderous knife attack against a male sporting official and others in the official's office that nearly killed them and left all with varying degrees of lifelong disability.

A "transgender woman" who was part of the founding team of Twitter broke into the home of "her" ex wife and raped her there.

A "transgender woman" staying in a publicly-funded women's shelter in Canada posted pictures of himself online showing how he paraded his erect penis in the women's loo in that facility, telling how he walked around the women's shelter every day showing off his "morning wood," and bragging about how he abused female residents of that women's shelter.

A "transgender woman" who'd long led male protests to harass women who supported and participated in MichFest was so incensed by women saying no to him that he violently murdered two lesbians and their son in California.

QT: Do you support free speech? by pollyesther in GCdebatesQT

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

Sorry, OP, but you've phrased/put forward the issue of "free speech" here poorly.

Free speech/freedom of speech in the sense that governments cannot or should not censor speech is one thing.

The extent to which we all censor our own speech out of politeness, kindness, concern for the feelings of others, is another matter.

The question of whether employers and work colleagues should be allowed to control and censure the speech that employees utter/write/post online during non-working hours is a third issue.

WALSH: With The Insane ‘Equality Act,’ The Democrat Party Has Declared Total War On Reality by BEB in GenderCritical

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

Good for you lefterfield. This shows you are tolerant and open-minded.

'Now I use the men's bathroom, but it's still uncomfortable' by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At Melbourne’s Parliament Station, Sun had security called on them by an old woman for using the women’s toilet. At Melbourne Central, another elderly woman told them, “no boys are allowed in here”. On another occasion, Sun went into the toilet on the heels of a young woman, “and her boyfriend was really agitated, he even opened the door to the women’s to check she was OK. I mean, I just want to use the toilet and get out.”

Wow, I love how these gender ideologues are completely comfortable displaying ageism against anyone who had the temerity to be born at an earlier or later year/era/generation than when they were born.

GC: How can sex be unchangeable, when the body constantly changes? And throughout evolution, unicellular organisms transitioned and changed to the multicellular organisms we call humans? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

As I asked before, please cite - and provide links to - the research showing this is being done. Keeping this earth-shattering information all to yourself is not very "inclusive," is it?

If you want to destroy a culture, destroy it’s language first. by Britishbulldog in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, BEB! That is so kind of you to say, and I do appreciate it.

Unfortunately, before my beloved younger sister died of CF at 24, my older brother died of CF in our childhood - and later on another sister died of cancer at 46. Our mother died young too.

My two remaining siblings and I have tried hard to find peace and healing, but we've discovered that these are hard to come by. On the upside, we are all very good at crisis management and gallows humor. And the humor has passed on to the next generation. At age 7 my oldest child remarked from the back seat of our minivan, "Mom, I've been wondering. How come in dad's family everyone lives till they're like 98, but in your family there's always somebody young croaking all the time?" I had to pull off the road for a moment coz this made me laugh - and cry - too hard to safely drive. "Out of the mouths of babes"...

GC: How can sex be unchangeable, when the body constantly changes? And throughout evolution, unicellular organisms transitioned and changed to the multicellular organisms we call humans? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We're just scratching the surface of the possibilities of gene therapies.

Gene therapies are aimed at making it possible to override, delete, select or "turn on" or "silence" individual genes or mutations. That's a far cry from being able to change a person's sex chromosomes! It's basically chalk and cheese, in fact.

Changing sex chromosomes would be a tall order since they are present in each and every one of the human body's many trillion individual cells.

As well as getting close to growing organs to match someone's cells.

Please share links to the research being done showing that it's possible or likely that female cells can be used to grow sperm-producing testicles and male cells can be used to grow egg-containing ovaries. I'd be very interested to learn of this research.

My understanding is that when it comes to growing new organs from a person's cells, the organs would have to be ones consistent with the person's sex chromosomes and species. Otherwise male TRAs wouldn't be so focused on and exercised about the possibility of getting surgeries that would implant in them the uteri, ovaries and vaginas taken from the bodies of girls and women - they'd be supporting the technology that will allow them simply to grow their own. Similarly, furries and those who "identify as" animals wouldn't have rely on costumes or fake headgear any more coz they could simply grow their own animal fur/hides, paws, tails and the like - and their own kitten ears, antlers and elephant tusks too. Probably their own unicorn horns to boot.

Reactions to GC Ideas by WildApples in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not trying to be argumentative just for the sake of it. I really want to know which groups you are speaking about and what you mean when you say

I can tell these people (older, blue state Democrats) have really bought into gender ideology more than I had expected.

Now you clarify that by the wording "these people" you mean people who are

seniors citizens, 60s-70

Which makes me wonder even more exactly how many people of this age group, and of which sex, you've spoken to.

If you want to destroy a culture, destroy it’s language first. by Britishbulldog in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just to be clear, when I said "girls such as my younger sister with cystic fibrosis" I was speaking generally. My sister with CF died in 1984.

However, the circumstances I spoke of regarding girls with CF and all other reasons for being hospitalized today, and for female people who need home care and are in nursing homes as well, all hold true for 2021. There's a huge movement afoot to put pressure on infirm, disabled girls and women and elderly women to suspend all boundaries, and to depict anyone who resists as a bigot and phobe.

Reactions to GC Ideas by WildApples in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The bad news is that I can tell these people (older, blue state Democrats) have really bought into gender ideology more than I had expected.

Good for you, OP! But I have to ask what you mean by "older" here. Older than you?

Or older than the age range you think constitutes the majority of the USA population? Older than what you believe is the largest age group in the USA population at the present time? Older than the age groups you think are the most clued in, knowledgable and trustworthy?

The Kaiser Family Foundation says adults 35-54 constitute the largest group in the US population, followed by children aged 0-18.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

More information that has a bearing on these discussions:

https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/demographic-statistics

https://www.prb.org/the-u-s-population-is-growing-older-and-the-gender-gap-in-life-expectancy-is-narrowing/

LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% of the US Population in Latest Estimate (Lesbians are decreasing % wise, while B & T are increasing) by BEB in GenderCritical

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

I agree your portrayal fits some men, but I don't agree it has "always been the case" for all men in all cultures at all times in history. Lots of boys and men over the course of human history have been besotted by RL girls and women. And many have been envious and covetous of our bodies as well, which is a main reason "trans" today is such a big thing.

If you want to destroy a culture, destroy it’s language first. by Britishbulldog in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yup. Trans ideology and regulations that put "gender identity" ahead of sex mean girls such as my younger sister with cystic fibrosis who spent a good deal of her life in hospitals now have to share hospital rooms with male patients and can't refuse intimate (or other) care being provided by males who "identify as" female. Same goes for elderly and disabled women in nursing homes.

Similarly, girls and women who are dependent on care/assistance within our own homes from home health aides, visiting nurses and various kinds of assistants such as shoppers are being told we no longer have the right to insist or even request that the people we are dependent on and must admit into our intimate, private sphere be of the same sex.

Glenn Greenwald Transphobic by DR373737 in GenderCritical

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

But my impression is that GG's response to the Gallup poll didn't just come off as "transphobic" - it came off as dismissive and disbelieving of bisexuality too.

Plus, normally skeptical, anti-establishment GG took the results of this poll by an ultra-establishment org at face value. He did not stop for a moment to consider that perhaps what persons age 18-23 told pollsters about their supposed sexual orientation might best be taken with a grain of salt.

"When you pretend the only danger is men "pretending to be trans," you get backed into corners. Males who identify as women DON'T have a lower rate of physically violent criminality than other males, and UK inmate data shows they are more likely than other men to be sex offenders." by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In addition to the sources BEB has provided, see the ones in my post on this thread. And the other ones you can find in my post history on saidit.

Pro-trans researchers and campaign organizations routinely trumpet and highlight the sky-high incarceration rates of TIMs as evidence of rampant transphobia. My sense is, discriminatory attitudes towards gay men, male transvestites and prostitutes of both sexes probably does come into play in a number of cases that cause TIMs to end up behind bars. But at the same time, some of us suspect that the sky-high rates of incarceration amongst TIMs are also reflective of higher rates of criminality amongst them.

Interestingly, what evidence there is so far shows that compared to the rest of the female population, TIFs have higher rates of criminality and incarceration as well.

If you want to destroy a culture, destroy it’s language first. by Britishbulldog in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I always thought the language was a less major issue, but it’s the key to dismantling all of our rights. It scares me. Kill women’s language, and you kill any way in which we can fight the patriarchy.

All over the world throughout history, rulers, invaders, imperialists, colonizers, authoritarians, dictators, tyrannical states and missionaries have long been in the habit of prohibiting invaded, conquered, enslaved, subjugated and "inferior" peoples from speaking their own native languages and dialects - and from framing/discussing their own experiences, naming themselves, practicing their own customs, holding on to their traditions and so on. It's a pro forma part of the playbook of despotism.

Arabs, Europeans and Americans who participated in the practice of taking black Africans into captivity and enslaving them all forbade the black Africans from using their own names in their own language, from using their language to converse with other Africans who'd been enslaved, and from keeping their religious and cultural traditions. Europeans did the same to the native peoples in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. And various Asian imperialists such as the Japanese in the mid-20th century and the Chinese today have done the exact same thing to all the peoples they've tried to conquer (including the Tibetans and Uigyhur Muslims who are being oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party at this very moment).

I personally know people from various North American native tribes/nations who attended religious and government schools in the US, Canada and Australia in the 1950s and 60s who were beaten or otherwise punished for using their native tongues.

Language has been used as a means of controlling the masses within cultures of the same race, ethnicity and heritage as well. Over the course of history in many different cultures the ruling-class elites have decreed that worship, prayers, understanding of religious texts and creeds and all "higher learning" in such fields as mathematics, astronomy and the other sciences also could not be conducted in the vernacular languages that "ordinary" people spoke - but only in the rarefied languages known and used by the small, select group at the top.

Hence, historically Roman Catholic services and sacraments, particularly the Mass, were conducted in Latin all around the world, with rare exceptions. This only changed due to radical reform by the Vatican in the 1960s, something that had a profound impact on my own life as a child who at the time was being raised Catholic and forced to go to convent school.

To get a better understanding of how key the control of people's language is to despotism, I suggest looking into the role of Latin vs vernacular European languages during the Holy Roman Empire. And to the way admission into many areas of "higher learning" in the West traditionally required literacy in Latin or Greek until relatively recently.

Also, look into why it is that when 80% of the world's Muslims today do not speak or understand Arabic, Muslims worldwide are nonetheless forced to recite all their daily prayers in Arabic - and Islam teaches that Arabic is the only legitimate language in which the Koran and Hadiths can be properly read, understood, appreciated and discussed. Millions of Muslim-raised persons around the world past and present were forced as children to show their piety by memorizing and reciting the Koran (or parts of it) in Arabic, a language they couldn't/can't understand beyond stock sayings like insh'allah.

GC: Humans are one of the few species with two sexes. There are species with four, thousands, or an unlimited number of sexes, which means "male" and "female" are social constructs and not universal categories that can be applied to other species by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

male and female are socially constructed beyond their simple scientific meaning. But the basis, bimodal sex is not.

Male and female denote sex. Sex is determined by biology/nature. Masculine and feminine denote gender or sex roles and stereotypes. They are socially determined.

Sex isn't bimodal; it's binary. This explains why sex is not bimodal:

https://youtu.be/XLH-y2nLocw

Lessons in how to "walk like a woman." by JulienMayfair in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The ad says

She teaches gender-centric behaviors associated with male and female presentation.

Which really means, She teaches how to act in accordance with sexist clichés. "Gender-centric" = based on sex stereotypes.

Wonder if she teaches TIFs to rock out to this one https://youtu.be/GzoIvwNqKpw

I also imagine she and her students would freak out at this version by the old-school transvestite Divine Harris Glenn: https://youtu.be/pFiqO0Qpa_g

I got hung up on when I called Rachel Levine a "he." by BEB in GenderCritical

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

He wasn't my senator; I have the nasty habit of calling EVERY SENATOR, because I'm in an extremely populous state with TWO SENATORS, while Wyoming has something like 3 people and two senators too. It's truly annoying.

It might be annoying to you and some others, but it's not to many of the rest of us in the US. Representation in the US House is done proportional to population, but not in the Senate as part of the system of checks & balances. Giving the one state in the union that is the most populous state by far more clout in both chambers would mean CA would rule the country even more than it already does. CA has enough power and influence as it is coz it's the home of Silicon Valley/most of big tech, Hollywood/TV and the entertainment and media industries, agriculture, advertising and aerospace...

Wyoming actually has nearly 600,000 people. But the sneer is duly noted.

JUST IN: Rand Paul questions Dr. Rachel Levine on puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria by purrvana in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To put it into perspective, I finally became old enough to vote in the most recent election. Also, I know women have been speaking out... I think my initial belief that WoLF is conservative was incorrect

Congrats on coming of age. And kudos to you for being able to see and openly admit that your previous characterization and castigation of WoLF was incorrect. Young people like you give me hope.

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" changes his mind - Biological sex is now a spectrum (& he even mentions Clown Fish!) by BEB in GenderCritical

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

Yeah, all this footage is from 2017. And a main feature of Nye's coverage of sex/gender matters from back then was this priceless segment that was ridiculed the world round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48&feature=emb_logo

LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% of the US Population in Latest Estimate (Lesbians are decreasing % wise, while B & T are increasing) by BEB in GenderCritical

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

men are attracted more to other men's caricatures of women than to actual women, to the point where most cannot even masturbate without the assistance of other men's fantasies.

This might be true of some/many men who've grown up not in the RL world, but in artificial landscapes/environs saturated with images from advertising, pop culture and porn - but I don't think it's true of boys/men overall across time.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

First, that thing about "unchanged grip strength" is wrong 1. ), second, I call BS. on your claim that even the average man can "easlily" grab and strangle the average woman to death one handed.

You can call BS all you want, buddy. Which is consistent for you, as you've also made false claims on this very thread that males with opposite sex "gender identities" have no advantages over females in sports - and when solid evidence was presented saying otherwise, you ignored it.

There's tons of scientific research documenting the very different grip strength of the two sexes - and the large size of males' hands relative to the much smaller size of female throats that enable males to do females enormous damage with their bare hand or hands.

Also, one of the reasons it's so easy for males to strangle females to unconsciousness or death with their bare hand or hands is that during puberty, female humans do not grow an extra layer of neck cartilage that protects against being strangled, choked, hit and injured in the throat the way males do.

"When you pretend the only danger is men "pretending to be trans," you get backed into corners. Males who identify as women DON'T have a lower rate of physically violent criminality than other males, and UK inmate data shows they are more likely than other men to be sex offenders." by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For some reason there are a lot more black TIMs per capita.

A main reason there are so many more black TIMs per capita is rampant, deep-seated homophobia amongst black communities/people in North America as well as in the Caribbean, South America and Africa.

"When you pretend the only danger is men "pretending to be trans," you get backed into corners. Males who identify as women DON'T have a lower rate of physically violent criminality than other males, and UK inmate data shows they are more likely than other men to be sex offenders." by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In the US, transgenders (according to various studies) have a 19-65% lifetime incarceration rate,

I think the "transgender" incarceration rates you are citing refer mainly/solely to males who ID as "trans," not to all "transgenders."

The rate of incarceration for black transgender women is almost twenty times that of the general population, with one in ten black transgender women having spent time behind bars over the past year.

https://www.vera.org/projects/advancing-transgender-justice/learn-more

Trans Equality says that that in the US, 47% of black "transgender women" and 30% of American Indian "transgender women" surveyed have been to prison/jail "for any reason." I've seen other pro-trans groups claiming that 65% of black TIMs have served time behind bars. Combing all races and ethnicities, Trans Equality says

Twenty-one percent (21%) of male-to-female transgender respondents reported having been sent to jail for any reason, in contrast with 10% of female-to-male respondents.

These statistics exceed those of the general population for prisons,in some cases by many times.

A 2003 report of the Department of Justice shows that 2.7% of the general American population is imprisoned at some point in life. However, the Department of Justice report does not include jails, so the general population rate for being held in jail or prison should be higher than the simple prison rate.

