This week in trans: The Lancet, the ACLU, the Guardian

[Jarhyn]

You are correct: they are not considered transgender. You are incorrect that they are not relevant to this discussion which, for some, hinges on the notion that in nature, sex is strictly binary a d determined at conception. This is obviously untrue. Some individuals are true hermaphrodites; some present with ambiguous genitalia at birth. We know this to be so—there is documentation in medical literature. We observe individuals who are apparently male but have a more feminine body or facial structures. We observe apparent females with narrow hips, broad shoulders and other more typical male features. There are males who are very nurturing and gentle . There are females who despise children and are very aggressive physically. Society has 'decided' that little girls like pink and dolls and making pretty things. It has 'decided' that boys like more violent toys and games. It ignores the reality that boy children enjoy cuddly toys and girls like building and pretending to shoot things or blow things up. And a lot of girls hate pink.

It is absolutely reasonable to at least entertain the notion that for some, their physical characteristics are at odds with their sense of themselves. There is zero reason to insist that people are as YOU perceive them and not as they experience themselves. How are any of us harmed?

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what? Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

I accept the thrust of this, but would be cautious to note that "their sense of self" is not a "nonphysical" aspect of them. It is created by an alignment of neurons which is not itself necessarily open to change, and which may well be initialized on the basis of a sexual n-morphism (n >= 2) for any given morphological differentiation point of the brain.

My understanding is that there is some controversy over the differences in brain structures between men and women and between trans and cis gendered individuals. I absolutely accept that there is a physical cause for the phenomenon we know as being transgender.

Yeah, the part about that is people making big declarations over the ida that the differences are "small". With a "small" difference, an "and" can become a "not". With a single electrical charge in a processor, it is the difference between "jump here" and "jump there" or even between "jump" and "add" depending on the architecture. Depending on the critical point of the decision graph, even a single cellular nucleus of a multinucleated cell can make the difference potentially between something being processed in "mode 1" versus "mode 2" of available processing modes, for every instance.

 

[Metaphor]

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what?

Who said they are pretending?

Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

Indeed. Most transwomen don't, in fact, have genital surgery. Perhaps it would take the edge off the insult when they tell JK Rowling to suck their ladydick.

 

[Metaphor]

You are correct: they are not considered transgender. You are incorrect that they are not relevant to this discussion which, for some, hinges on the notion that in nature, sex is strictly binary a d determined at conception. This is obviously untrue. Some individuals are true hermaphrodites; some present with ambiguous genitalia at birth. We know this to be so—there is documentation in medical literature. We observe individuals who are apparently male but have a more feminine body or facial structures. We observe apparent females with narrow hips, broad shoulders and other more typical male features. There are males who are very nurturing and gentle . There are females who despise children and are very aggressive physically. Society has 'decided' that little girls like pink and dolls and making pretty things. It has 'decided' that boys like more violent toys and games. It ignores the reality that boy children enjoy cuddly toys and girls like building and pretending to shoot things or blow things up. And a lot of girls hate pink.

It is absolutely reasonable to at least entertain the notion that for some, their physical characteristics are at odds with their sense of themselves. There is zero reason to insist that people are as YOU perceive them and not as they experience themselves. How are any of us harmed?

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what? Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

I accept the thrust of this, but would be cautious to note that "their sense of self" is not a "nonphysical" aspect of them. It is created by an alignment of neurons which is not itself necessarily open to change, and which may well be initialized on the basis of a sexual n-morphism (n >= 2) for any given morphological differentiation point of the brain.

My understanding is that there is some controversy over the differences in brain structures between men and women and between trans and cis gendered individuals. I absolutely accept that there is a physical cause for the phenomenon we know as being transgender.

So...what?

There is a physical cause for personality differences, too. So...what? Rachel Dolezal's brain caused her to perceive herself as black. Why don't you see her as black?

 

[Emily Lake]

You are correct: they are not considered transgender. You are incorrect that they are not relevant to this discussion which, for some, hinges on the notion that in nature, sex is strictly binary a d determined at conception. This is obviously untrue. Some individuals are true hermaphrodites; some present with ambiguous genitalia at birth. We know this to be so—there is documentation in medical literature.

You're conflating sex with sexual characteristics. Sex *is* binary. People with DSDs, even those with the condition of true hermaphroditism do not produce a third gamete, nor do they have the organs to produce a third gamete. And none of them produce both gametes. Every single person with a DSD can be definitively categorized as either male or female, although it can take more information that the glance at a baby's genitalia that is accurate in 99.988% of cases.

