Musk buys Twitter

[Niya]

I'm not sure that this statement is true. Of course, it isn't possible to prove the size of the unknown, but there are some fields where there may not be that much left. Physicists thought they were getting close, though recent experimental results have suggested that there are flaws in the model, so there could well remain a much greater level.

Still, if we were to take that statement as given, then which position is more likely to derive from that: That there are only two genders assigned at birth and definitively identifiable, or that there is such a thing as gender fluidity?

Of course, gender fluidity exists to the extreme in some animals in the world. There are fish that can switch back and forth from male to female as the population requires, and if you go a bit further down in complexity, there are species that are both. We also know that there are options beyond simply XY and XX chromosomes, and that hermaphrodites exist (both sets of physical equipment) and in a wide range of capacities. More like a curve with two large peaks, but which never quite reaches the X-axis between the peaks.

So, why would it be surprising if there are psychological variations as well? It shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's far more consistent with us not knowing all there is to know than the rigid binary position.

Sounds to me like you're saying that the best we can do is form a hypothesis then proceed under the assumption it is either true or false. Both assumptions have equal merit as far as I'm concerned yet one is treated with more reverence that the other which is baffling to me.

[jmcilhinney]

Sounds to me like you're saying that the best we can do is form a hypothesis then proceed under the assumption it is either true or false. Both assumptions have equal merit as far as I'm concerned yet one is treated with more reverence that the other which is baffling to me.

We don't know what the cause is, but there are plenty of things that we don't know the cause for that you accept without issue. The fact is that trans people exist and all evidence we do have points to it being a real phenomenon, yet your position seems to be that we ignore and pretend it's not real.

[dilettante]

Sounds like something made up to me. Reminds me of the stuff I get as a retired person advising me on how to live.

One day it's all "Establish a routine and stick to it. This is very important to mental well-being" blah, blah, blah.

Next day: "Find ways to vary your schedule. Don't fall into a rut, add variety before it imprisons you within yourself."

There is a lot of trite and useless and often wrong pop psychology in common currency. A lot of it is being used to cynically sway politics and control the population today.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sounds to me like you're saying that the best we can do is form a hypothesis then proceed under the assumption it is either true or false. Both assumptions have equal merit as far as I'm concerned yet one is treated with more reverence that the other which is baffling to me.

I wouldn't have stated it that way, I think, but perhaps you could tell me what the hypothesis is, as I'm not clear on that. If the hypothesis is that gender doesn't fall into just two categories, then one is certainly demonstrably correct, but I'm not sure whether that's the hypothesis you were talking about.

[Niya]

I wouldn't have stated it that way, I think, but perhaps you could tell me what the hypothesis is, as I'm not clear on that. If the hypothesis is that gender doesn't fall into just two categories, then one is certainly demonstrably correct, but I'm not sure whether that's the hypothesis you were talking about.

The hypothesis is that being born to the wrong sex is a real thing. To me it's a hypothesis but to many others, its an indisputable fact.

We don't know what the cause is, but there are plenty of things that we don't know the cause for that you accept without issue. The fact is that trans people exist and all evidence we do have points to it being a real phenomenon, yet your position seems to be that we ignore and pretend it's not real.

We don't know if gender dysphoria is real or if it's simply a subjective interpretation of a feeling the cause of which is unknown or poorly understood. We get the Salem Witch Trials when we're not careful and mix up subjective experiences with objective reality.

[Niya]

Dilettante might appreciate this:-

[Shaggy Hiker]

The hypothesis is that being born to the wrong sex is a real thing. To me it's a hypothesis but to many others, its an indisputable fact.

Ah, good, I was close.

So, the null would be that you can't be born to the wrong gender. However, we know that hermaphrodites exist. We know that lower animals can switch genders. We know that XY and XX are not the only chromosome combinations. We know that homosexuality exists. And we know that virtually no situation in the brain is understood very well at all. Even depression, which might be the most studied and treated 'malady' of the brain isn't well understood, considering that recent evidence suggests that most of the medicines do what they are intended to do...but don't work for the situation they are treating.