Despite this difference, the Department of Justice data provides a useful benchmark. Their data reported an overall rate for males of 4.9%, and for females, 0.5%. They provide only limited racial/ethnic data.

https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf#page=169

Good News: Susan Collins, Republican Senator of Maine, and only Republican co-sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, has withdrawn her sponsorship. Let's hope that means the GOP will fight the Equality Act in the Senate. Pls call Collins and thank her! by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's the email I just sent:

Dear Senator Collins,

Thank you for withdrawing your sponsorship of the misnomered "Equality Act."

I am in support of legislation that will make it illegal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation and the extent to which any of us does, or does not, conform to regressive sex stereotypes.

However, as a lifelong women's rights advocate, I am against any legislation that will put a person's claimed "gender identity" on par with characteristics such as race and sex - and which will erode the rights of girls and women that previous generations fought hard for.

I am also against enshrining "gender identity" in law because of the very real harms that gender ideology and "trans medicine" have caused, and are causing, to children and young people. Many of the kids, teenagers and young adults called "trans" today are extremely vulnerable because they are struggling with issues such as trauma, including child sex abuse and bereavement, various family problems, religious abuse, rigid sex stereotyping, homophobia, bullying, peer pressure, fear of not fitting in, "cancel culture" and conditions that have always made many people feel "different," lonely and desperate such as autism, depression and anxiety.

Moreover, many of the young people who are being "transitioned" today are same-sex attracted - and for them, "identifying as" the opposite sex is effectively a way of trying to "trans away the gay" (and to trans away the bi too). As anyone who looks into the matter knows, gender ideology is deeply homophobic - which is another reason I oppose it.

Like you, I grew up before Title IX. During the years-long Title IX implementation period, I attended a previously all-male US college/uni and helped to build women's scholastic sports there from scratch. I never thought a day would come when girls and women would be having to fight for our right to have our own sports (and ancillary facilities like locker rooms) all over again. Yet that's where we are.

In the state where I currently live, the most lauded track athletes in HS girls' interscholastic sprints are two males - and they've been permitted to participate in girls sports, and to trounce all the female runners they competed against, merely on the basis of their claimed "gender identities" without doing a single thing to lower their testosterone one bit. They were not even required to pretend to reduce any of the physical athletic advantages they enjoy as a result of having healthy, strapping male bodies in the prime of post-pubescent male youth.

But it's not just girls and women's sports that under threat. Girls and women are also losing our right to privacy, dignity, safety and peace of mind in a variety of settings ranging from fitting, changing and locker rooms to prisons, rape crisis centers, shelters for those who are homeless and/or fleeing domestic violence, and in medical settings including in nursing homes. Gender ideologues say girls and women should not have the right to say no to the presence of male people ever in any situation, or ever to escape being subjected to the "male gaze."

Gender identity ideologues even say that disabled and elderly women who are dependent on home health care workers and helpers are bigoted for insisting that our carers and helpers be female - and that it's "transphobic" for us not to permit cross-dressing males working as aides into our homes, just as it's "transphobic" for girls and women in hospitals and nursing homes not to let males who "identify as" the opposite sex provide us with intimate care.

I am very knowledgable about the conflict between the rights of girls and women and the new "rights" being demanded by boys and men who, for whatever reason, wish they were the opposite sex and claim they are girls/women. I would be very happy to share insights, information and documented sources on these matters with you or your office.

Again, thank you for following your conscience on this matter. That seems to be something you've done quite a few times in your career. I disagree with a lot the positions you've taken over the years, but I have always admired you for your ability to go against the grain and stand your ground. Brava to you for that.

And best wishes.

... and all your nightmares will come true... by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also with being "adult babies" who wear diapers and post pictures of themselves in them online with tags saying they've just filled the diapers, or are about to. Like Ashton "Amy" Challenor and his buddies.

LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% of the US Population in Latest Estimate (Lesbians are decreasing % wise, while B & T are increasing) by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gallup found that 15.9% of Generation Z "identify as" LGBT, a significantly higher rate than find amongst Millennials and other earlier-born generations.

But since Gallup defines Gen Z as people born 1997-2002, I'm not sure how reflective of enduring reality and meaningful this finding really is. The recent poll was conducted in 2020, so the people polled in the Gen Z group would have ranged from age 18 to 23 at the oldest.

At 23, the human brain still isn't fully developed yet. Lots of people are still figuring out and coming to terms with their sexuality in their 20s. This has always been true - especially for those who are lesbians, gay and bi, who have to deal with the homophobia of others and the homophobia they've internalized. But it's especially true for those who have come of age since dawn of Facebook, YouTube other social media and smart phones whose social lives since puberty have been spent largely online - and who have spent the bulk of the past year under COVID-19 restrictions that have further limited the chance for RL social interactions and sexual exploration.

I actually think it's sort of irresponsible for Gallup to be asking young people still in their formative years to tell presumably older adult strangers who work as Gallup pollsters what their sexual orientation is. Young people are already so caught up in pigeonholing themselves and others with labels related to sex and sexuality that put everyone into constricting boxes as it is - why encourage them to do more?

By saying that, I don't mean to suggest that young people shouldn't be trying to figure out their own sexual orientation and looking to find their own tribes based on things they have in common, including sexual orientation. Self-exploration and self-definition I'm all for. I just think there's a big difference between finding and knowing yourself and labelling yourself in the eyes of others. In fact, I think that the new habit of wearing identity badges and announcing your own "gender identity" and sexual orientation to the whole world actually gets in the way of self-discovery and self-acceptance.

I think it's irresponsible for Gallup to take the responses of these young people from Gen Z at face value too.

As the last couple of US election cycles show, people tend to give pollsters the answers they think are the "correct" ones that they believe pollsters and polling orgs will approve of. Young people age 23 and under tend to be hyper-aware of what other people think of them and highly desirous of fitting in and not causing offense - much more so than older adults. Therefore I'd imagine the Gen Z respondents would be extremely likely to have given Gallup the answers seen as most fashionable, with it, "inclusive" and edgy.

Also, from everything I've read and the young people I know, youngsters in Gen Z are much less likely to have had any or much in the way of IRL sexual relationships at this point in their lives than members of previous generations did. As a result, I think they are probably less likely to know themselves and their sexuality than people of earlier generations did at the same age. That's not a criticism of young people today - it's simply a reason why adult polling orgs should take what young people under age 23 say about their sexuality with a grain of salt, or lay off them altogether.

Since being part of "LGBT" is such a fad amongst young people in the US today, I'm actually surprised that only 15.9% of the youth age 18-23 in the poll "identified" as "LGBT." I would have guessed the % would be higher.

LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% of the US Population in Latest Estimate (Lesbians are decreasing % wise, while B & T are increasing) by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bisexual women make up the largest group of LGBT adults — about 35 percent, according to a Williams Institute analysis of data from three population-based surveys. More than one in 10 U.S. high school youth identifies as lesbian, gay or bisexual. And among them, 75 percent are female and 77 percent identify as bisexual…

Seems Wapo and the Williams Institute are mixing up a lot of different data sets, blending different groups and using language intended to blur/confuse here.

In the first sentence, the focus is adults and women. In the second, it's kids in HS. And although I think the %s in the third sentence refer to the "one in ten" in HS who "identify as" L,G or B, it's written confusingly enough that some readers probably will think the %s apply to the adults in the first sentence - many more of whom presumably actually are bisexual coz they are adults with considerable sexual experience, as opposed to those HS kids who probably have had less sexual experience and are merely "identifying as" bisexual at the present time.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hardly see gender critical people be any more accepting of the "years on Hormones, multiple rounds of FFS, post-buttom-surgery, unclockable-if-they-dont-tell-you"-level trans woman compared to the "day-one, pre-everything still trying to of the beard stubble"-level trans woman.

I'm one of those people. And I very much disagree with this point made by emptiedriver

it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up)

Coz imany girls and women - and many men especially fathers and grandfathers - don't just think it's inappropriate for males with penises to be in women's shelters, prisons, change rooms, toilets, hospital wards, sports and so on. Most people think it's not appropriate for all and any males over age 7 regardless of their genital configuration, sexual orientation and claimed "identities" to be in female spaces.

No matter how much plastic surgery they have, males still have enormous strength and speed advantages over female people. Males who've gone to great lengths to surgically alter their outward appearance like Gigi Gorgeous, Blaire White and Laverne Cox might look like Barbie dolls come to life, but they still have male grip strength and size. With one hand they can easily grab a girl or woman by the throat and strangle her to unconsciousness or death. Even a lifetime of cross-sex hormones and T-suppression doesn't change that.

No matter how much cosmetic surgery and lip fillers males get, what they wear, how much makeup they put on, how long their hair or hair extensions are, how much they flick their hair and tilt their heads, how long and shiny their acrylic nails are, how giggly and "girly" and coquettish they act, they all still have a male gaze - and it's with that prurient, prying male gaze that they look at girls and women.

Decades ago working as a newspaper reporter I did a story on Vietnam war vets in the US who had experienced extreme injuries and amputations to their lower bodies and were in wheelchairs. These men all had lost their genitals, but that in no way diminished their male gaze and made them any less able to make women uncomfortable by using their male gaze to look us up and down and visually undress us. Similarly, I have visited a lot of rehab hospitals and nursing homes full of men in wheelchairs for one reason or another, often coz they were elderly and had experienced strokes. But just coz these men couldn't get out of their wheelchairs and attack me didn't mean they couldn't look and leer at me like a piece of meat.

Even males who are not sexually attracted to females tend to have an untoward, unseemly curiosity in looking at female bodies and can't help themselves from checking us out to see what we really look like up close. Moreover, homosexual males who wish they were female themselves tend to look at female people and our naked bodies with envious, covetous eyes - which is very unpleasant for us female people. Worse, since males who wish they were the opposite sex and call themselves trans typically tend to be extremely sexist, superficial, ageist, judgmental about other people's appearance and disdainful of human physical imperfection in general - and disgusted by things like body fat, cellulite, stretch marks, wrinkles, saggy skin, breasts and buttocks - their presence in women's locker rooms, loos, shelters, showers, prisons and such will make these spaces less welcoming and psychologically safe for the majority of female people.

Girls and women don't consent to male people bringing their male bodies, male gaze, male sexual thoughts and sexist aesthetic standards of what women and girls should look like into spaces meant for females-only and where we will be vulnerable, naked and/or in various states of undress. As for the girls and women who say it's OK with them, they don't mind the presence of some males in such spaces personally - the consent of other female people is not for them to give on our behalf, and the hard-won rights of all female people are not for a small number of our own too naive to have thought things through sex to blithely give away.

GC: Humans are one of the few species with two sexes. There are species with four, thousands, or an unlimited number of sexes, which means "male" and "female" are social constructs and not universal categories that can be applied to other species by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As always, I am posting a reply mainly for the readers/lurkers.

Humans are one of the few species with two sexes.

humans are of the very few that have only 2 sexes

"male" and "female" are socially constructed categories that can only be applied to humans and few others

99% of multicellular organisms and all the "higher animals" reproduce sexually. Scientists say sexual reproduction has been occurring for 2 billion years.

The emergence of species that reproduce sexually did not mean that species that reproduce in other ways disappeared and no longer exist. Species that reproduce in various ways can, and do, co-exist. Some species reproduce both sexually and asexually.

Birds do it, and bees do it. Indeed, researchers estimate that over 99.99% of eukaryotes* do it, meaning that these organisms reproduce sexually, at least on occasion.

*(An eukaryote is an organism consisting of a cell or cells in which the genetic material is DNA in the form of chromosomes contained within a distinct nucleus. Eukaryotes include all living organisms other than the eubacteria and archaebacteria. Eukaryotes are distinct from prokaryotes. A prokaryote is a microscopic single-celled organism that has neither a distinct nucleus with a membrane nor other specialized organelles. Prokaryotes include the bacteria and cyanobacteria.)

99.99% of all eukaryote species constitute a tad more than "few."

sex(ual reproduction) is incredibly common. Furthermore, even though asexual lineages do arise, they rarely persist for long periods of evolutionary time. Among flowering plants, for example, predominantly asexual lineages have arisen over 300 times, yet none of these lineages is very old. Furthermore, many species can reproduce both sexually and asexually, without the frequency of asexuality increasing and eliminating sexual reproduction altogether.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824/

This goes to show "male" and "female" are socially constructed categories that can only be applied to humans and few others, making them not universally true categories that can be applied to every specie.

"Female" and "male" refer to the two kinds of gametes required for sexual reproduction - eggs/ova and sperm. Sexual reproduction does not involve any additional kinds of gametes - there is no third, fourth, 100th or 20,000th kind of gamete.

No one has ever claimed that male and female "can be applied to every specie [sic]". We say these terms apply to species that reproduce sexually.

Humans are not fungi. BTW, there are a lot of kinds of fungi on earth, and they are highly diverse.

We conclude that the commonly cited estimate of 1.5 million species (of fungi) is conservative and that the actual range is properly estimated at 2.2 to 3.8 million. With 120,000 currently accepted fungi species, it appears that at best just 8%, and in the worst case scenario just 3%, are named so far.

https://www.asmscience.org/content/journal/microbiolspec/10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0052-2016

Fungi have multiple ways of reproducing.

Reproductive Processes Of Fungi: Following a period of intensive growth, fungi enter a reproductive phase by forming and releasing vast quantities of spores. Spores are usually single cells produced by fragmentation of the mycelium or within specialized structures (sporangia, gametangia, sporophores, etc.). Spores may be produced either directly by asexual methods or indirectly by sexual reproduction.

Sexual reproduction in fungi, as in other living organisms, involves the fusion of two nuclei that are brought together when two sex cells (gametes) unite. Asexual reproduction, which is simpler and more direct, may be accomplished by various methods.

https://www.britannica.com/science/fungus/Sexual-reproduction

But all this about fungi is besides the point. Fungi are not humans or mammals, just as clownfish aren't. Fungi are different from other plants too, which is why they are classified separately.

The planet has created four sexes: Male, female, hermaphrodite, asexual. Though Google says some species can switch from sexual reproduction to asexual reproduction, so there are five sexes. Male, female, hermaphrodite, asexual, male/female/hermaphrodite and asexual.

Nature itself created an unlimited number of sexes for many species

There are species with four, thousands, or an unlimited number of sexes

mushrooms have thousands of sexes

Claiming in the same short post that there are "four, five, thousands and an unlimited number of sexes" is poor form even for you. Sounds like your abacus is broken.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because when I look at this people 1 JPG 2 JPG I see a woman and a man, respectively, not the other way around -

That's on you, then. People who use hormones and surgeries to alter their appearance so they look more or less like the opposite sex - or rather, so they look like the stereotyped way sexist people think all people of the opposite sex look - do not actually become the opposite sex. Only superficial sexists confuse appearing like sexist stereotypes of one sex with actually being that sex.

You and others who share your superficial view must find theater, films, drag acts, Halloween, costume parties and the dressing-up box at nursery school very confounding if you don't know the difference between looking a part and being that way for real.

Also, your definition is entirely dependent on sight - and on modern methods of electric lighting being present, operating and switched on during the hours of the day-night cycle that are dark as well. At night during a blackout, or out in the wild in the pitch black without a torch, you'd have to rely on other senses. Such as touch. The artificial chest orbs some males have implanted in their chests feel nothing like women's breasts. And as blind people can tell you, the shape of a woman's and a man's head is different. So is the relationship between the width of the shoulders to the hips, and the size and shape of feet and hands.

adoptive parents are, usually, called "mother" and "father" despite not being the biological mothers/fathers of their children. So, clearly, those are socially defined terms.

That's because mother, father and parent aren't just nouns, they're also verbs - and have been verbs for a long, long time. Childrearing is an activity, something a person does - and there are many names for it, such as raising children, caring and bringing up a child. In the 1970s, people invented a new sex-neutral term to add to mothering and fathering: parenting. But the words woman, boy and girl are nouns only. There is no verb "to woman", "or "to girl" or "to boy." Girling, boying and womaning are not words or activities.

There is a verb form of man, but not in the sense you mean. The verb "to man" means

1) (of personnel) work at, run, or operate (a place or piece of equipment) or defend (a fortification): the firemen manned the pumps and fought the blaze.

2) provide someone to fill (a post or office): the chaplaincy was formerly manned by the cathedral.

3) archaic fortify the spirits or courage of: he manned himself with dauntless air.