We observe individuals who are apparently male but have a more feminine body or facial structures. We observe apparent females with narrow hips, broad shoulders and other more typical male features. There are males who are very nurturing and gentle . There are females who despise children and are very aggressive physically.

And here you're conflating sex with tertiary sexual characteristics - things that are correlated with sex but not a direct result of sex. You're further conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.

Society has 'decided' that little girls like pink and dolls and making pretty things. It has 'decided' that boys like more violent toys and games. It ignores the reality that boy children enjoy cuddly toys and girls like building and pretending to shoot things or blow things up. And a lot of girls hate pink.

You're conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.

It is absolutely reasonable to at least entertain the notion that for some, their physical characteristics are at odds with their sense of themselves. There is zero reason to insist that people are as YOU perceive them and not as they experience themselves. How are any of us harmed?

Let's unpack this. First, there are LOTS of reasons to acknowledge that physical characteristics do not define sex, nor should they define gender. A butch woman is not less of a woman for being butch, and an effeminate man is not less of a man for being effeminate. Insisting that the masculinity or femininity expressed by a person actually somehow makes them the opposite sex is incredibly regressive. Taking the ideological stance that a girl that isn't girly enough should be treated like a boy is a damaging, limiting, and oppressive level of gender-role enforcement.

Second, this has nothing to do with how I perceive them. It has to do with what reality actually is, and the fact that our wishes do not alter or override reality. I'm quite happy to be fully supportive of a transgender person presenting as the opposite sex, and living their lives as the opposite sex as much as they can. I *do* support my transgender family and friends in that endeavor. But there are cases where sex actually does really matter. At the end of the day, I simply do not worry about the risk of my 6'2" transwoman niece being raped or getting knocked up. On the other hand, I absolutely worry about my 5'0" transboy nephew being sexually assaulted, raped, and becoming pregnant because he in absolutely no way passes for a boy, regardless of his mode of dress and regardless of how much I use his preferred pronouns.

And third... Some people ARE harmed. Not in most social situations, because it makes no difference in social situations. But Descovy being tested on men and transwomen doesn't mean it's safe for women - Gilead did not test it on any female during clinical trials... but because "transwomen are women" they skirted past the requirement of having disambiguated sex results. Male violent criminals being housed with women in prisons puts those women at risk. Male sex offenders being granted access to female-only spaces as an entitlement puts women at risk.

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what? Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

In order to get moved to lower security prisons where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get access to domestic violence and rape shelters where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get unquestioned access to restrooms and locker rooms where they can hide cameras

When 'pretending that they feel like women' requires nothing more than saying aloud that they identify as a woman, when it requires no hormone therapy and no surgery, when it doesn't even require that a guy shave off his beard... there's no downside to predatory men. You seem to be under the impression that removal of genitalia is part and parcel of being a transwoman - it isn't. Even prior to the current self-declaration approach, only 20% of transgender identified males had their genitals removed, and it was an even smaller percentage of transgender identified females (phalloplasty does a pretty horrible job of producing a useful or even visually appropriate simulacrum of a penis). For some it's a matter of it being expensive and risky. But the current increase in transwoman is due to a very large portion of people whose claimed gender identity is that of a woman but who have exactly zero intention of ever having their genitals altered.

My transwoman niece has quite openly stated that she has no intention of ever removing her penis, and takes as low a dosage of estrogen as will allow her to grow breasts without interfering with the sexual function of her penis or her sperm production. She is far, far from unique in this outlook.

 

[Metaphor]

This is an instance of an individual who would be a menace no matter what congregate population they were placed in and also rather obviously a poor candidate for being placed in a female institution, given the history of raping women.

Karen White did not belong on the female estate because he is male, not because he raped women.

Honest question: What do they do with men who are convicted of raping other men? Do they place them in the general population of a male prison?

They might. What difference does it make? Males belong on the male estate.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you have any documentation of transwomen being a physical risk to imprisoned cis-gendered women?

Karen White
Six other attacks (seven including Karen White)
Lawsuit in Illinois

 

[Emily Lake]

I accept the thrust of this, but would be cautious to note that "their sense of self" is not a "nonphysical" aspect of them. It is created by an alignment of neurons which is not itself necessarily open to change, and which may well be initialized on the basis of a sexual n-morphism (n >= 2) for any given morphological differentiation point of the brain.

Based on... what exactly? You state this as if it were fact, where it's really just science fiction brainstorming on your part.

 

[Emily Lake]

Karen White did not belong on the female estate because he is male, not because he raped women.