Do I know which of those is true? Certainly not, but the null hypothesis seems too improbable to be considered likely.

[jmcilhinney]

Sounds like something made up to me.

There is a lot of trite and useless and often wrong pop psychology in common currency. A lot of it is being used to cynically sway politics and control the population today.

What efforts have you made to determine whether your first impression is reasonable? Have you actually listened to any trans people? Have you actually looked at any of the actual research? It seems to me that you're determined to lump it in with other stuff you think is rubbish because you're fixated on being controlled.

[jmcilhinney]

The hypothesis is that being born to the wrong sex is a real thing.

That's not a hypothesis that any reasonable person is working with. Trans people themselves may describe feeling that way but for something to be wrong, there would have to be something that was right. That's getting into religious territory, where there's a particular way that a god intended us to be. This idea of being born in the wrong body is part of the reason that religious people are opposed to the idea of being trans at all - god doesn't make mistakes. I actually think that there's a very strong case to be made for trans people being real and actually specifically intended by god under the Christian religion, but I won't go into that unless someone is specifically interested. It's not a case of people being born in the wrong body. It's a case of the body people are born in not matching their gender identity and that leading to an unhappy life. If we can provide the ability to change them in one way or another to make their lives happier then why wouldn't we do that? Maybe there's a way to change their gender identity to match their biology but it doesn't seem apparent and I don't see anti-trans people making any effort to find it. I imagine that, if they did, it would be something like ex-gay therapy, which is pretty barbaric. It's really only something people would want to endure because they're told that being gay is wrong in the first place. It seems like changing them physically to match their gender identity is best means we currently have for improving the lives of trans people. It won't work the same way for everybody and it won't work at all for some, but that's an argument for making the process more open and improving it, not stopping it altogether.

We don't know if gender dysphoria is real or if it's simply a subjective interpretation of a feeling the cause of which is unknown or poorly understood.

Of course we know it's real. We don't know what the cause is but there are real live trans people that you can see for yourself. The fact that we don't know the origin doesn't mean that we can't see the result and it doesn't mean that we can't do our best to mitigate the negative effects of that result. Covering our eyes and ears because we don't know the whole story is certainly not the way to make progress.

We get the Salem Witch Trials when we're not careful and mix up subjective experiences with objective reality.

This is just a dumb comparison and really quite typical of right-wing arguments on a number of subjects. Take something that is pretty much universally considered bad, say that this other thing is like and thus that this other thing is also bad and consider the job done. In the Salem with trials, people saw things they didn't understand and feared in the natural world, blamed specific individuals for them and then killed them as punishment. With regards to trans people, we're listening to what they tell us about their own experience of themselves and we're trying to to what we can to make their lives better. Where exactly is the parallel here?

[jmcilhinney]

On the subject of Alex Jones, I believe that Elon Musk himself tweeted something like:

Free speech does not mean free reach

I interpret that to be saying that Alex Jones has the right to free speech but Twitter is not obliged to provide a platform by which that speech can be propagated. I actually agree with that but, if that's the case, the same applies to everyone on Twitter, including Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee, Donald Trump and anyone else who was banned from Twitter under the previous management. You might be the sort of person to say that you don't care as long as the results are what you want but, whether you like it or not, it means that Musks claims about free speech and it being denied by Twitter were a lie. No one is being prevents from speaking by being banned from Twitter. You might argue that Twitter's position means that it should be obliged to provide a platform for everyone and anyone to say whatever they want but that doesn't appear to be the argument that Elon Musk is making. It also seems to fly in the face of what right-wingers generally want to be applied to businesses.

[wes4dbt]

In the Salem with trials, people saw things they didn't understand and feared in the natural world, blamed specific individuals for them and then killed them as punishment

I've seen documentaries that also claim that people were being called a witch for other more self serving reason. Like revenge or as a for personal benefit. Can't remember the exact details but it wasn't because they actually thought the person was a witch. Basically profiting off of peoples fears.

[jmcilhinney]

I've seen documentaries that also claim that people were being called a witch for other more self serving reason. Like revenge or as a for personal benefit. Can't remember the exact details but it wasn't because they actually thought the person was a witch. Basically profiting off of peoples fears.