When the new word "parenting" was invented in the 1970s, some people harrumphed over it, but most people didn't object - and coz it served a purpose, it was widely adopted. One of the reasons that parenting was widely accepted is that it not change or diminish the meaning of parent, nor did it change diminish the longstanding meaning of the words mothering and fathering, or of mother or father. (I know this full well coz I happened to write a newspaper article about it at the time.)

If trans people came up with their/your own brand-new words for yourselves instead of trying to take other people's words and utterly change the meaning of them, no one would have a problem with it. In fact, many people would back you. Including me.

But instead, trans ideologues are hellbent on seizing already-extant words like woman, man, girl and boy and unmooring them from their longstanding meanings and basis in objective fact, then giving them all an entirely new meaning that reduces being a woman and a man to appearing like the sexist stereotypes that some people associate women and men and boys and girls with. Which many people both sexes find profoundly sexist, insulting, appropriative and arrogant. You're trying to tell the entire rest of the human race that all there is to being a man/boy or woman/girl is playacting, LARPing, cosplay - basically just looking the part, and the part as defined by superficial sexists to boot. Which not only ignores biology, science, medicine and how we all came into the world, it also totally ignores and undermines the "lived reality" of everyone else on earth and makes you trans ideologues the sole arbiters of what's true and allowed. And most people won't go along with that.

Is the Life Expectancy of Trans Women in the U.S. Just 35? No. by indio in GenderCritical

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

You haven't heard of brownskirts coz I personally made it up. I've only used it here and on reddit GC before the ban.

So when boys start jerking off as young teens, the AGP thing can be part of it? Well, yeah I have been reading on this forum about boys stealing their sister's clothes. I wonder how many fear they're gay and that's why they try to keep it under wraps?

Yes, that's always how AGP starts for boys - and often before they're teens coz for both sexes puberty usually starts well before the teens. Male puberty is considered early or precocious only if it starts before a boy turns 9. Lots of kids of both sexes masturbate before puberty too. Boy children commonly get spontaneous erections from an early age (for some, even in the womb), and play with their penises throughout childhood (again, scans have shown males doing it in the womb). For boys

Masturbation becomes goal-driven around age 10. Boys in particular are trying to get to the point of orgasm, and at around 11 or 12, they may start seeking pornographic material. "That's when the Internet becomes a big deal, and parents need to be careful about what kids can access online,"

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/caught-your-kid-masturbating

Sexologists J. Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard give general description of how AGP starts here:

Autogynephilia is a male’s sexual arousal by the fantasy of being a woman. That is, autogynephilic males are turned on by thinking about themselves as women, or behaving like women. The typical heterosexual adolescent boy has sexual fantasies about attractive girls or women. The autogynephilic adolescent boy’s may also have such fantasies, but in addition he fantasizes that he is an attractive, sexy woman. The most common behavior associated with autogynephilia during adolescence is fetishistic cross dressing. In this behavior, the adolescent male wears female clothing (typically, lingerie) in private, looks at himself in the mirror, and masturbates.

https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

I wonder how many fear they're gay and that's why they try to keep it under wraps?

Since the sexual fantasies and attractions of most males who develop AGP are of, and towards, girls and women, I think most of these boys know they are not gay. But since immature boys often fear anything that could possibly seem "gay" or bi, or anything other than 100% "vanilla" heterosexual, that might be a factor.

However, it should be pointed out that Bailey and Blanchard's description of how AGP starts off given above is too simplistic. My impression is, AGP and its associated masturbatory habits tend to develop in progressive stages, so there's often quite a lag between being aroused by the sight of mum's, sister's, aunt's or grandma's panties, bra, nightgown and pantyhose, and a boy rubbing his penis on those items to get off, to a boy actually donning those items to get off. And there's a lag between a boy doing that last step and progressing to donning female attire and situating himself in front of a mirror so he can watch himself beating off dressed that way. Unfortunately, Bailey and Blanchard's description makes it sound as if adolescent boys who develop AGP engage in full-fledged cross-dressing and jerking off in front mirrors from the get-go. (Although I'm not a sexologist myself, I have spoken to a lot of men about their private thoughts and habits in adolescence and adulthood, I grew up in close company of and surrounded by boys, and I've raised sons and talked to lots of other parents of sons - so I'm not just talking through my hat here.)

My sense is, boys who develop AGP start off with the usual amount of shame that most kids have around masturbating, but this changes when they reach the point clearly imagining themselves as female in their sex fantasies and putting on items of female clothing to masturbate in. At that point, their sense of shame most likely gets compounded and becomes much, much larger and deeper. But my sense is this isn't so much because they fear they might be gay or bi per se, but because they feel and fear their fantasies, behavior and the intense sexual pleasure that they feel as a result mean they are abnormal, weird and deviant.

Of course, the fact that most boys see being a girl or woman itself as inherently shameful and degraded plays a large role as well. My hunch is that boys who develop AGP tend to feel horrified and ashamed when they find themselves fantasizing about being female and wanting to don female intimate attire in the first place - but when they discover that such fantasies and dressing up behaviors sexually arouse them like nothing else in the world arouses them, they become even more horrified and ashamed. And that, IMO, is where a lot of the urge to keep it hidden comes from.

Is the Life Expectancy of Trans Women in the U.S. Just 35? No. by indio in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It seems to me most of them don't start their AGP game until they're over 40, so how could they die first?

Good point, LOL.

On a more serious note, the key word there is "seems." AGP only appears to start after 40 coz until very recently most men tried hard to keep their paraphilia under wraps, or at least kept it private.

Traditionally, AGP has always started during puberty, usually early in puberty when boys start masturbating. Today, however, some men today might be acquiring AGP in adulthood. In part coz of the plethora of online porn, and in part coz of the radically different sociocultural climate. Whereas in the past being AGP was a source of shame for men, nowadays men are actually praised for having this paraphilia and for openly displaying it in public.

Moreover, today men are actually obtaining more power and privilege for being publicly AGP. Being publicly AGP now also allows men who are boring, sexist, misogynistic and utterly ordinary to obtain new cachet as cool, edgy and cutting-edge - whilst at the same time, publicly "identifying as" TW allows these men to portray themselves (falsely, of course) as the most oppressed people ever and to get away with a whole host of objectionable behavior, from being openly racist and misogynistic to committing sex crimes and behaving as colonizers, like conquistadors in dresses - and as fascists too, aka brownskirts. Finally, nowadays heterosexual men who are openly AGP are centering themselves, and are centered by others, in civil rights movements and communities that previously excluded them - such as feminism and "the LGBTQ."

A reason we've seen so many men over 40 going public with their AGP in recent years is that traditionally boys and men did all they could to hide it, or at least to keep it private. Moreover, for those who choose to indulge their AGP, it's usually a progressive condition that gets worse over time - and as it eventually starts to take over these men's lives, it becomes harder and harder for them to hide it. In addition, for practical reasons a lot of men with AGP have been motivated to keep their proclivities under wraps during the period of life when most men are focused on getting educations, building careers, racking up work accomplishments and pursuing professional goals while also forging romantic/life partnerships and fathering children.

Speaking of which, it's not coincidence that a number of AGP men decide to "come out" with their opposite-sex identity claims and start dressing and behaving as "sexy girls" in public and at home when their own daughters are in adolesence.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

there are plenty of trans women who are not "pre everything" but simply do not want surgery. It's hard to find clear statistics but even among those who get any kind of medical intervention, it's a very small percentage who have any intention of having their genitals removed.

Nowadays 95% of "transwomen" in the US keep their genitals. So say pro-trans orgs and medical professionals in trans care. I'll try to come back and provide the links later. I've posted the links on GC before, so they're in my history.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

As for the Afghan girl, she wouldn' t have to get "a boy role" if she weren' t treated as a second rate citizen for her sex.

the entire point why I named them is, that they are socialized male despite their sex being female.

No, these girls are not socialized female. As a result of not having a brother, uncle or a father who can do the things males are customarily expected to do to provide for the family, these young Afghan girl children are forced into pretending to be the opposite sex in order to do those "male" things for the family themselves. Doing this puts the girls' lives at risk, brings them "dishonour" and makes them pretty much unmarriageable. Being a bacha posh means just more self-sacrifice and more self-abnegation for girls. And once these girls hit or pass puberty, they are usually forced back into female clothing and to stay at home again.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

I just want to throw in my two cents about this common TRA trope:

Why does it always come down to "but the chromosomes"? No one gives a sh#t about chromosomes. Did you ever had your chromosomes tested? I didn't, I just assume that I have the typical case because their isn't anything about my body to indicate otherwise.

Actually, lots of people have had their chromosomes tested. Chromosome testing both in utero and at other times in life is very common, and has been for decades. I had chromosome testing in the 1980s to see if I carried certain genetic mutations, and when pregnant with my children 30 years ago their chromosomes were tested via CVS when I was 8/9 weeks along.

By law, all babies born in the US and many other countries must have blood drawn shortly after birth so that state labs can run genetic tests to see if the babies might have specific diseases. The list of genetic conditions tested for varies from place to place, but the fact that it's done does not.

The NIPT allows sex chromosome and full genetic testing of human fetuses at 8/9 weeks from a standard blood draw taken from pregnant women's. It's inexpensive, widely available and used all around the world.

As for the claim that

No one gives a sh#t about chromosomes.

This just shows how ignorant trans ideologues are. Sex chromosomes have huge effects on health and are crucial for proper medical care. Males who contract COVID-19 are 3 times more likely than females to end up in hospital ICUs and are 2-3 times more likely to die of the disease than females with the exact same age, health status, fitness level, underlying conditions, race, ethnicity, family history and so on.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

it's no wonder you're struggling against someone on the level of Tea_Or_Coffee

I think I'm doing just fine arguing against that poster. With you too. But thanks for the concern.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

No wonder the trans ideology has gotten such a hold if medicine now subscribes to the "if I close my eyes it can't hurt me" school of though.

Huh? Who is saying that? I sure never said anything of the kind. On the contrary, I have been pointing out that with proper treatment, certain physical conditions that once were disabling and a death sentence no longer are. Which is the opposite of arguing, as trans ideology does, that harmful medical interventions - hormone blockers, CSH, surgeries - which diminish physical health and destroy bodily functions should be available on demand for people with psychological problems who are in denial that their issues are mostly "all in their heads" and with society and culture, not with their their bodies.

Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured".

But nowadays a condition like PA doesn't require one to "spend a lifetime dealing" with it, LOL. In the case of PA in particular, it involves self-administering a shot of vitamin B12 once a month, or swallowing oral tablets of the new formulation once a day or once a week. From start to finish, administering B12 by injection takes about 90 seconds a month, 18 minutes a year. Yes, once a year I've gotta order B12 for injection online and put it in the fridge when it arrives. And I have to remember to keep needles on hand, though box of 100 needles lasts more than 8 years. Hardly onerous.

But even if dealing with PA took up a good chunk of my life and energy the way some medical conditions do (including others I've experienced myself), what's it to you? Why are you so determined to be the boss and final arbiter of how people with serious time-involving, life-limiting conditions view their problems and view themselves?

People with serious, legitimate medical conditions requiring tons of medical care have nothing in common with transgender people and the trans lobby. No one is arguing that people with cystic fibrosis, kidney disease requiring frequent dialysis, Parkinson's or any other serious physical illnesses must given whatever medical interventions they want on demand, including treatments that it's been been shown definitely or likely will do them - and society - more harm than good. No one is insisting that scientists should not allowed to research and objectively examine various physical diseases and conditions, or that the general public should not be allowed to discuss them. No one with serious physical conditions is trying to take away the civil rights of others, to get the whole world to deny reality and bend to their will, and demanding that people in good health all redefine themselves in relation to the particular diseases/conditions that small minorities of the population have.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL! This isn't some cute character quirk

Huh? No one who has suffered, or suffers, a serious physical illness or chronic health condition would define them as "cute" or as a "character quirk." For you to imagine and suggest they/we do is extremely offensive.

You seem to view human health in a very simplistic, immature way, dividing people into two black-and-white groups: those who are physically and genetically "normal" and those who are not. You also seem to think that being in 100% perfect health is the human norm. These views speak volumes. They suggest you have very limited "lived experience" and a narrow social circle.

Fact is, lots of people are born with, or develop, all sorts of medical conditions in the course of life, particularly as we age. Yet even so, these conditions don't necessarily dominate our self-perceptions or the way we experience life the way you appear to want them to. Even people who have deformities, disabilities and diseases that are a real cross to bear and very evident to other people - and which require tons of special accommodations and care - do not necessarily regard these aspects of themselves as their defining characteristics the way some outsiders might. Rather, for many people, these aspects of the self tend to fade into the background and become more like wallpaper.

The fact that this bothers you so much that you feel compelled to shout

THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

At people who have a more nuanced view than you makes you sound unhinged, and authoritarian to boot. But go ahead, keep shouting that people who view the very real physical conditions we/they have differently to the way you want us/them to are "denying reality" and are

NOT NORMAL!

Coz the more you holler out such compelling and well-reasoned arguments, the more those pesky, uppity NOT NORMAL people are bound to fall in line and do as you command. Soon enough they'll all surely agree that not seeing reality exactly as you do is the same as not seeing - or facing up to - reality at all.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it means that the person's development went slightly awry at an early point in utero. Your questions show that you have no idea what human zygotes/embryos/fetuses develop go through in utero, and no idea about biology and evolution more generally.

Transgender study/ It's a Fetish? by DR373737 in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This paper from Germany looked at persons who have claimed that after "transition" their sexual orientation changed from being attracted to one sex to now being attracted to the other sex or to both sexes. The researchers found that these self-reported changes are figments of the imaginations of those who report that they have undergone this sea change. The researchers coined the phrase "pseudobisexuality" to describe the purported switch in sexual orientation that many "transitioners" claim to experience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192544/

Transgender study/ It's a Fetish? by DR373737 in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey explain here that all males who who develop "gender dysphoria" in adolescence or adulthood do so because of autogynephilia (AGP);

Autogynephilia is a male’s sexual arousal by the fantasy of being a woman. That is, autogynephilic males are turned on by thinking about themselves as women, or behaving like women. The typical heterosexual adolescent boy has sexual fantasies about attractive girls or women. The autogynephilic adolescent boy’s may also have such fantasies, but in addition he fantasizes that he is an attractive, sexy woman. The most common behavior associated with autogynephilia during adolescence is fetishistic cross dressing. In this behavior, the adolescent male wears female clothing (typically, lingerie) in private, looks at himself in the mirror, and masturbates. Some autogynephilic males are not only sexually aroused by cross dressing, but also by the idea of having female body parts. These body-related fantasies are especially likely to be associated with gender dysphoria.

Blanchard’s research identified two distinct subtypes of gender dysphoria among adult male gender patients. One type, which he called “homosexual gender dysphoria” is identical to childhood onset male gender dysphoria. Males with this condition are homosexual, in the sense that they are attracted to other biological males. Blanchard provided persuasive evidence that the other male gender patients were autogynephilic.

We currently favor the theory that there are only two well established kinds of gender dysphoria among males, because no convincing evidence for any other types has been offered. This could change­–we are committed to a scientific open-mindedness. In particular, it is possible that some cases of adolescent-onset gender dysphoria among males are essentially the same as Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria that occurs among natal females. This will require more research to establish, however.

Autogynephilia is a probably rare, although it is difficult to know for certain. Among males who seek gender transition, however, it is common. In fact, in Western countries in recent years, including the United States, autogynephilia has accounted for at least 75% of cases of male-to-female transsexualism.

It is important to distinguish between autogynephilia and autogynephilic gender dysphoria. Autogynephilia is basically a sexual orientation, and once present does not go away, although its intensity may wax and wane. Autogynephilic gender dysphoria sometimes follows autogynephilia, and is the strong wish to transition from male to female. A male must have autogynephilia to have autogynephilic gender dysphoria, but just because he is autogynephilic doesn’t mean he will be gender dysphoric. Many autogynephilic males live their lives contented to remain male. Furthermore, sometimes autogynephilic gender dysphoria remits so that a male who wanted to change sex no longer does so.

