For those wondering why sex can’t be changed
Watching these two will help you!
https://youtu.be/XN2-YEgUMg0
https://youtu.be/g7mMgykM5Us
This too! https://youtu.be/BCstmBw-2oU
share
MovieChat Forums > Elliot Page Discussion > For those wondering why sex can’t be cha...
we are the SUPIDEST society in history to make up some nonsense as widespread BELIEF one can be anything they WISH to be. we're just F'ing dumb for support mental issues as "normal"
sharePersonally, I don't think one can literally change their gender, it's just not possible. There are no surgical techniques that are advanced enough to give someone the sexual anatomy of their choice. At least, not yet... who knows what we might have 50 years from now. But if someone wants to give a try, go ahead, as long as I'm not the one paying for it, whatever you need to do is fine by me...
However, figuratively maybe one can change their gender... I mean, I've seen some trans people that look very passable. You really can't tell at all with some of them. There's plenty of them out there that don't just look like cross-dressers.
I suppose if you look like act like one, look like one, talk like one, maybe even have sex like one, you're basically female, or male if you go the other way.
Did you see the videos? It doesn't matter how much it looks like opposite sex. You produce either egg cells or sperm cells or neither. You either have the reproductive system to support the production of either ova or sperm. If someone erases all of that with surgery, it doesn't make them the opposite sex. It makes them an infertile eunuch of their own sex. You can't control your own conception and God forbid we ever attempt to do that. Technophiles will not thrive in the future. Disappointment awaits.
shareI know, technically speaking, no one can actually change their gender. But if people want to do it, whatever. Like I said, as long as I'm not the one paying for it, then it has no effect on my life.
shareBut you WILL be paying for this kind of surgery if Democrats have their way. Their media propaganda arms falsely portrayed Trump as having "banned" transgenders from serving in the military. This is false. Transgenders were free to join any of the armed services during his entire presidency. The issue had to do with medical benefits. What Trump did was forbid the military from paying for sexual reassignment surgery and subsequent drug therapies. With Biden removing this restriction, your tax dollars funneled to the military will be paying for gender reassignment medical procedures.
shareHopefully it won't come to this otherwise, we'll have another Trump in office in 4 years. lol
I do think the democrats are being jackaasess about this whole trans stuff. They always act like they "embrace the science" except when it comes to things like gender. It's corny shit but it's not like we have much of a choice, Republicans are no angels either. We probably need about 4 political parties that all have a legitimate chance of winning. But then again, the founders did warn us about "parties" to begin with and how it could tear the nation apart.
Here's a pretty good article about it -
https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion
It does get very frustrating having so many parties to vote for!
(U.K. here)
What about intersex people?
shareWatch the videos on that channel
shareNo thanks.
I was referring specifically to your statement of ‘You produce either egg cells or sperm cells or neither. You either have the reproductive system to support the production of either ova or sperm.’
I don’t think that’s a completely valid thing to say to generalise with binary gender/sex/reproduction etc because of intersex people.
Even intersex conditions are more one or the other. It’s explained in the videos to the channel I linked.
shareHave you watched any other documentaries etc about intersex or just those videos?
I’m not watching them because I don’t click on links I don’t know/can’t recognise, not that I’m adverse to watching them.
It doesn’t say YouTube for example, but Youtu.be.
I’ve watched many documentaries and read lots about this subject, as it’s of both biological and social interest. I don’t think that intersex people are more one or the other; that might be the case in some intersex people but not all of them.
That’s what a youtube link looks like on the phone. You need to watch the videos. Then you can make a worthy response.
share
It’s still a fact that there is the possibility for intersex people to produce gametes (whether they are fertile or not) of the sex which they are not assigned at birth or have the phenotype of, as well as having the sexual organs of both sexes in the one body (although they will not both be complete and are usually abnormal in some way).
Some intersex people, if they produce neither sperm or ova and yet have (both) those gonads, how can they be classed within the strict binary categories?! I know intersex people contribute to an extremely small percentage of the population so it’s still very complex to decide on which sex they are to be and live as.
I know there are evolutionarily human males XY and human females XX......then what about people with XXY chromosomes?
It’s all very interesting, but I can’t be bothered to try and converse with someone who thinks what I have to say is not worthy.
Thanks for clarifying the link though for me, I’ve concurred with what you’ve told me about the YouTube links.
Only one intersex condition has that. Androgen insensitivity. It’s an anomaly. Can’t base reproductive standards on under 0.01 percent of the population.
shareSo, Elliot's gender is still male.
shareShe makes ova. Her gonads are ovaries.
share[deleted]
I'm not talking about sex though, I'm talking about gender.
sharemasculine feminine are gender stereotypes. woman and man are sexes. sorry
shareSorry for your ignorance? Sure. I accept.
it’s syens. Woman and man are sexes, not gender roles. Feminine, masculine are gender roles. truth hurts, love
shareWhat is syens?
Woman and man aren't sexes. That would be male and female. Gender is the characteristics which differentiate between them. I'm glad you watched both those videos, and really understood that someone can be a gender which is different than their biological sex.
no. there are no male women or female men.
there are sex differences and gender roles. woman and man have sex differences. masculine and feminine are gender roles.
Woman and man aren't sexes
Are you saying there are no differences between men and woman if man and woman doesn't define sex? share
I was actually just saying that I think the term is male and female, not man and woman. There are also 6 biological sexes.