Yes, I'm sure that that was part of it. That also marks trans people as different. No one is pointing to people they don't like on the street and whipping up a mob to force gender-affirming surgery on them. This comparison is just a typically bad, emotion-driven argument on this subject, trying to scare people into being against accepting transgender people as they are. I mean, who'd want to call a biological male "she" if it will lead to people getting burned as witches?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I've seen documentaries that also claim that people were being called a witch for other more self serving reason. Like revenge or as a for personal benefit. Can't remember the exact details but it wasn't because they actually thought the person was a witch. Basically profiting off of peoples fears.

Well, an angry mob is a terrible thing to waste. Angry mobs can be milked for cash, or directed against whoever you choose. Of course, at this point I'm repeating myself.

[fafalone]

@jmcilhinney

At the risk of going down another rabbit hole of never-ending arguments, I have always found something disturbing about wanting to change who you fundamentally are in the biological sense. I could understand getting treatments for something that could kill you like a bad heart or cancer but changing your sex? Do we really know enough to say that attempting to do so is the right course of action? I'm not convinced we know enough it to be taking such definitive positions. For all we know 200 years from now we would discover that this so called gender dysphoria is the result of some kind genetic, hormonal or psychological glitch? It wasn't that long ago we believed that some illnesses were caused by evil spirits. Of course we eventually discovered there was such a thing as microorganisms and that they can affect our health. Our descendants might look at the things we are doing as barbaric. It is my view we are still stumbling around in the dark with no actual clue about what the hell we're doing and we should act accordingly. So far we have been acting as if we know everything and we're not wrong. This kind of arrogance just rubs me the wrong way.

My honest opinion is that this is all just a big con encouraged by surgeons and other medical practitioners so they can milk money from poor souls that think that there is something wrong with them and gender reassignment surgery is the only way to fix it. As much as I like capitalism, I think it brings out some of our worse tendencies. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm not. I don't know so I'll err on the side of caution.

Yes, we have something called "science", which you might not believe in, but it works pretty good.

It's a simple question: What are the outcomes with the intervention, and without the intervention.

If a procedure substantially reduces the odds a person kills themselves, decreases levels of stress, and increases life satisfaction, that procedure is the correct thing to do.

Also, for all your ravings about hormones and genitals and chromosomes, you ignore the entire field of neuroscience. We know there's gender differences in neuroanatomy and electrical activity. We know those who identify as trans fall closer to the gender they identify with for these. I think your mind, not your genitals, defines who you are.

[wes4dbt]

Of course, at this point I'm repeating myself.

I think we're all guilty of that in this thread. But that's ok I got plenty of free time. lol

[fafalone]

One other point I'd make is that the opponent of everybody is a 'radical'. They're either radical right or radical left. In fact, that's a radical statement, because it's a bit of an exaggeration.

In any case, though, these positions aren't radical anything. Their opinions shared to some degree by the vast majority of people (assuming both sides are aggregated together). This isn't some fringe position held by a few loons like the flat earth or tinfoil hats. This is a major filter issue used to divide the general population into with us and against us. Nobody on either side is radical because of their belief on this position. They might be radical because of their hatred for the other side, but they aren't radical because of this position.

Once some chemical basis is found, a group of people will then become science deniers on the subject. Those will be the radicals on the position. Until then, it's just opinions on the position.

Personally, I see a bit of both sides. Male/female has to do with the balance of a few hormones in the body. Note that women can start growing beards once menopause stops certain hormones, and men can grow breasts if they get a bit too much of some hormones. There is no set level for people, either. Everybody has some amount of testosterone, with men having somewhat more, but the amount changes daily, and in response to various events, and the variation is different in different people, and so forth.

With all that variability, does it surprise me that some people fall into some gap? No, it does not. Does it surprise me that gender isn't totally binary? Of course not. As a person who is fairly ambidextrous, it doesn't surprise me at all that a supposedly binary (handedness) distinction proves to be far more fluid when people look a bit more closely.