In general, adolescent boys are unlikely to divulge their sexual fantasies to their parents [or other adults such as their therapists, doctors, teachers or clergy]. This is likely especially true of boys with autogynephilia. Furthermore, many boys who engage in cross dressing feel ashamed for doing so. The fact that autogynephilic fantasies and behaviors are largely private is one reason why autogynephilic gender dysphoria usually seems to emerge from nowhere. Another reason is that autogynephilic males are not naturally very feminine. An adolescent boy with autogynephilia does not give off obvious signals of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria.

It is likely that most autogynephilic males do not pursue gender reassignment, but this is difficult to know. (We would need to conduct a representative survey of all persons born male, asking about both autogynephilia and gender transition. This has not been done and won’t be done anytime soon.) Many males with autogynephilia are content to cross dress occasionally. Some get married to women and many also have children. Family formation is no guarantee against later transition, although that may slow it up somewhat. In past decades, when autogynephilic males have transitioned, they have most often done so during the ages 30-50, after having married women and fathered children. It is possible that autogynephilic males have recently been attempting transition at younger ages, including adolescence.

Given how important autogynephilia is for understanding gender dysphoria, it may surprise you that you had never heard of it. Autogynephilia remains a largely hidden idea because most people–including journalists, families, and many males with autogynephilia–strongly prefer the standard, though false, narrative: “Transsexualism is about having the mind of one sex in the body of the other sex.” Many people find this narrative both easier to understand and less disturbing than the idea that some males want a sex change because they find that idea strongly erotic.

Although many autogynephilic males find discovery of the idea of autogynephilia to be a positive revelation–autogynephilia has been as puzzling to them as it is to you–some others are enraged at the idea. There are two main reasons why some autogynephilic males are in denial. First, they correctly believe that many people find a sexual explanation of gender dysphoria unappealing–discomfort with sexuality is rampant. Second, they find this explanation of their own feelings less satisfying than the standard “woman trapped in man’s body” explanation. This is because autogynephilia is a male trait, and autogynephilia is about wanting to be female.

Males with autogynephilia can have a variety of autogynephilic fantasies and interests, from cross dressing to fantasizing about having female bodies to enjoying (for erotic reasons) stereotypical female activities such as knitting to fantasizing about being pregnant or menstruating. One study found that autogynephilic males who fantasize about having female genitalia also tended to be those with the greatest gender dysphoria.

Autogynephilic males sometimes identify as heterosexual (i.e., attracted exclusively to women); sometimes as bisexual (attracted to both men and women), and sometimes as asexual (i.e., attracted to no individuals). Blanchard’s work has shown that autogynephilia can be thought of as a type of male heterosexuality, one that is inwardly directed.

Autogynephilia often coexists with outward-directed heterosexuality, and so autogynephilic males usually say they are also attracted to women. Some autogynephilic males enjoy the idea that they are attractive, as women, to other men. They may have sexual fantasies about having sex with men (in the female role); some may even act on these fantasies. This accounts for the bisexual identification among some autogynephilic males.

In some others, the intensity of the autogynephilia–which is attraction to an imagined “inner woman”–is so great that there are no erotic feelings left for other people. This accounts for asexual identification. (Asexual autogynephilic males have plenty of sexual fantasies, but these fantasies tend not to involve other people.)

When autogynephilic males receive female hormones as part of their gender transition, they typically experience a noticeable decrease in their sex drive. Some have reported that this has diminished their desire for gender transition as well. Others, however, have reported no change in their desire for transition. (In any case, hormonal therapy is a medical intervention with serious potential side effects, and we do not recommend it as a way to treat gender dysphoria, except in cases in which after very careful consideration, gender transition is pursued.)

Autogynephilia is a paraphilia,** meaning an unusual sexual interest nearly exclusively found in males.

https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

** Paraphilia (previously known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals: Wikipedia

Paraphilias are known to occur mostly - indeed, exclusively - in males, though this might be merely because males and their sexuality have been studied much more than females and female seuxality.

Paraphilias in men have also been found to occur in clusters - a man with one paraphilia will typically have others. But this might be a reflection of the population of paraphiliac men who have been studied the most, who have either been men who have been incarcerated (many of them for sex crimes) or ended up in the care of psychotherapists or medical doctors for their sexual issues, including transvestism and desire to "transition."

A problem with paraphilias is that many of the men with atypical sexual desires, urges and fantasies of feel compelled to act out their sexual desires and fantasies in ways that involve other people, including others who do not wish and have not consented to playing a part in these men's sex lives. Violating the boundaries of others and being abusive to them in a wide variety of ways tends to go hand in hand with paraphilias - and many of with paraphilias need an audience for their deviant behaviors and get off on making other people uncomfortable. Hence the demand that others recognize and "validate" that men with AGP are women. An example is someone like Jonathan Yaniv, aka Jessica Yaniv, now "Jessica Simpson."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/

https://labs.la.utexas.edu/mestonlab/sexual-paraphilias/

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

A genetic disorder that would literally kill you because your body attacks cells that are needed for it to function is not a disorder because medicine can keep it at bay?

wat??

You don't seem to understand that medical science is constantly progressing, and as a result many conditions that once were fatal are now curable. When I was growing up in the 1960s, most cancers were fatal. Now most cancers are treatable and most people with various cancers will go into remission and be considered/declared "cured." In the 1980s, HIV usually progressed to AIDS and was a sure death sentence. Now with medication, HIV is considered a manageable condition with which a person can live in a state of good health for a normal lifespan.

When it was first discovered in the 1970s through the 1990s, severe combined immune deficiency, a form of primary immune deficiency affecting males aka "bubble boy disease," was invariably fatal - and boys with it had to lead very limited lives, as seen in the movie Bubble Boy. But since bone marrow transplants and mandatory testing for SCID at birth became standard, SCID is now caught very early - and if a BMT is given early in a child's life (by age 2), the donor bone marrow takes over and becomes the norm and the child is cured.

Also, re pernicious anemia, it's not "medicine" that keeps it at bay, it's vitamin B12. In much of the world, vitamin B12 for injection - and the needles for it - can be obtained without a doctor's prescription. It's very easy to self-administer the shots. Diagnosis of PA requires "medicine," but treating it does not. This is even more the case today than in the past, coz new oral formulations of B12 specifically for people without parietal cells are now available without prescription (you can get them on Amazon), so now the monthly shots aren't even necessary.

Also, there are lots of conditions, both genetic in origin or acquired or a bit of both, that potentially can be disabling which it's now possible to effectively eliminate once and for all by surgery. Like certain tumors of the eye orbit and certain gynecological conditions.

Without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy - a potentially fatal disease. Other diseases develop when people don't get sufficient vitamins, calories, nutrients and trace minerals. Do you think everyone should be thought to have nascent or "sleeper" disorders as a result?

Why does this bother you? Why is it important to you that the sorts of conditions under discussion all be labelled "disorders" and that everyone with such conditions be regarded as having something terribly "wrong" with us? What's it to you?

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"? Because if you insist on "men" and "women" being biological terms instead of social ones, that is what the word "woman" would mean. It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

No, this is not true. The words woman and man communicate three things: 1) that the organism in question is a human being, in other words a person; 2) that he or she is an adult human being, as opposed to an infant, child, adolescent or teenager; and 3) that the adult person is either male or female. The latter terms designate the two clearly different, broad categories of human beings - and other animals as well as plants - that exist based on having developed in utero the anatomy to have the potential capacity at some point in life to play the male or female role in the reproduction of species.

These words don't reduce anyone to their gonads, they just designate which of the two groups of human adults individuals belong to. In both "adult human female" and "adult human male," the words that designate sex - female or male - do not negate or override the "adult" or "human" part. Sex is only one of three pieces of information about someone conveyed by these words.

Everyone knows that there is much more to human adults than just our sex, LOL. And that female and male human beings of all ages can have any kind of personality.

In English, there are tons of words that separate the adults of all the different animal species from the young of the same species: horse v foal; hen v chick; fox, bear, lion and so on vs cub; dog vs puppy; cat vs kitten; duck vs duckling; pig vs piglet; cow or bull vs calf. And as my last example shows, there are different words to distinguish adults of most animal species by their sex too: bull vs calf; stallion vs mare; buck vs doe; cock vs hen; ram vs ewe (in sheep, the young is called a lamb); lion vs lioness, and so on.

When people use such words as bull, cow, buck, doe, stallion, mare, ram, ewe, cock, hen, lion, lioness, we can all picture in our minds what the particular animal spoken of looks like. No one is reducing them to their genitals!

On the contrary, when we call up a mental image of a lion or lioness, what we tend to focus on is the mane, or lack thereof, and the size of the animal. When we call up an image of a deer or buck, or a bull or cow, we tend to focus on the antlers and horns as well as the relative overall body size of the male and female animals in question. When we call up mental images of a cock or rooster, a hen and a chick, we all see the animals in all their feathery fullness - no one envisions their gonads. We really don't think of their gonads at all. (I personally can vividly picture what a rooster/cock, hen and chick look like right now, but I have no idea what their gonads look like, or where they are even located.)

with no regards to their identity.

Yes, it's true that the terms under discussion are used and given without regard to any person's or animal's identity. That's coz they're not markers or badges of "identity" - particularly not in the newfangled way the word "identity" is used today, meaning as a shorthand for "ideal self" or the kind of person an individual human might want or prefer to be, or believes he or she should be or insists he or she really is, contrary to the actual facts. These words were invented to be statements of observed, verifiable, objective fact - to reflect the reality of what an individual person, animal or plant actually is. They were never intended to indicate the desires, fantasies or claims that run counter to objective reality that some humans have about themselves.

I'm totally in support of people inventing new words to designate the new ways some people like you conceptualize their/your own selves and want to be seen in the world. The problem is, trans people and other gender identity ideologues are trying to seize and utterly change the meaning of words that have existed, been commonly understood and in use for thousands and thousands of years - and they are doing so without any consultation with, or concern for, the rest of the population that already knows what these words really mean. Moreover, some members of the trans community are trying to take the words for particular groups of people - such as woman, man, mother, father, daughter, sister, feminist - from the very groups to whom those words actually apply. Which is not going to end well for the trans people. Coz those words are already taken. They're not up for grabs.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You were wrong and you got the floor wiped with you. You soiled your diapers because of it? idc. Bye.

OR you can move on from a debate sub if you're going to cry the second someone wipes the floor with you because boo hoo people are mean for calling you out on being wrong and not being "lulz idc" on a debate sub.

You keep saying that someone "wiped the floor with" Sloane. I had to look up this phrase to see that it means "defeat someone easily and completely in a game, argument or contest."

Can you point out in which posts this crushing defeat supposedly occurred, please? My guess is, the posts in which Sloane was quickly and thoroughly thrashed using the strength of argument and clever wit might have been deleted. Coz there's no evidence of anything like that here.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

Right, and having dysphoria isn't a mental illness, despite it being defined by extreme anxiety over something perfectly normal.

Huh? We're not talking about "dysphoria" here; we're talking about DSDs and other physical conditions. Chalk and cheese.

Having sexual organs that do not function because they literally physically failed to develop properly cannot possibly not be a developmental disorder. What the fuck is science coming to?

I've made it clear that many people with conditions considered to be DSDs have sexual organs that function just fine. Some people with DSDs have sex organs that simply look different, or ended up in the wrong place, but they work just fine.

And some people with DSDs have sex organs that don't work normally in one way, but work normally in other ways. For example, many males with 5-ARD, the male DSD that Caster Semenya has, are missing penises or have very small ones. And their testes are often internal, or in the wrong place in the external groin. But their testicles work normally. They produce normal amounts of testosterone, and they make sperm too. With medical assistance, many such men can father children. And have. Like former World Cup ski champion from the 1960s, Erik Schinegger, formerly Erika:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mgQ97TKxc8&t=3s

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

If vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals, then what are they?

They're reproductive organs. Just as female breasts are. Not every female reproductive organ, or part of the female reproductive tract, is called genitals. Thinking they are is something only guys tend to do.

And in intersex cases where males have uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, etc, does it mean uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries,

You are just making stuff up now - and out of whole cloth too. Males with PMDS have vestiges of uteri and Fallopian tubes, but they do not vaginas and ovaries. Some very few males with rare DSDs have vestigal ovotesticular tissue. No male human has ovaries or a vagina.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

What is generally true of any given species is not necessarily true of each and every individual member of that species at every point of each individual's life. Human beings as a species can be said to have two legs and arms, 10 toes and 10 fingers. This applies to 99+% of Homo sapiens. But there's a small number of some human beings who for one reason or another are outside the norm for our species. However, that does not mean they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens. It does not mean they are not human any more, or never were.

As I've said elsewhere, you need to study up on classification and categorization. And on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions.

I think you would greatly benefit by learning about the lives of people with severe disabilities. Starting with reading Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, all the people born with missing limbs due to the Thalidomide tragedy, and watching the Daniel Day- Lewis film My Left Foot, based on the real life story of Christy Brown.

You could easily have an accident tomorrow that causes you to lose a limb or an eye, or get sick and have to have your appendix or spleen removed. You really think you would then no longer be human?

Have you really never met a single person in your whole life who due to accidents, combat, blasts or surgery necessary coz of illness, dental wear & tear and/or aging doesn't have every single body part that the majority of humans have and which constitute the norm for our species? You don't know anyone who's had their tonsils or gallbladder out, or is missing teeth? You know no completely bald men? That's really hard to believe.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though? Are humans defined as a bipedal specie? If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human? They don't meet the definition of human, or the requirement of which is to have exactly two legs, two hands, and 5 fingers

Please stop with your grotesque characterization of people with various disabilities as less than and other than human.

For the umpteenth time: what is generally true of any given species is not necessarily true of each and every individual member of that species at every point of life. Human beings as a species can be said to have two legs and arms, 10 toes and 10 fingers. This applies to 99+% of human beings. But there's a small number of some human beings who for one reason or another are outside this norms. However, that does not mean they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens.

Again, you need to study up on classification and categorization. And on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

For the definitions of male or female, when we ask what about someone that surgically removed their gonads, GCs argue they don't stop being male or female eventhough they don't produce gametes,

So you think girls before menarche and women after menopause are no longer female? I suggest you inform your mother and, if you have on, grandmother and all the other women you know over age 51 of this and see what they think. Or go over to a local nursing home, senior center, Hystersisters or a menopause forum and say that.

BTW, my own gonads were removed nearly 20 years ago. Since then, no one has ever suggested that I am not female - or that I am now without sex. Never, not once. My children have never thought to claim that they now have a mother who isn't female. If your mother is past menopause age, do you claim she is not female? Do you no longer refer to her, or consider her, your mother?

Basic concepts like the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions seem lost on you. As does what happens over the human lifespan. I suspect you are quite young. Is that the case?

If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human?

This is not just ignorant, it's heartlessly cruel and offensive. I dare you to go say that out loud to persons getting medical care at a VA hospital or a medical facility like the Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC or the various Shriners Hospitals for Children in the US. Your views are beyond the pale. I am not engaging with you any further.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

They have underdeveloped female genitalia such as uterus, etc, why wouldn't that be considered as something wrong with their genitals? Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus? I fail to understand why you don't want them to be called a disorder, do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes, or for a male to have underdeveloped female genitalia and there's nothing wrong with those cases?

Most people use the term genitals consistent with the way Oxford dictionary defines the word:

a person or animal's external organs of reproduction

And as Merriam-Webster does:

the sexual or reproductive organs located on the outside of the body

And as Cambridge dicitonary does

the outer sexual organs, especially the penis or vulva

The uterus is not on the outside of the body. Most women do not think of, or call, our uteri - or our Fallopian tubes, ovaries - genitals. Most women who use the anatomically correct terms also don't call our vaginas genitals, either. Most of us consider the female genitals to be the vulva - labia, clitoris, urethra and vaginal opening.

Again, males with PMDS do not have anything wrong with their male genitals. They have vestiges of organs from the internal female reproductive tract coz of a DSD, but their DSD does not affect the function of their male genitals.

Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus?

I don't see where "right" comes into is. Some people are born with extra toes or fingers, or with body parts missing, or with body parts that look deformed and/or don't function properly. But that's not an matter of morality.

do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes

No, it's not normal for females to have any kind of testes. But which specific condition are you referring to here? Meaning, what is the name? I can't tell from the way you are describing it. I think you are mixing up different conditions and talking about one that doesn't actually exist.