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner's )
XX – Most common form of female.
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male.
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people.
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
I don’t think we will ever truly get anywhere sslssg in helping to try make the world less judgmental, unaccepting and blinkered 🤔🤦🏼♀️
I really don’t ever understand why people get so hot headed and hateful on LGBTQ+ issues.
No one is hateful.
We don't hate LGBTQ people, we just don't accept their fantasies. That's not hate.
It's more like THEY hate us for not accepting their fantasies ...
‘no one is hateful’ - there are plenty of hateful people on this board and site and elsewhere.
I’m not sure who ‘we’ are that you’re referring to, because I wasn’t directing my comment at anyone here personally and you can’t speak for everyone in the world.
However, you do say LGBTQ people have ‘fantasies’, which in itself shows that you personally are using derisive and negative language; this does not foster goodwill, and so must therefore be conceived as a hateful view. At the very least it shows an intolerance (with ‘acceptance’ being a tolerant view), as well as prejudice.
Something like the Allport’s Scale is a very interesting concept.
I am not aware of hate crimes by LGBTQ people along the same lines or with the same levels of destruction as they receive from the rest of the population.
Devil’s Advocate:
Why can’t people just let other people be?
Why does it matter if a female (by birth, sex, gender, identity, lifestyle etc) comes to the realisation that they are happier becoming (as far as medical and cosmetic science can be used if that’s what they want), identifying and living as a male?
Why are people so threatened by LGBTQ people?
What actual harm are they doing to you?
"this does not foster goodwill, and so must therefore be conceived as a hateful view. " are you even serious???
"At the very least it shows an intolerance (with ‘acceptance’ being a tolerant view), as well as prejudice."
Where is the acceptance of my views??? Why is that my views (based on biology and facts) are not accepted and are considered "hateful"? Isn't that intolerance and ... hateful toward my views???
"Why can’t people just let other people be?"
EXACTLY THIS: why should I be forced to use some fantasy pronouns. Just LET ME BE. And THAT is the problem. In the end she can pretend to be whatever she wants to pretend to be. I don't care. But I care when we are forced to adhere to that fantasy.
So, let other people be :P
"Why does it matter if a female (by birth, sex, gender, identity, lifestyle etc) comes to the realisation that they are happier becoming (as far as medical and cosmetic science can be used if that’s what they want), identifying and living as a male?
Why are people so threatened by LGBTQ people?
What actual harm are they doing to you?"
Again, as long as I'm not forced or compelled to call her a he I have no problems. As long as I'm not forced to accept that she is a he I have no problem.
You feel better if you call yourself something else than what you are? Ok, good for you. But don't ask me to call you that. And that's the problem.
Capisci?
SO THEY CAN CALL YOU LIL MISS IF THEY LIKE?...LET THEM BE THEM.
shareYour views are your views, everyone can have their opinions - but it does reek of intolerance and prejudice when people ‘attack’ those such an Elliot Page for just being themselves.
What harm is being done?
I think that people at either end of the spectrum just have to agree to disagree.....and not be hateful or ignorant.
‘Again, as long as I'm not forced or compelled to call her a he I have no problems. As long as I'm not forced to accept that she is a he I have no problem.
You feel better if you call yourself something else than what you are? Ok, good for you. But don't ask me to call you that. And that's the problem.’
I just don’t understand this logic.
Surely this lack of courtesy is being straight up rude to that person.
Are you like this in real life?
Do you know any trans people?
WOULD you know any?
It’s an easy thing to do to address someone as they request;
Would you continue to call your grandmother ‘Gaga’ even if you knew she didn’t like it?
Would you refuse to call your sister’s child by the name chosen for them because you didn’t like that name?
It doesn’t matter about how the people got their name, where they come from, the sex they were born as, how they identify, how they live, what they wear or who they love.
Elliot is in the media and thus this big change in their life is in the media. That’s why it’s in your face. If Elliot suddenly turned up on set one day when previously they were Ellen and hadn’t told anyone, how would the crew etc. know how to react/what to refer to them as?
To me, the trans person is being helpful by requesting the pronouns they now need and the other people are being good human beings by making them feel included and comfortable by using them.
She should be a good human and don't ask for others to ditch their views and principles. How did you say? Let them be?
It goes both ways. To ask me to call a woman "he" is rude and disrespectful to me. Period.
If he wants to be included the only thing she has to do is to not bully others to accept her fantasy. It's as easy as that.
‘She should be a good human and don't ask for others to ditch their views and principles’
So, if you had Jewish or Muslim friends over for dinner, because you don’t share their views and principles you’d feed them pork right, because otherwise you’d be being bullied by them?? By them not eating pork and bullying you into giving them something else to eat, they’re being rude and disrespectful to you?? Their lifestyle is a fantasy for you that you cannot accept??
My eyes have continued to be opened to the lengths some people will go to to disregard compassion for others as well as show their fear and anger at anyone who is different from them or the ‘norm’.
It truly is amazing.
those are different situations. It's not against my principles to eat halal.
if your friends would be cannibals would you sacrifice a member of the family to cook them dinner?
What principles of yours are transgenders so rudely and disrespectfully against?