In fact, I would expect that there would be a range of people. Some would feel gender dysphoria, and some who do should feel it only temporarily. That's what I would expect, and that's what we are seeing. This presents a very great legal/societal challenge, and some people will try to reduce it to a simple binary solution, but it's not that.

I disagree that the suffering people like Niya inflict on others is not enough to qualify as "radical right". Science denial is radical. Overt bigotry is radical. There's milder positions that would not so qualify, but that's not what he's expressing.

Meanwhile what him and dil call "radical left" is mainstream liberal centrism to the rest of the world, actual 'radical left' is the 'abolish capitalism and enforce communism' type, not 'Hey let's treat people decently'. And by that standard they're batshit insane right.

[Niya]

I disagree that the suffering people like Niya inflict on others is not enough to qualify as "radical right".

That's a very bold claim bordering on slanderous. Tell us all what suffering I have inflicted on anyone? I really want to hear this.

Meanwhile what him and dil call "radical left" is mainstream liberal centrism to the rest of the world

Stop right there because you don't know what you're talking about. I live in what you call the "rest of the world" amongst people from parts of the world many coddled liberals don't even know exist. Let me tell you something, we laugh of some of this stuff because it sounds so crazy to us. You come out here talking about "non-binary" people or start accusing people of "misgendering" or "fat-shaming" people are going to think you're crazy. Stop letting CNN and MSNBC tell you what the rest of the world is like because they don't know squat. You know you 1st world liberals come out here, spend 2 weeks in a tourist resort with your tour guides and your brochures then you go back home to your privileged lives of wealth and prosperity and complain about how bad you have it because of all the misgendering and fat-shaming going on. You don't even take the time to appreciate how good you have it. I don't think you guys even know just how truly sinister the rest of the world is. Don't talk about the rest of the world my friend. You don't know. 2 weeks at some holiday resort in a foreign country doesn't qualify you to speak on the kinds of things that are really going on out here. CNN is not going to tell you the truth either. They will make you believe that we see the world they same way you do.....we do not.

You think the rest of the world are centrist liberals? Let me show you how little you know:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI6qo3SWU4

Listen to that song. You're probably not going to understand the lyrics because it's in English dialect that I'm sure most of you will not be able to understand. But listen to it. Tell me what you think it's about. I can tell you that millions of people bump to that song. Not a few dozen, not thousands, millions of people across many many countries! Did you know that? Do you know how popular this song was back in the day? Tell me, what do you think that song is about?

[Peter Porter]

You think the rest of the world are centrist liberals? Let me show you how little you know:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI6qo3SWU4

Listen to that song. You're probably not going to understand the lyrics because it's in English dialect that I'm sure most of you will not be able to understand. But listen to it. Tell me what you think it's about. I can tell you that millions of people bump to that song. Not a few dozen, not thousands, millions of people across many many countries! Did you know that? Do you know how popular this song was back in the day? Tell me, what do you think that song is about?

Niya, it's a song calling for violence against homosexuals. Alot of people who danced to it, including my friends (some gay), didn't even know what it was about until I told them. Our local club fired the DJ after the owner found out what the song was about.

Chi-chi-man is a derogotary term for homosexual. And the song starts by saying they should get kicked in the face.

I know you don't agree with the song, but I don't think it was a good idea to link to it.

[fafalone]

That's a very bold claim bordering on slanderous. Tell us all what suffering I have inflicted on anyone? I really want to hear this.



Stop right there because you don't know what you're talking about. I live in what you call the "rest of the world" amongst people from parts of the world many coddled liberals don't even know exist. Let me tell you something, we laugh of some of this stuff because it sounds so crazy to us. You come out here talking about "non-binary" people or start accusing people of "misgendering" or "fat-shaming" people are going to think you're crazy. Stop letting CNN and MSNBC tell you what the rest of the world is like because they don't know squat. You know you 1st world liberals come out here, spend 2 weeks in a tourist resort with your tour guides and your brochures then you go back home to your privileged lives of wealth and prosperity and complain about how bad you have it because of all the misgendering and fat-shaming going on. You don't even take the time to appreciate how good you have it. I don't think you guys even know just how truly sinister the rest of the world is. Don't talk about the rest of the world my friend. You don't know. 2 weeks at some holiday resort in a foreign country doesn't qualify you to speak on the kinds of things that are really going on out here. CNN is not going to tell you the truth either. They will make you believe that we see the world they same way you do.....we do not.