The views you are expressing make me really hope you don't have children.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

Also, Sloane, even when a person does have a disorder, it's a big leap from that fact to calling them "disordered." I have a very serious immune disorder that very much affects and limits my life, but I am hardly "disordered" as a human being in either body or mind. My house at the moment, however, could definitely be said to be disordered, LOL.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

GC trying to be PC and then tripping over themselves because of it is pathetic. Call it what it is instead of chickening out the second it doesn't sound "nice enough" to some group of people, and then letting all kinds of bullshit slip by just so someone's feewings wouldn't get huwt.

This isn't about being PC or trying not to hurt people's feelings. It's about using precise language consistent with the facts. Not all physical anomalies or the approximately 40 specific conditions known as DSDs/VSCs, or to use antiquated terminology, as "intersex," are disorders.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except that you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. The issue wasn't, that he was perceiving his body in a way it wasn't. The problem was, that he was perceiving his body exactly the way it was and that to him having such a body was as deeply disturbing as actually having some monsterous, inhuman body.

If he was experiencing his body as monstrous when by objective standards and the observation of others, his body is not in fact monstrous, he was NOT

perceiving his body exactly the way it was

At all. He was disassociating and hallucinating, and thus not perceiving the reality of how his body actually is or was at that moment.

There's nothing wrong with having hallucinatory or disassociative episodes - lots of people (including me) have taken drugs for the express purpose of hallucinating and experiencing other ways of perceiving the world and our own bodies through all our various senses. Many of us have found this extremely beneficial. There's an entire literature written about it, from Huxley's classic The Doors of Perception from 1954 to recent works about people micro-dosing with LSD or using IV ketamine as treatments for and ways to prevent depression. Lots of rock 'n' roll is about these kinds of experiences, and The Doors are named after them.

Having experienced hallucinations can very much deepen one's understanding of reality, but hallucinations are not reality. People who mistake their hallucinations for reality are suffering from a delusion.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

... These definitions of male and female do not include childfree people. If sex is defined as reproduction, or the capability to reproduce, are childfree people sexless?

Are they not male or female?

What about gay people and lesbians? If someone has gay sex, are they disordered? Bodies are meant for being attracted to the opposite sex, and doing things with the opposite sex, are gay people disordered? Is gay sex a disorder?

The questions about persons who don't have children have been answered already. What I want to bring up is your homophobia.

First of all, you seem unaware that both lesbians and gay men can, and often do, have children.

Second, no one here would say gay sex is a disorder. Just like we would not say this of het sex that doesn't involve PIV, or of het PIV sex in which contraception is used. Not all sex acts do, or must, lead to reproduction or involve the possibility of procreation.

Third, pretty much every human being regardless of sexual orientation masturbates. Under no circumstance can masturbation ever lead to reproduction. But it's often the first kind of sex that many people, and for a good number of people who have sex with others in their lives, masturbation still will be the one kind of sex they have the most over the course of their lives by far.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

You are talking about males with Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome. There is nothing wrong with the genitals of males with PMDS. Please stop spreading lies.

Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome is a disorder of sexual development that affects males. Males with this disorder have normal male reproductive organs, though they also have a uterus and fallopian tubes, which are female reproductive organs. The uterus and fallopian tubes are derived from a structure called the Müllerian duct during development of the fetus. The Müllerian duct usually breaks down during early development in males, but it is retained in those with persistent Müllerian duct syndrome.

Affected individuals have the normal chromosomes of a male (46,XY) and normal external male genitalia.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are? How do you define a disorder that intersex doesn't count as a disorder?

Not all DSDs involve atypical sex chromosomes, though most involve a genetic mutation of some kind. Many people have genetic mutations that can cause or contribute to disease and disorders - I know of several that I have personally - but not all people with these mutations develop disease or disorders. Oxford defines a disorder as

an illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions

But even some illnesses and conditions that once were considered disorders per this description are not seen that way today coz the treatments for them are simple and 100% effective.

For example, I have an inherited, presumably genetic condition called pernicious anemia, that if untreated leads invariably to death - a long, slow and painful death, and which prior to getting to the terminal stage causes people with PA to lose their minds. But with a monthly IM injection of vitamin B-12, which is cheap and easy to self-administer, pernicious anemia is 100% reversed/cured. So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

Now that genome sequencing is being done for more and more people, it's turning out that genetic mutations that are linked to disease and disorders, but are not always causative of them in every case, are more common than previously assumed:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/one-five-healthy-adults-may-carry-disease-related-genetic-mutations

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are?

You keep revealing that you actually know very little about DSDs. Not all DSDs affect the genitals. Many people with DSDs have typical-looking genitals and/or normally functioning gonads.

Please when you speak of these matters don't use language and framing that lump the two sexes together and make the mistake of assuming that what's true of human males is also true of human females. Only the male gonads, the testes, are considered part of the genitals. Human female gonads, the ovaries, are not external and thus not usually called genitals like the testes are. Whereas testes are between human males' legs, human ovaries are internal organs inside the abdomen at considerable distance from our crotch and genitals, eg our vulvas.

One of the most common conditions that in the past was labelled "intersex" or a DSD is micro-penis, which is a normally functioning male genital organ that is smaller than normal but which functions normally. Most micro-penises and normally developed and function fine; they're just small. Another condition traditionally considered "intersex" and a DSD is hypospadias, a congenital condition where the male urethra opens on the underside of the penis. This doesn't impair a male person's ability to urinate or ejaculate seminal fluid - it just looks odd. And it's easily corrected by surgery.

By far the single most common DSD is congenital adrenal hyperplasia, CAH, which I've read accounts for the majority of ALL DSDs (though I can't find the source at the moment). CAH comes in several different forms - and only the rarest form, known as classical CAH, which can be fatal if it involves salt-wasting, requires treatment and might affects genitals. Yet even classical CAH usually only affects the appearance of female genitals Most males with CAH have normal-looking and functioning genitals. The most common form of CAH is the mild form. Many persons with the mild form have no obvious symptoms.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

Grotesque effigy of the Deputy Prime Minister of Spain, a woman, hanged from a tree because she criticized the proposed trans law by BEB in GenderCritical

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

BEB, the larger issue is why you feel compelled to post so much stuff seen on Twitter on this forum. And why you often do so without giving full or proper context; in fact, as you and I both know, sometimes you've spread misinformation by doing so.

Twitter is a cesspit, not Mt Olympus or a font of truth the way some seem to think. I'm here precisely to avoid Twitter. Some of us are seeking better quality information and discourse than can be found on Twitter, and are striving to provide it in our own small way too.

Also, anyone who wants to know what's being said on Twitter can look at Twitter directly. It's open for the whole world to see.

I am thinking of leaving this sub in large part coz I'm sick of having to point out that items posted from Twitter and presented as the gospel truth are often themselves inaccurate, and are presented here in ways that make them more so.

Gender-Critical Feminists Are People Too by Fleurista in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fleurista, as someone who gave you a lot of thoughtful feedback in the debate sub - including some comments that came off as harsh and I know were hard to hear - I am hesitant to say this. But last night after seeling the title of your video and thread here -

Gender-Critical Feminists Are People Too

I was upset, and find I still am a wee bit today. The wording you've chosen suggests that you did not previously see us GC feminists as human beings, the audience you are trying to reach also does not see us as human beings, and you have no qualms about openly admitting this.

Would you use the same kind of language for any other minority group? For example, would you title a video and thread saying, "Muslims Are People Too" or "Sikhs Are People Too" or "Antifa Members Are People Too"?

Can you imagine what would happen if a GC feminist were to post a video on YT or start a thread on a trans forum saying, "Trans Activists Are People Too"? Or, heaven forfend, "Transwomen Are People Too"?

I think a better title would have been something like

Prejudice Against Gender Critical Feminists - Is It Fair & Grounded In Fact?

Grotesque effigy of the Deputy Prime Minister of Spain, a woman, hanged from a tree because she criticized the proposed trans law by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And not just in that town. All over Spain.

Grotesque effigy of the Deputy Prime Minister of Spain, a woman, hanged from a tree because she criticized the proposed trans law by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not excusing this at all, but from what I know of European and Spanish history, symbolic killing of politicians and other important figures by effigy is a popular tradition that goes back centuries. In Spain, executing effigies has been a pastime since at least the Spanish Inquisition, and nowadays burning effigies is particularly popular. So I don't think it's accurate to suggest that misogyny is the main motivation behind the making and hanging of this particular effigy. Some would argue it would be sexist if female politicians in Spain were not subjected to the same symbolic executions as male politicians and public figures routinely are.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503320/6-people-executed-effigy

In 2016, UNESCO added an annual effigy-burning festival in Spain to the world's list of important events representing the important "cultural heritage of humanity":

Spain's traditional Fallas de Valencia festival on Wednesday was added to the list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, sources from the United Nations' cultural organization UNESCO told EFE.

thousands of puppets and sculptures_ ninots_ fill the city of Valencia on Spain's eastern coast, where they are paraded and burned in some of the most emblematic streets and squares.

Each ninot is created, often over a period of months, by a special neighborhood council called a casal faller.

The artisan creators of the satirical sculptures use the event to highlight political gaffes, notable current events and the controversial personalities of the preceding year.

Featuring heavily in the ceremony are Spain's political personalities as well as world leaders and prominent celebrities.

The burning of the effigies is considered a cathartic rejuvenation process that welcomes in the spring and blends ancient rituals associated with fire and a mordant sense of humor.

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/spain-s-iconic-effigy-burning-festival-added-to-unesco-heritage-list/50000263-3112118

An effigy of Trump being burned at this festival in 2017 can be seen here: https://youtu.be/uqUX-LHbfm4

A similar festival in another Spanish city:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/hogueras-de-alicante-bonfires-of-alicante

For 200K euros, this art gallery in 2019 offered the chance to burn an effigy of the current Spanish king, Felipe VI:

https://today.rtl.lu/news/world/a/1313089.html

More about effigy burnings in Spain of in recent years:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1200681/royal-news-king-felipe-queen-letizia-princess-leonor-catalonia-barcelona-protests

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/catalan-separatists-burn-effigies-of-spanish-kings.html

https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/23/locals-in-spanish-town-shoot-and-burn-carles-puigdemont-effigy

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17589775.watch-effigy-carles-puigdemont-shot-burned-spain/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-24/grab-your-wooden-effigies-it-s-san-juan-day-in-spain

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-tale-of-two-effigies/

https://www.nysun.com/foreign/spain-rethinks-burning-effigies-of-muhammad/40777/

Also, since 1986 there of course has been the infamous "Burning Man" festival in the US that grew extremely popular amongst with cutting-edge and wealthy wokesters:

https://newrepublic.com/article/150497/vanishing-idealism-burning-man

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not gonna engage with those descriptions, the last two of which don't exist. If you want to discuss a DSD, you need to name the specific condition.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If sex is defined by gametes, doesn't that essentially mean sex is reproduction? Because gametes are for reproduction, and if sex is defined by gametes, then it follows sex is reproduction?

Yes, when speaking of all the plants and animals that reproduce sexually, sex does relate to and is based on reproduction - or rather, potential capacity for reproduction. In every sexually-reproducing species, there are two categories of organism - male and female - based on the kinds of gametes that early in gestation they develop the potential capacity to produce (or in some cases to mature and release) at some point later in life.

But no, it does NOT follow that "sex is reproduction." Sex classification - whether one is male or female - is based on whether one has developed the anatomy to produce, or to mature and release, either ova or sperm at some point later in life. Which is not the same as saying "sex = reproduction." Lots of individual members of various plant and animal species do not reproduce, but they still have a sex coz they can be classified as either male or female.

Again, your lack of understanding of biology and evolution in general keeps tripping you up and making it difficult to discuss this with you.

Every plant and animal species has evolved to reproduce itself to keep its own species in existence and evolving so that the species is best equipped to survive over the long arc of history. This is known as reproduction of the species or perpetuation of species. The instinct to perpetuate itself is built in to every species, and perpetuation of the species is every species' paramount drive. But that does not mean that every individual member of each species has the same drive to reproduce, or any drive to reproduce at all. Nor does it mean every individual member in any given species has the same exact capacity to reproduce or ends up reproducing. Homosexuality is a thing, as is a wide variety of forms of infertility - and these are factors that can affect quite a number of individuals within any species.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One of the issues in that post from Ovarit is the term "meant to," which I'd take issue with. There's a difference between "equipped to" and "meant to" - the former indicates a potential capacity, the latter indicates a purpose. I think evolution/nature equips us female humans with the possibility and potential for having children, but that does not mean it's our purpose.

But I am not gonna waste time arguing over something said on an entirely different forum here.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, not all anomalies are disorders! David Bowie's eyeballs were anomalous in color, but his particular condition is not a disorder.

Then there is no issue with calling intersex a disorder?

There is a problem with referring to DSDs as "a disorder." Coz DSDs are actually a constellation of 40 (or thereabouts) very different conditions, each one of which is entirely unique.

These conditions have been variously called disorders of sex development and differences of sex development, or DSDs for short. Some people prefer calling them VSCs, which is short for such terms as variations in sex characteristics or variable sex conditions.

Many people avoid the term "intersex" because it misleadingly suggests that people with DSDs/VSCs are in between the two sexes, or a combination of the two. This is not true. They are all either male or female.

Not all DSDs are disorders. Many people with DSDs are very healthy people whose DSDs do not require any medical treatment. Olympians Caster Semenya, Margaret Wambui and Francine Niyonsaba, for example, are extremely healthy human beings - they just have male-specific DSDs that caused their male genitals not to develop typically in utero and thus to look atypical for males when they were born.

Similarly, there are many different kinds of medical conditions and diseases that impair function in some way and require medical treatment and therefore are considered disorders, but they're not disabilities - medically, legally or colloquially.

GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The typical GC argument is that sex is reproduction, that we are biologically meant to reproduce. Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

Males are biologically meant for penetrating, and inseminating females, and their bodies are organized around inseminating females.

Like I said on the other thread you started, it's very clear you don't understand the difference between evolution of species and the sex, inclinations and behaviors of individual members of any given species. In every species - plant and animal - there are males and females that don't procreate for various reasons. Coz evolution.

You seem also not to understand that the definition of sex which boils down to which kind of gamete which developed, or was meant to develop, the potential capacity to produce/release at some later point in life is one that applies to all sexually-reproducing plants and animals, not just to mammals and other animals whose mode of sexual reproduction resembles mammalian reproduction. And that this definition has nothing to do with the wide variety of mechanisms by which male and female gametes - sperm and egg - meet up in various species, or where this happens and where/how offspring are gestated.

Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

No one with any grounding in basic biology, including no "GC" person, would ever say this! Coz reproduction for female plants and many, many different animal species does NOT involve the female being penetrated by males of their species. Similarly, the females of plants and many, many animal species do not conceive and gestate offspring within their bodies "give birth" the way mammals do. Birds, for example, lay eggs.

Similarly, no one with any knowledge of biology would claim

Males are biologically meant for penetrating, and inseminating females, and their bodies are organized around inseminating females.

Coz it's totally not true, LOL.

Please go read some biology textbooks and watch some nature videos. There's tons of material out there. And there's a reason the old-fashioned name for sex education is "the birds and the bees." Two kinds of animals that reproduce in ways entirely different to how humans and other mammals do. But which are still species that reproduce sexually and consist of males and females.

Trying to discuss the nuances of sex with someone so utterly in the dark about basic biology is like trying to teach ESL to someone who never learned to read and write in their own native language. Or like trying to discuss math with someone who never learned basic arithmetic such as the names of numbers and therefore doesn't how to count.

Saying moms should be wary of men is misandry! 🤭 by censorshipment in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As is typical, the entire focus in this response is on coddling and kowtowing to grown men who claim they are unfairly impacted - and victimized - by standard safeguarding procedures, rather than on the fact that safeguarding is necessary to protect the wellbeing of children.

Most decent people understand why it's important to be very careful checking the background and references of anyone who has contact with, and takes care of, kids - and do not object to it. Just as we don't object to having to provide references, job history, educational background, professional credentials etc when we are applying for a job. And just as we don't feel personally victimized and claim discrimination when we have to provide all sorts of information as part of trying to rent an apartment or obtain a loan.

Anyone who reacts to basic safeguarding like this is revealing they are precisely the kind of adult who shouldn't be around kids, and particularly shouldn't be allowed to care for them.