White is the easily foreseeable outcome of a policy based on ideology that denies reality and places feelings over safety.

White was in prison for sexual violence against women... and somehow some asshole in charge decided that the best thing to do was to put the known fucking rapist in with a bunch of women that couldn't get away from them. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Jarhyn]

I accept the thrust of this, but would be cautious to note that "their sense of self" is not a "nonphysical" aspect of them. It is created by an alignment of neurons which is not itself necessarily open to change, and which may well be initialized on the basis of a sexual n-morphism (n >= 2) for any given morphological differentiation point of the brain.

Based on... what exactly? You state this as if it were fact, where it's really just science fiction brainstorming on your part.

Because it is fact that single neurons in a neural network create functional change, and with the knowledge that brain dimorphism have been observed. These two concrete facts are enough to intersect their implications and look at where that intersection points.

And it points to me being right.

Your objection is as substantive as someone claiming, even in the presence of a gravitational pull on a nearby celestial body at regular intervals in it's transit, that this does not necessarily mean there is a massive object there until it has been observed.

Sexual dimorphism of the brain is a well established fact.

The deep impact of small factors on the output of a logical function are also well established.

That you don't like where these two point together is your problem, not mine.

 

[Gun Nut]

You're conflating sex with sexual characteristics. Sex *is* binary. People with DSDs, even those with the condition of true hermaphroditism do not produce a third gamete, nor do they have the organs to produce a third gamete. And none of them produce both gametes. Every single person with a DSD can be definitively categorized as either male or female, although it can take more information that the glance at a baby's genitalia that is accurate in 99.988% of cases.



And here you're conflating sex with tertiary sexual characteristics - things that are correlated with sex but not a direct result of sex. You're further conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.

Society has 'decided' that little girls like pink and dolls and making pretty things. It has 'decided' that boys like more violent toys and games. It ignores the reality that boy children enjoy cuddly toys and girls like building and pretending to shoot things or blow things up. And a lot of girls hate pink.

You're conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.

It is absolutely reasonable to at least entertain the notion that for some, their physical characteristics are at odds with their sense of themselves. There is zero reason to insist that people are as YOU perceive them and not as they experience themselves. How are any of us harmed?

Let's unpack this. First, there are LOTS of reasons to acknowledge that physical characteristics do not define sex, nor should they define gender. A butch woman is not less of a woman for being butch, and an effeminate man is not less of a man for being effeminate. Insisting that the masculinity or femininity expressed by a person actually somehow makes them the opposite sex is incredibly regressive. Taking the ideological stance that a girl that isn't girly enough should be treated like a boy is a damaging, limiting, and oppressive level of gender-role enforcement.

Second, this has nothing to do with how I perceive them. It has to do with what reality actually is, and the fact that our wishes do not alter or override reality. I'm quite happy to be fully supportive of a transgender person presenting as the opposite sex, and living their lives as the opposite sex as much as they can. I *do* support my transgender family and friends in that endeavor. But there are cases where sex actually does really matter. At the end of the day, I simply do not worry about the risk of my 6'2" transwoman niece being raped or getting knocked up. On the other hand, I absolutely worry about my 5'0" transboy nephew being sexually assaulted, raped, and becoming pregnant because he in absolutely no way passes for a boy, regardless of his mode of dress and regardless of how much I use his preferred pronouns.

And third... Some people ARE harmed. Not in most social situations, because it makes no difference in social situations. But Descovy being tested on men and transwomen doesn't mean it's safe for women - Gilead did not test it on any female during clinical trials... but because "transwomen are women" they skirted past the requirement of having disambiguated sex results. Male violent criminals being housed with women in prisons puts those women at risk. Male sex offenders being granted access to female-only spaces as an entitlement puts women at risk.

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what? Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

In order to get moved to lower security prisons where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get access to domestic violence and rape shelters where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get unquestioned access to restrooms and locker rooms where they can hide cameras

When 'pretending that they feel like women' requires nothing more than saying aloud that they identify as a woman, when it requires no hormone therapy and no surgery, when it doesn't even require that a guy shave off his beard... there's no downside to predatory men. You seem to be under the impression that removal of genitalia is part and parcel of being a transwoman - it isn't. Even prior to the current self-declaration approach, only 20% of transgender identified males had their genitals removed, and it was an even smaller percentage of transgender identified females (phalloplasty does a pretty horrible job of producing a useful or even visually appropriate simulacrum of a penis). For some it's a matter of it being expensive and risky. But the current increase in transwoman is due to a very large portion of people whose claimed gender identity is that of a woman but who have exactly zero intention of ever having their genitals altered.

