Mathilda Wrote:I was born and raised in England for example. Yet I identify as German and Scottish. No one thinks that this is strange because my dad is German and even though I do not have a Scottish accent I live in Scotland with a native husband. They have the concept up here of the new Scot. I never felt English but I immediately recognised Scotland as the home for me when I first moved up here. But I also recognise that I am culturally British despite my separatist tendencies. On the other hand while my father is German, he's lived in England most of his life because he prefers it there because he sees society as being less rigid. He's actually quite English at times, to the point of making Hitler jokes while on holiday in Germany as if he was some British tourist. My dad even gets complimented on his good German language skills because he has lost his native accent.

Yet Germans and Brits did not develop differently in the womb like males and females do. But there were values and a world view that appealed more to me in these countries than in the one where I was born and raised.

Best explanation

To those arguing that Transgender argues from gender stereotypes or requires rigid genders . Your once again wrong .

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why...a6ac0ad12b

(November 21, 2017 at 6:24 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: To those arguing that Transgender argues from gender stereotypes or requires rigid genders . Your once again wrong .

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why...a6ac0ad12b

Sometimes I wonder if people are reading the same article that I am. A Huffington post blog article, whose main source is another blog, hardly constitutes evidence. When you dig through to the actual study, all it says is that transsexual women are perceived as more masculine than cis women. Gee why could that possibly be? It says nothing about what they are trying to express, which seems often to be a hyper-sexual femininity. Of course we can't know exactly how common that is, because it's not what the actual survey measures, despite what the Huffington post and the blog they link to suggest. They just bank on people being to lazy to sort through their super shotty citation method to actually check.

Yes i read it's you who clearly didn't . and hilariously enough you don't even site these so called studies . But the article i link has studies which you clearly did not read . so irony .

(November 22, 2017 at 7:33 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Yes i read it's you who clearly didn't . and hilariously enough you don't even site these so called studies . But the article i link has studies which you clearly did not read . so irony .

I actually did, click on the links. They go to a blog which cites a study that doesn't even say what the original says. I mean, do you think you are going to fool me by saying this or something? I just read it and went though the links .

(November 22, 2017 at 1:42 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 6:24 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: To those arguing that Transgender argues from gender stereotypes or requires rigid genders . Your once again wrong .

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why...a6ac0ad12b

Sometimes I wonder if people are reading the same article that I am. A Huffington post blog article, whose main source is another blog, hardly constitutes evidence. When you dig through to the actual study, all it says is that transsexual women are perceived as more masculine than cis women. Gee why could that possibly be? It says nothing about what they are trying to express,  which seems often to be a hyper-sexual femininity.  Of course we can't know exactly how common that is, because it's not what the actual survey measures,  despite what the Huffington post and the blog they link to suggest. They just bank on people being to lazy to sort through their super shotty citation method to actually check.

The article actually makes sense. And sure, you're unable to make sense of it, but that is hardly surprising considering that you can't even grasp a basic understanding of logical fallacies in a debate about anything at all.

Since I feel like you are probably just going to "nah uh you didn't read it" to me again, I'll break it down for you. The Huffington post cites 5 links it that article. The first two are conservative blogs, which they are getting the conservative argument they are combating. The third, which purports to be the main thrust of the factual information is https://genderanalysis.net/2014/12/trans...alysis-03/ which despite its name is also just a blog. In fact the first five or so links on that page just go to other blogs to. It's not until following this whole mess of circular citing, that we get the first mention of an actual study from 2002 in Poland. https://link.springer.com/article/10.102...0611416035 which says exactly what I said in the first place, which is that transsexual women are perceived as more masculine than cis women and does nothing to do with how they present themselves. They are perceived as more masculine because they look more masculine!

(November 22, 2017 at 8:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 7:33 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Yes i read it's you who clearly didn't . and hilariously enough you don't even site these so called studies . But the article i link has studies which you clearly did not read . so irony .

I actually did,  click on the links. They go to a blog which cites a study that doesn't even say what the original says. I mean, do you think you are going to fool me by saying this or something?  I just read it and went though the links .

Actually they do . Still waiting for those devastating studies that show gender essentialism is a thing . When were they 1970 ? Who wrote them quack  Jordan Peterson .?Wait it does not matter because  gender essentialism  is as dead as behaviorism. It is not hard to fool a fool lucky you that's not my intent .

(November 22, 2017 at 8:11 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 1:42 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Sometimes I wonder if people are reading the same article that I am. A Huffington post blog article, whose main source is another blog, hardly constitutes evidence. When you dig through to the actual study, all it says is that transsexual women are perceived as more masculine than cis women. Gee why could that possibly be? It says nothing about what they are trying to express,  which seems often to be a hyper-sexual femininity.  Of course we can't know exactly how common that is, because it's not what the actual survey measures,  despite what the Huffington post and the blog they link to suggest. They just bank on people being to lazy to sort through their super shotty citation method to actually check.

The article actually makes sense. And sure, you're unable to make sense of it, but that is hardly surprising considering that you can't even grasp a basic understanding of logical fallacies in a debate about anything at all.

That's an ad hominem. The articimakes sense because I'm too dumb to understand it? Nice logic skills. Defend it on it's own ground.

---

(November 22, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 8:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I actually did,  click on the links. They go to a blog which cites a study that doesn't even say what the original says. I mean, do you think you are going to fool me by saying this or something?  I just read it and went though the links .

Actually they do . Still waiting for those devastating studies that show gender essentialism is a thing . When were they 1970 . Who wrote them quack  Jordan Peterson . Wait it does not matter because  gender essentialism  is as dead as behaviorism. It is not hard to fool a fool lucky you that's not my intent .

I broke down the links for you, where they go and what the study says in my other post. Not sure what you are talking about after that. I don't particularly care about this topic, I just want to make sure the science being cited and opinion being expressed meld well together, which they don't on this case.

Furthermore calling something a blog does not debunk it  and considering who's blog it is this makes your case even weaker . And again you did not read the polish study it does not back your claims . In other words you have no studies .

---

Quote:I broke down the links for you, where they go and what the study says in my other post. Not sure what you are talking about after that. I don't particularly care about this topic, I just want to make sure the science being cited and opinion being expressed meld well together, which they don't on this case

No all you did was snark one was a blog (from the author who is trans researcher i might add ) insist there are studies that argue for gender essentialism which you never provide . And miss read a study .

---

Oh and all the links you didn't mention .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591517/

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SfqOAQA...22&f=false

[url= https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/r...ed-states/[/url]

Also i might point out the author (who is a researchers) body of work ,

---

(November 22, 2017 at 8:11 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 1:42 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Sometimes I wonder if people are reading the same article that I am. A Huffington post blog article, whose main source is another blog, hardly constitutes evidence. When you dig through to the actual study, all it says is that transsexual women are perceived as more masculine than cis women. Gee why could that possibly be? It says nothing about what they are trying to express,  which seems often to be a hyper-sexual femininity.  Of course we can't know exactly how common that is, because it's not what the actual survey measures,  despite what the Huffington post and the blog they link to suggest. They just bank on people being to lazy to sort through their super shotty citation method to actually check.

The article actually makes sense. And sure, you're unable to make sense of it, but that is hardly surprising considering that you can't even grasp a basic understanding of logical fallacies in a debate about anything at all.

Yup epic fail all around . The captain here is not awesome .