So you thought that sex was binary with a strict division between male and female

((( sigh))). Watch the video because to have start you have it backwards with gender and sexuality but putting that aside we have some preliminary studies pointing to essential brain differences between those who identify as male and those who identify as female. In trans people that is reversed - so it just may be genetic after all, in which case it is not their choice.

Then there is the growing concern about the role of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in this

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.113-a670

 

What is worse - doing surgery on an intersex baby that has no choice in deciding his/her sex or waiting until they CAN decide?

 

Look what not one poster has managed to do is actually prove this is happening on a scale that requires this degree of intervention with laws

 

What is a fully functional breast even mean?

You know why women have more fat tissue and other parts over males?
It's so they can generate milk to feed their off spring.
That is when a breast is fully functional, at least in terms of their intended purpose.

So, if a female is actually a trans male, will those breasts ever produce milk? I suspect the answer is mixed. Some may and some may not.

But the difference between male/female/trans, is the makeup of brain waves and activity. From studies that I have seen.

And you use the term, we cut off their genitals.
Who is we?

I am guessing 100% of the time, the person who wants to transition is in agreement with themselves and their doctors and perhaps the parents in making said decision.
Which is how it should be, we, you, I, should not be making that decision for others.

 

People can post all the Gooblygunk agenda driven pseudoscience they want to try to support this insane notion that you can somehow become the opposite sex.

But at the end of the day they'll never be able to change simple scientific facts like this.... If a transgender male dies and their skeleton is well preserved and someday an anthropologist digs up the skeleton they will be able to look at the bones and tell you that this was a male.

Because yes there are fundamental biological and physiological differences between a male and a female and they are very distinct and unmistakable.

 

It's a mammary gland. Heavens!

 

Begging the question. Who says a 16 year old can't decide? "His body, his right!"

 

Jabberwocky.

 

Familiarize yourself with two key thoughts.

Sex is a binary.

Your own words provide the point.

First the exception does not prove the rule. It's the exception for a reason. People will be killed by being struck by lightening this year. However if you honestly believed every time you stepped out of your home that being struck by lightening was a norm, you'd be unable to function and be terrified.

Second your own video uses the word ATYPICAL. That means NOT TYPICAL. The TYPICAL means the rule. Again saying something violates the rules and is an exception is not a spectrum. It is an aberration. It is not the norm.

That is why trans advocates try to keep altering our language. They want words like TYPICAL or ATYMICAL or ABBERATION to be replaced with spectrum and cis.

 

I agree with you, but the proverb goes: "the exception proves the rule," the rule being that in the natural world, when organisms develop normally, there is normally male and female. That there are intersex babies in rare cases means that normal ones are male or female.

 

So according to you, mammary glands means the breast is fully functional?
Even though they may not function by producing milk after giving birth.

You're the one who used the term functional without stating what functional even means.

 

No!

Look, I'm not going to teach you 10th grade biology.

 

You are mistaking me for someone who supports surgery to remove, alter, or modify one's sex organs. I think it's a monstrous idea in almost all circumstances, but certainly on the basis of gender dysphoria it is.

And if it's a bad idea to keep children from undergoing sex alteration surgery, it's probably a bad idea to block or inject hormones when they are underage as well. Let nature take its course, unless there's some obvious deformity like a cleft palate, an extra digit, or a disfiguring tumor.

It isn't obvious, not to me, that any boy who thinks he is a girl actually is a girl, or even that he will keep thinking that way at age 19, 25 or 40.

 

When it comes to man "breast" the saying...." As useless as tits on a boar hog" immediately comes to mind.

I hope none of these ardent believers in this new trans craze ever get into dairy farming because they might start trying to milk the bulls!!!!

 

delete

 

You don't have to.
You made a statement, back it up.

I don't need a 10th grade biology lesson. But you need to explain fully functional breasts.
You claimed that trans people are mutilating them.

Without explaining your definition of fully functional.
Again, I've said to you a few times, fully functional is when they produce milk to feed their offspring.
What is your definition.
Mammaries is not acceptable.

 

This has to be one of the least informed posts I've ever seen.

 

Nah, read Masquat's (sp?) posts above about the progression of "treatment" of dysphoria, and some case histories. I

 

Maturity is a key factor. We can bell curve when most humans are mature enough to make certain kinds of decisions for themselves. In doing so, we can make an artificial determination for the purpose of law for saying when they can and can't make decisions for themselves. However, we really should make allowances for those who mature early, and in many cases we do.

 

I have said in the past that the labels currently being used might not be the best. We might need all new words. But language evolves based upon the population as a whole. There isn't some committee out there that determines what will be. At best we have dictionaries that determine what currently is. So at some point, we may well see what a good definition of woman as gender is, and woman as sex maybe moved to obscure, as the original definition of gay has. Right now language is in a flux. Even the transgender community as a whole still end up using (fe)male and (wo)man as synonyms a lot, when they are not either paying attention or out of the context of trans vs cis. The best we can currently do when discussing the issue is try to recognize the context use of the words. Although I will be interested to see what lexographers come up if woman sticks as a gender word instead of a sex word.

 

No I haven't stated that. Others have made that claimed or the bisexual claim based upon the fact that I am attracted to transwomen as well as cis women. However, I am not attracted to either trans men nor cis men. For me, I consider that straight, but I don't deny the bisexual label if we are basing it solely off biological sexes. I actually tend to use heteroflexable since really none of the main three accurately describes my attractions.

 

It is possible, although it's very rare for it to happen on it's own. But it can be induced.

Brain structure, although that will translate into waves and activity. It's either the hypothalamus or the amygdala that is closer in structure to the opposite sex, although not the same, with homosexuality being the other one.

I'm betting the context is society in general.

 

Which is still the lie that is presented by opponents. The claim is not that they are of the opposite sex, despite still sometimes still using the words interchangeably. The recognition of that fact is show with the use of the term "assigned (fe)male at birth". The claim is that the gender and the sex are separate things, and in transgender people they do not match the same as happens in the statistically more common cis gender people.

 

Who says a 16 year old can't drink? "his body, his right"

 

Atypical isn't the issue. The use of aberration as a pejorative is, as is any other such pejoratives. The whole point of noting that they are transgender is that they are the exceptions. Which is why trying to make a point of what is normal, statistically speaking, as a argument against is rather stupid.