Compassion, understanding, comfort, better mental health, gender expression, self identity, clothing choices, lifestyle choices, personal nomenclature, social freedom, diversity etc, etc?
I don’t consider your cannibal question valid mainly because that’s definitely not going to happen, whereas kosher and halal are possible and practical in reality. It’s improbable that your scenario would occur.
That’s like asking a vegan ‘if you’re stuck on a desert island you’d have to kill animals to live etc’. which is similarly pointless.
Don’t you think if we were all the same the world would be as lame and boring AF?
the principle of truth.
ok, so your dinner situations is exactly like this:
you invite your muslims friends for diner, you cook pork and then you insist that you feel and believe that it's lamb and halal and based on your feelings they should have no problems eating it, they should accept that it's lamb because you say so. and if they are not eating your "lamb" they are hateful bigots without compassion.
would you even do that to your friends?
Who's the rude one? You cooking pork and insisting that it's lamb and that they must agree with you that is lamb and eat? Or them for not wanting to eat a lie?
If it’s the principle of truth that’s the crux of it then, are you saying that transgenders are lying.....and so that’s what you find wrong and so offensive?
Why would I believe lamb was halal pork?!
That makes no sense!
I wouldn’t believe that myself lol and also if it was done as a premeditated lie that would be ridiculous and cruel.
My Muslim friends wouldn’t be hateful bigots without compassion for me, they’d be telling me I’m having a mental crisis for believing lamb (a sheep) was pork (a pig)! And knowing me, it just wouldn’t happen like that.
I don’t see how this relates to a transgender person; they aren’t doing it to trick anyone.
exactly, so why would i believe a man is a woman and force others to believe it as well?
maybe you didn't find lamb and decided it's ok to cook pork and call it lamb, since the truth doesn't matter to you. if you can argue that a woman is a man and force others to accept it then why not argue that the pork is lamb and force others to accept it. it's either a truth or a lie, easy.
the transgender person it's tricking himself and it's tricking others.
Are you worried about being tricked by a transgender?
shareLMAO like that could ever happen!
shareReally?
shareAre you by any chance trans?
shareWhy do you ask? What’s that got to do with anything?
shareI'll just take that answer as a yes unless you correct me then.
shareThat’s an interesting thing, what an assumption. You do what you like! I don’t have to tell anyone anything about myself or private life.
shareyeah, are u a transgender?
and yes, that would be a problem. someone saying "I'm a woman", hiding that is a trans (so no kids) can be a problem for someone that is looking for a long relationship and family.
and that's only one of the problems.
Why do you ask? What’s that got to do with anything?
Of course, someone lying in that way is not right; but that would be down to that person and nothing to do with them being trans.
Anyone can lie to a partner with regards to their fertility and ability to conceive and bear children, if that’s in their mind to do that.
Definitely not the right partner for someone wanting something they aren’t, or cannot give them.
I was actually just saying that I think the term is male and female
Exactly, you think. I think it is man and woman but my opinion is derided and called hateful and bigoted, strange that isn't it.
You can list as many stats as you want but 99% of the entire worlds population is man and woman, male and female, xx/xy. In the tiny percentage of people and lets be honest it is astronomically tiny there are anomalies as you have stated above. No one is disputing this. No one is disputing they do not exist. People are disputing the fact of the words and definitions being changed to accomadate the 1% by alienating the 99%.
Men and woman are the sexes, they always have been, they always will be until the end of time. You can name them whatever you want to justify your agenda but that doesn't take away from biology. Tell my wife she isn't a woman and you will get a slap from her.
If we were meant to be anything else other than 2 sexes then the human race would have died out centuries ago including the animal kingdom which folows the same simple biological rules. There are men and woman for one sole purpose and that is to procrate the species further. Everything else is an anomaly. There is nothing worng with an anomaly but please don't make it out to be the norm. The same goes for LGBT, nothing wrong with being gay and I find it aberrant that people are discriminated against for being gay but again they are the anomaly, straight is the norm as again if we were meant to be gay the human race would have died out.
In short as I have waffled on a bit. You can call things whatever you want. You can call yourself whatever you want. You can identify anyway you wish but that will never take away the fact that the only sexes that are meant to be are men and woman apart as stated the small percentage anomoly.
This will get me called bigoted and hateful but crack on. share
It was actually a statement about grammar.
you conflate gender with gender roles.
Gender is a synonym for sex.
It used to be. trans activists and leftists have take it to mean gender identity witch is basically the same as gender roles or stereotypes
shareGender is often confused with sex. They are two different things.
sharenope, by the definition is not. it's just that you woketards love to redefine words.
by definition it was invented as a grammar term to substitute sex.
So you had to go and throw insults around? Nice! Real class act you are.
Considering that the switch of gender being a construct and not something between someone's legs started in the 1950's, you should take it up with them.
More like 1970's. That doesn't change the argument: woketards that love to change the definitions after hundreds of years of using the word in a certain way.
Btw, if gender is purely a social construct and unrelated to sex ... why are the transwomen going through hormone therapy, sex change, etc, the whole deal?
And if it's not binary and a social construct why does a man that pretends to be a woman even pretends to be a woman and why is he even asking to be called a she? What's the point? Why even use the term gender if it's nothing but a social construct and so pretty irrelevant ...
Is "woman" the gender or the sex?
Yeah, language evolves. There are plenty of words that no longer mean what they used to mean. Egregious used to mean good. At one point girl meant child of either sex.