You think the rest of the world are centrist liberals? Let me show you how little you know:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI6qo3SWU4

Listen to that song. You're probably not going to understand the lyrics because it's in English dialect that I'm sure most of you will not be able to understand. But listen to it. Tell me what you think it's about. I can tell you that millions of people bump to that song. Not a few dozen, not thousands, millions of people across many many countries! Did you know that? Do you know how popular this song was back in the day? Tell me, what do you think that song is about?

People like you. People like you drive their children to suicide by refusing to provide care when they're trans, for example. I don't know if you've personally had the opportunity to inflict your hatred on anyone.

As for the rest, stop lying. I'm not wrong about the range of political views across the world. I never asserted the entire rest of the world is liberal, and you're so desperate to act like a ** you didn't even read what I wrote and just launched into a irrelevant rant. I know there's plenty of pockets of intolerant bigots across the world. There's continents full of them. There's also a range of political thought that puts US progressives in the center-left. It's laughably pathetic you think a song demonstrates otherwise.

Perhaps you don't know this, in fact I'd bet all my money you don't, but the same groups behind the propaganda you're drowning in run operations in the US where they make comments like yours, for the far-right groups in places like Poland and Hungary, and in Africa where they assist in writing laws to execute homosexuals. So here's another example of how YOU, PERSONALLY hurt people: By spewing the bile of these groups, you support their message and their work: Killing gays and trans people. They only moderate their message where they know the prevailing views don't allow that. But when they have the opportunity, they go mask off. If you don't personally want gay and trans people put to death, reconsider bleating all their BS talking points at every opportunity.

[sapator]

I wouldn't really be compelled to rant to this pointless discussion but the same people on 3rd world that kill homosexuals, they also kill christian Jews and Buddhists they stone their multi wives and treat women like animals.
So that part of the world is so fkd up that I wouldn't put it in a comparison with anything.

[FunkyDexter]

You know when a moderator tells you to reign the trolling and your immediate response is to post a mocking video followed by a homophobic one...

Have a month.

[FunkyDexter]

and in Africa

I don't disagree with what you were saying but I just feel the need to stand up for my alma mater here. The homophobia in Africa (or at least Nigeria where I grew up) is grossly overstated in the West. There certainly was some homophobia but I had gay friends and the most they ever experienced was some cat calling and even that was pretty rare. Africa does have some homophobia and I certainly don't want to excuse it where it exists but it's really no worse than you find in the US and UK. Nigeria was pretty liberal on the whole.

[wes4dbt]

I wouldn't really be compelled to rant to this pointless discussion but the same people on 3rd world that kill homosexuals, they also kill christian Jews and Buddhists they stone their multi wives and treat women like animals.
So that part of the world is so fkd up that I wouldn't put it in a comparison with anything.

Unfortunately there's many parts of the world that fit that template. The people in the US are not blind to this.

[fafalone]

I don't disagree with what you were saying but I just feel the need to stand up for my alma mater here. The homophobia in Africa (or at least Nigeria where I grew up) is grossly overstated in the West. There certainly was some homophobia but I had gay friends and the most they ever experienced was some cat calling and even that was pretty rare. Africa does have some homophobia and I certainly don't want to excuse it where it exists but it's really no worse than you find in the US and UK. Nigeria was pretty liberal on the whole.

I didn't want to get into a country by country breakdown, there's certainly perfectly tolerant countries within Africa, but Africa and the Middle East do have numerous countries with legal bans ranging from prison to death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r...y_or_territory and this is not found elsewhere besides a couple south asian countries.

Nigeria specifically, for same-sex intercourse:

Illegal under federal law since 1901 (as the Northern Nigeria Protectorate and the Southern Nigeria Protectorate)
Penalty: Up to 14 years imprisonment.
No Death in the states of Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara.[53][87][76]

It's wonderful if the prevailing opinion is to oppose those laws, but while they're on the books I don't think it's fair to consider Nigeria an example of a tolerant country.