My transwoman niece has quite openly stated that she has no intention of ever removing her penis, and takes as low a dosage of estrogen as will allow her to grow breasts without interfering with the sexual function of her penis or her sperm production. She is far, far from unique in this outlook.

by this logic I should be too afraid to go to the doctor... I mean... someone can go to medical school.. years of residency... ridiculous debt and insurance premiums... and just do it all to hid cameras in their office to get pictures of me.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're conflating sex with sexual characteristics. Sex *is* binary. People with DSDs, even those with the condition of true hermaphroditism do not produce a third gamete, nor do they have the organs to produce a third gamete. And none of them produce both gametes. Every single person with a DSD can be definitively categorized as either male or female, although it can take more information that the glance at a baby's genitalia that is accurate in 99.988% of cases.



And here you're conflating sex with tertiary sexual characteristics - things that are correlated with sex but not a direct result of sex. You're further conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.


You're conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.


Let's unpack this. First, there are LOTS of reasons to acknowledge that physical characteristics do not define sex, nor should they define gender. A butch woman is not less of a woman for being butch, and an effeminate man is not less of a man for being effeminate. Insisting that the masculinity or femininity expressed by a person actually somehow makes them the opposite sex is incredibly regressive. Taking the ideological stance that a girl that isn't girly enough should be treated like a boy is a damaging, limiting, and oppressive level of gender-role enforcement.

Second, this has nothing to do with how I perceive them. It has to do with what reality actually is, and the fact that our wishes do not alter or override reality. I'm quite happy to be fully supportive of a transgender person presenting as the opposite sex, and living their lives as the opposite sex as much as they can. I *do* support my transgender family and friends in that endeavor. But there are cases where sex actually does really matter. At the end of the day, I simply do not worry about the risk of my 6'2" transwoman niece being raped or getting knocked up. On the other hand, I absolutely worry about my 5'0" transboy nephew being sexually assaulted, raped, and becoming pregnant because he in absolutely no way passes for a boy, regardless of his mode of dress and regardless of how much I use his preferred pronouns.

And third... Some people ARE harmed. Not in most social situations, because it makes no difference in social situations. But Descovy being tested on men and transwomen doesn't mean it's safe for women - Gilead did not test it on any female during clinical trials... but because "transwomen are women" they skirted past the requirement of having disambiguated sex results. Male violent criminals being housed with women in prisons puts those women at risk. Male sex offenders being granted access to female-only spaces as an entitlement puts women at risk.

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what? Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

In order to get moved to lower security prisons where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get access to domestic violence and rape shelters where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get unquestioned access to restrooms and locker rooms where they can hide cameras

When 'pretending that they feel like women' requires nothing more than saying aloud that they identify as a woman, when it requires no hormone therapy and no surgery, when it doesn't even require that a guy shave off his beard... there's no downside to predatory men. You seem to be under the impression that removal of genitalia is part and parcel of being a transwoman - it isn't. Even prior to the current self-declaration approach, only 20% of transgender identified males had their genitals removed, and it was an even smaller percentage of transgender identified females (phalloplasty does a pretty horrible job of producing a useful or even visually appropriate simulacrum of a penis). For some it's a matter of it being expensive and risky. But the current increase in transwoman is due to a very large portion of people whose claimed gender identity is that of a woman but who have exactly zero intention of ever having their genitals altered.

My transwoman niece has quite openly stated that she has no intention of ever removing her penis, and takes as low a dosage of estrogen as will allow her to grow breasts without interfering with the sexual function of her penis or her sperm production. She is far, far from unique in this outlook.

by this logic I should be too afraid to go to the doctor... I mean... someone can go to medical school.. years of residency... ridiculous debt and insurance premiums... and just do it all to hid cameras in their office to get pictures of me.

The gymnastics some people will go through to invent whole cloth nefarious intents is spectacular.

It seems all that concern Emily showed for all those kids "cutting their genitals off" has metamorphosed into a demand that adults cut off their genitals?

Or, she criticizes that being trans makes folks sterile and then also criticizes when people act so as to prevent that.

Lucy, put that football down.

 

[Bomb#20]

Imagine for a moment that you had a constant stream of bilious propaganda (it is bile, from where I stand) spewed "weekly" on the one internet place you actually tend to visit outside of direct messengers or Reddit targeting you and your friends.

