you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Okay you've made a few mistakes.

First we're talking about child rape. "Sexual deviancy" includes fetishism, frotteurism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism and other paraphilias. They are not, to my knowledge, related to identifying as transexual.

Second the three people in the article were not transexual.

Third my numbers are to question whether three people can be called a trend in a country with about 999,997 people not known to be supportive of inter-gender or transgender people.

[–]Questionable 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Right. Because you define what a sexual deviancy is. And it's important to point out the difference between a trans activism that push the agenda as apposed to a trans person. And you are arguing the numbers, where as I am pointing out the flaw in you base logic.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Right. Because you define what a sexual deviancy is.

Not at all. The term has a definition. Sexual deviancy

And it's important to point out the difference between a trans activism that push the agenda as apposed to a trans person.

Agreed.

And you are arguing the numbers, where as I am pointing out the flaw in you base logic.

You haven't done that very clearly yet. What is the flaw in my base logic?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You haven't done that very clearly yet. What is the flaw in my base logic?

The flaw in your base logic, is that you believe mutilating the genitals of children (transgenderism), and pumping them full of hormones, and puberty blockers, is a normal thing to do. You believe this is not a form of sexual deviance.

As for what you agreed with. You agreed with my statement on your own flawed point of view. As it was meant as an extension of the previous sentence. It should have read as follows:

"Right. Because you define what sexual deviancy is, and you feel it's important to point out the difference between a trans activist that pushes the agenda as apposed to a trans person."

Please forgive my typos. The flaw is, you neither understand sex, or what it means to be a deviant. Because you support sexual deviants. You support the sexual abuse of both children, and the mentally frail.

"Sexual deviancy" includes fetishism, frotteurism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism and other paraphilias."

Those things take place between consenting adults. Transgenderism is pushed on children and those with mental problems. "Sexual Deviance" is two words, not one, and those words are not defined by you.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The flaw in your base logic, is that you believe mutilating the genitals of children (transgenderism), and pumping them full of hormones, and puberty blockers, is a normal thing to do.

Nope. That's not my position.

Also it's not an example of an application of logic. Logic is the reasoning process to reach a conclusion given the premises. You're objecting to the premise. (Also one that I don't have, which is flawed logic. Specifically an erroneous argument by the straw man fallacy.)

Those things take place between consenting adults.

Many of them, yes.

Transgenderism is pushed on children and those with mental problems.

No, transgenderism refers to the broad spectrum of people who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal sex. The term doesn't mean anything about how to treat it.

And for that matter neither did the people in the article. Their position was on the provision of non-gendered bathrooms.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No. I'll take your word on that. And if you wish to offer up your position, feel free to.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My position is that three people who are rapists doesn't, of itself, indicate a pattern.

To indicate a trend you would need to show that 3 is statistically significantly higher for this group than for the general population.

This hasn't been done, and given the numbers of child rapists in USA, I suspect that it's not true.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That checks out. But, a sexual deviant that advocates for the endangerment of children is just that. A sexual deviant. They don't need to physically touch a child to show their harmful intents. With that as a bases, the probability that someone who advocates the mutilation of a child's genitals, also has deviant sexual urges for them is inherent. You can not truthfully tell me otherwise.

No, transgenderism refers to the broad spectrum of people who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal sex.

Just FYI. Simply stating something doesn't make it a fact. Though you can corrupt entire nations by doing so. Would you care for me to quote you some One Piece anime fight logic for you? It's all perfectly logical in cannon. It's also, all pure fiction. And as a younger man, I also looked really hot in a dress. Yet at base, I knew then, that I was still a dude playing dress up. Just as I know now, that I can not stretch my arms like a rubber man.

In addition. there can be no spectrum if you are transitioning. To transition, is to go from one state to the other. You are either in transit, or your state is static. To constantly identify as being be in transit, is similar to a woman that can't stop breaking up with her boyfriends in order to relive past traumas. It is to live in a state of illness. You are either something, or you are nothing. You either possess self actualization, or you are a tool for others to posses.

I'm sorry. What was the topic again? And why does everything smell like copperᴉ?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Just FYI. Simply stating something doesn't make it a fact.

There's a definition of transgender in the DSM 5.

It's reproduced at the bottom of this page:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria#:~:text=Gender%20dysphoria%3A%20A%20concept%20designated,gender%20diverse%20people%20experience%20dysphoria.

And as a younger man, I also looked really hot in a dress. Yet at base, I knew then, that I was still a dude playing dress up.

Right. Depending on how much you thought you were hot in a dress, (autogynephilia) you possibly have transvestite disorder. This is different from being transgender. Although some transgender people are also transvestite.

In addition. there can be no spectrum if you are transitioning.

Really? They look on a spectrum to me.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Right. Depending on how much you thought you were hot in a dress, (autogynephilia) you possibly have transvestite disorder.

Question! If a woman wears a kilt, does that make her a dude?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's a definition of transgender in the DSM 5.

Here is a page fore Super Saiyen. Do I need to tell you that they are not real? Or that thinking you are one points to a mental disorder?

"Right. Depending on how much you thought you were hot in a dress, (autogynephilia) you possibly have transvestite disorder."

Let me get this straight, being attractive means you think you are the opposite sex? Where do kilts fall into this 'spectrum'? It is clothing, nothing more. Woman look hot in pants, I have worn costumes for Holiday's. I have even played female characters in D&D.

"Really? They look on a spectrum to me."

Every human looks different to every other human. The mentally ill stand out more than others.

And did you just claim that autogynephilia (transvestite) is a disorder, and that trans-genderism is normal? Where do you suspect the term 'trans' originates from? You are trying to justify chemical castration as normal, while simultaneously demonizing the wearing of blush and accessories during sex as a disorder where a person THINKS they are the opposite sex. Again, just because a definition exists, doesn't mean it's accurate, or real. And nobody really sexually identifies as an Attack Chopper.