Science evolves as well. We have learned so much about nature, and human nature the longer we study it.
How dare we evolve!
Not every change is evolution. Sometimes it's involution.
Yeah, "science", like progressive "social science" :D
Now you have a problem with social sciences???
I'm out
Just because you add the word "science" to the end of something doesn't make it in any way scientific.
shareNo, but social sciences are referred to as sciences because of the method in which humans and human behaviour is studied using scientific methods. I most certainly consider psychology, anthropology, and sociology, just as scientific as biology.
shareSocial "sciences" are massively based on faith and not science, with many studies unable to be repeated or some not even attempted again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Like I said, adding "science" to the end of something doesn't make it real science.
The social sciences are Anthropology, Archaeology, Economics, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Politics, Psychology and Sociology.
shareSocial "sciences" are massively based on faith and not science, with many studies unable to be repeated or some not even attempted again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Like I said, adding "science" to the end of something doesn't make it real science.
Copy and pasting great way to add something to the conversation.
Wikipedia also isn't a great source. Science wouldn't use it.
"Copy and pasting great way to add something to the conversation."
As opposed to just listing the names of social sciences?
"Wikipedia also isn't a great source. Science wouldn't use it."
https://eprints.keele.ac.uk/877/1/Open%20Science%20(Science%20Pre-Print).pdf
https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https://osf.io/jq7v6/?action=download%26mode=render
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612460688
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/91063/2/41562_2018_399_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918810225
Are these sources more credible?
They are, even if you did get them from the wiki article, which I don't know if you did or not as I didn't go through the references.
I get your point, but as we progress as have better methods the more we know. Just because you don't consider these as hard science like chemistry or physics for example, it doesn't mean that there is no point of benefit to these sciences.
Knowing that there are serious replicability problems in some of the fields means that they work harder to fix those issues.
lol ofc they are the sources from the wiki article, the fact you accepted them as credible when removed from wiki without even checking yourself ties nicely back to replication and faith I think. You lack faith in wiki but you have faith in studies and journals - yet you didn't do the required legwork to verify for yourself that they were indeed the same sources. I find it interesting.
Also it's not only me who doesn't consider the social sciences to have the same merit as hard science, but I never said there was zero benefit from them just to be clear. It does seems there need to be higher standards in many of these fields though. I would hope that awareness of the issue means harder work to fix the flaws but no guarantees.
Personally I have no real issue with wikipedia, but you were the one talking about science, and telling me which sciences you will accept and then you share an article from wikipedia, which is not considered an acceptable source in academia.
You say that you don't think that they don't have merit, yet you are here arguing that they are wrong when it comes to transgender individuals.
Why are wiki articles not an acceptable source in academia while the sources cited in it are? Maybe that question is relevant to the replication crisis.
Please tell me more about what I will accept and what I am arguing, I'm all ears.
Anyone can change a wikipedia page at anytime. The accuracy of Wikipedia is only 80%. That's why they aren't accepted.
shareI apologise for implying what you are all arguing. You jumped into the conversation I was having with asom, and I confused some of their views with yours. You have only mentioned science and replication crisis, so I do not know your views on trans individuals. Again, I'm sorry.
shareDo you even know the definition and uses of the term ‘science’?
You know it doesn’t just refer to biology or physics for example, right?
How can you say Archaeology for example is based on ‘faith’, whatever you mean by that?
You also know by repeating the same reply, doesn’t make it any better; sure, we can clearly see your view, but we really don’t need it more than once.
*sighs*
shareGuess you don’t then.
Oh, no matter.
Well done for continuing to copy me though, very adult - I mean, what’s that all about?! Is that suppose to mean something?
I guess we can’t have any more conversing, if that’s all you can do.
Have you run out of things to say, even insults and retorts?
It’s fine, either way. It doesn’t seem we are getting anywhere trying to understand each other anyway.
I think they’re identifying as non-binary so neither male or female.
shareCalling her a "they" is not only stupid but it's confusing. It sounds like more than one person.
shareIt is a strange one isn’t it and yes, seeing it in print does take a second in one’s brain to process that it’s not referring to multiple people. I guess because it’s so unusual and so different to what everyone’s used to.
If someone doesn’t identify as a ‘she’ or a ‘he’, what would you suggest rather than ‘they’?
it is called transGENDER for a reason, nobody is saying they change sex. Your second video validates Elliot's transition.
shareit was (and still is) called transex as well.
For a good reason: gender = sex.
Sex and gender are terms that are often used interchangeably but are really two different concepts, even though for many people their sex and gender are the same.
Sex is related to biology - usually a binary identity assigned at birth based on the person’s chromosomes etc
Gender is a social construct - more of an identity label, a cultural label/expectation/role etc.
Wrong, gender is a grammar construct.
Only in the last decades is used as a "social construct" but it's not.
You know what are social constructs and so volatile? Sex/gender roles.
I'm so glad people like you are putting people like Oratia in their place.
I'm so sick and tired of Leftists destroying our vernacular to recreate and redefine words to fit their perverse agenda.
😂😂
How amusing you are with your disgust.