My Goodreads account was banned for being gender critical! by Applecat in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Amazon wouldn't allow Shrier's book to be advertised on the Amazon site, so I think it's unrealistic to expect Goodreads to be more open to "GC" views than the parent company. The Goodreads terms of service "community guidelines" say

"Goodreads reserves the right to remove content at any time for any reason. It is at our sole discretion to decide when content violates our guidelines."

https://www.goodreads.com/community/guidelines

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/glamazon-at-amazon-eighteen-years-of-change

Amazon gets a perfect score from the Scrotum Rights Campaign and has given CEO & founder Jeff Bezos its "Equality Award."

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/a-perfect-score

Amazon is fully signed up to "diversity & inclusion." The policy statements I've seen say all mention "gender" but not "sex":

"We are a company of builders who bring varying backgrounds, ideas, and points of view to inventing on behalf of our customers. Our diverse perspectives come from many sources including gender, race, age, national origin, sexual orientation, culture, education, and professional and life experience. We are committed to diversity and inclusion and always look for ways to scale our impact as we grow."

https://www.aboutamazon.com/workplace/diversity-inclusion

Both: What do you make of this study on mothers of children with gender identity disorder? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

No need to apologize - at least not to me! :)

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

They simply can't accept the body they have, because it feels utterly, innately and inherently wrong to them. This is not a choice. This is not some slight distress. If they could accept their bodies as is, do you really think they would go though HRT, surgeries, get thrown out by their parents (yes, I have seen several experiencing this) over this?

No one is saying that the distress of people who call themselves trans or "gender dysphoric" is not real, that it's consciously chosen, or that it's "slight" or insignificant.

We are simply saying that distress over one's body, including one's sex anatomy and processes, is not unique to people who are trans or "gender dysphoric" - nor is the suffering that trans and "GD" people feel coz of their distress over their sexed bodies necessarily more extreme, painful or disabling than the distress many other people who are NOT trans and do NOT have "GD" feel over their bodies and sex characteristics too.

Like, let me tell you about the time, one of them was - clearly during a particulary bad gender dysphopric phase - making a post about how he felt about the physiological effects of having the hormone levels of his birth sex. The entire thing read like a particulary disturbing body horror story written from the perspective of the person undergoing the body horror - except all the worse because it happens for real to someone I actually know and like (Note: he latter, after pulling himself somewhat together and having reconsidered his decision not to go on HRT for carrerial reasons deleted the post. But, believe me, it was a really disturbing read)

You really need to broaden your social circle a bit and meet, talk to and read about a more diverse set of human beings than just people who are trans and "gender dysphoric" whom you seem to think experience things unlike what other people go through.

Fact is, many people of all sorts have had strange, extremely disturbing dissociative episodes in which they've seen and experienced their bodies as monstrous, utterly alien, out to get them, diseased, distorted, hideous, non-human, huge, tiny, crawling with bugs, being on fire, part horse, part dog, with wings or fins, and so on.

Sometimes people have hallucinatory experiences - visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and/or gustatory - as the result of mental illnesses (lots of people with "garden variety" major depression, for example, experience episodes of psychosis and disassociation from their bodies during MDD); due to physical states brought on by disease (brain tumors, Co2 narcosis, meningitis, shock after a traumatic labor and birth, for example); or because of drugs (THC, opioids, the drugs they used to routinely to drug to pregnant women in labor and birth, some drugs used in labor and childbirth today, infused immune drugs like IVIG, and hallucinogens like LSD, mescaline, peyote and ketamine, for example).

https://www.healthline.com/health/hallucinations#causes

https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/nonpsychotropic-medicationinduced-psychosis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727751/

This is not to diminish the scariness and horrible nature of what your friend went through. I'm just trying to make it clear that such experiences are part of human experience and therefore they are not unique to trans and gender dysphoric people the way you and others seem to think.

Some information about the horrible experiences featuring very scary hallucinations that have been part of childbirth for women past and present that you might find eye-opening:

https://timeline.com/restraints-hallucinations-and-forgotten-pain-were-the-norm-on-midcentury-maternity-wards-46909123c4f7

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjg8em/i-thought-my-baby-was-a-horse-what-its-like-to-trip-on-your-post-birth-drugsv

https://www.rxlist.com/pitocin-side-effects-drug-center.htm

GC: How can sex be unchangeable, when the body constantly changes? And throughout evolution, unicellular organisms transitioned and changed to the multicellular organisms we call humans? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT

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

In evolution, there exists the transition of unicellular organisms to the multicellular organisms we call humans.

When bodies of organisms transition to such an extent, how can you say sex is unchangeable and one can not transition to become the opposite sex?

You don't seem to understand the difference between evolution of species and the aging of individual organisms. Two entirely different things.

From the moment of fertilization through gestation, birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old age until and after death, each and every plant, animal and human being will have exactly the same DNA and sex chromosomes.

Yes, our bodies all make new cells constantly to replace all the cells that aren't constantly dying off. We each make billions of new cells each day. But every one of an individual's own cells - new, old, dead or yet to be made -still will always have the exact same DNA and sex chromosomes.

In four different groups of humans, some cells with different DNA and sex chromosomes might also be present in an individual's body: the very few people who have the extremely rare conditions known as mosaicism and chimerism (and the mechanisms for why this happens is clear); currently pregnant women; and some women who have been pregnant in the past, particularly those of us who carried fetuses to term or past a certain point of gestation.

Sometimes some women retain some fetal cells from our children even years after we've given birth to them. But because some women carry some leftover cells from our sons in some parts of our bodies after birth doesn't mean we have changed our sex. It's very easy to distinguish between cells that have a woman's own DNA and sex chromosomes and fetal cells that might have been left in her body from her son(s) and/or daughter(s).

Sex is part of the body, the body changes every second of everyday, and so it follows that sex which is a part of the ever changing body can change with it.

In humans and many other animals, sex characteristics change over the course of each individual organism's development and aging. But our sex does not.

Many cats and dogs are spayed or castrated, which is sometimes referred to "neutered." This doesn't turn a male dog into a female one or a female cat into a male one, nor does it make them no sex, either.

Whether a male or female human is 1 day or 100 years old, their sex remains fixed. Sex characteristics change, not a person's sex. Just the way human skin remains human skin whether it's on a newborn or a very old person.

When someone has plastic surgery, you don't say their body didn't change.

When someone dyes their hair, you don't say the hair color didn't change.

When someone tans, you don't say the skin color didn't change.

But when someone takes hormones, and undergoes surgery to be given a neopenis or a neovagina, you go on the prolonged back and forth that the sex didn't change event hough the body itself changed

The people in all your examples have changed their appearance to varying degrees, and the persons in your last example who've had "bottom surgeries" have altered how their urinary anatomy and parts of their genitals function in certain limited respects. But none of them has changed sex.

The trans persons in your last example have made cosmetic changes to their bodies through surgeries and use of chemicals just as the people in the preceding three examples have.

The surgeries and chemical treatments trans people get result in changes akin to using hair dye, getting a nose job or facelift, tanning the skin (or alternatively, bleaching the skin). Or to add some additional relevant examples, they are similar to getting dental crowns, veneers, fillings or implants; to getting a skin or bone graft; to having an organ such as the appendix, gall bladder, spleen, uterus, tonsil or other body parts such as moles, tumors and facial hair removed; or to getting a surgically-attached prothesis, a pacemaker or stent. Thank you for making this so clear!

Saw on Twitter: “My brother pulled my three-year-old nephew from *daycare* after my nephew told me he could choose to be a boy or a girl. After further questioning him, I found out he learned this from his daycare teacher. She also taught him that a doctor could change him into a girl” by Rationalmind in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

These days, many people think being your "authentic self" and "living your truth" naturally involves a lot of artifice and lying.

Refugees From Reality: Religious Trauma and Gender Identity by eddyelric in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The influence of old-guard religions that once dominated throughout the West - Roman Catholicism, the Church of England, and establishment Protestant denominations like Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism - have certainly waned in influence in Europe and North America over time, particularly since the 1960s.

However, in the US - which is where Fain's article focuses on - there has been a dramatic rise in the popularity, reach and power of very conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant religions at the same time, particularly in the south.

What's more, during the same time period that old guard Christian religions like Catholicism have waned amongst Americans whose families have been in the country for generations, the US has had a vast increase in legal and illegal immigration from Latin America, Haiti and a number of African and Asian countries where traditional Catholicism as well as evangelical Catholicism are practiced (Nigeria, Korea, the Philippines, for example). First and next generation immigrants from those religious backgrounds bring their religious beliefs and traditions with them - and they tend to be very devout, conservative and old fashioned when it comes to matters like homosexuality, sexism and sex stereotypes.

When you combine the two trends, I think the picture that emerges is that the US is just as religious as in the 1950s, only in a different and more conservative way. The kinds of liberalizing reforms the RCC began instituting in the 1960s with Vatican II make the American Catholicism that I grew up with back then seem almost tolerant and progressive compared to what I gather is preached in many/most of today's evangelical Protestant megachurches in the US. I occasionally watch televangelists on TV, and most of them strike me as far less urbane and liberal-minded than mosts RC priests from the 1960s. Many seem totally crackers as well as ultra-conservative.

For all the terrible things that Roman Catholicism did to us parochial and convent school kids back in the day when Catholic schools were prominent and common in the US, one positive thing Catholic schools did was to give the smarter and more academically-inclined kids who attended them a good grounding in topics like world history, geography, current events, literature, philosophy, theology, comparative religions, biology (including evolution), chemistry, math, debating and so on. In the process, they instilled intellectual discipline and critical thinking skills in the kids who were suited to academics. (The kids who weren't suited to academics were pretty much fucked in/by US Catholic schools - in all respects, too.)

In fact, along with subjecting kids to plenty of sex abuse, sexism and physical abuse, a certain kind of Catholic school education equipped many kids raised Catholic in the US in the 50s and 60s with precisely the skills needed to realize pretty early on that what we were being taught in catechism class was a lot of BS, as was much of the abuse we and/or our schoolmates were subjected to. And that put us in the position to become disbelievers in droves as well as to argue effectively against the tenets and teachings of the faith to the nuns, priests and our parents too. I do not know this for a fact, coz I have not explored this in depth, but my impression is that a lot of people raised in evangelical fundamentalist Christian denominations in the US have not been equipped with a similar knowledge base (many have been taught creationism, not evolution, for example, and many seem not to be taught comparative religions, either) or critical thinking and debating skills. Which leaves young people who've grown up in those religious milieus really at the mercy of their elders and all the regressive ideologies they preach.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course people whose gender identity matches their anatomical sex do not feel gender dysphoria, and therefore, to them, there doesn't appear to be such a thing as a"gender identity", since without the mismatch between gender identity and anatomical sex, gender identity has no effect. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I have made it clear to you in other posts I don't have a "gender identity"! Stop trying to impose on one me.

You haven't defined gender or "gender identity" anywhere on this thread, despite everyone asking you to do so again and again.

Gender is commonly understood to mean masculine/feminine. And "gender identity" is commonly understood to mean preference for sex stereotypes and sex roles that are either masculine or feminine.

I am of the female sex, but I do not identify with feminine sex stereotypes and sex roles forced upon or associated with female people. Please stop telling me that because I don't have "gender dypshoria" I must identify with those stereotypes. I know my own mind very, very well. I have fought against sex stereotyping my whole life - and I'm in my mid-60s, so that's a long time.

But if it were healthy and fine and not hurting at all, would you still wish every day "a giant bladed device [would] come along and scoop out all these body parts" ?

That's an a silly thought experiment coz the condition I have is incurable, or at least it is at the moment. I've tried all the available treatments, and am open to trying others if they come along, but so far the treatments I've tried have either not worked or only worked partially and for a while. My only option to not be in severe pain 24/7/365 is opioids such as morphine and Fentanyl, which I was on for close to a decade but decided to stop in 2011. Coz I like having a clear head and my wits about me.

I'd miss my clit and the orgasms it brings, and wouldn't want to have to pee and defecate into bags, but I have no use for most of my sex organs anymore. I've already had my uterus, cervix, ovaries and Fallopian tubes removed coz of the painful health problems I've had - and getting rid of those certainly helped for many years. I don't regret losing those organs. I think I'd do fine without the rest. My brain is the organ I treasure the most, followed by my eyes and typing hands.

BTW, the removal of various of my female reproductive organs has had no impact on my sense of self and self-image. I am just as female now as when I was a lovely young woman, when I was pregnant, when I was a new mother, when I was breastfeeding. My sex is a matter of biological fact. It's not an identity. If I lost my breasts due to cancer, and had an accident in which I lost my lower body, every cell in my body would still be XX. I would still be as female as I am today, and when I was born.

GC: What do "-sexual" and "-sexuality" mean? If sex is about reproduction, why are "homosexuality" and "same sex" not contradictions in terms? by ImageNotUploaded in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying.

The female oragsm contributes comparatively little if anything to reproduction when compared to the overall reproductive role the female body engages in, as you pointed out, all it does is ease the process of fertilisation

Well, this has been the assumption, but we really don't know coz it's one of many areas that's not been studied. Remember, the conventional view of human sexuality is so androcentric that clitoral orgasm was denigrated or denied as a real thing for many, many years. Girls and women were told the lie that to orgasm in the "right way" we had to do it vaginally, and if we didn't orgasm vaginally we were "frigid" and deficient. That was still commonly taught and believed in the Western world until circa 1970:

https://wgs10016.commons.gc.cuny.edu/the-myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm-by-anne-koedt-1970/

What's more, the very little research that has been done on this topic has been conducted in weird ways. As in experiments where the possible connection between orgasm and cervical "tenting" and its effect on sperm was done not by studying what goes on when women have orgasms, but by studying what goes on when they're given hits of oxytocin. As if oxytocin = female orgasm.

I actually think that when more research is done on female bodies, a lot of surprising things will be discovered that will turn many assumptions long held sacred on their heads. For example, it's long been assumed that human fertilization is done by the sperm cell that reaches the egg and manages to pierce it first. But research published last year said that's not the case: the egg chooses which sperm it will let in.

The two organs I was referring to were the clitoris for pleasure & the birth canal for reproduction.

I am confused by your use of the term "birth canal." In the US where I live, and the UK where I've spent a lot of time, it's not customary to use the term "birth canal" as a matter of course in discussing female sex anatomy - "birth canal" is used only when discussing human childbirth specifically. I would find it strange and off-putting to hear or see someone use the term "birth canal" in any other context.

I'm also confused by your characterization of the birth canal as as one single organ, when the definition is:

the passage through which the young of mammals pass during birth, formed by the cervix, vagina, and vulva. (Merriam-Webster)

the passageway from the womb through the cervix, the vagina, and the vulva through which a fetus passes during birth. (Oxford)

the passageway from the uterus of a mammal through which a fetus is pushed during birth: it consists of the cervix, vagina, and vulva (Collins)

That's several separate organs. And again, fertilization can't occur in a human female body with the organs that constitute the birth canal alone. At least one functioning ovary and one intact Fallopian tube is also required. Fertilization occurs in the Fallopian tube, and only 3-4 days afterwards does the fertilized egg move down into the uterus to (try to) be implanted into the uterine lining.

Lots of women who have the organs that make up the birth canal can't get pregnant coz they have no ovaries due to oophorectomy and no Fallopian tubes due to salpingectomy - and also coz of various health conditions (diseases and therapies that cause ovarian failure, DSDs, etc). Similarly, lots of women who still have all the organs that constitute the birth canal and the rest of the female reproductive system intact still can't conceive coz they no longer ovulate due to menopause. Since the average age of menarche is 11 and menopause is 51, and the average lifespan of women in much of the world is 84 to near 90, most women who live a full lifespan nowadays will spend more of our lives naturally without the capacity to conceive than with it even with all our reproductive organs intact and in good health.