It would be like growing up with Mexican heritage and occasionally smoking weed in the age when "Marijuana" hit the papers, and they use your culture and something you do as the basis for a concentrated propaganda effort against your "race", really against your community and people who "look like and talk like"? It wouldn't feel great. I can see more situations where it's appropriate to drag a person by their hair than I can see of where it is appropriate to drive such a one-sided narrative!

I had, and still have, concerns about the conduct of trans people with respect to certain edge cases; and the conduct towards trans people in others. I try to make these clear and propose solutions towards those issues, though, and where the real problems seem to be. It's just not the behavior I see consistently applied by Bomb, Metaphor, or Emily. Having concerns and letting those concerns rule you are two very different things.

I accept that the things we wish we were agents of, we are not. I am not the agent of my own happiness, though what I do with that happiness I am the most powerful agent of, generally. And so I accept that Emily, Metaphor, and AM, Bomb and the like who generally post in such threads may not fully have agency over what looms large in society to them. But they do have agency over deciding what to do about it. They decide to come here and repeatedly post threads that are propaganda against me and mine.

This is the reason they and I have conflict.

Yet again, Jarhyn is libeling me, and others -- he is making false damaging accusations against fellow posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. Yet again, Jarhyn is proving he doesn't give a rat's ass whether the things he says about his political opponents are fact-based. His behavior is unethical.

The other targets of his vicious invective can speak for themselves; as for me, I have posted zero anti-trans propaganda; I have not criticized any trans people for being trans or for any behavior that's due to being trans; and I have posted no threads at all on the topic of trans people, propaganda or otherwise.

I expect Jarhyn has me on "La la la I can't hear you"; but even if he becomes aware of my not-guilty plea, he will be unable to back up any of what he accuses me of by quoting me making any attacks of the sort he imputes to me. He made it all up on his own initiative, apparently because it pleases him to paper over the difference between attacking trans people for being trans versus attacking PC ideologues for preaching idiotic nonsense and for attempting to enforce their own religious observances on unbelievers, in order to trump up a false narrative that I'm criticizing the trans, and thereby draw attention away from the fact that it's actually Jarhyn and his fellow political ideologues that I'm criticizing. He's papering over that difference, certainly because he prefers to promote his ideology with ad hominems instead of with reasoning, and probably because he correctly recognizes that the trans will get and deserve more sympathy from onlookers than he will.

This is the reason he and I have conflict.

 

[Toni]

You're conflating sex with sexual characteristics. Sex *is* binary. People with DSDs, even those with the condition of true hermaphroditism do not produce a third gamete, nor do they have the organs to produce a third gamete. And none of them produce both gametes. Every single person with a DSD can be definitively categorized as either male or female, although it can take more information that the glance at a baby's genitalia that is accurate in 99.988% of cases.



And here you're conflating sex with tertiary sexual characteristics - things that are correlated with sex but not a direct result of sex. You're further conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.

Society has 'decided' that little girls like pink and dolls and making pretty things. It has 'decided' that boys like more violent toys and games. It ignores the reality that boy children enjoy cuddly toys and girls like building and pretending to shoot things or blow things up. And a lot of girls hate pink.

You're conflating sex with sex-based stereotypes.

It is absolutely reasonable to at least entertain the notion that for some, their physical characteristics are at odds with their sense of themselves. There is zero reason to insist that people are as YOU perceive them and not as they experience themselves. How are any of us harmed?

Let's unpack this. First, there are LOTS of reasons to acknowledge that physical characteristics do not define sex, nor should they define gender. A butch woman is not less of a woman for being butch, and an effeminate man is not less of a man for being effeminate. Insisting that the masculinity or femininity expressed by a person actually somehow makes them the opposite sex is incredibly regressive. Taking the ideological stance that a girl that isn't girly enough should be treated like a boy is a damaging, limiting, and oppressive level of gender-role enforcement.

Second, this has nothing to do with how I perceive them. It has to do with what reality actually is, and the fact that our wishes do not alter or override reality. I'm quite happy to be fully supportive of a transgender person presenting as the opposite sex, and living their lives as the opposite sex as much as they can. I *do* support my transgender family and friends in that endeavor. But there are cases where sex actually does really matter. At the end of the day, I simply do not worry about the risk of my 6'2" transwoman niece being raped or getting knocked up. On the other hand, I absolutely worry about my 5'0" transboy nephew being sexually assaulted, raped, and becoming pregnant because he in absolutely no way passes for a boy, regardless of his mode of dress and regardless of how much I use his preferred pronouns.

