Mith wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:Now, what is not up to a vote? We're talking about what constitutes a proper definition of a woman.
Alright, you seem to be entirely focused on physical organs--I can accept that no, Athene doesn't have all the same organs. I am speaking strictly from her personality; she has a female personality and therefore desires to be female. It's a logical desire and I think referring to a transgender as anything else can be very hurtful.
On the other hand, I think referring to a male->female transgender as a woman (as in, real woman but thus far we never had to use the "normal" epithet) is equally and fundamentally hurtful to humanity and our understanding of what defines our drive for survival, which is solely based on our will, capacity and desire to have heterosexual relations. As a sexual species, the functional heterosexuality is the norm and should always be, and no inflexion of this important rule should ever be allowed.
I will simply
not tolerate what makes our most essential and precious understanding of the definition of men and women to be debased simply in order to cater to the whims of some vocal handicapped people with a mental disorder of some kind.
If these people were acting in a responsible way, they would simply not make such absurd claims to begin with, but instead, recognize their problem as perhaps impossible to solve. That would be honest and worth my kind support.
Again, it seems a community in India has found a third way. Why not listen to them? There's probably noting worse than being a transsexual in the US right now.
This is just one study, funded by whoever's money, which by the way might confirm what I said about the importance of sexual gonads and hormones.
There isn't anything there that suggests something out of place. If I recall my biology, male fetuses start out as female, then convert. It's not illogical to reason that some don't finish making the bridge from male to female. I will admit that there's a great deal we still don't understand.
Well clearly we didn't attend the same biology courses. Probably because it's nothing more than a (silly?)
theory that would require totally artificial means of growth (in vitro) in order to be proven.
A girl is nothing more than an immature woman. But if we started as "women" (or say girls anyway), we'd already have all female sexual organs and in fact already have the XX sexual gene. It would mean we'd grow as women, be ready to burst out of the womb as women, and then somehow the entire process would be canned for a complete reversal then overhaul and we, future males, would be totally recommissioned into males. At best, the fetus starts as somewhat neutral, but you cannot cheat the DNA (aside from accidents, that is). Science refers to male or female embryos for a good reason.
It really does sound as nonsense to claim you start as woman/girl since being a woman/girl is about the WHOLE maturation process, from blastocyst to body growth (including gonads and brain growth) and birth.
But that is, I guess, another clever spin doctoring from the lobbying LGBT group, right?
I'm starting to get used to their clever fancy catchphrases people parrot without thinking twice about what they truly mean.
I also grow extremely tired of that bullshit.
Still, it doesn't change the fact that whatever the process is, we do know what defines the norm in the end, and
that is what matters.
At that pace, I can say that soon enough, the insidious political correctness will even outstrip you of the possibility of referring to a transwoman as a non real woman, despite the fact that it's 100% true.
In other words, this kind of pressure that comes from god knows where will force us to swallow lies. That is purely and, in fact, literally
insane.
But in the end, they only speak of "suggestions" that some variation in a gene might contribute to an inferior effect of hormones on the growing body.
I'm afraid this in no way changes anything to what makes a proper female.
Shouldn't we define what makes a female on the basis of an ideal and still mainstream template instead of relying on the odd dysfunctional one?
No one is contesting that the physical body is male, but the issue is that Athene developed a female personality. It simply did not cross the rest of the bridge from female to male.
I perfectly understand the issue and you perfectly miss my point. :D
And your argument works from a true scottsman fallacy. If someone took a magical ray and pointed it at you, turning you into a female, would it be wrong for you to identify as male, regardless of the actual hardware you've been installed in?
What's that now? Appeal to D&D, Swords and Sorcery? :)
OK, if a wizard would turn me into a chick (brain, sexual organs, body, DNA), I would for all intents and purposes be a female.
Essentially, you're hypothesizing what would happen if I were to be mutated by magic. Useless... much?
This isn't about physical configuration; that's already been addressed and admitted to.
Admitted by whom? It totally
is about the body as well. You cannot simply dissociate the body from the brain.
It is not a theoretical exercise in mindless abstraction.
What we are focusing on is persona.
No, what
you are solely focusing on. And that's the problem, because your scope of debate is already arbitrarily skewed. You have already omitted the body from the premises and work from the claim that what makes a woman is uniquely about the brain and nothing else. I already knew about the persona thing, but it's not just about that.
Unlike the rest of us males, she didn't reach the proper stage of male mental development. Technically, you first existed as a chick. You then developed into a male.
How we start is most irrelevant when we must define things. We could start as pancakes or carrots I wouldn't really care.
And what would you make of females feeling like they're men by the way?
Would they somehow be more "abnormal" than MtF transpeople because, hey, we all started as women so why do they complain?? o_O
That's really the implication of your argument, down there.
So in the end, we don't invalidate the rather essential idea that fertile man + fertile woman + intercourse = kiddo.
Not fertile man + sterile whatever + sodomy = smelly dick.
That's rather a crude way to refer to the situation, when you consider she and others like her have been denied a proper male identity because of a genetic fluke. The one thing her brain is hardwired to have and desire is forever denied to her and she's ridiculed for wanting it.
Even if you disagree on terminology, we can at least maintain a level of standard in how to refer to transgender people, right?
Yes, you're totally right, it's very crude, but the point is made very clearly in a few words.
I can maintain of level of standard regarding transgender people as long as they don't make stupid claims that would pull humanity down to the level of handicapped people claiming to be totally normal and rewrite the rules of normality and sanity for the sake of whatever form of "justice" and "fairness" they only have in their mind.
Look, I'm not in a mood to have fun at the expense of transpeople. What they suffer from is quite terrible, and probably most unfair. But facts are facts.
Now, they still remain totally capable of working in society and have very good jobs, although on the other hand, we cannot ignore how our sexual mind heavily weighs on human relations even in professional domains.
As long as we never forget that...
Oh by the way, Hitler.
That, for the Godwin point, y'know.