Similarly, it's not true that "men only have 1 organ" that's involved in fertilization. The penis delivers sperm into the female repro tract, but it doesn't make sperm. Sperm comes from the male gonads, the testes. And sperm doesn't go directly from the testes into and out penis in one fell swoop like a gum ball dropping from a gum ball machine. Other body parts have to contribute to making the seminal fluid that carries the sperm, and the precursor fluid that paves the way for the sperm to pass through the penis by changing the pH of the male urethra first.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no such thing as "not having a gender identity". If you feel psychological distress in regards to having your anatomical sex, you have a gender identity different from your anatomical sex and is the sexed phenotype where you wouldn't feel such a distress. If you don't feel any such distress, your gender identity matches your anatomical sex. Under such definition, how would it be possible not to have a gender identity?

No, this is not true. Please stop saying that the subjective feelings that you and a small number of the earth's human inhabitants experience are feelings that everyone else on earth shares.

Most people definitely do NOT have a "gender identity." The only people who can be relied on to agree they have a gender identity are those who wish they were the opposite sex, or neither sex, or some human-concocted combination of the two sexes.

Some vegans have a very extreme revulsion to the idea of consuming or using animal products. But just because some people have this revulsion and experience it deeply does not mean everyone else on the planet have it too. Even amongst people who are against eating and using animal products, many don't feel the same sort of revulsion and deep-seated distress over these matters that some vegans do.

Billions of people on earth believe they have souls and after their deaths their souls will continue to exist in some kind of afterlife or reincarnation. Just because billions of people believe they have a soul does not mean all people believe we have souls. Many of us don't think that souls are real even for those who believe they have one.

Right now I personally feel great deal of distress and discomfort "in regards to my anatomical sex" coz my anatomical sex has caused me to develop pudendal neuralgia, which creates an excruciating combination of extreme pain and numbness in my vulva, lower vagina, female perineum, female urethra and the anus in which I've had recurrent piles since I first developed them during pregnancy many years ago. Every day I wish a giant bladed device would come along and scoop out all these body parts. But I still do not have a "gender identity."

BTW, both sexes have a pudendal nerve, and thus both males and females can suffer from pudendal neuralgia. But it is is 2-3 times more common in females. Coz of our sex anatomy and coz female people experience many physical things that males don't - menarche, menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage, labor, childbirth, childbirth injuries and menopause.

Gay man "comes out" as GC to colleagues and all is OK - so why are we all so frightened? We are on the side of sanity and most people on Earth agree with us. Courage! by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gay man "comes out" as GC to colleagues and all is OK - so why are we all so frightened?

If by "we" here you mean women, it's coz our situation in the current political climate is nothing like that of any gay man.

Transgenderism is at heart a misogynistic movement whose central aim is to silence and erase female people, remove our civil rights, and make it forbidden and impossible for girls and women to say no to men ever. Gay men are not its target. Gay men aren't subject to misogyny - the extreme misogyny of this movement or any other.

Some might say that yes they are, arguing that homophobia against males is rooted in misogyny and even a form of misogyny in itself. I'd beg to differ.

GC: What do "-sexual" and "-sexuality" mean? If sex is about reproduction, why are "homosexuality" and "same sex" not contradictions in terms? by ImageNotUploaded in GCdebatesQT

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

But the threads are useful ways of reaching people who are on the fence, or brand new to these matters, or confused and overwhelmed by all the propaganda and lies thrown out by the QT side. Posting on these thread is still worthwhile coz it's a way of sharing info, insights and arguments with those who are on the side of reality but who might feel too cowed and uninformed to marshal their own arguments and make their own posts with confidence. Or at least that's I tell myself, and why I post.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Physical pain arising due to ones sexed anatomy being unhealthy or undergoing a painfull natural process is not "discomfort" in the sense of gender dysphoria.

It's not one or the other. Most people who have physical pain have psychological pain along with it. Very often the psychological pain in such cases is focused on the parts of the body, or the bodily processes, that cause the pain or where the pain is most strongly experienced.

In all your lengthy posts throughout this entire thread, you have never once defined "gender dysphoria" or described it in anything but the vaguest terms - "distress" and feeling "deeply uncomfortable." You keep saying what "gender dysphoria" is NOT, but never say what it IS other than dislike, distress, discomfort.

You also seem totally unaware that lots of of people have these very same negative feelings - and more - about our bodies, including our sex organs and secondary sex characteristics - and that we too fantasize about getting rid of the body parts that distress and pain us.

Your POV seems to be that the psychological distress and discomfort of "gender dysphoria" is the only kind of human pain that matters. To you, "gender dysphoria" seems to trump all other kinds of pain that human beings are capable of suffering, whether psychological, physical or a combo of both.

Feeling so deeply uncomfortable with having breasts (not with how other people treats you for having breasts, but the mere fact of you having breasts) that you are seriously contemplating impromptu self-surgery using gardening tools to get rid of them, that is meant with "distress" or "discomfort" in the sense of gender dysphoria (and, yes, that's a real case. Saw two transgender men - that is, female-to-male transgenders - talking about having experienced such thought processes)

The experiences of these women is not at all new! I know many women who endured horrible back and neck aches and other physical problems as well as tons of psychic pain and sexual harassment and abuse for years - decades even - coz of their large breasts. They begged for breast reductions and fought with insurers and health care systems like the NHS to get them and usually were refused. They often dreamed of cutting their breasts off and said they often fantasized about taking a sword, carving knife or straight razor (the long bladed "cut throat" variety) to their breasts and getting rid of them once and for all. What's the difference between what those women went through and still go through today and "gender dysphoria"?

Go talk to some older women who are long past our childbearing years about how we feel about our breasts. You'd find that quite a few of us are just as "deeply uncomfortable with having breasts" as the "transmen" you speak of. We might actually be more uncomfortable coz being old, our breasts are big and saggy and fibrous and sometimes tender and painful. Plus, being so saggy, they flop all over the place, making it hard to get into a comfortable enough sleep position to guarantee a sold night of shut eye. Wearing bras is extremely uncomfortable for us and something we all hate. We'd happily get rid of our breasts if we could. But whereas "transmen" and women who say they are "non-binary" now can get medically-needless cosmetic surgeries to remove their breasts approved and paid for by insurance and government health plans, those of us who are mere "garden variety" women don't have that option or privilege. We're just supposed to suck it up. Coz we're not as important as women with so much internal misogyny that they deny their sex.

But really, what distinguishes the discomfort and distress over our breasts that older women like me feel from the distress and discomfort that the "gender dysphoric" feel?

Also, this is probably news to you, but before abortion was legal and the morning after pill was widely available, millions of women stuck coat hangers and knitting needles up their vaginas, through their cervixes and into their uteri to abort fetuses coz they felt "so deeply uncomfortable with having" children they could not afford to have, or they would be shamed, ostracized, disowned, kicked out of the house, fired, thrown out of school, excommunicated and forever branded as sluts for having. Women and girls went to other extreme lengths coz of "feeling so deeply uncomfortable with" being found out to be pregnant and with having children that they would be penalized in myriad ways for conceiving and bringing into the world. Many women died or nearly died as a result, and many of those who survived ended up with lifelong damage to their health too.

How is the distress of girls and women who were in such dire straits over their sexed bodies that they put their lives at risk, and often lost their lives, in these ways so utterly different from - and so much less serious than - the distress that the "gender dysphoric" feel? Why do people with "gender dysphoria" constantly portray "gender dysphoria" as unique, pretend it's the most horrible suffering a human being can feel and claim that no one else has any idea what "gender dysphoria" is like coz no else past or present has ever experienced anything like it?

GC: What do "-sexual" and "-sexuality" mean? If sex is about reproduction, why are "homosexuality" and "same sex" not contradictions in terms? by ImageNotUploaded in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for standing up for women and for greater understanding of female sexuality, SnowAss!

However, I think it's a mischaracterization to say that in women orgasm & reproduction "are two separate things." Many scientists believe that female orgasm does indeed play a role in human reproduction by increasing the likelihood that fertilization/conception will occur.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_7

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5087695/

More research needs to be done to ascertain if it there is indeed a link between female orgasm and greater sperm uptake or "insuck" that would make fertilization/conception more likely. And about other changes in the female body that orgasm might trigger that could cause a woman to be more likely to conceive.

Moreover, whilst scientists so far have only expressed curiosity about whether there's a link between female orgasm and human conception, another issue that has not been looked at but definitely should be researched is the role that orgasm plays over the course of pregnancy - and thus human reproduction overall.

I think if researchers did inquire, they'd find that female orgasms during pregnancy might well perform a number of functions that end up having beneficial physiological effects on a zygote, embryo and fetus, starting with the obvious surge in oxytocin production - just as female orgasms certainly have myriad positive effects on pregnant women. I suspect that this might be one of the reasons that female orgasms during pregnancy tend to be much more powerful than otherwise - and why so many women experience a huge rise in desire, indeed need, for orgasms during pregnancy unlike what we experience when not pregnant.

https://mom.com/momlife/271306-things-about-pregnancy-orgasms-i-didnt-know-until-i-experienced-them

https://www.glamour.com/story/masturbation-during-pregnancy-is-a-thing-i-would-know

https://www.glamour.com/story/masturbation-during-pregnancy-is-a-thing-i-would-know

Finally, I don't know what you mean when you say that in women orgasm and reproduction are tasks done by or involving

two separate organs

What is the second organ you are referring to? (I'm presuming the first is the clitoris.)

Actually, many different female organs are involved in the first event that kicks off human reproduction, conception, as well as what happens in the 39-41 weeks that women who give birth at term are typically pregnant.

Human conception occurs in the Fallopian tubes, but to get to the Fallopian tubes sperm has to travel there by way of the vagina, cervix and uterus. Once an egg is fertilized in the Fallopian tubes, the fertilized egg - or zygote - has to make its way into the uterus and become implanted in the uterine wall. Then a whole new body organ - the placenta - has to form and grow for the zygote to turn into an embryo and then to become a fetus. Many other organs outside the female reproductive tract - the kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, brain, pituitary - are involved in human reproduction too. In fact, in the many months between conception and birth, pretty much every organ in the female body plays a part in human reproduction.

Also, many separate and different organs in the male reproductive tract are involved in kicking off human reproduction too. The penis might be the locus of male orgasm, but sperm comes from the testes - and the involvement of organs such as the prostate, Cowper's gland, and the vas deferens are required in order to make the pre-ejaculate needed to neutralize the acid in the male urethra and thus clear the way for sperm, and to contribute fluids that make up the seminal fluid which capable of carrying sperm through the male urethra and out the head of the penis in orgasm.

I very much appreciate your pointing out that the conventional view of human sexuality is androcentric, but - LOL - so is equating human reproduction with fertilization. Whereas the biological contribution that males make to human reproduction is one and done at fertilization, for females that's just the start of a much longer and far more complicated set of processes.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the sport one correlates with hormone levels (as these are what determines muscle buildup) which in cases of divergence between biological sex and gender identity HRT of sufficent length and dose does restore fairness.

This is totally untrue. Males have a physical advantage over females in sports that ranges from 10-12% at the lowest in sports like running to 60% in sports that rely heavily on activities of the upper body such as throwing, batting, weight lifting to 160% in sports that are largely about punching (boxing).

Males who suppress testosterone and take cross-sex hormones for a year have been shown to lose 0-4% of their muscle mass.

Also, muscle mass is not the only factor. Males have considerably larger hearts and lungs that cause them to have much higher blood oxygen, denser bones, entirely different skeletal shapes, faster twitch fibers and so on.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1283720954657595393/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1283720954657595393

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2020/10/09/a67e3cc3-7dea-4f1e-b523-2cba1073729d/Transgender-Research_Summary-of-data_ENGLISH-09.10.2020.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the diagnosis of clinical depression is just as dependent on the patients words as the diagnosis for gender dysphoria. Does that mean that clinical depression is entirely unprovable and does not exist?

Please stop using other conditions to try to make a case for "gender dysphoria." Proponents of the idea that "gender dysphoria" is a stand-alone condition unrelated to, and not symptomatic of, other mental health issues should be able to make the case for it without constantly invoking other conditions. And it's galling when advocates of "gender dysphoria" as a condition unto itself try to substantiate it by invoking one of the very conditions many of us think that "gender dysphoria" is often an expression of, and cover for, such as anxiety and depression.

Also, your claim about depression is not entirely true. Mild forms of clinical depression might be diagnosed based solely on the patient's words, but that's not the case for major depressive disorder.

MDD usually involves dramatic changes in the person's affect, appetite, sleep patterns, sex drive and general behavior that are quite noticeable to others in their lives - family, members of their household, friends, colleagues. Often it involves physical changes like marked changes in weight, hair loss and increased susceptibility to physical illnesses due to suppressed immune function. Sometimes MDD involves mania, psychosis or catatonia - conditions which are very apparent to others.

Depression can be caused by a number of physical illnesses and conditions - thyroid dysfunction, pernicious anemia, urinary tract infections (particularly in elderly women), sinus infections, diabetes, lupus, MS, the hormonal changes that women experience after childbirth and during the menstrual cycle and so on. Depression can also be caused by various drugs and anesthesia.

People who seek help for depression are routinely given full physicals and tested for a battery of physical illnesses. They also often keep records of their daily behaviors, weight, sleep patterns, how much and what they ate and drank, all drugs taken, etc.

Also, people with depression are not trying to force the whole world to adopt an entirely new set of values in which depressed people's needs come first and being depressed is seen as the new norm; they're not demanding that laws and customs change to accommodate and prioritize depressed people; and they're not unilaterally decreeing sweeping changes in the language, forcing compelled speech on others, and insisting that everyone who hasn't suffered depression be labelled "non-depressives."

People with depression aren't always banging on about how nobody else on earth has ever suffered as much unbearable psychic pain as depressives. Nor are depressive rights lobbyists constantly citing fake suicide stats to get sympathy and to manipulate people into medicating children with drugs that will render them infertile and sexually dysfunctional. Of the large number of people who die by suicide each year - in 2018, more than 48,000 people in the US alone - the vast majority are depressed. But there is no annual "depression day of remembrance" or "suicide commemoration day" anywhere. Funny that.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I said

Just today, I had to deal with some longterm financial planning matters and inquired about putting one of my sons on my auto insurance. Actuaries will attest that sex matters when figuring out how much money you'll need in retirement, and insurance companies will tell you that adding a young male driver to the family policy will cause a considerable hike in premiums.

You said:

this is more likely conncted to gendered socialisation rather than whether the person in question has testes and ovaries. Also, insurance companies are already facing the fact that this will now go by gender identity.

You really think the fact that in nearly all human societies - particularly those where most people have a decent enough standard of living to have access to sufficient food, clean water, shelter and basic medical care - female humans have longer life expectancy than males by a number of years is down to "gendered socialization"? The fact that males are 3 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than females is all due to gendered socialization? The different diseases that men and women in mid-life and old age tend to develop, and the different trajectories the same diseases take in members of the two sexes, are all the result of gendered socialization?

Please contact the press, then. Most scientists believe the sex differences in lifespans, in the risk of losing one's life to COVID, in the different diseases males and females develop, and the different trajectories of the same disease in the two sexes, are largely due to differences in genetics and especially due to the extra immune benefits women have due to having a second X chromosome (immune function is determined by genes on X chromosomes). Yes, some socialization does factor in, particularly when we look at lifespans starting from birth - male babies are much more likely to die before age one, for example, and between 14 and 25, males have a much higher risk than females of dying due to homicide. But take two persons, one male and one female, who make it to age 65 with similar health profiles, lifestyles, habits and such, and the woman still will likely outlive the man by 5-6 years in most countries.

If you can show that all these differences are mainly due to "gendered socialization," you deserve a Nobel Prize in Medicine.

As for the different insurance rates between young females and males, you think this is all down to "gendered socialization" too? That's funny, coz those who espouse the theory that "gender identity" is paramount usually tend to place a very high value on sex hormones, arguing that most sex differences are the result of the different hormone profiles of the two sexes and that by altering sex hormones each one of us can acquire the characteristics of the opposite sex. The insurance industry places a lot of emphasis on hormones too. A commonly-held view in the insurance industry is that a large part of the reason why male drivers under age 25 are much more likely to have auto accidents and fatalities is coz of the impact of pubertal/early adult male testosterone levels on brains that are still developing. The T in teenage boys' and young men's bodies makes them more aggressive and risk-taking whilst the lack of pre-frontal brain development they have until their mid-20s makes it especially difficult for young male drivers to assess risks and anticipate the consequences of their actions. Once their brains finish developing at at age 25 or so, they become much safer drivers.