And third... Some people ARE harmed. Not in most social situations, because it makes no difference in social situations. But Descovy being tested on men and transwomen doesn't mean it's safe for women - Gilead did not test it on any female during clinical trials... but because "transwomen are women" they skirted past the requirement of having disambiguated sex results. Male violent criminals being housed with women in prisons puts those women at risk. Male sex offenders being granted access to female-only spaces as an entitlement puts women at risk.

I do not understand this notion that some men are pretending that they feel like women .....in order to what? Be treated like second class citizens? Most men, in fact, are exceptionally protective when it comes to their genitalia and are not quick to have it removed.

In order to get moved to lower security prisons where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get access to domestic violence and rape shelters where they have access to vulnerable women
In order to get unquestioned access to restrooms and locker rooms where they can hide cameras

When 'pretending that they feel like women' requires nothing more than saying aloud that they identify as a woman, when it requires no hormone therapy and no surgery, when it doesn't even require that a guy shave off his beard... there's no downside to predatory men. You seem to be under the impression that removal of genitalia is part and parcel of being a transwoman - it isn't. Even prior to the current self-declaration approach, only 20% of transgender identified males had their genitals removed, and it was an even smaller percentage of transgender identified females (phalloplasty does a pretty horrible job of producing a useful or even visually appropriate simulacrum of a penis). For some it's a matter of it being expensive and risky. But the current increase in transwoman is due to a very large portion of people whose claimed gender identity is that of a woman but who have exactly zero intention of ever having their genitals altered.

My transwoman niece has quite openly stated that she has no intention of ever removing her penis, and takes as low a dosage of estrogen as will allow her to grow breasts without interfering with the sexual function of her penis or her sperm production. She is far, far from unique in this outlook.

I don’t have time to respond to this in full right now but please understand this: you may not have to worry about your 6’1 trans woman niece getting knocked up but rape is definitely a possibility no matter how big and strong your niece might be. I have some tall female friends. I’ve stopped more than one attack.

 

[Metaphor]

Imagine for a moment that you had a constant stream of bilious propaganda (it is bile, from where I stand) spewed "weekly" on the one internet place you actually tend to visit outside of direct messengers or Reddit targeting you and your friends.

It would be like growing up with Mexican heritage and occasionally smoking weed in the age when "Marijuana" hit the papers, and they use your culture and something you do as the basis for a concentrated propaganda effort against your "race", really against your community and people who "look like and talk like"? It wouldn't feel great. I can see more situations where it's appropriate to drag a person by their hair than I can see of where it is appropriate to drive such a one-sided narrative!

I had, and still have, concerns about the conduct of trans people with respect to certain edge cases; and the conduct towards trans people in others. I try to make these clear and propose solutions towards those issues, though, and where the real problems seem to be. It's just not the behavior I see consistently applied by Bomb, Metaphor, or Emily. Having concerns and letting those concerns rule you are two very different things.

I accept that the things we wish we were agents of, we are not. I am not the agent of my own happiness, though what I do with that happiness I am the most powerful agent of, generally. And so I accept that Emily, Metaphor, and AM, Bomb and the like who generally post in such threads may not fully have agency over what looms large in society to them. But they do have agency over deciding what to do about it. They decide to come here and repeatedly post threads that are propaganda against me and mine.

This is the reason they and I have conflict.

Yet again, Jarhyn is libeling me, and others -- he is making false damaging accusations against fellow posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. Yet again, Jarhyn is proving he doesn't give a rat's ass whether the things he says about his political opponents are fact-based. His behavior is unethical.

The other targets of his vicious invective can speak for themselves; as for me, I have posted zero anti-trans propaganda; I have not criticized any trans people for being trans or for any behavior that's due to being trans; and I have posted no threads at all on the topic of trans people, propaganda or otherwise.

I expect Jarhyn has me on "La la la I can't hear you"; but even if he becomes aware of my not-guilty plea, he will be unable to back up any of what he accuses me of by quoting me making any attacks of the sort he imputes to me. He made it all up on his own initiative, apparently because it pleases him to paper over the difference between attacking trans people for being trans versus attacking PC ideologues for preaching idiotic nonsense and for attempting to enforce their own religious observances on unbelievers, in order to trump up a false narrative that I'm criticizing the trans, and thereby draw attention away from the fact that it's actually Jarhyn and his fellow political ideologues that I'm criticizing. He's papering over that difference, certainly because he prefers to promote his ideology with ad hominems instead of with reasoning, and probably because he correctly recognizes that the trans will get and deserve more sympathy from onlookers than he will.

This is the reason he and I have conflict.