I'm so sick of being called a leftist as an insult anytime I show compassion towards another human being. There is nothing perverse about trying to understand another individual. If you are so upset about it, ask yourself why. Why does someone coming out and saying that they don't feel comfortable in the box which society has deemed they should be in make you so angry and bitter? Why do you even care? How does Elliot identifying as a male affect your life? Finally, ask yourself why you feel that you need to put others in their place?
shareIt’s bizarre and quite sad isn’t it?
I had to look SJW up when it was thrown at me.
I'm so sick of being called a leftist as an insult anytime I show compassion towards another human being.
No sane person insults another person for showing compassion towards another human being.
There is nothing perverse about trying to understand another individual.
No one said it was, ace.
You're projecting.
If you are so upset about it, ask yourself why.
No one is upset about you showing compassion, and that's not even the issue here.
Why does someone coming out and saying that they don't feel comfortable in the box which society has deemed they should be in make you so angry and bitter?
Ah, okay now we're finally starting to get closer to the actual subject at hand, but this here is a non-sequitur. No one is angry about someone saying they don't feel comfortable, and society did not put anyone in a box... a little something-something called biological natural selection did.
The real issue here is: why are people like you so intent on defying physiology in order to spit in the face of natural science?
Finally, ask yourself why you feel that you need to put others in their place?
Because people like those being put in their place don't KNOW their place, and are stepping outside their bounds to support Executive Orders like the one Biden signed that DOES affect our lives, the lives of people we know, and people we care about.
Just because YOU want to ruin society for the rest of us with anti-science laws/mandates, doesn't mean the rest of us need to stand around and support it.
Whatever Ellen wants to do to her body is her choice, but using media platforms to push an agenda to normalize anti-science and pervasively keep forcing people to accept said anti-science is NOT okay.
share
Elliot isn't American and neither am I. I don't give a shit with Biden does.
Who is ruining society? Who is pushing an agenda? How is saying " I'm trans" ruin anything for anyone else?
Just because you don't agree with something it doesn't mean it's "anti-science" What does that even mean? Science is constantly changing and moving forward. It's trying to understand the world around us. There is nothing that is anti science about it.
Elliot isn't American and neither am I. I don't give a shit with Biden does.
Elliot and other useful idiots (read: anyone who aligns with the Left) are being used as pawns in a propaganda scheme to completely disorient cultural norms. You should care because where America goes, Canada follows.
Biden has essentially ruined ALL progress for women athletes, as well as privacy in public bathrooms. Then again, you might be one of the creepers who enjoy putting on a wig and going into the ladies room claiming you have a right to do so because you're really a woman trapped in a man's body.
The fact that women can now be taken advantage of in these situations without much recourse speaks volumes to the diabolical nature of Leftists.
Who is ruining society? Who is pushing an agenda? How is saying " I'm trans" ruin anything for anyone else?
The Left is pushing the agenda, and if you paid attention to my last post -- and the previous paragraph -- they've already turned this agenda into law, and they have no means of stopping there.
Just because you don't agree with something it doesn't mean it's "anti-science" What does that even mean?
Facts don't care about your opinion. No matter how hard you try, men can never give birth and women can never inseminate. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply being daft and pushing an anti-science agenda that's not grounded in reality, biology, or the natural progress of evolution. share
Well, I'm a woman, and personally I have no issues sharing a washroom with any trans person. There have been no cases of any trans person attacking women in a washroom. Trans or not, if a man is going to put on a wig and attack a woman in the washroom, chances are they are going to be a straight male. I can also say, that straight males don't have to put on wigs and a dress to accost women in a washroom.
Further to your comment about men not giving birth, there are a lot of women who cannot either. Does that make them not women? What about the men who cannot inseminate? They aren't men either?
Not all trans individuals transition because for them it's about gender, not sex. I will throw back at you that facts don't care about your opinion either.
The thing is, these "laws" allow men (trans or straight or whatever) to enter women's restrooms. They may have bad intent and the women (and children) in there don't know. I think it's more reasonable for a trans man to use the correct gender restroom and maybe be a little uncomfortable than having ALL the women and children in the women's restroom feel not just uncomfortable but scared, too.
shareLook, this argument implies that if a man wanted to harm women in a washroom, they would have to dress as a woman to do so. There haven't been any reported incidences that I can find of that happening. What I can find is trans women being attacked for using either washroom. A trans woman isn't safe in the men's room, and they aren't safe using the women's because it seems that men feel that it is their duty to make sure they don't.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/us/man-guilty-hate-crime-beat-trans-woman-restroom-trnd/index.html
I've also seen videos of men following in taller, a little more masculine women into the woman's washroom, making sure they are female.
Also, women get raped in washrooms, but not by trans women
https://nypost.com/2015/04/14/woman-attacked-raped-in-bathroom-of-gramercy-bar/
https://wreg.com/news/man-kicks-in-door-rapes-woman-in-store-bathroom/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/woman-raped-in-heathrow-toilet-1.116449
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/16/fbpd-woman-reports-being-raped-in-fort-bragg-trail-bathroom/
So, who is the threat?
Most women's washrooms, especially newer ones, have stall walls from floor to ceiling. I know that's not all, but a lot of them do. But, even if they don't, no one should be watching what someone else does anyways, so there should be nothing for women and children to see and be scared of other than someone washing their hands and fixing their make-up.
Trans men should use they men's washroom, and use a stall. I don't mind if a trans man were to use the woman's washroom as I know they would could feel safer from men, but if they identify as men they should be able to use the men's room.