BTW, the reasons the auto insurance industry is open to evening out the insurance rates charged to males and females after age 25 are a little more complicated that trans activists seem to think. The insurance industry only appears to be appeasing trans activists.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you think people who who appear female in these situation and are transgender are not experiencing this?

Once again, in the minds of "gender identity" believers everything is reduced to how people appear. Nothing else matters except how one looks.

FFS, being female is not simply about appearance! Women inhabit our female bodies and feel things within and because of our female bodies. Being female is not a spectator sport! If everyone on earth world lost the power of sight, smell, taste and touch tomorrow, we female people would still be female and inhabit female bodies. And males would still be 100% male, even the ones who wished to be women and claimed to be trans.

As a woman, I feel I have more in common with males who know they are males than with males who claim to be female and are focused on trying to approximate appearing female coz the "regular" males are more likely to be grounded in reality as I am.

To answer your question directly: I believe males who alter their looks so they "appear female" have absolutely no effing idea what it's like to experience life in a female body as female people do. There is very little connection between what males who identify as trans and try to come off as women experience coz of their altered appearance as they go through life and what actual female people experience coz of inhabiting bona fide female bodies.

During COVID, many women who live alone, particularly older women, haven't seen anyone or been seen by anyone in a year. This has not diminished our being female one iota. Nor has it had any impact on our experience of our female sexed bodies.

I don't understand what you mean by your reference to someone who is "thought to be pregnant"? Thought to be pregnant by whom? How can a male think he is pregnant? What would it mean and matter if someone else were to think a male who "appears like" a woman might be pregnant? A male thinking he is pregnant, or someone else thinking he is pregnant, would not make him pregnant, nor make it possible for him ever to be pregnant. There is no connection between the hypothetical you have raised and the lived reality of being a pregnant woman.

Pregnancy is something that happens inside a female body. It's not affected either way by vision - whether the woman's own or anyone else's.

When I spoke of navigating the world when pregnant, I didn't mean being viewed by others as pregnant - I meant dealing with the physical realities such as having always to find a restroom coz of the constant need to pee, feeling an exhaustion in the early months that is like no other, being nauseous 24/7 for months at a time, having always to make the sensory adjustments required to maintain balance in an unwieldy body that is and feels so markedly different and is so much larger to how it's felt and been the rest of your life, having always to be hyper-aware and vigilant coz of the need to protect the fetus from harm, having a hard time fitting into a seat in a diner or behind the wheel of a car, having your water break in public... and so on.

But all this seems beyond your understanding coz you see being female as something that is all about - and only about - appearance.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your constant claim that "gender dysphoria" means feeling distress over one's physical sexed anatomy and your assumption that people without "gender dysphoria" feel no discomfort over their sexed bodies are highly offensive to me.

Many girls and women spend much of our younger lives distressed and in discomfort and excruciating pain due to gynecological problems associated with our menstrual cycles. This doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Many women experience painful chronic UTIs and and issues like Bartholin's cysts due to the anatomy of our vulvas. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Pregnant women and new mothers experience all sorts of things due to our sexed bodies that are discomfiting, distressing and painful - backache, nausea, indigestion, liver pain, stretch marks, hemmorhoids (piles), inability to get a seatbelt comfortably around us, torn and stitched-up vulvas, pelvic nerve pain. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Going through the experience of labor and childbirth is extremely uncomfortable, upsetting and scary for many/most women. You have no idea. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Breastfeeding can be very painful, and most women who breastfeed end up with at least one mastitis infection. Breastfeeding in public can be very uncomfortable and distressing for women, especially as it tends to attract a lot of stares, disapproval and perverted men who say disgusting things and make a point of situating themselves nearby so they can rub their penises whilst they watch us feed our children. This makes women who experience this want to die of mortification and revulsion. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Over the long term, many women who have given birth end up with problems like pelvic organ prolapse, pudendal neuralgia, urinary and fecal incontinence due to childbirth injuries we suffered years earlier. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Women during and after menopause suffer a variety of problems - hot flushes, insomnia, sweats, UTIs, vaginal atrophy - due to our sexed bodies. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Many girls and women feel tons of distressing shame over our sexed bodies from being sexually objectified, harassed and abused - and from being told we are gross and dirty for menstruating, and that our genitals smell and are "fishy." Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

I also take umbrage at the fact that when another poster mentioned

things assigned to female people by a patriarchal society

You responded with

Breasts, feminine facial features, lack of facial hair (usually), high levels of estrogen and a vagina were assigned to female people by a patriarchal society?

You really do see female people as just an assemblage of inanimate things made by and for men, don't you? To you we're just a bunch of body parts, not human beings.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

of course transgender people are aware of the biological sex they are, after all, the physical sexed features are the source of their gender dysphoria. If you don't feel distress about your physical sexed features (simplifying here, for more in depth criteria see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis ) you are the gender identity of your physical sex.

Professionals rely on the clinical criteria in the DSM and the ICD, not Wikipedia. The clinical criteria for childhood-onset and adolescent/adult-onset "gender dysphoria" in the DSM and ICD as well as the vast professional literature on the topic DO NOT support the claim that transgender people's "physical sexed features are the source of their gender dysphoria." At all.

On the contrary, it is very possible to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" at any age whilst having no negative feelings about one's genitals and other physical sex characteristics.

All that is required for a clinical DX of GD is a belief/claim that one should be the opposite sex (or no sex in the newer formulation), plus a desire/preference for the sex-stereotyped clothing, toys, interests and roles associated with the opposite sex, and perhaps a desire for (some or all of) the physical sex traits of the opposite sex. (Or in some newer variations of the criteria, a desire for the sex characteristics of neither sex.)

But desiring the sex characteristics of the opposite sex does not necessarily mean disliking one's own sex characteristics. Many males who are trans nowadays want to have a mix of female and male sex characteristics (feminized face, no beard, little or no body hair, female hairline and hair growth pattern, the appearance of female breasts, female body shape, penis and testicles). And some males who are trans today say their ideal genital configuration would be a penis and testicles along with a surgically-created pocket in the pelvis they could consider a vagina and could use for the purpose of being penetrated "like a woman."

The DSM-5 defines gender dysphoria in children as "a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender" and one's sex lasting at least 6 months, as manifested by at least 6 of the following 8 criteria (one of which must be the first criterion):

  • A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
  • In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
  • A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
  • A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
  • A strong preference for playmates of the other gender
  • In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities
  • A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
  • A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender

Only 1 of these 8 criteria involves disliking one's own sex anatomy and physical characteristics. As only 6 of the 8 criteria are required for a DX, having that one trait is not essential.

Same goes for adult/adolescent GD. To be DX'd with this, a person has to have "a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least 2 or more of the following":

  • A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
  • A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
  • A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
  • A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
  • A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
  • A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

Remember, only two of the above are required to get a clinical diagnosis of adult/adolescent GD. And what "the other gender" means is never explained. But when pressed about what "the other gender" means, people with "gender dysphoria" typically come up with a list of sex stereotypes - or vague mumbo jumbo that relies on circular reasoning and constant repetition of the word gender: people with gender dysphoria feel distress over their gender; people with gender dysphoria desire to be seen and treated as the other gender; gender dysphoria involves distress over their gender..."

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

Gender identity is not stereotypes or gender roles. A person could love to perform activities stereotypical for and love to wear the clothing stereotypically asociated with their birth sex, and still have a different gender identity, if the person in question experiences gender dysphoria in regards to the sexed anatomy of their birth sex.

This makes no sense. Coz the concept and diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" are entirely reliant on embrace of, indeed preoccupation with, sex stereotypes. To get a DX of "gender dysphoria," you simply have to meet some of the criteria in the above checklists. In children, nearly all the criteria are about sex stereotypes - and since kids have to meet 6 of 8 criteria, embrace of sex stereotypes and preference for the sex stereotypes associated with the opposite sex are essential.

In adults, the clinical criteria for GD are mostly about desiring to be the other "gender," believing one is the other gender, thinking one has the feelings of the other gender, wanting to be treated as the other gender. When you drill down to find out what all this vague gobbledygook actually means, the responses make it clear that gender for people with "gender dysphoria" boils down to a bunch of regressive sex stereotypes. Take away sex stereotypes, and the whole edifice collapses like a house of cards.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is attempted, is to stop going by biological sex and instead go by gender identity where biological sex shouldn't matter (e.g. outside the bedroom or medical care).

Anyone who thinks biological sex only matters in the bedroom or medical care is very naive. And probably a male person who is young, doesn't have children, has never played or coached sports, hasn't worked alongside women in jobs where physical strength matters, hasn't had any longterm intimate relationships with female persons, has no idea that safety equipment isn't designed with female bodies in mind, has never navigated the world when visibly pregnant or as the mother of a young child, and has never spoken to female people with considerable life experience about the realities of our lives.

Just today, I had to deal with some longterm financial planning matters and inquired about putting one of my sons on my auto insurance. Actuaries will attest that sex matters when figuring out how much money you'll need in retirement, and insurance companies will tell you that adding a young male driver to the family policy will cause a considerable hike in premiums.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Spelling, punctuation and grammar rules are commonly accepted norms that most people follow so that what we say and write can be most easily understood by others. For example, using capital letters at the start of sentences (and paragraphs), using punctuation marks to clearly denote when sentences have ended, and using spaces or separate lines when giving links and urls - especially long ones that are more than one line - rather than just smushing them in the middle of sentences.

Both: What do you make of this study on mothers of children with gender identity disorder? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

Sorry to hear of your experience. I don't think anyone is minimizing the difficulty and impact of growing up with a mentally ill parent - or parents. But the OP is this thread asked people to read and respond to a psych paper that attempted to draw a direct line between young boys having GID and their mothers having "symptoms of depression" and meeting the diagnostic criteria for BPD.

Pointing out that are reasons to take issue with this academic paper, its methods, its dodgy fudging of numbers, the bad writing it contains, and the theories/thinking in and behind it on numerous grounds does not mean anyone is trying to deny the fact that a lot of parents were/are mentally ill in all sorts of ways. Nor is it the same as suggesting that parental mental illness does not and can not have myriad deleterious impacts on children, and their developing sense of self, view of the world and relationships with others outside the family.

Phillip Larkin's famous poem comes to mind: "They fuck you up, your mom and dad"...And those of us who had the misfortune to have parents who were particularly fucked up are bound to have be affected - and continue to be affected - in a whole bunch of ways that often make our journey through life rough going indeed.

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"men" and "women", as understood under the transgender paradigm, are social categories, not biological ones.

But most of the world is not going to accept "the transgender paradigm" as a substitute for reality. Sex is biological, and no matter how hard you try to replace the reality of sex with newfangled social constructs, sex isn't going away. You can't erase it, override it, paper it over or make people unsee it.

Your post just illustrates how unwieldy and unconvincing '"the transgender paradigm" is. And speaking of your post, is "transgender punctuation and SPAG" a new thing too?

QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The whole inner identity is a fiction. It is loosely based on stereotypes of how biologically different people behave, but it is meaningless.

It's even worse than that, I think. In most case, "gender identity" is entirely based on sexist stereotypes of how the two sexes appear, and only to a much lesser extent on stereotypes of how they two sexes behave.

Most males who ID as the opposite sex are very selective about which behaviors associated with the female sex they emulate - they equate "acting like a woman" with being submissive, coquettish, slutty, slavish to male sexual desires, giggling, being dumb, pretty, delicate, physically weak, helpless, squeamish, useless around mechanical things like cars and power tools - and those are the only types of behaviors they try to emulate. When it come to wiping other people's asses and noses, scrubbing the toilet, washing the dishes, cleaning the house, making sure everyone is fed, doing laundry, working crap jobs, always thinking about other people's welfare, putting other people's feelings and needs first, being self-effacing, swallowing their anger, biting their tongues, not getting their own needs met, not being listened to, being excluded from various spheres, being passed over for jobs and promotions, never getting a chance to realize their ambitions and pursue their dreams, accepting unfairness and discrimination as "one's lot in life" and putting up with it without a word of complaint - not so much. Not at all, in fact.

In my observation, the vast majority of stereotyped behaviors that female people are socialized to engage in are behaviors most males who "identify as" girls and women have absolutely zero interest in adopting.

TERFs Don’t Have a Right to Be Transphobic on Twitter, Court Rules | them. by ArthnoldManacatsaman in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Deadnaming" isn't just silly, it's more appropriation that is disrespectful to the dead and makes light of the fact that we're all going to die.

Moreover, in typical TRA fashion, it gets things completely backwards: most people want our names to be remembered after we're dead, not to be treated like dirty, shameful secrets that must be erased from the historical record and can never be mentioned in conversation or in print.

One of the worst aspects of losing loved ones is the fact that once the funeral or memorial service is over, many friends, colleagues and acquaintances will go to great lengths to avoid acknowledging or "bringing up" their deaths and to avoid ever mentioning their names.

Accommodating Trans Athletes Without Rejecting the Reality of Human Biology by Rationalmind in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Male sports are already open to TIMs coz sports are segregated by sex, not gender. Moreover, in many areas of sports - such as a lot of sports like the NFL, NBA, NHL and Little League - what is commonly seen as the "male" category is actually open to anyone of either sex.

Girls and women are absent from supposedly "male" sports divisions coz the physical differences between the sexes exclude us from making the grade against male athletes - not necessarily coz we are barred. Some "male" sports in the past did explicitly exclude females, and presumably today some still do. But making rules barring females is not usually necessary, coz biology has taken us out of the running in a de facto way.

Little League Baseball has been open to girls since 1973. But in the nearly 50 years since then, only 19 girls have ever made it to the LL Baseball World Series, compared to more than 11,040 boys.

As for allowing TIFs to compete on teams and in sports that are explicitly for one sex or the other, I can see problems in both cases. If a TIF isn't on testosterone, then she should be able to compete in/against other females. But if she is taking T, I think longstanding doping rules would exclude her from all sports - and that should remain the case. Allowing one group to dope on T coz of identity claims would open the door for other groups to demand the same right.

US conservative women are out fighting for women's rights, why aren't we? by BEB in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it doe make perfect sense. And the organizing methods as well as the strategies and tactics used by the black US civil rights movement - and other successful movements - are well worth studying and "taking a a page from."

This video from Vanessa is an absolute bomb 💥 by VdeVulva in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Vanessa's videos are fantastic! This one especially. If you are here Vanessa, brava!

GC: What do "-sexual" and "-sexuality" mean? If sex is about reproduction, why are "homosexuality" and "same sex" not contradictions in terms? by ImageNotUploaded in GCdebatesQT

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

Most words have multiple meanings. When the meanings are related, as in the case of sex and sexual, it's called polysemy. When the meanings and origins of the words are unrelated, it's called homonymy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-325

Dictionary dot com knows what a woman is. by our_team_is_winning in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Glad to hear you were pleasantly surprised. I use online versions of English dictionaries - Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com - all the time, probably at least 10 times a day or more. Thankfully, all the dictionaries I've named use the tried-and-true definition of "woman." So does Wiktionary, a project of Wikipedia.

Both: Early childhood socialization and what causes people to become trans by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

But you don't mean that any female of any age who dresses that way would be calling herself an enby, do you?

The tendency to call one's self "non binary" seems to me to be something exclusive to very young people, and only some young people at that. Of all the people I know, only very few in their 30s, 40s and beyond define themselves according the sex stereotypes they prefer or reject, and hardly anyone feels a need to adopt and flaunt labels that announce to the world which set of sex stereotypes they embrace and which they eschew. This doesn't mean that these people are accepting of sex stereotypes and have never thought of them. On the contrary most people have thought about sex stereotypes growing up and at other junctures in life, and most have decided to reject some, embrace others, put up with some and ignore the bulk.

Most of the older people I know who are into gender labels and "my pronouns" are trans-identified people I've met coz of the new politics around sex and gender. Outside of those small circles, no one I know over age 30 is into gender identity labels - though most of these same people are "gender non-conforming" in myriad ways, particularly according to the the rigid stereotypes many people in their teens and 20s today believe have always been the norm. For example, in my generation (I'm 66), it's quite common for men to be into cooking and baking and various artistic endeavors. But I've had many people now in their early 20s tell me in the past couple of years that cooking and baking, painting and drawing, and playing any musical instrument other than the guitar and drums are things only female people do.