[FunkyDexter]

All I can offer is my personal experience and I wasn't even aware those laws existed. I've seen homosexuality practiced openly so I don't think they're rigorously enforced. I agree with you that I'd like to see them removed from the books though.

[dilettante]

Geeze. "Nihilism is joy, normality is aberration."

Even Disney is kicking nutbars to the curb. I don't expect much of Iger though, he's as aligned with Communist China's destruction of the west as Chapek and the rest of the wokiverse.

What comes next for the agenda? Global warming: dead. Green salvation: dead. Polysexuality: dead. Pharmadoxy: dead. Narrative control by muzzling opposing views: dying.

[FunkyDexter]

Are you saying we should support laws making homosexuality illegal?

(I'm genuinely struggling to understand the point you're making)

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have no idea what that means, either. I don't pay much attention to Disney. They're...an interesting case all on their own, which is exactly how they wanted it to be and how they like it, as far as I can tell. Disney has always tried to create a fantasy land. Whose fantasy, has changed over the years, but it was always a fantasy land as the objective.

Beyond that, though, I don't have any idea what you are saying with that final paragraph. Whose agenda? What does dead mean in this context? I don't see an interpretation where those categories and dead seem to go together.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's wonderful if the prevailing opinion is to oppose those laws, but while they're on the books I don't think it's fair to consider Nigeria an example of a tolerant country.

There has always been a tension between laws that are on the books and laws that are enforced. Idaho has, or until recently had (I don't know if they were ever repealed, though I think possibly not), laws on sexuality that haven't been enforced for a very long time. It basically proscribed what acts were allowed between any couple, married or not, regardless of gender. They might also have outlawed sex outside of marriage, though that one came down to the changing interpretation of words.

[dilettante]

"Dead" means "no longer useful as a club to silence and control the population."

[jmcilhinney]

he's as aligned with Communist China's destruction of the west

It may seem a small thing but, to me, the use of "Communist China" is quite telling too. It smacks of propaganda. We all know where and what China is. You can say China and we will all know what you're talking about. The qualification is an obvious ploy to generate not just an idea of the country but of the country being bad by association with something that we've been trained to think of as a bogeyman. That's not really going to work with us "far left radicals", because we're generally able to look at it a bit more dispassionately.

[Shaggy Hiker]

"Dead" means "no longer useful as a club to silence and control the population."

By who? How are any of those dead as a tool? They all seem to be terms that are currently in play.

Though, I'd also be curious as to what silence or control means to you, since it seems like EVERYTHING is about silence and control. If all that were taken away, what would the world look like? What IS your utopia?

I've learned not to expect an answer to that, so it's pretty much rhetorical. The first questions aren't, though. Who is using those tools, and to what end?

[jmcilhinney]

Though, I'd also be curious as to what silence or control means to you, since it seems like EVERYTHING is about silence and control.

That seems to be dil's thing. I asked a question a little while back that was ostensibly posed to dil and Niya and dil's response was that I was trying to silence him and Niya's response was that I wasn't trying to understand him. I literally asked them to speak so I knew their position and one complained about not being able to speak and one complained about my not knowing their position. This is the level of victimhood they've raised themselves to.

[dilettante]

Fishing for a "slip" to dogpile onto. Classic bullying strategy.

Every attempt to answer insincere "questions" is met with deflection, discrediting sources with no basis, or outright jamming fingers in the ears and "la la la-ing." Then out comes another baited line.


Any yes, the embrace of a totalitarian regime speaks volumes about where you are coming from.

[jmcilhinney]

Fishing for a "slip" to dogpile onto. Classic bullying strategy.

What I was actually trying to do was pin down exactly what your position was so I could argue against that actual position was rather than make assumptions and possibly make a strawman argument. I know you're not averse to that but I'd rather avoid it if possible.

In that specific case, I was interested to see what you thought about Elon Musk's apparent position that banning Alex Jones was not a violation of his free speech. Musk claims to be a champion of free speech and is venerated by many for that but I fail to see how banning anyone from Twitter is a violation of their free speech if doing so to Alex Jones is not. If you think that banning Alex Jones is a violation of his free speech then I would at least argue with you on that basis, whereas if you don't think it is then I'd argue with you on that basis.

