LGBT Activist Thinks Straight Men Need To Get Used To The Idea Of Dating Trans-Women

[alexava 6,973]

Accepting gay marriage or transgenderism in society is one thing. Yes, you must accept it. I do but I still consider them freaks. ( not gays and not publicly) I treat every person with respect. the issue you are struggling with is a couple of people (trannies) think you or us as straight men should not mind dating or fornicating or indulging in freak shows with them. That is to be expected. It's not a show stopper. Fat girls think the exact same thing. We don't have to date them, explain why or complain about fat girls saying we should get over them being fat or not understanding why we are not attracted to them. 

[alexava 6,973]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This thread really deserves to die.

Then the transgender women win and we are all required to take one on a date as a matter of public record. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, alexava said:

Accepting gay marriage or transgenderism in society is one thing. Yes, you must accept it. I do but I still consider them freaks. ( not gays and not publicly) I treat every person with respect. the issue you are struggling with is a couple of people (trannies) think you or us as straight men should not mind dating or fornicating or indulging in freak shows with them. That is to be expected. It's not a show stopper. Fat girls think the exact same thing. We don't have to date them, explain why or complain about fat girls saying we should get over them being fat or not understanding why we are not attracted to them. 

Again, never said it was a "show stopper" a "world ender" or any other exaggeration of my words you wish to employ in the future.

I do however think that it is worth noting/discussing and pushing back against so that such a social view doesn't go unchallenged and gain wider acceptance.

As far as the "freak" thing, you're entitled to your thoughts on that, I'd just ask that we not use that term to describe them here.  It's one thing to disagree over pronoun usage as it goes to the very nature of the difference of opinion on gender.  But I'm not about disparaging them through name-calling.  I realize it's just a personal view and you wouldn't call them that in public debate, just mentioning it for here.

[homersapien 11,367]

16 minutes ago, alexava said:

Then the transgender women win and we are all required to take one on a date as a matter of public record. 

That perfectly illustrates why this thread should die.

[metafour 4,969]

Pedophilia is next, just wait. Since we've now concluded that apparently children as young as ~2-4 can determine what their gender is or isn't, the next step is to conclude that children can also choose who they are romantically tied to. You people don't understand the slippery-slope; all these things that seem like "nothing to worry about" at first glance are cogs in an ever-evolving agenda. Just ask yourself, how did we go from debating the validity of gay marriage to 4 year olds getting sent to "transgender camp" in the span of a ~decade? What seemed like a joke a decade ago is considered to be normal today.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, metafour said:

Pedophilia is next, just wait. Since we've now concluded that apparently children as young as ~2-4 can determine what their gender is or isn't, the next step is to conclude that children can also choose who they are romantically tied to. You people don't understand the slippery-slope; all these things that seem like "nothing to worry about" at first glance are cogs in an ever-evolving agenda. Just ask yourself, how did we go from debating the validity of gay marriage to 4 year olds getting sent to "transgender camp" in the span of a ~decade? What seemed like a joke a decade ago is considered to be normal today.

Actually, I'd say that polygamy or (more likely) polyamory is next.  I don't see pedophilia being normalized in the near future.  Not that groups like NAMBLA won't keep trying though.

[aujeff11 6,243]

57 minutes ago, metafour said:

Pedophilia is next, just wait. Since we've now concluded that apparently children as young as ~2-4 can determine what their gender is or isn't, the next step is to conclude that children can also choose who they are romantically tied to. You people don't understand the slippery-slope; all these things that seem like "nothing to worry about" at first glance are cogs in an ever-evolving agenda. Just ask yourself, how did we go from debating the validity of gay marriage to 4 year olds getting sent to "transgender camp" in the span of a ~decade? What seemed like a joke a decade ago is considered to be normal today.

If it can be proven that pedophilia is a disease like some Ultra left European countries are already trying to prove, I imagine the punishment will get lighter with a heavier emphasis in psychotic rehabilitation if it makes its way here. 

[alexava 6,973]

Phil? Is that you?

[AUDub 11,147]

35 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

If it can be proven that pedophilia is a disease like some Ultra left European countries are already trying to prove, I imagine the punishment will get lighter with a heavier emphasis in psychotic rehabilitation if it makes its way here. 

They're not wrong, and pedophilia has long since been understood to be a mental disorder.

But, it is important to draw some distinctions here. In and of itself, pedophilia is not a crime and not all pedophiles molest children. On the other side of that coin, not all people that molest children are pedophiles.

Think of it like stealing and kleptomania. Theft did not suddenly become acceptable because there are people out there that steal s*** compulsively, neither did murder just because sociopaths are a thing.

[aujeff11 6,243]

47 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

On the other side of that coin, not all people that molest children are pedophiles.

Either way, one is no better than the other if both actively sexually abuses children. 

I agree though, all pedophiles don't sexually assault kids. It can be suppressed.

47 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Theft did not suddenly become acceptable

No it didn't. That's because it's after a guilty act. I'm not saying that touching kids will eventually become acceptable either. 

[AUDub 11,147]

39 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Either way, one is no better than the other if both actively sexually abuses children. 

I agree though, all pedophiles don't sexually assault kids. It can be suppressed.

Don't disagree.

Quote

No it didn't. That's because it's after a guilty act. I'm not saying that touching kids will eventually become acceptable either. 

It's a frequent canard here.

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

You can cut off or add on any body part you like, but your DNA will never change. When they can accomplish that, then you'll have true transgenderism. Until that time, you're what God (or nature, depending on your thought process) made you, regardless of what you tell yourself. I'll happily take the flaming on this one.