Of course he can't and won't back up anything he's said. Indeed, because he has me on ignore, what he imagines I might have said has become a central focus of his responses on my thread, even though he has got it wrong, catastrophically wrong, every single time. And worse, he demands other people do the work of confirming or responding to his flights of fancy.

Jarhyn is the kind of person who thinks homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender, rather than people of the same sex. Such a person has surrendered all reason. I wouldn't let his broken brain bother you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Imagine for a moment that you had a constant stream of bilious propaganda (it is bile, from where I stand) spewed "weekly" on the one internet place you actually tend to visit outside of direct messengers or Reddit targeting you and your friends.

It would be like growing up with Mexican heritage and occasionally smoking weed in the age when "Marijuana" hit the papers, and they use your culture and something you do as the basis for a concentrated propaganda effort against your "race", really against your community and people who "look like and talk like"? It wouldn't feel great. I can see more situations where it's appropriate to drag a person by their hair than I can see of where it is appropriate to drive such a one-sided narrative!

I had, and still have, concerns about the conduct of trans people with respect to certain edge cases; and the conduct towards trans people in others. I try to make these clear and propose solutions towards those issues, though, and where the real problems seem to be. It's just not the behavior I see consistently applied by Bomb, Metaphor, or Emily. Having concerns and letting those concerns rule you are two very different things.

I accept that the things we wish we were agents of, we are not. I am not the agent of my own happiness, though what I do with that happiness I am the most powerful agent of, generally. And so I accept that Emily, Metaphor, and AM, Bomb and the like who generally post in such threads may not fully have agency over what looms large in society to them. But they do have agency over deciding what to do about it. They decide to come here and repeatedly post threads that are propaganda against me and mine.

This is the reason they and I have conflict.

B20 already gave you a better reply than I could and I agree of course with his points. But I would like to add a couple of cents, with regard to your attacks against me:

First, the fact that what I say is bile and propaganda from where you stand does not change the fact that it is neither bile nor propaganda in reality. You stand in your false and unwarranted ideology.

Second, I offer to defend in a debate anything I said before and that you classify as the reason you and I have conflict: just pick your choice - anything will do. This way, that people can read your arguments vs. mine, and make their own assessments. You think you're right, right? So, bring it on. With arguments, with reason. Do you accept the challenge?

Third, I can choose to say what I reckon is probably, very probably, or certainly false (depending on the case), etc., or refrain from speaking at all, or actually say what I reckon is correct and make my case. Unfortunately, in most cases I can barely remain silent without suffering real consequences meted out by the enforcers of your ideology - it's not prison time or anything like that, thankfully, but still, there are serious consequences not reaching that level. Soon I will probably lie regularly - again due to the power of the enforcers of your ideology. But fortunately, I'm anonymous enough here, and from time to time, I choose refute some parts of your ideology.

Fourth, let us consider your analogy claim:

It would be like growing up with Mexican heritage and occasionally smoking weed in the age when "Marijuana" hit the papers, and they use your culture and something you do as the basis for a concentrated propaganda effort against your "race", really against your community and people who "look like and talk like"? It wouldn't feel great. I can see more situations where it's appropriate to drag a person by their hair than I can see of where it is appropriate to drive such a one-sided narrative!

No, it would be like having a religion, misrepresenting and insulting those who deny your religion and/or give different arguments against it, accusing them of engaging in a concentrated propaganda effort against your community, etc. It's not propaganda every time some of us argue against Christianity by debunking some of their beliefs. Or every time some of us argue against Wokeism by debunking some of their beliefs. Now, granted, there is also anti-Christian and even anti-Woke propaganda. But you fail to realize when people are not engaging in that, but giving cogent arguments debunking some Woke tenets - just as so many Christians do not realize when people are giving cogent arguments debunking some Christian tenets. And you make things up about the opponents of your ideology, and spread falsehoods that you believe to be true but you shouldn't.

 

[WAB]

Imagine for a moment that you had a constant stream of bilious propaganda (it is bile, from where I stand) spewed "weekly" on the one internet place you actually tend to visit outside of direct messengers or Reddit targeting you and your friends.

It would be like growing up with Mexican heritage and occasionally smoking weed in the age when "Marijuana" hit the papers, and they use your culture and something you do as the basis for a concentrated propaganda effort against your "race", really against your community and people who "look like and talk like"? It wouldn't feel great. I can see more situations where it's appropriate to drag a person by their hair than I can see of where it is appropriate to drive such a one-sided narrative!