Every attempt to answer insincere "questions" is met with deflection, discrediting sources with no basis, or outright jamming fingers in the ears and "la la la-ing." Then out comes another baited line.

I was shocked at your level of self-awareness for a moment, then I realised that you weren't actually talking about yourself.

Any yes, the embrace of a totalitarian regime speaks volumes about where you are coming from.

Not a bait line at all. Do you really think that my thinking that there's no actual need to prefix "China" with "Communist" and that people actually do it to create bogeyman to deflect from their own failings means that I embrace the Chinese regime? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you actually think that?

[jmcilhinney]

we want our boys to not play with dolls and wear skirts

Sounds like Niya won't be around for a while but I thought I'd address this for public consumption anyway. I've been thinking about this and I think that it's a bit more significant than I first gave it credit for.

I've long thought that it's funny that there is so much overlap between the group of people who will tell you that if you have XY chromosomes and a ***** then you're a man and that's the end of it, and the group of people who will tell you that you're not a real man unless you think and behave a particular way. It seems that what's in your head is what makes you a real man but it's not what makes you a man. Odd. This doesn't necessarily apply to all anti-trans people and I'm not sure whether it applies to our two most prominent anti-trans residents here but it certainly applies to many. I'm sure that many who would claim that it doesn't apply to them would still support Niya's idea above, demonstrating that it really does apply to them to some degree.

the claim is that having XY chromosomes and a ***** is what makes you a man but then why should having particular chromosomes and genitalia dictate what clothes you should wear and what toys you should play with? Why should it dictate anything about your life other than role you play in procreation? It seems that many people believe that having those biologically male traits should dictate what to should do and, more importantly, what you should want to do. If it is somehow fundamental to being male that you should not want to play with dolls or wear skirts and some boy wants to play with dolls and wear skirts, does that not mean that there's something fundamentally female about him? If not then it seems to me that you're really just training children to be what you think men and women should be and disregarding what they actually want. If boys and girls are trained as children to be different and then they are different when they become men and women, you can hardly claim that that shows some fundamental difference between men and women when it's just the result of training.

That's an example of why I bristle at the those who claim that the earning differential between men and women is largely the result of women choosing lower-paid jobs. That may well be true on the surface and these people rarely think any deeper than that, but I would ask why it is that women choose lower-paid jobs. My answer would be that, in large part, they have been trained all their lives to do so. Things are changing but it's pretty clear that boys and girls are still treated differently by most parents and much of what they grow up to expect from their lives is the result of training by their parents.

[sapator]

You overthink the whole thread. My personal interest in the opposite sex was when my organism wanted the opposite sex at 10 something , I can't recall of course, not because I was forced and nobody told me anything. Maybe in some parts of the world is different. Also I never wanted to play with dolls.
I think that Niya point was exactly what you proclaim but on the opposite. Young children pushed to became something that they are not.
Anyhow I'm just answering as Niya is not here. I have a very low interest on that discussion and I guess Niya won't be back so this will steam off eventually.

[FunkyDexter]

Young children pushed to became something that they are not.

Niya was going waaaaaay beyond that.

[TysonLPrice]

I guess Niya won't be back so this will steam off eventually.

I think it was for just a month...unless he doesn't want to come back.

I just noticed I passed 20 years as a member

[wes4dbt]

You overthink the whole thread. My personal interest in the opposite sex was when my organism wanted the opposite sex at 10 something , I can't recall of course, not because I was forced and nobody told me anything. Maybe in some parts of the world is different. Also I never wanted to play with dolls.
I think that Niya point was exactly what you proclaim but on the opposite. Young children pushed to became something that they are not.
Anyhow I'm just answering as Niya is not here. I have a very low interest on that discussion and I guess Niya won't be back so this will steam off eventually.

That sounds very normal but this isn't about what happens when things are as expected, it about when your feeling and desires are out side the norm. It's about what if you did want to play with dolls or wear skirts.