That Trans Thread

[Fake Messiah]

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch.

How can anyone be so stupid as to claim that allowing people to freely identify their gender imposes rules and restrictions on them? It's literally quite the opposite.

Seriously, you are either an idiot or a troll.

[zebo-the-fat]

Charlie Boy  still hasn't answered my question about what should happen to people who are born intersex  (in case you don't know, some people are born with a mix of genitalia, doctors sometimes can't determine what sex they are and basically take a guess)  Not common I know, but it does happen.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the more people worry about gender identification, the closer society get to restricting ANY body modification - piercings, tattoos, etc. This becomes more of a concern as religious loonies acquire political influence, as one of their themes about gender affirming  care is, ‘You should be happy with the body God gave you.

Where does it end? No organ transplants? No chemo for cancer patients? No vision correction?

And before certain persons in this thread accuse me of committing a slippery slope fallacy, please remember that, in theocratic societies, some slope are VERY slippery indeed.

Boru

[zebo-the-fat]

I managed to upset a door to door god salesman who was trying to convince me that his god had created a perfect body by asking why his perfect body needed glasses!

[Rev. Rye]

Or here’s another type of intersexuality: there’s a condition called Congenital Androgen Insensitivity. I discovered it from this episode of House:





The way it’s presented is mostly accurate: every once in a couple thousand births (the estimates run between one in 20,000 and one in 100,000), a baby with XY Chromosomes develops an inability to do anything with the testosterone coursing through their bloodstream (imagine a criminal firing an Uzi with regular bullets at Superman and you get an idea of what happens) and ends up presenting as female. Unlike in the show, it tends to be discovered either when the gonads in question herniate, or when she grows up and wonders “why the fuck hasn’t my first period come yet” and has the doctors figure it out.

And despite having XY chromosomes and (at least when said gonads are working) testosterone coursing through their bloodstream, there’s nothing medical science can do to make them normally functioning men.

Here’s the testimony of just one:

[Rev. Rye]

I managed to upset a door to door god salesman who was trying to convince me that his god had created a perfect body by asking why his perfect body needed glasses!

This is a big part of why the old claim that the eye is so perfect it had to be created just the way it was always irked me. How fucking perfect could I buy it being when I wear glasses and vision starts to get fuzzy about two feet from my face?

[Fake Messiah]

I think the more people worry about gender identification, the closer society get to restricting ANY body modification - piercings, tattoos, etc. This becomes more of a concern as religious loonies acquire political influence, as one of their themes about gender affirming  care is, ‘You should be happy with the body God gave you.

Where does it end? No organ transplants? No chemo for cancer patients? No vision correction?

And before certain persons in this thread accuse me of committing a slippery slope fallacy, please remember that, in theocratic societies, some slope are VERY slippery indeed.

Boru

It also comes from incompetent politicians who simply need a group of people to blame for their own mistakes. Usually it's a weak group of people who can't defend themselves; thus, Hitler had Jews back when Jews were still weak, Putin blames the West (along with gays and trans people), and Trump blames all his mistakes on trans people and immigrants. Therefore, we have MAGA people coming here spouting Trump's delusions.

I don't know if you can remember, but there was some guy here on AF who actually blamed trans kids for the fall of Rome.

[arewethereyet]

I was considered, and called, a tomboy when I was a kid.

Is that an issue?  Seems to me that others were assigning my gender traits because of the things I did...like fish, play baseball with the neighbor kids, etc.

At no point was my biology questioned but my actions were definitely defined by others based on a set of "rules".

Oh dear, he dreaded tomboy label. I wonder—was the offense truly in the labeling, or in the retrospective interpretation of it?

After all, the term tomboy never denied biology; quite the opposite—it acknowledged a girl acting outside expected norms without claiming she wasn’t a girl. Contrast that with today’s curious fashion of insisting that certain behaviors must mean something about one’s identity, or even one’s sex.

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Of course, I welcome your thoughts—assuming they haven’t been pre-approved by the Gender Compliance Committee.

You certainly are an unpleasant entity.

I will not judge someone who feels that they are misgendered because I have never thought those thoughts or felt those feelings.  

I'm just saying that it should not be up to everyone else to decide how a person wants to present themselves, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.  And sensibilities being hurt don't count.

You spend too much time worrying about things that are not your business.

[zebo-the-fat]

Oh dear, he dreaded tomboy label. I wonder—was the offense truly in the labeling, or in the retrospective interpretation of it?

After all, the term tomboy never denied biology; quite the opposite—it acknowledged a girl acting outside expected norms without claiming she wasn’t a girl. Contrast that with today’s curious fashion of insisting that certain behaviors must mean something about one’s identity, or even one’s sex.

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Of course, I welcome your thoughts—assuming they haven’t been pre-approved by the Gender Compliance Committee.

You certainly are an unpleasant entity.

I will not judge someone who feels that they are misgendered because I have never thought those thoughts or felt those feelings.  

I'm just saying that it should not be up to everyone else to decide how a person wants to present themselves, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.  And sensibilities being hurt don't count.

You spend too much time worrying about things that are not your business.

I always wonder why theists are so interested in other peoples sex lives, sounds pervy to me 

[Charlie Boy]

As for the distinction you attempt—between “gender nonconformity” and “ontological mismatch”—it is noted. Yet I would gently observe that, in practice, this distinction is frequently elided by the very activists you insist don’t exist. A boy who likes dolls is often met not with celebration for his nonconformity, but with solemn suggestion that he may in fact be a girl—affirmed, of course, lest anyone be accused of transphobia.

Can you show any evidence of this happening? Like, people specifically insisting that something as trivial as liking dolls over trucks is enough of a reason to throw a kid’s gender into question?

Because it seems like you read Johnny The Walrus and spent enough time hitting your head on the toilet that you actually thought “Yeah, that’s totally a reasonable reflection of reality.”

And, seriously, if I wanted to make a cinematic reference just to impress, is your cultural database so bereft that you think one of Kevin Smith’s worse films would count as impressive?

Your challenge for evidence is noted and appreciated—it is always refreshing when interlocutors invite rigor rather than retreat to insults. Regarding the claim that “liking dolls over trucks” is sometimes treated as sufficient cause for questioning a child’s gender, one might direct you to a veritable library of clinical guidelines, activist literature, and media reports.

For instance, the widely referenced Gender Affirmative Model endorsed by organizations such as the American Psychological Association encourages affirmation of a child’s expressed gender identity with minimal exploration, often based on behaviors or preferences that diverge from traditional gender norms. The now infamous “gender clinics” routinely assess children exhibiting gender nonconforming behavior—doll preference included—sometimes leading to social transition or medical interventions.

A particularly salient example is the “Ashley Treatment” controversy and the debates surrounding early social transition, where parental and professional interventions follow perceived gender nonconformity rather than any intrinsic dysphoria. The BBC’s “Transgender Kids” documentary further illustrates the phenomenon.

As for Johnny the Walrus—a satirical parable, yes—but satire often targets a recognizable reality to provoke thought. Dismissing it outright on the basis of toilet-related headaches might be more revealing about one’s rhetorical flair than the substance of the argument.

Regarding your cinematic jab, one must concede that Kevin Smith’s oeuvre is… divisive. Yet, invoking “Tusk” was less about cinematic praise and more about capturing a certain cultural zeitgeist—an evocative metaphor for fever-dream logic, if you will.

Shall we now proceed with civility and evidence, or is another performance imminent?