[homersapien 11,367]

34 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

You can cut off or add on any body part you like, but your DNA will never change. When they can accomplish that, then you'll have true transgenderism. Until that time, you're what God (or nature, depending on your thought process) made you, regardless of what you tell yourself. I'll happily take the flaming on this one.

Ah, if only it was so simple.  It's not.

For starters, look up 'intersex'.

And science teaches us that sexual identity is a lot more complex than simple genetics.  

Look up 'epigenetics'.

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

So you're saying that certain chromosomes or genetic markers may turn on or off and change someones gender? Make their genitalia change, or just their brain? Like I said, outside of genetic manipulation

As far as intersex, that is a different discussion altogether. There have always been, relatively speaking, a small group that are born Intersex, or hermaphroditic. I am referring to those individuals who have a specific gender at birth, with a specific DNA string, and decide later in life that they are something else. Some Psychiatrists have gone so far as to call it a mental disorder.

[homersapien 11,367]

52 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

So you're saying that certain chromosomes or genetic markers may turn on or off and change someones gender? Make their genitalia change, or just their brain? Like I said, outside of genetic manipulation

As far as intersex, that is a different discussion altogether. There have always been, relatively speaking, a small group that are born Intersex, or hermaphroditic. I am referring to those individuals who have a specific gender at birth, with a specific DNA string, and decide later in life that they are something else. Some Psychiatrists have gone so far as to call it a mental disorder.

That was fast.  Didn't get to epigenics, huh. 

So is intersexuality a pathological condition?

And transexuals make up a small group. Typically, such conditions are not termed pathological unless they are hurting the patient or others.

Ever heard of the DSM?

 

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That was fast.  Didn't get to epigenics, huh. 

Ever heard of the DSM?

Epigenics:  What do you think my first sentence was referring to?

DSM-IV, DSM-5 which edition? Psychiatry has been changing what is and isn't considered a mental disorder seemingly at will, lately

[homersapien 11,367]

17 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

Epigenics:  What do you think my first sentence was referring to?

DSM-IV, DSM-5 which edition? Psychiatry has been changing what is and isn't considered a mental disorder seemingly at will, lately

5 obviously, since it's the latest

Funny thing about science, it tends to change with more research and experience.

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

Just think how much it will change in the next couple of years.

[AUDub 11,147]

4 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

Epigenics:  What do you think my first sentence was referring to?

To break epigenetics down for you, if genetics are like computer code, epi-marks are like the programs that read the code and determine when, how and if the various parts of it are implemented.

Sex specific epi-marks are temporary switches, and normally they don't get passed on from parent to child. Normally they're produced early in gestation. These epi-marks normally regulate how the developing fetus responds to hormones coming from the mother's blood. So even if testosterone or estrogen levels in the mother's blood are unusually high, a female fetus normally won't be masculinized and a male fetus won't be feminized. The epi-marks tell their genes to ignore the unusual hormone levels.

Sometimes, epi-marks are passed on from parent to child. If some of these epi-marks are passsed from father to their female child, that XX fetus is getting male epi-marks for part of their development. Ditto for epi-marks passed from mother to male child; the XY fetus gets female epi-marks regulating part of their development.

There are different types of epi-marks that regulate the development of different sex-specific traits; physical traits, neural development, and sexual partner preference. So the idea is that variation in sexual orientation comes from partial or complete masculinization/feminization of the bits of the brain that determine sexual partner orientation.

And if that's true, it seems like something similar may be going on with variation in gender identity. When those bits of the brain are developing, a child who inherited the relevant epi-marks from their opposite-sex parent could have partial or complete masculinization/feminization of their gender-specific neural anatomy.

4 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

DSM-IV, DSM-5 which edition?

DSM 5 is the current edition.

4 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

Psychiatry has been changing what is and isn't considered a mental disorder seemingly at will, lately

No. It hasn't. That's a very ignorant statement. They do not add or remove things on a whim.

Mental disorders tend to refer to conditions in which the individual is dysfunctional (i.e. unable to function in society or otherwise impaired by their condition). Transgenderism does not fit the bill. Even assuming that we consider being transgender a mental or behavioral pattern, it doesn't cause suffering or a poor ability to function in everyday life.

Being transgender and being disallowed from living a gendered experience consistent with one's own internal understanding of oneself can cause both suffering and a reduced ability to function in ordinary life (this feeling of discomfort is known as gender dysphoria and remains in the DSM).

Being transgender when allowed to live a gendered experience consistent with one's own internal understanding of oneself causes neither suffering nor a reduced ability to function in ordinary life.

[homersapien 11,367]

29 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

Epigenics:  What do you think my first sentence was referring to?

DSM-IV, DSM-5 which edition? Psychiatry has been changing what is and isn't considered a mental disorder seemingly at will, lately

The cause of intersexuality is not epigenetics.  

Epigentics is concerned with gene expression.  Intersex typically involves "combinations of chromosomal genotypes and sexual phenotype other than XX or XY."

That's not epigenetics.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

Just think how much it will change in the next couple of years.

More like decades.  

https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/history-of-the-dsm

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

I'm not advocating anyone restricting how they live their life. Just don't foist it on me.

[homersapien 11,367]

9 minutes ago, FormerlySec38Row34 said:

I'm not advocating anyone restricting how they live their life. Just don't foist it on me.

Well at least you have your AR-15 if they try.  

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

Bwahaahaa

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

Peace out!!!