Although harm is definitely possible, it's not the only thing. A LOT of women don't want men in their restrooms. I have daughters and they're both completely creeped out about it. There are a lot more women than trans people using the women's restroom so it's only logical that their wishes should be honored.
shareSo, a transman, like Elliot, should use the men's washroom, and a transwoman should use the women's washroom.
shareNo. the other way around. Simple, if you have a penis, use the men's. If you have a vagina, use the women's. The best solution would be three restrooms: Women's, men's and unisex.
shareAnd do you honestly think that a transwoman is safe in a men's room or a transman is safe in a woman's?? Seriously? If a transman presents as a man other than what is in their pants, then they should be using the men's room.
I guess men check each other out in the men's room or something?? I can tell you that women don't pay attention to what is going on in another stall, so it really shouldn't be an issue.
I think that any single room washroom should be unisex period. I have no problem with 3 washrooms either. A bar I used to go to in the 90s had 3 and I always felt safest in the 3rd. I am also fine with new washrooms being built that have full floor to ceiling walls around the toilet and open sinks and those being unisex as well.
Trans people (at least the couple who I have had the pleasure of knowing) don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, but they should have a right to use a toilet just like everyone else. They should be able to use a washroom and be safe, and not have to worry about someone else wanting to see what's in their pants just like everyone else.
In an unisex bathroom, with multiple occupancy, what’s to stop trans people attacking women in there, because everyone has the right to use that toilet altogether?
If you’re an intersex person, where should you go if there are just male and female toilets?
If you know it's a unisex restroom, you're okay with going in with multiple genders and people who are not, can go into their particular gender's restrooms. Everyone's happy.
shareSo should he use the women's washroom? Or would it make everyone more comfortable if he use the men's?
https://moviechat.org/nm4476887
What about Lavern Cox? She should use the men's room?
I dunno. I have no answer regarding people who completely alter themselves. I guess it comes down to the comfort factor. A woman with a beard, going into the women's restroom would definitely make people uncomfortable. BTW, these people are a minute percentage of the population.
sharethese people are a minute percentage of the population.
Exactly, so why have so many people made such a big deal about it?
Because laws and policy are either being changed or sought to be changed to accommodate the few, at the expense of the many.
shareHow is it the expense of anyone???? That's what I don't understand. What is the expense?
shareSo you don't understand that there is a HUGE number of people who don't want men in women's restrooms or women in men's restrooms?
shareYou realize that there are still a large swath of people who don't want coloured people in their washrooms as well right? How is it different?
No one, and I mean no one, should know what is in anyone else's pants in a washroom. Women have stalls, not urinals, so again, no one should know.
Can you site your source about the "coloured people"? I don't know a single person like that and NEVER hear any mention if it... ever.
shareI don't have an actual source on that, but I just have to look at the number of people who call the police because their are black people in their neighbourhoods to have an idea that those people most likely aren't comfortable share close spaces like a washroom with those same people.
I mean can you source the large number of people who are uncomfortable with trans people in their washrooms. Not men, but trans individuals?
That's just it. The accommodation of "trans" people opens the door for whoever says or pretends to be something they're not, for whatever purpose to go in whatever restroom they choose. If a man who is perfectly straight goes into a women's restroom to maybe get a peek or something else nefarious, he is given a pass because he says he identifies as a woman. I don't see a way to filter this kind of thing out if this door is opened.
shareOMG. Did you not read all the stories of women getting raped by men in women's washrooms before this was ever a thing. The door was already opened, and really has nothing to do with anything.
Also, there is no pass. Do you think that if a woman did anything nefarious to another woman in a washroom that they would just get a pass??? What the hell???
OMG do you not understand that people are worried about this? Rape isn't the only thing that can happen. People can peep or plant cameras (and get away with it) or whatever other scummy things they can think of. Will people still do these things if people can't go into whatever restroom they want? Yes, but why create more risk? There are untold numbers of people who never wear masks and don't get COVID but masks may reduce risk. Same concept.
shareLike I just said below, it's not trans people who are doing this. So rights or not, it doesn't make a difference.
sharehttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-bathroom-rights_n_5492286
shareAnd again, if those same people were to see someone like Chaz Bono, Elliot Fletcher, Brian Michael Smith, Tom Phalen etc in the women's washroom there would be an uproar.
Jen Richards, Laverne Cox, India Moore, Gigi Gorgeous, Jamie Clayton etc would probably get assaulted in the men's room.
Again, remember that's it usually straight cis men who are attacking women in washrooms. If that's their goal, they are going to do it, trans rights or not.
Again. Risk reduction.
shareYou are saying that it's risk reduction. For who? Like all those cases I shared earlier, none of the examples cited in the US happened after a city or state passed a nondiscrimination law or otherwise let trans people use the bathroom or locker room for their gender identity. None.
The cases of cameras in locker rooms and washrooms, I can't find anything that any of those were planted by trans people. So, again.....it's not trans people we need to be concerned about.
I thought I'd been clear that the "trans" people are not who I was talking about in particular.
shareSo, it makes no difference. You are saying that because a trans individual can use their preferred washroom, that men will face no consequences for the things they've already been doing for centuries.
Not true.
I'm done. Nice talking with you.
shareSo what was your point?