I had, and still have, concerns about the conduct of trans people with respect to certain edge cases; and the conduct towards trans people in others. I try to make these clear and propose solutions towards those issues, though, and where the real problems seem to be. It's just not the behavior I see consistently applied by Bomb, Metaphor, or Emily. Having concerns and letting those concerns rule you are two very different things.

I accept that the things we wish we were agents of, we are not. I am not the agent of my own happiness, though what I do with that happiness I am the most powerful agent of, generally. And so I accept that Emily, Metaphor, and AM, Bomb and the like who generally post in such threads may not fully have agency over what looms large in society to them. But they do have agency over deciding what to do about it. They decide to come here and repeatedly post threads that are propaganda against me and mine.

This is the reason they and I have conflict.

Yet again, Jarhyn is libeling me, and others -- he is making false damaging accusations against fellow posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. Yet again, Jarhyn is proving he doesn't give a rat's ass whether the things he says about his political opponents are fact-based. His behavior is unethical.

The other targets of his vicious invective can speak for themselves; as for me, I have posted zero anti-trans propaganda; I have not criticized any trans people for being trans or for any behavior that's due to being trans; and I have posted no threads at all on the topic of trans people, propaganda or otherwise.

I expect Jarhyn has me on "La la la I can't hear you"; but even if he becomes aware of my not-guilty plea, he will be unable to back up any of what he accuses me of by quoting me making any attacks of the sort he imputes to me. He made it all up on his own initiative, apparently because it pleases him to paper over the difference between attacking trans people for being trans versus attacking PC ideologues for preaching idiotic nonsense and for attempting to enforce their own religious observances on unbelievers, in order to trump up a false narrative that I'm criticizing the trans, and thereby draw attention away from the fact that it's actually Jarhyn and his fellow political ideologues that I'm criticizing. He's papering over that difference, certainly because he prefers to promote his ideology with ad hominems instead of with reasoning, and probably because he correctly recognizes that the trans will get and deserve more sympathy from onlookers than he will.

This is the reason he and I have conflict.

Indeed, Jarhyn and I have conflict as well. I had them on ignore but have had to undo that because I need to respond to them directly from now on.

Just don't PM me, Jarhyn! We will have to limit our interaction to the threads. Any PM will be deleted without being read.

 

[WAB]

What about gravity?

Also not an agent

Like I said before, we need you in the philosophy section - or at least the threads where compatibilism and/or the freewill/determinism chestnut are being discussed. We have several people who do not even understand basic principles! Poor Marvin Edwards, whom I invited personally to TFT, is doing a great job trying to get through the seemingly impenetrable skulls of certain posters even as we speak.

You go, Emily!

/thread derail - sorry!

Come, Concord! We must go to the philosophy section and argue with silly people!

 

[WAB]

Karen White did not belong on the female estate because he is male, not because he raped women.

White is the easily foreseeable outcome of a policy based on ideology that denies reality and places feelings over safety.

White was in prison for sexual violence against women... and somehow some asshole in charge decided that the best thing to do was to put the known fucking rapist in with a bunch of women that couldn't get away from them. What could possibly go wrong?

Gotta go with Emily on this one, M. Doesn't matter the reasons White thought they belonged in a female prison, or even of they didn't. The fact that some idiot in charge of such things sent a person with male genitals, who was also a rapist, to a women's holding facility (of any kind - even if it were the drunk tank in some backwater town in Australia, Canada, the UK, or somewhere where the most spoken language is English! even the good-ole U.S.I. [ United States of India - where SOME people can speak good englesh, like Jesus and gawwwwwwwd] ), is enough to warrant concern among women and people of any stripe with half a brain.*

*Even furry ones, and I don't mean Robin Williams, R.I.P.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because it is fact that single neurons in a neural network create functional change,

You do know that a neural network is an analytic term that doesn't actually mean the network of neurons in a brain, right? You know that the two aren't synonymous, right?

and with the knowledge that brain dimorphism have been observed.

Sexual dimorphism of the brain is a well established fact.

Please provide some solid sourcing for this claim.

 

[Emily Lake]

The gymnastics some people will go through to invent whole cloth nefarious intents is spectacular.

It seems all that concern Emily showed for all those kids "cutting their genitals off" has metamorphosed into a demand that adults cut off their genitals?

Or, she criticizes that being trans makes folks sterile and then also criticizes when people act so as to prevent that.

Lucy, put that football down.

Wow. It's like you don't understand the difference between irreversible decisions being made by a *child* who does not understand the magnitude of their decisions and the decisions made by a fully informed adult.

I don't care if transgender people don't have surgeries. I do, however, think that a failure to have surgery *should* limit some accesses.