Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Chief]

so if i 'genuinely' identify as aboriginal you as a, presumably white, male have no problem with it?

You're either setting up a straw man or you aren't reading posts before you respond to them.

I didn't represent those criteria as definite. Yet you are trying to get a response as if they are.

The thing to do if you want to argue it is go and FIND the criteria and THEN talk about the specifics.

 

[checkraiseulite]

in the quote above i asked you a question, albeit a leading one.

you haven't answered it.

what the criteria actually are is irrelevant.

 

[Chief]

in the quote above i asked you a question, albeit a leading one.

you haven't answered it.

what the criteria actually are is irrelevant.

Continue on without me. I already know what point you're trying to make, and it is invalid.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[checkraiseulite]

unless you can clearly articulate why that is so, you won't be changing anyone's mind here.

why is it ok to self identify gender but not race when both are capable of objective verification?

 

[Chief]

unless you can clearly articulate why that is so, you won't be changing anyone's mind here.

why is it ok to self identify gender but not race when both are capable of objective verification?

Reductionist.

 

[checkraiseulite]

go ahead and enlighten everyone in this thread.

you might be able to convince me - i only turned my mind to this topic this evening.

 

[Chief]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Why are race and gender different?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Chief and Gough clearly stumped just like the DNC advisor in that Carlson video.

And to think Gough tried comparing scepticism of this issue to that of gravity in a post in this thread.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

The Aboriginal identity definition in Australia exists more for legal and governance reasons rather than being grounded in science and detracts from the argument.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

To quote the DNC advisor "Your gender is determined by your gender identity. Period."

Do the people who agree with that statement also believe that "Your race is determined by your racial identity. Period."?

If not why not?

I would put it to some people that have contradictory views on these two scenarios that their support of one and not the other is not really grounded in a logical or scientific basis. It is grounded in the fact that at this time other people are pushing for acceptance of one but not the other(we may end up there eventually though). People who agree with one of those quotes but not the other are an epitomization of "feels over reals".

 

[Gough]

Race has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. This is as simple as gravity, some people are transgender. If you want to make life difficult, and uncomfortable for them, or cheer on others that do then you're an arseh*le. Simple.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Race has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. This is as simple as gravity, some people are transgender. If you want to make life difficult, and uncomfortable for them, or cheer on others that do then your an arseh*le. Simple.

"Your gender is determined by your gender identity. Period."
"Your race is determined by your racial identity. Period."

Do you agree with both statements?

 

[Gough]

No, and I know you think you're being terribly clever comparing the two because you saw it on YouTube, but you're not. It's a strawman pure, and simple.

 

[checkraiseulite]

why though?

i agree with the above poster regarding the timeline of acceptance for people different to the standard.

homosexuals are widely accepted (by everyone aside from a boomer-cowing government)

acceptance of transsexuals is on the rise.

one high profile woman identifying as transracial and has been hung drawn and quartered for it, mostly by progressives trumping an individual's rights to self identify in the case of gender and sexual identity.

will it acceptance of racial fluidity grow over time?

who does identifying as a different race hurt?

 

[igon value]

Because race is not a construct, it's a hard biological fact. Or something.

 

[BEaston]

Dumber for reading the last two pages of this thread. Thank you ^

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

No, and I know you think you're being terribly clever comparing the two because you saw it on YouTube, but you're not. It's a strawman pure, and simple.

Thankyou for putting your cognitive dissonance on record for everyone to see. At least you did not resort to implying people are assholes if they disagree with you because you are losing the argument so badly in this post.

As another poster pointed out this is more of a slippery slope thing than a straw man.

Do you believe race is a social construct?

 

[deltablues]

Transgenders represent less than 1% of the population and are the latest "victim" being championed by the cultural Marxists in their quest to destroy the Greco-Roman-Christian philosophical and cultural roots of normative Western society. White, heterosexual family values are anathema to these SJW zealots.

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that "people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder."

 

[igon value]

Race has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. This is as simple as gravity, some people are transgender. If you want to make life difficult, and uncomfortable for them, or cheer on others that do then you're an arseh*le. Simple.

The only gender dysphoria is as simple as gravity is if we take the word of the DSM-V which categorises it as a mental disorder (the same as autism or schizophrenia).

If your political argument is that it exists as a mental illness that is fine, we accommodate people with mental illnesses all the time, as best we can. But this does not mean we should distort our reality to accomodate theirs. Simple.

Who is the arseh*le, the one who accepts reality as it is, or the ones who demand the state bends it to their will?

 

[igon value]

Dumber for reading the last two pages of this thread. Thank you ^

If ideas outside your mental model of the world make you feel like you are getting dumber then I would suggest you aren't very smart to begin with.

 

[igon value]

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that "people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder."

Dr McHugh is not a lone voice on this in his discipline, but is more strident than others have been prepared to say. It is always amazing on these issues how those on the side of science are ignored by the very people who claim to be on the side of science. If someone like Dr McHugh is wrong then why not climate scientists? Why not immunologists? Why not evolutionary theorists?

People pick and choose their science based on their political narrative. They make claims to objectivity but will abandon any pretence to it when convenient (and call those who don't "arseholes").

 

[Gough]

If you go out to deliberately make life unpleasant for anyone you're an arseh*le. That's what you guys are supporting here. Even if you regard transgender people as mentally ill, which I don't, why would you want to take a mental illness, mock it, and then make life more difficult for them? Would you do that for people with clinical depression, or anorexia?

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Taking a moment to compliment the lack of a downvoting system on this site. On reddit a discussion of opposing views on a sensitive matter like this would never properly eventuate because depending on the sub, whatever the unpopular view was whether right or not would be downvoted out of site.

At least there is a chance at debate here where someone cannot anonymously downvote you if they disagree. Instead they have to take the less lazy option of trying to refute or ad hominen and then be called out on it.

 

[igon value]

If you go out to deliberately make life unpleasant for anyone you're an arseh*le. That's what you guys are supporting here. Even if you regard transgender people as mentally ill, which I don't, why would you want to take a mental illness, mock it, and then make life more difficult for them? Would you do that for people with clinical depression, or anorexia?

Blablabla.

It was you who said gender dysphoria is real, like gravity, which is only real in the context of the DSM-V, which classifies it as a mental illness. Gender dysphoria did not exist until psycholgists classified it as a mental illness.

How can you say it is both real and not a mental illness when the literal definition of it is that it is mental illness?

You might as well say that you think cats are real but they aren't animals.

 

[Gough]

Homosexuality was on the DSM until the 70s too and we're still in that era when it comes to accepting trans people. As I said earlier all these arguments were thrown at gay people too, all we're doing is pointlessly revisiting history, and causing unnecessary grief to a group of people that don't deserve it.