If it's not trans people who you were talking about, why would their rights matter? If it's other people who are making the problems, then the problems are there already and they will continue to be.
Since there have been no cases of men dressing up as women in any of the places that have protection laws in place for trans individuals, and the few cases where it has happened has happened before there were any laws, there isn't a correlation between the two.
The expense is people don't want it.
share‘No sane person insults another person for showing compassion towards another human being.’
I guess everyone here who constantly spouts insults to anyone who disagrees or tries to converse with them on such topics are insane then?!
Plenty of examples in this thread of insults being thrown.....interesting to see which ‘side of the argument’ is throwing the majority too.
I guess everyone here who constantly spouts insults to anyone who disagrees or tries to converse with them on such topics are insane then?!
Another non-sequitur used as equivocation.
No where in my statement did I say anything about people not being sane for using insults aimed at people who disagree with one another.
I explicitly stated that "No sane person insults another person for showing compassion towards another human being."
This is an irrefutably true statement.
Whatever insults have been utilized towards one person or another in this thread is not a retaliatory retort based on someone simply showing compassion. It's often because a stance has been taken to defend a very dangerous and insidious cultural agenda. share
I know what you stated and therefore the logical opposite of that would be that an insane person would disagree and potentially insult others who show compassion towards others. This has been the case in many situations on MC boards and threads where transgender subjects are being ‘discussed’. From my experience, the insults and negativity is usually if not entirely from those who are not accepting or compassionate towards the transgender people or issues in question and directed at the transgenders themselves and/or the other users. Like yourself - so you’re calling yourself and others like you insane?
The users who are showing compassion for transgender people aren’t necessarily advocating or pushing an agenda; being a Devil’s Advocate and having an open mind is usually shot down particularly with insults and disparaging remarks, as can clearly be seen.
You assume these users are against science and evolution and are....
‘...idiots’ who ‘scheme to completely disorient cultural norms’.
People here refer to transgenders as ‘it’ or ‘that’ or ‘the thing’ and then laugh about it. That isn’t showing compassion, that’s derision.
Users like yourself commenting that others are ‘People......being put in [their] place’ ‘because [they] don't KNOW their place, and are stepping outside their bounds’
Apparently, those showing an open mind, acceptance and compassion for transgender people ‘.....want to ruin society for the rest of us with anti-science laws/mandates’. They are ‘Leftists destroying our vernacular.......to fit their perverse agenda.’ They are ‘push[ing] an agenda to normalize anti-science and pervasively keep forcing people to accept said anti-science [which] is NOT okay’
You assume that anyone providing such a Devil’s Advocation are ‘soy-pilled hipsters’.
Have any of these Leftist idiots made any assumptions about or directed insults towards YOU and others who comment similar things?
The users who are showing compassion for transgender people aren’t necessarily advocating or pushing an agenda; being a Devil’s Advocate and having an open mind is usually shot down particularly with insults and disparaging remarks, as can clearly be seen.
Ah, but you see there's a difference between showing compassion and being a devil's advocate. In one case, the individual is showing sincere concern for someone's well-being. In the other scenario, the person is opining on behalf of a potentially unpopular stance.
Someone holding the second position, predicated from an ideologically motivated agenda, is not doing so out of compassion.
People here refer to transgenders as ‘it’ or ‘that’ or ‘the thing’ and then laugh about it. That isn’t showing compassion, that’s derision.
That's their right. It also has no bearing on the actual issue at hand.
You assume that anyone providing such a Devil’s Advocation are ‘soy-pilled hipsters’.
There's a difference between having an open mind (like myself) and trying to normalize and push for the normalization of an extremely dangerous cultural trend.
Have any of these Leftist idiots made any assumptions about or directed insults towards YOU and others who comment similar things?
My stance really can't be refuted, which is why there's no reason for anyone to lob insults my way.
I represent a sadly waning portion of internet denizens that are codependent on science and facts to back up my stance rather than feelings and "whataboutism" that justifies Cultural Communism as the ruling and prevailing solution (advocated for by the Left) to our fractured society.
share
*sighs*
shareNo, I’m not wrong 😂😂
Yes, I know gender is a grammatical construct originally and has been taken in the 20th century predominantly within a social context to refer to identities, roles etc.
It is both....so I’m not wrong as you say.....and yes, as can clearly be seen on these boards sex and gender etc are VERY volatile.
No. Elliot is a woman. Not a man. Women make ova. Men make sperm. It’s called trans for a reason. You can be trans/gender non-conforming without denying sex. Woman and man are sexes, not genders. Gender is feminine/masculine.
shareThing is, it's more a social construct, a social science vs bio science. They differentiate sex and gender as separate. No one is denying their sex as they can't change that although with hormone blockers/modifiers, it can be? Maybe gene editing is possible now? In any case, if you can be trans and look sexy while tricking the hetero mind, you win in my book on "It's a trap!".
Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09u80FCXd1w
Man and woman are not social constructs.
Dam I can tell lotta men in here are from reddit.
No fortune basedpilled men here?
They actually don't change their sex. They only change the looks.
A transwoman will neve start to ovulate. And a transman will never produce sperm.
Even though you are right unfortnately they will just say that not all woman can ovulate so are they not real womanas well.
It's a weak argument but the one that always gets used.
Unfortunately I think there’s a strong history supporting this ‘weak argument’.
Historically for sure, women who couldn’t bear children were not valued highly because breeding was their role in society, the primary function of their gender or sex. Being barren was a curse. It’s even suggested that because ‘bar’ means male/ man that the term actually translates as ‘male-like, not producing offspring’.
‘In other words, the word suggests that an inability to produce negates your right to call yourself a woman.’
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/31/women-reclaiming-word-barren-talk-fertility-issues-10284278/
Men who couldn’t father children similarly were not held in high esteem either and were not considered manly.....however it was easy and acceptable to blame the woman.
https://medium.com/@katylindemann/fertilityfellas-a-brief-history-of-male-infertility-e2b04bb6b372
So I don’t think it is such a weak argument, but a very ingrained and socially historic one.
asom: are real gentleman on MC
share‘A transwoman will neve start to ovulate. And a transman will never produce sperm.’
Who has said this or thinks this can happen?
so a man can never change it's sex/gender and start to ovulate like a woman, period.
shareObviously.
No one has said they can.
Then don't say "transwomen are women" if they cannot function that way.
Sex (and gender) is 100% binary by design (evolution/biology) and functionality. One (the male) produces sperm the other (female) produces eggs. (that's the case in 99.9x%, the remaining are quite statistically irrelevant and mainly errors).
That's all.
Gender is not the same as sex. There are also six sexual designations not just xx and xy. I do find your wording that they those who are not in the 99% are errors and irrelevant quite telling.
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner's )
XX – Most common form of female.
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male.
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people.
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
disagree, sex is the same as gender.
so way bellow .01% thanks.
i said statistically irrelevant. learn to read.
there's no problem with errors. errors can be fixed or lived with. it's telling how interpret what I'm saying. cancer is an error, sickness is an error. capisci?
errors still have rights and are humans. that doesnt mean that we need to make errors the new norm.
and btw, she is no error, she doesn't fit the 0.1% then MAYBE would be entitled to choose.
No one said that trans is the new norm. What should be the norm is accepting those people who you consider errors.
Also sex is not the same as gender.
We do accept them, wtf are you talking about?
They are humans, as all other humans. They have rights, ass all other humans.
That doesn't mean that we should bend reality and accept lies as reality (as I said, the new norm, because they are not).
We accept them, we don't accept the lies.
No, you don't accept them. How are you accepting them? How can you, a person who obviously has no clue what they are experiencing, say that they are lying in one breath and then say that you accept that they are humans? I don't think that you really understand what acceptance is.
You do realise that trans people are not unique to this time in history right? This isn't a 21st century creation.
Liars are humans as well.
The fact that I don't accept someone's lies doesn't mean that I don't accept that person's humanity or his rights as a human being. But of course I don't accept it's right to lie.
You make no sense and what you're saying has no logic.
Yes, and there was a word for it
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255
Fine. You accept them as liars, which in my humble opinion is not acceptance at all but whatever.
How can you call someone's life experience a lie. I've shown that there are more than just xx and xy when it comes to biological sex. It's been said many times here that gender dysphoria is a mental illness and that these people are just sick. If that's so, how is it a lie? Is someone who suffers from depression lying? Intersex people have been discussed as well. Is that a lie?
You've mentioned that cancer is an error and compared that to transpeople. So are they an error or are they lying? Make up your mind.
oh good god.
[read best heard with Monty Python voices in your head]
Man born missing one arm: Hello
person: hi. you are missing an arm.
man: no I am not
person: yes you are. looks like it was from birth?
man: I AM A TWO ARMED PERSON AND YOU ARE REPRESSING AND HATING ME!!!
person: what? I just mentioned you are missing an arm in passing, and frankly, I don't even care as it has no affect on me what so ever. You are free to think and say anything you want. (smiles)
man: Tell me I have two arms.
person: I... I can't do that, because you are miss.....
man: TELL ME, or you are NOT ACCEPTING WHO I AM!! You have no experience with being me, you can't accept the truth about MY world!
person: you want me to accept and mirror your delusion?
man: No, I am asking you to tell me what I told you to tell me. Nothing more. It's not wrong, and it is very simple. Tell me I have two arms.
person: No. That compromises everything about me being an honest person. My itegrity.
man: so you HATE anyone thinking different than your limited belief structure? HATER!
person: what??? are you insane??
man: TELL ME I HAVE TWO ARMS, HATER!!!
person: F off, and good luck in your life.
man: .... HATER!
With that clear cut logic, women who can’t/don’t produce ova aren’t women then. They’re not functioning as they should.
shareMassive false equivalence as a transwoman will never produce ova while a healthy woman will.
It also wasn't too long ago that "No uterus, no opinion" was a common cry among feminists in relation to women's rights.
No one here has ever said that a transwoman can ever ovulate!
You still haven’t said about (unhealthy) women who also can never ovulate being classed as ‘proper’ women, but that’s ok.
What’s the ‘no uterus, no opinion’ with relation to in this thread?
it's sad and very pathetic that we even need to HAVE videos to explain this stuff to people.
I guess... still.... dumb people will always need smarter people to lead, rule, and control them.
With nearly everyone having instant access to the world's largest store of information, they get dumber and dumber gobbling down sensationalist conspiracy theories over plain truth. Sad. Pathetic.
The classes separate THEMSELVES, I guess.